Chapter III · DUELS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES, FROM 1820 TO 1841. (continued 2)

Several witnesses were then called, who had long known the prisoners, and described them as persons of a humane and peaceable disposition.

Mr. Justice Bayley summed up, and closed his observations on the evidence with telling the jury 314that the question for them to decide was, by what means did Mr. Clayton come by his death? If they were of opinion that he came by his death by a bullet from the pistol of Mr. Lambrecht, and that Mr. Lambrecht met him on the ground with the intention, if the difference could not be settled, of putting his life against Mr. Clayton’s, and Mr. Clayton’s against his, he was bound, as a lawyer and a judge, to tell them, that Mr. Lambrecht was guilty of the crime of wilful murder, and that they were bound to find him guilty of that crime under the present indictment.—With respect to the prisoner Cox, Lambrecht’s second, however desirous he might have been for a reconciliation, and however he might have expected that an apology would be accepted, still, if he allowed himself to continue on the ground when he found that reconciliation was hopeless, and acted on the occasion as a second, he must be considered as aiding and abetting in that transaction; which, in the case of Lambrecht, amounted to the crime of wilful murder.—Then, with respect to the prisoner Bigley, Mr. Clayton’s second, he acted as a go-between, and no other person was there on the part of Mr. Clayton. What, then, was the common purpose of the parties at the time, and was Bigley aiding and abetting? If the common purpose was, that the life of Lambrecht and Clayton should be respectively put in hazard, then Bigley was as much aiding and 315abetting as Cox. The learned Judge concluded by telling the jury to take the case into their careful consideration; and if they were satisfied that Mr. Clayton came to his death by the shot of Lambrecht in the duel, and that Cox and Bigley were aiding and abetting on that occasion, they must find, or at least ought to find, a verdict of guilty.

The jury, after deliberating in the box for a few minutes, expressed a wish to retire. Before they went out, one of them said, they wished to know whether they might return a verdict of guilty generally, or whether they must say guilty of murder? Mr. Justice Bayley told them, that if there had been any circumstances in the case to reduce the crime to manslaughter, he should have stated them for their consideration; but he had found none. The juryman who had asked the question said, that the object of it was, to know whether they might find a verdict of manslaughter. The jury, after deliberating three hours and a half, returned a verdict of “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN CAPTAIN SMITH AND STANDISH O’GRADY, ESQ. March 17, 1830.

At the Commission Court, in Dublin, on the 21st of August, Captain Smith and Captain Markham, of the 32d regiment of Foot, were tried for killing Standish O’Grady, Esq. in a duel. Mr. 316North stated the case for the prosecution. The late Mr. O’Grady, a young gentleman of about twenty-eight years of age, and a member of the bar, had, on the 17th of March, ordered his horse, for the purpose of driving out and taking his morning exercise. He was riding up Nassau Street, towards Merrion Square, when he met a cabriolet with Captain Smith and Captain Markham in it. Mr. O’Grady was riding on the left-hand side, which is adjacent to the wall of the College park. There was a carriage on the other side of the street, which narrowed the way the cabriolet should pass, and brought it near the wall, by which Mr. O’Grady was riding. It pressed so near that side, that, in trying to pass it, he was obliged to put his horse on the pathway. In the attempt, the horse missed his footing, and he feared would have fallen and thrown him; and he leaned forward to right himself in the saddle. He had in his hand a small whip; and, in pressing forward, it struck the head of the cabriolet. In this collision, Mr. O’Grady did not say one word to the gentlemen in it. The horse recovered its footing, and he his seat; and he went on at a gentle walk. The gentlemen in the cabriolet drew up as suddenly as its rapid motion would permit; and Captain Smith having jumped out of it, with the gig-whip in his hand, overtook Mr. O’Grady a little beyond Morrison’s Hotel. He did not call him; he did not expostulate with him; but he 317struck him on the back repeatedly, with great violence,—not once or twice, but many times. When he turned, he saw Captain Smith running back to his cabriolet. He asked him, who he was? Captain Smith said, he knew him well; but, on the question being repeated, he said, “Captain Smith, of the 32d regiment.” Mr. O’Grady rode to his father’s house, and sought for a military friend, Lieutenant Macnamara, of the 8th Hussars; who, in the course of the day, had an interview with Captain Smith, and Captain Markham, who acted as his friend. The meeting took place at six o’clock in the morning. It was understood, that no persons were to be on the ground but the principals and their seconds. Captain Markham acquainted Mr. O’Grady, that the signal to be given was, “Ready!—fire!” When the arrangements were completed, the principals came into the field, at a signal to that effect, and took their places on the ground. The pistols were placed in their hands, while Captain Markham and Lieutenant Macnamara stood by as seconds. Captain Markham then gave the first signal; but, from whatever cause, he did not give it in the terms fixed on. He said, “Gentlemen, are you ready?” or, “Are you ready, gentlemen?” Mr. O’Grady conceived the words were to be, “Ready!—fire!” and that this was a preliminary inquiry. Captain Smith, however, did not labour under this mistake: he levelled his pistol, and covered Mr. 318O’Grady for a few seconds. Mr. O’Grady, perceiving his antagonist prepared, raised his pistol; but, before he had levelled it. Captain Markham, whose eye was upon him, gave the signal. Captain Smith fired, and Mr. O’Grady fell. He lived till about three o’clock on the following day, when he expired.

Evidence was adduced in corroboration of the above statement. The jury returned a verdict, finding both prisoners guilty of manslaughter; and they were sentenced to be imprisoned in the gaol of Kilmainham for the space of twelve months. The announcement of the sentence was received with cheers from some parts of the court. Captain Smith, who, during the latter part of the trial, had evinced considerable emotion, as soon as the sentence was pronounced, clapped his hands to his forehead, and in an agony exclaimed, “Oh God! my God! take my life! Is it come to this?” Then, throwing himself into Captain Markham’s arms, he cried, “Oh Markham! my dear Frederick, have I brought you to this? Oh! I wish to God they would take my life! Shame and disgrace, and every thing else, have come upon me!” The unfortunate gentleman then covered his face with his handkerchief, and burst into tears. Judge Vandeleur added, that, in passing the sentence, he ought, perhaps, to have said, that the conduct of the prisoners, when in the field, was such as to leave no stain upon their character.

319

BETWEEN DR. SMITH AND DR. JEFFRIES. August, 1830.

In the August of this year, the following most savage “affair of honour” took place near Philadelphia. A challenge was sent by a Dr. Smith to a Dr. Jeffries, and, being accepted, the parties met. The distance fixed upon was only eight paces; at which they exchanged shots, without either of them receiving any injury. Some efforts were then made by their friends to bring about an accommodation, but unavailingly; as Dr. Jeffries declared that he would not leave the ground until he had lost his own life or taken that of his antagonist. Pistols were then handed to them a second time, and at this fire the right arm of Dr. Smith was broken, which delayed the proceedings for a few moments, until he recovered from the exhaustion; when he declared, that, as he was wounded, he was ready to die, and requested the seconds to proceed. The pistols were then put into their hands a third time, Dr. Smith using his left hand. At this fire Dr. Jeffries was wounded in the thigh, and his loss of blood occasioned an exhaustion which again delayed the conflict for a few minutes. He, however, recovered, and both desired to shorten the distance. They now stood up for the fourth time, covered with blood, and at a distance of six feet. They were to fire between the words “one” and “five,” and the shot 320proved fatal to both parties. They fell to the earth. Dr. Smith was dead when he dropped, the ball having penetrated his heart. Dr. Jeffries was shot through the breast, and survived but four hours. They fought with perfect coolness. When Dr. Jeffries saw that his antagonist had fallen, he asked if he was dead; and being assured that he was, he declared his own willingness to die. Before he expired, he said he had been a schoolmate with Dr. Smith, and that they had been on terms of great intimacy and friendship for fifteen years; and he bore honourable testimony to his character as a man of science and a gentleman.

BETWEEN GENERAL SEBASTIANI AND GENERAL LAMARQUE. August 1, 1831.

A hostile meeting took place in the Bois de Boulogne, between General Sebastiani, minister for foreign affairs, and General Lamarque, arising out of a speech made by the latter in the Chamber of Deputies, in which he represented M. Lebeau, Belgian minister for foreign affairs, as the Sebastiani of Belgium. The seconds present on this occasion, General Jacqueminot and M. de Rumigny, were chosen by General Sebastiani; whose adversary expressed himself satisfied with their presence, and declined appointing any on his own behalf. The affair having been arranged on the ground without an exchange 321of shots, a detailed account of the circumstances attendant upon the intended duel was published in the journal called the Tribune; the tenor of which betrayed, on the part of General Sebastiani’s seconds, more anxiety to settle the difference without fighting, than is usually considered consistent with the honour of the principal whom they are called upon to represent. A letter was, in consequence, addressed to the editor of the Tribune by General Jacqueminot and M. de Rumigny, in which they contradicted many of the circumstances stated in that journal, and entered into an explanation, which General Lamarque interpreted as being unfavourable to himself. Another meeting, in consequence, took place in the Bois de Boulogne; Admiral de Rigny acting as the second of General Sebastiani, and General Harispe for General Lamarque. Two pistol-shots having been exchanged without injury to either party, the seconds interfered, and the affair was amicably settled.

BETWEEN MAJOR-GENERAL MOORE AND MR. STAPYLTON. February 13, 1832.

A duel was this day fought upon Wimbledon Common, between Major-General Lorenzo Moore, C.B., and Miles Stapylton, Esq. In the evening of the same day, the General was brought to 322Union Hall police office, on a charge of wounding Mr. Stapylton; when Mr. David Harris stated, that as he was proceeding to Godalming on the outside of the stage-coach, about four o’clock, in passing the road which crosses Wimbledon Common, he heard the report of a pistol, and on looking towards the spot observed a gentleman fall. He and Mr. Self alighted, and ran to the place. Seeing the gentleman lying on the ground, and blood upon the breast part of his shirt, they went towards the General, who had a pistol in his hand, and told him that he must consider himself in custody. The General offered no resistance, and immediately resigned his fire-arms. In the meanwhile, the seconds and some other persons carried the wounded gentleman off the field, placed him in a carriage, and drove towards town. The witness and Mr. Self conducted the General to Kingston, and gave him into the custody of a constable, who brought him to town. On the following day he was again brought up, and was much affected at hearing a certificate of the dangerous condition of Mr. Stapylton read. Bail to any amount was offered; but Mr. Chambers, the magistrate, said that while the wounded gentleman remained in a condition between life and death, it was his duty to retain the General in custody. He was again brought before Mr. Chambers on the 22nd; who said that he had received a certificate from Mr. Guthrie, 323the surgeon, who described Mr. Stapylton as being much better, and understood it was the decided wish of that gentleman and his friends that the whole matter should drop, and that no further proceedings should be instituted against the General. Under these circumstances, he and his colleague, Mr. Murray, had resolved to admit him to bail. They then decided, that he should find two securities of a thousand pounds each, and enter into his own recognizance in the sum of two thousand pounds, to appear at the next Surrey assizes; or, in the event of the fatal termination of Mr. Stapylton’s wound, to appear at the Old Bailey to take his trial. The required securities were immediately entered into, and the General was discharged.

BETWEEN GENERAL JACQUEMINOT AND M. BELMONTE. March 23, 1832.

In consequence of some reflections made by the editor of the French journal, the Tribune, on Marshal Lobau, commandant of the Parisian National Guard, four officers on the staff of the Marshal paid a visit to the office of the Tribune, with, to use a homely expression, a very bullying message. Taken unawares, the principal editor refused to meet a body of persons; but expressed his readiness to give the Marshal himself personal satisfaction. The affair got wind; and, in the course of the day, many young men 324left their cards at the office of the Tribune, soliciting to be permitted, as assistant-editors of journals, to take off the odds; and accordingly the Tribune of March the 21st, intimated to the Etat-major, publicly in its columns, that sixty-seven editors were ready to go out with the sixty-seven officers of which the Etat-major is composed. Saturday, the 23rd, produced the first of the duels resulting from this challenge en masse. The principals in this affair were General Jacqueminot of the Etat-major, and M. Belmonte, the editor-in-chief of the Tribune. The former was attended by General Gourgaud and Colonel Taunton; the latter, by Colonel Bricqueville, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, and M. Cartel, editor of the Nationel. After an exchange of shots, the seconds interfered, and that particular affair was made up.

BETWEEN M. COSTE AND M. BÉNOIT. September, 1832.

In consequence of a paragraph which appeared in the French journal called “Le Temps,” reflecting on the manner in which orders had been distributed among the commissaries of police, a meeting took place in the Bois de Boulogne, between M. Coste, the editor of that paper, and M. Bénoit, commissary of police. M. Bénoit was attended by M. Nay, chief clerk of the private 325office of the prefecture of police, and M. Haymonet, another commissary. The seconds to M. Coste were Dr. Pasquier and M. V. Schoeler, a literary gentleman. The parties were placed at fifty paces from each other, with an understanding, that they were to advance to the distance of twenty paces. Both having arrived at this point, M. Bénoit desired M. Coste to fire first: this, however, he declined, and the seconds desired that they should fire together, at a signal. The two shots went off within a second of each other: the ball of M. Bénoit’s pistol went through the collar of the coat of M. Coste, while that of the latter entered the right side of his adversary, and passed through his body, coming out on the left side, about three inches higher. M. Bénoit was immediately conveyed to the infirmary of the King’s household, where he shortly after died.

The endeavour, on the part of the Parisians, to establish, at this time, a summary law of libel, by which the editor who ventured to animadvert on a particular class of public officers, was subjected to a most awful species of censorship, gave rise to many animadversions in the English journals; and amongst them, to the following:—“Truth is said to lie at the bottom of a well; at Paris they seek it at the bottom of a bullet wound. The ordeal, in the late case of the ‘Temps,’ however, ended in favour of the editor: the commissary of police,—one of the first of a numerous body of 326challengers for the same offence,—bit the dust, and is since dead. If editors are to have their errata thus corrected, they must either be very careful of what they print, or they must cast their old types into balls. Hitting a mark will be quite as necessary as pointing a period: reporters and paragraph-mongers must be as often seen at the shooting-gallery, as in the gallery of the House of Commons. It will be dangerous to enter a newspaper establishment on the leisure days; for, in the absence of rumours, the printers will amuse themselves with reports. The editors and sub-editors will stick up their unsold numbers for targets; and he who shall hole the stamp-mark will be considered to have hit the bull’s-eye, and be held to have so far broken up the taxes upon knowledge. Thus, editors will be as dangerous on days of ball-practice, as on days of publication; and a man whose character is shot through and through, if he goes to the office to complain, may chance to have his thorax perforated as well. Hostilities have, however, on this side the water, scarcely commenced; and where they have, it must be said, little resentment has been exhibited on the part of the beaten journalists. This affair of M. Coste and M. Bénoit demonstrates the greater freedom of the press in England than in Paris. Had the liberty of finding fault with the manner in which orders had been distributed among the commissaries of police been indulged 327in by an English paper on English magistrates, the remark would have been thought perfectly legitimate; and, so far from being fought about, would not have been even answered, unless by some paper in the opposite interest. This is, surely, far more rational than Mr. Roe, and Mr. Rawlinson, and Mr. Chambers, rushing into the offices of ‘The Morning Chronicle’ or ‘The Examiner,’ cursing the publisher, abusing the clerks, and challenging the editors to mortal combat. Where would be the use of Mr. Roe evading his own officers, and skulking to Chalk Farm, some dewy morning, in order to slaughter Mr. Black, because of the acrimony of his remarks on a police case? In this matter, at least, we order these things better than in France.”

BETWEEN SIR JOHN JEFFCOTT AND DR. HENNIS. May 10, 1833.

On this day a fatal duel took place near Exeter, between Sir John Jeffcott and Dr. Hennis. The dispute had arisen, in consequence of the Doctor having been supposed to have uttered words injurious to the reputation of Sir John, a judge of Sierra Leone. On the 26th of July, at the assizes at Exeter, he was charged with having unlawfully, feloniously, and of malice aforethought, inflicted a wound upon Peter Hennis, M.D., with a leaden bullet, of which wound he afterwards died; 328and Charles Melford, Robert Holland, and George Anthony Halstead, were charged with aiding and assisting him. Sir John Jeffcott had not been apprehended. The other parties this day appeared in court to take their trial; and the following is the substance of the evidence brought forward.

John Corfield Irving.—“I had a conversation with Dr. Hennis, on the 10th of May, in consequence of which he wrote a declaration. After which, I saw Sir John Jeffcott, and told him I had come to him from Dr. Hennis; upon which he asked, if I came as the Doctor’s friend. In consequence of what he said, I saw Mr. Melford, and I read to him, or showed him, this paper. I said, I trusted it would convince Sir John that the Doctor had never made use of the words in the sense imputed to him, and induce him to retract the expressions he had made use of towards the Doctor in the morning. Mr. Melford said, the Doctor had admitted the words imputed to him; upon which Sir John made use of the words ‘calumniating scoundrel.’ I told Mr. Melford I was directed by the Doctor to deny most unequivocally the use of the words, in the meaning imputed to him; that, on the contrary, the Doctor had asked a member of a respectable family, if the reports circulated in Exeter were true. The party said they were not true, and that Sir John had acted most honourably. Mr. Melford replied, that the words made use of by Dr. Hennis could 329not have been mistaken by Mr. Holland; and he showed me the copy of a letter, written by Sir John Jeffcott to Dr. Hennis, on the subject. This is the letter:—

“Street’s Clarence Hotel, May 10.

“Sir,

“In a conversation with a gentleman of character and respectability, and I believe hitherto of unquestionable veracity, I was last night, to my great astonishment, informed that you had, about three months ago, stated to my informant, that the reason why a certain affair, in which the name of a most respectable family is involved, to whom I need not more particularly allude, was broken off was, that I had given that family a false statement of my pretensions; that I had, among other things, asserted I had a vote for the University of Dublin, which, in your opinion, I had no more than you had; meaning, I presume, that I had no vote, and that I had stated what was not true, and that you considered that I was, in fact, a mere adventurer. I can scarcely imagine that a person holding the station in society that you do, or that any man who ought, by profession and education, to be a gentleman, could have gone so gratuitously out of his way to traduce the character of any individual behind his back; particularly when that individual was your countryman, to whom to his face you had made professions, if not of friendship, at least, of cordiality and 330good-will, and whose only previous intercourse with you was consulting you professionally in the first instance, and meeting you afterwards once or twice when you called professionally at the house of his friends. You will therefore, I feel satisfied, see the propriety, from regard to your own character, of coming at once to an explicit understanding upon the subject of this letter, and stating to me whether you did or did not use the expressions attributed to you. If you did not, you cannot, I am sure, as a gentleman, hesitate to disavow them promptly and unequivocally. If, on the other hand, you are prepared to maintain them, you will see the propriety of letting me know so without delay; as I am at present alone in Exeter, and am ordered to embark to-morrow morning on board his Majesty’s ship Britomart, at Plymouth.

“I have the honour to be, &c.

“J. W. Jeffcott.”

“I read this letter, and told Mr. Melford I was not aware it had been written, and must return to Dr. Hennis to know how he had acted under it. I communicated to the Doctor what had taken place. I found Captain Halstead with him. The Doctor told me, the Captain had received a communication from him prior to his meeting me. I therefore begged to resign the business into his hands. The Captain undertook the amicable arrangement of the matter, and with that view instructed 331me to accompany him back to Mr. Melford’s; two heads being, he said, better than one. I did so. The Captain either read or showed Dr. Hennis’s declaration to Mr. Melford, and said he felt confident Sir John Jeffcott, on being made acquainted with its contents, would retract the obnoxious expressions he had made use of. Mr. Melford said, he took the same view of the words as Sir John did, and that the Doctor had made an admission of them in the morning. He added, that the business could have been settled at nine that morning; but he feared it was then too late, as Sir John was to leave the town at three o’clock for Plymouth, and was perfectly satisfied with the part he had acted. Captain Halstead said, it could never be too late to arrange a business of that kind, and requested Mr. Melford would go to Sir John, and acquaint him with the nature of the strong declaration Dr. Hennis had signed. He afterwards told me, that Sir John would neither accept an explanation nor retract the words he had used. I took no part after.”

William Hucksford, servant to Dr. Eady, said—“I accompanied him in his gig to Halden: when I arrived, I saw Mr. Holland near the road, and four gentlemen on the race-course. I saw them walk up to each other, and then walk away in two parties. I heard the report of a pistol, and, on going up, I saw Dr. Hennis, who appeared to be much wounded. Sir John Jeffcott knelt on the 332ground, and asked Dr. Hennis if he would forgive him. I could not hear what answer the Doctor gave, but they shook hands; and, immediately after, the Doctor fell upon the ground.” Mr. Luscombe, surgeon, said, he saw Dr. Hennis about six in the evening. “He had a wound in the body below the shoulder blade, caused by a bullet. I attended him till his death, which took place on the 18th.”

Mr. Justice Patteson then charged the jury. He said that, from the facts proved, it was either a case of the high offence charged, or of no crime at all. The offence charged was that of murder; and the prisoners were charged, not with having inflicted the wound of which Dr. Hennis died, but with having been present at the time when another person inflicted that wound, aiding and assisting that other person, who was not now in this country, and therefore could not be tried. Unless it was done with malice aforethought, the crime of murder was not committed. Now, malice aforethought was not that of private, individual ill-will towards the party; but it was the malice the law presumed, when persons went out, intending to commit an act which was in itself unlawful. The law was this,—that if a person was so near as to be able to give assistance in any way to that which was going on, though even at some distance, for the purpose of giving such assistance, and went there for that purpose, then 333he was considered to be aiding and assisting. If a party killed another in a deliberate duel, he was guilty of murder. Whenever two persons, in cool blood, met and fought on a preceding quarrel, and one was killed, the law said the other was guilty of murder; and he could not help himself by alleging, that the other struck the first blow, or that it was his intent only to vindicate his reputation: he had engaged in an act highly unlawful, and must abide the consequences; and not only the principal, but all persons aiding and assisting, or knowingly present at any deliberate duel, would be liable to a charge of murder. Where two persons went out with deadly weapons, tending to produce death, it was impossible not to see that they must have contemplated the possibility that death would ensue. The two principals in this case had had a personal altercation, but the other gentlemen had not. There had been messages to and fro, and great attempts to prevent a duel. They would say whether those attempts, and the ultimate arrangements to meet at Halden, would or not lead them to believe that it took place in the heat of blood. He confessed he had extreme difficulty in seeing how they could arrive at such a conclusion; how it could be said, the duel took place in the heat of passion: if they believed it did not, then it was a deliberate duel; and if so, the law pronounced it to be murder. He would say nothing as to 334whether duelling ought to be tolerated: it was not tolerated by the law of England.—After detailing the whole of the evidence, the learned judge adverted to the high characters the parties had received; which he said was not inconsistent with that sense of honour, which induced them to go out and render their assistance to two persons in a deliberate duel. The question was in their hands, and they would decide according to their consciences.

The jury remained in consultation for a few minutes, and returned a verdict of “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN M. CHARLES LEON, NATURAL SON OF NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE, AND CAPTAIN DE HESSE. August 1833.

In the course of this month, a case came on to be tried at the assizes of the Seine, in which a charge of murder, committed in a duel, was made against M. Charles Leon, a natural son of the late Emperor Napoleon. M. Leon dined, on the 31st of December 1831, with M. de Rosambert, and met there another guest, Captain de Hesse. After dinner, play was introduced, and M. Leon was so unfortunate as to lose eighteen thousand francs. When called on to pay, he contended, that M. de Hesse had pledged himself to give his antagonist a revanche; which was only consistent with the laws of honour applicable to the game. 335An angry discussion arose, and M. de Hesse published some particulars of the affair, which were considered prejudicial to the character of M. Leon. The differences between them at last arose to such a height, that a meeting became inevitable; and, on the 24th of February 1832, the hostile proceeding took place. The result was, that M. de Hesse was mortally wounded, and died three days afterwards. On the ground, M. de Hesse admitted the bravery and strict honour of his antagonist; his wife was, nevertheless, determined to prosecute. Accordingly, the seconds were summoned; of whom only General Gourgaud and M. May appeared. General Gourgaud gave his evidence to the following effect:—“I am not able to give any details respecting the circumstances which gave rise to this affair; for I am wholly ignorant of them. My friend M. Monneval, commissioned by the Emperor Napoleon to superintend the conduct of M. Leon, was indisposed at the time, and requested me to act for him in this very serious matter. I undertook the duty with regret; for I was well aware of the ties which bound M. Leon to the Emperor, and I was conscious of all that his Majesty had communicated to me on this subject at St. Helena. It was with me a sacred obligation, imposed by gratitude, not to abandon him at such a moment.”

After a short deliberation, the jury found M. Leon “Not guilty,” and the court acquitted him.

336

BETWEEN THE DUKE DE ROVIGO AND COUNT DE LANGLE. February 14, 1835.

A meeting with swords took place this day in the Bois de Meudon, between the Duke de Rovigo, lieutenant of the first regiment of the Chasseurs of Africa, and the Count de Langle, captain of the National Horse Guards, in consequence of some offensive expressions uttered by the Duke, relative to certain recompenses granted to the National Guards. The Duke de Rovigo received a wound in his chest, which prevented him from continuing the combat.

BETWEEN MR. ST. JOHN AND COUNT CATRAFFIANA. April 25, 1835.

In consequence of a dispute at a ball, on the 20th of April, Mr. St. John and Count Catraffiana left Rome for the Neapolitan territory. On account of a supposed rudeness on the part of the Count towards Mr. St. John, the latter had pulled his nose publicly in the ball-room; the consequence of which proceeding was a formal challenge the next morning from the Count. The duel was first to have taken place at Rome; but the police, having got wind of it, had taken measures to prevent it. They accordingly 337left Rome on the 24th, and arrived on the following day at the Valla di Cicerone, near Mola di Gaita. Each of the combatants was attended by two seconds. They remained five minutes opposite to one another after the signal was given, each expecting the other to move forward. Mr. St. John then advanced a few paces, and fired with fatal precision; his ball entering the chest of his opponent. The Count, after being wounded, put his hand to his breast, walked forward nine paces, fired, and dropped down dead. The Count’s ball carried off a part of Mr. St. John’s ear, and penetrated his hat. The Count was a practised duellist, having wounded several antagonists on similar occasions.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN WHITE AND COLONEL BELLAMY. November 21, 1835.

A desperate duel was fought this day, at Washington, between Captain Everett White, brother of the delegate in Congress, and Colonel Bellamy, formerly president of the Legislative Council. These gentlemen were candidates for Jefferson’s county, and Captain White was returned. The duel, from the mode of conducting it, was evidently intended to have fatal results. They were stationed sixty yards apart, with four pistols, to advance and fire. Captain White advanced, and 338received three shots without injury, and then fired at the distance of fifteen paces. His first shot passed through Colonel Bellamy’s arm, the next through his body, and, in the act of advancing with the other two pistols, he received a mortal wound from Colonel Bellamy’s fourth pistol.

BETWEEN BRIGADIER-GENERAL EVANS AND CAPTAIN DICKSON. April 8, 1836.

A meeting took place this day, at Wormwood Scrubs, between Brigadier-General Evans, of the British Auxiliary Legion, and Captain Lothian Dickson, of the British army, and late of the Legion. The misunderstanding arose out of circumstances that had taken place at the quarters of the Legion in Spain. Brigadier-General Evans, however, had refused to meet Captain Dickson, in consequence of what he considered to be conduct, on the part of the latter gentleman, which had forfeited his claim. The Junior United Service Club at last interfered, and decided that no stain of that nature rested on Captain Dickson. The meeting, in consequence, after some negotiation, took place. The following is the account of General Evans’s second, which is borne out by Mr. Cooke, the friend of Captain Dickson:—“The meeting took place, and the principals 339being placed, General Evans received Captain Dickson’s fire; when, after an interval of a few seconds. General Evans brought down his pistol and uncocked it, without having fired. Upon which I addressed myself to Mr. Cooke, and said, ‘I have now to say, that, in deference to the opinion of the committee of the Junior United Service Club, I have brought my friend here; and, having now paid that deference to those gentlemen, I feel it my duty to withdraw General Evans from the ground.’ Mr. Cooke then said, ‘I am not satisfied,’ and again made allusion to an apology. I persisted in withdrawing General Evans, without further explanation; and, on leaving the ground, he then only informed me of his being wounded; and, on his return to his hotel, he was attended by Sir Stephen Hammick, who extracted the ball, and left his patient in as comfortable a state as, under the circumstances could be expected.”

BETWEEN M. ARMAND CARREL AND M. ÉMILE DE GIRARDIN. July, 1836.

A fatal duel took place between M. Armand Carrel, editor of the Parisian journal the Nationel, and M. Émile de Girardin, editor of the Presse. The Nationel, in a very measured note upon a 340prosecution instituted by the Presse against the Bon Sens, expressed an opinion, that M. de Girardin would have done better to settle his quarrel with the editor of that feuilleton by written discussion, than by having recourse to the law. The Presse, in answering this note, introduced, in a manner not the most proper, the name of M. Carrel; who, although he did not sign the Nationel as its responsible editor, felt himself called upon to take the steps which led to such a deplorable result. M. Carrel fired first, and wounded his adversary in the thigh. M. de Girardin fired in his turn, and the ball entered the lower part of M. Carrel’s body. He was immediately conveyed to Mandé, to the house of M. Peyra, an old and intimate friend; where he died on the following day. When they were carrying him from the ground, in passing his antagonist, he said to him, “And are you, M. de Girardin, suffering much?” The latter, replied, “I wish, sir, you were not more seriously wounded than I am.”

BETWEEN THE HONOURABLE GRANTLEY BERKELEY AND WILLIAM MAGINN, LL.D. August 4, 1836.

In consequence of an assault committed by the Honourable Grantley Fitzhardinge Berkeley, M.P. on Mr. James Fraser, the publisher of the 341magazine under his name, Dr. William Maginn, the author of the article which originally gave offence, left his card at Berkeley House. A hostile message was forthwith sent by the honourable member, and a meeting was agreed upon for seven o’clock in the evening. Mr. Grantley Berkeley was attended by Major Fancourt, and Dr. Maginn by Mr. Hugh Fraser. The parties met in a field near the Edgeware Road, and, after exchanging three shots without effect, Mr. Hugh Fraser withdrew his principal; no explanation or apology having been required or tendered.

BETWEEN MR. HARRING AND A POLISH OFFICER. May 11, 1837.

A duel was this morning fought, in a field adjoining Hampstead Heath, between Mr. Harro Harring, a native of Denmark, and a Polish officer, whose name is not known. The principals met on the ground, attended by seconds; and, having been placed at ten paces’ distance, both discharged their pistols at the same instant, when Mr. Harring fell to the ground. He was conveyed to the North London Hospital; and the wound being pronounced to be dangerous, the victor, after asking and receiving forgiveness from the wounded man, mounted his horse and rode off to London Bridge; where he embarked on board a steamboat 342for Boulogne; the duel having been expressly fought at the time appointed, to allow the escape of the survivor to the Continent.

BETWEEN MR. ANDERSON AND MR. JONES. August 1837.

A sanguinary “affair of honour” took place this month at Brownville, in the state of Pennsylvania. For some time past a slight misunderstanding had existed between Mr. Banner Anderson, of Bolivar, and Mr. Jones, merchant, of Brownville. Near the close of the week, Mr. Anderson came to Brownville, and, according to custom, placed his name on the hotel register. Shortly after, he discovered a remark written immediately under his name, impugning his character, and bearing the signature of R. H. Jones. He then wrote a reply, attaching thereto his proper signature. On the following Monday Mr. Jones called at the hotel, and, seeing the appended remark, became enraged, and declared he would have satisfaction. He walked to the door of a store into which Mr. Anderson had just entered, and called to him to come out. Anderson complied with the request, when Jones demanded of him, whether he had written the remark or not? Anderson answered in the affirmative; upon which, in an instant, each resorted to a pistol, standing about four yards apart. They fired simultaneously. 343Jones’s ball lodged in the muzzle of his adversary’s pistol, and the contents of Anderson’s pistol lodged in Jones’s breast. He expired in three hours. Anderson submitted immediately to the civil authorities, and was discharged. Upon examination, the whole was found to have been a misunderstanding; and that, if the parties had only conversed together on the subject, no difficulty would have ensued.

BETWEEN MR. CILLEY AND MR. GRAVES. November 1837.

A fatal duel took place at Washington, between two members of the House of Representatives, Mr. Cilley of Maine, and Mr. Graves of Kentucky. Mr. Cilley had spoken disrespectfully of Colonel Webb, editor of the New York Courier; whereupon Mr. Webb sent him a challenge by Mr. Graves. Mr. Cilley said he would not fight such a blackguard as Webb, but was ready to accept a challenge from Mr. Graves. The following is an account of the arrangements for the meeting, drawn up by Mr. Cilley’s second:—“Mr. Cilley proposes to meet Mr. Graves, at such place as may be agreed upon between us, to-morrow at twelve. The weapons to be used on the occasion shall be rifles; the parties, placed side to side at eighty yards’ distance from each other, to hold the rifles at arm’s-length, downwards; 344the rifles to be cocked, and triggers set; the words to be, ‘Gentlemen, are you ready?’ After which, neither answering ‘No,’ the words shall be in regular succession, ‘Fire—one, two, three, four.’ Neither party shall fire before the word ‘fire,’ nor after the word ‘four.’ The position of the parties, at the ends of the line, to be determined by lot. The second of the party losing the position, shall have the giving of the word. The dress to be ordinary winter clothing, and subject to the examination of both parties. Each party may have on the ground, besides his second, a surgeon and two other friends. The seconds, for the execution of their respective trusts, are allowed to have a pair of pistols each on the ground; but no other person shall have any weapon. The rifles to be loaded in the presence of the seconds.” Three shots were exchanged without harm: at the fourth, Mr. Cilley was shot through the heart. Cilley’s funeral was attended by six hundred persons, in one hundred and twenty-five carriages. The seconds afterwards published a statement, declaring that the duel was “regulated by magnanimous principles, and the laws of humanity.”

BETWEEN SIR JOHN MILLEY DOYLE AND DR. LOVELL. March 1838.

A hostile meeting took place near Lisbon between Major-General Sir John Milley Doyle and 345Dr. Lovell, the Lisbon correspondent of the Morning Chronicle; the former attended by Mr. Brandt and Captain Doyle, and the latter by Major Dodwell and Captain Ruxton. The cause of the duel was a paragraph in the Lisbon correspondence of the Morning Chronicle of the 10th of March, respecting the decision of the commission appointed to investigate the claims of foreign officers upon those of Sir John Milley Doyle; who, considering that the passage was of a tendency injurious to his interests, required that it should be qualified by certain explanations on the part of Dr. Lovell. Sir John having fired without effect, and his antagonist’s pistol having missed fire, the seconds of the latter gentleman interposed; and, having stated it as their opinion that he ought not to make any further objection to giving Sir John a declaration, that he had not intended to advance any opinion of his own in the notice he had taken of the decision pronounced by the commission, the affair terminated amicably.

BETWEEN MR. PIGOT AND MR. CARROLL. April 27, 1838.

A duel was this morning fought at Newtown Park, near Dublin, between a Mr. Pigot and a Mr. Carroll. At the sixth shot Mr. Pigot received his adversary’s ball in the leg. While the blood was streaming, he called for another shot; but 346his request was not complied with. The dispute arose at a billiard-room, at a late hour of the preceding night, and they did not return home until they had settled it.

BETWEEN MR. RUSHOUT AND MR. BORTHWICK. May 8, 1838.

Mr. Rushout having called upon Mr. Borthwick to explain some observations made by him at a public dinner at Evesham, which Mr. Borthwick declined to do, a meeting took place between those gentlemen in the evening at Wormwood Scrubs. After a second discharge of shots, the seconds interfered; and Mr. Borthwick stated, that he was perfectly ready to withdraw any observations which reflected on Mr. Rushout’s character, being convinced that he had made use of them under misapprehension.

BETWEEN M. CALMEL AND M. LUARD. May 1838.

A meeting with pistols took place near Caen, in Normandy, between M. Calmel and M. Luard, both of that town; in which the latter fell, and died almost immediately. M. Calmel and the four seconds were indicted for murder, and brought to trial on the 22d, before the Court of Assizes at Caen. The jury, notwithstanding the repeated 347reversals of such decisions by the Court of Cassation, returned a verdict of acquittal against all the parties.

BETWEEN LORD CASTLEREAGH AND M. GERARD DE MELCY. June 16, 1838.

The attentions of Lord Castlereagh to Madame Grisi having attracted the observation of her husband, M. Gerard de Melcy, he took measures to stop them at the threshold. In consequence of his precautions, a letter, addressed by Lord Castlereagh to Madame Grisi, came into his hands, before it could reach the lady for whom it was intended. M. de Melcy instantly went to the residence of the noble Lord, with the intention of demanding satisfaction; but, not finding him at home, he repeated his visit on the following day, with the same result. He thereupon addressed a note to the noble Lord, informing him that his letter was intercepted, and calling for the only reparation that it was in the young nobleman’s power to give. Lord Castlereagh lost not a moment in offering the required satisfaction, and gave the name of Mr. Bentinck as the gentleman in whose hands his character would be placed. M. de Melcy called to his aid his friend M. de Cottreau; who undertook that the weapons should be pistols, and the distance twelve paces.

These preliminaries being arranged, the meeting 348was fixed for Saturday morning, at half-past four. Both the gentlemen were in readiness; but, previous to that hour, it was arranged between the seconds, that the parties should not use the pistols they had been accustomed to practise with, but that two pair should be taken at hazard from a gunsmith’s shop. This circumstance so delayed the meeting, that it was not till ten o’clock that the principals were in a condition to take the ground. At that hour they met at Wormwood Scrubs, one surgeon being in attendance. They were placed at the distance agreed upon, and instructed that the words to be given were, “Gentlemen, are you ready? Fire!” accompanied by the dropping of a handkerchief. Previously to the signal, Lord Castlereagh caused his second to deliver into the hands of M. Cottreau a paper signed by him, declaring that Madame Grisi had not, in the slightest manner, encouraged his attentions, and that he had never corresponded with her before. The word was given, and the signal dropped. They fired at the same time. M. de Melcy’s ball passed through his antagonist’s right arm, near the wrist. His Lordship discharged his pistol in the air. Mr. Bentinck, on seeing the condition of Lord Castlereagh, declared that, as his friend was wounded, the affair could not be carried further.

349

BETWEEN MR. MIRFIN AND MR. ELIOT. August 22, 1838.

A duel, arising out of a dispute which took place at the Saloon in Piccadilly, was this day fought on Wimbledon Common, in a ravine about two hundred yards from the mill, between Mr. Mirfin, formerly a linen-draper residing in Tottenham-court Road, and Mr. Eliot. The parties fired at a distance of twelve paces. At the first shot the ball of Eliot went through Mirfin’s hat. The seconds immediately interfered; but the latter objected, and insisted on having a second shot. The pistols being reloaded, the parties again fired, when Mirfin fell. He was immediately attended by Mr. Scott, a surgeon. His death was nearly instantaneous. The body of the deceased was then placed in a cab, and, at the dusk of the evening, brought to his residence in town. An inquest, which lasted four days, was held on the body, at the Tankard Tavern, Brooke Street, Kennington Road, Lambeth, before the coroner, Mr. Carter, and a jury of fifteen of the principal inhabitants of the district. The following are the leading points of the evidence that was adduced.

Thomas Dunn, the owner of the mill on Wimbledon Common.—“The first thing I saw, when the parties arrived in the ravine, was a carpet-bag, from which was taken a box containing 350some pistols. Five persons were standing together, and another alone on my left, and a second about two hundred yards more to the left on the hill. While the pistols were loading, the one on my left, who was the person who shot the deceased, came up to me and said, ‘Good morning!’ I said, ‘It appears to me those gentlemen have some difference to decide.’ He answered, ‘Oh! damned nonsense, it’s only a bet for a hundred pounds.’ I replied, ‘That will not do for me;’ on which he passed on whistling. In a minute or two he again passed me, on which I remarked, it was a pity gentlemen could not settle their differences in a better way; when he said, ‘Oh! damned nonsense, I am used to it, and am one who is going to fight.’ A halfpenny or penny-piece was then tossed up, as I suppose, for the choice of pistols, or the ground. As the man who shot the other was going to the place, one of the party went up to him and said, ‘You are all right: you have nothing to fear.’ I saw both parties present their pistols, and heard two reports. Shortly after, I again heard the pistols discharged. Directly after, the gentleman who had spoken to me came towards me, and said, ‘I have done for the ——.’ I at that moment saw the deceased falling. I went to him and saw him stripped; when I saw a wound resembling that from a ball. All except one, who was engaged in pinching up the wound, left the 351ground. I said to him, ‘I fear he is a dead man.’ The carriages all left, except the hired cab. The deceased was dead when I left the spot.”

George Clark, the cabman.—“I was on the stand at the Elephant and Castle on Wednesday last, about a quarter past five in the afternoon, when I saw two gentlemen in a gig, and one standing on the path. I pulled over, when the latter gentleman, Mr. Scott, surgeon, of Rockingham Row, got in. On reaching Wimbledon Common, we saw a carriage drawn up; it had post-horses: and there was a stanhope as well. The gentleman then got out of my cab. In a few minutes, I heard the report of fire-arms; on which, I and the postillion ran towards the spot. When we reached it, the deceased had fallen, and the parties had all left, except Mr. Scott and the deceased. The gig came up with a gentleman, who, jumping out, ran down the hollow. On his return he said, ‘He’s dead!’ and again jumped into the gig. I seized the horse’s head, and said. ‘You must not leave him so; what can I do?’ when he said, ‘It’s my horse and gig;’ and, on my trying to prevent him, he struck the horse and forced himself away. Mr. Scott told me to bring my cab. I said I could not bring it down the hollow; on which, the body was brought up, and placed in my cab. Mr. Scott then got in; and I said, ‘Where am I to go to?’ He said, ‘Across the common, to a friend’s house.’ I refused, however, 352to drive him, unless the body was taken to the deceased’s residence: when he told me to drive to Pleasant Place; where, on my arrival, it was taken into the parlour.”

Mr. Scott, the surgeon.—“After the first fire, the seconds both interfered, and wished to reconcile the parties. Mr. Mirfin said, he would receive nothing but a written apology; which Mr. Eliot refused to give. Mr. Mirfin then insisted upon a second fire. After he had fired, he walked about six paces towards me, and said, ‘I am wounded!’ I said, ‘Where? I am exceedingly sorry to hear it.’ He then raised his finger to show me where he was wounded. I then shook my head, and said, ‘Good-b’ye. God bless you!’ and he said, ‘Good-b’ye, old fellow!’ Mr. Broughton came up, and said, ‘What shall I do?’ I said, ‘Leave as quickly as possible.’ The other parties quitted the ground, without rendering any assistance. After they had been gone about five minutes, a tall gentleman returned, and asked how he was going on? I replied, ‘He is dying.’ This was one of the parties who had been present. Mr. Mirfin died ten minutes after he had received the shot. I asked him to wait, observing, that he could not be in a worse situation than I myself was. He promised to remain; but quickly ran or walked away towards the mill. I never saw him afterwards.”

The room was cleared, and, after about fifty 353minutes’ deliberation, the foreman announced to the coroner, that they had come to a verdict of “Wilful murder” against Francis Lionel Eliot, as principal; and John Young, Henry Webber, Edward Delves Broughton, and two other persons unknown, as principals in the second degree. Warrants were immediately made out and issued for the apprehension of the parties.

On the 21st of September, their trial came on at the Central Criminal Court. Eliot and Broughton did not appear; but Young and Webber took their places at the bar. Mr. Bodkin said, that in consequence of the illness of Mr. Clarkson, who was Broughton’s counsel, it had been thought desirable that he should not surrender. The prisoners having pleaded “Not guilty,” Mr. Chambers opened the case for the prosecution, and called the various witnesses. At the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Adolphus addressed the jury in behalf of Webber, and Mr. Phillips in behalf of Young. They both maintained, that there was not a tittle of evidence to show that either of them had any participation in the unfortunate occurrence. Several witnesses spoke to their character; which was described as being of the most humane description.

Mr. Justice Vaughan then charged the jury. He said, that the case, in his own opinion, presented no point of difficulty. The question for them to determine was, whether the prisoners at the bar 354had gone down for the purpose of aiding and encouraging Mr. Eliot. If they entertained any doubt upon that point, they were bound to give them the benefit of that doubt. There were, undoubtedly, he observed, some peculiarities in the present case, which did not belong to any other case of duelling with which he was acquainted; and that peculiarity was, the fact of so many persons having been mixed up with the transaction. With regard to the manner in which it was conducted, it did not appear that any unfair advantage had been taken by either party. On the contrary, as far as he knew anything of such matters, the affair appeared to have been managed with a strict regard to the practice usually followed on similar occasions.

The jury, after retiring about twenty minutes, brought in a verdict of “Guilty.” The foreman then said, that he had been desired by his brother jurors to express the horror they felt at the conduct of Mr. Scott; and to say, that, in their opinion, he ought to have been placed at the bar along with the prisoners. Mr. Justice Vaughan said, he quite agreed with the jury as regarded Mr. Scott. Mr. Chambers said, he was instructed by the brother of the deceased, who had felt it his duty to institute this prosecution, to recommend the prisoners to mercy, on account of the excellent character they had received. Mr. Justice Vaughan said, the recommendation should be 355attended to; but for the present the Court would order, that sentence of death should be recorded against the prisoners, and they would from that understand that their lives would be spared. The sentence of death was afterwards commuted to twelve months’ imprisonment in Guildford gaol; the last month to be passed in solitary confinement. Eliot and Broughton had escaped abroad. The parties appealing to this barbarous code of refined honour could, apparently, claim only a very doubtful gentility. Eliot was the nephew of an innkeeper at Taunton, and recently an officer in the British Auxiliary Legion in Spain; Mirfin was the son of a mercer at Doncaster, and had kept a linen-draper’s shop in Tottenham-court Road; and Young was the son of a brick-maker at Haddenham, near Aylesbury. The disgusting exhibition at Wimbledon in this case is believed to have done much to bring the practice of duelling into ridicule and detestation.

BETWEEN THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. GRATTAN. January 13, 1839.

In consequence of some expressions which were made use of by the Marquis of Londonderry in the House of Lords, in reference to a speech reported to have been made by Mr. Henry Grattan at a public meeting in Dublin, Mr. Grattan 356addressed a letter of inquiry to the Marquis, to which the following answer was returned:—

“Holdernesse House, June 12.

“Lord Londonderry presents his compliments to Mr. Henry Grattan. Lord Londonderry read, in his place in the House of Lords, an extract from the reports of the newspapers of a speech of Mr. O’Connell’s, stated to have been made at a public meeting in Dublin, to address the Queen; in which accusations were made against that party to which Lord Londonderry is proud to belong. The paragraph Lord L. cited is as follows:—‘Mr. Grattan had said, that her Majesty’s life would not be safe if the Tories came into power; and he (Mr. O’Connell) declared solemnly he was convinced she would not live six months, if that event took place.’ Lord Londonderry at once admits, if these sentiments are accurately reported, accusing the Tory party of the intention of murdering the Queen, he considers them as base and infamous. It was to such accusations Lord Londonderry’s epithets applied.”

In a second letter, Mr. Grattan begged to say, that he was not accountable for any opinion or expression in Mr. O’Connell’s speeches. As he had not alluded, in any speech of his, in any way to Lord Londonderry, he requested his lordship would distinctly say, whether he intended that the words ‘base’ and ‘infamous’ should be applied 357to him? In answer to this letter. Lord Londonderry observed, that, unwilling as he should be to fix upon any individual the responsibility of having uttered such sentiments as those reported in the public accounts of the meeting to which he alluded, he must adhere to the opinion he had already expressed, as applying to any individual who was prepared to avow such language. The epithets complained of were, he said, applied, not to individuals, but to injurious accusations reported to have been publicly uttered against a political body; and since there was no disavowal, on Mr. Henry Grattan’s part, of the language and sentiments reported to have been used, Lord Londonderry regretted he could not recede from the opinions he had already expressed.

In consequence of this correspondence, a meeting was arranged, which took place this day, at three o’clock, on Wimbledon Common. Upon the signal being given, Lord Londonderry received Mr. Grattan’s fire, and fired in the air. Mr. Bodkin, on the part of Mr. Grattan, then expressed himself perfectly satisfied, and the affair terminated.

BETWEEN LORD POWERSCOURT AND MR. ROEBUCK. February 28, 1839.

A hostile meeting took place this day at Coombe Wood, between Lord Powerscourt and Mr. Roebuck; the former attended by the Honourable 358H. Fitzroy, and the latter by Mr. Trelawney. On the ground endeavours were made in vain to prevent proceeding to extremities; Lord Powerscourt’s second insisting on Mr. Roebuck’s retracting, or apologising for, certain words delivered in a speech at Bath. Mr. Roebuck received his adversary’s fire, discharged his pistol in the air, and, advancing to Lord Powerscourt, said, “Now, my lord, I am ready to make any apology your lordship may suggest; for certainly, in my speech at Bath, I did not mean to imply anything personally offensive.” With this declaration all parties being satisfied, the affair terminated.

BETWEEN LORD GEORGE LOFTUS AND LORD HARLEY. December 10, 1839.

A duel was this day fought near Boulogne, between Lord George Loftus and Lord Harley. Shots were exchanged without effect; and the parties returned to Dover on the evening of the same day. The affair originated in certain expressions used by Lord George Loftus towards Lord Harley, on occasion of Lord Harley’s presenting himself to the notice of Lord George, and claiming an acquaintance, of which Lord George had no recollection whatever. Lord Harley stated, that his introduction to Lord George had been at the instance of his brother, Lord Loftus; and, on the faith of this statement, Lord 359George’s second retracted, in his name, the expressions that gave the offence.

BETWEEN LORD WILLIAM PAGET AND MR. FISKE. December 20, 1839.

A meeting took place on Wimbledon Common between Lord William Paget and Mr. Thomas Fiske. The former was attended by Captain Baillie, of the Lancers; and the latter by Mr. Nightingale. Mr. Fiske received his lordship’s fire, and fired in the air; when the seconds interfered. It appears that Lord William had called upon Mr. Fiske to deny that he had ever lent money to his lordship, as had been stated in a morning paper; which request was refused to be complied with, on the ground of its being accompanied by a threat; but, after receiving his lordship’s fire, he had no hesitation in declaring, in the presence of Captain Baillie and Mr. Nightingale, that he never had lent any money to his lordship.

BETWEEN MR. WYNN AND MR. BROWN, IN A STAGE-COACH. May 17, 1840.

The following is from a New York paper:—On the 17th of May, two persons, one named Robert Wynn, and the other Joseph D. Brown, quarreled in a stage-coach between Peru and Chicago, 360Illinois. Both drew their pistols, fired, and killed each other. One was shot in the head; the other in the heart. They were the only passengers.

BETWEEN M. THROUET AND M. PAULIN PRUÉ. June, 1840.

The following account of a frightful duel fought near New Orleans, is from the Courier de la Louisiane:—A meeting, as atrocious in the mode of conducting it, as it was disastrous in its result, has just taken place between M. Hippolyte Throuet and M. Paulin Prué, both Frenchmen by birth, and long resident in this city. It originated in a bitterly contested law-suit, and took place in the following manner. The principals were placed at five paces distant from each other, back to back, with a pistol in each hand. At a signal agreed upon, they were to turn round and fire. At the first discharge they fired together, but without effect. Prué then took his second pistol into his right hand; but so precipitately, that it was discharged in the air. Seeing himself thus exposed, without any means of defence, to his adversary’s fire, he presented his bosom to him, and said, “Fire!” Several of the bystanders, of whom there were a great number, trembling for the fate which awaited the disarmed man, cried out from their places, “Don’t fire!” but the seconds interposed, and, demanding who dared to interfere in a matter of the sort, invited Throuet 361to discharge his pistol against his opponent. Throuet needed not the invitation; but, having kept both Prué and the bystanders for a considerable time in a state of the most painful suspense, still holding Prué covered with his pistol, and grinning ferociously, fired at last, and, the ball passing through Prué’s body, he died instantaneously.

BETWEEN MR. ANTONIO GARBONIA AND MR. KECHOFF. July 4, 1840.

A meeting took place in one of the Kilburn fields, adjoining the New North-road, St. John’s Wood, between Mr. Antonio Garbonia and Mr. Nicholas Kechoff. On the first fire Mr. Garbonia received his antagonist’s ball in his left groin, and fell. Mr. Kechoff advanced to the wounded man, shook hands with him, and immediately quitted the ground with his friends. The cause of the meeting arose from disputed betting at a billiard-table.

BETWEEN THE EARL OF CARDIGAN AND CAPTAIN HARVEY GARNETT PHIPPS TUCKETT. September 12, 1840.

In consequence of the Earl of Cardigan having ascertained, that certain letters which had recently been published in the Morning Chronicle, reflecting, as his lordship considered, on his character as an officer and a gentleman, were written by Lieutenant Tuckett, late of the 11th regiment of Dragoons, 362of which his lordship is Lieutenant-Colonel, the noble Lord sent him, through Captain Douglas, a challenge. This was accepted, and Captain Wainwright, of the Half-pay, was selected by him to arrange the preliminaries. An apology was demanded by the noble Earl; to which the reply was, that if he would deny the allegations contained in the letters referred to, it should be given. Lord Cardigan declared that certain portions were true; but that the greater part were calumnies. On this the apology was refused, and a meeting was the consequence.

It took place on the afternoon of Saturday, the 12th of September, on Wimbledon Common. The first shot was ineffectual on both sides: on the second, Mr. Tuckett received his adversary’s ball in the back part of the lower ribs, which traversed round to the spine. As Lord Cardigan and his second were moving off after the duel, they were taken into custody, but liberated on bail being given to the police for their appearance before the magistrates at Wandsworth on Monday: when Sir James Anderson deposed, that, after the removal of Mr. Tuckett to his house, he made an examination, and found that a pistol bullet had entered on the upper part of his right hip-bone, slightly shattering it, had passed transversely, and come out over the spine of the back-bone. He said he had visited the patient again on Sunday, and saw no symptoms of present danger. The 363magistrates decided, that, as the case was one of a serious nature, they could not be contented with ordinary recognizances, but should order the Earl of Cardigan to enter into his own recognizance in the sum of a thousand pounds, and Captain Douglas in the sum of five hundred, to ensure their reappearance before that bench on Monday, the 28th.

The following statement of this affair was published by Lord Cardigan:—“Lord Cardigan having been informed, upon good authority, that the editor of the Morning Chronicle, upon application being made to him for the name of the writer of a letter dated the 3rd of September 1840, signed ‘An Old Soldier,’ which appeared in that paper of the 4th of September, had stated it to come from Mr. Harvey Tuckett, Captain Douglas, at the request of Lord Cardigan, waited upon Mr. Tuckett, on the 11th instant, to demand satisfaction. Mr. Tuckett acknowledged himself the author, and requested time to go into the country, to consult Captain Wainwright as his friend. On Saturday, the 12th instant, Captain Douglas met Captain Wainwright, when the latter solicited in writing the grounds upon which Lord Cardigan demanded satisfaction of his friend Mr. Tuckett. Captain Douglas delivered, about half-past two, P.M., the following statement, viz.—

“‘Lord Cardigan yesterday authorised Captain Douglas to require of Mr. Tuckett to afford him 364satisfaction, in consequence of a letter, of which Mr. Tuckett has avowed himself the author, and which appeared in the Morning Chronicle of the 4th instant, signed ‘An Old Soldier;’ many parts of which contained matter entirely false, and the whole of which was slanderous, insulting, and calumnious.

“‘Cardigan.’”

“London, September 12”

September 28.

Lord Cardigan, his second, and the second of Lieutenant Tuckett, were brought before the bench of magistrates at Wandsworth, and were all committed to take their trial at the ensuing sessions of the Central Criminal Court. The charge, as against the noble Lord, was for “shooting with a pistol at Lieutenant Harvey Tuckett, with intent to murder or do him some bodily harm;” and, as against Captain Douglas and Captain Wainwright, for aiding and abetting, in the character of seconds. Lord Cardigan was admitted to bail on his own recognizance of 2000l., and two sureties of 1000l. each; and the two other prisoners were required severally to give bail in the sum of 500l., and two sureties in 250l. each. The parties were then bound over to appear and prosecute the prisoners at the ensuing sessions.

October 14.

Lieutenant Tuckett being sufficiently recovered to appear before the magistrates of the Wandsworth 365Court, a special session was this day held, for the purpose of entering into his examination, on the charge of shooting at the Earl of Cardigan, with intent to murder him. The former evidence having been read over, he was fully committed to take his trial upon the charge of felony, and ordered to enter into his own recognizance in the sum of 1000l., and two sureties in 500l. each.

October 21.

At the session of the Central Criminal Court, Mr. Adolphus, in behalf of the Earl of Cardigan, this day begged leave to ask the judges on the bench a question, before their lordships proceeded to the business of the day. He found, he said, that on the list of causes to be tried, there appeared against the seventh, the name of James Thomas Brudenell, Earl of Cardigan. Now, Lord Cardigan, being a peer of the realm, could not be tried in that court. He therefore submitted, that the name of the noble Earl should be taken from the list. Mr. Justice Bosanquet and Mr. Justice Erskine agreed, that the course would be to remove the indictment, by a writ of certiorari, into the Court of the Lord High Steward, and that it would be very inconvenient to try the case of Captain Douglas before that of Lord Cardigan. It was finally arranged, that the recognizances of all the parties should be respited until the next session.

366February 16.

TRIAL OF THE EARL OF CARDIGAN, BEFORE THE HOUSE

OF LORDS, IN FULL PARLIAMENT, FOR FELONY.

A little before eleven o’clock. Lord Denman, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, on account of indisposition, entered the House of Lords in his robes, preceded by the Sergeant with the mace, Black Rod carrying the Lord High Steward’s staff, and Garter with the sceptre, and took his seat on the woolsack as Lord Speaker. After prayers the roll of peers was called over, beginning with the junior Baron; after which, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery delivered the commission to the Lord Speaker, who gave it the Deputy Clerk of the Crown in the Queen’s Bench to read; which he did, the peers standing. The commission authorised their lordships to proceed with the trial of James Thomas Earl of Cardigan, on an indictment found against him for felony, which had been removed before them by certiorari, and appointed Lord Denman Lord High Steward. After the writ of certiorari and the record of the indictment had been read, proclamation was made for the Yeoman Usher to bring the Earl of Cardigan to the bar. On approaching it, he made three reverences, and knelt till directed by the Lord High Steward to rise. He then made three reverences, one to the Lord High Steward, and one to the peers on each side: after 367which, he was conducted to the stool provided for him within the bar, near to his counsel. The Lord High Steward informed him, that he was charged with the offence of firing with a loaded pistol at Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, with intent to murder him; in a second count with firing with intent to maim and disable him; and in a third count with firing with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Being then arraigned by the Deputy Clerk of the Crown, and asked whether he was guilty of the said felony, and how he would be tried, the Earl answered, “By my Peers.” The Attorney-General and Mr. Waddington appeared as counsel for the prosecution; and Sir William Follett, Mr. sergeant Wrangham, and Mr. Adolphus, for the Earl of Cardigan. Mr. Waddington having opened the indictment.

The Attorney-General then addressed their lordships as follows:—“I have the honour to attend your lordships on this occasion as Attorney-General for her Majesty, to lay before you the circumstances of the case upon which you will be called to pronounce judgment, without any object or wish on my part, except that I may humbly assist your lordships in coming to a right conclusion upon it, according to its merits. An indictment has been found against a peer of the realm by a grand jury of the country, charging him with a felony, the punishment of which is transportation 368or imprisonment. That indictment has been removed before your lordships, at the request of the noble prisoner; and, I must say, most properly removed; for an inferior court had no jurisdiction to try him. The charge is, upon the face of it, of a most serious character, and it would not have been satisfactory if it had gone off without any inquiry. The policeman, however, who was bound over to prosecute, fulfilled his recognizances by appearing at the Central Criminal Court, and preferring the indictment.—It is possible, my Lords, that in the course of this trial, questions of great magnitude on the construction of acts of parliament, or respecting the privileges of the peerage, may arise, which it is of great importance to this House, to the Crown, and to the community, should be deliberately discussed. According to all the precedents that can be found, whenever a peer has been tried in parliament, the prosecution has been conducted by the law-officers of the Crown. Fortunately, we have no living memory on this subject. It is now sixty-four years since any proceeding of this sort has taken place; and I am rejoiced to think, that on the present occasion the charge against the noble prisoner at the bar does not imply any degree of moral turpitude, and that, if he should be found guilty, his conviction will reflect no discredit on the illustrious order to which he belongs. At the same time, my Lords, it clearly appears to me, that he 369has been guilty of infringing the statute law of the realm, which this and all other courts of justice are bound to respect and enforce. Your lordships are not sitting as a court of honour, or as a branch of the legislature: your lordships are sitting here as a court bound by the rules of law, and under a sanction as sacred as that of an oath.

“My Lords, the indictment against the Earl of Cardigan is framed upon an act of parliament which passed in the first year of the reign of her present Majesty. It charges the noble defendant with having shot at Captain Harvey Tuckett, with the several intents set forth in the indictment. I think I shall best discharge my duty to your lordships by presenting to you a brief history of the law on this subject. By the common law of England, personal violence, where death did not ensue from it, amounted to a mere misdemeanour; and, if the wounded party did not die within a year and a day, no felony was committed. The first act which created a felony where death did not ensue was the 5th of Henry IV. cap. 5. By that act certain personal injuries without death were made felonies, with benefit of clergy. Then came the Coventry Act, in the 22nd and 23rd of Charles II, whereby any person lying in wait for, and wounding another with intent to maim or disfigure, was guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy. Under both these acts no offence was committed unless a wound was 370inflicted; and it was not until the 9th of George I, commonly called the Black Act, that an attempt, where no wound was given, was made a felony. By that act it was enacted, that if any person should wilfully and maliciously shoot at any person in any dwelling-house or other place, he should be guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy, although no wound were inflicted: but it was determined upon that statute,—and in fairness to the noble prisoner it is my duty to remind your lordships of it,—that unless the case was one in which, if death had ensued, it would have amounted to murder, no offence was committed under the statute. That was determined in the case of the King and Gastineaux, which is reported in the first volume of Leach’s Crown Cases, page 417. In that case the law was thus laid down:—‘The offence charged in this indictment is described by the statute on which it is framed, in very few and very clear words, which are—That if any person or persons shall wilfully and maliciously shoot at any person in any dwelling-house or other place, he shall be adjudged guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy. The word ‘maliciously’ is made to constitute the very essence of this crime; no act of shooting, therefore, will amount, under this statute, to a capital offence, unless it be accompanied with such circumstances as, in construction of law, would have amounted to the crime of murder if death had 371ensued from such act. This proposition most clearly and unavoidably results from the legal interpretation of the word “maliciously,” as applied to this subject; for there is no species of homicide in which malice forms any ingredient but that of murder; and it follows that neither an accidental shooting, nor a shooting in the transport of passion, excited by such a degree of provocation as will reduce homicide to the offence of manslaughter, are within the meaning of the statute; for from both of these cases the law excludes every idea of malice.’ The law continued on this footing until an act was passed in the 43rd of George III, which is commonly called Lord Ellenborough’s Act. This act did not repeal the Black Act, but greatly extended its operation, and among other enactments contains this:—‘That if any person or persons shall wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully shoot at any of his Majesty’s subjects, or shall wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully present, point, or level any kind of loaded fire-arms at any of his Majesty’s subjects, and attempt, by drawing a trigger or in any other manner, to discharge the same at or against his or their person or persons, or shall wilfully, maliciously, or unlawfully stab or cut any of his Majesty’s subjects, with intent in so doing, or by means thereof, to murder, or rob, or to maim, disfigure, or disable such his Majesty’s subject or subjects, or with intent to do some 372other grievous bodily harm to such his Majesty’s subject or subjects, shall be guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy.’ This act, however, has the following express proviso:—‘Provided always, that in case it shall appear on the trial of any person or persons indicted for the wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully shooting at any of his Majesty’s subjects, that if death had ensued therefrom the same would not in law have amounted to the crime of murder; that then and in every such case the person or persons so indicted shall be deemed and taken to be not guilty of the felonies whereof they shall be so indicted, but be thereof acquitted.’ Your lordships will observe, that by this act it is made a capital offence to shoot at, with intent to murder, or maim, disfigure, or do grievous bodily harm; but the offence came within the statute only when, if death should have ensued, it would have amounted to the crime of murder.

“Next came the statute of the 9th of George IV. cap. 31, which, I believe, is generally called Lord Lansdowne’s Act; that noble Lord having introduced it into parliament when he was Secretary of State for the Home Department. This is entitled ‘An Act to consolidate and amend the statutes relating to offences against the person.’ It repeals the Black Act and Lord Ellenborough’s Act, but it contains provisions similar to those of the latter. The eleventh section enacts, ‘That 373if any person unlawfully and maliciously shoot at any person, with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable such person, or do some other grievous bodily harm to such person, he shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as a felon.’ But this act contains the same proviso as was inserted in Lord Ellenborough’s Act, ‘That in case it shall appear on the trial of any person, that, if death had ensued therefrom, the same would not have amounted to the crime of murder, the person so indicted shall be acquitted of felony.’ Still it remained a capital offence to shoot at with intent to murder, or maim, or disfigure, or do bodily harm, although no wound was inflicted.

“Things remained on this footing until the act was passed on which the present indictment was framed. This act, which received the royal assent on the 17th of July 1837, is the 1st of Victoria, cap. 85, and is entitled, ‘An Act to amend the laws relating to offences against the person.’ The preamble recites that ‘it is expedient to amend so much of the act of the 9th of George IV. as relates to any person who shall unlawfully and maliciously shoot at any person, or who shall, by drawing a trigger, or in any other manner, attempt to discharge any kind of loaded arms at any person,’ &c.; and by the second and third section it enacts, ‘That whosoever shall stab, cut, or wound any person, or 374shall, by any means whatsoever, cause to any person any bodily injury dangerous to life, with intent in any of the cases aforesaid to commit murder, shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted, shall suffer death.’ Therefore, by this act, to shoot at a person and inflict a wound dangerous to life remains a capital offence; but the act of shooting, when no wound is inflicted, is no longer a capital offence, and remains a felony only, punishable with transportation or imprisonment. The fourth section enacts, ‘That whosoever unlawfully and maliciously shall shoot at any person, or shall, by drawing a trigger, attempt to discharge any kind of loaded arms at any person, with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable such person, or do some other grievous bodily harm to such person, he shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be transported beyond the seas,’ &c. This act contains no such proviso as is to be found in Lord Ellenborough’s Act, and that of the 9th of George IV.; a circumstance which it is material your lordships should bear in mind, when you come to deliberate on your judgment with regard to the second and third counts of the indictment.

“My Lords, I am happy to say that the indictment contains no count on the capital charge: a wound was inflicted; but the prosecutor has very properly restricted the charge to firing at, 375with intent, without alleging that any wound dangerous to life was inflicted. The first count charges, that the Earl of Cardigan shot at Captain Tuckett with intent, in the language of the law, to commit the crime of murder. The second count charges the Earl of Cardigan with the same act, with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable Captain Tuckett; and the third count charges his lordship with the same act, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. It will be for your lordships to say whether, upon the facts which I shall lay before you, and which I am instructed to say can be clearly made out in evidence, each and every one of the counts must not be considered as fully established. The substance of the evidence in this case is, that on the 12th of September last the Earl of Cardigan fought a duel with pistols, on Wimbledon Common, with Captain Tuckett, and wounded him at the second exchange of shots. It will appear that, about five o’clock in the afternoon of that day, two carriages, coming in opposite directions, were seen to arrive on Wimbledon Common, and a party of gentlemen alighted from each. It was evident to those who observed what was going on, that a duel was in contemplation. The parties went to a part of the common between the road that leads to Lord Spencer’s park and a windmill. The seconds made the usual preparations: the principals, the Earl 376of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett, were placed at a distance of about twelve yards; they exchanged shots without effect; they received from their seconds each another pistol; they again fired, and Captain Tuckett was wounded by the Earl of Cardigan. Mr. Dann, who occupied the mill, his son, and Sir James Anderson, a surgeon, who was standing close by, went up immediately. The wound was examined, it bled freely; but fortunately—and I am sure no one rejoices at the circumstance more than the noble prisoner—it proved to be not of a dangerous nature. Mr. Dann, the miller, who was a constable, took the whole party into custody. The wound was again formally examined, and Sir James Anderson pressed that he might be set at liberty, and allowed to take Captain Tuckett to his house in London; which was immediately acceded to, upon the Captain’s promising to appear before the magistrates, when he was recovered. The miller retained the Earl of Cardigan, and his second, Captain Douglas, as well as Captain Wainwright, the second of Captain Tuckett. The Earl of Cardigan had still a pistol in his hand when the miller approached him; and two cases of pistols were on the ground, one of which bore the crest of the noble Earl, and was claimed by him as his property. The parties in custody were conducted before the magistrates at Wandsworth, when the Earl of Cardigan made use of 377these words:—‘I have fought a duel; I have hit my man, I believe not seriously.’ Then, pointing to Captain Douglas, he said, ‘This gentleman is also a prisoner, and my second.’ He was asked whether the person he had hit was Captain Reynolds; upon which he replied, ‘Do you think I would condescend to fight with one of my own officers?’ His lordship was compelled by the magistrates to enter into recognizances to appear when called upon; which he did from time to time, till at last the matter was carried to the Central Criminal Court. The witnesses I shall call before your lordships are the miller, his wife and son, and the policeman named Busain, who was at the station-house, and will speak to the declarations made by the Earl of Cardigan. I can offer no evidence respecting the origin of the quarrel. Captain Douglas is to take his trial for his share in the transaction: he, as your lordships will observe, is jointly indicted with the Earl of Cardigan. A bill was also preferred against Captain Tuckett and Captain Wainwright, but the grand jury had thrown it out. Those gentlemen, however, are still liable to be tried; and it would not be decorous to summon them before your lordships, to give evidence which might afterwards be turned against themselves when they would be on trial for their lives. I shall call Sir James Anderson, who has hitherto spoken fairly on the subject, and, I suppose, 378will now make no objection to state all that fell within his observation.

“Upon these facts it will be for your lordships to say whether all the counts of the indictment are not fully proved and supported. With respect to the first count, it is painful to use the language which it necessarily recites; but it will be for your lordships to say whether, in point of law, the noble prisoner at the bar did not shoot at Captain Tuckett with intent to commit the crime therein mentioned. I at once acquit the Earl of Cardigan of anything unfair in the conduct of this duel. Something has been said respecting the noble Earl’s pistols having rifle barrels, while those of Captain Tuckett had not such barrels. However that may have been, I have the most perfect conviction, that nothing but what was fair and honourable was intended; and that the Earl of Cardigan most probably imagined, when he carried his pistols to the field with him, that one of them would be directed against his own person. Nor do I suppose that there was any grudge, any personal animosity, any rancour or malignity, on the part of the noble Earl towards his antagonist. Whether the noble Earl gave or received the invitation to go out, I believe his only object was to preserve his reputation, and maintain his station in society as an officer and a gentleman. His lordship is in the army; he 379is Lieutenant-Colonel of the 11th Hussars; and no doubt he, on this occasion, only complied with what he considered to be necessary to be done, according to the usages of society. But, if death had ensued under these circumstances, it would have been a great calamity; and, although moralists of high name have excused and even defended the practice of duelling, your lordships must consider what, in this respect, is the law of England. There can be no doubt that, by the law of England, parties who go out deliberately to fight a duel, if death ensues, are guilty of murder. It will be my duty to state to your lordships a few of the leading authorities on this point. I will mention the highest authorities known to the law of England—Hale, Hawkins, Foster, and Blackstone. Hale, in his Pleas of the Crown, vol. i. page 453, says:—‘If A and B suddenly fall out, and they presently agree to fight in a field, and run and fetch their weapons, and go to the field and fight, and A kills B, this is not murder, but homicide; for it is but a continuance of the sudden falling out, and the blood was never cooled; but if there were deliberation, as that they went on the next day,—nay, though it was the same day, if there were such a competent distance of time that in common presumption they had time of deliberation,—then it is murder.’ In the first volume of Hawkins’s Pleas of the Crown, c. 31, 380sec. 21, the law on this subject is thus laid down:—‘It seems agreed, that whenever two persons in cool blood meet and fight on a precedent quarrel, and one of them is killed, the other is guilty of murder, and cannot help himself by alleging that he was struck first by the deceased; or that he had often declined to meet him, and was prevailed upon to do it by his importunity; or that it was his intent only to vindicate his reputation; or that he meant not to kill, but only to disarm his adversary; for, since he deliberately engaged in an act highly unlawful, in defiance of the laws, he must, at his peril, abide the consequence thereof. And from hence it follows, that if two persons quarrel over-night, and appoint to fight next day, or quarrel in the morning and agree to fight in the afternoon, or such a considerable time after, by which, in common intendment, it must be presumed that the blood was cooled, and then they meet and fight, and one kills the other, he is guilty of murder. And whenever it appears, from the whole circumstances, that he who kills another on a sudden quarrel, was master of his temper at the time, he is guilty of murder; as if, after the quarrel, he fall into a discourse, and talks calmly thereon; or, perhaps, if he have so much consideration as to say that the place wherein the quarrel happens is not convenient for fighting, or that, if he should fight at present, he should have the disadvantage by reason of the height of his 381shoes.’ The last observation refers to Lord Morley’s case, where, though a case of manslaughter, it was a circumstance strongly pressed to show that the offence was one of a deeper dye. Sir Michael Foster, in his Discourse on Homicide, says:—‘Upon this principle, deliberate duelling, if death ensues, is, in the eye of the law, murder; because duels are generally founded on a feeling of revenge: and though a person should be drawn into a duel upon a motive not so criminal, but merely upon the punctilio of what the swordsmen call honour, that is no excuse; for those who deliberately seek the blood of another, act in defiance of all laws, human and divine. But if, on a sudden quarrel, they fight upon the spot, or if they presently fetch their weapons, and go into a field and fight, and one of them falleth, that is but manslaughter, because it may be presumed the blood never cooled. It will be otherwise if the parties appoint the next day to fight, or even the same day, at such an interval as that the passion may have subsided, or if, from any circumstances attending the case, it may reasonably be presumed that their judgment had controlled the first transports of passion before they engaged. The same rule will hold if, after a quarrel, the parties fall into other discourse or diversions, and continue so engaged as to afford reasonable time for cooling.’ Blackstone, in his fourth volume, page 199, thus writes, when describing and defining 382the crime of murder:—‘This takes in the case of deliberate duelling, where both parties meet avowedly with an intent to murder; thinking it their duty, as gentlemen, and claiming it as their right, to wanton with their own lives and those of their fellow-creatures; without any warrant or authority from any power, either divine or human, but in direct contradiction to the laws both of God and man; and therefore the law has justly fixed the crime and punishment of murder on them, and on their seconds also.’

“My Lords, these are the highest authorities known to the law of England, and they are uniformly followed by the English judges. The most recent cases of this nature which have occurred within the last few years, are those of Sir John Jeffcott,^[8] and the parties concerned in the death of Mr. Mirfin; and in these the doctrine I have stated to your lordships was laid down and acted upon strictly. Such, then, being the definition of murder constantly given from the bench on trials for life and death, are not your lordships to suppose that the legislature has made use of the word ‘murder’ in the same sense; and that when we find in Lord Ellenborough’s Act, in the 9th of Geo. IV. and in this of the 1st of Victoria, the expression ‘with intent to commit murder,’ it means with intent to do that which, if accomplished, would amount in law to the crime of 383murder? The legislature, and your lordships as part of it, must be taken to have well known what was the legal definition of murder, and to have used the expression, in a judicial act, in its legal sense. Then, my Lords, however painful the consideration may be, does it not necessarily follow, that the first count of the indictment is completely found? The circumstances clearly show that the Earl of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett met by appointment. The arrangements being completed, they fired twice; the Earl of Cardigan took deliberate aim, fired, and wounded his antagonist. He must be supposed to have intended that which he did. If, unfortunately, death had ensued, would not this have been a case of murder? The only supposition by which the case could be reduced to one of manslaughter would be, that the Earl of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett met casually on Wimbledon Common; that they suddenly quarreled; and that, whilst their blood was hot, they fought; but your lordships will hardly strain the facts so far as to say that this was a casual meeting, when you see that each party was accompanied by a second, and supplied with a brace of pistols, and that the whole affair was conducted according to the forms and solemnities observed when a deliberate duel is fought.—With respect to the second and third counts, I know not what defence can possibly be suggested; because, even if it had been a casual 384meeting, and if death had ensued under circumstances which would have amounted only to manslaughter, that would be no defence to the second and third counts. I presume to assert that, on the authority of a case which came before the fifteen judges of England, and which was decided; two most learned judges doubting on the occasion, but not dissenting from the decision. The two judges who doubted, were his Grace the Lord High Steward, who presides over your lordships’ proceedings on this occasion, and Mr. Justice Littledale. It would not become me to say anything of the learning and ability of the noble High Steward in his presence; but, with respect to Mr. Justice Littledale, I will say, that there never was a more learned or acute judge than he was, whose retirement from the bench the bar has lately witnessed with reluctance and regret. I therefore attach the greatest weight to any doubts proceeding from such a quarter; but the thirteen other judges entertained no doubt upon that occasion, and came to the conclusion, that, upon the fourth section of the act upon which the present indictment was framed, it is not necessary for a conviction, that if death ensued the offence should amount to murder. The case to which I refer is to be found in the second volume of Moody’s Crown Cases, page 40. It was a case tried before Mr. Baron Parke, on the Norfolk Spring Circuit, in 1838.”