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

DUELLING.

Mr. TURNER then rose to move a resolution ,
" That duelling is immoral in its tendency, that it
brings into contempt the laws of the country, is
contrary to Divine command, and ought to be abo-
lished." The Hon. Gentleman said he regretted
very much that after the declaration that had been
made in her Majesty's speech the Government had not
tal en some step, or introduced some measure, to put
down this disgraceful practice. A Bill had been
brought into that House in the year 1713, after
the duel between Lord Hamilton and Lord
Mohun, and in which both lost their lives, in order
to suppress duelling, but that Bill did not pas.s a se-
cond reading. He thought the practice of duelling
should be as rigidly discountenanced among civilians
as in the army. It was not so difficult to make the
law understood, and if once understood it would be
followed. He had in vain searched in many works of
eminence, and in every statute, for any countenance
to duelling—whenever it was practised it was men-
tioned in condemnation. The Hon. Member for
Salford said a few nights ago that duelling had been
created by public opinion, and by public opinion it
would be suppressed. But why should the evil be
allowed to remain so long unremedieel ? If the pre-
sent Government brought in a Bill for its suppression,
brief in its nature and peremptory in its provisions,
duelling would at once cease, and the Right. Hon.
Gentleman would have conferred a great benefit on
the country. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted the
observations of Paley, who stated that duelling was
murder, and should be dealt with as such. No man
had a right to take away the life of another, except
by public authority and for the public good. Some
years ago Colonel Thomas, of the Guards, was shot
in a duel, and in his pocket after his death was found
a document, written the very evening before the duel,
of which the following was an extract :—" J am mo-
rally and religiously oppo=ed to duelling.- It does
not prove that one is a gentleman, nor that he is brave,
nor does it afford satisfaction for an insult. Almost
any man has physical courage enough to fight a
duel, but few, alas, may have courage enough
to stem the tide of public acorn." Few there were,
indeed, said the Hon. Gentleman, that would attempt
to face public scorn. In a church-yard, near the
village of Chard, in Dorsotshire, an officer was buried,
who had fought for his country in eighteen -engage-
ments and died in a duel. Ile was glad to say, and
the country would be glad to learn, that there was a
society established for the discountenancing of duelling,
consisting of 349 members, 13 of whom were ad-
mirals, 67 field-officers, 36 captains in the army, 4
lieutenants, 32 captains in the navy, 17 lieutenants in
the navy, 30 noblemen, 14 Members of Parliament,
and 141 civilians • but he regretted to say there was
but 1 clergyman Of the Church of England a member.
Viscount EBRINGTON—That is owing to a
particular reason.

Mr. TURNER was glad to hear the Noble Lord
say so. He was well aware that the authorities that
might be brought forward would be of that character
that might require more able advocates than himself ;
but, in all he had said, he strictly adhered to the facts
that had been brought before him.—(Hear, hear.)
It had been said that it was not difficult to
abate the nuisance ; means had been adopted in
other countries, which, he believed, would soon put
an end to it. In his opinion, the punishment
was far too great, and the consequence of that was
that juries often gave verdicts which they would not
have done, and that many persons were acquitted who
were guilty of duelling. He thought that the law
ought to be so framed, that parties ought to be pu-
nished not only for fighting a duel, but for exciting
others to do so. He believed that that House would
not do its duty until it enacted some law to do away
with duelling. He would read them a letter from a
constituent of his, who did not n t give him his name,
but, if he knew him, he believed him to be as brave
an officer as any in her Majesty's navy. He said
that he (Mr. Turner) ought to push the government
on, if it was sincere in its desire to abolish duelling.
They ought to issue a public notice to the army and
navy, that any officer taking part in a doe] hereafter,
either as principal or second, should be removed from
her Majesty'S service, and that no pension should be
granted to the widow of any officer losing his life in
a duel. Such an order would put an end to this foolish
practice. He would say nothing about the pension
to Mrs. Fawcett; he decidedly agreed, with regard to
it, with the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland.
He thought they would be justified in refusing that
pension, provided they brought in a law prohibiting
the practice. He did hope that some means would be
devised, not only with regard to that unfortunate lady,
but that some mitigating circumstances with regard
to the conduct of Lieut. Munro would be taken into
the consideration of the Government. The remarks
of the Hon. and Gallant Secretary of War applied
only to officers of the army ; but he had from the cor-
respondent he had before cited received a letter asking
why the order should not be applied also to the. navy,
and all the civil departments of the Queen's service,
including the Privy Council.—(Hear, hear.) 'Who
were those who sanctioned this practice with their
high example ? They were not officers of the army
or navy ; there were names who sanctioned the prac-
tice not belonging to either. There were many Mi-
nisters of the Crown who had been parties to duels.
He had long thought that the public press ought to ad-
vocate the abolition of this practice. He held in his
hand a rather singular document respecting the
public press and this question. It had been said that
the practice was fast drawing to a close ; but he found
that it was not so. He must go back for his -purpose
to the whole reign of George the Third. During that
reign there were 172 duels, in which 69 persons were
killed, the whole number of peisons punished were two,
who were executed. The state' of the law was actu-
ally a premium on the practice ; its severity pre-
vented it from being put in force. They tried for the
crime, but they never convicted for it. It had been
stated that duelling was lessening in frequency.
During the last twenty years there had been on an
average more duels than during the reign of
George lll.—(The Hon. Member here read a long
extract from the Standard, of the year 1858, on the
subject of duelling, amid loud cries of " Move,
move.") He then alluded to what had been done by
Lord Fortescue, when he was Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland. He issued an order, threatening with dis-
missal any officer who should give or accept a chal-
lenge, or be directly or indirectly concerned in a duel.
It was impossible such a system could be tolerated.
This document showed that Earl Fortescue was de-
termined to shut out from employment any officer
who should send or accept any challenge. He thought
that some Act might be devised by which comfort
might be given both to Mrs. Fawcett and Mrs.
Munro. He would, as in a recent instance, pass an
Act of Oblivion up to the date of the late duel. He
would give Mrs. Fawcett a pension as an act of grace,
not as one of right, and he would then pass an Act
which would render the punishment for duelling more
certain and more expeditious. He had every hope
that such an Act might be devised, and the Govern-
ment which would bring such an Act forward would
do themselves great honour, as would the House if it
passed such an Act. The Hon. Gentleman concluded
by moving the following resolution :—" That duelling
*is immoral in its tendency, that it brings into con-
tempt the laws of the country, is contrary to Divine
command, and ought to be abolished."
Mr. EIVART said it appeared to him that what
they wanted upon this subject was
_practice legisla-
tion. He thought no person would be_ disposed to
dispute the general maxims of the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down. The practice was now uni-
versally condemned. As far as he could gather from
the observations of the Hon. Gentleman he would
inflict a punishment, probably transportation, on
those who were guilty of duelling, but he would
retain capital punishment for those who fought with-
out seconds. He (Mr. Ewart) was averse to all
capital punishment, and least of all ought it to be re-
tained as a punishment where it appeared that the par-
ties fought under excitement. Those were more
guilty, even in the eye of law, who went out to fight
with premeditation, and with seconds. The remedy
proposed by the Hon. Gentleman would not come up
to the public opinion upon the subject. It was the
premeditation which constituted the murder. He
believed that the last instance of a person being exe-
cuted for the slaying of another in a duel, was that of
Colonel Campbell, which occurred in 1808. He
thought that a punishment might be devised to put
an end to the practice of duelling without having re-
course to capital punishment. The state of the law
fluctuated between two extremes, that of a possibility
of an execution by the law against murder, and that
of the parties escaping with total impunity though
guilty of a premeditated attempt to take away life.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought that there was a resting-
place between the two extremes, and that a punish-
ment varying between an imprisonment for two years
and transportation for fourteen years, according to
the discretion of the judge, would be adequate to sup-
press the practice of duelling. At all events he
thought that some punishment short of capital punish-
ment might be devised. He would propose that the
Right Hon. Gentleman, or some other Member of the
Government, should give them that practical informa-
tion on the subject, without which it- would be im-

possible for them to take any practical steps in legis-
tion.
Mr. COWPER said he proposed to consider the
subject in a practical point of view. The two Hon.
Members who spoke on this subject seemed only to
consider what the Legislature could do to suppress
the practice of duelling by means of punishment.
Now he could not help thinking that the continuance
of the absurd practice of duelling was to be attributed
to the deficiency of the law. The practice originated
in barbarous times, when persons, being ignorant of
the rules of evidence, had recourse to it under the be-
lief that a supernatural agency would intervene to

% I

decide upon the guilt or innocence of the contend-
ing parties. It was first introduced in the sth cen-
tury, by the Burgundians, in order to supply the de-
ficiency of the law. The courts of law, which were
the vindices injuriarwn, provided remedies for offences
against the person and against property, but where a
man's honour was attacked no remedy was provided.
There were a thousand ways in which a mans honour
might be so impugned that he could not sit tamely
by and endure the imputations cast upon him for
which the law ought to provide a remedy, but it had
not done so. There were codes of honour regulating

the practice of duelling, but it was evidently an ah--
surd practice, for it made no distinction between
guilt and innocence. He was aware that some per-
sons cast ridicule on courts of honour, but they
*ere established in many countries, and were found
to be of advantage. In the army of the Emperor of
Russia no officer could . fight a duel without having
recourse to a court of honour; and in former times
in this country there was a tribunal of a somewhat
similar nature, namely the court of chiihlry. Judge
Blackstone said that duelling would not be put an end
to till some means was devised which would, in the
eyes of society, give an injured person equal repara-
tion to what a recourse to duelling was now supposed
to afford. He thought that if a court like that to
which he had alluded were established it would ac-
complish this object. The nature of every quarrel
would be brought before such a court, and the judges
might draw up such an apology for the insult offered
as they would deem adequate ; and if the offending
party refused to make the apology, the facts would be
published, and the injured individual ' would
thereby be righted in public opinion.-(Hear.)
If the Government are really anxious to put an end
to duelling, he believed that means could be devised
for effecting that object. He would suggest the ap-
pointment of a court of honour; a jury might be
selected who were as nearly equal as possible in sta-
tion • to the parties concerned, and who would there-
fore be able to decide in a satisfactorily manner upon
the question brought before them.
Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Gentleman proposed
that the House should pass a resolution declaring
" That duelling is immoral in its tendency, that it
brings into contempt the laws of the country, is con-
trary to Divine command, and ought to be abolished."
He hoped that the House would pause before it dealt
with offences by means of resolutions.—(Hear, hear.)
It was a dangerous precedent for them to establish to
decide what was or was not in conformity with the
Divine command.—(Hear, hear.) It was an easy
and compendious way of dealing with criminal
offences. Their proper province was to prohibit by
legislation that which they thought ought to be pro-
hibited, and it was a dangerous example to establish
to denounce by resolution that which, in their judg-
ment; ought to be suppressed.—(Hear, hear.) If
resolutions were not effectual for their purpose, if
they were "practically diiregarded, and they had no
power of carrying them into - effect, the passing of
them could not but tend to lower their character as a
Legislature. Let them suppose that they passed this
resolution.. How were they to- enforce it ?—(Hear,
hear.) In the casenf'officers in the public employ,
and Servants of the Crown, it 'might be possible to
exercise some influence
_; but how very small a pro-
'portion of society was amenable to this species of
control. The great mass'of men would be perfectly
unaffected by a resolution, and if they failed in their
object, they would not only- establish a noxious pre-
cedent in undertaking to determine by resolution what
was or was not an offence in-law, and, above all, what
was contrary to the Divine 'command ; but they would
give a practical proof that their: authority was inef-
fectual.—(Hear, hear.) Upon this general ground,
therefore, applicable not only toduelling but to offi-
cers of every description, he deprecated the denounc-
ing of certain acts by resolution§ Of that House. But
the Hon. Gentleman who• had proposed the reso-
lution' said it was his intention to bring in
a Bill on this subject. If' he contemplated the pos-
sibility of dealing effectually with this offence by
means of an enactment, why did he preface his mo-
tion for leave to bring in a Bill by a resolution ?
(Hear, hear.) If legislation ;Could be effectual, the
resolution was unn'ecessary.z--(Hear, hear.) If the
Hon. Gentleman, havingpassed his resolution, should
proCeed to legislate, and- should fail in . legislating
effectually, he thought his resolution would stand in
a rather awkward.position, through his being unable
to give effect to it by any substantive enactment.—
(Hear, hear.) Taking either alternative, therefore,
he ' did not. see what they could gain by pass-
ing ' this resolution. Having made these re-
Marks, he must say that he thought the mat-
• ter was one deserving of the most serious considera-
tion, and that if any remedy could be applied, it
was the duty of that House to give the subject their
best attention.—(Hear, hear.) And if the Hon.
Gentleman would, upon a future night, submit to
them his plans with respect to legislation in the
shape of a Bill, he would undertake to say that no
impediment should be offered to its introduction,
though he must of course reserve to himself the full
discretion of forming an opinion as to the policy of
'the measure which might be proposed. The speech
of the Hon. Gentleman had not diminished the doubts
which he entertained as to the probability of success.
—(Hear, hear.) He had only shadowed forth the
enactments which he thought might be effectual.
. The first was a law providing that in no case should
capital punishment attach to duelling, excepting where
two persons fought without seconds. Now that pro-
posal only deepened the impression which he enter-
tamed as to the extreme difficulty of dealing with sub-
jects of this nature by means of legislation.—(Hear,
.hear.) He 'was very much afraid of adopting any
legislation which should appear to give a sanction to
duelling, however it might be conducted.—(Hear,
hear.) If the good sense and the moral feeling of
society were opposed to duclfing—if there were a
diminution of the practice—he was afraid lest they
should encourage by legislation that which the- tone
of socity was practically prohibiting.—(Hear, hear.)
Suppose they were to pass the law to which the
Hon. Gentleman had referred—suppose they were to
declare, that if in the heat of excitement, if in a mo-
ment of irritation, pistols being within reach, parties
should fight a duel, they should be liable to punish
ment, whilst those who went home, deliberately, se-
lected their seconds, and fought according to
prescribed usages should be excused, it would
be very difficult to pass such a law with-
out appearing to lend an implied sanction to the
practice of duelling, when conducted accord-
ing to established rule.—(Hear, hear.) Ger-
' tainly the- policy and the principles of English law
viewed with comparative indulgence the man who
gave way to the influence of passion. Take the case
of Lord Byron and Mr. Charlton, who retired im-
mediately, without seconds, in consequence of a dis-
pute. The law would view with more toleration an
offence committed in the heat of passion, than the de-
liberate appeal to seconds, and a duel fought, after wait-
ing three days, according to rule. The tone of society
Might have great influence in this matter; but when
they were dealing on such a subject by 'legislation,
it was exceedingly difficult to enact that, under cer-
tain circumstances, favour should be shown, without
appearing to imply an opinion that the practice under
those circumstances, was entitled to indulgence.—
(Hear, hear.) The very mention of seconds in the
Act of Parliament must have that effect. An Act of
Parliament on the subject must be drawn up techni-
cally, and construed literally ; and to use such words
as principal and seconds in the manner that he
had mentioned would have an opposite effect tp that
which was intended. Now there was another sug-
gestion made by the Hon. Gentleman, to which he
thought all solvent men would object.—(Laughter.)
He proposed that if a man fell in a duel the surviving
antagonist should be liable to pay his debts.—
(Laughter.) Now that proposal was certainly more
favourable to the man who was extensively in debt
,than to the man who had no debts to discharge.
With regard to another motive for duelling, he thought
the crime was now almost at in end. The most pesti-
lent man now in society was the than who attempted
to make a reputation by duelling-1-(Hear, hear)—and
it very often happened that this man
was, in truth,
the greatest coward. He thought 'society would now
treat this class of persons with
If, contempt,rather than
hold them in admiration.however,
ey said that
a party should be liableto pay the debts tof the person
whom he had slaughtered, all he could say was that
he who wanted to establish a reputation by duelling
would take care to select as his antagonist a man
who was perfectly solvent. When the Honourable
Gentleman mentioned this as an enactment which
was likely to be effectual, he must say that,
• it did not increase his confidence in the ef-
ficiency of legislation. Now these were the only
two enactments which the Hon. Gentleman had
suggested. With respect to the proposal of the Hon.
Gentleman who spoke last—the establishment of a
court of honour—he was afraid that there would be
great difficulties in giving any legislative sanction to
an institution of that description. It might be a false
notion of honour, but he thought they would find it
impossible to induce gentlemen to seek by such means
reparation for an offence which had wounded their
feelings. He thought it would be much better to ap-
peal to the honourable feelings of the man who had
offered the offence than to any other parties. He
thought it was' much more probable, in the present
state of society, that if an offence had been offered in
a moment of heat the party offering it would yield to
an appeal to' admit that he was wrong, in order to
prevent the necessity of any further appeal, than that
an,amicable settlement of the dispute would be se-
cured by an appeal.to a court of honour. In ancient
times he believed there were courts of chivalry to
which appeals ofthis nature were' made ; but in those
times certain regulations were enacted for the conduct
of duels, which were afterwards abolished—(Hear)--
and although a court of honour was recognised at'
former periods, he did not think that it could be
transferred to our own times, and he was very much
afraid that the institutions of such a Court would
tend to prevent that Amicable settlement which he

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 convic-
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, as yet, such a change of public opinion
on the subject as would prevent the party convicted
fro% 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
more 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 4he 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 flaw
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.—(Hear, hear.) Be
trusted the House would weigh well the possible
consequences .of such an interference ; that they
would consider the danger of the precedent 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. HUME 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
be 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 Right Hon. Gentleman, that whatever was
to be done in the matter must e 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.
e
(Hear.) If that House hoped to do any good, it
would not be by
opal eat the Old
mere
resolution, but by a Bill; and
tthoeybempuustntirj people
and
imprisoned Bailey,n oy
t nnl and cause them
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?.
lie 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 Hon. Members around
(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 ticeties of that
Hoine, and might suppose that they were refusing to
condemn duelling, when, in fact, they were most
anxious for its suppression. 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,
would be to withdraw the motion, If thisswe.s re.