Dr. Johnson, the _princ.i.p.al guest_, did the civil thing, and took the same side, and is reported, by Boswell, to have said substantially--"Sir, as men become in a high degree refined, various causes of offence arise; which are considered to be of such importance, that life must be staked to atone for them; though, in reality, they are not so. A body, that has received a very fine polish, may be easily hurt. Before men arrive at this artificial refinement, if one tells his neighbor he lies--his neighbor tells him he lies--if one gives his neighbor a blow, his neighbor gives him a blow: but, in a state of highly polished society, an affront is held to be a serious injury. It must therefore be resented, or rather a duel must be fought upon it; as men have agreed to banish, from society, one, who puts up with an affront, without fighting a duel. Now, sir, it is never unlawful to fight, in self-defence. He, then, who fights a duel, does not fight from pa.s.sion against his antagonist, but out of self-defence, to avert the stigma of the world, and to prevent himself from being driven out of society. I could wish there was not that superfluity of refinement; but, while such notions prevail, no doubt a man may lawfully fight a duel." I must have another witness, besides Mr.

Boswell, before I believe, that Dr. Johnson uttered these words. Dr.

Johnson could never have maintained, that the _lawfulness_ of an act depended upon the existence of certain popular _notions_. Nor is it true, nor was it then true, that _men have agreed to banish, from society, one, who puts up with an affront, without fighting a duel_.

Dr. Johnson seems to have made no distinction, between military men and the rest of the world. It is impossible to doubt, that the Doctor was graciously disposed to favor Gen. Oglethorpe's _notions_, and that he would have taken the opposite side, had he been the guest of the Archbishop of Canterbury. "_It is not unlawful to fight, in self-defence_:" the law, by punishing all killing, in a duel, as murder, in the very first degree, shows clearly enough, that duelling is never looked upon, as fighting, in self-defence. It is remarkable, that Mr.

Boswell, himself a lawyer, should have thought this paragraph worthy of preservation.

On page 268, of the same volume, Mr. Boswell has the following record--"April 19, 1773, he again defended duelling, and put his argument upon what I have ever thought the most solid basis; that, if public war be allowed to be consistent with morality, private war must be equally so."

And this, in Mr. Boswell's opinion, was _the most solid basis_! It is difficult to perceive what is stubble, if this is not. Whither does this argument carry us all, but back to the state of nature--of uncovenanted man--of man, who has surrendered none of his natural rights, as a consideration for the blessings of government and law? A state of nature and a state of society are very different things. Who will doubt, that, if Dr. Johnson really uttered these things, he would have talked more warily, could he have imagined, that Bozzy would have transmitted them to distant ages?

It is, nevertheless, perfectly clear, that Dr. Johnson, upon both these occasions, had talked, only for the pride and pleasure of talking; for Mr.

Boswell records a very different opinion, vol. iv. page 249. Sept. 19, 1773.--Dr. Johnson then had thoroughly digested General Oglethorpe's dinner; and Mr. Boswell's record runs thus--"_He fairly owned he could not explain the rationality of duelling_."

Poor Mr. Boswell! It is not unreasonable, to suppose, that he had inculcated his notions, upon the subject of duelling, in his own family, and repeated, for the edification of his sons, the valuable sentiments of Dr. Johnson. Mr. Boswell died, May 19, 1795. Seven and twenty years after his death, his son, Sir Alexander Boswell, was killed, in a duel, at Auchterpool, by Mr. James Stuart, March 26, 1822. Upon the trial of Stuart, for murder, Mr. Jeffrey, who defended him, quoted the very pa.s.sage, in which Dr. Johnson had justified, to the father, that fatal sin and folly, which had brought the son to an untimely grave!

No. CXLV.

Dr. Franklin, in his letter to Mr. Percival, referred to, in my last number, observes, that, "formerly, when duels were used, to determine lawsuits, from an opinion, that Providence would, in every instance, favor truth and right with victory, they were excusable." Dr. Johnson did not think this species of duel so absurd, as it is commonly supposed to be: "it was only allowed," said he, "when the question was in equilibrio, and they had a notion that Providence would interfere in favor of him, who was in the right." Bos., vol. iv. page 14. The lawfulness of a thing may excuse it: but there are some laws, so very absurd, that one stares at them, in the statute book, as he looks at flies in amber, and marvels "_how the devil they got there_." There was, I am gravely a.s.sured, in the city of New Orleans, not very long ago, a pract.i.tioner of the healing art, who was called _the Tetotum doctor_--he felt no pulse--he examined no tongue--he asked no questions for conscience' sake, nor for any other--his tetotum was marked with various letters, on its sides--he sat down, in front of the patient, and spun his tetotum--if B. came uppermost, he bled immediately--if P., he gave a purge--if E., an emetic--if C., a clyster, and so on. If there be less wisdom, in this new mode of practice, than in the old wager of Battel, I perceive it not.

Both Drs. Franklin and Johnson refer to it, as an _ancient_ practice. It was supposed, doubtless, to have become obsolete, and a dead letter, extinguished by the mere progress of civilization. Much surprise, therefore, was excited, when, at a period, as late as 1818, an attempt was made to revive it, in the case of Ashford _vs._ Thornton, tried before the King's Bench, in April of that year. This was a case of appeal of murder, under the law of England. Thornton had violated, and murdered the sister of Ashford; and, as a last resort, claimed his right to _wager of battel_.

The court, after full consideration, felt themselves obliged to admit the claim, under the unrepealed statute of 9, William II., pa.s.sed A. D. 1096.

Ashford, the appellant, and brother of the unfortunate victim, declined to accept the challenge, and the murderer was accordingly discharged. This occurred, in the 58th year of George III., and a statute was pa.s.sed, in 1819, putting an end to this terrible absurdity. Had the appellant, the brother, accepted this legalized challenge, what a barbarous exhibition would have been presented to the world, at this late day, through the inadvertence of Parliament, in omitting to repeal this preposterous law!

In a former number, I quoted a sentiment, attributed, by Boswell, to Dr.

Johnson, and which, I suppose, was no deliberate conviction of his, but uttered, in the course of his dinner-table talk, for the gratification of Gen. Oglethorpe, "_Men have agreed to banish from society, a man, who puts up with an affront without fighting a duel_." This is not a.s.serted, as an independent averment, but a.s.sumed or taken for granted, as the basis of the argument, such as it was. Is this a fact? Cannot cases innumerable be stated, to prove, that it is not? The words, ascribed to Dr. Johnson, are not confined to any cla.s.s or profession, but are of universal application. Have men agreed to banish from society every man, who refuses to fight a duel, when summoned to that refreshing amus.e.m.e.nt? Let us examine a few cases. General Jackson did not lose caste, because he omitted to challenge Randolph, for pulling his nose. Josiah Quincy was not banished from society, for refusing the challenge of a Southern Hotspur. I believe, that Judge Thacher, of Maine, would have been much less respected, had he gone out to be shot, when invited, than he ever has been, for the very sensible answer to his antagonist, that he would talk to Mrs. Thacher about it, and be guided by her opinion. n.o.body ever supposed, that Judge Breckenridge suffered, in character or standing, because he told his challenger, that he _wouldn't come_; but, that he might sketch his, the Judge's, figure, on a board, and fire at that, till he was weary, at any distance he pleased; and if he hit it, upon a certificate of the fact, the Judge would agree to it.

Had Hamilton refused the challenge of Burr, his _deliberate murderer_, his fame would have remained untarnished--his countrymen would never have forgotten the 14th of October, 1781--the charge of that advanced corps--the fall of Yorktown! On his death-bed, Hamilton expressed his abhorrence of the practice; and solemnly declared, should he survive, never to be engaged in another duel. "_Pendleton knows_," said he, in a dying hour, referring to Burr, and addressing Dr. Hossack, "_that I did not intend to fire at him_." How different from the blood-thirsty purposes of his a.s.sa.s.sin! In vol. x. of Jeremy Bentham's works, pages 432-3, the reader will find a letter from Dumont to Bentham, in which the Frenchman says, referring to a conversation with Burr, in 1808, four years after the duel--"_His duel with Hamilton was a savage affair_:" and Bentham adds--"_He gave me an account of his duel with Hamilton; he was sure of being able to kill him, so I thought it little better than murder_."

In England, _politics_ seem to have given occasion to very many affairs of this nature--the duels of the Duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun, in 1712, fatal to both--Mr. Martin and Mr. Wilkes, in 1763--the Lords Townshend and Bellamont, in 1773--C. J. Fox and Mr. Adam, in 1779--Capt. Fullerton and Lord Shelburne, in 1780--Lord Macartney and Major General Stuart, in 1786--the Duke of York and Colonel Lenox, in 1789--Mr. Curran and Major Hobart, in 1790--Earl of Lonsdale and Capt. Cuthbert, in 1792--Lord Valentia and Mr. Gawler, in 1796--William Pitt and George Tierney, in 1798--Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Paull, in 1807--Lord Castlereagh and Mr.

Canning, in 1809--Mr. O'Connell and Mr. D'Esterre, in 1815--Mr. Grattan and the Earl of Clare, in 1820--Sir A. Boswell and James Stuart, in 1822--Mr. Long Wellesly and Mr. Crespigny, in 1828--the Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Winchelsea, in 1829--Lord Alvanley and Morgan O'Connell, in 1835--Sir Colquhon Grant and Lord Seymour, in 1835--Mr. Roebuck and Mr.

Black, in 1835--Mr. Ruthven and Mr. Scott, in 1836--the Earl of Cardigan and Mr. Tuckett, in 1840.

Sir J. Barrington says, that, during his grand climacteric, two hundred and twenty-seven duels were fought. In different ages and nations, various preventives have been employed. Killing in a duel, here and in England, is murder, in the surviving princ.i.p.al, and seconds. To add effect to the law, it was proclaimed, by 30, Charles II., 1679, to be _an unpardonable offence_.

Disqualification from holding office, and dismissal from the army and navy have, at different times, been held up, in terrorem. In England, eighteen survivors have suffered the penalty, provided against duelling. Major Campbell was hung, in 1808, for having killed Capt. Boyd, in a duel.

In 1813, Lieutenant Blundell was killed in a duel at Carisbroke Castle: the survivor and both seconds were tried, and convicted of murder; and, though subsequently pardoned, dismissed the service. "Duels," says Sir George Mackenzie, "are but ill.u.s.trious murders." Mr. Addison recommends the pillory. The councils of Valentia and Trent excommunicated such combatants; but a man, who has made up his mind to fight a duel, cares little for the church.

During the first eighteen years of the reign of Henry IV., four thousand persons were slain, in duels, in France. He published his famous edict of Blois, against duels, in 1602: and, in 1609, added, to the existing penalties, punishment by death, confiscations, fines, and imprisonment, respectively, for all, concerned in fighting or abetting, even as spectators, or as casual pa.s.sers, who did not interpose. All this, however, was the work of Sully: for this consistent king, at this very time, gave Crequi leave to fight the Duke of Savoy, and even told him, that he would be his second, were he not a king.

Duels were so frequent, in the reign of his successor, Louis XIII., that Lord Herbert, who was then amba.s.sador, at the court of France, used to say, there was not a Frenchman, worth looking at, who had not killed his man. "_Who fought yesterday?_" was the mode of inquiring after the news of the morning. The most famous duellist of the age was Montmorenci, Count de Bouttville. He and the Marquis de Beuoron, setting their faces against all authority, and, persisting in this amus.e.m.e.nt, it was found necessary to take their stubborn heads off. They were tried, convicted, and beheaded. A check was, at length, put to these excesses, by Louis XIV. A particular account of all this will be found in Larrey, _Histoire de France, sons le Regne de Louis XIV._, tom. ii. p. 208. Matters, during the minority of Louis XIV., had come to a terrible pa.s.s. The Dukes de Beaufort and Nemours had fought a duel, with four seconds each, and converted it into a _Welch main_, as the c.o.c.k-fighters term a _melee_. They fought, five to five, with swords and pistols. Beaufort killed Nemours--the Marquis de Villars killed D'Henricourt, and D'Uzerches killed De Ris. In 1663, another affair took place, four to four. The king finally published his famous edict of 1679. The marshals of France and the n.o.bility entered into a solemn league and covenant, never to fight a duel, on any pretence whatever; and Louis le Grand adhered to his oath, and resolutely refused pardon to every offender. This greatly checked the evil, for a time.

Kings will die, and their worthy purposes are not always inherited by their successors; soon after the death of the great monarch, the practice of duelling revived in France.

The only radical and permanent preventive, of this equally barbarous, and foolish custom, lies, in the moral and religious education of the people.

The infrequency of the practice, in New England, arises entirely from the fact, that the moral and religious training of the community has taught them to look upon a duellist, as an exceedingly unfashionable personage.

New Englanders are a calculating race. They _calculate_, that it is infinitely better to mind their business, and die quietly in their beds, than to go out and be shot, by the very fellow, who has not the decency to say he is sorry, for treading on their toes, when he was drunk--and they are a fearful race, for they fear the reprehension of the wise and good, and the commands of G.o.d, more than they fear the decisions of a lawless tribunal, where fools sit in judgment, and whose absurd decrees are written on the sand.

No. CXLVI.

Some nine and thirty years ago, I was in the habit, occasionally, when I had no call, in my line, of strolling over to the Navy Yard, at Charlestown, and spending an evening, in the cabin of a long, dismantled, old hulk, that was lying there. Once in a while, we had a very pleasant dinner party, on board that old craft. That cabin was the head-quarters of my host. It was the cabin of that ill-fated frigate, the Chesapeake. My friend had been one of her deeply mortified officers, when she was surrendered, by James Barron, to the British frigate Leopard, without firing a gun, June 23, 1807.

A sore subject this, for my brave, old friend. I well remember to have dined, in that cabin, one fourth of July, with some very pleasant a.s.sociates--there were ten of us--we were very noisy then--all, but myself, are still enough now--they are all in their graves. I recollect, that, towards the close of the entertainment, some allusion to the old frigate, in which we were a.s.sembled, revived the recollection of the day, when those stars and stripes came down. We sat in silence, listening to the narrative of our host, whose feelings were feverishly and painfully excited--"It would have been a thousand times better," said he, "if the old hulk had gone to bottom and every man on board. The country might then, possibly, have been spared the war; for our honor would have been saved, and there would have been less to fight for. Unprepared as we were, for such an attack, at a time of profound peace, we ought to have gone down, like little Mudge, who, while his frigate was sinking, thanked G.o.d the Blanche was not destined to wear French colors!"

When he paused, and, with the back of his hand, brushed away the tears from his eyes, we were all of his mind, and wished he had been in command, that day, instead of James Barron; for this old friend of mine was a very, very clever fellow--a warmer heart never beat in a braver bosom. There was one thing, however, that I could never break him of, and yet I had some little influence with him, in those days--I mean the _habit_ of fighting duels. He would not harm a fly, but he would shoot a man, in an honorable way, at the shortest notice, and the shortest distance. He fought a duel, on one occasion, when, being challenged, and having the choice of distance, he insisted on three paces, saying he was so near-sighted, he could not hit a barn door, at ten. He was apt to be, not affectedly, but naturally, jocular, on such occasions.

Another old friend of mine, in by-gone days, the elder son of the late Governor Brooks, was second, in one of these duels, to the friend, of whom I am speaking. Major Brooks had, occasionally, indulged himself, in the publication of poetical effusions. When the parties and their seconds came upon the ground, he found, that he had brought no leather, to envelop the ball, as usual, in loading; and, drawing a newspaper from his pocket, tore off the corner, on which some verses were printed: at this moment, his princ.i.p.al drawing near, said, in an under tone, "_I hope that isn't one of your fugitive pieces, Alek_."

Though our lines were, of late years, cast far apart, I always rejoiced in his good fortune. After having occupied a very elevated position, for some time, in the naval department, he fell--poor fellow--not in a duel--but in a moment, doubtless, of temporary, mental derangement, by his own hand.

The news of my old friend's death reached me, just before dinner--I postponed it till the next day--went home--sat alone--and had that old dinner, in the cabin of the Chesapeake, warmed over, upon the coals of the imagination, and seated around me every guest, who was there that day, just as fresh, as if he had never been buried.

James Barron was an unlucky dog, to say the least of it. Striking the stars and stripes, without firing a gun, was enough for one life. For this he was tried, found guilty, and suspended from duty, for five years, from Feb. 8, 1808, and deprived of his pay. He went abroad; and, during his absence, war was declared, which continued about two years, after the termination of his suspension. He returned, at last, and sought employment; Decatur officially opposed his claims; and thereupon he challenged, and killed Decatur, the pride of the American navy; and, after this, he received employment from the government. The services of James Barron are not likely to be undervalued. Decatur's offence consisted, in his declaration of opinion, that Barron did not return to the service of his country, as in duty bound. The duel took place March 22, 1820. After this, Barron demanded a Court of Inquiry, to settle this point. The Court consisted of Commodores Stewart and Morris and Captain Evans, and convened May 10, 1821, and the conclusion of the sentence is this--"It is therefore the opinion of the court, that his (Barron's) absence from the United States, without the permission of the government, was contrary to his duty, as an officer, in the navy of the United States."

Here then was another silly and senseless duel. Mr. Allen, in his Biographical Dictionary remarks--"The correspondence issued in a challenge from Barron, though he considered duelling '_a barbarous practice, which ought to be exploded from civilized society_.' And the challenge was accepted by Decatur, though he '_had long since discovered, that fighting duels is not even an unerring criterion of personal courage_.'"

They fired at the same instant; Barron fell immediately, wounded in the hip, where Decatur had mercifully declared his intention to wound him; Decatur stood erect, for a moment--put his hand to his right side--and fell, mortally wounded. He was raised, and supported, a few steps, and sunk down, exhausted, near Barron. Captain Mackenzie, in his Life of Decatur, page 322, gives his opinion, that this duel could have been gracefully prevented, on the ground; and such will be the judgment, doubtless, of posterity. Capt. Jesse D. Elliot was the second of Barron--Com. Bainbridge of Decatur. After they had taken their stands, Barron said to Decatur, that he hoped, "_on meeting, in another world, they would be better friends, than they had been in this_."

To this Decatur replied, "_I have never been your enemy, sir_." "Why,"

says Captain Mackenzie, "could not this aspiration for peace, between them, in the next world, on one part, and this comprehensive disclaimer of all enmity, on the other, have been seized by the friends, for the purposes of reconciliation?" A pertinent question truly--but of very ready solution. These seconds, like most others, acted, like military undertakers; their office consists, as they seem to suppose, in seeing the bodies duly cared for; and all consideration for the chief mourners, and such the very princ.i.p.als often are, is out of the question. With all his excellent qualities, Commodore Bainbridge, as every one, who knew him well, will readily admit, was not possessed of that happy mixture of qualities, to avail of this pacific _prestige_. It was an overture--such Barron afterwards avowed it to have been. On the 10th of October, 1818, Decatur had been the second of Com. Perry, in his duel with Captain Heath, which was terminated, after the first fire, by Decatur's declaration, that Com. Perry had avowed his purpose, not to fire at Capt Heath. Had Perry lived, and been at hand, it is highly probable, that Decatur would not have fallen, for Perry would, doubtless, have been his second, and readily availed of the expressions of the parties, on the ground.

Had Charles Morris, whose gallantry and discretion have mingled into a proverb--had he been the second of his old commander, by whose side, he stood, on the Philadelphia's deck, in that night of peril, February, 1804, who can doubt, the pacific issue of this most miserable adventure!

Seconds, too frequently, are themselves the instigators and supporters of these combats. True or false, the tale is a fair one, of two friends, who had disputed over their cups; and, by the exciting expressions of some common acquaintances, were urged into a duel. They met early the next morning--the influence of the liquor had departed--the seconds loaded the pistols, and placed their princ.i.p.als--but, before the word was given, one of them, rubbing his eyes, and looking about him, exclaims--"there is some mistake, there can be no enmity between us two, my old friend; these fellows, who have brought us here, upon this foolish errand, are our enemies, let us fire at them." The proposition was highly relished, by the other party, and the seconds took to their heels.

Well: we left Decatur and Barron, lying side by side, and weltering in their blood. The strife was past, and they came to a sort of friendly understanding. Barron, supposing his wound to be fatal, said all things had been conducted honorably, and that he forgave Decatur, from the bottom of his heart. Mackenzie, in a note, on page 325, refers to a conversation between them, as they lay upon the ground, until the means of transportation arrived. He does not give the details, but says they would be "creditable to the parties, and soothing to the feelings of the humane." I understood, at the time, from a naval officer of high rank, and have heard it often, repeated, that Decatur said, "Barron, why didn't you come home and fight your country's battles?" that Barron replied, "I was too poor to pay my debts, and couldn't get away,"--and that Decatur rejoined, "If I had known that, we should not be lying here." Strip this matter of its honorable epidermis, and there is something quite ridiculous in the idea of doing such an unpleasant thing, and all for nothing!

These changes, from hostility to amity, are often extremely sudden. I have read, that Rapin, the historian, when young, fought a duel, late in the evening, with small swords. His sword broke near the hilt--he did not perceive it, and continued to fence with the hilt alone. His antagonist paused and gave him notice; and, like the two girls, in the Antijacobin, they flew into each other's arms, and "swore perpetual amity."

No. CXLVII.

M. De Va.s.sor wrote with a faulty pen, when he a.s.serted, in his history, that the only good thing Louis XIV. did, in his long reign of fifty-six years, consisted in his vigorous attempts, to suppress the practice of duelling. Cardinal Richelieu admits, however, in his _Political Testament_, that his own previous efforts had been ineffectual, although he caused Messieurs de Chappelle and Bouteville to be executed, for the crime, in disregard of the earnest importunities of their numerous and powerful friends. No public man ever did more, for the suppression of the practice, than Lord Bacon, while he was attorney general. His celebrated charge, upon an information in the star chamber, against Priest & Wright, vol. iv. page 399, Lond. 1824, was ordered to be printed, by the Lords of Council; and was vastly learned and powerful, in its way. It is rather amusing, upon looking at the decree, which followed, dated Jan. 26, 2 James I., to see how such matters were then managed; the information, against Priest, was, "_for writing and sending a letter of challenge together with a stick, which should be the length of the weapon_."

Such measures are surely well enough, as far as they go; but can be of no lasting influence, unless certain processes are simultaneously carried on, to meliorate the moral tone, in society. Without the continual employment of moral and religious alteratives--laws, homilies, charges, decrees, ridicule, menances of disinherison here, and d.a.m.nation hereafter will be of very little use. They are outward applications--temporary repellants, which serve no other purpose, than to drive back the distemper, for a brief s.p.a.ce, but reach not the seat of the disorder. As was stated, in a former number, nothing will put an end to this practice, but indoctrination--the mild, antiphlogistic system of the Gospel. Wherever its gentle spirit prevails, combined with intellectual and moral culture, there will be no duels. Temperance forms, necessarily, an important part of that antiphlogistic system--for a careful examination will show, that, in a very great number of cases, duels have originated over the table--we import them, corked up in bottles, which turn out, now and then, to be vials of wrath.

One of the most ferocious duels, upon record, is that, between Lord Bruce and Sir Edward Sackville, of which the survivor, Sir Edward, wrote an account from Louvain, Sept. 8, 1613. These fellows appear to have been royal tigers, untameable even by Herr Driesbach. This brutal and b.l.o.o.d.y fight took place, at Bergen op Zoom, near Antwerp. The _cause_ of this terrible duel has never been fully ascertained, but the _manner and instrument_, by which these blood-thirsty gentlemen were put in the ablative, are indicated in the letter--they fought with _rapiers and in their shirts_. I have neither room nor taste for the details: by the curious in such matters, some account may be gathered, in Collins's Peerage, which refers to the correspondence, preserved in ma.n.u.script, in Queen's College library, Oxford. These, with Sir Edward's letter, may be found in Wood's Athenae Oxonienses also, vol. iii. page 314, Lond. 1817.

Wood says--"_he (Sackville) entered into a fatal quarrel, upon a subject very unwarrantable, with a young Scottish n.o.bleman, the Lord Bruce_."

Sackville was afterward Earl of Dorset. A more accessible authority, for the reader, probably, is the Guardian, vol. iii. No. 133, though the former is more full, and taken from the original ma.n.u.script, in the Ashmole Museum, with the ancient spelling.