Such was the frequent occurrence of duels in this long reign, that one hundred and seventy-two were fought (in which three hundred and forty-four persons were concerned); sixty-nine individuals were killed—in three of these fatal cases neither of the combatants survived; ninety-six were wounded, forty-eight of them desperately, and forty-eight slightly; while one hundred and seventy-nine escaped unhurt.

From this statement it will be seen, that rather more than one fifth of the combatants lost their lives, and that nearly one half received the bullets of their antagonists. It also appears, that only eighteen trials took place; that six of the arraigned individuals were acquitted; seven found guilty of manslaughter, and three of murder,—two of whom were executed, and eight imprisoned during different periods.

When we compare the frequency of duelling during this period and subsequent reigns, and at the same time consider how much more fatal these meetings generally proved, we are naturally led to inquire into the causes of this material difference and amelioration in the condition of society. Desirable indeed would it be, if this circumstance could be attributed to a better feeling in the upper classes, and a just detestation of a practice as absurd as it is inhuman; but it is to be feared, that the influence of fashion here had no inconsiderable share in the change of manners. Though many men pre-eminent in public estimation have sanctioned the practice by their example; yet how few are they compared with those of former times, where we find York, Norfolk, Richmond, Bellamont, Exmouth, Talbot, Townshend, Shelburne, Paget, Castlereagh, Petersham, Pitt, Fox, Sheridan, Canning, Tierney, and many others of rank and distinction! May not this circumstance be also in some measure attributed to the frequency of the virulent discussions, which have become so frequent during the constant struggles for power, when insults becoming, one may say, of daily occurrence, are rarely noticed? Has not the influence of the increased number of newspapers, many of which have been conducted with a degree of personal animosity, and we must say, ungentlemanly vituperation, rendered the use of offensive language so general as to have become a matter of course in political argument, and therefore rarely noticed, except by still more abusive recrimination? If such a latitude in degrading phraseology had been as generally prevalent in France, scarcely an editor would be now living to vindicate his excesses, by the satisfaction of pleading his antagonist’s death; the lie, the blow, which would once have required the fall of one of the parties, is now only resented by another accusation of falsehood, a second edition of a thrashing, or an action at law.

Of late years, the most unwarrantable parliamentary language has been apologized for, on the plea of its not having been allusive to private character, so that a legislator, or a minister, may be considered a political scoundrel, but a worthy individual member of society; guilty of a falsehood in the house, but devoted to the cause of truth beyond the purlieus of St. Stephen; faithful to all his engagements with the world, but a traitor to his country; for, after all, what is the language of opposition, but a strenuous endeavour to impugn an adversary’s veracity, to show, that for mere lucre or the vanity of possessing power and patronage, he betrays the most sacred trust reposed in him by his sovereign; that he hurries his country to perdition for the selfish motive of personal aggrandisement, and sacrifices the national weal for his own benefit and that of his family and dependants? can there be any insult offered to a man more pungent, more degrading? The lie, the blow, given in a moment of passionate ebullition, are trifling offences, when compared to such serious charges, which, if substantiated, should not only expose a man to universal contempt and detestation, but to the most ignoble death. When such impeachments are hourly, daily made, can we expect much sensitiveness when reciprocal abuse is bandied at the bar of the House, as well as at the bar of courts of justice? Pleaders consider themselves justifiable in using the bitterest, the most unwarrantable language. They dress for the character they perform in wig and gown; and fancy that when they have doffed their attributes, they withdraw from the stage, and have merely performed their part in the great drama of life. Then again, in the intemperate language of opposition, how often does galling necessity, and bitter disappointment in not obtaining office (when its emoluments are required, to keep the wolf from the postulant’s door), prompt the orator? and many a time perhaps an eloquent senator has drawn out the headings of his speech, on the back of an attorney’s threatening letter, and the evil day is ever put off with the usual promise of speedy liquidation “when the present people go out.”

Men, in a public sphere of life, are, to a certain extent, public property. Their actions are exposed to the scrutiny of the community at large. A writer, however galled his acute vanity may be, cannot consider the abuse lavished on his productions as a personal insult; and it is the same with the politician,—the invectives poured upon his public conduct are not esteemed as aspersions on his private character. A falsehood is considered an expedient evasion, an error; and a personal invective, a mere ebullition of eloquence, a bubbling over of the diplomatic cabinet, an opposition caldron, as heterogeneous and monstrous in its contents as that of the weird sisters.

These observations are not intended to condemn this philosophical view of the subject. Were these excesses noticed at the pistol’s muzzle, it would only be adding murder to corruption; and, as society is constituted, when an electioneering hustings may be oftentimes compared to a stall at Billinsgate, a candidate who seeks to vindicate what he is complacently pleased to call his honour, must indeed be a Quixotic character, when he in general conscientiously knows that every syllable of his address to the voters is void of veracity, and all his pledges futile and false.

The frequent occurrence of duels, in former times, may also be attributed to the mode of living in days fortunately gone by. Hard drinking is now rarely heard of; and when it was in fashion, insults were often given under the influence of liquor, and vindicated under the plea of excitement from the preceding night’s excesses. In Ireland it was not uncommon for parties to sit up carousing during the entire night preceding the murderous meeting; and the break of day, through the casement of the hall of revelry, was the signal for departure to the field. One of the greatest curses of intemperance is the extreme susceptibility which it gives our pride and vanity; and if there is any ground for the proverb, in vino veritas, it may be attributed to the fact, that under this potent influence we sometimes know ourselves better than in our more sober hours. The pangs of repentance are more bitter, although they may be transient in these moments of excited reflection, when the past, the present, and the future are exaggerated in all their circumstances by an imagination morbidly vivid. It is then that we love, and hate, with all the energy of our hearts; that all our evil passions, and sometimes our good feelings, prevail; for the miser, over his cups, may become generous; the barbarous, humane; and the man who has perpetrated the most reckless crimes, will weep with apparent anguish over ideal woes. Were it possible to ascertain the influence of intemperance in the many duels that have been fought, it would doubtless appear that many of these fatal quarrels would never have taken place in a sober society.

It is also to be observed, that duels, when of constant recurrence, became the subject of general conversation, and duels, like suicide, bear a fashionably contagious character, which spreads widely in society, and then the most mistaken of criminals fancies that he must also avenge certain wrongs, or rid himself of an uncertain life. The one feels a pleasure in killing a supposed enemy, and the other seeks a riddance from pain by killing himself. The one thinks that he must establish a character of courage, not to be despised by society, and the suicide bids farewell to a society which he disgraces; whereas, neither the one nor the other in these desperate acts displays a particle of true courage.

In the present state of society, insults to women are comparatively rare; and indeed, unless a person, who in the slightest degree claims the character of a gentleman, is labouring under the brutalizing influence of liquor, it is scarcely possible to imagine how he can so far forget every manly attribute as to offend a being whom nature has placed under our protection, and to whose assistance, when in danger, we rush instinctively. This cause of duelling is therefore seldom noticed.

Leaving off the wearing of swords, as I have already observed, rendered bloody frays less frequent; but at the same time, the adoption of pistols gave a much more serious complexion to a hostile meeting. It is true, that comparatively few shots tell, but the wounds of fire-arms are in general more dangerous than those inflicted by a rapier. Skill in fencing might be of considerable advantage to a good swordsman; but it is also a well-known fact, that a man who has science in fencing, can not only parry a thrust, but inflict a mortal wound on one less dexterous. Moreover, when what was called the first blood was drawn, however trifling the scratch, the seconds generally interposed. It may be therefore concluded, that as mankind is taught to think soberly, the danger of a duel may deter many from rashly running its chance.

In recording the many duels that took place during this reign, several of them may appear trivial, and not worthy of notice, yet, as the history of duelling, as I have already said, may be considered as the mirror of the manners and prevalent ideas of the day, these circumstances, however insignificant, are of importance, inasmuch as they show both the progress and the gradual decline of this detestable practice; they will tend also to point out those cases where the most punctilious should have been amply satisfied with an apology, and where the seconds were guilty of murder, by allowing their principals to proceed to the fatal extremity of sending life in pursuit of the phantom misnamed Honour.

Although this meeting took place at Marseilles; yet, as being one highly characteristic of the times, it may be properly considered here.

Lord Kilmaurs was the eldest son of the Earl of Glencarne, and was one of the best-natured persons imaginable; but, unfortunately, was extremely deaf. Being one evening at the playhouse, he was talking rather loudly to the person who sat next to him, as deaf people generally do. This happened to give offence to a French officer, who was in the neighbouring box, who called out to his Lordship “Paix!” (silence); which word the officer repeated two or three times without its being heard, or of course attended to. Upon which the Frenchman rose, and exclaimed, with great violence in an angry tone of voice, “Taisez-vous!” His Lordship this time heard the insolent address; and observing the supercilious air that accompanied it, replied, that as the other had no right to command silence there, he should show his utter contempt of his insolent injunction by talking still louder, which he accordingly did.

The French officer soon after left the box; and, as his Lordship’s ill star would have it, he also quitted his, and went into another, where the same officer was, but, it is reported, without the least thought of what had taken place, so much so indeed, that looking about him on entering the box, he cast his eyes on the officer without recollecting him. The indignant Frenchman ran up to him, and asked him, what he meant by staring him in the face. To which Lord Kilmaurs replied, that he had a right to look at any one. The officer indignantly replied, that he was not to be treated in such a manner with impunity. Without any further preamble he exclaimed, “Come along!” and pulled his Lordship by the arm out of the box, and in the middle of the street struck him across the shoulder with his naked sword. Upon which Lord Kilmaurs drew, and made a pass or two; and before any one arrived to part them, received the sword of his antagonist in the pit of his stomach, whence it passed through his right shoulder; on which they were parted. They were immediately surrounded by numberless spectators. At first his Lordship was hardly sensible of his wound, but in a few moments he dropped down speechless; in which situation he must inevitably have been smothered by the pressing on of the crowd, had not the Duke de Pequigny brought a guard to keep them off. Again, he ran the risk of being stifled with his own blood, had not a surgeon, passing through the crowd, cut his stock and the neck of his shirt, and applied some drops to his nostrils. He remained several hours speechless, with almost every mortal symptom. These, however, passed off, and in three days he was out of danger. The officer took post immediately into the Pope’s dominions at Avignon, while a short detail of the affair was sent to the British ambassador at Paris, who settled the affair.

---

The same year (1765), a duel was fought between two officers on Kennington Common, when a Major A—— was desperately wounded by a ball in the breast, which came out at his side. His opponent effected his escape.

---

In 1769 a duel was fought in Ireland between Henry Flood and James Agar, when the latter was shot dead. An old quarrel had long subsisted between them, and this mode of arranging their differences was ultimately agreed upon.

---

Duels between dramatic performers are uncommon occurrences. It is true, that there does not exist a class of society more morbidly alive to the unction of flattery than players; but they are so accustomed to rudeness of behaviour amongst each other, the green-room and stage familiarity fully illustrating the old proverb, that insults generally go, if not unheeded, at any rate, according to the ideas of honour generally entertained, unrevenged. In 1770, on the 17th November, a meeting took place between George Garrick, the brother of the celebrated David, and Mr. Baddeley, both of Drury Lane. The trumpet of fame had long accused George Garrick of being concerned in an intrigue with Baddeley’s wife, till at last Baddeley, urged on by an intriguing mischievous Jew, who was himself a great admirer of the lady, was persuaded, that it became him, as a man of parts, to demand satisfaction. The parties very reluctantly met in Hyde Park; when Baddeley discharged his pistol without effect, and, indeed, it was reported, without aim, as his arm was as unsteady as that of Gil Blas in his first action with the robbers. Garrick magnanimously fired his in the air. On the arrival of Mrs. Baddeley, in a hackney-coach, who, jumping out of the vehicle, threw herself between the combatants in an imploring attitude, exclaiming, “Spare him! spare him!” the tableau was so effective that the parties embraced each other, and the interlude was concluded by a general reconciliation.

BETWEEN LORD MILTON AND LORD POULETT,
January 29, 1771.

The cause of this duel was never well known. However, the meeting took place behind Bedford House. Lord John Cavendish was Lord Milton’s second; and Captain Kelly, Lord Poulett’s. When they had taken their ground. Lord Milton desired Lord Poulett to fire first, which he did, and the ball entered Lord Milton’s belly.

---

In 1772 a melancholy meeting took place between a Mr. M’Lean, of Gartmoor, in Scotland, and a Mr. Cameron. An old grudge had existed between them, when the latter gave M’Lean the lie; a duel followed, and M’Lean was killed on the spot. His mother, on hearing of the melancholy event, was deprived of her reason, and a Miss M’Leod, a young lady, to whom Mr. M’Lean was soon to have been married, was seized with fits, and died three days after.

BETWEEN RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN AND MR. MATTHEWS.

When Mr. Sheridan became the avowed suitor of Miss Linley, the celebrated vocal performer, her father, the late composer, did not at first encourage his suit, and he had many rivals to overcome in his attempts to gain the lady’s affections. His perseverance, however, increased with the difficulties that presented themselves; and his courage and resolution in vindicating Miss Linley’s reputation from a calumnious report, which had been basely thrown out against her, obtained for him the fair prize for which he twice exposed his life.

Mr. Matthews, a gentleman, then well known in the fashionable circles at Bath, had caused a paragraph to be inserted in a public paper at that place, which tended to prejudice the character of this young lady, and Mr. Sheridan immediately applied for redress to the publisher, who gave up the writer’s name.

Mr. Matthews had, in the mean time, set out for London, and was closely followed by Mr. Sheridan. They met, and fought a duel with swords, at a tavern in Henrietta-street, Covent-garden. Mr. Sheridan’s second on the occasion was his brother, Charles Francis, afterwards Secretary at War in Ireland.

Great courage and skill were displayed on both sides; but Mr. Sheridan having succeeded in disarming his adversary, compelled him to sign a formal retractation of the paragraph which had been published.

Sheridan instantly returned to Bath; and thinking, very properly, that as the insult had been publicly given, the apology should have equal notoriety, caused it to be inserted in the same paper. Mr. Matthews soon heard of the circumstance; and irritated at his defeat, as well as at the use which his antagonist had made of his apology, determined to call upon Mr. Sheridan for satisfaction. A message was accordingly sent, and a meeting agreed upon.

Mr. Sheridan would have been fully justified, according to the most delicate punctilios of honour, in declining the call; but he silenced all the objections that were started by his friends, and the parties met on Kingsdown.

The victory was desperately contested, and after a discharge of pistols, they fought with swords. They were both wounded, and closing with each other, fell on the ground, where they continued to fight until they were separated. They received several cuts and contusions in this arduous struggle for life and honour, and a part of Matthews’s sword was actually broken off in Sheridan’s ear.

Miss Linley did not suffer the prowess of her champion to remain long unrewarded, and accompanied him on a matrimonial trip to the Continent. The ceremony was again performed on their return to England, with the consent of the lady’s parents.

BETWEEN LORD TOWNSHEND AND THE EARL OF BELLAMONT,
February 2, 1773.

This afternoon, the long-subsisting difference between Lord Townshend and the Earl of Bellamont was finally decided in Marylebone Fields, when the latter received a ball in the right side of his belly, near the groin.

They were armed with small swords, and a case of pistols; but it was agreed to use the latter first. Lord Townshend fired first, which gave the unfortunate wound, and Lord Bellamont discharged his pistol immediately after, without effect. The seconds were the Hon. Mr. Dillon for Lord Bellamont, and Lord Ligonier for Lord Townshend.

Lord Bellamont was immediately taken up and put into a chaise; but from the agony arising from his wound, he could not bear the motion. A chair was, therefore, immediately sent for to carry him to his lodging, where, on his arrival, he desired to be laid on his back. Mr. Bromfield and other surgeons were immediately called in, who endeavoured, but in vain, to extract the ball. His lordship ultimately recovered after great suffering.

BETWEEN MR. SCAWEN AND MR. FITZGERALD.
September 1, 1773.

This day a duel was fought between Mr. Scawen and Mr. Fitzgerald, near Lisle, in which neither of the gentlemen received any hurt. Mr. Fitzgerald fired two pistols, one by design and one by accident. Mr. Scawen fired one in the air, when making some slight apology for the cause of the duel, the parties were reconciled, and returned highly satisfied with the issue of the affair.

BETWEEN MR. WHATELY AND JOHN TEMPLE, ESQ.,
December 11, 1773.

A duel was fought in Hyde Park, between Mr. Whately, brother of Mr. Whately, late Secretary to the Treasury, and John Temple, Esq., Lieutenant-Governor of New Hampshire, when the former was dangerously wounded.

The cause of quarrel was—the discovery of the confidential letters written by Messrs. Hutchinson, Oliver, Paxton, &c. &c., which were lately laid before the Assembly at Boston, and have been since published in most of the London papers.

---

Soon after this duel was fought, the following information was given to the public by Doctor Franklin:—

“Finding that two gentlemen have been unfortunately engaged in a duel about a transaction and its circumstances, of which both of them are totally ignorant and innocent, I think it incumbent on me to declare (for the prevention of further mischief, as far as such a declaration may contribute to prevent it) that I alone am the person who obtained, and transmitted to Boston, the letters in question. Mr. Whately could not communicate them, because they were never in his possession; and, for the same reason, they could not be taken from him by Mr. Temple. They were not of the nature of private letters between friends. They were written by public officers to persons in public stations, on public affairs, and intended to produce public measures. They were, therefore, handed to other public persons, who might be influenced by them to produce those measures. Their tendency was to incense the mother-country against her colonies; and, by the steps recommended, to widen the breach, which they effected. The chief caution expressed with regard to privacy was, to keep their contents from the colony agents, who, the writers apprehended, might return them, or copies of them, to America. That apprehension was, it seems, well-founded; for the first agent who laid his hands on them, thought it his duty to transmit them to his constituents.

(Signed) “Benjamin Franklin,

BETWEEN CAPTAIN STONEY AND THE REV. MR. BATE.
January 13, 1777.

A rencontre happened at the Adelphi Tavern, in the Strand, between Captain Stoney and Mr. Bate, editor of the Morning Post.

The cause of quarrel arose from some offensive paragraphs that had appeared in the Morning Post, highly reflecting on the character of Lady Strathmore. After having discharged their pistols at each other without effect, they drew their swords; and Mr. Stoney received a wound in the breast and arm, and Mr. Bate one in the thigh. Mr. Bate’s sword bent, and slanted against the captain’s breast-bone, of which Mr. Bate apprising him, Captain Stoney called to him to straighten it; and, in the interim, while the sword was under his foot for that purpose, the door was burst open, or the death of one of the parties would most certainly have ensued. On the Saturday following Captain S. married the lady whom he had thus defended at the hazard of his own life.

BETWEEN COUNT RICE AND VISCOUNT DU BARRY.
Bath, November 23, 1778.

On Saturday, the 17th inst., Count Rice and Viscount du Barry, being together in the house of the latter, a question arose between them about which they disagreed; and in the heat of the dispute, upon an assertion of Count Rice, Viscount du Barry said, “Cela n’est pas vrai,” to which Count Rice immediately observed, “You probably do not observe the idea that expression conveys in the language you speak in, and that it admits but of one very disagreeable interpretation.” Upon which the other replied, “You may interpret it as you please.” This ungentlemanlike treatment having provoked the resentment of Count Rice, and Viscount du Barry offering no apology, they immediately sent for seconds, who did not quit them till they got to Claverton Down, where they remained, together with a surgeon, till daylight, when they took the field, each armed with two pistols and a sword. The ground being marked out by the seconds, the Viscount du Barry fired first, and lodged a ball in Count Rice’s thigh, which penetrated as far as the bone. Count Rice fired his pistol, and wounded the Viscount in the breast. He went back two or three steps, then came forward again, and both at the same time presented their pistols to each other. The pistols flashed together in the pan, though one only was discharged. They then threw away their pistols, and took to their swords. When Count Rice had advanced within a few yards of the Viscount, he saw him fall, and heard him cry out, “Je vous demande ma vie.” To which Count Rice answered, “Je vous la donne.” But in a few seconds the Viscount fell back and expired.

Count Rice was brought with difficulty to Bath, being dangerously wounded. But he afterwards recovered.

The coroner’s inquest sat on the Viscount’s body; and after a mature examination of the witnesses and the Viscount’s servant, brought in their verdict “Manslaughter.”

BETWEEN A LIEUT.-COLONEL AND A LIEUTENANT OF MILITIA.
August 25, 1779.

A duel was fought at Coxheath between a Lieutenant of militia and a Lieut.-Colonel, when the latter was shot in the left breast, and expired immediately. The deceased had charged the lieutenant with exciting his men to mutiny, of which he was honourably acquitted by a court-martial.

BETWEEN THE HON. CHAS. JAS. FOX AND MR. ADAM.
November 30, 1779.

Mr. Fox having in debate, one day in the preceding week, animadverted, with some degree of asperity, on a particular species of argument, frequently made use of by the friends of ministers, viz.:—“That bad as the ministry were, it was not certain that the nation would be at all bettered by taking their opponents”—a Mr. Adam, who had made use of that argument in the same debate, called on Mr. Fox, some days after, for an explanation.

The following letters passed on the above occasion:—

“Mr. Adam presents his compliments to Mr. Fox, and begs leave to represent to him, that upon considering again and again what had passed between them last night, it is impossible for him to have his character cleared to the public without inserting the following paragraph in the newspapers:—We have authority to assure the public, that in a conversation that passed between Mr. Fox and Mr. Adam, in consequence of the debate in the House of Commons on Thursday last, Mr. Fox declared that however much his speech may have been misrepresented, he did not mean to throw any personal reflection upon Mr. Adam.

“Major Humberstone does me the honour of delivering this to you, and will bring your answer.

“To the Hon. Charles James Fox.”

“Sir, “I am very sorry it is utterly inconsistent with my ideas of propriety, to authorise the putting any thing into the newspapers, relative to a speech which, in my opinion, required no explanation. You, who heard the speech, must know, that it did convey no personal reflection upon you, unless you felt yourself in the predicament upon which I animadverted. The account of my speech in the newspapers is certainly incorrect, and certainly unauthorised by me; and therefore, with respect to them, I have nothing to say.

“Neither the conversation that passed at Brookes’s, nor this letter, is of a secret nature; and if you have any wish to relate the one, or to show the other, you are perfectly at liberty so to do.

I am, &c. &c.

“Chesterfield-street, half-past 2, Sunday, Nov. 28.

“To —— Adam, Esq.”

“Sir, “As you must be sensible that the speech printed in the newspapers reflects upon me personally, and as it is from them only that the public can have their information, it is evident that, unless that is contradicted by your authority in as public a manner as it was given, my character must be injured. Your refusal to do this entitles me to presume that you approve of the manner in which that speech has been given to the public, and justifies me in demanding the only satisfaction such an injury will admit of.

“Major Humberstone is empowered to settle all particulars; and the sooner this affair is brought to a conclusion, the more agreeable to me.

“I have the honour to be, &c. &c.

“To the Hon. Charles James Fox.”

In consequence of the above, the parties met, according to agreement, at eight o’clock in the morning. After the ground was measured out, at the distance of fourteen paces, Mr. Adam desired Mr. Fox to fire; to which Mr. Fox replied, “Sir, I have no quarrel with you, do you fire.” Mr. Adam then fired, and wounded Mr. Fox, which, we believe, was not at all perceived by Mr. Adam, as it was not distinctly seen by either of ourselves. Mr. Fox then fired, without effect. We then interfered, asking Mr. Adam if he was satisfied. Mr. Adam replied, “Will Mr. Fox declare he meant no personal attack upon my character?” Upon which Mr. Fox said, this was no place for apology, and desired him to go on. Mr. Adam fired his second pistol without effect. Mr. Fox fired his remaining pistol in the air; and then saying, as the affair was ended, he had no difficulty in declaring, he meant no more personal affront to Mr. Adam than he did to either of the other gentlemen present. Mr. Adam replied, “Sir, you have behaved like a man of honour.”

Mr. Fox then mentioned that he believed himself wounded; and upon his opening his waistcoat it was found it was so, but to all appearance slightly. The parties then separated, and Mr. Fox’s wound, on examination, was found not likely to produce any dangerous consequences.^[7]

BETWEEN COUNSELLOR R—— AND ——.
November, 1779.

A remarkable trial lately happened in the Court of King’s Bench, in Ireland. A Counsellor R— had fought a duel with a gentleman, and killed him. He traversed the indictment, and imagined the jury, as usual, would bring in their verdict of “manslaughter.” But the barrister found himself mistaken: they deemed the intentions of two men going out, premeditatedly, to fight, to be “malice aforethought;” and to the astonishment of the Court, brought the prisoner in “guilty,”—Death. The judges desired them to recommend him to the Bench as an object of mercy. They did it with reluctance.

BETWEEN THE EARL OF SHELBURNE AND COLONEL FULLARTON.
March 22, 1780.

Mr. Fullarton, member for Plympton, and late secretary to Lord Stormont, in his embassy to the Court of France, complained to the House of the ungentlemanlike behaviour of the Earl of Shelburne, who, he said, with all the aristocratic insolence that marks that nobleman’s character, had, in effect, dared to say, that he and his regiment were as ready to act against the liberties of England, as against her enemies. This occasioned some altercation between those who were the friends of each party; but being generally thought unparliamentary, it went at that time no farther.

However, on the 22d of March the parties had a meeting.

Lord Shelburne, with Lord Frederick Cavendish for his second, and Mr. Fullarton, with Lord Balcarras for his second, met at half-past five in Hyde Park, March 22, 1780. Lord Balcarras and Lord F. Cavendish proposed that both parties should obey the seconds. Lord Shelburne and Mr. Fullarton walked together, while Lord Balcarras and Lord F. Cavendish adjusted all ceremonials, and fixed on pistols as the proper weapons. When they came to the ground, Lord Shelburne told them that his pistols were already loaded, and offered to draw them, which was rejected by Lord Balcarras and Colonel Fullarton; upon which Lord Balcarras loaded Colonel Fullarton’s pistols. The seconds having agreed that twelve paces was a proper distance, the parties took their ground. Colonel Fullarton desired Lord Shelburne to fire, which his Lordship declined; and Colonel Fullarton was ordered by the seconds to fire. He fired and missed. Lord Shelburne returned it, and missed. Mr. Fullarton then fired his second pistol, and hit Lord Shelburne in the right groin, which his Lordship signified; upon which every body ran up, and the seconds interfered. Lord F. Cavendish offered to take the pistol from Lord Shelburne; but his Lordship refused to deliver it up, saying, “I have not fired that pistol.” Mr. Fullarton returned immediately to his ground, which he had left with a view of assisting his Lordship, and repeatedly desired his Lordship to fire at him. Lord Shelburne said, “Sure, sir, you do not think I would fire my pistol at you;” and fired it in the air. The parties and their seconds joined together. Lord Balcarras asked Lord Shelburne if he had any difficulty in declaring he meant nothing personal to Colonel Fullarton. His Lordship replied, “You know it has taken another course; this is no time for explanation.” His Lordship then said to Colonel Fullarton, “Although I am wounded, I am able to go on if you feel any resentment.” Colonel Fullarton said, “He hoped he was incapable of harbouring such a sentiment.” Lord F. Cavendish declared, that, from the character he had heard of Colonel Fullarton, he believed so. Colonel Fullarton said, “As your Lordship is wounded, and has fired in the air, it is impossible for me to go on.”

Lord Balcarras and Lord F. Cavendish immediately declared, “That the parties had ended the affair by behaving as men of the strictest honour.”

---

On hearing of the above affair, the following message was sent from the City:—

“The Committee of Common Council for corresponding with the committees appointed, or to be appointed, by the several counties, cities, and boroughs in this kingdom, anxious for the preservation of the valuable life of so true a friend of the people as the Earl of Shelburne, respectfully inquire after his Lordship’s safety, highly endangered in consequence of his upright and spirited conduct in Parliament.

“By order of the Committee,

“W. Rix.”

“The Earl of Shelburne.”

At the assizes at Kingston, in Surrey, the trials on the Crown side came on before the Hon. Mr. Justice Gould, and a special jury, when Mr. Donovan (who voluntarily surrendered himself) was tried for having killed, in a duel, Captain James Hanson. It appeared by a number of respectable witnesses, that the deceased was entirely in fault, and had forced Mr. Donovan to meet him in a field near the Dog and Duck. It also appeared that the only ground of quarrel between the prisoner and the deceased was, that Mr. Donovan interfered between Captain Hanson and another person, and prevented their fighting; on which Captain Hanson gave him very abusive language, and insisted that “he would make him smell powder.”

The deceased was wounded by a pistol bullet in the belly, and lived about twenty-four hours after. He declared to two eminent surgeons who attended him, and to several other persons, that Mr. Donovan behaved, during the action, and after it, with the greatest honour, tenderness, and concern. And he particularly desired that no prosecution should be carried on against him, as he himself was solely in fault, by an unprovoked rashness of temper and heat of passion.

The learned Judge gave an excellent charge to the jury, and said, “Though he allowed that all the circumstances were as favourable to the prisoner, as in such a case could be; yet, as the idea of honour was so often mentioned, he must say, and inform the jury and the auditors, that it was false honour in men to break the laws of God and their country; that going out to fight a duel was, in both parties, a deliberate resolution to commit murder; and there could be no honour in so savage a custom, which, however disguised in words, is contrary to the principles and happiness of society, and ought to be reprobated in every well-regulated community.”

The jury, without going out of court, acquitted Mr. Donovan of the murder, and found him “guilty” of “manslaughter,” on the coroner’s inquest. The Judge fined him ten pounds to the King, which being paid in the court, he was immediately discharged.

BETWEEN THE REV. MR. BATE AND MR. R——, A STUDENT OF THE LAW.
September 7, 1780.

A duel was fought in Hyde Park, between the Rev. Mr. Bate, of Surrey-street, and Mr. R——, a student of the law, late of St. John’s College, Cambridge.

The quarrel arose from some circumstances relating to the conduct of the Morning Post, in which they were both engaged. The chance of the first fire falling to Mr. Bate, he discharged his pistol, and hit Mr. R—— in the fleshy part of the right arm. The wound, however, was not sufficient to incapacitate him from returning the fire, which he did, but without effect.

The seconds now interfered, and the affair was adjusted.

BETWEEN THE REV. MR. ALLEN AND L. DULANY, ESQ.
June 26, 1782.

Died, in Park-street, Grosvenor-square, Lloyd Dulany, Esq., a gentleman of a most respectable character, and large property in Maryland.

His death is said to be occasioned by a wound which he received on Tuesday evening last, in a duel with the Rev. Mr. Allen, in Hyde Park. The second of the former was —— Delancey, Esq.; and of the latter, Robert Morris, Esq. He was attended by Dr. Millman, and Messrs. Pott and Adair. The magistrates of Bow-street having advertised a reward of ten guineas each, for the apprehension of the Rev. Mr. Allen, and Robert Morris, Esq., they were, in consequence, apprehended, and committed to Tothill-fields Bridewell.

Yesterday the Rev. Mr. Allen surrendered himself at the Sessions’ House, in the Old Bailey, when he and Robert Morris, Esq., were indicted for the “wilful murder” of Lloyd Dulany, Esq.

Mr. Justice Buller, in his charge to the jury, observed, that the case before them consisted of two parts, law and fact. As to law, there is not, nor ever was a doubt, that where two persons meet together deliberately to fight a duel, and one of them is killed, the other is guilty of “murder,” and his second likewise. In respect to the fact, he stated that the quarrel arose from a circumstance of three years’ standing. A paragraph called, “Characters of Principal Men in Rebellion,” published in the Morning Post, June 29, 1779, referred to the first and fifth of July, the same year, and now recognised by the prisoner Allen, in a letter proved to be his handwriting, avowing himself the author of those characters, retorting the charge of “liar and assassin,” upon the deceased; telling him he did not mean to dispute with, but to punish him; and if he (the deceased) harboured any resentment or revenge, the bearer (Morris) would put him in the way of securing its immediate execution. This brought on sundry verbal messages, and at last, on the 18th of June, a meeting of Mr. Dulany, Mr. Delancey his second, and Mr. Morris; from which they went to Mr. Wogden’s, gun-maker, to get Mr. Allen’s pistols charged; and about half-past nine in the evening, after measuring eight yards, discharged their pistols, when the deceased fell.

Mr. Delancey said that Mr. Morris repeatedly urged deferring the duel to the next day.

One Lydia Lepine deposed, that she saw the prisoner Allen shooting at a mark, in a field near Blackfriars’ Bridge, with pistols, between eleven and twelve o’clock, on the 18th of June. Her master and his son confirmed the fact; but could not swear positively to the person. His Lordship concluded with observing, that a mistaken point of honour was not to bias the judges and the jury in such a case.

The jury withdrew about twenty minutes, and brought in a verdict, Allen, “Guilty of Manslaughter.” Morris, “Not Guilty.” The Recorder then, after a pathetic speech, pronounced sentence on Mr. Allen, of one shilling fine, and to be imprisoned six months in Newgate.

Bamber Gascoigne, Esq., and two ladies, proved an alibi as to shooting at a mark; and they, as well as Lords Bateman, Mountmorris, and several other persons, gave Allen an excellent character. Mr. Morris brought no witnesses.

DUEL PREVENTED.
March 9, 1783.

Two officers of the army, with their seconds, and a surgeon, met in a field near Kensington Gravel Pits, to fight a duel; but were happily prevented by the interposition of a clergyman, who lives in that neighbourhood, who happened to be passing by as they alighted from their carriages, and who suspecting their intention, interfered. The polite and affectionate address of this clergyman effected an honourable reconciliation.

BETWEEN MR. RIDDELL AND MR. CUNNINGHAM.
April 21, 1783.

A duel was fought between Mr. Riddell, of the Horse Grenadiers, and Mr. Cunningham, of the Scots Greys. Both these gentlemen belonged formerly to the Scots Greys, and had differed at play. Mr. Riddell had challenged Mr. Cunningham, which challenge Mr. Cunningham had declined; but many of the gentlemen of the Scots Greys reviving, at intervals, that circumstance, Mr. Cunningham found it necessary, for the full restoration of his honour, that he should call upon Mr. Riddell. This appeal, Mr. Riddell considering as out of season, declined attending to, till he had consulted his brother officers, who agreed there was no obligation on him to answer Mr. Cunningham.

This being their determination, Mr. Cunningham resolved upon forcing him to the point; and meeting him accidentally at Mr. Christie’s, their agent, spat in his face. Mr. Riddell observed that this being a fresh affront, he should take notice of it, and took his departure. He then proceeded to make a few arrangements in his affairs. But before he had completed them, he received a billet from Mr. Cunningham, reminding him of the affront which he had passed upon him, and declaring his readiness to give him satisfaction. This note coming while the wafer was yet wet to the hands of Sir James Riddell, who was under some apprehension of his son’s situation, he opened it; and having read it, closed it, without taking any other notice of its contents, than providing, in consequence of it, the assistance of several surgeons of the first ability. The meeting was fixed. They were both punctual: Mr. Riddell attended by Captain Topham, of the Horse Grenadiers; and Mr. Cunningham, by Captain Cunningham, of the 69th regiment of foot.

Eight paces were first measured by the seconds, and afterwards the contending parties took their ground. They tossed up for the first fire, which Mr. Riddell won. Mr. Riddell fired, and shot Mr. Cunningham under the right breast, the ball passing, as is supposed, through the ribs, and lodging on the left side near the back. The moment Mr. Cunningham received the shot he reeled, but did not fall. He opened his waistcoat, and declared he was mortally wounded. Mr. Riddell still remained on his ground, when Mr. Cunningham, after a pause of two minutes, declared he would not be taken off the field till he had fired at his adversary. Mr. Cunningham then presented his pistol, and shot Mr. Riddell in the groin; he immediately fell, and was carried in a hackney-coach to Mr. Topham’s. The unhappy man lingered until seven o’clock on Tuesday morning, and then expired.

The coroner’s inquest sat on the body of George Riddell, Esq., who was killed in the rencontre, as above related.

The jury sat four hours; and after a very strict examination of the seconds, and a servant of the deceased, brought in their verdict, “Manslaughter.”

BETWEEN CAPTAIN I—— AND COLONEL P——.
June, 1783.

On the 31st ult. a duel was fought near Bangor Ferry, Caernarvonshire, between Captain I—— and Colonel P——. In consequence of several disputes which had happened relating to the Anglesea militia, and a challenge given, some time ago, by Captain I—— to Colonel P——, they were bound over to preserve the peace for a year. That time having expired, Captain I—— sent a message, that he should be at the Ferry-house, at six o’clock, on Saturday morning, attended by Captain M——. The parties met. The seconds marked the ground at twelve paces, and tossed up for the first fire, which Colonel P—— gained. He fired, and shot Captain I—— in the right thigh, who strove to return the fire, but his pistol missed. Captain I—— then demanded a second shot; which not being immediately complied with, he was unable to bear longer on his thigh, and was carried off by the assistance of the seconds.

BETWEEN THE HON. COLONEL COSMO GORDON AND LIEUT.-COLONEL THOMAS.
September 4, 1783.

At six this morning, the Hon. Colonel Cosmo Gordon and Lieut.-Colonel Thomas met at the Ring in Hyde Park, to fight a duel. It was agreed upon by their seconds, that, after receiving their pistols, they should advance, and fire when they pleased. On arriving within about eight yards of each other they presented, and drew their triggers nearly at the same time, when only the Colonel’s pistol went off. The Lieut.-Colonel having adjusted his pistol, fired at the Colonel, who received a severe contusion on the thigh. Their second pistols were fired without effect, and their friends called to reload them; after which they again advanced to nearly the same distance, and fired, when the Lieut.-Colonel fell, having received a ball in his body. He received immediate assistance from a surgeon, who attended the Colonel in case of need, and who extracted the ball on the field; the wound notwithstanding proved mortal.

This morning, about seven o’clock, Mr. Monro, of the 16th Regiment of Dragoons and Mr. Green, with their seconds, met in a field near Battersea Bridge, for the purpose of settling a dispute which took place a few evenings ago. They took their ground at the distance of about six yards. They then fired three pistols each, the last of which wounded Mr. Green in the side. The seconds interfered, and asked Mr. Green if he was satisfied. He said, “Not except Mr. Monro made him a public apology.” “That,” Mr. Monro said, “he now would not do.” Mr. Green replied, “Then one of us must fall.” They again took their ground, and fired each two pistols more. One ball entered Mr. Monro’s knee, and Mr. Green received a shot which has since proved fatal, the ball entering a little above the groin.

BETWEEN LIEUT. HARRISON AND M. H. VAN BERKENSHAM.
October, 1783.

This afternoon a duel was fought behind the Foundling Hospital, between Lieut. Harrison, of the Marines, and M. Harman Van Berkensham, an officer in the Dutch service. When, after marking out the distance of eight paces, Mr. Berkensham fired first and missed. Lieut. Harrison’s bullet grazed the cheek of his antagonist, who insisted on firing again, which he did without effect; and Lieut. Harrison fired his second pistol into the air. The seconds interposed, the parties were reconciled, and both went home good friends.

BETWEEN SIR J. LOWTHER AND SERGEANT BOLTON.
April, 1784.

A duel was fought in this month between Sir James Lowther, and Sergeant Bolton, when three pistols were discharged on each side, but no material injury was done to either of the combatants; and the seconds interposing, they were reconciled.

BETWEEN AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY AND A GERMAN OFFICER.
August, 1784.

An officer in the navy, and a gentleman in the German service, fought a duel with swords and pistols, in a field near Bayswater. Four pistols were discharged, one of which slightly wounded the former in the left shoulder; but in the rencontre with swords, the latter was run through the thigh. A surgeon, who attended, stopped the effusion of blood, which was great; and the gentleman was taken to his apartments in Dean-street, dangerously ill.

This, it appears, was the second duel which these gentlemen had fought. The first was in France, where they were both desperately wounded. The quarrel was a difference of opinion on the conduct of General Burgoyne in the Hudson’s Bay expedition, in which they both served.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN BRISES AND CAPTAIN BULKLEY.
February, 1785.

A duel was fought between Captains Brises and Bulkley. The first shot being won by the latter, he fired, and narrowly missed his antagonist, who discharged his pistol in the air; and the seconds interposing, the affair ended in the field.

BETWEEN LIEUTENANT F—— AND MR. GORDON.
March, 1785.

A duel was fought between Lieut. F——, son of General F——, then quartered in the Old Barracks at Chatham, and a gentleman of the name of Gordon, who was on a visit to his brother, an officer in the same barracks; when Mr. Gordon was so desperately wounded in one of his legs that amputation became necessary. The affair originated in a quarrel at cards.

The duel between Lord Macartney and Mr. Sadleir, which was at first thought unfounded, appears to have been a serious business. They, with their seconds, Mr. Davidson and Major Grattan, took their ground about seven o’clock in the morning, on the 24th of September, 1784. The distance marked by the seconds was ten paces. The lot to fire first fell to Mr. Sadleir; who firing accordingly, the ball struck Lord Macartney on the ribs of the left side, which was not known to the seconds till after his Lordship had likewise fired, but without effect. It had been previously agreed between the seconds, if, after the first fire, no material execution had been done, to interpose their good offices to effect a reconciliation. This they were about to do when it was discovered that Lord Macartney had been wounded. When the previous agreement was mentioned to his Lordship, and he was asked his sentiments, his answer was—“That he came there to give Mr. Sadleir satisfaction, and he was still ready to do so.” And Mr. Sadleir being told that Lord Macartney was wounded, and that, in the present circumstances, the affair could not honourably be pursued any farther, he acquiesced, and declared that he was satisfied. And thus the affair ended.

This day a duel was fought, near Grosvenor-gate, between the Right Hon. the Earl of A——, of the kingdom of Ireland, and Mr. F—— M——, of the same kingdom.

The affair happened from a punctilio of honour. After they had taken their ground, both attempted to fire at the same time; but his Lordship’s pistol missing fire, and Mr. M——’s shot not taking effect, the affair ended satisfactorily.

BETWEEN COMTE DE GERSDORFF AND MONS. L. LE FAVRE.
July, 1785.

A challenge was circulated through Europe by the public prints, from Comte de Gersdorff to Mons. Louis Le Favre; the former of whom offered a hundred louis d’ors to the latter, to bear his charges to any place which he might appoint for the meeting. To this challenge Mons. Le Favre afterwards published the following answer:—

“Mons. Le Comte,”Filbourg, April 28, 1785.

“I hasten to answer your circular letter inserted in the public prints. Our interview, if you think proper, shall be at B—— le D——. As I am in the neighbourhood of the city, I do not want much money to carry me thither; and I thank you sincerely for the hundred louis which you offer me.

“I have the honour to be, &c., Le Favre.”

The Comte in his replication pleads indisposition. But the parties at length met; and there never was such a farce of a fight. Their seconds measured the ground at twenty-five paces. The heroes took their stations, and fired a pistol or two each. Their seconds commended their bravery: the Comte forgave the Secretary, and there was an end of the combat.

BETWEEN LORD W. MURRAY AND MR. G. WAUGH.
November, 1785.

By the East India packet, advice was received of a duel fought between Lord William Murray, and Lieutenant Gilbert Waugh, of the 73rd Regiment, on the 21st of October, 1784, in which the latter was mortally wounded, and died three days after, greatly regretted.

BETWEEN LIEUT. GAMBLE AND LIEUT. MOLLISON.
January, 1786.

A duel was fought at Chatham Lines, between Lieutenant Gamble and Lieutenant Mollison, both of them of the Marines. No compromise could be arranged by the seconds, and Lieutenant Mollison firing first, hit his antagonist in the upper part of his thigh. Lieutenant Gamble fell, but suddenly starting up, as Mr. Mollison advanced towards him, discharged his pistol, and the ball shattered the humerus or upper bone of Mr. Mollison’s arm, a little above the elbow. Here the seconds interposed, and the combatants were taken into their quarters. Mr. Mollison’s arm has since been amputated, and both the gentlemen are now perfectly reconciled, and as good friends as ever.

BETWEEN LORD MACARTNEY AND MAJOR-GEN. STEWART.
June 8, 1786.

A duel was fought near Kensington, between Lord Macartney and Major-General Stewart, of which the following is an authentic account:—

The place and time of meeting having been previously fixed, the parties arrived about half-past four in the morning, and took their ground at the distance of twelve short paces, measured off by the seconds, who delivered to each one pistol, keeping possession of the remaining arms.

General Stewart told Lord Macartney, he doubted, as his Lordship was short-sighted, he would not be able to see him. His Lordship replied, “he did perfectly well.” When the seconds had retired a little on one side, and as the parties were about to level, General Stewart observed to Lord Macartney, that his pistol was not cocked. His Lordship thanked him, and cocked. When they had levelled, General Stewart said “he was ready.” His Lordship answered, “he was likewise ready.” And they both fired within a few instants of each other. The seconds observing Lord Macartney to be wounded, stepped up to him, and declared the matter must rest here. General Stewart said, “this is no satisfaction;” and asked if his Lordship was not able to fire another pistol. His Lordship replied, “he would try with pleasure,” and urged Colonel Fullarton to permit him to proceed. The seconds, however, declared it was impossible, and they would on no account allow it. General Stewart said, “then I must defer it till another occasion;” on which his Lordship answered, “if that be the case, we had better proceed now. I am here in consequence of a message from General Stewart, who called upon me to give him satisfaction in my private capacity, for offence taken at my public conduct; and to evince that personal safety is no consideration with me, I have nothing personal: the General may proceed as he thinks fit.” General Stewart said, “it was his Lordship’s personal conduct to him that he resented.”

The seconds then put an end to all further conversation between the parties, neither of whom had yet quitted his ground; General Stewart, in consequence of his situation, having been under the necessity, from the first, of putting his back to a tree. The surgeons, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Home, who were attending at a little distance, were brought up by Colonel Fullarton. Colonel Gordon, in the mean time, assisted his Lordship in taking off his coat, and requested him to sit down, apprehending he might be faint through loss of blood. Colonel Gordon then left the ground, in company with General Stewart, and an easy carriage was provided to convey his Lordship home.

(Signed)W. Fullarton.
A. Gordon.

BETWEEN COUNSELLOR HUTCHINSON AND LORD MOUNTMORRIS.
May, 1787.

On the 28th ult. a duel took place between Counsellor Hutchinson, third son to the Provost of the University of Dublin, and Lord Mountmorris, in consequence of some words spoken by the latter in the House of Lords, on Monday, the 23rd of April, of which his Lordship refused to give an explanation.

The parties met at Donnybrook; and the seconds having measured the ground, both fired at the same instant: when Lord Mountmorris fell, in consequence of a wound under the arm, and the seconds interposed to prevent farther bloodshed.

About three in the morning, on the 10th, a duel was fought between the Chevalier La B——, an officer in the French service, and Captain S—— of the 11th Regiment of Foot. The ground measured was five paces; and the first shot that was fired by Captain S—— took place on the Chevalier’s breast, but was fortunately prevented from penetrating by the intervention of his coat button; on which he fired his pistol into the air. The seconds interposed, and the combatants parted friends. The expression for which Captain S—— called out the Chevalier was to this effect—that the English army had more phlegm than spirit.

BETWEEN SIR JOHN MACPHERSON AND MAJOR BROWNE.
September 10, 1787.

A duel took place in Hyde Park, between Sir John Macpherson and Major Browne. The parties met near Grosvenor-gate, about eleven o’clock. The pistols were loaded on the ground, and it was agreed they both should fire at the same time. They did so. Sir John received the Major’s second fire; but his own pistol missed fire. Colonel Murray, second to Sir John, then asked Major Roberts, who was second to Major Browne, if his friend was satisfied. Major Browne said he was satisfied that Sir John had behaved with great gallantry, and much like a man of honour. But some further explanation being required on the part of the Major, a third shot was exchanged. And then both parties quitting the ground, came up to each other, said a few words, and parted with salutations of civility.

This day Robert Keon, Esq., was brought up to the Court of King’s Bench, to receive sentence for the murder of George Nugent Reynolds, Esq.

The circumstances of this murder were as follow:—These two gentlemen went out to fight a duel; and when Mr. Reynolds, previously to coming to action, was in the act of saluting Mr. Keon, with his hat in his hand, wishing him a good morning, the latter fired his pistol, and shot him through the head. Upon this Mr. Plunket, Mr. Reynolds’s second, called out, “A horrid murder!” On which Mr. Keon’s brother replied, “If you don’t like it, take that,” and snapped his pistol at Mr. Plunket, which luckily did not go off. The jury found Mr. Keon “guilty” in November last; but his counsel moved an arrest of judgment, and pleaded several errors in the different proceedings, to stop the sentence. The Court, after the most solemn arguments, over-ruled all the objections, and passed sentence of death upon him, according to the verdict, and he was executed on the sixteenth of the following month.

On the 17th instant, a duel took place between the Duke of York and Colonel Lennox. Lord Rawdon was second to the Duke of York, and the Earl of Winchilsea to Colonel Lennox.

The dispute originated in an expression of the Duke of York, that “Colonel Lennox had heard words spoken to him at Daubigny’s, to which no gentleman ought to have submitted.” This observation being repeated to Colonel Lennox, he took the opportunity, while his Royal Highness was on the parade to address him, desiring to know what were the words which he submitted to hear, and by whom they were spoken. To this his Royal Highness gave no other answer than by ordering him to his post. The parade being over, his Royal Highness went into the Orderly-room; and sending for the Colonel, intimated to him, in the presence of all the officers, that he desired to derive no protection from his rank as a prince, and his station as commanding officer; but that, when not on duty, he wore a brown coat, and was ready, as a private gentleman, to give the Colonel satisfaction.

After this declaration, Colonel Lennox wrote a circular letter to every member of the club at Daubigny’s, requesting to know whether such words had been used to him, and appointing a particular day for an answer from each; their silence to be considered as a declaration that no such words could be recollected.

On the expiration of the term limited for an answer to the circular letter, the Colonel sent a written message to his Royal Highness to this purport—that not being able to recollect any occasion on which words had been spoken to him at Daubigny’s, to which a gentleman ought not to submit, he had taken the step which had appeared to him most likely to gain information of the words to which his Royal Highness had alluded, and of the person who had used them; that none of the members of the club had given him information of any such insult being in their knowledge; and therefore he expected, in justice to his character, that his Royal Highness should contradict the report as publicly as he had stated it.

This letter was delivered to his Royal Highness by the Earl of Winchilsea; when, the answer returned not proving satisfactory, a message was sent to his Royal Highness desiring a meeting, and the time and place were settled that evening.

The meeting took place on Wimbledon Common. The Duke of York received Colonel Lennox’s fire, but did not fire himself; the ball from Colonel Lennox grazed his Royal Highness’s curl.

Some days after this Colonel Lennox made a requisition to the Duke of York, as Colonel of the Coldstream Regiment, that his Royal Highness would permit a call of the officers of that corps, in order that certain propositions touching his conduct and situation might be submitted to their consideration.

His Royal Highness informed the friend of Mr. Lennox,—that he could not possibly oppose any design which might tend to relieve Mr. Lennox from his present embarrassment. The meeting of this military convention was held at the Orderly-room; and after much deliberation, adjourned to the 1st of June; when, considerable discussion having taken place, the convention came to the following resolution:—“It is the opinion of the Coldstream Regiment, that subsequent to the 15th of May, the day of the meeting at the Orderly-room, Lieut.-Colonel Lennox has behaved with courage; but, from the peculiar difficulty of his situation, not with judgment.”

Colonel Lennox soon after exchanged his company in the Duke of York’s regiment, for the commission of Lieut.-Colonel in the 35th Regiment of Foot.

A duel was fought at Exeter, in consequence of a previous dispute, between Captain Edward Pellew of the navy, and Lieutenant I. M. Northey. The former was attended to the field by Captain Reynolds; the latter, by his brother, Thomas Northey, Esq. The parties took their ground at twelve paces; and a signal being given, they both fired, when Lieutenant Northey’s ball passed through his opponent’s coat. A second signal being given, as agreed, both parties reserved their fire. An explanation between the friends took place, and the matter was settled to the satisfaction and honour of all parties. To prevent misrepresentation, the foregoing account is published by the seconds.

BETWEEN CAPT. TONGUE AND CAPT. PATERSON.
June 19, 1789.

A duel was fought between Captain Tongue, of his Majesty’s 6th Regiment, and Captain Paterson, in the East India Company’s military service, in which Captain Tongue was wounded in the side.

The cause of the quarrel originated in the street. Captain Tongue acknowledged himself the aggressor.

This evening, in consequence of some expressions reflecting on the character of Lieut.-Colonel Lennox, published in a pamphlet, with the name of Theophilus Swift, Esq., Colonel Lennox called on Mr. Swift, and demanded satisfaction.

They met in a field near the Uxbridge-road, attended by Sir William Augustus Browne and Lieut.-Colonel Phipps. Ten paces were measured by the seconds; and it was agreed that Lieut.-Colonel Lennox should fire first. The parties having taken their ground, Colonel Lennox asked if Mr. Swift was ready. On his answering that he was, Colonel Lennox fired, and the ball took place in the body of Mr. Swift, whose pistol, on his receiving the wound, went off without effect. The parties then quitted the ground.

It is but just to say, that both gentlemen behaved with the utmost degree of coolness and intrepidity. Mr. Swift has since recovered from his wound.

BETWEEN J. P. CURRAN, ESQ., M.P., AND MAJOR HOBART.L
April 1, 1790.

A duel was fought in Luttrelstown, between J. P. Curran, Esq., M.P., and Major Hobart, secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, occasioned by some words spoken in Parliament.

The meeting was at the Hermitage, one of Lord Carhampton’s seats. Mr. Curran was attended by Mr. Egan; Major Hobart, by Lord Carhampton. Being put to their ground, and having agreed to fire as they chose, Mr. Curran fired first, without effect; whereupon Major Hobart said, he hoped Mr. Curran was satisfied. Mr. Egan then called out to Major Hobart that he had not fired, as did Mr. Curran. The Major advancing a step or two towards Mr. Curran, repeated what he had said before. Mr. Curran replied, “I am sorry, Sir, you have taken this advantage; but you have made it impossible for me not to be satisfied.”

BETWEEN SIR GEORGE RAMSAY AND CAPTAIN MACRAE.
Edinburgh, April 15, 1790.

A duel was fought yesterday, near this city. The parties were Sir George Ramsay and Captain Macrae. The circumstances are as follows:—

A servant of Sir George’s, keeping a chair at the door of the Edinburgh Theatre, was ordered by Captain Macrae to remove it. On his objecting, some words ensued; and the fracas concluded in Captain Macrae chastising the servant very severely.

Meeting the next day with Sir George Ramsay, he insisted on his dismissing the man from his service. This was refused, on the ground, that whatever was the misconduct of the servant, he had already received a sufficient punishment.

A challenge was the immediate consequence of this refusal. The parties met on Musselborough Links, Sir George Ramsay accompanied by Sir William Maxwell, and Captain Macrae by Mr. Hay.

The former fired first, but without effect; Captain Macrae returned the fire, and lodged his ball near the heart of his antagonist. Sir George languished in much agony until Friday morning, when he expired. He was a gentleman of the most amiable character and disposition; and had but lately married a beautiful young lady, the sister of Lord Saltoun.

Captain Macrae and his second immediately fled. The poor fellow, on whose account this duel happened, no sooner heard of his master’s fate than he fell into strong convulsions, and died in the course of a few hours.

On Monday, the High Court of Justiciary met at Edinburgh, for the trial of James Macrae, of Hollmains, indicted at the instance of the Hon. Lady Ramsay, and Sir William Ramsay, of Banff, Bart., and of his Majesty Advocate, for the murder of the late Sir George Ramsay, Bart., on the 14th of April last. Mr. Macrae not having appeared to stand trial, sentence of fugitation (outlawry) was pronounced against him.

Yesterday a duel was fought at Kingsgate, between Mr. Stephens, son of Philip Stephens, Esq., Secretary to the Admiralty, and a Mr. Anderson.

It originated in such a trifling circumstance as a dispute about the shutting of a window in the public rooms. The parties fired each a pistol without effect; but at the second fire Mr. Anderson’s ball entered between Mr. Stephens’s under lip and chin; and passing to the jugular vein in the neck, occasioned his almost instantaneous death.

Mr. Anderson was apprehended soon after; and this day the coroner’s inquest sat on the body, and brought in their verdict “manslaughter.”

The bill of indictment afterwards presented against Mr. Anderson for murder, in his unhappy meeting with Stephens, was unanimously thrown out as frivolous and unfounded, by the grand jury at Dover.

BETWEEN CAPT. H. ASTON AND LIEUT. FITZGERALD.
June 25, 1790.

A duel was fought between Captain Harvey Aston, and Lieutenant Fitzgerald of the 60th Regiment of Foot. The cause of the dispute happened at Ranelagh; but so long before the challenge, that it was imagined all idea of hostility had ceased. A field belonging to Chalk Lodge Farm, near Hampstead, was the chosen spot, and break of day the time appointed. Lord Charles Fitzroy was the second to Captain Aston, and Mr. Hood was second to Lieutenant Fitzgerald.

Ten yards was the ground measured; and Mr. Fitzgerald had the first fire. He rested his pistol on the left arm, and took aim accordingly. The ball took a direction so as to glance on Mr. Aston’s wrist, and passed from thence under his right cheek bone, and through the neck. On receiving this wound, Captain Aston called to his antagonist,—“Are you satisfied?” The answer returned was, “I am satisfied.” Captain Aston then retired from the ground, and was assisted to his carriage. Happily the wound is not likely to prove mortal.

BETWEEN MR. GRAHAM AND MR. JULIUS.
July 19, 1791.

An unfortunate rencontre took place this morning upon Blackheath, between Mr. Graham, an eminent special pleader, of the Temple, and Mr. Julius, a pupil in the office of Messrs. Graham, attorneys, of Lincoln’s Inn, who are brothers of the former.

The parties had dined together at the house of Mr. Black, the surveyor, upon Epping Forest, on Sunday; and after dinner, having drunk freely, one of them expressing some free opinions concerning religion!!! much abrupt language passed between them. They were reconciled, however, on that day, and returned to town in the same carriage.

On Monday, they met again after dinner, at the chambers of Mr. Graham, Lincoln’s Inn, the brother of the deceased, where the dispute was unfortunately renewed, though apparently without malignity. No challenge was given that night; but in the morning, the deceased called upon Mr. Julius for an apology for some expression; which being refused, they went out together, Mr. Graham attended by Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Julius by Mr. Maxwell. A pupil of an eminent surgeon attended them to Blackheath, where Mr. Graham fell by a shot which passed almost through the lower part of the belly. He was brought to town in a post-chaise, and the exertions of the most eminent of the faculty were in vain used for his relief; the ball having laid open the femoral artery, and it being impossible to stop the discharge of blood, he expired in the afternoon of the next day.

Mr. Graham was a gentleman of considerable eminence in his profession, and of an esteemed character in private life.

Mr. Julius is the son of a very respectable attorney at St. Kitt’s, and is said not to have been the least to blame in this quarrel.

A duel was yesterday morning fought in Hyde Park, between Mr. Frizell and Mr. Clark, both students of the law. Mr. Montgomery was second to Mr. Frizell, and Mr. Evans to Mr. Clark.

On Thursday night, these four gentlemen were in company at the Cecil-street Coffeehouse, where Mr. Frizell lodged. They drank till one in the morning, when Mr. Frizell declaring he could drink no longer, Mr. Clark said, with some warmth,—it was using his friends very ill, but that it was not the first time he had behaved so; for that at Chatham he had quarrelled with all the officers, and particularly with his friend Lieutenant Hixon, of the 14th Regiment, and that he had the character of a fighting man. Mr. Frizell replied,—that he did not mean to give offence; but if anything that he had said, could be so construed, he was ready to give Mr. Clark satisfaction,—and then went to bed.

Mr. Clark insisted, that these words were a direct challenge, and appealed to the other gentlemen, who declared that they did not consider them in that light. Mr. Clark, however, went up to Mr. Frizell’s room, and insisted on his meeting him in five minutes. Mr. Frizell immediately dressed himself, and went down stairs, where he said, before all the parties, that if Mr. Evans and Mr. Montgomery were of opinion that he had been guilty of any improper conduct, he would apologize for it to Mr. Clark. But that gentleman said he would accept of no apology, and insisted that he should meet him in Hyde Park in an hour from the time,—three o’clock.

It was then settled that Mr. Evans and Mr. Montgomery should be the seconds. And after these gentlemen had in vain endeavoured to make up the difference, Mr. Clark, accompanied by Mr. Evans, went out for pistols. Mr. Clark procured a brace, which he loaded, and observing that Mr. Frizell had not got pistols, gave him one of his.

When they got to the ground, they stood at the distance of ten yards, and tossed up for the first fire, which was won by Mr. Clark, whose ball penetrated Mr. Frizell’s collar-bone. He fell, and as he was falling, his pistol went off. Mr. Montgomery, not supposing him dead, ran for a coach, to convey him to a surgeon’s; but on his return found Mr. Frizell had expired. Mr. Clark and Mr. Evans were standing by the body, and were surrounded by some soldiers, who refused to let them go until their sergeant came to them. The sergeant (who had previously been to Knightsbridge barracks, to consult his officer, Captain Hill, what was to be done) presently appeared, and set them at liberty; when the body was put into a coach, into which they all got, and drove off. In Piccadilly, Mr. Clark and Mr. Evans got out, and have not since been heard of.

Mr. Frizell and Mr. Clark were natives of Ireland, as were the two seconds. They were all young men. The coroner’s inquest has since sat on the body of Mr. Frizell, and brought in their verdict, “wilful murder.”

BETWEEN MR. KEMBLE AND MR. AIKIN.
March, 1792.

Contrary to dramatic custom, a duel was fought in a field near Marylebone, between Mr. Kemble and Mr. Aikin, of Drury-lane Theatre, in consequence of a dispute respecting certain dramatical arrangements which Mr. Aikin conceived to be injurious to him.

Mr. Aikin discharged his pistol without effect, and the parties were happily reconciled without proceeding further. They had no seconds; but Mr. Bannister, sen., attended as their common friend, a circumstance that clearly showed how little comedians are acquainted with the punctilios of honour.

BETWEEN THE EARL OF LONSDALE AND CAPTAIN CUTHBERT, OF THE GUARDS.
June 9, 1792.

An affair of honour took place early this morning, between the Earl of Lonsdale, and Captain Cuthbert of the Guards, which, after the discharge of a brace of pistols on each side, terminated without injury to either party. Lord Lonsdale’s last shot would probably have been fatal if the ball had not luckily struck a button of Captain Cuthbert, which repelled it. The seconds then interfered, and matters were amicably adjusted. The circumstances which led to this hazardous decision were as follows:—

Captain Cuthbert, in order to obviate all increasing disturbance in Mount-street, had directed that no carriage should be suffered to pass that way. Lord Lonsdale, who came in his carriage to Mount-street, was consequently obstructed; and finding the impediment insuperable, his temper was somewhat ruffled. Addressing himself, therefore, to Captain Cuthbert, he exclaimed, “You rascal, do you know that I am a peer of the realm?” The Captain immediately replied, “I don’t know that you are a peer; but I know you are a scoundrel, for applying such a term to an officer on duty; and I will make you answer for it.” A meeting, of course, took place, and concluded as stated.

Lord Lauderdale attended by the Right Hon. Charles James Fox, and General Arnold with Lord Hawke as his friend, had a meeting near Kilburn Wells, to terminate a misunderstanding which it was found impossible to conciliate.

Lord Lauderdale received the General’s fire unhurt, when, his Lordship declining to return the shot, the seconds retired for about ten minutes, and the result was the finishing of the affair. The noble Earl, upon being desired to fire, observed that he did not come there to fire at the General, nor could he retract the offensive expressions; if General Arnold was not satisfied, he might fire till he was. A like rencontre took place a few days before between the noble Earl and the Duke of Richmond.

BETWEEN MONS. CHAUVIGNY AND MONS. C. LAMETH.
November 8, 1792.

This affair, which originated in a difference of opinion, had been undecided for two years. It appears that M. de Chauvigny, having learned the arrival of his antagonist in this country, gave him a meeting, and proposed to fight him, which the latter assented to. The parties fought in a field near the place of Mons. Lameth’s residence, and he was dangerously wounded in the belly. The affair ended by both declaring themselves satisfied, and giving their word of honour that the matter was finally adjusted.

The seconds were, for Mons. Chauvigny, the Duke de Pienne and the Count de Chabanc; and for Mons. Lameth, the Duke d’Aiguillon and Mr. Maselet.

BETWEEN MR. PUREFOY AND COLONEL ROPER.
Maidstone, August 14, 1794.

At these assizes this day, Mr. Thomas Purefoy was indicted for the “wilful murder” of Colonel Roper in a duel, which took place on the 21st of December, 1788. The interval which had occurred between that time and the prosecution, was not assignable to the prosecutor, as Mr. Purefoy had, for the greater part of the time, been out of the kingdom.

In 1787, Major Roper was commander-in-chief of the island of St. Vincent, and Mr. Purefoy was Ensign in the 66th Regiment. The latter having obtained leave of absence, had a festive day with some of the junior officers, in which they committed such excesses as occasioned a complaint to Major Roper, by whom the leave of absence was recalled. The remonstrances of Mr. Purefoy were made in such a style, as to induce Major Roper to bring him to a court-martial. By their verdict he was declared to have forfeited his commission; and this verdict was afterwards confirmed by his Majesty. This was the origin of the dispute, which had afterwards such a fatal termination.

The evidence, particularly that of General Stanwix, the second to Colonel Roper, was extremely favourable to the prisoner; who being called upon for his defence, said, that he had entertained no malice against the deceased; he had been led by a call of honour, or, more properly speaking, driven by the tyranny of custom, to an act, which in early life had embittered his existence; but without which, he was taught to believe that he should lose all the consideration which society could afford. The last challenge, he observed, had come from Colonel Roper; and, as some expiation of his offence, he had already suffered six years of exile, and nine months of close confinement. The latter part of this address was read from a written paper, by Mr. Erskine, the feelings of Mr. Purefoy being such as to overpower his utterance.

The prisoner called nine gentlemen to his character, most of whom had known him from early life. They all spoke to the general mildness of his character, and the good-humoured ease and aversion to quarrel which marked his general deportment. After a charge by the Judge, Mr. Baron Hotham, the jury, without hesitation, returned their verdict “not guilty.”

In consequence of a dispute at the Opera House, on Saturday evening, between Major Sweetman, of the Independents, and Captain Watson, of the 90th Regiment; these gentlemen, attended by their seconds and surgeons, met near Cobham.

The combatants were posted by the seconds at the distance of ten yards; but Major Sweetman, who was short-sighted, complaining that he could not see clearly, Captain Watson called out to him to advance till he was satisfied: he advanced to within four yards, when both parties fired together. Captain Watson’s ball went in at Major Sweetman’s right breast and came out at his left; he fell, and instantly expired. Captain Watson was wounded in the upper part of the thigh, but is in a fair way of recovery, the ball having been extracted.

This day came on at Kingston assizes, the trial of Captain Brereton Watson, for the “murder” of Major Sweetman in a duel, which took place in January, at Cobham.

Captain Watson, still very ill of his wounds, was carried on a sofa covered with black into court. The surgeons refusing to be examined, through fear of being implicated in the crime with which the prisoner was charged, the trial was very short; and the result was, that Captain Watson was acquitted.

BETWEEN MR. RICHARD ENGLAND AND MR. ROWLLS.
February 19, 1796.

Mr. Richard England was put to the bar at the Old Bailey, charged with the “wilful murder” of Mr. Rowlls, brewer, of Kingston, in a duel at Cranford-bridge, June 18, 1784.

Lord Derby, the first witness, gave in evidence that he was present at Ascot races. When in the stand upon the race-course, he heard Mr. England cautioning the gentlemen present not to bet with the deceased, as he neither paid what he lost nor what he borrowed. On which Mr. Rowlls went up to him, called him rascal, or scoundrel, and offered to strike him; when Mr. England bid him stand off, or he would be obliged to knock him down; saying, at the same time, “We have interrupted the company sufficiently here, and if you have anything further to say to me, you know where I am to be found.” A further altercation ensued; but his Lordship being at the other end of the stand, did not distinctly hear it, and then the parties retired. Lord Dartrey, now Lord Cremorne, and his lady, with a gentleman, were at the inn at the time the duel was fought. They went into the garden and endeavoured to prevent the duel; several other persons were collected in the garden. Mr. Rowlls desired his Lordship and others not to interfere; and on a second attempt of his Lordship to make peace, Mr. Rowlls said, if they did not retire, he must, though reluctantly, call them impertinent. Mr. England at the same time stepped forward, and took off his hat; he said, “Gentlemen, I have been cruelly treated; I have been injured in my honour and character; let reparation be made, and I am ready to have done this moment.” Lady Dartrey retired. His Lordship stood in the bower of the garden until he saw Mr. Rowlls fall. One or two witnesses were called, who proved nothing material.

A paper, containing the prisoner’s defence, being read, the Earl of Derby, Marquis of Hertford, Mr. Whitbread, jun., Colonel Bishopp, and other gentlemen, were called to his character. They all spoke of him as a man of decent gentlemanly deportment, who, instead of seeking quarrels, was studious to avoid them. He had been friendly to Englishmen while abroad, and had rendered some service to the military at the siege of Newport.

Mr. Justice Rooke summed up the evidence; after which the jury retired for about three quarters of an hour, when they returned a verdict of “manslaughter.”

The prisoner having fled from the laws of his country for twelve years, the Court was disposed to show no lenity. He was therefore sentenced to pay a fine of one shilling, and to be imprisoned in Newgate twelve months.

BETWEEN LORD MALDEN AND THE DUKE OF NORFOLK.
April 30, 1796.

In consequence of a publication, addressed by Lord Malden to the inhabitants of the borough of Leominster, the Duke of Norfolk, accompanied by Captain Wombwell, of the 1st West York regiment of Militia, and Lord Malden, accompanied by Captain Taylor, Aid-de-camp to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, met on Saturday morning, in a field beyond Paddington.

The parties having taken their ground, and the word being given by one of the seconds, they fired without effect. The seconds then thought proper to offer their interference; and in consequence of a conversation which passed while the parties were on the ground, a reconciliation was effected.

BETWEEN LORD VALENTIA AND HENRY GAWLER, ESQ.
June 28, 1796.

A duel was fought in a field within three miles of Hamburgh, between Lord Valentia and Henry Gawler, Esq. They left England with their seconds and surgeons, for the express purpose of fighting. They fired together. Mr. Gawler’s ball took place; it entered his Lordship’s breast bone, and lodged near the neck. It was extracted on the field; and he is considered to be out of danger. Lord Valentia’s ball passed through Mr. Gawler’s hat.

The affair between Mr. Gawler and Lady Valentia was the subject of the dispute.

BETWEEN MR. WM. CARPENTER AND MR. JOHN PRIDE.
Aug. 20, 1796.

This morning a duel was fought in Hyde Park, between Mr. William Carpenter and Mr. John Pride, both Americans, in which Mr. Carpenter received his antagonist’s ball in the side, which penetrated nearly through his body; and, notwithstanding it was immediately extracted, he died soon after.

The coroner’s jury afterwards sat upon the body, and brought in their verdict “wilful murder.”

BETWEEN LIEUT. FITZGERALD AND LIEUT. WARRINGTON.
May 4, 1797.

In consequence of a quarrel which happened in the theatre at Plymouth, on the Friday evening preceding, between Lieutenant Fitzgerald, of the Marines, and Lieutenant Warrington, of the 25th Regiment, they met, accompanied by their seconds, to settle the business. They exchanged shots without effect; but on the second fire Lieutenant Fitzgerald’s ball wounded Lieutenant Warrington in the side, after which the business terminated.

BETWEEN CAPT. SMITH AND LIEUT. FRANCIS BUCKLEY.
August 5, 1797.

Killed in a duel with Captain Smith, of the same regiment, Lieutenant Francis Buckley, of the Loyal British Fencibles, in the island of Jersey.

After exchanging several shots, the deceased received his antagonist’s ball in his right side, and died almost instantly.

The cause of this unfortunate affair is said to have arisen from a quarrel between Capt. Smith and the deceased; in which the former received a blow from the latter, who imagined that very improper language had been made use of towards him.

He has left a wife and two infant children, a brother (a lieutenant in the same regiment), and aged parents, to lament his untimely fate.

BETWEEN COLONEL KING AND COLONEL FITZGERALD.
October, 1797.

About four weeks before, the Hon. Miss King, who lived with her mother, Lady Kingsborough, eloped from Windsor. There were many circumstances attending the elopement which led to a suspicion of the person who had seduced her from her duty.

Colonel Fitzgerald, who is married to a very beautiful lady, and is second cousin to Miss King, had been very attentive to her for some time; and, it appears, had previously found means to lead her astray. She was very young, being now only sixteen years of age; and her habits of life had been such as to leave her more uninformed of the vicious habits of the world than happens to most young people, even at that early age.

Colonel Fitzgerald was at length attacked by her friends as being accessory to her elopement. But he was at first extremely indignant, and threatened to fight any person who should accuse him. The afflicted parent, by the advice of friends, had at length recourse to the newspapers; and after having repeatedly advertised in vain for her daughter, was induced to offer a reward of a hundred guineas for her recovery. It was in consequence of the reward offered, that a young woman, daughter of the mistress of the house where the young lady was concealed, in Clayton-street, Kennington, discovered Miss King and her seducer.

As soon as Lord Kingsborough, who was in Ireland, heard of the fate of his daughter, he came to England with his son, Colonel King; and the first step was to find out Colonel Fitzgerald, which was not done without some difficulty, as they were determined to call him to a personal and severe account.

Lord Kingsborough wrote to his friend, Major Wood, at Ashford, requesting his immediate attendance in town. As soon as he arrived a meeting was appointed, and a duel took place, of which the following particulars are given by Major Wood to a friend:—

“My dear Friend,

“I shall, without preface, enter at once into the affair, which I mentioned to you was to take place this morning, and ‘nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.’

“Agreeably to an arranged plan, I accompanied Colonel King to a spot near the Magazine in the Park. Colonel Fitzgerald we met at Grosvenor-gate, unaccompanied by a friend, which, by the way, he told me yesterday he feared he should not be able to provide, in consequence of the odium which was thrown upon his character; at the same time observing, ‘That he was so sensible of my honour, that he was perfectly satisfied to meet Colonel King unattended by a friend.’ I decidedly refused any interference on his part, informing him ‘That had not nearer relations of the —— been on the spot, he would have seen me as a principal.’ He replied, ‘He would try to procure a friend,’ and withdrew. I addressed him this morning by ‘Where is your friend, Sir?’ Answer (as well as I recollect), ‘I have not been able to procure one; I rest assured that you will act fairly.’ I then desired him to apply to his surgeon, which he immediately did, who refused appearing as a second, but said he would be in view. Colonel King was equally desirous to go on with the business. I consented. However, I prevailed upon a surgeon, who accompanied Dr. Browne, to be present as a witness that all was fairly conducted. It was no common business. I placed them at ten short paces’ distance from each other. That distance I thought too far. But I indulged a hope that Colonel Fitzgerald, sensible of the vileness of his conduct, would, after the first fire, have thrown himself on Colonel King’s humanity. His conduct was quite the reverse. In short, they exchanged six shots without effect. King was cool and determined. The other also was determined; and, to appearance, obstinately bent on blood. After the fourth shot he said something to me about giving him advice as a friend. I told him I was no friend of his, but that I was a friend to humanity, that, if after what had passed, he possessed firmness enough to acknowledge to Colonel King that he was the vilest of human beings, and bear without reply any language from Colonel King, however harsh, the present business, then, perhaps, might come to a period. He consented to acknowledge that he had acted wrongly, but no farther. That was not enough. He now attempted to address Colonel King, who prevented him by saying,—that he was a d—d villain, and that he would not listen to anything he had to say.

“They proceeded. Colonel Fitzgerald’s powder and balls were now expended. He desired to have one of King’s pistols. To this I would not consent, though pressed to do so by my friends. Here ended this morning’s business. We must meet again. It cannot end here. I have only to add, that nothing could exceed the firmness and propriety of Colonel King’s conduct, through every stage of this business.

“I am, my dear friend, very truly yours,

“Robert Wood.

“P.S.—On leaving the ground Colonel Fitzgerald agreed to meet Colonel King at the same hour to-morrow.

“Both the colonels, the same day, were put under arrest.”

Yesterday, intelligence was received in town of the death of Colonel Fitzgerald, who was lately guilty of a most shameful and dishonourable act in the family of the present Earl of Kingston, by seducing a daughter of that much respected nobleman, to whom he was allied, and in whose family he had been a constant visitor. He met with his death in the following manner:—

After the discovery of this unfortunate criminal intercourse, which occurred in England, and in consequence of which a duel had taken place between the brother of the young lady (who is now Lord Kingsborough) and the deceased Colonel Fitzgerald, she was removed to the country residence of her noble father, now the Earl of Kingston, at Mitchelstown, near Kilworth, in this kingdom. The deceased, feeling no remorse for what he had done, in dishonouring by the most artful stratagems an illustrious family, had the audacity and hardihood to follow the young lady to Ireland; it is supposed, with a view to wrest her by violence from her parents; and for this purpose, took lodgings at an inn in Kilworth.

The Colonel had been there some days before his arrival at Kilworth was known, or the object of his expedition was discovered. He was observed to walk out in the night, and conceal himself in the day, and the servants at length noticed him lurking about Mitchelstown House at unseasonable hours. Intelligence having reached Lord Kingsborough, who had had the duel with the Colonel, and resolved to defeat his antagonist’s project, he left his father’s house, and went to Kilworth, where, having inquired if that gentleman was in the house, and being informed he was, he went to the apartment he was directed to, which the colonel lodged in. Lord Kingsborough rapped at the door, requiring admittance. The Colonel, knowing his voice, replied, that he was locked in, and could not open the door; but if he had anything to say to him, he would receive it in writing under the door. This enraged the young nobleman, and he forced open the door, and running to a case of pistols in the room, took one, and desired the Colonel to take the other, and defend himself, as he was resolved to have satisfaction for the scheme the deceased had formed against his sister, and which he came to this place to put into execution. On both seizing the pistols, they grappled with each other, and were struggling when the Earl of Kingston, who had been apprised of his son’s departure in pursuit of the Colonel, and quickly followed the young lord, entered the room; and finding them in the contest, and that his son must lose his life, from the situation the deceased had him in, the Earl fired upon the Colonel, not, we believe, with an intention to kill him, though his aggravation was great. The shot, however, took effect, and the Colonel lost his life, but not lamented by any one who has heard of his very dishonourable conduct in this affair.

When Miss King was taken by her father from England, on account of her disgrace, it was discovered, on her arrival in Dublin, that the servant-maid, who accompanied her, favoured the views of the seducer. On her consequent dismissal from the service she returned to England, and was the bearer of a private letter to Colonel Fitzgerald, the contents of which were, it is said, sufficient to induce the Colonel, even at the risk of his life, to make an effort to regain the young lady. But his finances not enabling him to undertake the journey, he borrowed a sum of money of an amiable woman, who ought to have been most dear to him, under the pretence of making a visit to Dorsetshire. Thus accommodated, he set out for the sister kingdom, and arrived at the village of Kilworth, near Mitchelstown, the residence of the noble family, and the place where the young lady was then kept, whose conduct was then watched with particular vigilance.

BETWEEN THE RIGHT HON. W. PITT AND G. TIERNEY, ESQ.
May 21, 1798.

In consequence of some expressions made use of by Mr. Pitt in the House of Commons on the Friday previous, Mr. Pitt, accompanied by Mr. Rider, and Mr. Tierney, accompanied by Mr. George Walpole, met at three o’clock in the afternoon on Putney Heath.

After some ineffectual attempts on the part of the seconds to prevent farther proceedings, the parties took their ground at the distance of twelve paces. A case of pistols was fired at the same moment without effect. A second case was also fired in the same manner. Mr. Pitt having fired his pistol in the air, the seconds jointly interfered, and insisted that the matter should go no farther, it being their decided opinion that sufficient satisfaction had been given, and that the business was ended with perfect honour to both parties.

BETWEEN COL. HARVEY ASTON AND MAJOR ALLEN.
December 23, 1798.

Died, at Madras, in consequence of a wound which he received in a duel with Major Allen, of which he languished about a week, Colonel Harvey Aston.

He had been engaged in a similar affair of honour, and on the same account, with Major Picton only the day preceding that on which he met Major Allen; but which was fortunately terminated by each party firing in the air, and a proper explanation taking place as to the offence.

This morning two students of our University, Messrs. Coolan and Morcan, in consequence of an unhappy dispute the preceding evening, met in the fields near Harcourt-street. They fired at the same moment, when Mr. Coolan’s shot unfortunately took place in the temple of his antagonist, and killed him on the spot. The surviving combatant has been expelled the college, and the two seconds have been rusticated.

BETWEEN J. CORRY, ESQ. AND —— NEWBURGH, ESQ.
May 10, 1800.

Yesterday a meeting took place on Drumcondra-road, between James Corry, Esq., of Lurgan-street, and —— Newburgh, Esq., in consequence of a dispute, and, as alleged, the provocation of a blow given by the latter to the former. The latter gentleman was accompanied on the ground by Captain Warring of the 24th Dragoons, as his second; the other by Mr. Weir, one of the attorneys.

Having taken their ground, the signal was given to fire. Mr. Corry’s pistol went off without effect, Mr. Newburgh’s missed fire. He was preparing to fire it afterwards, when his second called to him, telling him, the snap in duelling was considered as a fire. Both gentlemen were then provided with other pistols, and received the signal to fire again, which they did, and Mr. Newburgh was shot through the heart and expired.

Mr. Newburgh was the only son of Broghill Newburgh, of the county of Cavan, Esq. of an ancient family, and heir-apparent to an estate of 5000l. per annum.

Mr. Corry is an ÉlÈve of the Speaker of the House of Commons, by whom he was placed in the lucrative situation of clerk to the Linen Board; a place which was enjoyed by his father, who was also a great favourite with Mr. Foster.

The deceased was upwards of thirty years of age, and married to the daughter of Mr. Camac, an East India gentleman, with a fortune of 30,000l. He was related to Lord Enniskillen, Lord Erne, Lord Gosford, and some other of the best families in Ireland.

Mr. Corry, who is some years younger, is a young gentleman of amiable and inoffensive manners.

BETWEEN MR. P. HAMILTON AND MR. G. I. EAKER.
January, 1802.

A duel took place at New York, between Mr. P. Hamilton, son of General Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. G. I. Eaker; in which, at the first fire, Mr. Hamilton was shot through the body. He languished until the next day, when he died.

At Savannah, William Hunter, Esq., fell in a duel with Mr. David Mitchell. The dispute had its origin in July last, in the county court, to the jury of which Mr. Hunter was foreman, in a cause in which Mitchell was counsel. During the trial, it appearing to Mr. Hunter that the examination of the evidence was not conducted by the counsel with that impartiality which justice required, he addressed a few words to the court, when Mitchell got up and observed, that Mr. Hunter was very officious on the occasion. Mr. Hunter replied, that the officiousness of jurymen was not to be compared with the impertinence of some attorneys.

There the matter rested till August 9th, when Mitchell attacked Mr. Hunter in the street with a large bludgeon. Mr. Hunter, having nothing to defend himself with, after receiving four blows and attempting unsuccessfully, at the same time, to seize Mitchell by the collar, said, “Mr. Mitchell, I am unarmed; I must retreat unless you lay aside your weapon.” Mr. Hunter then retreated to Dr. Kollock’s for a cane, but could not procure one. By this time some of the inhabitants interfered. The same evening Mr. Hunter sent Mr. Mitchell a challenge, who, after much equivocation, accepted it. Dr. Kollock was Mr. Hunter’s second, Major B. Maxwell was second to Mitchell. Mr. Hunter fired first, and hit Mitchell on the hip; Mitchell missed Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter’s second fire hit Mitchell on the groin also, without penetrating the skin; but Mr. Hunter received Mitchell’s second ball in his right breast. Mr. Hunter immediately turned, and exclaimed, “I am a dead man;” and as Drs. Glenn and Kollock caught him in their arms he asked for a glass of wine and expired.

BETWEEN LIEUT. W——, R.N., AND CAPT. I——, OF THE ARMY.
March, 1803.

This morning a most extraordinary duel took place in Hyde Park, between Lieutenant W——, of the navy, and Captain I——, of the army.

The antagonists arrived at the appointed place within a few minutes of each other. Some dispute arose respecting the distance, which the friends of Lieutenant W—— insisted should not exceed six paces; while the seconds of Captain I—— urged strongly the rashness of so short a distance, and insisted on its being extended. At length the proposal of Lieutenant W——’s friends was agreed to, and the parties fired per signal; when Lieutenant W—— received the shot of his adversary on the guard of his pistol, which tore away the third and fourth fingers of his right hand. The seconds then interfered to no purpose. The son of Neptune, apparently callous to pain, wrapped his handkerchief round his hand, and swore he had another, which never failed him. Captain I—— called his friend aside, and told him it was in vain to urge a reconciliation. They again took their ground. On Lieutenant W—— receiving the pistol in his left hand, he looked steadfastly at Captain I—— for some time, then cast his eyes to heaven, and said, “Forgive me.” The parties fired as before, and both fell. Captain I—— received the shot through his head, and instantly expired. Lieutenant W—— received the ball in his left breast, and immediately inquired of his friend if Captain I——’s wound was mortal? Being answered in the affirmative, he thanked Heaven he had lived thus long. He requested that a mourning ring, which was on his finger, might be given to his sister; and that she might be assured it was the happiest moment he ever knew. He had scarcely finished the word when a quantity of blood burst from his wound, and he expired almost without a struggle.

The unfortunate young man was on the eve of being married to a lady in Hampshire, to whom for some time he had paid his addresses.

BETWEEN LIEUT.-COLONEL MONTGOMERY AND CAPTAIN MACNAMARA.
April 6, 1803.

As Lieutenant-Colonel Montgomery and Captain Macnamara were riding in Hyde Park, each followed by a Newfoundland dog, the dogs fought; and Colonel Montgomery, who did not see that Captain Macnamara was near, after separating the animals, exclaimed, “Whose dog is that? I will knock him down!” To which Captain Macnamara replied, “Have you the impudence to say that you will knock my dog down? You must first knock me down.” An altercation ensued, an exchange of cards followed, and an appointment to meet at 7 o’clock in the evening, near Primrose Hill; the consequence of which proved fatal. Captain Macnamara’s ball entered the right side of Colonel Montgomery’s chest, and taking a direction to the left, most probably went through the heart; he instantly fell, without uttering a word, but rolled over two or three times as if in great agony, and groaned. Colonel Montgomery’s ball went through Captain Macnamara, entering on the right side, just above the hip, and passing through the left side, carrying part of the coat and waistcoat in with it, taking part of his leather breeches, and the hip button, away with it on the other side.

Colonel Montgomery was carried by some of the persons standing by, into Chalk Farm, where he was laid on a bed, attended by Mr. Heaviside. As they were carrying him, he attempted to speak and spit; but the blood choked him. His mouth foamed much; and in about five minutes after he was brought into the house, he expired with a gentle sigh.

Captain Macnamara was a naval officer, who has much distinguished himself in two or three actions, as commander of the Cerberus frigate. He had lately returned from the West Indies; and his ship was, about two months ago, paid off at Chatham. He was about thirty-six years of age; a strong, bold, active man. He had fought two or three duels before; and was remarkable at Cork, for keeping the turbulent in awe.

Colonel Montgomery was Lieutenant-Colonel of the ninth regiment of foot, son of Sir Robert Montgomery, of Ireland, and half-brother of Mrs. George Byng, and the Marchioness Townshend. He was a remarkably handsome man, and he had, also, fought bravely in the service of his country. In the Dutch expedition, the Russians being put to flight, his regiment was thrown into confusion, and retreated, in consequence of the Russians falling back upon them. At this time a drummer was killed, and Colonel Montgomery took up the drum, beating it to rally his men, he himself standing alone. He succeeded in rallying them, and at their head rendered essential service. On several occasions, in Egypt and Malta also, he had distinguished himself by his courage and spirit. He was very intimate with the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York. The former shed tears on being apprised of the melancholy end of his friend.

Colonel Montgomery was well known in London by the sobriquet of the Duke of Hamilton’s double, from his studiously copying that nobleman’s style of dress.

Captain Macnamara recovered of his wound, and was tried for murder. His defence, which was prepared by Lord Erskine (then Mr. Erskine), stated:—“I am a captain of the British navy. My character you can hear only from others. But to maintain my character in that situation I must be respected. When called upon to lead others into honourable danger, I must not be supposed to be a man who sought safety by submitting to what custom has taught others to consider as a disgrace. I am not presuming to urge anything against the law of God, or of this land. I know, that in the eyes of duty and reason, obedience to the law, though against the feelings of the world, is the first duty, and ought to be the rule of action; but upon putting a construction upon my motives, so as to ascertain the quality of my actions, you will make allowance for my situation. It is impossible to define in terms the proper feelings of a gentleman; but their existence has supported this country for many ages, and she might perish if they were lost.”

Yesterday morning Mr. Heaviside, the surgeon, was arrested by Townsend, under authority of a warrant from Sir Richard Ford, wherein he stands charged with having been aiding and assisting in the murder of Colonel Montgomery; and, after undergoing a private examination before the above magistrate, at Bow Street, he was fully committed to Newgate for trial, at the ensuing Old Bailey Sessions. Several witnesses were also privately examined respecting the duel, and bound over to appear on the trial.

Captain Macnamara was yesterday declared out of danger, but was not yet well enough to be removed.

The coroner’s inquest, on taking a view of the body of Colonel Montgomery, brought in a verdict of “manslaughter.” The remains were buried in a vault in St. James’s Church.

The evidence being closed, the prisoner addressed the jury in mitigation of his conduct.

Lords Hood, Nelson, Hotham, and Minto, and a great number of highly respectable gentlemen gave Captain Macnamara a most excellent character. Mr. Justice Heath summed up the evidence, and stated, that, from the pressure of the evidence, and the prisoner’s own admission, the jury must find a verdict of “manslaughter.” They were, however, of a different opinion; for, after retiring a quarter of an hour, they pronounced a verdict of “Not guilty.”

A duel has been fought between Lord Camelford and Captain Best, of the Royal Navy, in the fields behind Holland House, near Kensington.

The meeting is said to have taken place in consequence of a quarrel between the parties, who were intimate friends, on the preceding evening, at the Prince of Wales’s Coffee-house.

Lord Camelford and Mr. Best had been intimate friends; both were young men of fashion, and esteemed first-rate shots. The subject of their quarrel was an abandoned woman, of the name of Symons, who had formerly lived with Mr. Best, but was then under the protection of Lord Camelford. This woman meeting Mr. Best at the Opera, made of him a request inconsistent with their relative positions; and on being refused, declared she would set Lord Camelford upon him; and accordingly complained to his Lordship, that Mr. Best had spoken disrespectfully of him. This greatly incensed Lord Camelford; and at the Prince of Wales’s Hotel, where they generally dined, he went up to Mr. Best, and said, loud enough to be heard by all present, “I find that you have spoken of me in the most unwarrantable terms.” Mr. Best mildly replied, that he was utterly unconscious of deserving such a charge; to which Lord Camelford answered, that he was not ignorant of what he had said of him to Mrs. Symons, and pronounced him to be a scoundrel, a liar, and a ruffian. Mr. Best said, that these were expressions which admitted but of one course, and a meeting was immediately arranged for the next morning.

In the course of the evening Mr. Best conveyed to Lord Camelford the strongest assurance that the information he had received was unfounded; and believing that his Lordship was acting under a wrong impression, he would be satisfied if the expressions he had made use of were retracted. This Lord Camelford refused to do. Attended by their respective friends, they met the following morning at a coffee-house in Oxford Street; and there again Mr. Best made an effort to obtain a retractation of the insulting words. He went up to his Lordship, and said, “Camelford, we have been friends, and I know the unsuspecting generosity of your nature; upon my honour, you have been imposed upon by a strumpet. Do not persist in expressions under which one of us must fall.” Lord Camelford answered, “Best, this is child’s play; the affair must go on.”

And yet at this moment Lord Camelford had in his heart acquitted Mr. Best, and had confidently stated to his second, that he knew he was in the wrong; that Best was a man of honour; but that he could not bring himself to retract words which he had once used. In going to the ground, he reiterated this statement to his second, adding, that as he and Mr. Best were considered the two best shots in England, one of them must fall; but, whatever was the issue of the affair, he begged him to bear testimony that he acquitted Mr. Best of all blame. No remonstrance, however, could induce him to withdraw the offensive expression.

They were placed at fifteen paces from each other. They fired together, and Lord Camelford fell, to all appearance dead. In an instant, however, he recovered the shock, so far as to exclaim, “I am killed! but I acquit Best. I alone am to blame.” He begged them to consult their safety. When a labourer, who was working in an adjoining garden, repaired to the spot, he found Lord Camelford lying on his back, in the lower part of the field, which was overflowed, to the depth of several inches in water. Captain Best and his friend had rode off directly after the shot took effect, and the other gentleman followed their example, immediately on the countryman’s coming up, on the pretence of going for a surgeon.

His Lordship was unwilling to be removed, and it was with difficulty that those who came to his assistance got him placed in a chair, and conveyed to Mr. Ottey’s, at Little Holland House. His adversary’s ball had penetrated his right breast, and was supposed to have passed through the lungs and lodged in the back bone. When questioned as to the names of the other gentlemen who had accompanied him, he declined giving any satisfaction on the subject.

Lord Camelford, by his will, peremptorily forbad his relatives and friends from prosecuting his antagonist, declaring that the combat was of his own seeking. The day previous to his death he added a codicil to his will, in which, after stating that persons have in general a strong attachment to the country which gave them birth, and on their death-beds usually desire that their remains may be conveyed to their native land, however great the distance, to be interred, he continued:—“I wish my body to be removed, as soon as may be convenient, to a country far distant, to a spot not near the haunts of men, but where the surrounding scenery may smile upon my remains.” The place he chose was situated on the borders of the Lake of St. Lampierre, in the canton of Berne, and three trees stood on the particular spot. The centre tree he desired might be taken up, and his body being there deposited, immediately replaced. “Let no monument or stone be placed over my grave.” At the foot of this tree, his Lordship added, he formerly passed many solitary hours, contemplating the mutability of human affairs. As a compensation to the proprietors of the spot, he left them one thousand pounds. He also requested his relations not to go into mourning for him. At the period of the duel Lord Camelford and Mr. Best had a bet of two hundred pounds depending, as to which of them was the better shot.

The following account of this pest to society is given by one of his biographers; but we must hope, for the sake of mankind, that the intellects of this desperate nobleman were occasionally deranged:—

“His character was a curious mixture of much that was virtuous and much that was vicious: all in extremes. With chivalrous notions of punctilious honour, and with an irascible temper, which brought him into many broils, he was warm in his affections, and almost unexampled in his benevolence. Disdaining all luxuries, in his own manner of life, he sought for opportunities of dispensing his fortune in acts of genuine charity, and conferred the most liberal favours with a secrecy that ennobled the gift. He did not distribute less than four thousand pounds per annum in the purchase of commissions for gallant young men, who had not the means of buying them, and in the relief of decayed seamen and soldiers. If many of his political proceedings were characterised with imprudence, no one could doubt they sprang from patriotism. He was a man whose real character was to the world but little known; his imperfections and his follies were often brought before the public, but his counterbalancing virtues were seldom heard of. Though too violent to those whom he imagined to have wronged him, yet to his acquaintance he was gentle, affable, and courteous; a stern adversary, but the mildest and most generous of friends. He was often the dupe of the designing and crafty supplicant, but he was more often the soother of real sorrow and unmerited woe.”

That such might have been his private character is most decidedly to be hoped; but most unquestionably, his public character rendered him a nuisance to society, and whoever did rid the world of such a murderous and (in matters of blood) unprincipled ruffian, was entitled to public thanks. Priding himself on his superiority in pistol practice, he sought for quarrels on every possible occasion. His dress, more especially in uniform, was such as to excite remark and observation, which he would gladly seize upon to fight a duel. He was even known to treat his horses in the streets of London in the most cruel manner, for the mere purpose of drawing forth some remonstrance or remark which he could consider an insult, and justify a murder. He died as he had lived, a blood-thirsty monster. He sought to deprive a bosom friend of life, although he was conscious of the falsehood of his own assertions, solely because he wished to display his superiority as a shot, and endeavoured to sacrifice a companion whom he esteemed, for a miserable woman whom he despised. His previous conduct towards Paterson was not justifiable under any circumstances of discipline, since he had the means of bringing him to condign punishment without being his executioner.

He was attended in the course of the day by Mr. Heaviside, Mr. Thomson, and Mr. Horne, surgeons. A Mr. Nihell, or Nield, we understand, was second to Captain Best, and the Hon. Mr. Devereux was second to Lord Camelford.

The following is a further account of his death, as it appeared in one of the papers of the day:—

On Saturday evening this unfortunate nobleman breathed his last. He sent for his solicitor, Mr. Wilson, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and made his will the night after the accident; and maintained the most perfect composure under his sufferings to the last.

In the voluminous evidence adduced before the coroner’s inquest, it was proved, that Lord Camelford had declared,—that he was the aggressor, that he forgave the gentleman who had shot him, and that he hoped God would forgive him too.

Mr. Hodgson, the coroner, in his address to the jury, made the following observations:—

“It was evident the deceased had been killed by a shot fired at him by some person, of whose identity the jury had no direct or admissible proof. The laws of this country admitted of no excuse for one man killing another in a private duel. But, supposing the person who had slain the deceased to be able, before a superior tribunal, to offer circumstances and facts in palliation of his offence, they could not have any weight in this inquest. He had, strictly speaking, been guilty of murder, and to that effect must necessarily be the verdict of the jury. In the present case, there was no doubt of the deceased having been feloniously killed; but there was no evidence who was the principal, or who were the seconds. In point of fact, they were all equally guilty; for, in the crime of murder, accessories before the fact were considered as principals. There was hardly a doubt that the expressions and avowal of the deceased, so honourably made in favour of his opponent, would, if the latter were arraigned in a superior court, induce his acquittal; but that was a consideration which ought not to operate on the minds of those whom he was addressing. Had the parties been in a room; and upon a sudden quarrel had the deceased, having given the first provocation, been killed, it might have been justifiable homicide; but, on the contrary, it appeared, they had deliberately gone out to commit an unjustifiable act. Had it been proved who the person was who fired the shot at the deceased, the jury would have been bound to have returned a verdict of “murder” against him, and those who were aiding and abetting him; but, as the case stood, they would only pronounce the verdict to which he had alluded.

The jury unanimously returned a verdict of “wilful murder, or felonious homicide, by some person or persons unknown.”

BETWEEN ENSIGN BROWNE AND LIEUT. BUTLER.
January 1, 1806.

This morning a meeting took place in a piece of ground, in the parish of Basford, between Ensign Browne, of the 36th regiment of Foot, and Lieutenant Butler, of the 83d Regiment, on the recruiting service, at Nottingham.

The parties fired together by signal, when, unfortunately, Ensign Browne was shot through the heart, and instantly expired, without uttering a word.

Lieutenant Butler and the seconds immediately withdrew. The body of the deceased was taken to Basford church, by some persons who were attracted to the spot by the report of the pistols; and a verdict of “wilful murder” was returned by the coroner’s jury who sat upon it.

Ensign Browne was a promising young officer, of a very respectable family in Ireland, and had only just attained his seventeenth year. He and Lieutenant Butler belonged, lately, to the same regiment; but from a serious disagreement which took place between them, the Commander-in-chief ordered them to be placed in different corps. On their meeting at Nottingham, however, the embers of animosity rekindled, and the unhappy result has proved the loss to society of a valuable and much respected young member.

BETWEEN MAJOR BROOKES AND COLONEL BOLTON.
January 4, 1806.

About a year ago a duel was to have taken place at Liverpool, between Major Brookes and Colonel Bolton, in consequence of a quarrel; but the affair being known, they were bound over to keep the peace for one year. After this, the animosity between them increased daily, and each reproached the other with having informed the officers of justice of their intention to fight.

The time for which they were bound over to keep the peace elapsed on Friday week, when a challenge passed, and an immediate meeting was determined upon. They met, and at the first fire Major Brookes was killed on the spot. The Colonel absconded.

A duel was fought on Galleywood Common, near Chelmsford, Essex, between Lieutenant Turrens and Mr. Fisher, both of the 6th regiment of Foot, in barracks there. The parties with their seconds arrived on the spot appointed for the encounter at daybreak, when the preliminaries having been settled, they took a short distance, and turning round, fired at the same instant. The Lieutenant received his antagonist’s ball in the groin, and immediately fell. On which Mr. Fisher went up and took him by the hand, expressing much regret at the lamentable consequence that had ensued, as, from the nature of the wound, he was apprehensive it would prove mortal.

Assistance having been procured, the wounded gentleman was removed to a windmill at a short distance, and as soon as possible, conveyed from thence to his apartments in the barracks, where every attention was rendered that his unfortunate situation could require. The ball having lodged on the side opposite to which it entered, was extracted by Dr. Welch, at four o’clock the same afternoon, but he expired between nine and ten o’clock on Sunday morning. An inquisition was taken by J. O. Parker, jun., Esq., coroner, on view of the body, on Monday, and a verdict returned of “wilful murder” against Mr. Fisher and the two seconds, one of whom is under arrest. Mr. Fisher and the other have absconded.

BETWEEN MR. ROGERS AND MR. LONG.
Dublin, May 3, 1806.

This day a duel was fought in Foster Avenue, between two young gentlemen of the Barrack-office, in this city, and intimate friends, upon occasion of a tavern quarrel the preceding evening.

On the first fire, at the distance of eleven paces, both parties fell; the one, Mr. Rogers, received a ball through his heart, and of course died instantly. The other, Mr. Long, was shot through both his thighs, and is also since dead.

BETWEEN BARON HOMPESCH AND MR. RICHARDSON.
Sept. 22, 1806.

A duel was fought this morning between Baron Hompesch and a Mr. Richardson, of Colchester, in consequence of the Baron, who is near-sighted, running against Mr. Richardson and two ladies in the street. On the exchange of the third pistol Mr. Richardson was shot through the body.

On account of a misunderstanding between Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Paull, a meeting took place at nine o’clock this morning, near Wimbledon Common. Mr. Paull conceiving his character very injuriously reflected upon by Sir Francis, despatched a challenge, late on Friday night, to the Baronet, which being accepted, the parties met early yesterday morning at Coombe Wood, near Wimbledon Common.

They discharged two pistols each. The second shot, fired by Mr. Paull, wounded Sir Francis in the thigh; the second pistol, fired by Sir Francis, wounded Mr. Paull in the leg. Sir Francis returned home in the same carriage with Mr. Paull.

---

The following is the truly amusing account given of this duel by Mr. Bellenden Ker, and shows the necessity of selecting proper seconds on such occasions:—

On Saturday morning. May 5, about half-past five o’clock, Sir Francis Burdett’s servant came to me with a note from Sir Francis, desiring me to come to him instantly to Wimbledon, with a pair of pistols, as he had been called upon; but did not say by whom. I could procure none, after trying at two officers of the Guards, and at Manton’s, but found none fit for the purpose. It occurring to me that going thus from place to place for pistols, might at last be the occasion of bringing on more notice than I wished, I determined to proceed without them, thinking that those who called upon him must have a pair at least; and that if it was necessary they might serve both parties. I arrived at Sir Francis Burdett’s house, at Wimbledon, about eight o’clock, having been obliged to wait more than two hours for a chaise. He was gone on to the King’s Arms, Kingston, having left a note for me to follow him there in his carriage. On entering Kingston, I saw Mr. Paull in a coach, accompanied by another person, and a servant on the coach seat. He called out to me on passing his carriage, and said something that I did not distinctly hear; but I think he advised me not to proceed into the town, as the affair would be blown. I asked him where the inn was, and went on.

As soon as I entered the room where Burdett was sitting, a person appeared, who had followed me. On his entrance I asked Burdett who he was. He said it was Paull’s second. I then said, “Whom have I the honour to address?” “My name is Cooper.” “Do you know him, Burdett?” “I have no doubt Mr. Paull has appointed a proper person to meet me.” “Sir, sir, sir,” was Mr. Cooper’s answer. I then said, as Burdett desired, that we should immediately follow them, if they proceeded to Coombe Wood, which seemed to be a proper place for meeting.

After Burdett had given me some letters and memorandums for different friends, and explained to me the subject of Mr. Paull’s demands, we proceeded to the place appointed; where, ordering the carriages to stop for us, we went into the wood to a considerable distance. I fixed on a proper spot. During our walk Mr. Paull frequently addressed me on the subject of the quarrel. He said he was sure I had not heard it rightly stated, and wished me much to hear him. I always replied that I had heard the whole from my principal, and that I placed implicit confidence in what he said; for if I could not have done that, I should not have accompanied him there; and that, from all I heard and read concerning the matter, it was my decided opinion that Burdett was the person most entitled to consider himself as ill-used; but that, at all events, an apology from him was out of all question, and that I would rather see him shot than advise him to so disgraceful an act. As Mr. Paull did not seem to have at all placed his opinions, or case, in the hands of his second, I found it in vain to talk to him on the subject of an accommodation. After we had stopped, I asked for the pistols, which were produced by Mr. Cooper, who declared that he had not expected things would have taken this turn. I asked him if he expected I should advise, or Burdett would consent to disgrace himself. I then told him we had been unable to obtain pistols, and expected he would consent, as well as Mr. Paull, that we should use one of theirs. To this they both agreed. He (Mr. Cooper) told me he did not know how to load them; I showed him how, and directed him to load Burdett’s while I loaded Mr. Paull’s. I then asked him what distance he proposed them to stand at; he said he knew nothing about the matter, and left it to me. I measured out twelve paces, and placed the principals at the extremities of the space. I then directed him to give Sir Francis a pistol, and I presented another to Mr. Paull, at the same time assuring him, as I had Mr. Cooper, that Sir Francis came there without the slightest animosity against Mr. Paull; but that he would fire at him as a mode of self-defence. I said besides to Mr. Paull,—that I hoped he was thoroughly convinced that the injury he had received was of a nature not to be satisfied with anything short of attempting the life of my friend, and risking his own. He replied,—he must do so, unless he had an apology.

I then asked them if they would agree to fire by a signal I would make by dropping my handkerchief? They each did agree to it. I placed myself about four yards on one side the centre of the space between them; while Mr. Cooper, on giving the pistol to Sir Francis, retreated very precipitately behind a tree at some distance. On a signal being made, they fired together, but without effect. I then took Mr. Paull’s pistol from him, and said, “I hope, Sir, you are now satisfied.” He said, “No; I must have an apology, or proceed.” I said, “To talk of an apology is absurd, and quite out of all question.” I then reloaded the pistols, and gave them as before. I again addressed Mr. Paull as I had at first. He answered with warmth,—that he must have an apology, or proceed; and called God to witness that he was the most injured man on earth. Mr. Cooper was then to make the signal; but he stood so far out of the way, that Sir Francis could not see him, although he had already called to him during his retreat, and begged him not to go so far off, and to come forward, or words to that effect. At last I saw Sir Francis could not see Mr. Cooper, nor his signal; and upon his making it, I called out, “Fire,” to Sir Francis as soon as I saw Mr. Paull raise his pistol. They did so together, I believe, upon my uttering the words.

I should observe, that while they were waiting for the signal, I observed that Sir Francis held his arm raised, and his pistol pointed towards Mr. Paull. Knowing this was not with a view of taking any unfair advantage, but the effect of accident, I said, “Burdett, don’t take aim. I am sure you are not doing so; drop your arm, as you see Mr. Paull has his pistol pointed downwards.” Mr. Paull then asked me, why I advised Sir Francis not to take aim. I said—anybody might see that I could only mean for him not to take aim, or prepare to do so, before the signal, and from a desire to see that they were upon equal terms. The consequences of the second shots have been already described. After speaking to each of them, I set off for the carriages. Both were put into Mr. Paull’s. I went on to Sir Francis Burdett’s house, to Lady Burdett and his brother; and also to procure a surgeon at Wimbledon.

During the transaction not one word passed between me and Sir Francis, except what I said about taking aim. Mr. Cooper has constantly refused to sign any official account, to say where he lives, or what is his situation; which also was repeatedly requested of him before me; nor do I at this moment know anything further about him.

John Bellenden Ker.

BETWEEN MAJOR CAMPBELL AND CAPTAIN BOYD.
August 1808.

Alexander Campbell, Brevet-Major in the army, and a Captain in the 21st regiment, stood indicted for the “wilful and felonious murder” of Alexander Boyd, a captain in the said regiment, by shooting him, the said Alexander Boyd, with a pistol bullet.

To support this indictment, the following witnesses were produced:—

George Adams, who stated, that he had been assistant surgeon in the 21st Regiment, since April twelvemonths. He knew Major Campbell and Captain Boyd. In the year 1807 they were quartered in the barracks, in the county of Armagh side of Newry. On the 23rd of the said month, Captain Boyd died of a wound he received by a pistol bullet, which penetrated the extremity of the four false ribs, and lodged in the cavity of the belly. On that day the regiment was inspected by General Kerr; and, after the inspection, the General and officers messed together. About eight o’clock all the officers left the mess, except Major Campbell, Captain Boyd, witness, and a Lieutenant Hall. A conversation then commenced by Major Campbell stating, that General Kerr corrected him, that day, about a particular mode of giving a word of command, when he conceived he gave it right. He mentioned how he gave it, and how the General had corrected him. Captain Boyd remarked, that neither was correct according to Dundas, which was the King’s order. (This observation, witness stated, was made in the usual mode of conversation.) Major Campbell said, “it might not be according to the King’s order, but still he conceived it was not incorrect.” Captain Boyd still insisted it was not correct, according to the King’s order. They argued this some time, till Captain Boyd said,—he knew it as well as any man. Major Campbell replied,—he doubted that much. Captain Boyd at length said,—he knew it better than he, let him take that as he liked. Major Campbell then got up and said, “Then, Captain Boyd, do you say that I am wrong?” Captain Boyd replied, “I do. I know I am right by the King’s orders.” Major Campbell then quitted the room. Captain Boyd remained after him for some time. He left the room before the witness or Lieutenant Hall; but no observation was made on his going, more than on that of any other gentleman that had dined there. The witness and Lieutenant Hall went out together in a short time after. They went to a second mess-room, and there Captain Boyd came and spoke to them. (The conversation was not admitted in evidence, as Major Campbell was not present at it.) They then went out together, and the witness left Captain Boyd at Lieutenant Dewar’s. In about twenty minutes after he was called upon to visit Captain Boyd. He went, and found him on a chair vomiting. He examined his wound, and found it a very dangerous one. He survived it but eighteen hours. He stayed with him till he died, during which time he got gradually worse.

On his cross-examination he stated, that there was something irritating in Captain Boyd’s manner of making the observation alluded to; so much so, that he conceives Major Campbell could not, consistently with his feelings, pass it over. But, if a candid explanation had taken place, he did not conceive the melancholy affair would have occurred.

John Hoey stated, That he is mess-waiter for the 21st Regiment, and was so then. He remembers the night this affair took place. Knew Major Campbell and Captain Boyd. He saw Major Campbell that night in a room where he was washing glasses. Major Campbell had quitted the room ten or fifteen minutes. As Major Campbell was coming up stairs, Captain Boyd was leaving the mess-room, and they met on the stair-head. Both went into the mess-waiter’s room, and there remained ten or fifteen minutes, when they separated. The prisoner, in about twenty minutes, came again to the witness, and desired him to go to Captain Boyd, and tell him a gentleman wished to speak to him, if he pleased. He accordingly went in search of Captain Boyd. He found him on the parade ground. He delivered the message, and Captain Boyd accompanied him to the mess-room. No one was there. The witness pointed to a little room off it, as the room the gentleman was in. He then went to the mess-kitchen, and in eight or ten minutes he heard the report of a shot; thought nothing of it till he heard another. He then went to the mess-room, and there saw Captain Boyd and Lieutenants Hall and Macpherson. Captain Boyd was sitting on a chair vomiting. Major Campbell was gone, but in about ten or twelve minutes he came to the room where the witness was washing some glasses. Major Campbell asked for candles. He got a pair, and brought them into the small room. Major Campbell showed the witness the corners of the room, in which each person stood, which distance measured seven paces. He never saw Major Campbell after, till a week ago, though the witness never quitted the regiment, and retained his employment.

John Macpherson stated, That he is Lieutenant in the said regiment. Knew Major Campbell and Captain Boyd. Recollects the day of the duel. On the evening of that day, going up stairs about nine o’clock, he heard, as he thought, Major Campbell say, “On the word of a dying man, is everything fair?” He got up before Captain Boyd replied;—he said, “Campbell, you have hurried me; you’re a bad man.” Witness was in coloured clothes, and Major Campbell did not know him, but said again, “Boyd, before this stranger and Lieutenant Hall, was everything fair?” Captain Boyd replied, “O my Campbell! you know I wanted you to wait, and have friends!” Major Campbell then said, “Good God! will you mention before these gentlemen, was not everything fair? Did not you say, you were ready?” Captain Boyd answered, “Yes;” but in a moment after said, “Campbell, you are a bad man.” Captain Boyd was helped into the next room, and Major Campbell followed, much agitated, and repeatedly said to Captain Boyd, “that he (Boyd) was the happiest man of the two.”—“I am,” said Major Campbell, “an unfortunate man, but I hope not a bad one.” Major Campbell asked Captain Boyd if he forgave him? He stretched out his hand and said, “I forgive you; I feel for you, and I am sure you do for me.” Major Campbell then left the room.

Duncan Dewar, Adjutant of the regiment, who was with Captain Boyd for some time after he was wounded, was produced to show Captain Boyd’s firm conviction that he would die in consequence of that wound, in order to let in his declaration then made as evidence. But Captain Boyd not having (before him) expressed such a conviction, that evidence failed. Surgeon W. J. Nice was produced to the same point, and likewise failed.

Colonel Paterson, of the 21st Regiment, was produced to the same point, and also failed.

George Sutherland, Quarter-master of the same regiment, was produced to the same point. He stated that he saw him ten minutes before he died. He was in bed, agitated with pain, in his senses, but rolling in the bed. He did not, however, say to him that he thought he was dying.

Upon this, a special verdict was directed to the jury, to inquire whether Captain Boyd, ten minutes before his death, and under the circumstances stated, must or must not have known he was dying. After some short deliberation, they found for the affirmative of this issue (that he must have known it). The declaration was then admitted; but none could be proved within that space, except his asking for Major Campbell, and his saying, “Poor man, I am sorry for him.”

John Greenhill was produced merely to prove, that Major Campbell had time to cool after the altercation took place; inasmuch as he went home, drank tea with his family, and gave him a box to leave with Lieutenant Hall, before the affair took place.

Here the prosecution closed.

The defence set up was merely and exclusively the character of the prisoner, for humanity, peaceable conduct, and proper behaviour. To this, several officers of the highest rank were produced, who vouched for it to the fullest extent; namely, Colonel Paterson, of the 21st Regiment, General Campbell, General Graham Sterling, Captain Macpherson, Captain Menzies, and Colonel Grey: many others were in attendance whom it was unnecessary to produce.

The learned judge charged the jury in the most able manner, recapitulated the evidence, and explained the law on the subject most fully and clearly. The jury retired, and in about half an hour brought in a verdict, “Guilty of murder;” but recommended him to mercy, on the score of character only.

He was sentenced to be executed on Monday, but respited to Wednesday se’nnight.

And this respite was obtained by the greatest exertion. Mrs. Campbell, who was tenderly attached to her husband, having resolved to proceed to London, and solicit the Royal mercy, hastened to the sea-coast, but found that unexpected circumstances threatened to frustrate her fondest hopes. It blew a perfect hurricane, and no reward could tempt the captain of any vessel to venture to sea. While she was running up and down the shore in a distracted state, she met a few humble fishermen; and these poor fellows no sooner heard the cause of her agony than they offered her their service and their boat, in which she actually crossed the channel. Her noble companions not only refused to receive any reward, but attended her to the coach-office, and followed her several miles on the road, praying God to bless her, and grant her success.

On arriving at Windsor with her petition it was past eight o’clock, and the King had retired to his apartment; but the Queen, compassionating the afflicted wife, presented the memorial that night, and Mrs. Campbell received the kindest attention from the whole of the Royal family.

The case was anxiously debated in the council; but, after a full review of the circumstances, it was finally resolved that the law should take its course. Mrs. Campbell in the mean time proceeded to Scotland, cheered with the hope of obtaining, at least another respite. She reached Ayr, her paternal home, on the very morning that her husband’s corpse was brought thither to be interred.

When Major Campbell heard that his fate was decided, he prepared to meet death with the fortitude of the soldier and the resignation of the Christian. A change had come over the public mind, and universal sorrow for his fate had taken place of the prejudices which inaccurate reports of the duel had produced. By a strange concurrence of circumstances, his own regiment mounted guard round the scaffold. A vast multitude occupied every spot from which a view of the place of execution could be obtained. The crowd displayed the unusual show of all the gentry from the neighbouring country, assembled in deep mourning.

Precisely at noon Major Campbell appeared on the platform, supported by his father-in-law. Instantly the brave highlanders took off their military bonnets; and with streaming eyes, joined in prayer for the spirit about to be parted from its mortal tenement. The vast crowd stood uncovered in solemn silence, so that the grating of the falling drop was heard to the remotest extremity. One groan from the thousands of spectators, for an instant broke the profound silence, and proclaimed that all was over! His body, after having been suspended the usual time, was put into a hearse in waiting, which left the town immediately, escorted by Dr. Bowie, for Ayr in Scotland, to be interred in the family vault.

Major Campbell, in his conversation with his intimate friends, previously to surrendering himself, had always said, that if he were convicted of murder, he should suffer, as an example to duellists in Ireland; but it was always his opinion that a jury would not convict him of murder.

It has been erroneously stated, that the jury recommended the deceased, merely from his universal good character; but the jury recommended him in consequence of the duel having been a fair one; although, by the direction of the judge, they were bound, on their oaths, to convict the prisoner of murder. Major Campbell, previously to his death, observed, that life was not an object so dear to him, as the reflection was distressing, that his children and family should bear the stigma, that he was executed for murder.

Major Campbell made his escape from Ireland after the duel, and lived with his family, under a fictitious name, for several months, at Chelsea (the duel took place in June 1807); but his mind became so uneasy that he at last determined to surrender himself, be the result what it might.

His surrender, instead of being viewed as the result of penitence and sorrow, was regarded by too many as a mockery and a braving of justice. Utterly false as such a view of the case was, Campbell confirmed the prejudice against him by incautiously declaring, that he was sure the verdict could only be manslaughter. The misrepresentation of these words, as has been said, produced a strong effect on the minds of the presbyterians of Armagh. His modest and contrite deportment on his trial, and the excellent character given him by officers of the highest rank, went far towards turning the tide in his favour; but one of the witnesses for the defence is said to have exhibited a dictatorial air, as if his simple word would, or ought to decide the verdict; and this circumstance, it is reported, had a fatal influence.

He was first cousin to the Earl of Breadalbane, a man esteemed and beloved by all his friends. It is superfluous to add, that Mrs. Campbell was a most amiable woman. She had four infant children.

The unfortunate catastrophe, which produced such an awful result to Major Campbell, it is hoped will not fail to leave a lesson to mankind of salutary influence. Both of the parties were gentlemen, eminent in their profession, of high character and honour, who had long lived on terms of mutual friendship and esteem. The unfortunate irritation of a moment, at once deprived society of one of the best of men, and left a widow and infant family to mourn their irreparable loss. Retribution of the most awful kind fell to the lot of the other; and his amiable widow and helpless family were also involved in all the distress which the human mind can conceive.

From the period of the unhappy event to the closing of the tragic scene, Major Campbell evinced the most heartfelt grief for what had happened to his friend.

BETWEEN LORD PAGET AND THE HON. CAPT. CADOGAN.
May, 1809.

In order to prevent the appearance in the papers of any mis-statement respecting the duel which took place this morning between Lord Paget and Captain Cadogan, we, the respective friends of the parties, feel it incumbent on us to submit the following as the correct statement of the event as it occurred:—

In consequence of a challenge having been received by Lord Paget from Captain Cadogan, and every attempt to prevent a meeting having failed, the parties, attended by their respective friends, Captain Cadogan by Captain Mackenzie of the navy, Lord Paget by Lieut.-Colonel Vivian of the 7th Light Dragoons, met, as agreed, at seven o’clock, on Wimbledon Common. The ground having been taken at twelve paces distance, they were directed to fire together. Captain Cadogan fired; Lord Paget’s pistol flashed. This having been decided to go for fire, a question arose whether Lord Paget had taken aim, as if intending to hit his antagonist. Both the seconds being clearly of opinion that such was not his intention (although the degree of obliquity he gave to the direction of the pistol was such as to have been discovered only by particular observation), Captain Mackenzie stated to Captain Cadogan, that as it appeared to be Lord Paget’s intention not to fire at him, he could not admit of the affair proceeding any farther. Lieut.-Colonel Vivian then asked Captain Cadogan whether he had not himself observed that Lord Paget had not aimed at him, to which he replied in the affirmative. Captain Mackenzie then declared his determination not to remain any longer in the field, to witness any further act of hostility on the part of Captain Cadogan. Captain Cadogan replied, that of course his conduct must be decided by his second; declaring, at the same time, that he had come prepared for the fall of one of the parties. On Captain Mackenzie and Lieut.-Colonel Vivian making it known to Lord Paget, that as he evidently did not intend to fire at Captain Cadogan, the affair could go no farther; his lordship replied, “As such is your determination, I have now no hesitation in saying, that nothing could ever have induced me to add to the injuries I have already done the family, by firing at the brother of Lady Charlotte Wellesley.” The parties then left the ground.

The cause of the above duel is well known. It arose from the seduction of the lady of the Hon. Henry Wellesley (sister of Captain Cadogan) by Lord Paget. Her husband afterwards gained 20,000l. damages in the Sheriff’s Court.

BETWEEN LORD CASTLEREAGH AND MR. CANNING.
Sept. 21, 1809.

A duel took place early this morning between Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, in which the latter received a wound in the left thigh; but happily it is not dangerous, being merely a flesh wound.

The meeting took place at Putney Heath. Lord Yarmouth seconded Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. R. Ellis accompanied Mr. Canning. We understand they fired by signal, at the distance of ten yards. The first missed; and no explanation taking place, they fired a second time, when Mr. Canning was wounded in the left thigh, on the outer side of the bone; and thus the affair terminated. He was put into a coach, and conveyed to Gloucester Lodge, his newly purchased seat at Brompton, and Lord Castlereagh returned to his house in St. James’s-square.

The circumstances of this celebrated political duel were the following:—“It had been long reported that there were divisions in the Duke of Portland’s cabinet, and that a change in some of the highest offices of State would take place. These divisions became public in the latter end of September, when Lord Castlereagh, then Secretary of War, sent a challenge to Mr. Canning, who held the seals of the foreign office.

Lord Castlereagh’s complaint was, that, they being both members of the cabinet, Mr. Canning had applied clandestinely to get him removed from office, for the purpose of bringing in the Marquis Wellesley in his place. Before Easter, it was affirmed, he made this application to the Duke of Portland, and obtained his promise that Lord Castlereagh should be removed from office. “Notwithstanding this promise,” said Castlereagh in his letter which accompanied the challenge, “by which I consider you presumed it unfit that I should remain charged with the conduct of the war, and by which my situation as a minister of the Crown was made dependent on your will and pleasure, you continued to sit in the same cabinet with me, and left me not only in the persuasion that I possessed your confidence and support as a colleague, but allowed me, in breach of every principle of good faith, both public and private, to originate and proceed in a new enterprise of the most arduous and important nature (the Walcheren expedition), with your apparent concurrence and ostensible approbation. You are fully aware that, if my situation in the Government had been disclosed to me, I could not have submitted to remain one moment in office, without the entire abandonment of private honour and public duty. You knew I was deceived, and you continued to deceive me.”

Without presuming to cast any unfavourable imputation on the well-earned fame of Mr. Canning, it cannot be denied that, if Lord Castlereagh’s statement was correct, Mr. Canning’s conduct was most unjustifiable, both on public and on private grounds—both as a statesman and a gentleman. If he considered Lord Castlereagh as unfit to manage the important charge with which he was entrusted, and indeed the Walcheren expedition alluded to afforded a convincing proof of the correctness of his opinion, it was his duty not to remain with him in the cabinet one single hour, if he could not overrule his proposals; but to coincide in a project which he condemned, and to continue to act in conjunction with a minister whose removal he had urged on the plea of incapacity, was an act most unaccountable on the part of Mr. Canning, and only tends to show, that men placed in a public situation will be guilty of acts which they would scorn, as dishonourable, in the common affairs of life.

BETWEEN MR. GEORGE PAYNE AND MR. CLARK.
Sept. 6, 1810.

A fatal duel was fought on Thursday morning upon Wimbledon Common by two gentlemen.

At half-past five o’clock three post-chaises were noticed passing over Putney Bridge, and at half-past six, one of the chaises returned to the Red Lion, at Putney, with a wounded gentleman, of the name of Payne. Mr. Heaviside was sent for, and found that a pistol ball had gone through the groin. The unfortunate gentleman died at half-past four o’clock the same afternoon.

Mr. George Payne was the younger son of the late RenÈ Payne, Esq., and he left him his fortune, to the amount of 14,000l. per annum. In that settlement, the whole now goes to his eldest son, except 500l. a year to his widow, and 10,000l. to his younger children. Mr. Payne has left four children by his wife, who was a Miss Gray.

The cause of the fatal duel is truly melancholy. The challenge took place about ten days ago, at Scarborough, but the quarrel was of a more distant date. The orphan daughter of the late Dr. Clark, of Newcastle, was the friend of Mrs. Payne, and a visitor in the family. An unfortunate attachment took place between Mr. Payne and Miss Clark, which transpiring, the irritated feelings of the brother induced him to resent it. Every means were tried by Mr. John Payne, the elder brother of the deceased, to avert the catastrophe, but in vain.

Mr. George Payne was most exemplary in all his conduct through life, except in this fatal attachment. He was a most liberal and a most amiable man. He had whispered to his second, Mr. Abbott, that he should not return Mr. Clark’s fire, but the first shot was mortal. Mr. Clark has effected his escape.

BETWEEN CAPT. BOARDMAN AND ENSIGN DE BETTON.
March 4, 1811.

In consequence of a trifling quarrel, a duel took place at Barbadoes, on the 15th of January, between Captain Boardman, of the second battalion of the 60th regiment, and Ensign De Betton, of the Royal West India Rangers, in which, at the first fire, the former was shot through the heart, and instantly expired. The survivor immediately escaped from the island.

BETWEEN MR. COLCLOUGH AND MR. ALCOCK.

In the preceding year, another fatal duel, of a political or rather an electioneering nature, took place at Wexford. Mr. John Colclough, of Trulom Abbey, had declared himself a candidate for the representation of the county, which he had sat for in the previous parliament. For many years certain noblemen had monopolised the representation of Wexford, and Mr. Colclough determined on this occasion to put the sense of the county to the proof, and therefore proposed Mr. Sheridan as joint candidate with himself. With these gentlemen Mr. Alcock, supported by the interest of certain influential electors, contested the county. The election commenced, the poll proceeded, and the independent party was rapidly advancing to success, when one of the most melancholy events terminated the contest.

Several tenants of a person who had given his interest to Alcock, absolutely refused to vote for that gentleman, declaring that, at every risk, they would support Colclough and the “great Sheridan.” Mr. Alcock’s partisans ascribed the conduct of these persons to seduction on the part of Mr. Colclough. The latter protested in the most solemn manner that he had not even solicited their votes. Alcock insisted that they should not vote for him. “How can I prevent them?” naturally replied Mr. Colclough. After much discussion Mr. Colclough was required to decline the votes, or receive them at his peril. Of course he disregarded this threat; open war ensued, and it was determined, that before the opening of the next morning’s poll, the candidates should decide by single combat the contested question.

Early on the following morning many hundred people assembled to witness the affair, among whom were several magistrates. Both candidates were remarkably near-sighted, and Mr. Alcock determined upon using spectacles. This was resisted by the friends of Mr. Colclough, who would not follow the example. The partisans of the former, however, persevered, and he did wear them. The ground at length was marked, and the anxious crowd separated on either side, as their party-feelings prompted them. The seconds handed to each principal a couple of pistols, and placing them about eight or nine steps asunder, withdrew. A dead silence and a pause ensued—the crowd stood in motionless suspense—the combatants presented—the word was given—Mr. Alcock fired first, and his former friend and intimate companion fell shot through the heart, his pistol exploding without effect.

The bystanders were almost petrified with horror, when on a sudden a loud and horrible yell burst simultaneously from every quarter of the field. Alcock was hurried by his friends from the ground; while those of Colclough raised the body and mournfully bore it to his native home. Within two hours after the fatal duel Mr. Alcock was returned duly elected. At the next assizes he was tried for murder, before Baron Smith, who openly declared against a capital conviction; and the jury, without a moment’s hesitation, pronounced a verdict of not guilty.

The acquitted duellist, however, suffered much in mind, and ended his days in a great measure deprived of his intellectual faculties. Two other duels were fought on the same occasion, but with little injury.

To this melancholy affair there was another sad corollary: Miss Alcock had known Colclough for a considerable time; she was an amiable and sensible person—her brother’s absence, his trial, and his subsequent depression deprived her also of her reason, and in this state she did not long survive the dreadful fate of her brother and his friend.

BETWEEN MR. HARRISON AND ——.
May 9, 1811.

A duel was fought on Tuesday morning, at daybreak, in a field, about a mile and a half from Totteridge, between two gentlemen, who had alighted from post-chaises, at the King’s Arms public-house, near the spot. In an hour after one of the parties was brought in mortally wounded in the abdomen, and he died in four hours after. An inquest was held, and the fact of the duel being proved by some husbandmen, a verdict of “wilful murder” was returned. The body was owned after the inquest. The deceased was a Mr. Harrison, a young man about twenty-two years of age.

BETWEEN LIEUT. STEWART AND LIEUT. BAGNALL.
October 7, 1812.

A fatal duel took place on South Sea Common, near Portsmouth. The parties were Lieutenant Stewart and Lieutenant Bagnall, of the Royal Marines, most intimate friends. The quarrel arose concerning a female, with whom both were intimate.

At the first shot Lieutenant Stewart’s pistol missed fire. At the second discharge, his ball entered behind Lieutenant Bagnall’s right shoulder. Every attention was instantly procured, but the wounded man expired on Saturday evening.

BETWEEN LIEUT. BLUNDELL AND MR. MAGUIRE.
July 12, 1813.

A duel was fought yesterday at Carisbrook Castle, Isle of Wight, at half-past two o’clock, P.M. agreeably to the written challenge of Lieut. Blundell, between that gentleman and Mr. Maguire, when at the second discharge of pistols, Mr. B—— received a mortal wound, of which he died two days after.

The following account is from the Freeman’s Journal of the 2nd of February:—

A difference was adjusted yesterday, at Bishop’s Court, county Kildare, which had agitated this city for several days.

At a meeting at Capel-street, on the Saturday previous to the late Aggregate Meeting, Mr. O’Connell attended; and in illustrating some matter which he was anxious to enforce, he alluded, in a contemptuous manner, to the Corporation of Dublin. “The beggarly Corporation of Dublin” was, it seems, one of the epithets of scorn used in reprobation of this act. Mr. J. N. D’Esterre is a member of the Corporation; and having seen this phrase, he addressed a letter on the 25th (the day after the Aggregate Meeting) to Mr. O’Connell requiring to know whether he was fairly reported. On the day after Mr. O’Connell sent an answer, in which he said he would not avow nor disavow what had been reported in the newspapers. But he added, that if Mr. D’Esterre wrote to him to know his opinion of the Common Council of Dublin, as a body, he could easily satisfy him by saying, that no expression which language could furnish was sufficient to convey the sentiments of contempt he had for that body. Mr. O’Connell, besides, requested that Mr. D’Esterre should consider his answer as forming the close of the epistolary correspondence on this topic.

On Friday, a letter was left in Merrion-square for Mr. O’Connell, during his absence at the courts. Its direction was different from the former one which came from Mr. D’Esterre; and Mr. James O’Connell, who had instructions to open any communications that were directed to his brother in his absence, ascertained the quarter from whence it came. He sought merely for the signature, and on perceiving it to be Mr. D’Esterre’s, he immediately closed the letter, and stated in a note to Mr. D’Esterre the circumstances under which he opened it. He said he was ignorant of its contents, not wishing, after the request his brother had made on the day previous, to know anything more of Mr. D’Esterre’s epistolary messages. He added, that his brother did not expect to hear a second time from Mr. D’Esterre through the medium of a letter. Things remained in this condition till Sunday last. On that day Mr. James O’Connell received a note from Mr. D’Esterre, containing disrespectful observations on himself and his brother. Immediately after the receipt of it, he sent his friend, Captain O’Mullan, to Mr. D’Esterre to say, that after he had adjusted his affair with his brother, he would bring him to account for his conduct to himself peculiarly. Captain O’Mullan at the same time intimated that Counsellor O’Connell was astonished at not hearing, in what he conceived the proper way, from Mr. D’Esterre.

Nothing farther happened on Sunday; and on Monday morning Mr. Lidwell, who remained here several days to be the friend of Mr. O’Connell, though some members of his family were seriously indisposed, left town for home, despairing of any issue being put to the controversy. Monday passed on; and on Tuesday considerable sensation was created by a rumour that Mr. D’Esterre was advised to go to the Four Courts to offer Mr. O’Connell personal violence. Neither of the parties came in contact. But it seems Mr. D’Esterre was met on one of the quays by Mr. Richard O’Gorman, who remonstrated with him, by stating that he conceived he was pursuing a very unusual sort of conduct. This occurred about three o’clock; but no challenge followed. About four it was understood that Mr. D’Esterre was in the streets; and Mr. O’Connell paraded about with one or two friends, but did not come across his antagonist. A multitude soon collected about him, among whom there could not be less than five hundred gentlemen of respectability; and Mr. O’Connell then had no other resource left, than to take refuge in a house in Exchequer-street. In a short time Judge Day entered, in his magisterial capacity, to put him under arrest. The hon. Justice said he would be satisfied if he had the guarantee of Mr. O’Connell’s honour that he would proceed no farther in the business. “It is not my business, Mr. Justice,” said Mr. O’Connell, “to be the aggressor. Further, however, I must tell you, that no human consideration will induce me to go.” The hon. Justice then retired; and Mr. O’Connell shortly after repaired to Merrion-square. No challenge of any kind grew out of Tuesday’s proceedings.

On Wednesday morning, however, it was at length intimated to Mr. O’Connell that Mr. D’Esterre intended to call upon him for a meeting. Twelve o’clock was fixed upon for the nomination of hour and place. There was some overture made to enlarge the time, but Mr. O’Connell’s friend would not consent. We should mention that his friend was Major Macnamara, of Doolen, in the county of Clare, a Protestant gentleman attached to no party, and of the highest respectability. The friend of Mr. D’Esterre was Sir Edward Stanley.

After some discussion the parties fixed upon the place which we have already mentioned. It is about twelve miles distant from this city, and constitutes part of Lord Ponsonby’s demesne. The hour appointed was half-past three o’clock. At three precisely (we can speak confidently, for we now speak from personal knowledge), Mr. O’Connell, attended by his second, Surgeon Macklin, and a number of friends, was on the ground. About four, Mr. D’Esterre, attended only by Surgeon Peel, Sir Edward Stanley (his second), and a Mr. D’Esterre, of Limerick, appeared. There was some conversation between the seconds as to position, mode of fire, &c.; which, added to other sources of delay, occupied forty minutes. During this interval Mr. D’Esterre took occasion to say that his quarrel with Mr. O’Connell was not of a religious nature. To the Catholics, or their leaders, he said he had no animosity whatever.

At forty minutes past four the combatants were on the ground; they both displayed the greatest coolness and courage. The friends of both parties retired, and the combatants, having a pistol in each hand, with directions to discharge them at their discretion, prepared to fire. They levelled, and before the lapse of a second, both shots were heard. Mr. D’Esterre’s was first, and missed. Mr. O’Connell’s followed instantaneously, and took effect in the thigh of his antagonist, about an inch below the hip. Mr. D’Esterre of course fell, and both the surgeons hastened to him. They found that the ball had “traversed the hip,” and could not be found. There was an immense effusion of blood. All parties prepared to move towards home, and arrived in town before eight o’clock.

It is said that Mr. D’Esterre’s wound is very dangerous; we sincerely hope, however, that it will not prove mortal. The ball passed through both thighs. There was a violent hÆmorrhage of the bladder last night, but it had ceased before morning.

We need not describe the emotions which burst forth all along the road, when it was ascertained that Mr. O’Connell was safe.

Mr. D’Esterre died at five o’clock on the 3rd.

---

The particulars of this duel were reported as follows:—

The Dublin Corporation, at the period, was considered as the stronghold of the Protestant ascendancy, and the hostility to what were called the Catholic claims was carried to great excess. Mr. O’Connell, the champion of his party, assumed a tone equally violent and acrimonious; and at a meeting of the Catholics, held in Dublin, spoke of the corporation of that city in the most contemptuous terms, and amongst other abusive epithets, called it “a beggarly corporation,” an expression which soon became a by-word with their opponents.

Mr. D’Esterre, a young man of great respectability and high spirit, felt indignant at the reproach cast upon the body of which he was a member; and there is reason to believe that his indignation was fanned by the instigation of his colleagues, who were anxious to rid themselves of such a formidable opponent as O’Connell. D’Esterre, therefore, addressed a letter to O’Connell, to know whether he had used the expression which the public papers attributed to him. O’Connell, in reply, neither admitted nor disclaimed the alleged charge, but stated that no terms, however reproachful, could exceed the contemptuous feelings he entertained for the corporation as a public body. To this he added, that his letter must close all correspondence on the subject. Mr. D’Esterre was advised to address another letter to Mr. O’Connell, which was returned unread, by that gentleman’s brother. Various reports were now circulated, and it was stated that D’Esterre intended to offer O’Connell personal violence, should he meet him in the streets. Thus did a week pass, during which threats and violent language were exchanged between the two hostile parties; and it was generally concluded that a duel could not be avoided. Mr. George Lidwell, at Mr. O’Connell’s request, had waited a few days in Dublin expecting a message from Mr. D’Esterre, and at length Sir Edward Stanley, Barrack-master of Dublin, and a friend of Mr. D’Esterre, waited on O’Connell with the hostile message so long expected. The challenge was accepted, and the necessary arrangements were made between Major Macnamara and Sir E. Stanley.

The parties met at Bishop’s Court demesne, Lord Ponsonby’s seat, in the county Kildare, thirteen miles from Dublin. It is said that in the meeting Mr. D’Esterre had been very disadvantageously placed by his second, being in a line with a tree, which afforded direction to his adversary’s aim.

BETWEEN COLONEL QUENTIN AND COLONEL PALMER.
February 9, 1815.

Colonel Palmer had been at Bourdeaux, and on his return to Paris, on Thursday last, found that Mr. Lawrell (Colonel Quentin’s brother-in-law) had left a card repeatedly at his hotel during his absence; in consequence of which he immediately signified his arrival to that gentleman. Mr. Lawrell soon after waited upon him with a challenge from Colonel Quentin. The parties met: Colonel Quentin accompanied by his relative, and Colonel Palmer by Mr. T. Thompson, member for Midhurst. The distance measured was twelve paces; and the challenger, thinking himself aggrieved, having given his first fire, Colonel Palmer showed that he was influenced by no personal motive, by instantly discharging his pistol in the air.

Mr. Lawrell and Colonel Quentin having thereupon, in answer to an inquiry from Mr. Thompson, declared themselves perfectly satisfied, the affair terminated, and the parties returned to Paris.

The Duke de Guiche and two French surgeons were on the ground.

About three o’clock on Monday last, a duel was fought between two gentlemen of this city, near to Caroline Park. Intimation of their intention being given to the Sheriff, a warrant was issued for their apprehension; but before the officers could reach the ground, the parties had interchanged shots without effect. They and their seconds were however taken into custody; and on inquiry into the circumstances of the case, the cause of quarrel appeared so unsatisfactory, and the whole proceeding of those concerned so very strange, that, besides ordering them to find security to keep the peace, the Sheriff fined both principals and seconds in twenty-five guineas each; and ordered the same to be applied for the benefit of the Lunatic Asylum, as being, from its nature, an institution best entitled to a fine derived from such a source.

BETWEEN MAJOR HILLAS AND MR. THOMAS FENTON.

Towards the close of the same year, another fatal duel was fought in Ireland. In the month of December, 1815, a vessel was cast ashore by stress of weather upon the coast of Tirivagh, near the residence of Major Hillas, who was an active magistrate, and a young man of the most humane disposition. On hearing of the disaster, he immediately hastened to the spot to discharge his duties, and to fulfil his natural inclination. The captain, he found, had fallen overboard; and to his exertions, during the entire of a dark stormy night, the safety of the mate and eleven of the crew was chiefly to be attributed.

While Major Hillas was thus laudably engaged, Mr. John Fenton, a neighbouring gentleman, came up, and interfered in a manner which appeared to him highly incorrect; an altercation arose, which ended in Mr. Fenton’s threatening to throw Major Hillas into the sea. He, however, continued his exertions from the 6th to the 8th December, on which day Mr. Fenton arrived with a party of yeomanry, and forced the property out of his hands. It was in vain that Major Hillas remonstrated; that he declared that his object was not salvage, and that he only endeavoured to save as much as possible from the wreck for the benefit of the owners. Being thus frustrated in his intentions, he made a journey to Scotland, where the owners of the vessel resided, in order to make them acquainted with all the circumstances of the business. On his return Mr. Fenton thought proper to send him a message, which the Major very properly declined accepting. An investigation as to the right of salvage afterwards took place, during the course of which Major Hillas complained that he had been most unhandsomely treated by Mr. Fenton, who had interfered unjustifiably; and by taking the mate out of his hands, secured to himself, in an unhandsome manner, the legal custody of the vessel. Four days after the close of the investigation, Mr. John Fenton delivered a message to Major Hillas from Mr. Thomas Fenton. Major Hillas accepted the challenge, and when on the ground addressed the crowd of bystanders, saying—“I am sorry the mistaken laws of honour oblige me to come here to defend myself, and I declare to God I have no animosity to man or woman on the face of the earth.” Major Hillas, in anticipation of a fatal result, had dressed himself in a full suit of mourning. On the first shot he fell dead. Mr. Fenton was afterwards tried for the capital offence, but was acquitted by the jury.

BETWEEN P. DILLON, ESQ., AND B. KANE, ESQ.
Dublin, Feb. 21, 1816.

Yesterday evening a meeting took place near Merlin Park, between P. Dillon, Esq., of this town, and B. Kane, Esq., of ——, when the former received his adversary’s ball under the right breast, and instantly expired.

These two gentlemen were close friends for many years. Mr. Dillon had fought several duels, in all of which Mr. Kane acted as his second. And it is remarkable that Mr. Dillon’s father lost his life in an affair of honour with the late Malachy Fallon, Esq., at the same age, and nearly on the same spot where his son fell.

A dispute between Mr. Alley and Mr. Adolphus, which originated in the court of the Old Bailey, during a late trial, has at length been brought to a termination, and without any fatal result.

On November 13th, Mr. Adolphus sent notice to Mr. Alley, that he would be ready to meet him at Calais as soon as ever he chose; the parties being bound over by the magistrates to preserve the peace within this kingdom. Mr. Alley accepted the challenge, and on the 14th set out for Dover, accompanied by Captain Alley, his cousin and second. Two of his intimate friends, Mr. Agar and Mr. Bevil, also voluntarily accompanied him. They arrived at Calais on the 15th, some hours before Mr. Adolphus; and at two o’clock on the 16th, after the preliminary business was arranged by the seconds, the combatants met, a short distance from the town; took their ground; and on the signal being given, they both fired together. Mr. Alley was wounded in the right arm; and the ball from his pistol passed so close to his adversary, as almost to graze his head. Here the business terminated. An eminent surgeon being immediately sent for, extracted the ball from Mr. Alley’s arm.

On Wednesday a duel was fought here between Major Lockyer and Mr. Sutton Cochrane, recently a lieutenant in the Royal Navy, which proved fatal to the latter, he having received his antagonist’s ball under the right breast, which passed through both ventricles of the heart, and the lungs.

These gentlemen, in company with a Mr. Redesdale, a Mr. Hand, and upwards of sixty others, were going out as adventurers to South America, in the ship Grace, Davy master, now lying in these roads, wind-bound. The trifling difference between the parties arose in consequence of an expression of an unguarded nature from the deceased, the evening before, while regaling themselves, with several others, at an inn; he having asserted, that they were all in debt, and were seeking their fortunes. At which the major felt very indignant, and asked, if the other meant to include him? The deceased replied in the affirmative, and declared he would prove his assertion, which he did by giving a very ingenious explanation, observing, that if we were not in debt to any of our fellow-beings, we were all indebted to our Maker. But the major, not considering the explanation satisfactory, insisted on Mr. Cochrane’s meeting him the next morning, at the dawn of day, who very reluctantly fell into the measure, previously declaring that he would not fire himself, but that if his opponent insisted, he would receive his fire.

It was agreed that they should both fire at one time; but when the signal was made, it was observed, the deceased never raised his arm to level his pistol, while the ball of his antagonist’s pistol immediately struck the seat of life. When the pistol of the deceased was examined afterwards, it was found neither unstopped nor cocked. The major, and the two seconds, Messrs. Redesdale and Hand, immediately decamped across the water.

The deceased was a well-educated and genteel young man, about twenty years of age, and we believe a relation of Lord Cochrane.

A coroner’s inquest sat upon the body, the jury delivered their verdict, “wilful murder,” against Major Lockyer, and Messrs. Redesdale and Hand, and the coroner issued his warrant for their apprehension. Mr. Hand was apprehended (by Allen, the Newport constable) at Portsmouth, on Thursday; the others are at large.

Major Lockyer and Mr. Hand were tried at Winchester Assizes, on the 7th of March, 1818; and the jury returning a verdict of manslaughter, they were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.

Yesterday morning, between eight and nine o’clock, Mr. Theodore O’Callaghan, and Lieutenant Bailey of the 58th regiment, met in a field near Chalk Farm, to fight a duel, accompanied by Mr. Charles Newbolt, and Mr. Thomas Joseph Phealan, as seconds. Lieutenant Bailey received a wound in his right side, which proved fatal, as he languished about two hours, and then expired. Mr. O’Callaghan and the two seconds were afterwards taken into custody, and brought to this office, when they underwent an examination before Mr. Conant, the sitting magistrate, and the following particulars transpired:—

Thomas Hunt, a constable at Hampstead, stated—That he was sent for to Mr. Adams’s house, near Chalk Farm, in Ingram’s Lane, near the Load of Hay, where he took the prisoners into custody, in consequence of a gentleman having been killed in a duel.

Mr. Adams, who occupies the house above alluded to, attended, and stated—That about nine o’clock that morning he was in his bedroom, in the act of dressing himself, when he heard the discharge of two pistols, which induced him to look out of his window. He saw four gentlemen two fields off his house, near Chalk Farm, whom he considered in the act of fighting a duel. As they did not separate or disperse, he was fearful they would fire again. He therefore finished dressing himself with all possible speed, and hurried off to the spot, to endeavour to prevent the shot being repeated. Just as he arrived at the gate, and was in the act of getting over it, two pistols went off. He observed one of the gentlemen, who appeared to have discharged one of the pistols, turn round, and concluded he had received one of the shots. The other three gentlemen, the prisoners, went up to him instantly, and supported him on each side, to prevent him from falling. Each of them held him by the arm. On the witness getting up to them, one of them said to him, they were all friends. He saw blood running down the trowsers of the deceased profusely. The three prisoners gave him their names and addresses. He did not see a pistol in the possession of the deceased, or any of the prisoners. He invited the prisoners to conduct the deceased to his house, which they accordingly did. He did not observe any other person in the field, where the parties were, or near the spot. He observed to the parties, that it was an unfortunate affair. They all agreed, it was so. They inquired of him, if there was a house near for the prisoners to conduct the deceased to, as they were fearful of putting him to inconvenience. However, there being no public-house near, they supported him to his house, which was about four or five hundred yards off.

The deceased appeared to him to be in a dangerous state, and blood was running out of his trowsers very fast. A surgeon was sent for with all possible speed. The deceased was laid on a sofa in his parlour, and while he was lying there, he desired Mr. Theodore O’Callaghan to come to him, and held out his hand to shake hands with him, and said, he had behaved most honourably. The deceased had observed, that he was sensible he was dying, and could not live long. After this, he called the other two prisoners to him, shook hands with them, and made similar observations to them, and said, he forgave them all.

Mr. O’Callaghan, after this, went off to Hampstead, to get a coach to convey him from the witness’s house. But in the mean time Mr. Rodd, a surgeon of Hampstead, arrived, in about half an hour from the time of the fatal shot. Mr. Rodd, after having examined the wound, said it was impossible to remove him. The shot had entered on his right side, passed through his intestines, and all but came through on the left side, it being only confined by the skin. It was visible to the eye. The shot had carried with it a piece of the cloth of his coat, and other garments.

The deceased had observed to him, that the quarrel which had been the cause of the duel was not originally a quarrel of their own, but had sprung out of a quarrel of their mutual friends, who were to have fought a duel yesterday, and they were to have been their seconds. Upon recollection, he would not be positive whether it was the deceased or Mr. O’Callaghan who made this observation. He, however, understood that it was the prisoner O’Callaghan who shot the deceased. He did not observe any pistols in the possession of either of the parties, but he found two pistols lying on the table of his parlour; none of them owned them; but he had no doubt of their belonging to them (they were produced in the office in an unloaded state); they were of a large size. There were no pistols there before they came into the house. The deceased lived about two hours, or two hours and a quarter. All the prisoners paid every possible attention to the deceased, during the time he lived. He conversed with them all, and particularly with Mr. T. Phealan, who, the deceased told the witness, had been his second, or his friend, he could not recollect which. He heard him request Mr. Phealan to write the full particulars of the whole affair to his father, who, he understood, lived at Limerick.

Mr. Phealan had some conversation with the deceased privately, every other person having left the room. He then went off to London to procure more surgical assistance. On his return, the deceased had expired. Mr. Newbolt went, in the mean time, to inquire for lodgings at Chalk Farm, or the neighbourhood. Mr. O’Callaghan went to Hampstead to procure a coach. They all appeared anxious to do everything for the deceased, and did not seem inclined to abscond, but very readily surrendered themselves.

The prisoners were not called upon for any defence. The magistrates informed them, the law did not make any distinction in cases of murder, all being considered as principals. They must all, therefore, be detained. It was suggested to the magistrate, that safe custody was all, probably, that he would require; to which he assented, and it was agreed, that they should be kept in the watchhouse till the decision of the coroner’s inquest should be known; when it was suggested by the magistrate, that it was probable he might admit Mr. Phealan to bail. He regretted that the surgeon had not attended.

---

Yesterday morning another investigation took place, before Richard Birnie, Esq., respecting the cause of the death of Lieutenant Edward Bailey, of the 58th regiment. Mr. George Rodd, the surgeon of Hampstead, who had omitted to attend the examination on Monday evening, attended yesterday morning, and stated, That he was sent for on Monday morning, with great speed, to go to Mr. Adams’s house in Ingram’s Lane, to attend a gentleman who had been severely wounded. He arrived at Mr. Adams’s house about ten o’clock, where he saw a gentleman, who had been wounded, lying on a sofa. He proceeded to examine the wound, and he found a ball had penetrated on his right side, very nearly in a line with his navel. He proceeded to examine him on his left side, when he discovered that a ball was resting between his skin and the muscles. He succeeded in extracting the ball from the wound, and then dressed it. The three gentlemen, who are the prisoners, were present in the room at the time he examined the wounds of the deceased. After Lieutenant Bailey died, he opened the body, and found his intestines had been wounded in three different places, and which he had no doubt had caused his death.

Mr. William Adams, who has acted so humanely in this unfortunate transaction, attended again, and stated, in addition to the testimony which he gave on Monday evening,—That after the deceased had called Mr. O’Callaghan to him on the sofa, and shook hands with him, and said everything had been conducted in the most honourable manner, and that he forgave him, he asked Mr. O’Callaghan if he would have done the same by him if he had wounded him? To this Mr. O’Callaghan replied, most certainly he should have acted as he had done; and followed up the observation by saying, “I wish I had been wounded instead of you.”

Mr. O’Callaghan appeared much affected, and said, “You touched me in the first fire we had on one of my legs, by what is called a graze.” He then exhibited his trowsers and boots; when it appeared, that a ball had passed through both the legs of his trowsers, and one of his boots. He saw the deceased, Lieutenant Bailey, shake hands very heartily with Mr. O’Callaghan, previously to their parting.

The three prisoners were ordered to be detained in custody.

On the application of an attorney engaged for the prisoners, Mr. Birnie agreed to their undergoing another investigation previous to their commitment for trial; and the attorney wrote to Mr. Adams, requesting it as a favour that he would attend again last evening at 7 o’clock, at which hour the three prisoners were brought again to this office; and Mr. Birnie having taken his seat on the bench, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Arabin, and another barrister, whose name we understood to be Gould, presented themselves to the magistrate in behalf of the prisoners.

Mr. Nolan first addressed the magistrate, and requested, that as the coroner’s inquest had not yet sat, and would not sit till to-morrow, as the prisoners were now in safe custody, the magistrate would let them remain where they had hitherto been confined; as he well knew it was in vain to urge any discretionary power of the magistrate, as to bailing them, till the decision of the coroner’s jury was known.

The learned gentleman said, he felt strongly the charge of the crime under which the prisoners laboured; but he would say, that nothing he had heard of the evidence against them, in the least affected them as to premeditated murder. With regard to one of the prisoners, Mr. Phealan, he was the particular friend of the deceased, and was by no means instrumental to the violence that had been committed. All that Mr. Adams said respecting him, and he was the most material witness, was, that he was there on the spot at the time that the deceased came by his death. For anything that appeared in evidence, he might have been there accidentally; the spot where the transaction took place being near a public road and a path, he might have been an idle spectator. He must now answer for the highest crime which the law knew. The question he had to urge was, whether he was to remain in custody or be admitted to bail, till his trial; which he urged as to a sense of honour and humanity, and which he had no doubt was possessed by the gentleman by whom the business was first investigated, Mr. Conant; and if he had then been present, he should have taken the liberty of asking Mr. Adams a few questions, which he flattered himself would have induced the magistrate to have admitted the gentlemen to bail. If the coroner’s inquest had met and pronounced their verdict, the case would be altered. As Mr. Adams had not arrived, he trusted there would be no objection to let them remain where they were. To meet his fate, was the wish of his friend, Mr. O’Callaghan, as soon as possible; to him the trial would be the most interesting, and he by no means wished to defer it. All he wished for was, that they might be remanded till to-morrow morning. After the coroner’s inquest had sat upon the body of Lieutenant Bailey, and returned a verdict, it would then be a question, whether all or any of the gentlemen should be admitted to bail.

Mr. Arabin followed Mr. Nolan, and very handsomely acknowledged the kindness which had been shown him, in allowing him to read the evidence which had been taken in writing against his clients. He proceeded to enlarge upon it, and urged that there was not a shadow of difference between Mr. Phealan and Mr. Newbolt; and solicited that their commitment might be deferred, and that they might be admitted to bail.

Mr. Birnie in reply, said it was his wish to do justice to all; the prisoners had all been found on the spot.

Mr. Arabin admitted that there was no doubt about that; but he appealed to the magistrate to feel as a man, a gentleman, and as a lawyer.

Mr. Birnie said, he had a public duty to perform. In answer to the arguments of the learned counsel, he quoted the celebrated case of Montgomery and Macnamara, in which Mr. Heaviside, the surgeon, was committed to Newgate, who had only been attending professionally; yet he was committed on a charge of murder. In that case, it will be recollected, Sir Richard Ford was committing magistrate, who at that time took up the practice of duelling in a very spirited manner; and publicly expressed his determination to commit the surgeon, and all persons who were present at fatal duels, to take their trials for murder. And it was this firm conduct in the magistrate at that period, which checked the spirit of duelling for some time after; Mr. Heaviside being confined in Newgate for a considerable time, and at a very heavy expense. Bail to any amount could have been procured for Mr. Heaviside, but the application was refused.

The other learned counsel was heard in favour of the prisoners. Mr. Nolan said their only motive for the application in behalf of the prisoners was, that they would be more comfortable where they had been, during the night, than in Newgate. Mr. Birnie observed that he did not know that magistrates had anything to do with coroner’s inquests. Mr. Nolan said that if the magistrate complied with the application, no mischief, public or private, could happen. The magistrate observed, that it was in evidence before him, that one of the king’s subjects had been deprived of life, and prim facie it was murder. He had now made up his mind: the prisoners must all be committed to Newgate to take their trials for the murder of Lieutenant Bailey; and he was convinced that the three learned gentlemen would allow that he had decided right.

The prisoners were given into the custody of the officers to be conveyed to Newgate; and, on the 14th of January, they were tried at the Old Bailey for the crime laid to their charge; when the jury having returned a verdict of “manslaughter,” they were sentenced to be imprisoned three months in Newgate.

BETWEEN LIEUT. CARTWRIGHT AND LIEUT. MAXWELL.
March, 1818.

On the 1st of March, a fatal duel took place at Avranches, on the French coast, opposite to Jersey. It arose in consequence of a dispute between Lieutenants Cartwright and Maxwell of the British Navy. Lieutenant Cartwright received his adversary’s first fire: the ball entered his forehead, and he expired in a few moments. He had been married at St. Helier’s, only a few weeks before, to Miss Mann, niece to the Bishop of Cork and Ross.

An affair of honour was this day decided on the Flats near Chester, between Viscount Belgrave and Sir John G. Egerton. On the first fire Sir John’s ball struck Lord Belgrave in the pistol arm, and slightly wounded his lordship. The quarrel between the parties originated in certain proceedings which had taken place on the preceding day, at the annual election of mayor for the city of Chester. A Mr. Baker, in proposing Mr. Evans, a gentleman in the Government interest, as mayor, made what were considered pointed allusions to some of the Egerton party, and insinuated that they had been stimulated by Sir John Egerton himself. The insinuation was required by Sir John to be disavowed by Lord Belgrave, who was present; but this his lordship refused. The greatest confusion then arose in the assembly, and the Recorder was ultimately obliged to adjourn the court to another day. The meeting between Sir John and Lord Belgrave was immediately afterwards arranged.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN JOHNSTON, OF THE 64TH REGIMENT AND BENJAMIN T. BROWNE, SURGEON OF THE ERIE, AMERICAN SLOOP OF WAR.
March, 1819.

On the 23rd of March, while Captain Johnston was on the main-guard duty at Gibraltar, a report was made to him, that five individuals had been taken into custody by a sentry, on their way home from the play, for being without lights, contrary to the garrison regulations. Captain Johnston immediately ordered a sufficient number of men to see them home. In about ten minutes the police-sergeant who accompanied them, returned with three of the five in custody; and acquainted Captain Johnston that Archibald Taylor had endeavoured to escape from the sentry, and had made use of provoking and abusive language to him. Having, upon inquiry, found the report to be correct, Captain Johnston ordered the offender to be confined in the Crib; an order which he resisted, and used very offensive language to Captain Johnston himself. At this time Captain Johnston was not at all aware that he was an American. Taylor demanded satisfaction for the treatment he had received; but the Captain considered that he had merely acted in conformity with his duty, reported the whole affair to the field-officer, who approved of the course that had been pursued, and ordered Taylor to be continued in confinement.

In the morning Mr. Taylor was released; and upon the circulation of a report, two days afterwards, that Captain Johnston had declined to meet him or the American consul, who was said to have offered “to stand in his shoes,” the former having been obliged to sail immediately with the vessel of which he was master. Captain Johnston applied to the Consul for an explanation; when that gentleman disavowed any knowledge of the reports in question, and gave the Captain his thanks for the gentlemanly conduct he had evinced in the business.

Thus matters continued till the evening of the 31st, when Captain Johnston received the following letter by the hands of Lieutenant Stockton, first Lieutenant of the American sloop of war Erie:—

“Sir,

“You have refused to give the satisfaction due to a man of honour, whom you did not hesitate to insult, because he was no more than a commander of an American merchant schooner. That gentleman is known to me, and I vouch for his equality to you in every respect. I am his representative; and the satisfaction I understand you boast to have offered his friends, I demand as an American. My rank, I trust, is enough for any man of honour; and you will do me the favour to consider the bearer, my friend, for your use.

(Signed)Benjamin T. Browne.”

Mr. Browne was surgeon of the Erie. Captain Johnston instantly accepted the challenge; and the next morning, a meeting took place between them, upon the neutral ground; Captain Johnston having distinctly disavowed making any boast with regard to Mr. Taylor. The arrangement made by their mutual friends on the ground was, distance eight paces, the word to be given, “Are you ready, gentlemen?” and, on assent being given, both to fire, after a pause for taking aim, while one, two, three, could be counted. On the first fire Captain Johnston received his opponent’s ball through his hat. They were handed pistols a second time. The Captain fired; but Mr. Browne reserved his fire so long, that the friend of the former exclaimed, “That is not fair!” on which he fired. Captain Johnston expressed his indignation at the reservation of fire by his antagonist. After some warm language on both sides, the third discharge took place, without effect; and on the fourth,—which was rather hurried, in consequence of the approach of a sergeant’s guard,—Captain Johnston’s ball took effect in Mr. Browne’s thigh. His friend, Mr. Stockton, immediately took up the ground, desiring Captain Johnston to keep his. They were about proceeding, when the sergeant’s guard reached the spot, and prevented any further progress at that time.

Mr. Stockton insisted on meeting Captain Johnston the next morning, at five o’clock; to which the latter agreed, and returned to the garrison. Captain Johnston was prevented from meeting in the morning, from the circumstance of his having been put under arrest, and an order of garrison being made, that no officer should be permitted to pass the barriers, in coloured clothes or otherwise; he, however, contrived to elude the vigilance of the guard in the afternoon, and at half-past four met Mr. Stockton at St. Michael’s Cave.

The seconds instantly entered into conversation as to the mode of firing. Mr. Stockton’s friend proposed that they should, on receiving the word, take an unlimited time for aim. This was objected to by Captain Johnston’s friend as sanguinary, and at variance with those principles of honour upon which such meetings are founded. Some argument followed, which ended in a determination to decide by chance which mode should be adopted. The result was favourable to the more humane course; but the time which was lost in the dispute exposed them to the interruption of the guard, which was seen approaching. It was now discovered that Mr. Stockton had no pistols, and one of Captain Johnston’s was borrowed for his use. Having taken their ground at the distance of eight paces, Mr. Stockton proceeded to take a steady aim, by resting the barrel of his pistol on his left hand. Captain Johnston’s friend objected to this; and again the American endeavoured to justify that very unusual mode of deciding such matters. At length the guard was seen within a hundred paces, and Captain Johnston desired that the affair might proceed in the usual manner. This was agreed to, and the discharge took place: the ball of Lieutenant Stockton’s pistol passed through Captain Johnston’s great coat; and, before a second fire could take place, the guard came up and interfered.

BETWEEN MR. UNIACKE AND MR. BOWIE.
August 1, 1819.

A duel was fought at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the 1st of August, between Mr. Uniacke, son of the Attorney-General, and Mr. Bowie, an auctioneer; when the latter was killed on the spot. The deceased had been under a prosecution for an offence; in which cause he considered Mr. Uniacke, as the prosecuting attorney, had used improper expressions regarding him, and therefore called him out to the above ordeal.

BETWEEN CAPTAIN PELLEW, OF THE LIFE GUARDS, AND LIEUTENANT WALSH.
October 6, 1819.

The following are the particulars of a fatal duel which took place at Montmartre, near Paris, on the 6th of October, between Captain Pellew and Lieutenant Walsh:—Mr. Walsh not long since exchanged from the Life Guards, in which corps Captain Pellew held his commission. Previously to Mr. Walsh’s quitting the regiment, he had resided with his wife a good deal in the barracks in Hyde Park; where, being young and thoughtless, she unhappily received with too much readiness those attentions which military men too often think themselves at liberty to pay to every female. The consequences were such as might be expected to result from such infatuation. A close attachment was formed between Captain Pellew and the lady; and at length, in a fatal moment, she agreed to sacrifice her character, by eloping with the object of her blind affection. About a month before the duel she went off with him from her father’s house, where she had been residing for some time, during the absence of her husband. They repaired to Paris, whither they were followed by Mr. Walsh; he preferring what is called the satisfaction of a gentleman, to pursuing any legal means of redress. A meeting was arranged: the distance agreed upon was twelve full paces, and they were to fire together by signal. When that was given, the pistol of Mr. Walsh was immediately discharged. Captain Pellew did not fire; and it is said he never intended to do so. Mr. Walsh’s ball passed through the right temple into the brain of Captain Pellew, who instantly expired.