Part 8

Duelling did not begin in England till some hundred years after it had arisen in France. There is no instance of a private duel fought in England before the 16th century, and they are rare before the reign of James I. A very fair notion of the comparative popularity of duelling, and of the feeling with which it was regarded at various periods, might be gathered by examining the part it plays in the novels and lighter literature of the times. The earliest duels we remember in fiction are that in the _Monastery_ between Sir Piercie Shafton and Halbert Glendinning, and that in _Kenilworth_ between Tressilian and Varney. (That in _Anne of Geierstein_ either is an anachronism or must reckon as a wager by battle.) Under James I. we have the encounter between Nigel and Lord Dalgarno. The greater evil of war, as we observed in French history, expels the lesser, and the literature of the Commonwealth is in this respect a blank. With the Restoration there came a reaction against Puritan morality, and a return to the gallantry and loose manners of French society, which is best represented by the theatre of the day. The drama of the Restoration abounds in duels. Passing on to the reign of Queen Anne, we find the subject frequently discussed in the _Tatler_ and the _Spectator_, and Addison points in his happiest way the moral to a contemporary duel between Mr Thornhill and Sir Cholmeley Dering. "I come not," says Spinomont to King Pharamond, "I come not to implore your pardon, I come to relate my sorrow, a sorrow too great for human life to support. Know that this morning I have killed in a duel the man whom of all men living I love best." No reader of _Esmond_ can forget Thackeray's description of the doubly fatal duel between the duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun, which is historical, or the no less life-like though fictitious duel between Lord Mohun and Lord Castlewood. The duel between the two brothers in Stevenson's _Master of Ballantrae_ is one of the best conceived in fiction. Throughout the reigns of the Georges they are frequent. Richardson expresses his opinion on the subject in six voluminous letters to the _Literary Repositor_. Sheridan, like Farquhar in a previous generation, not only dramatized a duel, but fought two himself. Byron thus commemorates the bloodless duel between Tom Moore and Lord Jeffrey:--

"Can none remember that eventful day, That ever glorious almost fatal fray, When Little's leadless pistols met the eye, And Bow Street myrmidons stood laughing by?"

There are no duels in Miss Austen's novels, but in those of Miss Edgeworth, her contemporary, there are three or four. As we approach the 19th century they become rarer in fiction. Thackeray's novels, indeed, abound in duels. "His royal highness the late lamented commander-in-chief" had the greatest respect for Major Macmurdo, as a man who had conducted scores of affairs for his acquaintance with the greatest prudence and skill; and Rawdon Crawley's duelling pistols, "the same which I shot Captain Marker," have become a household word. Dickens, on the other hand, who depicts contemporary English life, and mostly in the middle classes, in all his numerous works has only three; and George Eliot never once refers to a duel. Tennyson, using a poet's privilege, laid the scene of a duel in the year of the Crimean War, but he echoes the spirit of the times when he stigmatizes "the Christless code that must have life for a blow." Browning, who delights in cases of conscience, has given admirably the double moral aspect of the duel in his two lyrics entitled "Before" and "After."

To pass from fiction to fact we will select the most memorable English duels of the last century and a half. Lord Byron killed Mr Chaworth in 1765; Charles James Fox and Mr Adams fought in 1779; duke of York and Colonel Lennox, 1789; William Pitt and George Tierney, 1796; George Canning and Lord Castlereagh, 1809; Mr Christie killed John Scott, editor of the _London Magazine_, 1821; duke of Wellington and earl of Winchelsea, 1829; Mr Roebuck and Mr Black, editor of _Morning Chronicle_, 1835; Lord Alvanley and a son of Daniel O'Connell in the same year; Earl Cardigan wounded Captain Tuckett, was tried by his peers, and acquitted on a legal quibble, 1840.

The year 1808 is memorable in the annals of duelling in England. Major Campbell was sentenced to death and executed for killing Captain Boyd in a duel. In this case it is true that there was a suspicion of foul play; but in the case of Lieutenant Blundell, who was killed in a duel in 1813, though all had been conducted with perfect fairness, the surviving principal and the seconds were all convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and, although the royal pardon was obtained, they were all cashiered. The next important date is the year 1843, when public attention was painfully called to the subject by a duel in which Colonel Fawcett was shot by his brother-in-law, Lieutenant Monro. The survivor, whose career was thereby blasted, had, it was well known, gone out most reluctantly, in obedience to the then prevailing military code. A full account of the steps taken by the prince consort, and of the correspondence which passed between him and the duke of Wellington, will be found in the _Life of the Prince_ by Sir Theodore Martin. The duke, unfortunately, was not an unprejudiced counsellor. Not only had he been out himself, but, in writing to Lord Londonderry on the occasion of the duel between the marquess and Ensign Battier in 1824, he had gone so far as to state that he considered the probability of the Hussars having to fight a duel or two a matter of no consequence. In the previous year there had been formed in London the association for the suppression of duelling. It included leading members of both houses of parliament and distinguished officers of both services. The first report, issued in 1844, gives a memorial of the association presented to Queen Victoria through Sir James Graham, and in a debate in the House of Commons (15th of March 1844) Sir H. Hardinge, the secretary of war, announced to the House that Her Majesty had expressed herself desirous of devising some expedient by which the barbarous practice of duelling should be as much as possible discouraged. In the same debate Mr Turner reckoned the number of duels fought during the reign of George III. at 172, of which 91 had been attended with fatal results; yet in only two of these cases had the punishment of death been inflicted. But though the proposal of the prince consort to establish courts of honour met with no favour, yet it led to an important amendment of the articles of war (April 1844). The 98th article ordains that "every person who shall fight or promote a duel, or take any steps thereto, or who shall not do his best to prevent duel, shall, if an officer, be cashiered, or suffer such other penalty as a general court-martial may award." These articles, with a few verbal changes, were incorporated in the consolidated Army Act of 1879 (section 38), which is still in force.

In Germany.

In the German army duels are still authorized by the military code as a last resort in grave cases. A German officer who is involved in a difficulty with another is bound to notify the circumstance to a council of honour at the latest as soon as he has either given or received a challenge. A council of honour consists of three officers of different ranks and is instructed, if possible, to bring about a reconciliation. If unsuccessful it must see that the conditions of the duel are not out of proportion to the gravity of the quarrel. Public opinion was greatly roused by a tragic duel fought by two officers of the reserve in 1896; and the German emperor in a cabinet order of 1897, confirmed in 1901, enforced the regulation of the military court of honour, and gave warning that any infringement would be visited with the full penalties of the law. It is, notwithstanding, still the fact that a German officer who is not prepared to accept a challenge and fight, if the opinion of his regiment demands it, must leave the service. The German penal code (_Reichsstrafgesetzbuch_, pars. 101-110) only punishes a duel when it is fought with lethal weapons; and much controversy has raged round the question of the _Mensuren_ or students' duels, which, as being conducted with sharpened rapiers, have, despite the precautions taken, in the way of bandaging the vital parts of the body which a cut would reach, to reduce the risk of a fatal issue to a minimum, been declared by the Supreme Court of the Empire to fall under the head of duels, and as such to be punishable.

The _Mensuren_ (German students' duels) above referred to are frequently misunderstood. They bear little resemblance, save in form, to the duel _a outrance_, and should rather be considered in the light of athletic games, in which the overflow of high animal spirits in young Germany finds its outlet. These combats are indulged in principally by picked representatives of the "corps" (recognized clubs), and according to the position and value of the _Schmisse_ (cuts which have landed) points are awarded to either side. Formerly these so-called duels could be openly indulged in at most universities without let or hindrance. Gradually, however, the academic authorities took cognizance of the illegality of the practice, and in many cases inflicted punishment for the offence. Nowadays, owing to the decision of the supreme court reserving to the common law tribunals the power to deal with such cases, the governing bodies at the universities have only a disciplinary control, which is exercised at the various seats of learning in various degrees: in some the practice is silently tolerated, or at most visited by reprimand; in others, again, by relegation or _carcer_--with the result that the students of one university frequently visit another, in order to be able to fight out their battles under less rigorous surveillance.

Modern views.

Any formal discussion of the morality of duelling is, in England at least, happily superfluous. No fashionable vice has been so unanimously condemned both by moralists and divines, and in tracing its history we are reminded of the words of Tacitus, "in civitate nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur." Some, however, of the problems, moral and social, which it suggests may be shortly noticed. That duelling flourished so long in England the law is, perhaps, as much to blame as society. It was doubtless from the fact that duels were at first a form of legal procedure that English law has refused to take cognizance of private duels. A duel in the eye of the law differs nothing from an ordinary murder. The greatest English legal authorities, from the time of Elizabeth downwards, such as Coke, Bacon and Hale, have all distinctly affirmed this interpretation of the law. But here as elsewhere the severity of the penalty defeated its own object. The public conscience revolted against a Draconian code which made no distinction between wilful murder and a deadly combat wherein each party consented to his own death or submitted to the risk of it. No jury could be found to convict when conviction involved in the same penalty a Fox or a Pitt and a Turpin or a Brownrigg. Such, however, was the conservatism of English publicists that Bentham was the first to point out clearly this defect of the law, and propose a remedy. In his _Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation_, published in 1789, Bentham discusses the subject with his usual boldness and logical precision. In his exposition of the absurdity of duelling considered as a branch of penal justice, and its inefficiency as a punishment, he only restates in a clearer form the arguments of Paley. So far there is nothing novel in his treatment of the subject. But he soon parts company with the Christian moralist, and proceeds to show that duelling does, however rudely and imperfectly, correct and repress a real social evil. "It entirely effaces a blot which an insult imprints upon the honour. Vulgar moralists, by condemning public opinion upon this point, only confirm the fact." He then points out the true remedy for the evil. It is to extend the same legal protection to offences against honour as to offences against the person. The legal satisfactions which he suggests are some of them extremely grotesque. Thus for an insult to a woman, the man is to be dressed in a woman's clothes, and the retort to be inflicted by the hand of a woman. But the principle indicated is a sound one, that in offences against honour the punishment must be analogous to the injury. Doubtless, if Bentham were now alive, he would allow that the necessity for such a scheme of legislation had in a great measure passed away. That duels have since become extinct is no doubt principally owing to social changes, but it may be in part ascribed to improvements in legal remedies in the sense which Bentham indicated. A notable instance is Lord Campbell's Act of 1843, by which, in the case of a newspaper libel, a public apology coupled with a pecuniary payment is allowed to bar a plea. In the Indian Code there are special enactments concerning duelling, which is punishable not as murder but as homicide.

Suggestions have from time to time been made for the establishment of courts of honour, but the need of such tribunals is doubtful, while the objections to them are obvious. The present tendency of political philosophy is to contract rather than extend the province of law, and any interference with social life is justly resented. Real offences against reputation are sufficiently punished, and the rule of the lawyers, that mere scurrility or opprobrious words, which neither of themselves import nor are attended with any hurtful effects, are not punishable, seems on the whole a wise one. What in a higher rank is looked upon as a gross insult may in a lower rank be regarded as a mere pleasantry or a harmless joke. Among the lower orders offences against honour can hardly be said to exist; the learned professions have each its own tribunal to which its members are amenable; and the highest ranks of society, however imperfect their standard of morality may be, are perfectly competent to enforce that standard by means of social penalties without resorting either to trial by law or trial by battle.

The duel, which in a barbarous age may be excused as "a sort of wild justice," was condemned by Bacon as "a direct affront of law and tending to the dissolution of magistracy." It survived in more civilized times as a class distinction and as an ultimate court of appeal to punish violations of the social code. In a democratic age and under a settled government it is doomed to extinction. The military duels of the European continent, and the so-called American duel, where the lot decides which of the two parties shall end his life, are singular survivals. For real offences against reputation law will provide a sufficient remedy The learned professions will have each its own tribunal to which its members are amenable. Social stigma is at once a surer and a juster defence against conduct unworthy of a gentleman. Yet the duel dies hard, and even to-day it is approved or palliated by some notable publicists and professors in France and Germany. M.H. Marion (_La Grande Encyclopedie_), in an article strongly condemnatory of duels, still holds that the wrongdoer is bound to accept a challenge, though he may not take the offensive, and further allows that obligatory duels may be the only way of evoking a sense of honour and of maintaining discipline in the army. Dr Paulsen goes much further, and not only defends the duels of university students (_Mensuren_) as an encouragement of physical exercise, a proof of courage and a protest of worth against wealth, but maintains generally that the duel should be retained as an expedient in those exceptional cases when a man cannot bring himself to drag before a law court the outrage done to his personal honour. But in such cases Dr Paulsen would have the courts hold the injured person scathless, whether he be challenger or challenged, and visit the aggressor with condign punishment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Castillo, _Tractatus de duello_ (Turin, 1525); J.P. Pigna, _Il Duello_ (1554); Muzio Girolamo, _Traite du duel_ (Venice, 1553): Boyssat, _Recherches sur les duels_ (Lyons, 1610); J. Savaron, _Traite contre les duels_ (Paris, 1610); Brantome, _Memoire sur les duels rodomontades_; F. Bacon, _Charge concerning Duels_, &c. (1614); d'Audiguier, _Le Vray et ancien usage des duels_ (Paris, 1617); _His Majesties Edict and severe Censure against private combats_ (London, 1618); Cockburn, _History of Duels_ (London, 1720); Brillat Savarin, _Essai sur le duel_ (1819); Chateauvillard, _Essai sur le duel_ (1836); Colombey, _Histoire anecdotique du duel_ (Paris); Fourgeroux de Champigneules, _Histoire des duels anciens et modernes_ (2 vols., Paris, 1835-1837); Millingen, _History of Duelling_ (London, 1841); L. Sabine, _Notes on Duels_ (Boston, 1855); Steinmetz, _Romance of Duelling_ (London, 1868). See also Eugene Cauchy, _Du duel_, &c. (1846), a learned and philosophic treatise by a French lawyer; G. Letainturier-Fradin, _Le Duel a travers les ages_ (Paris, 1892); Mackay, _History of Popular Delusions, Duels and Ordeals_; and for a valuable list of authorities, Buckle, _History of Civilization in England_, ii. 137, note 71. For judicial combats see Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, ch. xxxviii. For courts of honour see _Armed Strength of the German Empire_ (1876). For _Mensur_, see Paulsen, _The German Universities_ (1906), ch. vi. (F. S.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Voltaire met the chevalier Rohan-Chabot at the house of the Marquis of Sully. The chevalier, offended by Voltaire's free speech, insolently asked the marquis, "Who is that young man?" "One," replied Voltaire, "who if he does not parade a great name, honours that he bears." The chevalier said nothing at the time, but, seizing his opportunity, inveigled Voltaire into his coach, and had him beaten by six of his footmen. Voltaire set to work to learn fencing, and then sought the chevalier in the theatre, and publicly challenged him. A _bon-mot_ at the chevalier's expense was the only satisfaction that the philosopher could obtain. "Monsieur, si quelque affaire d'interet ne vous a point fait oublier l'outrage dont j'ai a me plaindre, j'espere que vous m'en rendrez raison." The chevalier was said to employ his capital in petty usury.

DUENNA (Span. _duena_, a married lady or mistress, Lat. _domina_), specifically the chief lady-in-waiting upon the queen of Spain. The word is more widely applied, however, to an elderly lady in Spanish and Portuguese households (holding a position midway between a governess and companion) appointed to take charge of the young girls of the family; and "duenna" is thus used in English as a synonym for chaperon (q.v.).

DUET (an adaptation of the Ital. _duetto_, from Lat. _duo_, two), a term in music for a composition for two performers, both either vocal or instrumental. The term is not properly applied to a composition for one voice and one instrument, the latter being regarded as an accompaniment, though in the modern evolution of this latter form of composition it often has the same character. Both parts must be of equal importance; if one is subordinated to the other it becomes an accompaniment and the work ceases to be a duet. Instrumental duets are written either for two different instruments, such as Mozart's duets for violin and piano, or for two similar instruments. Duets written for the pianoforte are either for two performers on two separate instruments or for two performers on the same instrument, when they are termed "_duets a quatre mains_."

DUFAURE, JULES ARMAND STANISLAS (1798-1881), French statesman, was born at Saujon (Charente-Inferieure) on the 4th of December 1798. He became an advocate at Bordeaux, where he won a great reputation by his oratorical gifts, but soon abandoned law for politics, and in 1834 was elected deputy. In 1839 he became minister of public works in the Soult ministry, and succeeded in freeing railway construction in France from the obstacles which till then had hampered it. Losing office in 1840, Dufaure became one of the leaders of the Opposition, and on the outbreak of the revolution of 1848 he frankly accepted the Republic, and joined the party of moderate republicans. On October 13th he became minister of the interior under G. Cavaignac, but retired on the latter's defeat in the presidential election. During the Second Empire Dufaure abstained from public life, and practised at the Paris bar with such success that he was elected _batonnier_ in 1862. In 1863 he succeeded to Pasquier's seat in the French Academy. In 1871 he became a member of the Assembly, and it was on his motion that Thiers was elected President of the Republic. Dufaure became the minister of justice as chief of the party of the "left-centre," and his tenure of office was distinguished by the passage of the jury-law. In 1873 he fell with Thiers, but in 1875 resumed his former post under L.J. Buffet, whom he succeeded on the 9th of March 1876 as president of the council. In the same year he was elected a life senator. On December the 12th he withdrew from the ministry owing to the attacks of the republicans of the left in the chamber and of the conservatives in the senate. After the check which the conservatives received on the 16th of May he returned to power on the 24th of December 1877. Early in 1879 Dufaure took part in compelling the resignation of Marshal MacMahon, but immediately afterwards (1st February), worn out by opposition, he himself retired. He died in Paris on the 28th of June 1881.

See G. Picot, _M. Dufaure, sa vie et ses discours_ (Paris, 1883).

DUFF, ALEXANDER (1806-1878), Scottish missionary in India, was born on the 26th of April 1806, at Auchnahyle in the parish of Moulin, Perthshire. At St Andrews University he came under the influence of Dr Chalmers. He then accepted an offer made by the foreign mission committee of the general assembly to become their first missionary to India. He was ordained in August 1829, and started at once for India, but was twice shipwrecked before he reached Calcutta in May 1830, and lost all his books and other property. Making Calcutta the base of his operations, he at once identified himself with a policy which had far-reaching results. Up to this time Protestant missions in India had been successful only in reaching low-caste and outcaste peoples,

## particularly in Tinevelly and south Travancore. The Hindu and Mahommedan