The Duelling Handbook, 1829

Joseph Hamilton

• Publisher: Dover Publications
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9780486147949
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia de Norteamérica

Profoundly embedded in our cultural consciousness, the art of duelling evokes images of a dramatic past, where the laws of courtesy, civility, and honor were enforced by the end of a rapier at the first rays of dawn. In this engrossing historical record of the codes and conduct of the duel--originally written in 1829 as `The Only Approved Guide Through All the Stages of a Quarrel`—every aspect of the arcane practice is brought to fascinating light.
Offering authentic advice on such subjects as withdrawal of challenges, weapons, distance, and the fate of survivors, The Duelling Handbook also brims with vivid anecdotes recounting duels between brothers, duels between friends, and those arising from disagreements over religion, women, gambling, and other volatile standpoints. A genuine historical treasure, Hamilton's unequaled guidebook will captivate—and enlighten—a wide audience of readers, especially those intrigued by the moral and sociological issues surrounding the art of the duel.

NOTES AND CASES

APOLOGIES

It is a principle which can never be disputed, that he who does an injury should make full reparation, and as Mr. Roscoe has asserted, in his life of Lorenzo de Medicis, no end can justify a sacrifice of principle. No man could refuse ample, and timely reparation, if he had the smallest pretensions to that character which the great English dramatist has sketched.

“He is complete in manners, and in mind,
With all good grace, to grace a gentleman.”

The Chinese have a proverb “that a fault acknowledged, is half amended,” and a celebrated author has declared, that it is almost more honorable to confess a fault, than never to commit one.

Mr. Maurice O’Connel showed more good sense, and feeling, by accepting an apology from Mr. Baker on the ground, than if he slew his adversary under the old Tipperary Code. He may rest assured, that it is not necessary he should fight a duel to establish his character for bravery. He appears not to think that

“———Many dangers do environ,
The man who meddles with cold iron.”

Messrs. A. Martin, of Dangan, and T. Blake, of Menlo, were reconciled upon the ground without a shot, by the judicious conduct of their seconds, and very cordially shook hands.

In the case of the American and English officers, at Gibraltar, in July, 1819. Captain Girdlestone, who was second to Captain Johnston, of the 64th regiment, humanely recommended an apology upon the ground, and the parties immediately shook hands.

In the case of Read and Steele, the challenged party would not apologize in Carrickmacross, but on the way to the Isle of Man to fight, an apology was given and received at Newry. The author has this fact from Consellor Kernan, who was one of the seconds.

Major Hillas wrote in very unguarded terms respecting the conduct of Messrs. John and Thomas Fenton, yet he declared even upon the ground, that he would not apologize while his heart beat in his body, and was killed by the first shot of his opponent, John Fenton.

When Sir Alexander Boswell was pressed by his friends to offer an apology, he unfortunately said that an apology was out of the question, and that after what he had written, he had no alternative but fighting. We have many cases in which apologies have been withheld unjustly, and with some of them we might associate the following anecdote.

A man disputing with another, said in a great passion, that he did not like to be thought a scoundrel. I wish, replied his opponent, that you had as great a dislike to the behaviour of a scoundrel.

FATE OF SURVIVORS

What horror, says Hanway, must invade the soul of the surviving duellist; the reproaches of his heart, and his apprehensions of the law, must fill him with dismay: if it was only to die, death is but a debt we owe to nature, and the end of life is to pay that debt in a graceful manner: but under those circumstances it is shocking. Not the devouring flames; nor storms that plunge the affrighted mariner into his watery grave, have half the terrors of this dreadful scene.

Colonel Purefoy having shot a gentleman in a duel at Cork, lost his peace of mind, and became a monument of the folly which prompts mankind to shed a brother’s blood in private quarrel.

Previous to Mr. Colclough’s fatal duel with Mr. Alcock, a powerful friendship had for many years subsisted between the parties; the tenderest affection had linked the hearts of Colclough and Miss Alcock, who fondly looked to the expected union of their destinies through long and happy times. Colclough was the prop of many an aged widow, and the guardian of every being in his neighbourhood who knew distress. The surrounding heights were covered with anxious spectators of the combat, who offered their prayers in vain for the safety of their long tried friend. Colclough was slain; Miss Alcock’s heart was broken; the survivor lost his senses; and in a very short time afterwards was called to that account which every duellist must settle.

Major Campble repeatedly declared himself more miserable than his dying adversary; and although Cecil owed his promotion to the death of Stackpole, whom he shot, he pined and died in four months after the duel.

General Gillespie was never happy after shooting Mr. Barrington. In a letter which we have received from Mr. Brodigan, upon the subject of some fatal duels in America, he describes Mr. Burr, who shot General Hamilton, as care-worn and emaciated; and we could adduce some other cases which would justify the reader in exclaiming:—

“Happy in my mind was he that died,
For many deaths has the survivor suffered.”

DISOBEDIENT PRINCIPALS

A second should always quit the field if disobeyed by his principal. In the duel between Capts. D. and S. on Hounslow-heath, the seconds refused to stay upon the ground, because their principals would not be reconciled.

Dr. Dry and Mr. Kearns, acting as the seconds to Frederick E. Jones, Esq. and Capt. Pardy, refused to continue on the ground if the former persisted after the first shot.

We have heard of a case in which Wm. Henry Carroll, Esq. of Dublin, acted with becoming firmness upon the ground.—Mr. Carroll is a professional gentleman, who has in his own person maintained the point of honor, although he entertains a great abhorrence of duelling, and we believe that he has always used his best exertions to make peace between contending parties, when called upon to act as second.

CHALLENGES WITHDRAWN

Many cases have occurred in which a message has been withdrawn, upon an understanding that such withdrawal would promote an honorable reconciliation. Formerly when a message was withdrawn, the business was supposed to have entirely terminated, and the challenger was erroneously deprived of all redress.

In a case in which we acted as a second to an officer, a message was withdrawn, mutual apologies were offered, and the parties reconciled. A message however must be always cautiously withdrawn.

In the case of Maguire and Leahy, Mr. Crawford, as the second of the former, consented to withdraw the message, upon an understanding that the latter would apologize when such withdrawal had taken place.

REFUSING TO FIRE AT AN INJURED CHALLENGER

Several individuals have received the fire of the challenger without attempting to return it. The Duke of York, who was a warm admirer of our Code, declared he came to the ground for the purpose of satisfying Colonel Lennox, and fired his pistol in the air. The Marquis of Anglesea, whose thanks we also have received for our labours on this subject, refused to fire at Colonel Cadogan, and Captain Garth followed his example, by refusing to fire at Sir Jacob Astley.

“Nothing, surely,” says a gallant author, “can be more contemptible, nothing more loudly calls upon the police of every wise government to fix the severest brand of infamy upon it, than the pretended honor of the scoundrel, who, having committed an action confessedly base and unworthy of a gentleman, seeks to silence the universal reproach he has incurred, by murdering the first man that shall express the judgment which all men form of his conduct.”

ALTERNATE FIRING

An officer who has written on this subject says, “I will appeal to any one who ever used his pistol, if he can fancy any thing more horrible, or if this vile trick of seconds, in tossing up for the shot, can be taken for any thing less than gambling for the lives of their principals.”

A SNAP IS AS GOOD AS A SHOT

In the fatal case of Newburgh and Corry, the former having missed fire, was preparing to make a second effort, when he was informed by his second that a snap was as good as a shot. Several cases of a similar description will be found in the cases we have recorded.

DRAWING BLOOD OR FIRING IN THE AIR

He must have a truly murderous spirit who will fire at any gentleman after he discharges his pistol in the air, and whether swords or pistols are selected, the appearance of blood should generally terminate a duel. A challenged person once demanded another pistol, after the challenger had declared that he was fully satisfied; but the seconds very properly observed, that he “came to give satisfaction, not to take it.”

DISUSE OF THE HORSEWHIP

Horse-whipping and posting were amongst the customs which prevailed in Ireland from the good old times, until the publication of this code, but the public taste has undergone a change which need not cause the smallest lamentation.

Amongst the many cases which have been collected for publication, there is one, in which a regimental surgeon, having rashly used a whip, was willing to place it in the hand of the challenger, with a suitable apology, but dreaded his doing such an act of justice might deprive himself and family of their subsistence, when the circumstance should come to the knowledge of his brother officers. His generous adversary said, “let me have it under his own hand that the performance of his duty, will be injurious to my family, and certainly the whip shall be dispensed with.”

The author has been assured by the second to Counsellor Hatchell, in a duel which unfortunately proved fatal to Mr. Morley, that with the Counsellor’s humane permission, he offered to take an apology, and wave his right to return the slight assault which his adversary had committed on his cheek with a glove. The circumstance is highly honorable to Mr. Hatchell, who found himself committed with a very positive antagonist, and the father of a very numerous family.

In the fatal case of Blake and Burke, although a horse-whip had been used by Burke, the former would have taken any reasonable apology, but the latter fell a victim to his obstinacy.

DECIDING ELECTIONS BY A SHOT

Had John Colclough acted with a due regard to the interests which he professed to support, he would have said to the second of his adversary, “Sir, I have had no personal difference with my good friend Alcock, we have always lived on terms of the kindest intimacy, and I see no reason for deciding our contest for the representation of the County of Wexford by a duel. Independent of the deep regret which I should feel through life, in the event of his being killed by me, I owe it to the freeholders, who are zealous for my return, not to hazard their defeat by such a rash decision.

DANGER OF PUBLICITY

In the case of O’Connell, sen. and D’ Esterre, it is impossible to calculate on the result had Mr. O’Connell fallen. The duel was forced upon him wantonly by his opponent, every publicity was given to the breach, and the fatal field was surrounded by many thousand of those “children of impulse,” who considered the learned gentleman as the champion of their creed and country. Who then could have restrained them? We are decidedly of opinion, that the duel should not have taken place. O’Connell had no personal difference with D’ Esterre, and had he been so rash as to assault the Counsellor, the latter should have brought him before the Court of King’s Bench, as the fearless Curran did upon a similar occasion. Circumstances however, which shall be explained hereafter, influenced Mr. O’Connell to show he did not wear a “snow white feather in his helmet,” and he killed D’ Esterre.

DIMINISHING THE MARK

Amongst the errors committed in the case of Bric, was that of giving the word to fire by Mr. Bric’s own second, while his principal was in the act of apologising for an awkwardness, arising from his inexperience in the field, his front was exposed to the fire of his opponent, who without any extraordinary haste, might have shot him before he could have raised his pistol. He was a victim of mismanagement from the beginning.

Messrs. O’Ferrall and Fenton, who acted as seconds in the case of Major Hillas and Mr. John Fenton, squared the principals, in order to present the smallest possible objects. Major Hillas threw off his coat upon the ground, and appeared with light black sleeves attached to his waistcoat, evidently with a view to present the less conspicuous object to his adversary. The reason Major Hillas had black sleeves attached to his waistcoat, was to make his bulk appear the smaller. There is another mode of lessening the object to be fired at, which is thus described by a military officer who has written on the present subject, “By advancing the foot, and inclining in the act of presenting, the body will be lowered some inches, and many is the good or bad head that had been saved by it.”

DISTANCE

In the case of Major Hillas and Mr. Fenton, spud stones were placed to mark the distance, and prevent the parties from advancing toward each other.

An officer, who has written on the subject, says “the distance being a matter entirely in the breasts of the seconds, where neither heat nor animosity can be supposed to exist, one cannot but wonder at the bloody distances which are sometimes given; eight and seven yards are not unfrequent; and which, when the parties come to present, will of course bring the mouths of the pistols to no more than four or five.

“And if this be not bringing their friends to an impossibility of escaping, any man of skill shall determine.

“Strange it is to think how the seconds can ever be induced to act in so desperate a manner, or on what kind of principles they can possibly proceed. Have they really such a cool, diabolical design as to bring certain death to one or the other of their friends? Can they not be satisfied with giving a fair and gentleman-like distance, which may sufficiently atone for any offence, and yet leave some kind of chance for their escaping and living for an honorable reconciliation.

“Charity must lead us to hope that the seconds, who have hitherto committed such mistakes, can only have erred through ignorance or inconsideration; and that when it is properly represented to them, they will be reclaimed from such unreasonable and bloody proceedings. As matters of this kind are wisely taken from the power of the principals; it is earnestly to be hoped, that the seconds will in future shew greater consideration and respect for the lives and eternal welfare of their friends.

“But it often happens, from want of caution in the second, that when ten yards are agreed ...