The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-15 00:00:00

did believe, with men of true courage and true honour,
would always be preferred to duelling. But how
were they to enforce the authority of such a court ?
—(Hear, hear.) Suppose the offence to have been
the greatest which a man can receive, the offence of
threatening, such as the holding of a whip in a me-
nacing position. No one would deny that this was
wounding to the feelings, and that it was intended to
be so. Well, an appeal is made to the court of ho-
nour, and the court says to the party, " the insult
was unmerited, and you must make some reparation."
But suppose the man who offered the offence refuses
to make reparation, how will you proceed in the case?
(Hear, hear.) By imprisonment or fine?—(Hear,
hear.) It will be necessary to provide very minute
regulations for the purpose of enabling the tribunal
to enforce its authority ; and, after all, if the party
does not submit to it, what reparation is there for
wounded feelings ?—(Hear, hear.) He was very much
afraid that a tribunal of this description would be
wholly ineffectual. Now, he must say that her Ma-
jesty's Government, believing that the tendency of
society was adverse to duelling, believing that it was on
the decline, and that the juries by whom the law was
to be executed would execute it in a very
different spirit from that which had hitherto
charaCterised them ; believing that any law which they
might pass on the subject would be ineffectual, unless
they provided some means of procuring evidence which
did not now exist, did not think it advisable in
the present state of things to introduce any legislative
measure upon this subject. The House must recol-
lect that the offence of duelling was an offence com-
mitted by a man who, in vindication of his honour,
was already prepared to act in defiance of the law.
He did violate the law of God; he did risk his own
life. They were told to make the punishment trans-
portation. He did not think that the fear of convie-
tion ever deterred a party from appealing to the
laws of honour.—(Hear.) Nor did he think that
the fear of transportation would be more effectual.
There was not, asyet, such a change of pnblic opinion
on the subject as would prevent the party convicted
froni being in some degree an object of public sym-
pathy. He thought the fact that 360 persons of high
honour, including 13 Admirals. and several Generals,
men most distinguished in •their professions, had
come forward to discountenance duelling, would be a
snore effectual discouragement to it than any legis-
lation. The declaration of men of the highest honour,
notorious for courage, that they would not give'or
accept challenges—that they would seek any other
mode of procuring reparation for an insult than that
of an appeal to arms—by producing an alteration in
public feeling, was far more likely to check duelling
than any attempt at legislation. These were the
grounds which induced her Majesty's Government to
abstain at the present time from proposing any law
on the subject. Though they would not refuse to give
a fair consideration to any proposal which might be
made, he rather deprecated the attempt. He saw
the indications of the public mind ; he saw the feel-
ings expressed in consequence of the last duel by the
representatives of public opinion ; he saw the combi-
nations of honourable men against duelling. His own
impression was rather in favour of permitting the flow
of this current of public opinion, and he was fearful
of checking that flow by unnecessary or precipitate
legislation. There were certain departments of the
military and naval services with respect to which
her Majesty's Government had devised regu-
lations which would show that they were
not indifferent to the subject, although
they were opposed to direct legislation. Whatever
might be the views of the House of Commons as to
the policy or the efficacy of legislation, he hoped that
they would at least concur with him as to the impolicy
of establishing the precedent which the Hon. Gen-
tleman asked them to establish by passing a resolu-
tion declaratory of what was or was not in conformity
with the Divine command.—L(Hear, hear.) He
trusted the House would weigh well the possible
consequences of such an interference ; that they
would consider the danger of the precedes 4 and the
possibility of proving that their authority was inef-
fectual ; and that they would discourage the attempt
to denounce offences by means of resolutions.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR said that, with
regard to the resolution then before the House, he
was perfectly ready to admit that Hon. Members
might oppose it, without being subjected to the im-
putation that they approved of the system of duel-
ling. His view of the resolution was that it was a
means of asking the House whether it agreed in the
system it enunciated, and, if so, whether it was dis-
posed to follow it up by legislation on the subject.
He confessed he was one of those who thought that
legislation might be advantageously proceeded with.
The reason why this barbarous practice of duelling
had so long prevailed was—that a person avoiding a
duel, or not giving: a challenge under certain circum-
stances, was looked. upon as one to associate with
whom was not reputable: But this opinion was fast
being obliterated, and better and higher principles
prevailed in the governance and regulations of society.
And when he found so many men in that House,
distinguished by their position and their undoubted
courage, denouncing this practice, he must say he
entertained strong hopes that it would gradually fall
into desuetude. He could not, however, understand
that new regulations, with regard to this practice,
were to be framed for the members of the army
on actual service, which were not to be
applicable to those on half-pay, or to the navy, or to
civilians. He thought that the proposal to make
duelling a transportable offence was too severe a one.
In his opinion of the members of the army and navy,
and persons employed in the service of the Crown,
were deprived, for a time, of their appointments, and
if civilians were deprived, also for a time, of their
civil rights, the evil they so much deprecated might
be at once greatly abated, if not wholly put an
end to,

Mr..IIUME said he was of opinion that in the
present state of society the question did not admit of
legislation—they could not put an end to the system
of duelling. Although he was prepared to vote for
the resolution, he still thought that a more appro-
priate one might have been submitted to the House.
Had, ' for instance, a resolution been brought
forward simply "denouncing the practice as bar-
barous, and pledging Members to do all in
their power to discourage it, he thought it would have
commanded a greater unanimity of opinion. Such a
resolution-too might have strengthened the hands of
the Government ; for as all who had spoken in that
House upon the subject had deprecated the practice
of duelling, it must have passed unanimously, and so
have afforded great weight to the responsible servants
of the Crown in any steps they were now or hereafter
to take. If the Ministers were only to advise the
Queen to make a declaration that hereafter no person,
whatever his rank, station or property, should be
capable of holding any office under the Crown, after
he should, have been engaged in a duel, the practice
he was sure would very soon be given up by all.classes.
Mr. PLUMPTRE - said the resolution was not
worded in the best way possible ; but as he had no
other mode of showing his opinion upon the subject
he should vote with the Hon. Member for Truro,
if he should think proper to go to a division.
Mr. WARBURTON hoped the Hon. Member
would withdraw his resolution; more especially as he
had received from the expression of opinion on all
sides of the House the most sufficient condemnation
of the practice of duelling. He could not see, after
this, what he could possibly gain by pressing the reso-
lution further. If he did so press it, he must vote
against him, althoUgh. it would be contrary to his
wishes and opinions on the subject. To save himself
and the House, however, from an embarrassing posi-
tion, he should move the previous question in case the
resolution were persisted in.
Mr. BROTHERTON also hoped the resolution
would be withdrawn. He quite agreed with the
Right Hon. 'Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that it was better
that the House should not be called on to give opinions
as to what was or what was not seemly and accept-
able
in the eye of God.—(Hear.). He further agreed
with that Rigit Hon. Gentleman, that whatever was
to be done in the matter must be effected by public
opinion. This was called a Christian country, and
when we had a Christian people as inhabitants
of it, then this most wicked practice would cease.
He thought considerable good would accrue from the
strong. denunciations of duelling which had fallen
from so many men of high standing in society, and
of undoubted courage. One great source of this
evil was, that persons were afraid to refuse a chal-
lenge, from fear of being thought wanting in
courage. Now, in his (Mr. Brotherton's) opinion,
true courage. consisted in not being Afraid .to be
thought afraid—in having the courage plainly to
say, « I will not not be guilty of this great sin."—
(Hear.) If that House hoped to do any good, it
would not be by a mere resolution, but by a Bill; and
they must try people at the Old Bailey, and cause them
to be punished and imprisoned not only for killing
people in duels, but for fighting at 'all, for sending a
challenge, or for being a party to the sending of a
challenge. He thought, however' the better course
at the present moment would be for the House not to
interfere at all upon the subject, but to leave it to pub-
lic oPinion and to the example of the higher members
of society for correction.
Sir T. D. ACLAND must add his request that the
motion should be withdrawn, for the sake of the great
object he had at heart, not more so, he was sure, than
the great majority of non. Members around him.—
(Hear, hear.) Should the motion be persisted in, he
must vote for the previous question; but he hoped
this would not occur, as the public did not understand
the technical, distinctions and the i iceties of that
House, and might suppose that they were refusing.to
condemn duelling, wheh,—in fact, they were most
anxious for its suppreision. He, for one, had long
entertained strong opinions upon the subject, and
sincerely trusted that his own country might have the
honour, in taking the lead in doing away with such a
barbarity. The wisest thing that now could be done,
after the ,very ,useful discussion that had taken place,
I would be to withdraw the motiorr.--- If -this-Was-re