Duelling. The duello (from the Lat. duellum, an old form of bellum) belongs to every age and country, uncivilised as well as civilised. The old 'ordeal by battle,' a sort of judicial decision, implied that the Almighty would give victory to the just cause, and was in vogue in England down to the reign of Elizabeth (see BATTLE, WAGER OF).
Neither this nor the chance quarrel of two gentlemen carrying swords can be strictly considered a duel, which implies deliberation. The modern duel is prompted by the worst passions, hatred, revenge, jealousy, and often by the merest trifle. In France, where it has long flourished, it was punished severely by kings and parliaments, and Henry II., Henry IV., and Louis XIV. took stringent measures to put duelling down. Francis I., however, was in its favour, and even challenged Charles V. to single combat. It is said that during the earlier years of Henry IV.'s reign no less than 4000 gentlemen lost their lives in this way. In Louis XIV.'s day, duels of four and five a side were common, but his edict of 1679 completely suppressed it.
It is remarkable that at this moment there is but one group of countries—viz. the English-speaking lands—where duelling is not merely scouted and put down by law, but actually ridiculed. This cannot be explained by English respect for the laws, or from a strict religious sense; both these feelings being as strong when duelling was in high fashion. In the reign of William III. a severe act against it was passed, and in 1712 it again engaged the attention of the parliament.
Duels with the pistol prevailed in England for nearly a century; to within living memory, ministers and politicians resorted freely to this mode of settling a quarrel. Wilkes met Lord Talbot, and also Mr Martin, in 1763, by whom he was severely wounded. Mr Pitt was challenged by Mr Tierney for charging him with 'obstructing the defences of the country.' The day fixed for the encounter was a Sunday of May 1796, and at three o'clock the parties were found on Putney Heath, close to the Kingston Road. The duellists fired twice at each other; but on the second occasion Pitt discharged his pistol in the air. Pitt's great rival, Charles Fox, had been particularly severe on the powder supplied by the War Office. Mr Adam took offence at this charge, and challenged him. The parties met, and Fox was wounded. The buoyant humour of the man, which made him so many friends, was shown in his first remark, 'Adam, you'd have killed me if you hadn't used government powder.'
Another political duel took place in September 1809, between Mr Canning and Lord Castlereagh (q.v.); a yet more remarkable duel was that of the Duke of Wellington with Lord Winchilsea in the exciting year 1829. Lord Winchilsea charged the duke with the 'insidious design of introducing Popery.' The duke at once sent Sir Henry Hardinge to demand an apology. The meeting was at Battersea Fields. Lord Winchilsea was attended by Lord Falmouth, a second so completely unnerved that he had to be assisted in loading his pistols. The duke was gay and unconcerned. When their men were placed, the duke's second advanced with a paper in his hand. 'As for myself,' said he, 'if I do not express my open disgust for the whole affair, it is because I wish to imitate the moderation of the Duke of Wellington.' Lord Winchilsea was quite overwhelmed by this irregular lecture, his second faltered out that 'nothing had ever given him so much pain,' &c. To whom Sir Henry: 'Indeed, my lord, I don't envy your feelings.' A crowd had collected to see the sport. The duke hesitated a little and fired; Lord Winchilsea then fired in the air. Lord Falmouth now came forward with a paper. The duke, who had drawn near to listen, said in a low voice, 'This won't do: it is no apology.' Sir Henry pulled out his paper, and reading it, said: 'This is what we require; the word apology must be used.' At last the required word was furnished. Then Sir Henry gave the guilty pair a last rebuke. 'And now, gentlemen,' he said, 'without making any invidious reflections, I cannot help remarking that, whether wisely or unwisely the world will judge, you have been the cause of bringing this man into the field, where, during the whole course of a long military career, he never was before.' Here Lord Falmouth turned on his unhappy principal to tell him that 'he always thought, and had told him so, that he was completely in the wrong.' Lord Falmouth then attempted to vindicate himself. 'My Lord Falmouth,' was the duke's haughty reply, 'I have nothing to do with these matters.' He then touched his hat with two fingers, saying: 'Good morning, my Lord Winchilsea; good morning, my Lord Falmouth,' and rode away. It is remarkable that most of these fire-eating politicians—viz. Wellington, Castlereagh, Canning, Tierney—were of Irish extraction.
There have been three notable duels, each attended with fatal issue, and each arising out of a political quarrel. One was that of Mr Scott, editor of the Champion, killed by Mr Christie in 1821; the second was that of Sir A. Boswell in 1822, killed by Mr James Stuart of Dunearn, the quarrel arising out of a foolish ballad written by the former; the third was the well-known fatal encounter of Mr O'Connell with D'Esterre, in which the latter fell. Another fatal duel was that of Lord Camelford and Mr Best in 1804. In Ireland, before and after the union, there was a mania for duelling; and personages of the highest position, lord chancellors, judges, provosts, and all fought, or as the phrase went, 'blazed.' Of modern duels the most notable was that of Lord Cardigan with Captain Harvey Tuckett, in which the latter was wounded (1840). Up to 1843 duelling was almost recognised as an obligation, but in that year it received its quietus, owing to the fatal contest between Colonel Fawcett and Lieutenant Munro, his brother-in-law, in which the former was killed. Since that date only one fatal duel has been fought in England, between Lieutenants Hawkey and Seton, in May 1845, when the latter was killed. The last duel in Ireland (February 1851), between the mayor of Sligo and a lawyer, was a bloodless one.
In most countries, as we have said, duelling is still resorted to as reparation for personal insult or injury. In France, fencing is studied, as a necessary part of education and protection, by most public men and journalists. The encounters are generally harmless, and often pour rire. Two recent political duels excited the merriment of Europe, that of Gambetta and M. Fourton, who 'fought' in a foggy morning at thirty or forty paces distance (1878), and that of General Boulanger who 'spitted' himself on the rapier of a retired attorney, M. Floquet, then first minister (1888). Perhaps the most notable political duel was that of Armand Carrel with Emile de Girardin (1836), when the former fell mortally wounded. In France, two seconds on each side regulate the proceedings, and one stands beside the combatants, ready with a walking-stick to beat down the weapons in case of unfair fighting. This precaution is not unnecessary, as recently one of the parties seized his adversary's sword with one hand, and tried to 'finish' him. In Belgium the duel occurs seldom, though still enforced by social law, but the country is often selected by Frenchmen and others, as the terrain of their encounters.
In other countries duels are comparatively rare. In the United States, where they were at one time fought with a savage ferocity and originality combined (in some sections, with bowie-knives), they are now practically unknown, save in the very backward states. None has been more famous than one of the earliest, in 1804, when Aaron Burr, the vice-president, killed Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the opposition. Later duels were those between Henry Clay and John Randolph, Andrew Jackson and Charles Dickinson, Thomas H. Benton and Lucas. By the common law, the survivor and the seconds are guilty of murder when one of the parties to a duel is killed.
The question of insult, the form of reparation, withdrawals, &c., led naturally to some complication, and there have been attempts to draw up rules and regulations. Towards the end of the 18th century, a number of duelling gentlemen ('delegates') met at Clonmel, and drew up a 'code,' conceived in a highly logical spirit. One specimen will suffice: 'Where the lie direct is the first offence, the aggressor must exchange two shots previous to apology, or three shots followed by explanation, or fire on until one is hit. The only satisfaction for a blow is to offer a cane which is to be laid on the offender's shoulders. If a blow be an answer to giving the lie, the lie is merged in the blow, which becomes the sole offence,' &c. There are so-called duels, in which lots are cast, and the party to whom the lot falls is bound to put an end to his own life. There have been cases of duels with sword and pistol between women.
By the laws of the German empire, duelling is an offence punishable with fortress-imprisonment, the length of which is proportioned to the nature and consequences of the encounter. Students' duels, which range in seriousness from mere fencing matches to dangerous or even fatal encounters, have long been a prominent feature in university life. Formerly they were treated as mere 'disciplinary offences,' unless the consequences were very serious. But of late, public feeling has been tending against them; and since 1883 the imperial courts impose fortress-imprisonment. In contradiction to the spirit of the public laws, duelling is recognised in the German army, whence an officer was expelled in 1887 for refusing to challenge one who had insulted him. The late Emperor William, 'pious' as he was, felt constrained to draw up regulations on the subject, introducing courts of honour, which, however, in serious cases, might authorise the encounter. In 1844 the English War Office, moved thereto by Prince Albert, put a summary stop to the practice—issuing a number of regulations which threatened all concerned in a duel with court-martial and cashiering. For the law of the land makes no distinction between any of the methods of taking another's life, though the old attitude of the law to affairs of honour was fairly expressed by an Irish judge, who, when charging in a fatal case, declared that it was his duty to tell the jury it was murder according to the law, 'but that for his part a fairer duel he had never met in his life.' In a work revised by him in 1853, Lord Cockburn similarly expressed his opinion that 'murder may be committed in duel required by society, and provoked by intolerable insult.'
See Dr Millingen, History of Duelling (2 vols. 1841); A. Steinmetz, The Romance of Duelling (2 vols. 1868); Rödenbeck, Der Zweikampf (1883); Constard de Massi, History of Duelling in all Countries (Eng. trans. 1880); Major Truman, The Field of Honour (New York, 1884); William Douglas, Duelling Days in the Army (1887).