The History of Duelling. Vol. 2 (of 2)

BETWEEN MR. GRATTAN AND LORD CLARE.
June 11, 1820.

Mr. Grattan, son of the deceased patriot, having, at a public meeting in Dublin, made use of expressions which Lord Clare conceived to reflect upon the late Lord Clare, his father, and having declined either to explain or to justify them, the parties met in Hyde Park; when Mr. Grattan, having received Lord Clare’s fire, instantly fired in the air. The friends present having given their opinion, that the affair could proceed no further, Mr. Grattan said, that having now met Lord Clare in the field, and given him the satisfaction required, he was willing to admit he was in the wrong, in having made use of such expressions. Upon which the parties shook hands, and the affair terminated.

A fatal duel took place on the 13th of August at the island, within four miles of Klonakilty, between T. Hungerford, Esq., and R. Travers, Esq., a young gentleman of that neighbourhood. In the first fire the latter received the ball in his forehead, and instantly expired. The cause of the dispute was of some standing, and was likely to have terminated amicably, through the interference of mutual friends; but, unfortunately, on the preceding day a difference occurred upon a trivial point in the arrangement, which led to the lamentable catastrophe. They had been previously on terms of the closest intimacy.

BETWEEN MR. R. STUART AND MR. TOWNSEND DADE.
August 20, 1820.

A duel was this day fought between Mr. Richard Stuart and Mr. Townsend Dade, both of King George county, Virginia, on the Maryland shore, immediately opposite their residence, at a short distance, and with muskets loaded with buck-shot. Mr. Dade was shot dead, and Mr. Stuart was so severely wounded, that he expired in a few hours. They were near relations, neighbours, and theretofore close friends. The unfortunate difference occurred about a mere trifle.

In consequence of a dispute Mr. Fulliot, a gentleman well known in Chester for his amiability of disposition, on Monday morning received a challenge from Mr. S. Burrowes, a person connected with the law. The combatants drew lots for the first fire, which Mr. Burrowes won; the distance fixed upon was twelve paces. Shots were exchanged without effect: the pistols were a second time loaded, and both fired together with a like result. An ineffectual attempt was now made to reconcile the parties, and the fatal weapons were again discharged, which unhappily were too certain in their aim. A ball pierced the head of Mr. Fulliot, and fractured his skull. Mr. Burrowes was killed on the spot.

BETWEEN MR. JOHN SCOTT AND MR. CHRISTIE.
February 16, 1821.

A duel, attended with fatal consequences, took place on Friday evening, the 16th of February, at nine o’clock, in a field between Chalk Farm Tavern and Primrose Hill. The parties in this unhappy conflict were Mr. John Scott, the avowed editor of the London Magazine, and Mr. Christie, a friend of the supposed conductor of Blackwood’s Magazine, Mr. John Gibson Lockhart, of Edinburgh. The quarrel between these gentlemen had its rise in a series of articles which appeared in the London Magazine, discussing the conduct and management of Blackwood’s Magazine, and regarded by Mr. Lockhart as offensive to his feelings and injurious to his honour. Mr. Christie, as the friend of Mr. Lockhart, waited upon Mr. Scott to demand an explanation of the articles in question; and, in fact, to require a public apology for matter which he considered personally offensive to himself, or such other satisfaction as a gentleman was entitled to. This interview led to others, as well as to a correspondence, in which much of mutual warmth was expressed.

To prevent misapprehension of what had occurred, Mr. Scott published his statement of the transactions to which he had been a party; which was very generally circulated in the literary world, as well as copied into some of the daily papers. This was followed by a statement on the part of Mr. Christie, the friend of Mr. Lockhart; which was succeeded by a second statement from the pen of Mr. Scott, in which he treated the conduct of Mr. Lockhart with great asperity, and defended the course which he had pursued with considerable warmth. Then followed a counter-statement from Mr. Christie; in consequence of which, Mr. Scott proceeded with his friend Mr. Patmore, to Mr. Christie’s lodgings, and demanded an apology or instant satisfaction. Mr. Christie refused the former, and expressed his readiness, without loss of time, to grant the latter.

The matter having come to this issue, it was agreed they should meet at Chalk Farm; and thither they proceeded, at nine o’clock on the same evening. Mr. Scott was attended by his friend Mr. Patmore, and by Mr. Pettigrew, his medical adviser. The moon shone with brightness; so that the party had a full opportunity of seeing each other, and, having taken their ground, they fired together without effect. The second fire was fatal to Mr. Scott; who received his antagonist’s ball in his groin and fell. Every assistance which the circumstances would permit was afforded him; and he was conveyed on a shutter to Chalk Farm tavern; where he was laid on a bed in an almost hopeless state. Mr. Christie and his second then retired. Mr. Pettigrew, after having rendered all the assistance in his power to Mr. Scott, returned to town, in order to procure further surgical assistance, and to give directions that Mr. Scott’s apartments at Mr. Bohte’s, in York-street, Covent-garden, should be prepared for his reception, Mr. Scott having expressed a desire to be removed home. A short time after Mr. Pettigrew’s departure, however, it was found that he could not be removed with safety. On examination, it appeared that the ball had passed through the intestines, and lodged at the opposite side. The surgeons in attendance, however, deemed it prudent not to extract it, lest additional inflammation should be excited, and the danger, which was considered imminent, be thereby enhanced.

After Mr. Scott was wounded, Mr. Christie’s friend apprised Mr. Patmore, that, in the first fire, Mr. Christie did not direct his pistol at Mr. Scott; but this circumstance not having been observed by Mr. Patmore, nor communicated to him at the time, and the parties being still unreconciled, a second fire unfortunately took place, which terminated as above stated. On Sunday Mr. Guthrie extracted the ball. Mr. Scott lingered till Thursday, the 4th of March, when he expired. On the same evening, the coroner’s inquest sat on the body; upon which occasion Dr. Darling stated, that Mr. Scott, referring to his wound, had said, “This ought not to have taken place; I suspect some great mismanagement; there was no necessity for a second fire.” After a short pause, he proceeded—“All I required from Mr. Christie was a declaration, that he meant no reflection on my character; this he refused, and the meeting became inevitable: on the field Mr. Christie behaved well, and when all was ready for the fire, he called out—‘Mr. Scott, you must not stand there; I see your head above the horizon; you give me an advantage.’ I believe he could have hit me then if he liked. After the pistols were re-loaded, and every thing was ready for a second fire, Mr. Trail called out—‘Now, Mr. Christie, take your aim, and do not throw away your advantage, as you did before.’ I called out immediately, ‘What! did not Mr. Christie fire at me?’ I was answered by Mr. Patmore, ‘You must not speak; ’tis now of no use to talk; you have nothing now for it but firing.’ The signal was immediately given: we fired, and I fell.” The deceased expressed himself satisfied with Mr. Christie’s conduct; whom he described as having been very kind to him after he was wounded.

Mr. Pettigrew stated, that Mr. Christie asked him what he thought of the wound. He replied, that he feared it was mortal, in the hearing of Mr. Scott; when Mr. Christie addressed Mr. Scott, and expressed a wish “that he had been in Mr. Scott’s situation, rather than Mr. Scott should have been wounded by him.” Mr. Scott then said, “Whatever may be the issue of this business, I beg you will bear in remembrance, that everything has been fair and honourable.” On being asked, if he did not hear it said on the ground, by Mr. Christie, that he had fired down the field, he replied—“I did; to the best of my recollection, Mr. Christie said, wringing his hands, apparently in agony, ‘Why was I permitted to fire a second time? I discharged my pistol down the field before; I could do no more. I was compelled to fire in my own defence.’” These expressions were made in consequence of some altercation which took place between the seconds. Mr. Christie took Mr. Scott by the hand after he was wounded.—The Coroner having summed up the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of “wilful murder” against Mr. Christie, Mr. Trail, and Mr. Patmore.

On Friday, the 13th of April, Chief Justice Abbott and Mr. Justice Park having taken their seats on the bench, at the Old Bailey, Mr. Gurney, who was their counsel, announced that Mr. Christie and Mr. Trail attended to surrender and take their trials, upon an indictment found by the grand jury against them for murder. They were immediately placed at the bar, and pleaded “Not guilty.” Mr. Patmore did not make his appearance. The case for the prosecution was opened by Mr. Walford; who observed, that if the jury felt any doubts as to the identity of the prisoners, or thought the whole affair was gone through in heat, then they would acquit the gentlemen at the bar. Dr. Darling then repeated the evidence he had given before the coroner. After which, Mr. Christie and Mr. Trail being called on for their defence, stated, that they should only call witnesses to speak to their general character and habits of life. A number of most respectable persons then bore testimony to the general benevolence and humanity of their dispositions.

Chief Justice Abbott then, after stating to the jury the nature of the indictment, proceeded to instruct them as to the law of the case. The accusation charged three persons as aiding and concurring in the death of Mr. Scott: two individuals only appeared; but if the jury believed that the individuals at the bar were really two of those who had aided in the commission of the crime, it mattered not by whose particular hand the pistol had been discharged. The distinction, in cases of duels, between manslaughter and murder had been very clearly and correctly marked out by the learned counsel for the prosecution: if persons in heat of blood went out and fought with deadly weapons, then the law, allowing for the frailty of human nature, deemed the party killing guilty of manslaughter only; but if, yielding to a false notion of honour, they went out upon deliberation and in cold blood to fight, then the death of one man fixed the crime of the murder upon all concerned; upon seconds (frequently the more culpable parties) as well as upon principals. The first question then was, were the gentlemen at the bar two of the parties known to have been in the field at the time when the shot was fired? and next, was the duel fought in heat of blood or upon deliberation? His lordship then recapitulated the main points of the evidence, and upon that evidence left the fact of identity to the jury. It was possible, he said, that the real perpetrators of the crime might have escaped from the field before the arrival of Mr. Pettigrew, and that the prisoners at the bar might have appeared accidentally at the moment; still the onus of showing that such had been the case lay in some measure upon them. Upon the second point, the feeling under which (assuming the identity) the duel had taken place—of the time or place at which the quarrel originated there was no evidence. The declaration of Mr. Scott, at the moment of his fall, that all had been done fairly and honourably, was, although the law would not recognise such ideas of honour, entitled to the attention of the jury; and there was another circumstance, arising out of the words of the supposed Mr. Christie, to which their consideration should be directed. They were these—“Why was I allowed to fire a second time? I fired down the field at first; what could I do more? I was compelled to fire in my own defence.” Now, the circumstances were not such as would, in law, acquit a man as having fired in his own defence; but the words might have an operation upon the feeling under which the second shot had been fired. It was possible that Mr. Christie, having forborne to take aim the first time, might have fired his second shot under an impulse of immediate anger, produced by the failure of his pacific proceeding; and in that case, although his adversary fell, the crime amounted only to manslaughter. The Lord Chief Justice concluded by recommending the jury, in a case of doubt, to take the side of mercy; and by observing, upon the excellent characters which the prisoners had received, that, unfortunately, men of the most exemplary humanity and benevolent feeling were too often induced to take part in transactions which led to the loss of life on one side, and to remorse and repentance during life on the other.

The jury, after a deliberation of twenty-five minutes, returned a verdict of “Not guilty.”

BETWEEN VISCOUNT PETERSHAM AND THOMAS WEBSTER WEDDERBURNE, ESQ.
April 21, 1821.

A paragraph having appeared in the public journals, alluding to an altercation between Lord Petersham and Mr. Webster Wedderburne, and hinting that his lordship had undergone personal chastisement, Mr. Wedderburne was called upon to contradict the statement in question. The following is the correspondence that passed between him and Lord Foley upon the occasion:—

“Sir,

“Upon my return home, at six o’clock this evening, I first saw your publication in this day’s morning paper, and, in consequence, lost no time in dispatching an express to Lord Petersham, at Brighton; who will instantly, upon receiving my letter, return to town, and that moment you shall hear from me. I write this, sir, to account for what may appear a delay on the part of Lord Petersham in not writing to you the moment your publication appeared.

“From yours, sir, &c.

“Foley.

“Hamilton-place, 7 o’clock, Thursday evening, April 19.

“P.S.—Lord Petersham cannot return before 7 or 8 to-morrow.”

“My Lord,

“I have this instant received your lordship’s letter, and beg to state that I shall be at home at all hours to-morrow, and ready to answer all communications.

I am, &c.

“T. Webster Wedderburne.

“April 19, 8 o’clock, P.M.”

“Sir,

“Owing to a mistake. Lord Petersham did not receive my letter till late this morning, consequently is only just arrived. He now desires me to say that it is absolutely necessary you should either send a friend to me, or fix a time and place of meeting to-morrow morning. I shall be at home till eleven this evening to receive your reply.

“From your humble servant,

“Foley.

“Hamilton-place, Friday evening, 7 o’clock, April 20.”

“My Lord,

“It was with much surprise, after having been detained at home the whole day, in consequence of your lordship’s note of last night, that I have received one from you this evening, desiring me either to send a friend to you, or to fix a time and place for meeting Lord Petersham to-morrow morning. Let Lord P. distinctly state the grounds on which he calls upon me, and my friend will then be ready to receive your lordship, or any communication on the part of Lord P.

“I am, &c.

“T. Webster Wedderburne.

“Friday evening, April 20.”

“Sir,

“It is with astonishment that I received your letter demanding an explanation of the ground upon which Lord Petersham now calls upon you for satisfaction. You have not contradicted, but encouraged a most scandalous and prejudicial report against his personal honour: he calls upon you positively to contradict it, or give him that satisfaction which is due to a gentleman falsely accused. The cause of your having been kept waiting during the day has clearly been explained; I must, therefore, now repeat the necessity of your immediately fixing upon the time and place of meeting to-morrow, or giving under your hand, for publication, a contradiction of that scandalous and false report before alluded to. Too much time has already been lost to attend to explanations that may, under some pretence, be withdrawn.

“From yours,

“Foley.

“P.S.—An immediate answer is expected to the above, directed to Brookes’s Club House, St. James’s-street.”

“I am perfectly of Lord Foley’s opinion, that too much time has been lost in this affair; but I beg to ask to whom is that delay to be ascribed? Since every circumstance has been made public, and since so much has passed between the parties, I considered it necessary, on that account alone, to demand ‘the distinct grounds on which Lord Petersham calls upon me.’ Lord Foley presents me with an alternative which is wholly out of the question. I am aware of no ‘false reports’ in currency against Lord Petersham, and if Lord Foley means that I could be capable of withdrawing any explanation I had once given, I must repel such an insinuation with indignation, and I will not permit any person to dictate that line of conduct to me which is alone consistent with my own honour to point out. I now, therefore, name three o’clock P.M., at Combe Wood, near Kingston, where I shall expect to meet Lord Petersham.

“I have received your letter, appointing three o’clock to-morrow afternoon, to meet Lord Petersham at Combe Wood, which shall be punctually complied with.

“From yours,

“Foley.

“Brookes’s, Friday night.”

A meeting, in consequence of the above correspondence, took place between the parties on the following afternoon, at three P.M., attended by Lord Foley and Mr. Kerr, the former as the friend of Lord Petersham, the latter as that of Mr. Webster Wedderburne; when, after exchanging two shots, each without effect, the seconds interfered, and the affair terminated.

BETWEEN M. MANUEL AND M. BEAUMONT.
April 10, 1821.

The following singular and shocking duel took place in Paris. The circumstances which led to the sad result are extremely curious. One of the parties was M. Manuel, a Pole, a man of great respectability and of large fortune: he was about fifty years of age, and the father of six children, by the wife who survives him. M. Beaumont, the other party, is a single man, between thirty and forty, likewise of considerable property, and a native of Geneva. They were both exchange brokers.

About five or six months ago, M. Manuel, who lived on the most affectionate terms with his wife, received an anonymous letter, saying that she was unfaithful to him. He tore the letter with contempt, and dismissed the matter from his mind. In about a fortnight he received a second letter, containing the same intimation; and this he treated like the first. In a few days he received a third, which stated, that as he was too incredulous to be convinced, except by ocular proof, he might have that proof the very next day, if he chose. The writer then told him to go at two o’clock to a particular house in a particular street, and to make a certain signal which he described, and he would then have no doubt of the writer’s veracity. M. Manuel went accordingly at the time designated to the house in question, and made the described signal. The door was instantly opened by a female, whom he knew to be his wife, but who did not at first recognise him, but throwing herself into his arms called him by the name of Beaumont. The husband was now convinced. He determined to leave Paris immediately; he converted his French property into disposeable effects, and set off for his native place, Warsaw. Before he went, he proffered forgiveness to his wife, and even agreed to live with her, provided she would abandon her paramour. This the mother of six children refused to do; and the husband left Paris without her.

A few days before the fatal event he returned, and reappeared on the exchange. Here he met M. Beaumont: a violent altercation ensued; and the result was a challenge, and a positive agreement, that one at least should not come out of the field alive. They met the next morning, fired, and M. Manuel was killed on the spot by a pistol shot in the breast. M. Beaumont shortly after fled to Switzerland, to escape the storm of indignation which exhibited itself against him at Paris; his colleagues on the exchange having come to a resolution never to transact business with him again.

The following curious circumstance occurred at the funeral of M. Manuel. When the body arrived at the church of St. Denys, in the Rue Caumartin, the authorities refused to receive it, because M. Manuel had been killed in a duel. The populace, however, insisted on its being received, and, after some delay, it was taken in. It was then found that no priest was present to perform the necessary rites: a second disturbance took place, and at length one appeared, but not habited in his canonicals; a fresh outcry, however, induced the priest to robe himself, and the service was performed in the usual manner. The body was afterwards carried to the cemetery of Père la Chaise, and there interred.

Mr. Cuddie, a Scotchman by birth, and a surgeon in the navy, came about four years before to reside at Winster, where he began to practise his profession. An attachment had subsisted for some time before his death between himself and Miss Brittlebank, the daughter of an eminent solicitor in the same town; and as she was in a delicate state of health, he had frequent opportunities of seeing her in his medical capacity. Mr. Cuddie’s attentions to the lady met with the decided disapprobation of her family, and it was expressed to him in the strongest terms. On Monday, the 21st of May, Mr. Cuddie and Miss Brittlebank were met, whilst walking together, by Mr. William Brittlebank, her brother; who took his sister away, after some harsh words had been exchanged between himself and Mr. Cuddie. So improper did the language of Mr. Cuddie appear to Mr. William Brittlebank, that he sent a challenge to him on the evening of the same day. To this Mr. Cuddie returned no answer, and another messenger was dispatched to him on the same errand the following morning, who was informed by Mr. Cuddie that he would not meet Mr. William Brittlebank, and therefore should not reply to his note. In consequence of this, Mr. Spencer, a surgeon, residing at Bakewell, a friend of both the parties, was sent for by Mr. W. Brittlebank. He came, and about three o’clock in the afternoon Mr. William and Mr. Francis Brittlebank, accompanied by Mr. Spencer, proceeded to Mr. Cuddie’s house. They were here joined by Mr. Andrew Brittlebank; when Mr. Spencer, going into the house, informed Mr. Cuddie, that he must either make some apology to Mr. William Brittlebank or fight. It is stated that he again declined to do either the one or the other. Subsequently, however, he appears to have consented to give Mr. W. Brittlebank the satisfaction he required: pistols were furnished by Mr. Spencer to the parties: they separated to a distance of fifteen yards on the gravel walk in Mr. Cuddie’s garden, and on the signal being given they fired. Mr. Cuddie unhappily received the shot of his antagonist in his bowels, and died on the following day.

A verdict of wilful murder was returned against the three brothers, Andrew, William, and Francis Brittlebank, and also against Mr. Spencer. Mr. W. Brittlebank had absconded. The other three were taken into custody, and conveyed to Derby jail.

The trial of the parties came on in August, before Mr. Justice Park, at the Derby Assizes. Mr. Denman said, it was his painful duty to state the circumstances of the case. The prisoners were to be tried for a crime that was considered one of the heaviest of which human nature was capable. A murder was charged to have been committed by Mr. William Brittlebank, and the prisoners stood on their trial for aiding, abetting, and assisting in the said murder. The deceased, Mr. Cuddie, had been a surgeon in the navy; he had retired on half-pay, and resided at Winster, where Mr. Brittlebank, the father of two of the prisoners, resided. Mr. Cuddie had been on intimate terms with the Brittlebanks, but their friendship had fallen off in consequence of the attention of the deceased to Miss Brittlebank, which had been disapproved by the family. On the 21st of May, the day before the death of Mr. Cuddie, a letter was brought to him by the servant of Mr. W. Brittlebank, complaining of an insult which he said he had received, and calling on the deceased to fight him, in order to expiate that insult. Mr. Cuddie refused to give any answer to the letter. In consequence of this, on the following day the prisoner Spencer, who had been sent for from Bakewell, arrived at Winster, and agreed to go with a message from Mr. W. Brittlebank, demanding that Cuddie should fight him or make an apology. Cuddie replied he had no apology to make, and would not meet Mr. Brittlebank. Spencer carried back this answer, and returned to Cuddie with a new message; and on the deceased repeating the determination which he had previously announced, he told him that Mr. W. Brittlebank was in the garden, and he might see and speak to him if he would not fight. These were facts to be proved by witnesses, and by the dying declaration of the deceased, which, by law, could be received as evidence. Cuddie went into the garden, where he found William Brittlebank, with his brothers Andrew and Francis, who had been seen to go from their house to that of Mr. Cuddie. Here Andrew Brittlebank appeared anxious to prevent the duel, by calling on Mr. Cuddie to make an apology. This he declined, and pistols were then produced; and Mr. W. Brittlebank having walked fifteen or sixteen yards from the deceased, both turned and fired, as he believed. A ball had been found near the spot on which Cuddie stood; one had been sought for, but in vain, near that where Mr. Brittlebank had taken his place. He, however, did not mean to attach importance to that circumstance; he believed that Mr. W. Brittlebank had exposed his own life to the same risk which he forced Mr. Cuddie to run. The contrary was no part of the case for the prosecution. When, however, four persons were found going to the house of one, for the purpose of forcing him to fight a duel, though the duel might be conducted most fairly, according to the laws of honour, it was murder, under certain circumstances, in the eye of the law. Mr. Cuddie received the ball fired from the pistol of William Brittlebank; he was then carried into the kitchen, he believed, by Spencer and Andrew Brittlebank. What followed would be proved by witnesses; and he expected it would be proved, that Andrew Brittlebank had at first denied having been present; but when the deceased stated him to be there, he then said, “Well, since you say so, did I not try to prevent the duel, by pressing you to offer something in the shape of an apology?” William Brittlebank had said, that the deceased must consider Spencer as his friend; and it would be shown, that when Cuddie, in a dying state, had been pressed to declare the duel had been a fair one, he declined doing so, though aware of his situation, sometimes by expressions, and at others by actions of dissent, such as shaking his head; and he certainly died without any such admission. Should the evidence fail to make out the charge, those concerned for the prosecution would be most happy to hear of a verdict of acquittal: should the facts be proved, their righteous verdict must be given; and, painful as it might be to themselves and all who heard it, they would have but one duty to perform.

A variety of witnesses were called, who proved the circumstances under which Mr. Cuddie lost his life. It appeared that he had received much provocation; but it appeared that the prisoners had endeavoured to give him every assistance after he received the wound. The following is a copy of the declaration made by Mr. Cuddie on his death-bed:—

“The declaration of William Cuddie, of Winster, surgeon, made before me, Philip Gell, Esq., one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the county of Derby, this 22nd day of May, 1821, who saith, that he was called upon by William Brittlebank, of Winster, to fight a duel, and that he wished to avoid doing so. That Edmund Spencer, of Bakewell, surgeon, came to him on the 22nd of May, instant, and told him that William Brittlebank and his brothers were in the garden waiting for him, and that he, William Cuddie, must make an apology, or fight. That he, William Cuddie, went to the garden, and refused to make an apology. That Edmund Spencer opened his coat and showed him two pistols, one of which he took, and William Brittlebank took the other; that they separated to the distance of fifteen yards, or more. That Edmund Spencer threw up his hat as a signal, and they both fired their pistols as near together as possible.”

The prisoners read written defences, in which they declared it to have been their object to prevent the duel, and procure an apology from the deceased. A number of persons of high respectability gave them excellent characters, and the judge having summed up, the jury, after an absence of an hour and twenty minutes, returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” in favour of the prisoners; who, deeply affected by their awful situation, on hearing the decision, which restored them to society, all bowed their heads, as in gratitude to the Almighty for their deliverance.

BETWEEN SIR ALEXANDER BOSWELL, BART., OF AUCHINLECK, AND MR. STUART, OF DUNCARN.
March 26, 1822.

About eleven o’clock, a meeting took place at Auchtertool, near Balmuto, in Fifeshire, between Sir Alexander Boswell, of Auchinleck, Bart. eldest son of James Boswell, the biographer of Dr. Johnson, and James Stuart, Esq. of Duncarn. Sir Alexander was attended by the Hon. John Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, and Mr. Stuart by the Earl of Rosslyn. The ball of Mr. Stuart struck Sir Alexander in the shoulder, shattered the shoulder-blade, and was supposed to have entered the spine, as his limbs were quite paralysed. Sir Alexander was carried to Balmuto House, where he expired. The cause of this duel was a song which appeared in a Glasgow paper, called the Sentinel, on the 26th of December, and which Mr. Stuart ascertained to have been written by Sir Alexander. The manner in which Mr. Stuart became possessed of that information was through a person named Borthwick, concerned in the Sentinel at the time the article appeared in that paper. Borthwick delivered the papers into the hands of Mr. Stuart, and from these papers the discovery of the author of the article mentioned, as well as that of others, was made.

On the 10th of June, the trial of Mr. Stuart, for the wilful murder of Sir Alexander, took place in the High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh; present, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Hermand, Lord Gillies, Lord Pitmilly, and Lord Succoth. The indictment having been read, to which Mr. Stuart pleaded “Not guilty.”

Mr. Cockburn opened the case on the part of the defender. He stated, that all who knew Sir Alexander Boswell must be aware that he possessed, in a very extraordinary degree, the talent of irony. He then detailed the facts relative to the establishment of the Beacon and the Sentinel newspapers, the contributions of the deceased to those publications, and the manner in which Mr. Stuart obtained the fatal evidence. He next dwelt upon the urbanity and peace-making disposition of Mr. Stuart, and showed that the deceased had received no provocation from him, to justify the calumny in which he had indulged against the accused. Having read the opprobrious passages of the song, he contended, that those indignities imposed on Mr. Stuart the necessity of acting as he had done.

The Earl of Rosslyn deposed to the following facts:—At the desire of Mr. Stuart he waited on Sir Alexander Boswell to ask if he was the author of the articles in the Glasgow Sentinel. He told Sir Alexander, that if he would say he was not the writer, and had not sent them to the newspaper, that would be sufficient. Sir Alexander said it was a delicate affair, and he thought he should consult with a friend. He consulted Mr. Douglas, who afterwards told witness that he could not advise Sir Alexander to give any answer. Witness had copies of a song and a paper, signed “Ignotus” when he called on Sir Alexander. The song contained two direct imputations of cowardice. At the wish of Sir Alexander, who had affairs to settle, it was agreed between Mr. Douglas and witness, that a delay of fourteen days should take place, and that the meeting should be on the Continent. Witness subsequently asked Mr. Douglas, if there was not a possibility of not carrying the affair any further; and told him Mr. Stuart would be content to treat the song as a very bad joke, provided Sir Alexander would say he did not intend any reflection on Mr. Stuart’s courage. Mr. Douglas said, he had no hope that Sir Alexander would say any such thing. Sir Alexander changed his mind about meeting on the Continent; and it was finally settled that it should take place at Auchtertool. They met: the ground was measured twelve long paces. Witness gave the word: they fired, and Sir Alexander Boswell fell. Mr. Stuart advanced with great anxiety towards Sir Alexander, but witness hurried him to go away. Before any thing took place on the ground, Mr. Stuart asked witness if it was not fit that he should make a bow to Sir Alexander, and express his wish for a reconciliation. Witness thought it right. Mr. Stuart advanced towards Sir Alexander, apparently for that purpose: Sir Alexander’s back was then turned, and he appeared to be walking away from Mr. Stuart. In the whole of Mr. Stuart’s conduct there was no appearance of personal ill-will or resentment against Sir Alexander; but only an anxiety to defend his own character from the imputations with which it had been assailed, particularly from that of cowardice. His conduct, from first to last, was cool, composed, and temperate. On the field, witness desired him to present his side and not his bust: Mr. Stuart replied, “I do not think I ought to take an aim.” Never, from all his acquaintance with Mr. Stuart, knew a man less quarrelsome or less vindictive.

Mr. Douglas confirmed Lord Rosslyn’s statement respecting the interviews and conversations that had taken place. On their way to the ground Sir Alexander consulted witness as to firing in the air or not. Witness said he must consult his own feelings on that point. Sir Alexander said, he had, perhaps, in an unhappy moment, injured Mr. Stuart, and therefore he should fire in the air. Witness said that was exactly his opinion. After Sir Alexander fell, the only words he spoke to witness were, that he regretted he had not made his fire in the air more decided than it had been. On the journey to the ground, a conversation took place in the carriage, as to the possibility of an amicable adjustment. Sir Alexander said he was convinced there was not any: he did not know whether from an opinion that Mr. Stuart could do nothing else than fight, or whether from his own resolution: he rather thought the latter. Mr. Stuart conducted himself in every respect as became a man of honour and courage.

Dr. Wood said, he had accompanied Sir Alexander to the field; he did not see any pistols fired; he had instructed the other surgeon, that they ought to turn their backs and not see the firing, but that as soon as they heard the report they should turn, and run to the spot as speedily as possible. The pistols were fired in quick succession: on going to the spot, they found Sir Alexander wounded in the shoulder; they extracted two pieces of bone; the first was extracted by himself, and the other by Mr. Liston: he accompanied Sir Alexander to Balmuto House, and attended him till three the next day; when he died. In the carriage, on the way to the ground, Sir Alexander expressed his decided opinion, that Mr. Stuart could have done nothing else but call him out. He also declared his intention to fire in the air, and on getting out of the carriage he said, “Now, gentlemen, observe that it is my fixed resolution to fire in the air.”

Mr. Liston, surgeon, said that Mr. Stuart called upon him on the morning of the 26th of March, and requested him to go to the country with him; and, when on the Fife side, he informed him he was to fight a duel with Sir Alexander Boswell. He said he had no malice against Sir Alexander, and if he had the misfortune to hit him, he wished it might be on the great toe, as a gentleman in England had done lately on a similar occasion.

A letter from Sir Alexander Boswell to Robert Maconochie, Esq. dated the 24th of March, was put in, containing the following passage:—“Last night, on my arrival, I received a letter from Lord Rosslyn, that he wished me to appoint an hour as early as possible, that he might make a communication to me; this, I suppose, is in reference to some of these squibs. I do not know who the offended party may be; but even if it should be Mr. James Stuart himself, I shall give him a meeting. In order, however, to obviate many of those circumstances which follow such transactions, I mean that the meeting shall take place on the Continent, say Calais; and I wish to put your friendship so far to the test, as to request you to be my friend on this occasion. If I had deemed it expedient to meet my man here, John Douglas would have gone out with me; but if I should be the successful shot, I should not like the after proceedings of our courts of law, and therefore wish to pass beyond their jurisdiction. I know nothing of particulars yet, but write in prudent anticipation. I know this is perhaps the greatest favour that can be asked of any man; but by this arrangement you will be implicated in less trouble, and you won’t mind a trip to France. If my wish is acceded to, I would propose the meeting to take place about fifteen days hence, as I wish to make a slight arrangement respecting my estate, and legalise it by going to kirk and market.”—After a number of witnesses had been examined, who all bore testimony to Mr. Stuart’s high character for goodness of temper, kindness of disposition, and honourable and upright conduct.

The Lord Advocate said, that the charge of murder, according to law, having been fully proved, the next question was, what defence had been set up in behalf of the prisoner. The law knew of no other ground of exculpation, unless a justification founded on self-defence; but there were no circumstances to warrant such an argument in the present case.

Mr. Jeffrey said, it was not necessary for him to state, that the essence of all crime lay in the motive; and, after all they had heard, it could not be disputed that Mr. Stuart went to the ground without one atom of malice. They had been told, that a duel was an irrational, barbarous, and pernicious practice; and that he who took it upon himself to send or accept a challenge was guilty of murder. He did not mean to offer any apology for the practice. The evils of duelling were ever uppermost in our view; but this prevented us from noticing, that it had proved the corrective of greater immoralities. It was known by those versed in history, that it had superseded the practice of private assassinations. That a person might not kill another, unless in self-defence, without incurring the crime of murder, was contrary to the fact. It might be done in defence of personal property on a nocturnal assault: a soldier on sentry, or a constable to prevent a rescue, might justly kill. And if, in such circumstances, it is permissible, you place a man in a painful dilemma, if, when made by the libeller an outcast of society, exposed to daily insult, shrunk from by friends, and met with the blushes of relations, you deprive him of the only means of wiping away those stains, and vindicating his character to the world. The analogy of the law, the reason of the thing, and the feelings of all mankind are against you. In the short reign of Henry the Fourth of France, about four thousand persons were calculated to have fallen in single combat; while, in our own country, during one of the longest reigns, that of George the Third, only sixty or seventy were said to have fallen; a fact which showed, that the practice did not prevail to any alarming extent.

The Lord Justice Clerk then proceeded to detail the evidence, and to illustrate the law as it bore on the case in question. It was, he said, his bounden duty to state to them what the law of Scotland was, in relation to such an unfortunate affair as had come before them that day: but instead of stating the law in his own words, he would rather lay it before them in the words of the best authors on criminal law, and the first to whom he would refer was Sir George Mackenzie, who had laid it down as clear and decided law, that killing in a duel was murder, and quoted several cases in support of this opinion. The next author to whom he would refer the jury was Mr. Baron Hume, the standard authority on criminal law in Scotland. From the quotations read by the Lord Justice Clerk, it was clear that Mr. Hume completely coincided with Sir George Mackenzie as to the ancient practice: Mr. Hume states, that in later times, some juries had taken upon them to deliver verdicts of not guilty in such cases; but he clearly states, that such decisions were not in conformity to the strict law of Scotland. Mr. Burnet, also a valuable author, expressed himself much to the same effect with the other authors. The law, therefore, on such matters, he considered to be quite settled. The indictment charged Mr. Stuart with malice, but there was not even an attempt to substantiate that part of it. On the contrary, it appeared that he was utterly ignorant who the author of the calumnies was, before he saw the papers in Glasgow. The jury would also keep in view the nature of the offers made by Mr. Stuart, his conduct in the field, as well as after the sad event; the contrition he expressed for the fatal blow, and the total absence of all vindictive feelings on his part. In the whole course of his practice he never had heard higher, or more distinct and discriminate praise bestowed on any character; and, in good taste, the evidence on this part of the case consisted of gentlemen, who were opponents to the prisoner in politics. He lamented, and the public groaned under, the lamentable licentiousness of the press: he hoped it would cease.

The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation, without leaving the box, returned an unanimous verdict of “Not Guilty.” The Lord Justice Clerk, then turning to Mr. Stuart, congratulated him on the favourable result.

BETWEEN THE DUKE OF BEDFORD AND THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
May 2, 1822.

On Thursday, the 2nd of May, the following statement appeared in the evening papers:—“We are authorised to state, that a meeting took place this morning between the Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Buckingham, accompanied by Lord Lyndock and Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, in consequence of words uttered by the former at the Bedford County Meeting. Both parties fired together at the distance of twelve paces, on a word given, but without effect; when the Duke of Buckingham, observing that the Duke of Bedford fired into the air, advanced to his Grace, and remarking, that for that reason the thing could go no further, said, ‘My Lord Duke, you are the last man I wish to quarrel with; but you must be aware, that a public man’s life is not worth preserving unless with honour.’ Upon which the Duke of Bedford declared, ‘upon his honour, that he meant no personal offence to the Duke of Buckingham, nor to impute to him any bad or corrupt motive whatever.’ The parties then shook hands, and the whole business was terminated most satisfactorily.”

The following are the words used by the Duke of Bedford at the County Meeting:—“He would now advert to another transaction which he was almost ashamed to mention: he alluded to a great borough proprietor, now a noble duke, whose services, and the services of whose adherents in parliament, had been purchased by Government by conferring high offices on those adherents. It was an odious thing to mention these circumstances, but he introduced them for the purpose of asking whether, if a reform had been effected, such transactions could possibly happen? The noble duke’s family and connections were, of course, sent back to their constituents, when they accepted of place; because, when a member of the House took office, he must return to his constituents, to know whether they would re-elect him. But how were the individuals in question sent back? They were not sent back to the people of England; they were not sent back to those who were free to choose or to reject them: no, they were sent back to the borough proprietor, to their own patron, to the person who had engaged in the corrupt traffic; who had, in fact, made the bargain with Ministers. He would again ask, could such a circumstance possibly occur, if a reform were effected in the Commons’ House?”

The Duke of Buckingham addressed a letter to the Duke of Bedford, demanding whether this language was used in allusion to him. The Duke of Bedford answered that it was, and that he stated the facts because he believed them to be true. A challenge was, in consequence, sent and accepted. The duel took place in Kensington Gardens, at a retired spot previously fixed upon. The Duke of Bedford left St. James’s-square, at half-past seven on Thursday morning, accompanied by Lord Lyndock, and drove directly to Kensington Gardens; where the Duke of Buckingham arrived about the same time, attended by Sir Watkin Williams Wynn.