Walter Winans

OUGHT DUELLING TO BE ABOLISHED?

It is a mistake to think that it is to the universal satisfaction that duelling is no longer allowed in England.

Probably it was abolished, owing to some agitation by a few cranks, like that against stag-hunting and Sunday amusements, and even at the time of the abolition, there were many who thought duelling was a necessity and its abolition a mistake.

Even a judge of the present time doubts if his abolition was not a mistake.

On May 17, 1911, it is reported that at the dinner of the Union Society of London, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said:

In recent years a statement that man is a liar does not bear the weight it used to do.

There were times when if one man called another a liar, that man was called to account for it, it might be even in a duel. But long since duels came to an end.

If a man called an Englishman a liar in a public place, that Englishman had a habit of knocking that man down; I am afraid that habit is dying out.

He said he was sorry he had come to that conclusion, that the “world in general, as it was accepted in England was coming to think that it did not matter very much if one’s neighbour called one a liar or not.

“One would smile, meet him in society, go out and play golf with him, and shake hands with him.

“He wished people would resent more this imputation of being liars.”

“Vanoc” in the Referee newspaper said:

For some reasons the abolition of duelling is a mistake. Insolent and offensive language is now too frequently indulged in with impunity ... the best rule of all is never to take liberties yourself, and never to allow liberties to be taken with you, and to remember that self-defence is still the noble art.

Over the signature of “Les Armes de Combat,” a writer after referring to “the deplorable” inefficiency of the mass of English officers with the revolver, says:

Whilst duelling is allowed in one country and not in another, it puts an inhabitant of the latter country in a very unenviable position if he is insulted in the other country.

He cannot shield himself behind the plea that duelling is not customary in his own country, without laying himself open to be called a coward, and yet he must not fight.

At the actual time I was writing the above, an English officer was having to submit to the indignity of being tried for murder under circumstances in which, in a duelling country, he would have had a perfect right to kill the man.

As I sat down to resume writing this morning, the morning papers were brought in. I picked up the nearest, which happened to be the Daily Mirror, and the first words my eyes fell on were:

With the verdict of “not guilty” the great love drama trial came to an end at the Old Bailey yesterday. Scarcely had the foreman of the jury uttered the words which set Lieut. X—— free, than frantic cheers rose in Court, and were taken up by the enormous crowd, which, seething with excitement, awaited the result in the street outside.

Can any one doubt what answer this crowd would have given, if asked if duelling should be made legal in England?

How the law at present stands, for citizens of the United States of America and for British subjects, will be found in the supplement of this book (reprinted from my Art of Revolver Shooting).

The American law does not apply to the case of a duel fought by a citizen of the United States outside the geographical limits of that country.

According to Mr. R. Newton Crane no offence is committed by the fact that an American citizen has participated in a duel beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. The citizenship of the combatant, is in such circumstances, immaterial.

On the other hand, sending, knowingly bearing, or accepting a challenge in England or America, renders the sender, bearer, or accepter, liable to punishment by the laws of England or America, as the case may be, whether the duel is subsequently fought or not, and whether it is fought in England or America or abroad, and whether the offending party is an Englishman, American, or a foreigner. Provoking a man to send a challenge is also an indictable offence.

The law applicable to the punishment for actually fighting the duel, is, on the other hand, the law of the place where the duel is fought, and that law only, applies to the offence.

Provocation, however great, is no excuse, although it might weigh with the court in fixing the punishment.

Under the English law the punishment for sending, bearing or accepting a challenge is fine or imprisonment without hard labour, or both.

Each of the States of the United States has penalties for the offence, which though differing in detail are practically the same in substance as those provided by the law of England.

It seems, therefore, that a citizen of the United States of America, can safely fight a duel in a country where duelling is permitted with a man of any nationality, provided he does not challenge, accept a challenge, or fight him on American or British soil.