DUELS AND DUELLING.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20840, 5 October 1929, Page 21

DUELS AND DUELLING.

POLITICAL QUARHELLERS. I HISTORIC ENGLISH INSTANCES. STERN MEASURES TO SUPPRESS | PRACTICE. To English-speaking people, duelling is eo much a thing of the past that the idea of Mr Philip Snowden, Chancellor of the Lschequer, being challenged to fight by M. Cheron, one of the French, to the Reparations Conference 'at The ■ Hague, creates amusement. Mr Snowden | described as “ grotesque ” and “ ridiculous ” some of the figures quoted by M. Cheron which proved that Great Britain’s monetary sacrifices in regard to her share ] of the German reparations have not yet , been large enough to awaken gratitude m the French nation. Seconds were sent on behalf of M. Cheron to Mr Snowden at his hotel, to demand satisfaction, and a compromise was arrived at which satisfied French honour without Mr Snowden being called upon to defend his life. ■ Duelling has not entirely died out in France, but 'the French duel is usually a very harmless affair. Of course, accidents will happen; and there have been occasions in which one of the principals in a French duel_ has been injured; but as a rule honour is satisfied without any real danger to- life or limb. Mark Twain ridiculed the French duel of 60 years ago, expressed the opinion that it was much more dangerous to be a second in a French duel than a principal. DUKE OF WELLINGTON’S DUEL.

But in England duels have been fought between political opponents for reasons quite as trivial as that which caused the sensitive M. Cheron to demand satisfaction from Mr Snowden. A hundred years ago the Duke of Wellington, who was then Prime Minister, fought a duel with the Earl of Winchelsea. In this ho followed the bad example of an earlier Prime Minister, William Pitt, who in 1798 fought a duel with a political opponent, Mr Tierney, whom he had accused in Parliament of desiring to obstruct the defence of his n™ try ,_ because Mr Timer had opposed Pitt s effort to pass through all its stages in one day a Bill for the more effectual manning of the navy. In 1809 Lord Castlereagh Minister of War in the Duke °‘.,f oftlanda Government, fought a duel with a Ministerial colleague, Mr George Canning, Minister of Foreign Affairs whom he regarded as the head of a conspiracy to oust him from the Government. Charles Fox fought a duel in Hyde Park with Mr Adam, who had deserted the Opposition in the House of Commons and gone over to the Ministerial side, and had given as his reason that, although the Ministers were not very competent, no persons more competent were to be found among their opponents. Fox ridiculed the honourable member, and, no refusing to apologise, was called out. Lord John Russell, m his, Life of Fox,” gives the following description of the duel:—“The took place in Hyde Park at 8 ocloek in the morning of November 29. A™/. thc , «K«md had been measured, Mr Adam desired Mr Fox to fire; to whicli Fox replied. Sir, I have no quarrel with IP"- Tt?° X 0U J fire / 1 Mr A dam fired; Mr Fox then fired without effect. Upon this the seconds. Colonel Fitzpatrick and Major Humbertson, interfered, asking Mr Adam 'win at* 3 satisfied. Adani replied, declare he meant no personal attack upon my character?’ Upon which Mr Fox said, 'This was no place tor apologies’ and desired Mr Adam to A dam fired his second pistol vithout effect. Mr Fox fired his remaining pistol in the air, and said that ns the affair was ended he had no difficulty in declaring that he meant no more personal affront to Mr Adam than he did to either or me other two gentlemen present. Mr Adam replied, ‘Sir, you have behaved like a man of honour.’ Mr Fox then mentioned that he believed himself wounded. On opening his waistcoat it was found that Mr Adam’s first ball had token effect, but tnat the wound was very slight. The wits of the Opposition said that Mr Adam had used Government powder, notorious tor being deficient in strength. No men were greater friends in after life thanMr Fox and Mr Adam.

FIRST DUELLIST HANGED. Duelling cogtinued in England until the lorties ot last century, despite the growth of public opinion against it. and the exist, ence of laws for its suppression. It was stamped out in the British Army after Colonel Fawcett on July 3 1843, from wounds received two days previously in a duel with his brother-in-law Lieutenant Munro. As the result of a public agitation after this tragedy, the articles of war were amended so as to provide that any officer who participates in a duel as principal or accessory or does not do his best to prevent a duel, shall bccnshiered. This regulation is still in force. But long before this the participants of a duel in which death took place were liable under English criminal law to bo tried for murder or manslaughter. The first case of a duellist being hanged for killing his opponent occurred iu 1808 as the result of a duel between two officers of the Royal North British Fusiliers— Major Alexander Campbell and Captain Alexander Boyd. The duel took place in ■Newry, Ireland, when their battalion wn.-, quartered there. A trivial dispute occurred between them at the mess table about drill, when they were both inflamed with wine. They fought with pistols in a small _ room at the barracks, when no seconds or witnesses were present, and Captain Boyd was killed. Major Campbell fled, but was arrested about a year later in Scotland, and sent back to Ireland to stand his trial. He was found guilty °f murder, and was executed, despite the efforts made to prevent the sentence bemg earned out. George 111, who hated duelling, declined to accede to the jury’s recommendation to mercy, as he regarded the case as a particularly bad one, which provided the opportunity of giving a longneeded example to army officers who were ready to waste their lives in drunken brawls.