AND WELLINGTON SPECTATOR.

New Zealand Gazette and Wellington Spectator, Volume IV, Issue 331, 9 March 1844, Page 2

AND WELLINGTON SPECTATOR.

Saturday, March Z, 1844. DUELLING. The Inquest which was held in consequence of the late fatal duel, terminated on Thursday last, setting forth, as its verdict, that the evidence did not prove by whom the wound was inflicted. This melancholy duel affords us an opportunity, of which we feel we are bound to take advantage. Distress and bereavement to several estimable families, is the first consequence of this unhappy event ; and for what possible good ? The belief in the necessity of duelling has been fortunately much dimiuished in late years. Yet an intelligent class still maintain that the practice, though' an evil, must be sanctioned in a few cases, where parties have been grievously wronged. Thus even this class deprecate duelling generally. We, however, are convinced that no case can be mentioned wherein a more proper punishment could not be provided than duelling is supposed to afford ; if punishment fee the real object to be sought. We suspect, however, this class have in view affording individuals an opportunity of gratifying feeliugs of revenge for some wrong they may have, or which they may imagine they have, experienced. If this be the ground for sanctioning the barbarous practice, we would call attention to the fact that the right of revenge cannot be sanctioned by intelligent individuals or. communities. But we would observe at the same time, that if recognized, the mode by which it is sought to be satisfied is a most clumsy expedient. Supposing it were agreed that there were cases in which one man was entitled to put to death another man. Can any more extraordinary provision for the accomplishment of the purpose be imagined than that of arranging that he shall incur the risk of being killed or crippled for life ? If on the other hand, the gratification of a feeling of revenge being abandoned, it is declared that the administration of a duo amount of punishment is the purpose in view, we must declare the mode is monstrous by which it is sought to be awarded. The wrong doer is forced by this appeal to arms, too frequently, to endeavour to take the life of the man he has already deeply injured, as the only certain mode of preventing death befalling himself ; the law of self-preservation compels the injuring party to adopt this course. Thus a man smarting under deep feelings of injury experienced, may, acting in accordance with the clumsy expedients of society, be crippled and tortured for life, for having sought to punish a wrong doer by the means declared appropriate in the old feudal times. Our own opinion is that whatever the amount of punishment which society considers ought to attach to" the commission of a particular crime, it ought to be inflicted under the sanction of a judicial tribunal, and not by the injured party could he inflict it without any personal evil to himself. If the forfeiture of life, or the risk of forfeiture, be considered the appropriate punishment for certain crimes, le^society, or the injured individual, take or expose, to the risk of forfeiture, the life of the individual declared to have subjected himself by his conduct to such a class -of punishment. Though duelling be sanctioned, our last proposition will not be sanctioned even by duellists. . The idea of authorizing an individual to put his fellow to death, under a strong feeling that he has been grevously harmed by him, without incurring personal risk to himself, appears revolting While requiring an individual, who has been grievously wronged, to endeavour .to punish the wrong doer, at the hazard of losing his own life, or being crippled and subjected to torturing pains for life, is said to be necessary for the maintenance of society. Such are the absurdities which custom will finely establish in the brains even of highly cultivated and intelligent minds. \ Could it be imagined that duelling isj a

necesstfrysevil in large communities, it cannot be proved that it should be sanctioned in a family."" la a small community man's character is known, and no statement made by another individual will be sanctioned unless warranted, in which case it operates usefully in the way of punishment. We are certainly- opposed to endeavouring to suppress duelling by calling it murder, and victimising those engaged in duels attended with fatal consequences. Due examination of the barbarous remnant of feudal customs, will make it evident that those who send or accept challenges feel that they are acting under the sanction of a long expressed public opinion, and yielding as they do, as they believe to the fiat of society, they are not to b!arne. Besides, duelling is not murder, and that it is not, any man may prove to his own satisfaction, by defining murder, and then attempting to define duelling ; in setting the definitions side by side he will find death, when it takes place,, the only important fact, common to both definitions. Further, to call the monstrous custom by a too revolting name is mischievous, as it causes sympathy to be excited, and thus tends to delay the period at which it may be abolished. The present state of opinion, we are happy to observe, makes it evident that a few years will witness the extinction of the appeal to arms by individuals, if not of nations. We are evidently now at the transition period. The anomaly of condemnation establishes this fact. If a party does not resent what is deemed an insult, his character is damaged iv the circle to which he belongs. And if he do resent it, by challenging the insulting party, and death ensues he is loudly denounced, if not otherwise punished. When opinion is confirmed and strongly expressed in opposition to duelling, the legislature may proceed to work with advantage to the community which it represents, but not until that period arrives. It is profitless if not positively mischievous to legislate in anticipation of opinion. Laws may be too good for a community and Governments too intelligent. Opinion may be ripe for a change and yet the signs not apparent. When it is supposed that opinion is up to the mark, the best mode of testing the fact is to suggest the propriety of petitioning the Legislature to make the alteration suited to the times. We would therefore conclude by stating that the present is a suitable moment for testing the state of opinion, respecting the course the Legislature ought to be called upon to deal with the barbarous custom of duelling.