THE DUEL BETWEEN FOURTOU AND GAMBETTA.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1533, 16 January 1879, Page 3

THE DUEL BETWEEN FOURTOU AND GAMBETTA.

The “Times” correspondent, under date London, November 21st, gives the following particulars of this incident in French politics : There was a duel this morning at Plessis Piquet, a few miles outside Paris, between M. de Fourtou and M. Gambetta. Subjoined is the official version of the affair : “In the sitting of the 18th of November, 1878, M. do Fourtou having addressed to M. Q-ambetta the following phrase, ‘ Quand on declare la guerre a tons los Franoais que n’animo pas une viedle foi Republicaino,’ M. Gambetta replied, ‘ O’est un monsonge, Monsieur.’ On the observation of the President of the Chamber, M. Gambetta some moments afterwards pronounced these words, ‘Pour lo rdgloment jo retire ce mot. M. de Fourtou, judging that the offensive expression was not withdrawn as regards him, directed MM. Blin do Bourdon and Robert Mitchell, Deputies, to call on M. Gambetta for a retractation or reparation by arms. M. Gambetta, on his side, begged MM. Allain Targe and Clemenceau, Deputies, to put themselves in communication with MM. Blin de Bourdon and Robert Mitchell. The four seconds met. On the demand for retractation, MM. Allain Targe and Clcmenceau asked MM. Blin de Bourdon and R. Mitchell whether they did not consider that the two parties might honorably abide by the text of the “ Journal Official.” MM. Blin de Bourdon and Robert Mitchell declared that the text of the “Journal Official,” in their opinion, gave satisfaction to the President of the Chamber, but maintained the insult respecting M. do Fourtou. They consequently demanded that M. Gambetta should withdraw the words ‘ pour le reglement.’ MM. Allain Targe and Clemenceau then declared, on M. Gambetta’s behalf, that M. Gambetta had, in fact, withdrawn the word ‘ mensonge ’ out of deference to the Chamber, but that in the presence of M. de Fourtou’s demand for explanation, ho resumed the word, and that he was at M. de Fourtou’s disposal. MM. Blin de Bourdon and Robert Mitchell, on their side, declared, on M. de Fourtou’s behalf, that the distinction drawn by M. Gambetta aggravated the insult instead of lessening it. The four seconds considered that in those circumstances an encounter was unavoidable. It was acknowledged by common consent that the choice of arms rested with M. do Fourtou. The conditions of the encounter were settled as follows : —‘ The duel shall be fought with rilled pistols at a distance of thirty-five paces, and, on the signal being given, a single ball shall be exchanged. In witness thereof wo have signed the present minute. For M, Gambetta —Allain Targe, Clemenceau; for M. Fourtou—Blin de Bourdon, R. Mitchell, le 20 Novembre, 1878.’ The encounter took place to-day, the 21st of November, at Plessis Piquet, conformably with the conditions above stipulated. Neither of the two adversaries was hit. For M. Gambetta —Allain Targe, Clemenceau; for M. de Fourtou —Blin de Bourdon, R, Mitchell.” Two surgeons—MM. Lannelongueand Thevenet—were in attendance. The duel came off at 9 a.m., and at its conclusion the seconds on both sides shook hands, while the principals lifted their hats to each other, whereupon all left the ground. On making his appearance in the Chamber shortly after the opening of the sitting, Gambetta was warmly congratulated by the Republican Deputies. This episode will excite both laughter and surprise, and will add nothing to the reputation of its heroes. The conditions of the duel were re-assuring to the principals’ friends, and remind one of the Vaudeville burlesque ‘in which there is an encounter with ordinary swords at ten paces’ distance. As a matter of course, neither party was hurt, and, indeed, the real danger would have been for the seconds, had they been imprudent enough not to be under shelter, for at thirty-five paces the deviation of balls presents the greatest risk. M. de Fourtou had the choice of weapons, and his seconds must have laid down the conditions, so that a duel in such circumstances does not prove that a man has wiped out an insult. On his part it was a pure formality, and it was very wrong of M. Gambetta to countenance the whim. After committing the mistake of publicly giving M. de Fourtou the lie, he has committed the greater mistake of submitting to a tyrannical custom, which proves nothing when the duel is serious and makes two men ridiculous when it is not so. If M. de Fourtou is a liar, M. Gambetta’s self-respect should have forbade an encounter with him ; if he is not, M. Gambetta should not have forced him to demand in a comedy duel the reparation due to him.