Chapter III · DUELS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES, FROM 1820 TO 1841.

BETWEEN MR. GRATTAN AND LORD CLARE. June 11, 1820.

Mr. Grattan, son of the deceased patriot, having, at a public meeting in Dublin, made use of expressions which Lord Clare conceived to reflect upon the late Lord Clare, his father, and having declined either to explain or to justify them, the parties met in Hyde Park; when Mr. Grattan, having received Lord Clare’s fire, instantly fired in the air. The friends present having given their opinion, that the affair could proceed no further, Mr. Grattan said, that having now met Lord Clare in the field, and given him the satisfaction required, he was willing to admit he was in the wrong, in having made use of such expressions. Upon which the parties shook hands, and the affair terminated.

243

BETWEEN T. HUNGERFORD, ESQ. AND R. TRAVERS, ESQ. August 13, 1820.

A fatal duel took place on the 13th of August at the island, within four miles of Klonakilty, between T. Hungerford, Esq., and R. Travers, Esq., a young gentleman of that neighbourhood. In the first fire the latter received the ball in his forehead, and instantly expired. The cause of the dispute was of some standing, and was likely to have terminated amicably, through the interference of mutual friends; but, unfortunately, on the preceding day a difference occurred upon a trivial point in the arrangement, which led to the lamentable catastrophe. They had been previously on terms of the closest intimacy.

BETWEEN MR. R. STUART AND MR. TOWNSEND DADE. August 20, 1820.

A duel was this day fought between Mr. Richard Stuart and Mr. Townsend Dade, both of King George county, Virginia, on the Maryland shore, immediately opposite their residence, at a short distance, and with muskets loaded with buck-shot. Mr. Dade was shot dead, and Mr. Stuart was so severely wounded, that he expired in a few hours. They were near relations, neighbours, and theretofore close friends. The unfortunate difference occurred about a mere trifle.

244

BETWEEN MR. FULLIOT AND MR. BURROWES. September 17, 1820.

In consequence of a dispute Mr. Fulliot, a gentleman well known in Chester for his amiability of disposition, on Monday morning received a challenge from Mr. S. Burrowes, a person connected with the law. The combatants drew lots for the first fire, which Mr. Burrowes won; the distance fixed upon was twelve paces. Shots were exchanged without effect: the pistols were a second time loaded, and both fired together with a like result. An ineffectual attempt was now made to reconcile the parties, and the fatal weapons were again discharged, which unhappily were too certain in their aim. A ball pierced the head of Mr. Fulliot, and fractured his skull. Mr. Burrowes was killed on the spot.

BETWEEN MR. JOHN SCOTT AND MR. CHRISTIE. February 16, 1821.

A duel, attended with fatal consequences, took place on Friday evening, the 16th of February, at nine o’clock, in a field between Chalk Farm Tavern and Primrose Hill. The parties in this unhappy conflict were Mr. John Scott, the avowed editor of the London Magazine, and Mr. Christie, a friend of the supposed conductor of Blackwood’s Magazine, Mr. John Gibson Lockhart, of Edinburgh. 245The quarrel between these gentlemen had its rise in a series of articles which appeared in the London Magazine, discussing the conduct and management of Blackwood’s Magazine, and regarded by Mr. Lockhart as offensive to his feelings and injurious to his honour. Mr. Christie, as the friend of Mr. Lockhart, waited upon Mr. Scott to demand an explanation of the articles in question; and, in fact, to require a public apology for matter which he considered personally offensive to himself, or such other satisfaction as a gentleman was entitled to. This interview led to others, as well as to a correspondence, in which much of mutual warmth was expressed.

To prevent misapprehension of what had occurred, Mr. Scott published his statement of the transactions to which he had been a party; which was very generally circulated in the literary world, as well as copied into some of the daily papers. This was followed by a statement on the part of Mr. Christie, the friend of Mr. Lockhart; which was succeeded by a second statement from the pen of Mr. Scott, in which he treated the conduct of Mr. Lockhart with great asperity, and defended the course which he had pursued with considerable warmth. Then followed a counter-statement from Mr. Christie; in consequence of which, Mr. Scott proceeded with his friend Mr. Patmore, to Mr. Christie’s lodgings, and demanded 246an apology or instant satisfaction. Mr. Christie refused the former, and expressed his readiness, without loss of time, to grant the latter.

The matter having come to this issue, it was agreed they should meet at Chalk Farm; and thither they proceeded, at nine o’clock on the same evening. Mr. Scott was attended by his friend Mr. Patmore, and by Mr. Pettigrew, his medical adviser. The moon shone with brightness; so that the party had a full opportunity of seeing each other, and, having taken their ground, they fired together without effect. The second fire was fatal to Mr. Scott; who received his antagonist’s ball in his groin and fell. Every assistance which the circumstances would permit was afforded him; and he was conveyed on a shutter to Chalk Farm tavern; where he was laid on a bed in an almost hopeless state. Mr. Christie and his second then retired. Mr. Pettigrew, after having rendered all the assistance in his power to Mr. Scott, returned to town, in order to procure further surgical assistance, and to give directions that Mr. Scott’s apartments at Mr. Bohte’s, in York-street, Covent-garden, should be prepared for his reception, Mr. Scott having expressed a desire to be removed home. A short time after Mr. Pettigrew’s departure, however, it was found that he could not be removed with safety. On examination, it appeared that the ball had passed through the intestines, and lodged at 247the opposite side. The surgeons in attendance, however, deemed it prudent not to extract it, lest additional inflammation should be excited, and the danger, which was considered imminent, be thereby enhanced.

After Mr. Scott was wounded, Mr. Christie’s friend apprised Mr. Patmore, that, in the first fire, Mr. Christie did not direct his pistol at Mr. Scott; but this circumstance not having been observed by Mr. Patmore, nor communicated to him at the time, and the parties being still unreconciled, a second fire unfortunately took place, which terminated as above stated. On Sunday Mr. Guthrie extracted the ball. Mr. Scott lingered till Thursday, the 4th of March, when he expired. On the same evening, the coroner’s inquest sat on the body; upon which occasion Dr. Darling stated, that Mr. Scott, referring to his wound, had said, “This ought not to have taken place; I suspect some great mismanagement; there was no necessity for a second fire.” After a short pause, he proceeded—“All I required from Mr. Christie was a declaration, that he meant no reflection on my character; this he refused, and the meeting became inevitable: on the field Mr. Christie behaved well, and when all was ready for the fire, he called out—‘Mr. Scott, you must not stand there; I see your head above the horizon; you give me an advantage.’ I believe he could have hit me then if he liked. 248After the pistols were re-loaded, and every thing was ready for a second fire, Mr. Trail called out—‘Now, Mr. Christie, take your aim, and do not throw away your advantage, as you did before.’ I called out immediately, ‘What! did not Mr. Christie fire at me?’ I was answered by Mr. Patmore, ‘You must not speak; ’tis now of no use to talk; you have nothing now for it but firing.’ The signal was immediately given: we fired, and I fell.” The deceased expressed himself satisfied with Mr. Christie’s conduct; whom he described as having been very kind to him after he was wounded.

Mr. Pettigrew stated, that Mr. Christie asked him what he thought of the wound. He replied, that he feared it was mortal, in the hearing of Mr. Scott; when Mr. Christie addressed Mr. Scott, and expressed a wish “that he had been in Mr. Scott’s situation, rather than Mr. Scott should have been wounded by him.” Mr. Scott then said, “Whatever may be the issue of this business, I beg you will bear in remembrance, that everything has been fair and honourable.” On being asked, if he did not hear it said on the ground, by Mr. Christie, that he had fired down the field, he replied—“I did; to the best of my recollection, Mr. Christie said, wringing his hands, apparently in agony, ‘Why was I permitted to fire a second time? I discharged my pistol down the field before; I could do no more. I was compelled to fire in my own 249defence.’” These expressions were made in consequence of some altercation which took place between the seconds. Mr. Christie took Mr. Scott by the hand after he was wounded.—The Coroner having summed up the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of “wilful murder” against Mr. Christie, Mr. Trail, and Mr. Patmore.

On Friday, the 13th of April, Chief Justice Abbott and Mr. Justice Park having taken their seats on the bench, at the Old Bailey, Mr. Gurney, who was their counsel, announced that Mr. Christie and Mr. Trail attended to surrender and take their trials, upon an indictment found by the grand jury against them for murder. They were immediately placed at the bar, and pleaded “Not guilty.” Mr. Patmore did not make his appearance. The case for the prosecution was opened by Mr. Walford; who observed, that if the jury felt any doubts as to the identity of the prisoners, or thought the whole affair was gone through in heat, then they would acquit the gentlemen at the bar. Dr. Darling then repeated the evidence he had given before the coroner. After which, Mr. Christie and Mr. Trail being called on for their defence, stated, that they should only call witnesses to speak to their general character and habits of life. A number of most respectable persons then bore testimony to the general benevolence and humanity of their dispositions.

Chief Justice Abbott then, after stating to the 250jury the nature of the indictment, proceeded to instruct them as to the law of the case. The accusation charged three persons as aiding and concurring in the death of Mr. Scott: two individuals only appeared; but if the jury believed that the individuals at the bar were really two of those who had aided in the commission of the crime, it mattered not by whose particular hand the pistol had been discharged. The distinction, in cases of duels, between manslaughter and murder had been very clearly and correctly marked out by the learned counsel for the prosecution: if persons in heat of blood went out and fought with deadly weapons, then the law, allowing for the frailty of human nature, deemed the party killing guilty of manslaughter only; but if, yielding to a false notion of honour, they went out upon deliberation and in cold blood to fight, then the death of one man fixed the crime of the murder upon all concerned; upon seconds (frequently the more culpable parties) as well as upon principals. The first question then was, were the gentlemen at the bar two of the parties known to have been in the field at the time when the shot was fired? and next, was the duel fought in heat of blood or upon deliberation? His lordship then recapitulated the main points of the evidence, and upon that evidence left the fact of identity to the jury. It was possible, he said, that the real perpetrators of the crime might have escaped from the field before the arrival of Mr. 251Pettigrew, and that the prisoners at the bar might have appeared accidentally at the moment; still the onus of showing that such had been the case lay in some measure upon them. Upon the second point, the feeling under which (assuming the identity) the duel had taken place—of the time or place at which the quarrel originated there was no evidence. The declaration of Mr. Scott, at the moment of his fall, that all had been done fairly and honourably, was, although the law would not recognise such ideas of honour, entitled to the attention of the jury; and there was another circumstance, arising out of the words of the supposed Mr. Christie, to which their consideration should be directed. They were these—“Why was I allowed to fire a second time? I fired down the field at first; what could I do more? I was compelled to fire in my own defence.” Now, the circumstances were not such as would, in law, acquit a man as having fired in his own defence; but the words might have an operation upon the feeling under which the second shot had been fired. It was possible that Mr. Christie, having forborne to take aim the first time, might have fired his second shot under an impulse of immediate anger, produced by the failure of his pacific proceeding; and in that case, although his adversary fell, the crime amounted only to manslaughter. The Lord Chief Justice concluded by recommending the jury, in a case 252of doubt, to take the side of mercy; and by observing, upon the excellent characters which the prisoners had received, that, unfortunately, men of the most exemplary humanity and benevolent feeling were too often induced to take part in transactions which led to the loss of life on one side, and to remorse and repentance during life on the other.

The jury, after a deliberation of twenty-five minutes, returned a verdict of “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN VISCOUNT PETERSHAM AND THOMAS WEBSTER WEDDERBURNE, ESQ. April 21, 1821.

A paragraph having appeared in the public journals, alluding to an altercation between Lord Petersham and Mr. Webster Wedderburne, and hinting that his lordship had undergone personal chastisement, Mr. Wedderburne was called upon to contradict the statement in question. The following is the correspondence that passed between him and Lord Foley upon the occasion:—

“Sir,

“Upon my return home, at six o’clock this evening, I first saw your publication in this day’s morning paper, and, in consequence, lost no time in dispatching an express to Lord Petersham, at Brighton; who will instantly, upon receiving my letter, return to town, and that moment you shall hear from me. I write this, sir, to account for 253what may appear a delay on the part of Lord Petersham in not writing to you the moment your publication appeared.

“From yours, sir, &c.

“Foley.

“Hamilton-place, 7 o’clock, Thursday evening, April 19.

“P.S.—Lord Petersham cannot return before 7 or 8 to-morrow.”

“My Lord,

“I have this instant received your lordship’s letter, and beg to state that I shall be at home at all hours to-morrow, and ready to answer all communications.

I am, &c.

“T. Webster Wedderburne.

“April 19, 8 o’clock, P.M.”

“Sir,

“Owing to a mistake. Lord Petersham did not receive my letter till late this morning, consequently is only just arrived. He now desires me to say that it is absolutely necessary you should either send a friend to me, or fix a time and place of meeting to-morrow morning. I shall be at home till eleven this evening to receive your reply.

“From your humble servant,

“Foley.

“Hamilton-place, Friday evening, 7 o’clock, April 20.”

“My Lord,

“It was with much surprise, after having been detained at home the whole day, in consequence 254of your lordship’s note of last night, that I have received one from you this evening, desiring me either to send a friend to you, or to fix a time and place for meeting Lord Petersham to-morrow morning. Let Lord P. distinctly state the grounds on which he calls upon me, and my friend will then be ready to receive your lordship, or any communication on the part of Lord P.

“I am, &c.

“T. Webster Wedderburne.

“Friday evening, April 20.”

“Hamilton-place, Friday evening, half-past 10.

“Sir,

“It is with astonishment that I received your letter demanding an explanation of the ground upon which Lord Petersham now calls upon you for satisfaction. You have not contradicted, but encouraged a most scandalous and prejudicial report against his personal honour: he calls upon you positively to contradict it, or give him that satisfaction which is due to a gentleman falsely accused. The cause of your having been kept waiting during the day has clearly been explained; I must, therefore, now repeat the necessity of your immediately fixing upon the time and place of meeting to-morrow, or giving under your hand, for publication, a contradiction of that scandalous and false report before alluded to. Too much time has already been lost to attend to 255explanations that may, under some pretence, be withdrawn.

“From yours,

“Foley.

“P.S.—An immediate answer is expected to the above, directed to Brookes’s Club House, St. James’s-street.”

“To Lord Foley.

“I am perfectly of Lord Foley’s opinion, that too much time has been lost in this affair; but I beg to ask to whom is that delay to be ascribed? Since every circumstance has been made public, and since so much has passed between the parties, I considered it necessary, on that account alone, to demand ‘the distinct grounds on which Lord Petersham calls upon me.’ Lord Foley presents me with an alternative which is wholly out of the question. I am aware of no ‘false reports’ in currency against Lord Petersham, and if Lord Foley means that I could be capable of withdrawing any explanation I had once given, I must repel such an insinuation with indignation, and I will not permit any person to dictate that line of conduct to me which is alone consistent with my own honour to point out. I now, therefore, name three o’clock P.M., at Combe Wood, near Kingston, where I shall expect to meet Lord Petersham.

“T. Webster Wedderburne.”

256“I have received your letter, appointing three o’clock to-morrow afternoon, to meet Lord Petersham at Combe Wood, which shall be punctually complied with.

“From yours,

“Foley.

“Brookes’s, Friday night.”

A meeting, in consequence of the above correspondence, took place between the parties on the following afternoon, at three P.M., attended by Lord Foley and Mr. Kerr, the former as the friend of Lord Petersham, the latter as that of Mr. Webster Wedderburne; when, after exchanging two shots, each without effect, the seconds interfered, and the affair terminated.

BETWEEN M. MANUEL AND M. BEAUMONT. April 10, 1821.

The following singular and shocking duel took place in Paris. The circumstances which led to the sad result are extremely curious. One of the parties was M. Manuel, a Pole, a man of great respectability and of large fortune: he was about fifty years of age, and the father of six children, by the wife who survives him. M. Beaumont, the other party, is a single man, between thirty and forty, likewise of considerable property, and a native of Geneva. They were both exchange brokers.

About five or six months ago, M. Manuel, who lived on the most affectionate terms with his wife, 257received an anonymous letter, saying that she was unfaithful to him. He tore the letter with contempt, and dismissed the matter from his mind. In about a fortnight he received a second letter, containing the same intimation; and this he treated like the first. In a few days he received a third, which stated, that as he was too incredulous to be convinced, except by ocular proof, he might have that proof the very next day, if he chose. The writer then told him to go at two o’clock to a particular house in a particular street, and to make a certain signal which he described, and he would then have no doubt of the writer’s veracity. M. Manuel went accordingly at the time designated to the house in question, and made the described signal. The door was instantly opened by a female, whom he knew to be his wife, but who did not at first recognise him, but throwing herself into his arms called him by the name of Beaumont. The husband was now convinced. He determined to leave Paris immediately; he converted his French property into disposeable effects, and set off for his native place, Warsaw. Before he went, he proffered forgiveness to his wife, and even agreed to live with her, provided she would abandon her paramour. This the mother of six children refused to do; and the husband left Paris without her.

A few days before the fatal event he returned, and reappeared on the exchange. Here he met 258M. Beaumont: a violent altercation ensued; and the result was a challenge, and a positive agreement, that one at least should not come out of the field alive. They met the next morning, fired, and M. Manuel was killed on the spot by a pistol shot in the breast. M. Beaumont shortly after fled to Switzerland, to escape the storm of indignation which exhibited itself against him at Paris; his colleagues on the exchange having come to a resolution never to transact business with him again.

The following curious circumstance occurred at the funeral of M. Manuel. When the body arrived at the church of St. Denys, in the Rue Caumartin, the authorities refused to receive it, because M. Manuel had been killed in a duel. The populace, however, insisted on its being received, and, after some delay, it was taken in. It was then found that no priest was present to perform the necessary rites: a second disturbance took place, and at length one appeared, but not habited in his canonicals; a fresh outcry, however, induced the priest to robe himself, and the service was performed in the usual manner. The body was afterwards carried to the cemetery of Père la Chaise, and there interred.

259

BETWEEN MR. WILLIAM BRITTLEBANK AND MR. CUDDIE. May 22, 1821.

Mr. Cuddie, a Scotchman by birth, and a surgeon in the navy, came about four years before to reside at Winster, where he began to practise his profession. An attachment had subsisted for some time before his death between himself and Miss Brittlebank, the daughter of an eminent solicitor in the same town; and as she was in a delicate state of health, he had frequent opportunities of seeing her in his medical capacity. Mr. Cuddie’s attentions to the lady met with the decided disapprobation of her family, and it was expressed to him in the strongest terms. On Monday, the 21st of May, Mr. Cuddie and Miss Brittlebank were met, whilst walking together, by Mr. William Brittlebank, her brother; who took his sister away, after some harsh words had been exchanged between himself and Mr. Cuddie. So improper did the language of Mr. Cuddie appear to Mr. William Brittlebank, that he sent a challenge to him on the evening of the same day. To this Mr. Cuddie returned no answer, and another messenger was dispatched to him on the same errand the following morning, who was informed by Mr. Cuddie that he would not meet Mr. William Brittlebank, and therefore should not reply to his note. In consequence of this, Mr. Spencer, a surgeon, residing at Bakewell, a 260friend of both the parties, was sent for by Mr. W. Brittlebank. He came, and about three o’clock in the afternoon Mr. William and Mr. Francis Brittlebank, accompanied by Mr. Spencer, proceeded to Mr. Cuddie’s house. They were here joined by Mr. Andrew Brittlebank; when Mr. Spencer, going into the house, informed Mr. Cuddie, that he must either make some apology to Mr. William Brittlebank or fight. It is stated that he again declined to do either the one or the other. Subsequently, however, he appears to have consented to give Mr. W. Brittlebank the satisfaction he required: pistols were furnished by Mr. Spencer to the parties: they separated to a distance of fifteen yards on the gravel walk in Mr. Cuddie’s garden, and on the signal being given they fired. Mr. Cuddie unhappily received the shot of his antagonist in his bowels, and died on the following day.

A verdict of wilful murder was returned against the three brothers, Andrew, William, and Francis Brittlebank, and also against Mr. Spencer. Mr. W. Brittlebank had absconded. The other three were taken into custody, and conveyed to Derby jail.

The trial of the parties came on in August, before Mr. Justice Park, at the Derby Assizes. Mr. Denman said, it was his painful duty to state the circumstances of the case. The prisoners were to be tried for a crime that was considered 261one of the heaviest of which human nature was capable. A murder was charged to have been committed by Mr. William Brittlebank, and the prisoners stood on their trial for aiding, abetting, and assisting in the said murder. The deceased, Mr. Cuddie, had been a surgeon in the navy; he had retired on half-pay, and resided at Winster, where Mr. Brittlebank, the father of two of the prisoners, resided. Mr. Cuddie had been on intimate terms with the Brittlebanks, but their friendship had fallen off in consequence of the attention of the deceased to Miss Brittlebank, which had been disapproved by the family. On the 21st of May, the day before the death of Mr. Cuddie, a letter was brought to him by the servant of Mr. W. Brittlebank, complaining of an insult which he said he had received, and calling on the deceased to fight him, in order to expiate that insult. Mr. Cuddie refused to give any answer to the letter. In consequence of this, on the following day the prisoner Spencer, who had been sent for from Bakewell, arrived at Winster, and agreed to go with a message from Mr. W. Brittlebank, demanding that Cuddie should fight him or make an apology. Cuddie replied he had no apology to make, and would not meet Mr. Brittlebank. Spencer carried back this answer, and returned to Cuddie with a new message; and on the deceased repeating the determination which he had previously 262announced, he told him that Mr. W. Brittlebank was in the garden, and he might see and speak to him if he would not fight. These were facts to be proved by witnesses, and by the dying declaration of the deceased, which, by law, could be received as evidence. Cuddie went into the garden, where he found William Brittlebank, with his brothers Andrew and Francis, who had been seen to go from their house to that of Mr. Cuddie. Here Andrew Brittlebank appeared anxious to prevent the duel, by calling on Mr. Cuddie to make an apology. This he declined, and pistols were then produced; and Mr. W. Brittlebank having walked fifteen or sixteen yards from the deceased, both turned and fired, as he believed. A ball had been found near the spot on which Cuddie stood; one had been sought for, but in vain, near that where Mr. Brittlebank had taken his place. He, however, did not mean to attach importance to that circumstance; he believed that Mr. W. Brittlebank had exposed his own life to the same risk which he forced Mr. Cuddie to run. The contrary was no part of the case for the prosecution. When, however, four persons were found going to the house of one, for the purpose of forcing him to fight a duel, though the duel might be conducted most fairly, according to the laws of honour, it was murder, under certain circumstances, in the eye of the law. Mr. Cuddie received 263the ball fired from the pistol of William Brittlebank; he was then carried into the kitchen, he believed, by Spencer and Andrew Brittlebank. What followed would be proved by witnesses; and he expected it would be proved, that Andrew Brittlebank had at first denied having been present; but when the deceased stated him to be there, he then said, “Well, since you say so, did I not try to prevent the duel, by pressing you to offer something in the shape of an apology?” William Brittlebank had said, that the deceased must consider Spencer as his friend; and it would be shown, that when Cuddie, in a dying state, had been pressed to declare the duel had been a fair one, he declined doing so, though aware of his situation, sometimes by expressions, and at others by actions of dissent, such as shaking his head; and he certainly died without any such admission. Should the evidence fail to make out the charge, those concerned for the prosecution would be most happy to hear of a verdict of acquittal: should the facts be proved, their righteous verdict must be given; and, painful as it might be to themselves and all who heard it, they would have but one duty to perform.

A variety of witnesses were called, who proved the circumstances under which Mr. Cuddie lost his life. It appeared that he had received much provocation; but it appeared that the prisoners had endeavoured to give him every assistance 264after he received the wound. The following is a copy of the declaration made by Mr. Cuddie on his death-bed:—

“The declaration of William Cuddie, of Winster, surgeon, made before me, Philip Gell, Esq., one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the county of Derby, this 22nd day of May, 1821, who saith, that he was called upon by William Brittlebank, of Winster, to fight a duel, and that he wished to avoid doing so. That Edmund Spencer, of Bakewell, surgeon, came to him on the 22nd of May, instant, and told him that William Brittlebank and his brothers were in the garden waiting for him, and that he, William Cuddie, must make an apology, or fight. That he, William Cuddie, went to the garden, and refused to make an apology. That Edmund Spencer opened his coat and showed him two pistols, one of which he took, and William Brittlebank took the other; that they separated to the distance of fifteen yards, or more. That Edmund Spencer threw up his hat as a signal, and they both fired their pistols as near together as possible.”

The prisoners read written defences, in which they declared it to have been their object to prevent the duel, and procure an apology from the deceased. A number of persons of high respectability gave them excellent characters, and the judge having summed up, the jury, after an 265absence of an hour and twenty minutes, returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” in favour of the prisoners; who, deeply affected by their awful situation, on hearing the decision, which restored them to society, all bowed their heads, as in gratitude to the Almighty for their deliverance.

BETWEEN SIR ALEXANDER BOSWELL, BART., OF AUCHINLECK, AND MR. STUART, OF DUNCARN. March 26, 1822.

About eleven o’clock, a meeting took place at Auchtertool, near Balmuto, in Fifeshire, between Sir Alexander Boswell, of Auchinleck, Bart. eldest son of James Boswell, the biographer of Dr. Johnson, and James Stuart, Esq. of Duncarn. Sir Alexander was attended by the Hon. John Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, and Mr. Stuart by the Earl of Rosslyn. The ball of Mr. Stuart struck Sir Alexander in the shoulder, shattered the shoulder-blade, and was supposed to have entered the spine, as his limbs were quite paralysed. Sir Alexander was carried to Balmuto House, where he expired. The cause of this duel was a song which appeared in a Glasgow paper, called the Sentinel, on the 26th of December, and which Mr. Stuart ascertained to have been written by Sir Alexander. The manner in which Mr. Stuart became possessed of that information was through a person named Borthwick, concerned in the Sentinel at the time the 266article appeared in that paper. Borthwick delivered the papers into the hands of Mr. Stuart, and from these papers the discovery of the author of the article mentioned, as well as that of others, was made.

On the 10th of June, the trial of Mr. Stuart, for the wilful murder of Sir Alexander, took place in the High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh; present, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Hermand, Lord Gillies, Lord Pitmilly, and Lord Succoth. The indictment having been read, to which Mr. Stuart pleaded “Not guilty.”

Mr. Cockburn opened the case on the part of the defender. He stated, that all who knew Sir Alexander Boswell must be aware that he possessed, in a very extraordinary degree, the talent of irony. He then detailed the facts relative to the establishment of the Beacon and the Sentinel newspapers, the contributions of the deceased to those publications, and the manner in which Mr. Stuart obtained the fatal evidence. He next dwelt upon the urbanity and peace-making disposition of Mr. Stuart, and showed that the deceased had received no provocation from him, to justify the calumny in which he had indulged against the accused. Having read the opprobrious passages of the song, he contended, that those indignities imposed on Mr. Stuart the necessity of acting as he had done.

The Earl of Rosslyn deposed to the following 267facts:—At the desire of Mr. Stuart he waited on Sir Alexander Boswell to ask if he was the author of the articles in the Glasgow Sentinel. He told Sir Alexander, that if he would say he was not the writer, and had not sent them to the newspaper, that would be sufficient. Sir Alexander said it was a delicate affair, and he thought he should consult with a friend. He consulted Mr. Douglas, who afterwards told witness that he could not advise Sir Alexander to give any answer. Witness had copies of a song and a paper, signed “Ignotus” when he called on Sir Alexander. The song contained two direct imputations of cowardice. At the wish of Sir Alexander, who had affairs to settle, it was agreed between Mr. Douglas and witness, that a delay of fourteen days should take place, and that the meeting should be on the Continent. Witness subsequently asked Mr. Douglas, if there was not a possibility of not carrying the affair any further; and told him Mr. Stuart would be content to treat the song as a very bad joke, provided Sir Alexander would say he did not intend any reflection on Mr. Stuart’s courage. Mr. Douglas said, he had no hope that Sir Alexander would say any such thing. Sir Alexander changed his mind about meeting on the Continent; and it was finally settled that it should take place at Auchtertool. They met: the ground was measured twelve long paces. Witness gave the word: they fired, and Sir Alexander 268Boswell fell. Mr. Stuart advanced with great anxiety towards Sir Alexander, but witness hurried him to go away. Before any thing took place on the ground, Mr. Stuart asked witness if it was not fit that he should make a bow to Sir Alexander, and express his wish for a reconciliation. Witness thought it right. Mr. Stuart advanced towards Sir Alexander, apparently for that purpose: Sir Alexander’s back was then turned, and he appeared to be walking away from Mr. Stuart. In the whole of Mr. Stuart’s conduct there was no appearance of personal ill-will or resentment against Sir Alexander; but only an anxiety to defend his own character from the imputations with which it had been assailed, particularly from that of cowardice. His conduct, from first to last, was cool, composed, and temperate. On the field, witness desired him to present his side and not his bust: Mr. Stuart replied, “I do not think I ought to take an aim.” Never, from all his acquaintance with Mr. Stuart, knew a man less quarrelsome or less vindictive.

Mr. Douglas confirmed Lord Rosslyn’s statement respecting the interviews and conversations that had taken place. On their way to the ground Sir Alexander consulted witness as to firing in the air or not. Witness said he must consult his own feelings on that point. Sir Alexander said, he had, perhaps, in an unhappy moment, injured Mr. Stuart, and therefore he should fire in the air. 269Witness said that was exactly his opinion. After Sir Alexander fell, the only words he spoke to witness were, that he regretted he had not made his fire in the air more decided than it had been. On the journey to the ground, a conversation took place in the carriage, as to the possibility of an amicable adjustment. Sir Alexander said he was convinced there was not any: he did not know whether from an opinion that Mr. Stuart could do nothing else than fight, or whether from his own resolution: he rather thought the latter. Mr. Stuart conducted himself in every respect as became a man of honour and courage.

Dr. Wood said, he had accompanied Sir Alexander to the field; he did not see any pistols fired; he had instructed the other surgeon, that they ought to turn their backs and not see the firing, but that as soon as they heard the report they should turn, and run to the spot as speedily as possible. The pistols were fired in quick succession: on going to the spot, they found Sir Alexander wounded in the shoulder; they extracted two pieces of bone; the first was extracted by himself, and the other by Mr. Liston: he accompanied Sir Alexander to Balmuto House, and attended him till three the next day; when he died. In the carriage, on the way to the ground, Sir Alexander expressed his decided opinion, that Mr. Stuart could have done nothing else but call him out. He also declared his intention to fire in 270the air, and on getting out of the carriage he said, “Now, gentlemen, observe that it is my fixed resolution to fire in the air.”

Mr. Liston, surgeon, said that Mr. Stuart called upon him on the morning of the 26th of March, and requested him to go to the country with him; and, when on the Fife side, he informed him he was to fight a duel with Sir Alexander Boswell. He said he had no malice against Sir Alexander, and if he had the misfortune to hit him, he wished it might be on the great toe, as a gentleman in England had done lately on a similar occasion.

A letter from Sir Alexander Boswell to Robert Maconochie, Esq. dated the 24th of March, was put in, containing the following passage:—“Last night, on my arrival, I received a letter from Lord Rosslyn, that he wished me to appoint an hour as early as possible, that he might make a communication to me; this, I suppose, is in reference to some of these squibs. I do not know who the offended party may be; but even if it should be Mr. James Stuart himself, I shall give him a meeting. In order, however, to obviate many of those circumstances which follow such transactions, I mean that the meeting shall take place on the Continent, say Calais; and I wish to put your friendship so far to the test, as to request you to be my friend on this occasion. If I had deemed it expedient to meet my man here, John Douglas would have gone out with me; but if I 271should be the successful shot, I should not like the after proceedings of our courts of law, and therefore wish to pass beyond their jurisdiction. I know nothing of particulars yet, but write in prudent anticipation. I know this is perhaps the greatest favour that can be asked of any man; but by this arrangement you will be implicated in less trouble, and you won’t mind a trip to France. If my wish is acceded to, I would propose the meeting to take place about fifteen days hence, as I wish to make a slight arrangement respecting my estate, and legalise it by going to kirk and market.”—After a number of witnesses had been examined, who all bore testimony to Mr. Stuart’s high character for goodness of temper, kindness of disposition, and honourable and upright conduct.

The Lord Advocate said, that the charge of murder, according to law, having been fully proved, the next question was, what defence had been set up in behalf of the prisoner. The law knew of no other ground of exculpation, unless a justification founded on self-defence; but there were no circumstances to warrant such an argument in the present case.

Mr. Jeffrey said, it was not necessary for him to state, that the essence of all crime lay in the motive; and, after all they had heard, it could not be disputed that Mr. Stuart went to the ground without one atom of malice. They had 272been told, that a duel was an irrational, barbarous, and pernicious practice; and that he who took it upon himself to send or accept a challenge was guilty of murder. He did not mean to offer any apology for the practice. The evils of duelling were ever uppermost in our view; but this prevented us from noticing, that it had proved the corrective of greater immoralities. It was known by those versed in history, that it had superseded the practice of private assassinations. That a person might not kill another, unless in self-defence, without incurring the crime of murder, was contrary to the fact. It might be done in defence of personal property on a nocturnal assault: a soldier on sentry, or a constable to prevent a rescue, might justly kill. And if, in such circumstances, it is permissible, you place a man in a painful dilemma, if, when made by the libeller an outcast of society, exposed to daily insult, shrunk from by friends, and met with the blushes of relations, you deprive him of the only means of wiping away those stains, and vindicating his character to the world. The analogy of the law, the reason of the thing, and the feelings of all mankind are against you. In the short reign of Henry the Fourth of France, about four thousand persons were calculated to have fallen in single combat; while, in our own country, during one of the longest reigns, that of George the Third, only sixty or seventy were said to have fallen; a fact 273which showed, that the practice did not prevail to any alarming extent.

The Lord Justice Clerk then proceeded to detail the evidence, and to illustrate the law as it bore on the case in question. It was, he said, his bounden duty to state to them what the law of Scotland was, in relation to such an unfortunate affair as had come before them that day: but instead of stating the law in his own words, he would rather lay it before them in the words of the best authors on criminal law, and the first to whom he would refer was Sir George Mackenzie, who had laid it down as clear and decided law, that killing in a duel was murder, and quoted several cases in support of this opinion. The next author to whom he would refer the jury was Mr. Baron Hume, the standard authority on criminal law in Scotland. From the quotations read by the Lord Justice Clerk, it was clear that Mr. Hume completely coincided with Sir George Mackenzie as to the ancient practice: Mr. Hume states, that in later times, some juries had taken upon them to deliver verdicts of not guilty in such cases; but he clearly states, that such decisions were not in conformity to the strict law of Scotland. Mr. Burnet, also a valuable author, expressed himself much to the same effect with the other authors. The law, therefore, on such matters, he considered to be quite settled. The indictment charged Mr. Stuart with malice, but 274there was not even an attempt to substantiate that part of it. On the contrary, it appeared that he was utterly ignorant who the author of the calumnies was, before he saw the papers in Glasgow. The jury would also keep in view the nature of the offers made by Mr. Stuart, his conduct in the field, as well as after the sad event; the contrition he expressed for the fatal blow, and the total absence of all vindictive feelings on his part. In the whole course of his practice he never had heard higher, or more distinct and discriminate praise bestowed on any character; and, in good taste, the evidence on this part of the case consisted of gentlemen, who were opponents to the prisoner in politics. He lamented, and the public groaned under, the lamentable licentiousness of the press: he hoped it would cease.

The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation, without leaving the box, returned an unanimous verdict of “Not Guilty.” The Lord Justice Clerk, then turning to Mr. Stuart, congratulated him on the favourable result.

BETWEEN THE DUKE OF BEDFORD AND THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM. May 2, 1822.

On Thursday, the 2nd of May, the following statement appeared in the evening papers:—“We are authorised to state, that a meeting took place this morning between the Duke of Bedford and 275the Duke of Buckingham, accompanied by Lord Lyndock and Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, in consequence of words uttered by the former at the Bedford County Meeting. Both parties fired together at the distance of twelve paces, on a word given, but without effect; when the Duke of Buckingham, observing that the Duke of Bedford fired into the air, advanced to his Grace, and remarking, that for that reason the thing could go no further, said, ‘My Lord Duke, you are the last man I wish to quarrel with; but you must be aware, that a public man’s life is not worth preserving unless with honour.’ Upon which the Duke of Bedford declared, ‘upon his honour, that he meant no personal offence to the Duke of Buckingham, nor to impute to him any bad or corrupt motive whatever.’ The parties then shook hands, and the whole business was terminated most satisfactorily.”

The following are the words used by the Duke of Bedford at the County Meeting:—“He would now advert to another transaction which he was almost ashamed to mention: he alluded to a great borough proprietor, now a noble duke, whose services, and the services of whose adherents in parliament, had been purchased by Government by conferring high offices on those adherents. It was an odious thing to mention these circumstances, but he introduced them for the purpose of asking whether, if a reform had been effected, 276such transactions could possibly happen? The noble duke’s family and connections were, of course, sent back to their constituents, when they accepted of place; because, when a member of the House took office, he must return to his constituents, to know whether they would re-elect him. But how were the individuals in question sent back? They were not sent back to the people of England; they were not sent back to those who were free to choose or to reject them: no, they were sent back to the borough proprietor, to their own patron, to the person who had engaged in the corrupt traffic; who had, in fact, made the bargain with Ministers. He would again ask, could such a circumstance possibly occur, if a reform were effected in the Commons’ House?”

The Duke of Buckingham addressed a letter to the Duke of Bedford, demanding whether this language was used in allusion to him. The Duke of Bedford answered that it was, and that he stated the facts because he believed them to be true. A challenge was, in consequence, sent and accepted. The duel took place in Kensington Gardens, at a retired spot previously fixed upon. The Duke of Bedford left St. James’s-square, at half-past seven on Thursday morning, accompanied by Lord Lyndock, and drove directly to Kensington Gardens; where the Duke of Buckingham arrived about the same time, attended by Sir Watkin Williams Wynn.

277

BETWEEN M. BENJAMIN CONSTANT AND M. FORBIN DES ISSARTS. June 6, 1822.

On the 6th of June, after the sitting of the Chamber of Deputies, Benjamin Constant, the celebrated French political writer, demanded satisfaction of M. Forbin des Issarts, for a letter inserted in the Paris journal, the Quotidienne of the preceding day. Without any other explanation, the honourable deputies proceeded on the following morning to the ground. M. Benjamin Constant was accompanied by General Sebastiani and M. Girardin, and M. Forbin des Issarts by General the Count de Bethisy and Colonel Chemoin. M. Benjamin Constant being lame, he and his adversary were placed at ten paces distant on chairs. They fired together by signal: neither was hurt, and M. Benjamin Constant appearing satisfied, the seconds decided that the combat ought to terminate. According to the French journals, nothing could exceed the sang-froid that was manifested by the honourable deputies.

BETWEEN M. PINAC AND AN ENGLISHMAN. July, 1822.

The following account of a fatal duel which took place in the town of Bagnères, in the department of Upper Pyrenees, is given in a letter to the editor of the Journal des Débats, of the 29th of 278July:—“A deplorable event has just taken place in this town. The unfortunate young Pinac was interred this day; having been killed in a duel with an Englishman. The affair did not arise out of any personal quarrel. The Englishman, whose name is not known, being in the reading-room of Frescati, wrote on the margin of a pamphlet relating to the battle of Toulouse, that ‘Every thing in it was false; that Lord Wellington had gained a complete victory; and that the French army was indebted to his generosity for not having been put to the sword.’ M. Pinac, a young officer, not in actual service, on being made acquainted with this circumstance, called the Englishman to account for having written these words. The authorities did every thing in their power to prevent the duel; but their precautions proved ineffectual, and Pinac, having received a ball in his belly, died some hours afterwards.”

BETWEEN GENERAL PEPE AND GENERAL CARASCOSA. February, 1823.

In the year 1821, the Neapolitan general, Carascosa, announced his determination of calling out Lieutenant-General Pepe, late commander of the Neapolitan forces. Very shortly after General Pepe’s arrival in London, which was on the 1st of February, 1823, he received a letter from General Carascosa, in which that officer, after 279charging General Pepe with conduct injurious to his reputation, avowed his opinion that military revolutions were, in all cases, contrary to the principles of honour; and that any change in the government of Naples was unnecessary, still less in that of Spain. The letter concluded with a challenge in the usual terms. To this letter General Pepe replied, by declaring his opinion, that every free state was indebted for its liberty to military revolution, not excepting even England; that the Spaniards were now a prey to civil anarchy, only because certain individuals calling themselves Liberals were, in fact, hostile to the constitution of the Cortes; and that he had employed the authority which his rank and his command had given him at Naples, to resist the despotism of a government which, while it rendered the people miserable, was of no actual advantage to the reigning dynasty. He concluded by accepting the challenge.

On the 20th of February, the generals met. Count Santa Rosa, ex-minister of war of Piedmont, attended General Pepe, and M. Brunet, a French gentleman, General Carascosa. The weapons were swords, and the combatants engaged; but at the second pass, General Pepe’s sword snapped short near the guard; upon which the seconds interfered, and the combat, as is usual in such cases, was deferred.

A second meeting took place on the 28th of 280February, not far from Kew Bridge. On engaging, General Carascosa attacked with great impetuosity; but after several passes on both sides, General Pepe, seizing his adversary’s sword with his left hand, disarmed him, and placing the point of his sword at his breast, had his life in his power. Here the affair would have terminated, but General Carascosa, on recovering his sword, renewed the combat; which was warmly maintained, until he was finally disabled by a thrust from General Pepe in the right shoulder. General Pepe, seeing his adversary incapable of further defence, declined availing himself of his advantage; and thus the duel terminated.

BETWEEN COLONEL GRAVES AND CAPTAIN LACY. May, 1823.

The following account of the proceedings taken by the Superior Court of Law for New Kent County, in consequence of a projected duel between Colonel Graves and Captain Lacy, is from the Virginia Times, of the 23d of May:—The Superior Court of Law for New Kent County tried and determined five several presentments, found by the grand jury against Colonel Richard Graves, in each of which the defendant was charged with a violation of the act to suppress duelling. The case, during the last session of the legislature, had been laid before that body by Captain Archibald Lacy, with the view of removing 281Colonel Graves from his seat. The several presentments charged Richard Graves; first, with sending a challenge to Archibald Lacy to fight a duel; second, to fight a duel with poison; third, with sending a challenge to Archibald Lacy to fight a duel in the following manner—that two cups should be filled, the one with pure water and the other with deadly poison, and that two tickets should be rolled up and put in a hat, and they, Graves and Lacy, should draw lots who should drink the cup of poison; fourth, with sending a challenge to fight a duel with knives, &c.; and fifth, for challenging him to draw a lot for a cup of poison, which cup was to be drunk by the person to whom the same should fall by allotment.

To these charges the defendant pleaded not guilty; and the evidence went to establish the said charges. Verdict, “Not Guilty.”

BETWEEN THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. BATTIER. May 6, 1824.

A duel took place between the Marquis of Londonderry and Ensign Battier, late a cornet of the 10th Royal Hussars, in consequence of a letter which he had published, in reference to his dispute with the officers of that regiment, in which he had stated, that the noble lord “sheltered himself under his rank.” Sir Henry Hardinge, 282Secretary to the Ordnance, was the Marquis’s second, and the second of Mr. Battier was Colonel Western. They met at a distance of ten paces. Sir Henry gave the choice of his pistols to Colonel Western. The word was given. Lord Londonderry’s shot passed Mr. Battier on the right; while Mr. Battler’s pistol missed fire. The marquis requested his antagonist might have another shot; but this Colonel Western declined, on the part of Mr. Battier, and thus the firing ended.

On the 13th of May the following General Order was issued from the Horse Guards:—“The Commander-in-chief having received a report from Lieutenant-General the Marquis of Londonderry, that his lordship had accepted a challenge to fight a duel with Ensign Battier, late a cornet of the 10th Royal Hussars, upon a point which his lordship considered to be one of military duty, his Royal Highness has felt it incumbent upon him to submit to the King a transaction at variance with the principles of subordination, and therefore of a tendency injurious to the discipline of the army. The King has consequently conveyed to his Royal Highness his Majesty’s commands, to express his Majesty’s concern and displeasure, that an officer of Lord Londonderry’s high rank and military reputation should have committed himself in personal collision with an inferior officer, by accepting a challenge for any supposed aggression proceeding 283from the exercise of his authority as Colonel of the Regiment.”

The London Gazette of the 18th announced that the name of Mr. Battier was erased from the half-pay list of the army.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN GOURLAY AND MR. WESTALL. October 30, 1824.

At the preceding Doncaster races, a Mr. Westall lost a bet of seventy guineas to Capt. Gourlay, who also lost a bet at the same time to a friend of Mr. Westall. Captain Gourlay and Mr. Westall met at the Bull Inn, Edinburgh, recognising each other with apparent friendship. After some conversation, the Captain reminded Mr. Westall of his bet; which that gentleman acknowledged, but added, that he was authorised by his friend to set off the bet which he had won from Captain Gourlay, against that which he, Mr. Westall, had lost. An altercation ensuing, the Captain applied the term swindler to Mr. Westall; who, in return, called the Captain a liar. On this the Captain, snatching up the poker, made a blow at Mr. Westall’s head: the poker missed its aim, but descending on his shoulder, was snapped in two by the force of the blow; which, for some minutes, rendered him insensible. On recovering, Mr. Westall went into the coffee-room; where, after much warm language, a meeting was arranged. 284The parties met at South Ferry; and, together with their seconds, crossed in the boat, and proceeded to an eminence; where, preliminaries being adjusted, the parties took their stations, and Captain Gourlay, receiving Mr. Westall’s ball, fell dead upon the spot.

BETWEEN MR. LAMBTON, AFTERWARDS EARL OF DURHAM, AND MR. BEAUMONT. July 1, 1826.

At Alnwick, on the 30th of June, after the close of the election for the county of Northumberland, at which Mr. Beaumont, Mr. Liddell, Mr. Bell, and Lord Howick were the candidates, Mr. Beaumont, while Lord Howick was addressing the freeholders, advanced and said, “I will now drag forth, not Lord Howick, but the head and front of all these proceedings. I accuse Mr. Lambton of prompting Lord Howick; which I have seen him do at every sentence of his speech.” Mr. Lambton declared he had not. Upon which, Mr. Beaumont called out, “Mr. Lambton, gentlemen, says it is not the fact; I say it is false.” Mr. Lambton instantly stepped forward and said, “I am ready to wave any intention of addressing you upon a matter relating personally to myself, being perfectly confident, that what has just occurred requires a very different answer from any which it can receive from these hustings, and which, let Mr. Beaumont be assured, it most certainly shall 285have. Can any one who heard Lord Howick believe that he wanted any man’s whisper to give utterance to his sentiments? Whatever may be Mr. Beaumont’s reasons for his conduct, if he wishes to engage in a private quarrel, he shall not be baulked.”

Upon leaving the hustings, Mr. Lambton, accompanied by the Hon. Charles Grey, retired to a house, to which all the efforts of his family to trace him were ineffectual. At length it was ascertained that he had dispatched Captain Bacon Grey to Mr. Beaumont, desiring that gentleman to hold a friend in readiness to receive an immediate communication from General Grey, for whom the Hon. Charles Grey had rode off express to Howick. In less than an hour the General arrived in Alnwick, and had a conference with Captain Plunkett, on the part of Mr. Beaumont. The result was, an appointment for a hostile meeting at nine o’clock, at the Moor, three miles from the town. On reaching the ground, Mr. Lambton did not find Mr. Beaumont; but he shortly after received a communication from him by Captain Plunkett, stating that the Captain, finding Mr. Beaumont beset by a crowd on the way, had advised him to return, as no doubt the meeting would be disturbed. They, therefore, made the best of their way to Belford, North Durham; from which they passed to a field adjoining the strand at Bamborough; where, about three in 286the afternoon, and amidst heavy rain, Mr. Lambton and Mr. Beaumont were placed on the ground, at a distance of twelve paces, and immediately exchanged shots, without effect. Captain Plunkett was preparing to re-load Mr. Beaumont’s pistol, when General Grey stepped up to him, and said that enough had been done for the honour of the parties, and that Mr. Lambton had never thought of requiring an apology. Captain Plunkett replied, that his friend was there for the purpose of giving satisfaction; but that if General Grey thought proper to withdraw Mr. Lambton, he, Captain Plunkett, must necessarily withdraw Mr. Beaumont. Mr. Lambton was then withdrawn; and here the matter terminated to the satisfaction, it was believed, of all present, though not a word passed between the principals.

The following is the official statement signed by the seconds:—“In consequence of some language which occurred on the hustings at Alnwick yesterday, a meeting took place this afternoon at Bamborough, between John George Lambton, Esq., M.P., and Thomas Wentworth Beaumont, Esq., when, after an exchange of shots, the affair terminated to the satisfaction of the seconds.—July 1, 1826.”

287

BETWEEN THE MARQUIS DE LIVRON AND M. DU TRONE. November 18, 1826.

A duel between the Marquis de Livron and M. Du Trone took place at mid-day, in the forest of Senart, near the château of Madame de Cayla. The whole affair had the appearance of an act of madness, and resembled more a tournament than a modern duel. M. Du Trone, the young advocate, was habited in the costume of a Greek chief: each combatant was mounted on horseback, and had three seconds. The parties were armed with sabres, and, on the onset, M. Livron was dismounted by the concussion of the horses. Both were slightly wounded, and the seconds then thought proper to interfere. What adds to the singularity of this duel is, that it took place in the presence of a hundred and fifty spectators.

BETWEEN MR. BRIC AND MR. HAYES. December 26, 1826.

At Dublin, on the 26th of December, Mr. Bric, the counsellor, fell a victim to false notions of honour. On the preceding day, he was returning from the post-office, when the Cork mail drove up. Mr. Hayes, with other gentlemen, were talking of the contested election at Cork; and the majority of Hutchinson over Callaghan being announced, Mr. Bric said, rather hastily, that “he rejoiced at the prospect of the defeat of 288that rascal Callaghan;” alluding to his decided hostility to the claims of the Roman Catholics. Mr. Hayes, a cousin and active friend of Mr. Callaghan, looking at Mr. Bric, replied, “Whoever calls Mr. Callaghan a rascal is a scoundrel and liar.” He then handed his card to Mr. Bric, who returned his own. On the following morning, at half-past seven, they met in a field near the Broadstone, at Phibsborough, on the north side of the town. The ground being measured, the combatants took their position. Mr. Bric was previously observed to shake hands with several of his friends, the sight of whom agitated him a little. He mistook the signal “present” for “fire,” and for an instant elevated his pistol; but, discovering his mistake, again dropped it, and apologized for having been premature. The signal was given immediately afterwards. Mr. Bric fired: his ball entered the earth, and after drawing the trigger, he wheeled round and threw up his left arm, thereby exposing his person to his adversary’s fire. Mr. Hayes’s ball entered Mr. Bric’s left side, and, passing through his body came out under his left arm. He reeled, dropped his pistol, and went down gently. He at first was not conscious of the extent of his danger, and said rather calmly, he hoped the wound would not prove serious. The surgeons, however, on examining it, pronounced it fatal; and he expired in less than an hour. Mr. Bric was a native of 289Tralee. In 1819, he came to England, and attached himself, in quality of reporter, to one of the London daily journals. On his return to Dublin in 1824, he was called to the bar, and almost immediately took a leading part in the agitation of the Roman Catholic question.

BETWEEN M. GOULARD AND M. CAIRE. February 21, 1827.

The following duel took place near Paris. A student of pharmacy, named Goulard, while playing at billiards, quarreled with a young medical student of the name of Caire. Their mutual friends having in vain tried every means of persuasion to prevent the consequences of the dispute, accompanied the young men without the walls of Paris. Goulard seemed disposed to submit to an arrangement, but Caire absolutely refused. The seconds measured the ground, and the first shot having been won by Goulard, he fired, and Caire fell down dead. Goulard did not appear during the prosecution; he continued absent on the day fixed for judgment, and the court, conformably to the code of criminal proceedings, pronounced on the charge, without the intervention of a jury. It acquitted Goulard of premeditation; but condemned him, for contumacy, to perpetual hard labour, and to be branded.

290

BETWEEN THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON AND THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA. March 21, 1829.

In consequence of the part which the Duke of Wellington took, as Minister of the country, in bringing in the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, the Earl of Winchilsea, who was strongly opposed to the measure, addressed a letter, on the 14th of March, to the Secretary of the Committee for establishing the King’s College, London, which contained the following passage:—

“I was one of those who, at first, thought the proposed plan might be practicable, and prove an antidote to the principles of the London University. I was not, however, very sanguine in my expectations, seeing many difficulties likely to arise in the execution of the suggested arrangement; and I confess that I felt rather doubtful as to the sincerity of the motives that had actuated some of the prime movers in this undertaking, when I considered that the noble Duke at the head of his Majesty’s Government had been induced, on this occasion, to assume a new character, and to step forward himself as the public advocate of religion and morality. Late political events have convinced me, that the whole transaction was intended as a blind to the Protestant and high-church party; that the noble Duke, who had, for some time previous to that period, 291determined upon ‘breaking in upon the constitution of 1688,’ might the more effectually, under the cloak of some outward show of zeal for the Protestant religion, carry on his insidious designs for the infringement of our liberties, and the introduction of Popery into every department of the state.”

This letter was published in the newspapers, and gave rise to the following correspondence:—

(1.) FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA.

“London, March 16, 1829.

“My Lord,

“I have just perused, in the Standard newspaper of this day, a letter addressed to Henry Nelson Coleridge, Esq., dated Eastwell Park, March 14, signed Winchilsea and Nottingham; and I shall be very much obliged to your lordship if you will let me know whether that letter was written by you, and published by your authority.

I am, &c. Wellington.”

(2.) FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.

“London, March 18, 1829.

“My Lord,

“I wrote to your lordship, on the 16th, a letter, of which I enclose a duplicate, as, not having yet received an answer from your lordship, I am apprehensive that the original may not have reached you, although I directed it to 292your house in Suffolk Street. I am just going to Windsor to attend his Majesty, but I shall be in town this night.

I am, &c.

“Wellington.”

(3.) FROM THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

“Eastwell Park, March 18, 1829.

“My Lord,

“The enclosed is a copy of the answer which I returned, by this day’s post, to your grace’s letter, which only reached me this morning. I intend leaving this place for London to-morrow morning, and expect to be at 7, Suffolk Street, between four and five in the afternoon. I have, &c.

“Winchilsea and Nottingham.”

(4.) FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.

“Eastwell Park, Ashford, March 18, 1829.

“My Lord,

“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your grace’s letter of the 16th instant, and I beg to inform you that the letter addressed to H. N. Coleridge, Esq. was inserted in the Standard by my authority. As I had publicly given my approbation and sanction to the establishment of the King’s College, London, last year, by his Grace the Duke of Wellington’s becoming a subscriber to it, I thought it incumbent upon me, in withdrawing my name, also publicly to state my reasons for so doing.

“I have, &c.

Winchilsea and Nottingham.”

293(5.) FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA.

“London, March 19.

“My Lord,

“I have had the honour of receiving your lordship’s letter of the 18th instant. Your lordship is certainly the best judge of the mode to be adopted of withdrawing your name from the list of subscribers to the King’s College. In doing so, however, it does not appear necessary to impute to me, in no measured terms, disgraceful and criminal motives for my conduct in the part which I took in the establishment of the college. No man has a right, whether in public or in private, by speech, or in writing, or in print, to insult another, by attributing to him motives for his conduct, public or private, which disgrace or criminate him. If a gentleman commits such an act indiscreetly, in the heat of debate, or in a moment of party violence, he is always ready to make reparation to him whom he may thus have injured. I am convinced that your lordship will, upon reflection, be anxious to relieve yourself from the pain of having thus insulted a man who never injured or offended you.

I have, &c.

“Wellington.”

Sir Henry Hardinge delivered No. 5. to the Earl of Winchilsea, and was referred by his 294lordship to the Earl of Falmouth. The following memorandum is the substance of the communication made by Sir Henry Hardinge to Lord Falmouth.

(6.) MEMORANDUM OF SIR HENRY HARDINGE.

“March 19, 8 o’clock, evening.

“Lord Falmouth having expressed a desire to know the extent of reparation that would be expected, two suggestions, of what appeared to Sir Henry Hardinge to be the most natural mode of reparation, were drawn out, upon the distinct understanding that they were not made with a view to confine Lord Winchilsea’s explanation, either as to the terms or manner therein stated, but as suggestions as to the course which might be pursued in bringing the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Sir Henry Hardinge, therefore, on the part of the Duke of Wellington, expects one of the two following alternatives:—Either that Lord Winchilsea should forthwith write to the Secretary of the King’s College, and express his desire to withdraw his public letter, as one which attributed motives highly offensive to the Duke of Wellington, and stating also that, upon reflection, he was not justified in attributing such motives to his grace, and therefore expresses his regret at having done so; or, that Lord Winchilsea should write directly to the Duke of Wellington himself, and make the same 295acknowledgments to his grace, with a similar expression of his regret for having attributed motives highly offensive to his grace, relating to the occasion of his grace having presided at the meeting of the King’s College in ——, last, —— [which motives he is now sensible he was not justified in imputing to his grace]. In either case, it is expected that a letter, so written, should be published by the Secretary of the London College in the Standard, being the same paper as that which contained Lord Winchilsea’s original letter.

“Thursday, half past nine o’clock, evening.”

“Friday morning, March 20. The paragraph within crotchets was not desired to be retained in the last interview with Lord Falmouth last night.

H. H.”

(7.) MEMORANDUM OF LORD WINCHILSEA.

“March 19.

“Whether I may determine to give an explanation of my letter published in the Standard on Monday last, will depend upon the correctness of my belief that I had grounds for the opinions complained of by the noble duke, as therein supposed. I am ready to allow that I was mistaken in my view of the noble duke’s conduct, as expressed in my letter to Mr. Coleridge, on the 14th instant, and to state my regret at having 296so expressed it, provided the noble duke will state on his part, that at the time he came forward to preside at the meeting for the establishment of King’s College, London, he did not contemplate the measures which are now in progress for Roman Catholic emancipation; or, to use Mr. Peel’s words, ‘for breaking in upon the constitution of 1688;’ but without some statement to that effect from the noble duke, I cannot withdraw the expressions contained in the above letter.

Winchilsea.”

(8.) MEMORANDUM OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

“London, March 20, 1829, in the morning.

“Sir Henry Hardinge has read me a memorandum written by Lord Winchilsea, and delivered to him by Lord Falmouth, from which it appears that his lordship is anxious that I should justify myself from the charges against me contained in his lordship’s address to Mr. Coleridge, published in the Standard newspaper. I may lament that a nobleman for whom I feel the highest respect, entertains a bad opinion of me; but I do not complain, so long as that opinion is not brought before me. I cannot admit that any man has a right to call me before him to justify myself from the charges which his fancy may suggest. That of which I complain is, that the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham should 297have published an opinion, that I was actuated by disgraceful and criminal motives in a certain transaction which took place nearly a year ago. His lordship, unprovoked, has insulted me by stating in writing, and authorising the publication of, this opinion. For this insult I believed, and am not willing to part with the belief, that his lordship will be anxious to give me reparation.

W.”

(9.) MEMORANDUM OF SIR HENRY HARDINGE.

“Friday, March 20.

“Sir Henry Hardinge delivered to Lord Falmouth a memorandum, on the 20th of March, from the Duke of Wellington, in reply to one from Lord Winchilsea last night; in the latter of which it was proposed, as a preliminary to any explanation, that the Duke of Wellington should disclaim having contemplated the intentions attributed to his grace by Lord Winchilsea, which mode of reparation was considered inadmissible. In the memorandum of the Duke of Wellington, his grace states that his cause of complaint is in the publication of opinions highly offensive to him. Whenever, therefore, any terms or mode of reparation, which Lord Winchilsea may be disposed to offer, are communicated to Sir Henry Hardinge, he will make them known to the Duke of Wellington, and inform 298Lord Winchilsea whether they are satisfactory or not.

Henry Hardinge.

“N.B. The original of this delivered to Lord Falmouth.”

(10.) MEMORANDUM OF THE EARL OF FALMOUTH.

“March 20, one o’clock.

“Out of respect for the Duke of Wellington, Lord Falmouth has taken to Lord Winchilsea the Duke of Wellington’s memorandum, put into his hands by Sir Henry Hardinge this morning at the War-office, with Sir Henry’s own note thereon. In reply, Lord Winchilsea does not feel himself in a situation to comply with the expectation therein expressed, as to the withdrawal of his public letter. Lord Winchilsea, therefore, desires that Lord Falmouth will decline so doing on his (Lord W’s) behalf.

“Falmouth.”

(11.) FROM SIR H. HARDINGE TO LORD FALMOUTH.

“21st March, two o’clock.

“My Lord,

“I feel it to be my duty, before I make a final communication to your lordship, to ascertain, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that Lord Winchilsea declines to give the reparation which the Duke of Wellington considers himself entitled to receive. I am, my lord, your obedient servant.

Henry Hardinge.”

299(12.) FROM LORD FALMOUTH TO SIR HENRY HARDINGE.

“London, March 20, 1829, half past three, P.M.

“Sir,

“In reply to your note, stating that you wish to ascertain positively whether Lord Winchilsea declines to give the reparation which the Duke of Wellington considers himself entitled to receive, I feel myself unable to say more than to refer you to the note which I delivered to you, as signed by him, in answer to the Duke of Wellington’s memorandum of this day; and that if by the word ‘reparation,’ any withdrawal of Lord Winchilsea’s public letter, or expression of regret for its contents, be expected, he does not feel himself in a situation to comply with such expectation. I am, sir, your obedient humble servant,

Falmouth.”

(13.) FROM SIR HENRY HARDINGE TO THE EARL OF FALMOUTH.

“11, Whitehall Place, March 20, 1829.

“My Lord,

“I send your lordship a letter from the Duke of Wellington to Lord Winchilsea. I communicated to his grace the note of three, P.M., declining on Lord W.’s part to make any reparation, or give any explanation, &c. of his lordship’s conduct towards the Duke of Wellington; and, in order to avoid the possibility of any mistake, I repeat what has already been verbally arranged 300between us, that the Duke of Wellington will be at the place appointed at eight o’clock to-morrow morning.

H. Hardinge.”

(14.) FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO LORD WINCHILSEA.

“London, March 20, half-past six, P.M.

“My Lord,

“Sir Henry Hardinge has communicated to me a memorandum, signed by your lordship, dated one, P.M., and a note from Lord Falmouth, dated three, P.M. Since the insult, unprovoked on my part, and not denied by your lordship, I have done every thing in my power to induce your lordship to make me reparation, but in vain. Instead of apologising for your own conduct, your lordship has called upon me to explain mine. The question for me now to decide is this—Is a gentleman, who happens to be the King’s minister, to submit to be insulted by any gentleman who thinks proper to attribute to him disgraceful or criminal motives for his conduct as an individual? I cannot doubt of the decision which I ought to make on this question. Your lordship is alone responsible for the consequences, I now call upon your lordship to give me that satisfaction for your conduct which a gentleman has a right to require, and which a gentleman never refuses to give. I have the honour, &c.

“Wellington.”

301(15.) FROM LORD FALMOUTH TO SIR HENRY HARDINGE.

“London, March 20, 1829, half-past eleven, P.M.

“Sir,

“When I received the favour of your note, with its enclosure, soon after eight o’clock this evening, I had just sat down to dinner, and being in company I could not read it without exciting some suspicion, till some time afterwards. I had then to find Lord Winchilsea. All which I mention in excuse for delay, in case you should think it of importance; but I apprehend that, after an arrangement made before five o’clock this afternoon, his grace’s letter to Lord Winchilsea, calling upon him for satisfaction in the usual way, was meant merely as a customary form on such occasions. All matters will take place of course to-morrow morning at eight o’clock, according to that arrangement. I have the honour to be, &c.

“Falmouth.”

(16.) FROM LORD WINCHILSEA TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

“Suffolk-street, Friday night, eleven, P.M.

“My Lord,

“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your grace’s note. I have already had occasion to communicate to your grace, that, under existing circumstances, I did not feel myself in a situation to comply with what was required of me in regard to my public letter. The satisfaction 302which your grace has demanded, it is of course impossible for me to decline. I have the honour to be, &c.

“Winchilsea.”

The Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Winchilsea met at the place appointed (Battersea fields), on the following morning. The parties having taken their ground. Lord Winchilsea received the Duke of Wellington’s fire, and fired in the air. After some discussion, the accompanying memorandum was delivered by Lord Falmouth to Sir Henry Hardinge, and accepted by Sir Henry, as a satisfactory reparation to the Duke of Wellington:—

MEMORANDUM.

“Having given the Duke of Wellington the usual satisfaction for the affront he conceived himself to have received from me, through my public letter of Monday last, and having thus placed myself in a different situation from that in which I stood when his grace communicated with me, through Sir Henry Hardinge and Lord Falmouth, on the subject of that letter, before the meeting took place, I do not now hesitate to declare, of my own accord, that, in apology, I regret having individually published an opinion which the noble duke states, in his memorandum of yesterday, to have charged him with disgraceful 303and criminal motives in a certain transaction which took place nearly a year ago. I also declare that I shall cause this expression of regret to be inserted in the Standard newspaper, as the same channel through which the letter in question was given to the public.”

A copy of the preceding correspondence having been sent by Sir Henry Hardinge to the evening papers of the same day, the following memorandum was published by Lord Falmouth on Monday the 22nd:—

“Lord Falmouth first became concerned in the affair between the Duke of Wellington and Lord Winchilsea shortly before he met Sir Henry Hardinge on the subject, on the evening of Thursday, the 19th. Until that time, Lord Falmouth knew nothing whatever either of the previous correspondence, or of the publication which had led to it, beyond having seen the letter in the Standard newspaper. It may seem material to state, that when Sir Henry called upon Lord Falmouth, at twelve o’clock at night, with the proposal to omit the words affixed to No. 6 in parenthesis, it was after Lord Winchilsea’s answer, No. 7, had been shown to the Duke of Wellington. This point is not quite clear in the publication of Saturday. Immediately after Lord Winchilsea had received his grace’s fire, and had fired 304in the air, Lord Falmouth was the first to propose satisfactory reparation for Lord Winchilsea’s publication of his opinion in the Standard newspaper. Lord Falmouth distinctly declared on the ground, that it never was a question with him whether that publication was wrong, but merely whether Lord Winchilsea was in a situation honourably to subscribe to the terms proposed, after he (Lord Falmouth) was requested to undertake the business. Before the parties took their ground. Lord Falmouth delivered a sealed letter, which he had received from Lord Winchilsea on Friday night, to Sir Henry Hardinge, who returned it after the affair had been settled.”

BETWEEN CAPT. HELSHAM AND LIEUT. CROWTHER. April 1, 1829.

A duel, attended with a fatal result, took place at Boulogne, on the 1st of April, between Captain Helsham and Lieutenant Crowther. It arose out of an objection made by the former to the admission of the latter to a club established at Boulogne. The objection was, that the lieutenant had been assaulted in England, and had not behaved like an officer or a gentleman, by challenging the assaulter. The lieutenant demanded an apology: this the captain refusing to make, a duel ensued, and Lieutenant Crowther fell. 305On the 8th of October 1830, Captain Helsham was tried, by a special commission, at the Old Bailey, on a charge of murder, under the Act of the 9th of George IV., in which it is provided, “that if any of his Majesty’s subjects should be charged in this country with the murder or manslaughter of any fellow-subject on land abroad, and beyond his Majesty’s prerogative, it should be lawful, although such murder or manslaughter be in a foreign land, to try such party accused of either of these offences in England.”

Mr. William Coksley, a resident at Boulogne, gave the following evidence:—“I saw the parties on the ground. There were many individuals present. Mr. Malony put a pistol into Lieutenant Crowther’s hand, who soon after fired it off. I observed Captain Helsham’s arm raised; and after some short time his pistol was fired, and Lieutenant Crowther fell. The ball had passed through his neck; he never spoke afterwards, and died within half an hour. Captain Helsham walked off the ground immediately, having told his servant to take his pistols home.”

Mr. Malony, an officer of the 5th Dragoon Guards, who acted as second to the deceased, said:—“The deceased consulted me, as a friend, on the 31st of March, respecting something that affected his character. In consequence of what he told me, I went to Holt’s hotel to meet Mr. Grady; but before I saw him, Colonel Conway 306and Captain Helsham came to me. The captain said, that Lieutenant Crowther was not a fit person for him to apologize to, or to fight; and he assigned as a reason for it, that he had been horsewhipped, and had not resented it as a gentleman and an officer ought to do. I told him, that Lieutenant Crowther assured me, upon his honour, it was false; and I solicited him to make an apology. Colonel Conway asked me, whether I came to deliver a hostile message? I replied, I came there the messenger of peace; and I renewed my endeavours to prevail on the captain to apologize. Upon which the prisoner said: ‘An apology, sir! nonsense!’ At length, I delivered a message, that, if he would not apologize, Mr. Crowther expected he would meet him in the field. After some further conversation, the captain said: ‘Well, I give him warning. I am ready to meet him, but I will make it an affair of business.’ After this, Mr. Grady and myself made an arrangement for the parties to meet the next day at eleven, at Napoleon’s column. I accompanied Lieutenant Crowther to the spot. A number of individuals, a dozen at least, both on horseback and foot, were present. Mr. Grady said that the captain would have no firing, unless it was separate. We then proceeded to arrange the manner in which the duel was to be fought. The captain was in the ditch with us, when we were loading the pistols. I observed to him, that 307this was contrary to all duelling usage. He said, he did not care a damn for the usage; he would see them loaded. The distance agreed upon was twelve paces. The parties were to stand with their pistols even down by their sides, until Mr. Grady pronounced the words, ‘Now, gentlemen!’ and on those words being pronounced they were to raise their arms, and fire as nearly together as possible, and no second aim was to be taken. The parties were then placed. Mr. Grady pronounced the signal loud enough for both to hear. Lieutenant Crowther immediately raised his arm with rather a quick motion, fired, and then lowered his arm. Captain Helsham did not fire till some time after. Not hearing the report of his pistol immediately after that of Lieutenant Crowther, I looked about, and observed the captain’s pistol pointed towards his opponent in a position that, had he fired, the ball would have fallen short, his arm not being fully raised. He leaned his head to the right to get a good view of the lieutenant, raised his arm gradually, and did not fire for some seconds, until he had fairly covered his man; that is, got his pistol in a direction to him, and was looking along it. He appeared to take a deliberate aim. He fired, and Mr. Crowther fell. The ball passed through his neck.”

For the defence it was urged, that there had been no animosity on the part of the prisoner; who had only obeyed the laws of society, according 308to the best of his judgment. The circumstances of the duel had been examined by the authorities at Boulogne, who considered that it had been fairly fought, and had therefore liberated him. Colonel Conway stated, that he had said, in a conversation with Mr. Malony, that it was a pity two young men should fight upon a matter of so little importance; to which the latter had replied, that if Captain Helsham refused a meeting, he should be posted in the town, and publicly horsewhipped. The captain came out of the room at the time, and heard the observation. After a number of respectable witnesses had given the prisoner an excellent character for kindness, generosity, and humanity.

Mr. Justice Bayley charged the jury. They must first, he said, be satisfied that both the prisoner and the deceased were natural-born subjects of this realm; secondly, they must be quite certain that the deceased was killed by the hand of the prisoner; and thirdly, that the prisoner had so acted as to be guilty of the crime of murder. Intentionally using means calculated to produce death, if that result ensued, did most undoubtedly constitute the crime of murder. With regard to the present case, it appeared, beyond all doubt, that it had arisen out of a duel. Now, he was bound as a lawyer to tell the jury, that, if parties went out to fight a duel, and death was the result of that meeting, the surviving parties were equally 309guilty of the crime of murder, whether fair or foul means had been used. If they found the prisoner guilty, they might accompany their verdict with any recommendation they thought proper.—The jury, having remained out of court for the space of about twenty minutes, returned with a verdict, finding the prisoner “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN MR. LAMBRECHT AND MR. CLAYTON. January 8, 1830.

This day, a duel, which terminated fatally, was fought in Battersea fields, between Mr. Lambrecht, who had formerly served as a lieutenant in the 43rd regiment, in America and at Waterloo, and Mr. Oliver Clayton, a literary gentleman from Ireland. Before daylight, Mr. Clayton proceeded with his second, Mr. Bigley, to Battersea fields, where Mr. Lambrecht and his second. Lieutenant Cox, were waiting his arrival. It was a little after six when all the parties took the ground. After a short conversation, the signal being given, the pistols were fired; and Mr. Lambrecht’s ball passing through Mr. Clayton’s body, he immediately fell. He was conveyed to the Red House, where he died at seven in the evening. The quarrel took place at Wood’s hotel, Panton Square, during a discussion respecting the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, of which the deceased, who had renounced that faith, had been a warm opponent. During the discussion, 310Mr. Lambrecht called him a hypocrite; and this led to the duel. The jury who sat on the body brought in a verdict of “Wilful murder” against Mr. Lambrecht, the principal, and Lieutenant Cox and Mr. Bigley, the seconds; and the coroner’s warrant was issued for their apprehension. On Wednesday, the 13th, Mr. Lambrecht, who had surrendered himself, was brought to Union Hall for examination. After the duel, the unhappy man returned to town; but withdrew from his usual residence, fearing that he should be discovered, and wandered about the streets for three nights. On Tuesday evening, being quite exhausted, he went into a public-house, where he drank to excess, and then gave himself up to a police-officer. After making the statement which will hereafter be given, Mr. Chambers, the magistrate, told him that it was a most serious business, and that he must prepare himself for the worst, as the law would be carried to the fullest extent. The parties were all committed to prison, to take their trial for the offence.

The said trial took place at Kingston assizes, on the 2nd of April, before Mr. Justice Bayley. After Mr. Gurney had stated the case, Mr. Thomas Powell, surgeon at Battersea, gave the following evidence:—“On the morning of the 8th of January last, I received a communication which induced me to go out shortly before seven o’clock. I went to the back of the Red House, Battersea, 311and found there but three persons, one of them lying on a board, wounded, with a coat or cloak over him. The wounded gentleman was taken into the house, and laid on a bed. I found him wounded on the right side of the belly. It was a small wound, into which I could have passed the point of my finger. There was a wound also on the left side. There was nothing to enable me to say it was a gun-shot wound, had I not known it from other circumstances; but it might have been produced by a bullet passing through the body. I immediately pronounced it to be a mortal wound. My answer to the inquiry of the wounded gentleman was, that it must prove mortal. He asked me, how long I thought it probable he might survive. I told him I could not speak positively, but I should suppose he could not survive more than twelve hours. The wounded gentleman, who told me his name was Clayton, requested that a clergyman of the Church of England might be sent for. The clergyman came, and I went into another room. I returned shortly after, when he begged that there might be no prosecution, and said that every thing had been conducted fairly and honourably, and that he was to blame, in being so obstinate as to refuse the apology which had been offered to him. At this time he was aware he could not live. About two hours before he died he desired that certain persons might be written to, and that it might be 312stated to them, that part of the quarrel was his being called a hypocrite. I asked him by whom. The answer was, ‘By the man who shot me, Lambrecht.’”

Thomas Skinner was next examined.—“I work for the landlord of the Red House; and about half-past six o’clock on the morning of the 8th of January, when going to my work, I saw the flash of two pistols at one and the same time, and I heard the reports of both. I was nearly three hundred yards distant. I turned my back towards them, and one of the bullets appeared to pass me. When I went towards the place where the firing was, I saw four men bringing up a man on a board. They asked me if the house was open. I told them it was not, and they desired me to knock the people up. I did so; and then they brought the wounded gentleman up, and placed him in the house. He groaned very much, and said, ‘Don’t shake me.’”

Several other witnesses were examined; and the following statement, signed by the prisoner, was put in and read:—

“The prisoner, Richard William Lambrecht, being cautioned by the magistrates to be careful of what he said, and to offer nothing to criminate himself, said, ‘What I state is the whole truth. I was acquainted with Mr. Clayton. I saw him receive a horse-whipping, which he did not resent. I mentioned it to Mr. Clayton on Christmas evening, 313and after that he sent me a message, to which I returned another by Mr. Odell. Another person, nearly a fortnight after, took it up, and was my friend in the business. After that, the meeting took place; and Mr. Byrne, when on the ground, came up to me, and said, ‘Is it come to this?’ and I said, that I would make a written apology to no man. After the business took place, I went up to Mr. Clayton and shook hands with him, and he said, ‘I forgive you, my dear friend; I forgive you.’ The message to me by Mr. Odell was from Mr. Clayton; but Mr. Odell advised Mr. Clayton not to fight, refused to have anything to do with it, and was not on the ground. I offered an apology through my friend. I said, I regretted what had taken place; that the words were uttered in a moment of intemperance, and that I was willing to apologize; which was refused by the other party. I sent this message through my friend. The answer I received was, that it must proceed, as nothing would be taken but a written apology. As far as I know about the business, both our pistols went off at the same time. It was a chance shot, as it was dark, and we could not see.”