Pistols at Dawn E-Book

John Norris

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2009

Seitenzahl: 405

Beschreibung

When fighting for honour has tragic consequences... In modern society the thought that someone would organise a deadly competition with a rival, risking his life over a point of honour, is incomprehensible. That this form of resolution would become an accepted 'sport', with noble gentlemen even possessing sets of special duelling pistols, is insane. This fascinating history of the practice of duelling takes the reader into the intriguing world of pistols, 'fields of honour' and mortal combat, a world where complex rules governed a system of dispute which often ended in death. With tales of tragic loss, ridiculous quarrels and often hilarious combat, John Norris takes the reader on a journey of discovery through some of the most dramatic disputes of history.

Leseprobe

PISTOLSAT DAWN

PISTOLSAT DAWN

A HISTORY OF DUELLING

JOHN NORRIS

First published 2009

The History Press The Mill, Brimscombe Port Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QGwww.thehistorypress.co.uk

This ebook edition first published in 2013

All rights reserved © John Norris, 2009, 2013

The right of John Norris to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

EPUB ISBN 978 0 7524 9659 7

Original typesetting by The History Press

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Introduction

1. Cause and Effect

2. Type of Duel

3. Giving Fire and Duelling Codes

4. Pistols and Politics

5. The Affair of the Prince and the Pistol

6. Female Duels

7. Seconds Out

8. Doctors

9. Tools of the Duel

10. The End of Duelling

Bibliography

To Chris Lay and Dave Biggins, thank you for all the great times together. Here’s more to come

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for granting permission to use material relating to Frederick, Duke of York’s duel. I am grateful to Pamela Clark the registrar at the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle, the staff at the Jersey Heritage Trust, the States Archives Trust on Guernsey and Simon Hancock and the staff at Haverfordwest Museum in Pembrokeshire in Wales; they have all been most helpful. My thanks in particular to the 41st Regiment of Foot re-enactment group for taking the time to recreate a duel. My gratitude also goes to the many other museums and archive sources, including the City of Portsmouth Museum, for their capable assistance in putting this work together. And special thanks to Pat Farey for additional photographs. Finally, as ever, I would like to thank my wife Elizabeth for accompanying me on my visits as we stood in fields and cemeteries in fair weather and foul, and helping take essential notes and remembering details.

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘duel’ as we understand it today can be traced back to medieval times and is derived from the Latin word ‘duellum’ meaning war between two. In its most basic form the duel is a contest between two opponents in a form of ritualised combat, examples of which can be found in the pages of history dating back to ancient Greece. At the ten-year-long siege of the city of Troy where Hector kills Patroclus, the legendary Achilles challenges Hector to a personal fight to answer for killing his friend. This act of single combat between the pair of warriors was witnessed by the opposing armies who watch as Achilles slays Hector. Such engagements were more about revenge than resolving differences of opinion or seeking restitution. However, over the centuries the resolving of disputes in such a combative manner came to be seen as the ultimate means to finally settle differences between two people.

In the medieval period the right of a nobleman to defend his honour gained universal acceptance, and challenges to personal combat were usually issued by a knight throwing down his ‘gage’. This was a token gesture and could take the form of a glove or a hat and meant to challenge the accuser to retrieve the item for the fight to take place. It was the Church which eventually intervened to try and limit the practice, but in the end it only succeeded in seeing it survive, albeit in a modified form. This was the joust, which was a form of personal combat without the judicial aspect, and this turn became the tournament which, even though governed, could dissolve into mini-battles as old scores were settled between rivals. In those days of knightly chivalry it took many years of training to perfect the use of sword, mace or lance. It was a brave man who stood foursquare against an opponent of equal courage and experience. All of that changed, however, with the development of gunpowder weapons. There was no longer any requirement to stand in close proximity to inflict mortal wounding, as gunpowder weapons lengthened the range of engagement in battle.

With the introduction of gunpowder weapons it was claimed that gunpowder made all men equal. Certainly, after the rise of such weapons the armoured knight of noble birth was equally at risk from being killed as the humble foot soldier. In the early fifteenth century Gian Paolo Vittelli of the Italian Condottiere illustrated the contempt with which he held troops who used gunpowder weapons by ordering that on capture they be blinded and their hands cut off. This severe treatment towards handgunners was continued into the sixteenth century by the French commander Pierre du Terrail, Chevalier de Bayard. Times were changing but he remained traditionally of the old order, having engaged in single combat, a form of duel, many times and as a consequence his bravery was unquestioned. Nevertheless, his ire towards handgunners was worse than Vittelli, and the Chevalier de Bayard ordered that all captured handgunners be executed. He declared them to be ‘cowardly and base knaves, who would never have dared to have met true soldiers face to face and hand to hand’. It was ironical, then, that the Chevalier de Bayard was killed on 30 April 1524 at the Battle of Sesia with his spine shot through by a handgunner.

Challenges to engage in duels were invariably fought out by opponents using swords of some description, such as the claymore, cutlass or sabre, and this practice continued well into the eighteenth century, by which time handguns had been in use for some 450 years. Men may have fired on one another across the battlefield using muskets and pistols, and some personal disputes were settled with pistols on occasion. For the most part, though, swords were the preferred means of defending one’s honour when a man’s reputation was called into question.

Then a remarkable transformation took place and pistols became the duellists’ weapon of choice. There are examples where duels were conducted between opponents quite literally ‘armed to the teeth’. In Ireland in 1759 Colonel Barrington met Mr Gilbert in a mounted duel, with each man armed with pistols, swords and daggers. Both fired and missed, so they went at one another with swords during which Gilbert’s horse was killed and he was thrown to the ground. The mêlée must have more resembled a medieval tournament than a dispute between two so-called gentlemen. Lying prostrate, Gilbert was unable to defend himself. Taking advantage of his opponent’s vulnerable state Barrington moved in and presented a dagger to Gilbert’s throat. It would have been all too easy to have made the fatal thrust, but Gilbert saved himself by conceding defeat. The affair was deemed concluded and the two men became firm friends after their deadly encounter.

Duels still continued to be fought with swords but they required skill to wield while a pistol could be used after the minimum of instruction. Certainly by the eighteenth century swords had all but given way to pistols as the preferred weapon in duels. This gave rise to a period, which some sources have identified as being between 1770 and 1870, when matters of personal honour were settled by two men armed with pistols facing one another across a remote field. The historian Harold L. Peterson places the date when pistols began to be used in duels as early as 1650, and certainly there are many examples of firearms being used in duels during the mid-seventeenth century to bear out this statement. Not all duels were conducted on foot and there are many accounts of where the exchange of fire took place between mounted riders, a practice which continued until possibly as late as the second half of the eighteenth century.

Duels could sometimes take months to unfold and reach a climax as insults, either real or imagined, were examined in notes to various parties, and efforts were made to conclude the affair before shots were exchanged. Sometimes a duel could be fought and concluded in a matter of moments. In 1808 two officers serving in Ireland entered into a disagreement; within the space of 20 minutes the argument had become a duel and the men had exchanged shots. The surviving officer was later arrested and hanged for the murder of his fellow officer. It was a cautionary tale but one which did little to deter duelling. During a dinner party in Los Angeles in 1859, Colonel John Bankhead Magruder and Dr William B. Osborn fell into a dispute at the table concerning over whom each of them considered to be the greatest man in America. Not unnaturally the two men disagreed and Dr Osborn, who by all accounts was the worse for drink, challenged Colonel Magruder to a duel. The colonel as the challenged party had choice of weapons and he selected ‘Derringer pistols across the dinner table’.

Events were unfolding fast and the poor doctor must have felt distinctly uneasy at how quickly things had got out of hand. The Derringer pistol was a short weapon usually between 4 and 9in in length but with a large calibre bullet which could be up to .51in. A pair of these compact weapons was brought to the men and on the command ‘Ready’ the nervous doctor fired without waiting for the correct order. The colonel, despite the closeness of the range, was unharmed. At a range of barely a few feet the colonel aimed at the, by now terrified, doctor. Fearing for his life Osborn fell to his knees and begged for mercy. Colonel Magruder showed leniency and spared his opponent’s life. What the poor unwitting doctor did not know was that the pistols had not been properly loaded with lead bullets. The incident serves to illustrate just how quickly matters could get out of control, but not all encounters ended with embarrassment being the only injury inflicted.

Duels did not always end with one man dead. Sometimes things could go awry and onlookers became the innocent victims, and other engagements would be conducted in conditions which belied the seriousness of the encounter. It was the steadfastness which allowed a man to hold his weapon in an un-quivering hand. In the nineteenth century an anonymous author who identified himself only as ‘A Traveller’ wrote a treatise entitled The Art of Duelling, which appeared in 1836; from the date we may conclude that the author could have witnessed a number of duels, but it is not known whether or not he participated in a duel himself. ‘Traveller’ claimed to have studied the results of almost 200 duels and concluded that if a man is hit the chances are ‘three to one against his being killed’. This would appear to be a better than average rate for survival, but a series of trials using an unrifled pistol of 1790s vintage was conducted in the 1970s that showed at a range of 85 yards a firer could hit a man-sized target three times out of four. This goes to prove that nothing could be taken for granted when it came to duelling, and experienced military men on the field of the duel could just as easily fall victim to the untrained civilian who held a pistol for the first time in their life.

From the records available to us it would appear that duelling with pistols was the preserve of the gentry, politicians and officers in the army or navy. However, this was not the case; it is simply that duels between gentlemen of high standing made for a better story in the newspapers. Elements of the working classes would also have fought their own forms of duels but these would have been less formalised and very much of the rough and ready nature. Not all members of the higher echelons of society were upright, stalwart pillars of their class and some could show a base side to their nature. The difference between the two lifestyles lay in the fact that, within the working class, if a dispute was resolved with the use of a pistol it tended to be a drunken brawl and as such little more than murder. Men of a higher class, on the other hand, were usually expected to conduct the affair of settling any argument concerning honour in a more formal manner, like some deadly appointment for an interview. But even in these upper limits of society there was to be found an element who were little more than blackguards; even so, they could demand satisfaction in a duel. For example, Mr Butler from County Kilkenny, and Captain Bunbury fought their duel in an Irish tavern in the presence of customers who were drinking. The incident took place in 1784 when the two men in the company of their seconds entered the tavern and ordered food and drink, which appeared quite normal. At that point the two men fired at one another, which left Bunbury hit in the mouth by the bullet and Butler lying dead. Exactly what caused the duel is not clear and as to why the men should choose to fight in a tavern is not understood either. It may have been the drink and a hasty choice to fight as soon as possible, but the incident does prove the point that consumption of alcohol could lead to an argument becoming a duel. The writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau rather succinctly noted in his work ‘La Nouvelle Heloise’ in 1760: ‘A scoundrel only needs to fight a duel and he ceases to be a scoundrel.’ There was much truth in this statement, because after a duel a man’s social standing among his peers was greatly elevated. He was now a duellist with a reputation and it was a rash man who did not countenance an experienced duellist. Of course, that is unless he was tried for murder and hanged.

Like the gunfighters of the American ‘Wild West’, such as ‘Wild’ Bill Hickok, Wyatt Earp or William ‘Billy the Kid’ Bonney, duellists were held in awe and seen as special people and not to be meddled with lightly. Such people had stared at death and by participating in formal duels or gunfights had shown they had the courage to stand, pistol in hand, to face down anyone who doubted their veracity. This reputation could stand them in good stead, that is, until someone brave enough and with a better aim ended their career with a shot from a pistol. Experienced duellists could be self-opinionated and this was observed by Benjamin Franklin who noted: ‘How can such miserable worms, as we are, entertain so much pride as the conceit that every offence against our imagined honour merits death?’ At the height of its fashion there emerged a saying on the subject of duelling. It ran to the effect that if two Englishmen were stranded on a desert island they would soon find something to gamble on; but if two Frenchmen were stranded on a desert island they would fight a duel.

Duels could only be conducted between two people of equal standing and in The British Code of Duel of 1824 the definition of a gentleman was quantified as being: ‘… the lowest distinction of civil nobility yet in character assimilates with the highest’. This wording identifies gentlemen, such as merchants and bankers, and means they could indulge in duels on equal terms. Over the years during which duels were commonplace, various codes of conduct were compiled, but they were unofficial and meant only as guidelines. The content of these codes have a significant bearing on this work and they shall be used to intersperse the narrative with supporting remarks.

This book does not set out to detail every single duel of any significance that was fought with a pistol; that is an almost impossible task, because each duel has a bearing on the history of what is surely one of the most peculiar aspects of social behaviour. What this work does endeavour to do is explain the circumstances leading up to a duel, the consequences of the affair and the results which followed. For this purpose only a select number of incidents can be highlighted to serve as examples, and a duel which is seen as being very important to someone with an interest in local history may not necessarily be of enough significance to use an expression of example.

This, then, is a history of duelling with pistols rather than duelling with swords. Each form had its own set of codes by which the engagements were conducted. Sometimes duellists did resort to swords and daggers but it was usually the pistol which decided the outcome. Many famous personages fought duels, some of whom should have known better than to engage in such acts of recklessness. These include the victor of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington, William Pitt the Younger and Andrew Jackson the President of America and a host of many other politicians, military men and businessmen. In fact, so many prominent figures took their stand on the duelling fields that one could almost believe that duelling was their sole preserve. This work will examine the codes by which duels were fought, the outcomes and the reasons why men faced adversaries with loaded weapons as they prepared to keep their date with destiny.

1

CAUSE AND EFFECT

What is the Duel?

Over the years there were literally thousands of duels fought with pistols, but only a fraction of those encounters were believed worthy of being actually recorded. Certainly the principals if they were noteworthy, such as politicians, officers or characters of public standing including town mayors; then the incident became the subject of newspaper accounts and even cartoons of the day. A number of so-called duels fought between lesser notable figures would have passed unnoticed and unrecorded unless, of course, it was reported that one of the participants was killed. In such cases a murder enquiry and trial would be convened. Statistics compiled from the same period can be ambiguous, but one set of figures examining some 200 duels fought in Ireland, Scotland and England tells us that only some 10 per cent of the participants came to trial. The historian Victor Kiernan states that duellists, ‘… could kill each other and go scot free, when a poor man could be hanged for stealing a few shillings’. This is, of course, entirely correct with English courts sentencing transportation to the colonies as an alternative punishment for such trivial crimes as stealing a loaf of bread, and public executions, even of young offenders, for stealing a sheep. The Italian ‘Lothario’ Giacomo Casanova fought a duel with Colonel Xavier Branicki of the Polish army in March 1766 as a result of being called a coward by the officer, even though duelling was illegal in Poland. The colonel shot Casanova in the hand but in return received a wound which entered his right side and passed through his abdomen. It was serious and it appeared that the officer was mortally wounded. In his shocked and weakened state Branicki, believing himself to be dying, uttered words of advice to Casanova by suggesting he make haste away, ‘as you are in danger of the gibbet’. The great womaniser was apprehended but spared the hangman’s noose by the personal intervention of the King of Poland. Colonel Branicki somehow survived his awful wound and made a full recovery. It was a close call for Casanova, who despite his reputation as a lover and seducer of women was no coward. The fact that the case against him was dismissed shows how unbalanced the judicial system could be when it came to hearing the cases of duelling.

Over the years duels have become romanticised due to novels and, more recently, films and television; dramatisations of romantic fiction have added to the perception that duels were invariably fought over affairs of honour. These modern depictions have been stylised to suit mass audiences and invariably show two men attempting to resolve their differences by engaging in a duel. The vision these recreations present is erroneous because they show honour being restored after an argument or insult. In truth there was nothing honourable about killing a man or maiming him for life. Death in a duel was very rarely instantaneous and the mortally wounded victims could linger for hours or days in the utmost agony – all for the sake of honour. This question of honour was either to preserve one’s own social standing in society or to defend a lady’s honour. Furthermore, the question of honour, like the insult itself, could be real or imagined. It permeated through society and affected some more than others who felt as though they had something to prove if they believed they had been insulted. The author Sir Walter Scott held the opinion that duels in Scotland were common during the 1730s because: ‘the gentry were at once idle, haughty, fierce…’ Certainly they had much time on their hands and with their days filled with gambling on cards and horses, betting on boxing bouts and hunting, it was not surprising they took to duelling to settle differences of opinion arising from such matters. In Ireland the populace were equally bellicose and apt to hotheadedness, leading the landed gentry to indulge in duelling with pistols to the extent that it was almost akin to other forms of sport. Albeit a deadly interest, this sport was almost exclusively the preserve of the well-to-do for it was they who had the most time to spare in indulging in the lethal practice of duelling.

Some duelling encounters have become famous and others have become infamous due to the notoriety of the action and nature in which they were conducted. Duelling has a history which can be traced back to the earliest of military societies and reached its peak in the form of the joust and tournament during the medieval period, when sword, lance and mace were used. These expressions of fighting prowess originated in France around the eleventh century and developed into the mêlée which were in effect mini battles fought in front of an audience. These events evolved into the joust when popularity in the spectacle changed and the meetings became more organised and very formal affairs. Young men who had just been knighted would frequently travel from one joust meeting to another to gain valuable experience which could stand them in good stead for time of war. The joust was also where a man could win money or valuable prizes and even claim the possessions of the opponents they defeated. Jousts were well organised and it was possible for a knight to participate in a circuit of meetings and, depending on his success, his reputation would be enhanced. William Marshall, first Earl of Pembroke, 1147–1219, amassed a considerable fortune in such tournaments and his reputation was such that he was a favourite at the king’s court. However, these meetings were not without their dangers and men were often maimed or killed during the joust. In June 1559 a joust was arranged to celebrate the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis which brought to an end the warring between France, Spain and Italy. The meeting was held in Paris at the rue Saint Antoine and scheduled to last for three days. It was attended by royalty and knights from across Europe, some of whom were entered in the tournament as participants.

Among the nobles taking up the lance as part of the celebrations was King Henry II of France. Such contests were not for the faint-hearted and kings had more to prove than anyone else when it came to showing courage. Their opponents in these bouts were not expected to show any leniency just because they were facing the king and were not inclined to pull the weight of the impact of the lance. On the last day of the contest in Paris the French king was faced by a captain of his bodyguard, Count de Montgomery, a young, well-spirited soldier. On the first encounter the king received a powerful blow from Montgomery’s lance which almost threw him from his saddle. Henry demanded satisfaction and faced the captain again. As the lances crashed, a splinter from Montgomery’s penetrated the visor of Henry’s helmet and pierced one of the king’s eyes and his temple. The badly injured monarch was taken to Chateau des Tournelles to have his wounds treated. But they were worse than expected. The king hung on to life for ten days until finally he died having endured great pain all that time. Kings believed they had to show they could hold their own in these contests, regardless of the dangers. The death of Henry II was unfortunate but not an isolated event during jousts; the nobility felt it necessary to prove themselves. For example, King Henry VIII of England was an ardent jouster in his youth and in 1524 during one tournament was very nearly killed. Not unnaturally the Church condemned jousting but despite the opposition it was still practised and remained popular. A huge event with over 600 noblemen attending was arranged at Carew Castle in Pembroke in Wales to celebrate Sir Rhys ap Thomas being appointed to the Order of the Garter in 1507.

The imagery of knights on horseback jousting entered public imagination as an age of courtesans and chivalry and there was an air of romanticism concerning two knights fighting for a lady’s favour. Duels fought on horseback were among some of the earliest recorded which involved the use of pistols. The historian and author Frederick Wilkinson attributes this to the fact that large numbers of cavalrymen were armed with pistols. This may well have been the case, and certainly cavalrymen were prone to believe they were part of an elitist group. Sometimes this could be their undoing, but encounters with riders charging at one another and firing their pistols was in keeping with this idea of superiority. In truth, the chances of a mounted man hitting a target while moving, even at a gentle trot, is unlikely because the movement of the horse would not permit a steady aim to be taken. Some pistol duels were conducted on horseback in a fashion similar to the traditional joust with the barrier dividing the opponents. Some mounted duellists were known to load their pistols with several small pellets in an attempt to hit their opponent, very similar to the effect of a shotgun. It was during the early stages of the reign of King Charles I of England that one of the most unusual duels came to be fought on horseback.

Not long after his marriage to Henrietta Maria, Charles was being entertained by the Duke of Buckingham and as part of the festivities a dwarf by the name of Jeffery Hudson made his entrance by appearing from a large pie, much to the delight of Charles’s young bride. In fact, so taken was she by this man who measured only 18in high that she asked him to join the Royal Court. As protocol of the day demanded, the Duke of Buckingham, not wishing to offend his Royal guests, respected the Queen’s wishes and Hudson found himself a favourite of the Royal Court. The Queen nicknamed him ‘Lord Minimus’ and the king elected him to the rank of captain in the army. He amused his royal masters and was frequently used as a stooge for practical jokes and taunts about his size. Hudson accepted most of these in the course of good humour, but on one occasion a courtier went too far. According to the story, Hudson had been attacked by a large male turkey known as a ‘stag’ and very badly mauled by the bird. When word of the incident circulated around the court a young but portly officer called Charles Crofts made continual fun of the small man’s plight. It was no doubt the endless puns which pressed Hudson to the point of breaking and challenged the officer to a duel. Some records state the officer was called Cross and was a courtier to the queen. The turkey incident involving Hudson should also be examined in a bit more detail. If it was indeed a stag turkey it would have been a wild variety, probably from stock brought back from the New World where the first colonies were being established in America. The bird would have undoubtedly been very aggressive, nowhere near the size of modern hybrid birds which can weigh in excess of 50lb, and would have been very mobile. The turkey would have probably weighed around 20lb, but coupled with its agility, natural aggressiveness and powerful claws, which it would have used to defend itself against predators, it was no wonder that Hudson, given his small stature of only 18in, was badly hurt. Anyone of normal stature who has had the misfortune of being attacked by a large bird such as a goose, which can weigh up to 14lb and use its wings to inflict painful bruises, will readily sympathise with the ordeal the diminutive Hudson must have endured.

Crofts’ (or Cross depending on the account) remarks finally made Hudson retort by challenging him to a duel, which was something the officer did not expect. Allegedly he did not take the challenge seriously and turned up at the appointed hour unarmed. But Hudson was incensed and demanded the duel went ahead; to balance out the height difference between the two men the duel was to be fought on horseback. Crofts (or Cross) may have been an officer but Hudson too was an appointed officer by the king and, although lacking in stature, did not want for courage. At a signal the two men rode towards each other. Hudson fired, hitting his opponent in the chest and killing him. It was no mean feat of arms because firing from a moving horse to hit a moving target is very difficult. Nonetheless, his skill at arms failed to impress the king and he was banished from court. His life story in exile is extremely colourful with tales of being captured by pirates, imprisoned in Africa and other adventures along the way before returning to England more than twenty-five years after the duel. It was a much-changed country he came home to in the aftermath of the Civil War, but Jeffery Hudson has not been forgotten in Rutland where he lived in his later years; there they drink a beer named after the doughty dwarf.

Around 1650, less than one hundred years after the tragic death of King Henry II, a formal style of duelling emerged, probably from Italy and later popularised in France, with pistols eventually replacing swords. At this time Europe had just emerged from the bloody period known as the Thirty Years War (1618–48), a conflict which cost the lives of countless soldiers and civilians alike. In England the last stages of the Civil War between Parliament and the Royalist forces of King Charles I was being fought. Roaming the Continent and the British Isles were mercenaries, who were unemployed now the fighting was at an end, and soldiers whose services were no longer required. With no prospects and no pay, such itinerants took to crime and began to squabble among themselves with arguments being settled by impromptu duels.

Duelling as a form of expression may have found supporters and ardent enthusiasts but it was not wholeheartedly accepted. Emerging from the chaos of the Civil War, England was ripe for duelling with young men eager to prove themselves. Oliver Cromwell took a personal interest in the question of duelling and in June 1654 issued an edict condemning the practice. His opinions almost echoed the words of John Despagne’s work Anti-duello which had appeared in 1632 and, as the title implies, was against all forms of duelling. Cromwell declared duelling to be a ‘growing evil’ and introduced severe penalties for anyone involved in a duel in any shape or form. For accepting or issuing a challenge to duel the penalty was six months in prison without being granted bail. All challenges to duel were to be informed to the authorities within 24 hours of receiving it, and failure to do so would be seen as tantamount to accepting the challenge. Fatalities arising from a duel would be classed as murder and as such a capital offence. Anyone involved in a duel in any shape or form would forever be banished from England.

What these draconian measures did was to make it clear that it was illegal to have anything whatsoever to do with duelling. In the eyes of the law there would be no mitigating circumstances and ignorance of the law was to be no excuse. Three years earlier in 1651, Members of Parliament had proposed that duellists should have their right hand chopped off, property confiscated and exiled. The penalties of Cromwell’s laws which were passed may have been harsh but it is extremely unlikely that they stamped out duelling. The laws may actually have had the opposite effect by driving duelling underground. This is quite probable because several years later with the Restoration of the English monarchy in the form of King Charles II, following the death of Oliver Cromwell, there came a sudden outbreak of duelling. For a short period this state of affairs lingered until some semblance of calm returned as the country once more settled down after so many upheavals.

Duels had not always enjoyed the king’s toleration. For example, during the reign of James I, Charles II’s grandfather, a leading lawyer of the day, Sir Edward Coke, declared that ‘to kill a man in a duel was murder, but there was no bar to sending a challenge or acting as a second.’ King James I himself wrote a treatise against duelling and his attorney general, Francis Bacon, stated that he would prosecute should: ‘any man appoint the field, though no fight takes place; if any man accept a challenge, or consent to be a second; if any man depart the realm in order to fight; if any man revive a quarrel after the late proclamation.’ Again, strong words indeed which left no one in any doubt as to the illegality of the duel.

Royal opposition to duelling in England was made clear when King Charles II declared that any nobleman caught participating in a duel would be pursued with the ‘utmost rigours of the court’ and threatened with being excluded from the Royal Court, which was probably the worst fate which any courtier could suffer if he were seeking to advance himself. Being outside the king’s circle of favourites left one vulnerable to any plot to seize his position or money.

In Spain laws were passed to prohibit duelling dating back to 1480, almost 200 years before duelling with pistols gained a widespread following. Italy too banned duelling and in France Cardinal Richelieu and his successor Cardinal Mazzarin banned duelling and passed edicts against the practice. As early as 1609 duelling was made a capital crime in France. Richelieu personally ordered the execution of two noblemen caught duelling. Frederick the Great of Prussia joined the ranks of those heads of state determined to stamp out forever the practice. He informed the officers of his army that if any wished to duel they had to obtain permission from him. When two officers met with the intention of conducting a duel, Frederick welcomed them to the appointed place of the duel where a gibbet had been erected. He informed them that he intended to hang the survivor of the affair. But even such stern measures did not prevent duelling and officers continued to meet clandestinely, often with the active knowledge and support of their fellow officers. In view of this there was really very little a monarch could do in the way of stopping duelling, and instead had to tolerate it. Duelling may not have flourished as with other fashionable events, such as boxing or horseracing, but the fact remains it was practised and each incident had to be dealt with as it became known.

It is generally agreed that the formal duel as a means of satisfying honour originated in Italy some time in the first half of the sixteenth century. These affairs would have been conducted with swords, but as firearms spread so the trend to use pistols in duels gained fashion. These early duels with pistols were informal affairs, with the involved parties arming themselves with any pistol that was ready to hand. Over the years a ‘Code Duello’ was established, followed by a series of compiled codes and specific terms, each of which related to the conduct of a duel. They contained very precise instructions and in almost every case it was stated that a formal handwritten letter was the proper and polite etiquette when issuing a challenge to duel, for whatever reason, including an insult arising out of something even as mundane as the opinion that someone’s eating manners at the dinner table were disgusting. The code most favoured was that called the ‘cartello’, which recommended that the letter to challenge should be formal and list the facts, not contain any rudeness and be signed, dated and witnessed. This was the form of letter and apart from a few changes over the years would otherwise remain the standard communiqué between duellists. Almost 300 years after the ‘cartello’ was standardised, the appearance of The Art of Duelling in 1836 reemphasised the necessity of a formal letter when issuing a challenge. The anonymous author of the treatise points out that: ‘A man should conduct himself (however grievous the offence he has received) during the whole affair with the greatest possible politeness.’ The guideline goes on to warn that the letter should be written ‘carefully and expressed clearly; avoiding all strong language: simply stating, first, the cause of the offence; secondly, the reason why he considers it his duty to notice the affair; thirdly, the name of a friend; and lastly, requesting that a time and place may be appointed.’ For the most part such protocol had always existed, such as the letter sent by David Landale to George Morgan on 22 August 1826, ten years before the appearance of The Art of Duelling, prior to the two men meeting in their engagement to conduct the last fatal duel fought in Scotland.

As the European Continent of the seventeenth century stabilised and peace was restored, the troops returned back to their homelands, taking with them the Italian legacy of duelling. This practice spread to become established in France, England, Spain, throughout the Prussian states, and eastwards into Russia. Even small islands were not immune from the effects of duelling. On Malta in the eighteenth century it is recorded how a Knight of the Order of St John declined to participate in a duel. For refusing it is recorded how he was punished severely and eventually sentenced to life imprisonment; all for having the courage of his conviction not to duel. Even the islands of Jersey and Guernsey in the Channel Islands were affected. These islands have a long history of being garrisons for English troops and the several instances of duels on these islands invariably involved officers of different regiments. On the other side of the Atlantic, the island of Barbados in the West Indies of the Caribbean became a Crown possession in 1663, and during the American War of Independence and the Anglo-French wars the island took on a new importance as it found itself transformed into a military base. Thousands of miles away from the high society of London or other towns like Bath, the officers and men were frequently left for prolonged periods with nothing to occupy them. Boredom quickly and easily set in and solace was often found in drink. It was only to be expected, then, that trifling matters which would probably be of no consequence in the cooler climes of Europe suddenly became exaggerated points over which challenges to duel were issued. The islands of the Caribbean in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were not the romantic destinations of the twenty-first century we know today. Not for nothing were the West Indies described as the graveyard of the British Army in the 1790s. In a two-year period from 1794–6 it is recorded how the 23rd Regiment of Foot (later to become the Royal Welsh Fusiliers), lost 12 officers and 600 men to the ravages of yellow fever on the island of St Domingo. In the same period the 13th Light Dragoons lost 19 officers and 296 men from a compliment of 452 all ranks, also due to yellow fever.

With few prospects and a high mortality rate it was no wonder that men turned to drinking to while away the long hours. But the combination of alcohol and the hot tropical sun did nothing to dilute tempers in overseas garrisons. On 15 January 1811, when the fighting on the Iberian Peninsular to drive the French out of Spain and Portugal was at its height, two officers from different regiments fought a fatal duel on Barbados. Captain Broadman of the 60th Regiment (later to become the King’s Royal Rifle Corps), challenged Ensign de Betton of the Royal West Indian Rangers to a duel, ‘in which at first fire, the former was shot through the heart, and instantly expired’. Ensign de Betton fled the island never to be heard of again.

The practice of duelling found its way to India, where it was also taken up by the military who were posted there to protect England’s richest prize in the empire. Although thousands of miles from home and away from familiar surroundings, officers in India conducted themselves as though still in England. It was a strange existence and news between the countries took time to travel. In America, with its French and English settlements, the duel would, over time, evolve into a myriad of forms, but the formalised duel was the style usually conducted between antagonists, including such luminaries as the Vice-President of America, Aaron Burr; he shot dead Alexander Hamilton, his opposite number, in July 1804 during a formalised duel which included seconds in a manner worthy of European traditions.

The ‘Golden Age’ of duelling, if indeed there ever was a period which could be defined as such, has been identified by historians as flourishing in the years between the 1770s and the 1850s. One is inclined to agree with this summary because most of the significant affairs appear to have occurred during this period, and after the closing date there is a trend where duels are shown to be less frequent. To put the time span into context, this period would cover historical events from the Jacobite Rebellion in Scotland and the American War of Independence through the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars before beginning to peter out around the time of the end of the Crimean War in 1856. Such was duelling then that it existed against a backdrop of warfare which at times enveloped whole continents. The losses of troops in battle during this period were published in newspapers and the public became used to reading such news, but the mention of a duel was something entirely different. This was at home and between two men, which somehow made it more tangible and personal which people were able to relate to. Wars were distant and fought by men trained to perform such deeds; after all, they were soldiers and doing their duty. Duelling on the other hand was a matter of choice and when fought in small towns like Tenby or Haverfordwest in Wales the participants were often known to many local people, making it a much different thing altogether.

Gentlemen of the period in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were wise to be extra vigilant in keeping good manners lest they offend someone with even the most seemingly innocent word or gesture. Certainly it was the question of honour which triggered the challenge to a duel. However, some men could become serial duellists simply to prove their point. For example, one Neapolitan nobleman fought no fewer than fourteen duels simply to ‘prove’ that in his opinion Dante was a finer poet than Ariosto. It was not until he lay on his deathbed that he admitted to the fact of never having read any of the works of either poet.

Duels were frequently sparked by either alcohol or gambling, or a combination of the two. Events which culminated from such affairs did not always begin with animosity between the men who later found themselves adversaries. In October 1824 Captain Gourlay met a certain Mr Westall, whose acquaintance he had made in September that year while visiting the races at Doncaster. On this occasion the men happened to chance upon one another while taking refreshment at a public house in Edinburgh. They joined company and during the course of a few drinks Captain Gourlay reminded Westall that he was still owed the sum of 70 guineas, a not inconsiderable amount, which was outstanding from their meeting at the races the previous month. Rather than pay out the debt from his own pocket Westall suggested that a friend of his who owed him a similar amount pay Captain Gourlay in his stead and settle the matter. It seemed like a reasonable financial arrangement, but the captain would have none of it and demanded that Westall pay off the debt himself and accused him of being a cheat.

In response, the civilian called the captain a liar, whereupon the officer seized a poker and struck out at Westall. His aim was probably impaired by the amount of alcohol he had consumed and, missing Westall’s head, the blow landed on the man’s shoulder instead. Such was the force that it was several minutes before he could compose himself and repair to a small side room. Raised voices emanated and a duel was convened for the following morning of 31 October. Together with their respective seconds they met at South Queensferry where they were rowed over the river. Joining them in their passage were the doctors who had been summoned to attend the duel, making the deadly gathering complete. The two principals took up their positions and fired. It was the civilian Westall who scored by shooting dead Captain Gourlay, probably to the astonishment of all those present. The words of insult would alone have been enough to provoke a challenge to duel, and even then it may have been possible at that stage for the seconds to settle the affair without recourse to shooting. But when a physical blow was added to the insult it was guaranteed that a duel had to be called. In hindsight, if the two men had been of a sober mind there could have been in all probability an amicable solution. Theirs was not the first such meeting to be caused by alcohol, nor was it the last, but it served as another reminder of how quickly things could change and duels could be fought.

The following year, in 1825, Bernard Blackmantle wrote in The English Spy: ‘The practice of duelling has become almost a profession and the privacy with which it is of necessity conducted renders it always subject to suspicion.’ Duels were often conducted in the early hours of the morning or in the evening when there were very few people about. They were usually held at places which were rarely frequented and in this respect duels resembled some sort of gathering by a secret society. Yet somehow, despite all the secrecy, news of a duel ended up in the pages of the newspapers. The story was often ‘leaked’ by a witness – usually one of the seconds. John Ker, who had served as the second to Sir Francis Burdett in his duel against James Paull, wrote of the encounter, details of which later appeared in a newspaper:

I should observe, that while they were waiting for the signal, I observed that Sir Francis held his arm raised, and his pistol pointed towards Mr Paull. Knowing that this was not with the view of taking any unfair advantage, but the effect of accident, I said, ‘Burdett, don’t take aim; I am sure you are not doing so, drop your arm, as you see Mr Paull has his pistol pointed downwards’. Mr Paull then asked me why I advised Sir Francis not to take aim? I said, anyone might see that I could only mean for him not to take aim, or prepare to do so, before the signal, and from desire to see that they were on equal terms.

Such accounts gripped the reading public in local newspapers and the more widely distributed national newspapers. The British Code of Duel