The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-12 00:00:00

l

rerasz4e4 partially passive under all the Lasluttatiott
considerable time. I told him that it was to fisult of Tula*
that the powers of attorney that he had sent to me retire de=
fective, or the title-deeds faulty'; that I had never Fliirged
him a farthing for the expenses I had been put to in his
account, and I tried to get him off the subject of theZ4„htit.
he kept perpetually and violently returning to it, and Winn-
g me as pointedly as he could for all that was wronviboutVy
the delay in the sale of the house ; the consciousness
most zealous, fortunate, and unwearied exertions in hi -e-chlcjmaael=
your made me doubt for a long thus if he could really m
what he said; at last I observed, Well, Fawcett, this is a
very different return from what I expected, for I have at-
tended to your interests as I never did to my own. I have
served you as no other man could have clone, and you have
frequently insinuated that I neglected your affairs or interest
when you were absent.' He replied loudly, I did not, Sir.'
I'answered, You did, or I understood you to do so.' Ho
violently answered, A flat contradiction I will bear from no
man ;' he rang the bell (he was during the whole of the
above time, or nearly so, walking hurriedly about the
room), opened the door before the servant could answer
to the bell, and called out in a rage, 'Open the door, and
keep it open until Mr. Munro is turned out of the house.'
I was so confounded by the unexpected and unnecessary
violeece of the act, with the recklessness and ingratitude
evinced by it, that I did not know what to do, or what to
say; but I remained for a few minutes and then went away,
nearly distracted with the cruel and gross insult put ur.on
me bya person whom I had rendered such services to ; and
supposing that I might be spurned for permitting it, I re-
turned and said, that if it had not been for the connexion
that existed between us, and the unseemly nature of such a
proceeding, I would bring him to account for it, or have
re-
sented it upon the spot. He replied that as to the connexion,
he wished never to hear of it again, and hoped that it would
not prevent me from doing what I referred to. I then went
away. Upon the following morning I took the opinion of an
officer of acknowledged judgment, and upwards of thirty
years' standing in the army, upon the unfortunate occur-,
rence. He said, that during the course of his service he had
never heard of se gross an outrage, and that, as a British
officer upon full pay, I had no alternative whatever but
what was usual, viz., an apology or a meeting. I then called
upon Mr. Grant, and took him with me to consult with a
friend of much experience in these unhappy affairs. His
opinion entirely coincided with thst of my other friend; but
lie said he would take the advice of a General officer about it,
whose reply was, that no officer holding her Majesty's com-
mission could possibly exist under such an insult. In the
course of the same day, I took the opinions of three other
friends (all officers, or having been in the army) ; they all
said, that however lamentable the proceeding was, I was com-
pelled to uphold the honour of the station I held in the service
at the hazard of my life. I hoped that one word of regret might
have been expressed for the wanton and gross insult put upon
me ; but none would be given, and a meeting was proposed that
day by Lieutenant-Colonel Fawcett, to which Mr. Grant
objected. When I found, late in the evening of the 30th of
June, that no amicable arrangement was likely to be come
to, although I had left the affair entirely in the hands,of my
seconds, I wrote a note, recommending my wife and children
to the care of some friends ; and also a paper (which I signed
in the presence of two witnesses), declaring that I most
deeply deplored being obliged to go out with Lieutenant-
Colonel Fawcett., and that, from eircumstances.over which'l
had no control, I was forced to do so. I most earnestly
desired that some arrangement might be come to the follow-
ing morning, and I made three appeals to Mr. Grant upon
the ground with that view, saying each time, Good God,
Grant, can nothing be done to stop this dreadful affair from
going on ?' but it appears lie was so obstinately and violently
received the day before by Lieutenant-Colonel Fawcett, that
he had no hope of coming to a friendly understanding. It
would be both imprudent and improper for me to proceed
further with the details of this most melancholy transaction ;
but I think I have said enough to convince most fair thinking
men that I am much more to be sympathised with than
blamed for what. has happened. I now think that the quarrel
was premeditated, and there were circumstances of so . incre-
dible a nature connected with it, that I cannot even allude to
them ; but I will say that I have strong reasons to believe
that most diabolical means were used to produce a quarrel
between my lamented and gallant connexion and myself,
and to prevent a reconciliation ; I am certain that he would
not have otherwise behaved to me as he did.
"As I have been forced to enter upon the above most
painful subject, I hope in allusion to my own humble qualifi-
cations that I may be excused for stating that a great many
suggestions of mine have been introduced (through officers of
high rank and standing in the service) into the cavalry re-
gulations, and that they have tended considerably to simplify
the cavalry exercise; and I will also venture to add that,
although I have not had the good fortune to have served my
Queen and country in action, my father has distinguished
himself by acts of great daring at most critical moments, and
that he has received several.severe wounds iii the service of
his country.
" I also beg leave to state that I believe that every officer,
non-commissioned officer, and trooper of the Royal Horse
Guards feels for my misfortunes; and I also beg to refer you
to Colonel Baillie, the Lord-Lieutenant of the county in which
I was born and bred (Ross-shire), to inform you how my
countrymen feel for me, and for their opinions as to my being
capable of conceiving, much less perpetrating, the detestable
and abominable crime with which I am charged.
" I am not in a situation to be capable of judging correctly
as to the propriety of publishing the whole of this letter; but
I will leave that entirely to your consideration; neither will
I venture to offer any apology for the liberty of addressing
you as I have done, for misfortune to the generous, particu-
larly if unmerited, is a sufficient passport at all times.
" I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient humble
servant, " A. T. MUNRO.
" The lion. T. S. Duncombe, M.P. for Finsbury."

DUELLING.

Mr. Turner having asked whether Ministers intended
to introduce any measure for the prevention of duelling,
Sir Robert Peel stated his reasons for thinking that
alterations of the law would not correct the evil, but
that her Majesty's Government had, during the recess,
availed themselves of an opportunity of exercising their
influence and authority in discouraging the practice as
for as they could. He then referred to the case of the
late Colonel Fawcett—
" The officer who lost his life was a man of great
military reputation, and had distinguished himself in the
service of his country; lie was unfortunately killed in a
duel; and when his widow applied for that pension to
which she would have been entitled had he lost his life
in any other way than by the hand of his adversary, her
Majesty's Government felt themselves compelled to
refuse to grant the pension. With respect to the sur-
vivor, as that officer did not come forward after a lapse
of time sufficient to allow public feeling to subside, and
meet the charge upon a fair trial, he was superseded.
The widow of the deceased officer having been refused
the pension, and the survivor superseded, he thought her
Majesty's Government had sufficiently evinced their
willingness to exercise their legitimate power and in-
fluence against the practice of duelling."
We see in this instance the eminent prudence of Sir
Robert Peel, and how in the safest way he avails him-
self of an opportunity of exercising the influence and au-
thority of the Government for the discouragement of
duelling, by cutting off a widow's pension.
If th punishment may seem in this case not to fall
exactly on the right person, yet it is to be remarked that
it falls on one who is unable to complain, or to be trou-
blesome, which is a great point in these matters.
Who so good to begin with as a sufferer for duelling
as a widow ? She had lost her husband by the bad
practice, and let her lose her bread too, adds Sir Robert
Peel. Fill up the cup of her affliction, so short of its
measure, and add pecuniary distress to the sorrows of
the bereaved.

And the Prime Minister proclaims with pride that he
had, during the recess, at his leisure, seized this
opportunity of exercising the influence and autho-
rity of Government in discouraging duelling ? Why,
more cold-blooded, more barbarous than the practice
itself, is this punishment of it in the person of the suf-
ferer the most to be pitied.
And ho imposes this cruel penalty? Sir Robert
Peel, who has, we believe, fought a duel, and who, we
all know, has shown great eagerness to fight when-
ever occasion has offered, and who has sent several
challenges.

At the head of the military administration, too, is tho
Duke of Wellington, who went out w ith Lord Wincidl-
,ea, mot,rho intit4 have atctred in the resolation of the
taking away Mrs. Fast ea tt'6 pension.
Another member of the Government, Sir H. bar-
dingo, is always ready to have recourse to the pistol ;
and there was the Irish Attorney-General the other
day, with his soul in arms and eager for the fray, whose
explanation of the provocation which caused him to send
a challenge was received with loud cheers by the men
who cut off the widow's pension because her unfortunate
husband had obeyed the same impulses.
Lord Cardigan wounded a brother officer in a duel;
he was tried for it in the House of Lords, acquitted of
the notorious facts upon a quibble, complimented by the
Chief Justice acting as Lord Steward, and cheered by
the House of Legislators.
But yet it is excellent to take away the pension of a
widow whose husband has fallen in a duel. Had he re-
fused the challenge, he would have been disgraced in
th.. service, and deprived of his commis.-ion; hating been
killed, according to the so-called laws of honour, his
widow is to be deprived of her pittance.
Suppose that such men as Lord Cardigan and the
Irish Attorney-General had been removed from their
respective appointments for the offence of sending
oexfoerrcitshine
challenges, would not this have been a more effective
a
gretplireesinssfliuonenocfe danuedllauthority
Governmentofildthjuet m de of
taking away the widow's pension ? But these gentle-
men would not be quiet sufferers, and the widow was a
safer victim—so unresisting, indeed, that her punish-
ment would not have been known but for the boast of
the great man who inflicted it, and who prided himself on
having exercised his influence and authority so rigo—
rously on this bruised reed.
For our own parts, we cannot but think that punish-
ment should fall rather on the parties in this offence
than on the greatest sufferers by it ; and we do not agree
with Sir Robert Peel that the powers of the law could
not be brought to bear on the practice. The law aims
too high ; the criminal penalty will not be enforced ; but
one of a more moderate nature would carry public feel-
ing with it.
In France there is a civil remedy. A widow, a son,
or daughter, may proceed for damages against the
duellist who has deprived them of their supporter ; and
this has been found to check duelling very materially
amongst the people who were most addicted to it.
A life insurance is void by death in a duel ; but if
there were the remedy of damages for killing the prop
of a family, the aim of a duellist would be very consi-
berably influenced by the consideration that, in levelling
his pistol at his antagonist's head or heart, he was also.
making a sad hole in his own pocket.
If a man, before he s. nt a challenge, had to consider
the cost of killing his adversary, it would be a wonder-
ful cooler to the animosities; and of all the bonds of
peace devisable for angry men the most practically
effective would be binding up the pocket of one in a
common interest with the body of the other, for. folks
who have no hearts in their breasts have one 1n their
pockets, and many who would make up their minds to,
bloodshed would shudder at the thought of bleeding for
it in their own purses.
The law, as it is, gives damages to a man who has
suffered bodPy injury from another ; bum, if the injury
ends in del.th, the family, who have lusttncir '-uppurtcsr,
have no redress but the barren ()N.. in N.
criminal process amid what is i•; cod tbe
ni
c.scou-
rageent of duelling - of ii civic
proceeding for damages. to the ,iuffererai by the death of
a husband or kinsman in a, duel.—Ex
aminer.

')X3

-
--,'"