• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

“A Requiem Upon Duelling.” Arthur Pollock, 1848-9. Transcription by Keith Farrell, July 2017. Transcription © Keith Farrell, 2017. Hosted on www.keithfarrell.net. Please do not upload this document online or republish its contents without first seeking permission. If you enjoy reading this document, please consider making a donation to help fund my work. Donations can be sent safely and securely through my website at https://www.keithfarrell.net/donations/ and any help would be received gratefully. Table of Contents Transcription Notes ................................................................................................... 1 A Requiem Upon Duelling. Part I. ......................................................................... 2 A Requiem Upon Duelling. Part II. ...................................................................... 12 A Requiem Upon Duelling. Part III. .................................................................... 21 A Requiem Upon Duelling. Part IV. .................................................................... 32 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 42 Transcription Notes I have endeavoured to reproduce the original text and its formatting as accurately as possible. The page numbers in the original publications are indicated in square brackets, such as [267] for example. The transcription process was to run the original sources through Optical Character Recognition software to create a rough gist of the text, then to go through it by hand, comparing the OCR text with the original text and correcting any errors. 1 A Requiem Upon Duelling – Part I. [267] A REQUIEM UPON DUELLING. No. I. “Beware of desperate steps: the darkest day— Wait till to-morrow—will have pass’d away.” ON Tuesday, the 18th ultimo. Lieutenant Munro, late of the Royal Horse Guards, was released from custody; having terminated his sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment in Newgate, for shooting and slaying his brother-in-law, Lieut.- Colonel Fawcett, of the 55th Foot, in a duel fought at Camden Town, on the 1st of July, 1848. The particulars have long and painfully agitated the public mind; and there is but little doubt that from the deep interest of the case, and the meeting of several other causes, it will be one of the last deadly examples of a greatly contested form of settling disputes of honour. Indeed, notwithstanding the principle exists in full force, this practice of combat—so long prevalent through the upper orders of society, yet, declared to be contrary to law—though not at present absolutely exanimate, is so severely scotched that e’en weans may “haud oot their fengers laughin” with impunity. The occasion calls us to take a cursory, and we hope a strictly impartial review of the pugna duorum, by way of chaunting its requiem, or rather prosing its peaceful rest. We hope also to shew the urgent necessity of providing an efficient substitute, which shall curb the insolent, check the flippant, awe the profligate, and insure good [268] order to the community; for the accomplishment of which the law of the land has proved itself to be inadequate. The task before us, in the present tone of feeling, is certainly rather obnoxious; but it shall be honestly executed, as well to shew the past state of duelling, as to suggest the satisfactory regulation of a principle which is not easily controlled by civil institutions. Our own inner sentiments are decidedly at enmity with the practice, and we would never countenance an aggressor; but the millenium has not yet arrived, and as the rule of our conduct and character must still—in spite of ordinances to the contrary—be regulated in conformity with the opinions and prejudices of those among whom we are placed, it must be viewed as an objectionable but unavoidable alternative of self-defence. We, at once, acknowledge that the crime of extreme duelling is not only destructive of human life, but also that it inflicts extensive calamity and lasting misery on the friends and relations of the perpetrators; and we should never view the mere habit as constituting an essential part or parcel of true honour or real courage. Under these confessions we shall proceed, but in our course, treating merely with human considerations, we shall not examine the obligations on religious grounds; since we are satisfied that no one in arraigning or defending its tendency ever supported the idea that its practice is compatible with the spirit and precepts of the Holy Gospel, any more than is war in general, or any other uncharitableness. Nor are we either morbid enough, or sufficiently enthusiastic to assert that— 2 A Requiem Upon Duelling – Part I. “Only he Is great and honourable who fears the breach Of laws divine and human, and foregoes Even reputation, rather than infringe The Christian’s duty:” for, however irrational duels may be, and however contrary to the animus of religion, fighting does not appear to be absolutely forbidden by the Scriptures; except by pressing certain texts, and straining them into the service. And certainly, he who would shelter himself on such an occasion behind the seven-fold shield of Religion, ought to be a most correct observer of its forms and precepts on every other occasion: nor is it at all easy for the most squeamish anti-duellist to separate the Divine injunctions against revenge from national wars, and yet retain them in cases of personal conflict. The advertising philanthropists, however, will assure you that they (they!) are bent on preserving also the quiet of the world, and would fain persuade Britannia to disarm herself as an example to other countries. Ma ‘spetta un poco. Surely none but the vilest of the Adullamite clan would not hail universal peace among nations with ecstacy; yet who, except the pseudo-economic driveller, and some dafter classes, supposes that such a blessing can be possible under existing circumstances? Believe us, dear reader, that the most sovereign preventive of quarrel is in the being well prepared for it: and it is owing rather to the counsel of those veteran soldiers, Wellington and Soult—that the dreadful evil of war is not again desolating the world, than to the efforts of the burly squad of subscription orators. Unhappily the terrible bane has existed in all ages and countries, notwithstanding the councils of the wise and deprecations of the worthy. [269] We ought here to notice another error among the well-meaning advocates of universal quiet, who insist that duelling can only be excused under an absolute Government, which annuls or alters laws at pleasure. Full of this cut-and-dry dream, Mons. Salaville considers it desirable to inquire why those who enjoy political liberty reject the odious practice, preferring a respectful reference to the laws, or a magnanimous forgetfulness of insults merely personal? This ‘cute question he answers thus—”It is because they have loftier interests to consult than those which concern only the individual; namely, those which belong to justice, and to their country. So long as those objects of their veneration are treated with due deference, they would have no feelings for private offences, no sensibilities exasperated to frenzy in the cause of self.” Ah, england! and still more, ah, America! there Mons. Salaville has you! All good men unite in decrying appeals to deadly arms, as un-christian in spirit; and every impulse of the finer feelings teaches that they should ever be avoided, if compatible with honour and justice. But, when our over-puritanical critics dwell so complacently on the virtue and propriety of pagan Greece, and Rome, in having had no Wager of Battel, we are taken aback with the reckless intrepidity of assertion, and the visionary tendency of their views. What! would they really exchange the accidental encounter of insulted sensibility, and the occasional calling of the ruffian to order, for the domestic inhumanities, the butcheries at games, the systematic homicides, and the wholesale slaughters of gladiators, which delighted those 3 A Requiem Upon Duelling – Part I. heathens, female as well as male? Would they restore the impunity of those classic times to the slander, the invective, the lie, the hurled missive, the kick, the blow, which then wantoned without staining either feelings or character. Besides, some of their rencounters were mightily like duels, colour them as we please; and there are sundry “callings out” of those days, which are actually on record. To be sure, the stakes were rather greater than when the raffish exhibition of squabbling shop-men took place at Wimbledon, the other day. Marc Antony, when he had lost his all, sent a message to Augustus, challenging him to single combat at a given time and place; but as the challengee returned only a cool answer anticipating the event, poor Antony sought refuge in suicide. By the way, this answer, advising the challenger to choose some other method of dying than by duelling, must have been framed according to a formula in such cases provided; for nearly the same words were employed by Antigonus when he replied to the hostile message of Pyrrhus by Metellus on receiving a challenge from Sertorius, and by Marius to the Cimbrian king’s defiance. The word duel or duello, is derived from duellum, which was used in dog-latin, duorum-bellum; and it signifies the personal combat of two parties agreeably to stipulation, in consequence of a cartel or challenge. This form was used as well in criminal as on civil occasions, and was waged for the maintenance of character and rights. The origin of the practice is doubtless to be referred directly to the single combat, which obtained among all warlike people, even in the earliest ages; as well as to the trial by battle, which was countenanced by the laws of the Huns, Suevi, Vandals, Goths, and other northern nations of europe. In the days of chivalry, the duel was the animating principle of every [270] one who valued his reputation; and physical prowess was the boast and glory of the times.

Load more

  44

Copy Link