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

DUELLING.

On the vote for the "Pensions to the Widows of
Officers" being proposed,
Captain BERNAL rose to move for a copy of any
letter or correspondence which had passed between
the Secretary-at-War and the widow of the late
Lieutenant-Colonel David Lynar Fawcett, C. 8., re-
lative to the withholding of her pension. In bring-
ing forward this motion, he begged to return his
thanks to the Secretary-at-War for the cour-
tesy and kindness which he had received from that
Right Hon. and Gallant Gentleman on this occasion,
and he would venture to express a hope that the sub-
ject would be discussed in a spirit of temper and mo-
deration. It would be necessary to recal to the re-
membrance of the House the fact that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Truro had put a question to the First Lord of
the Treasury on this subject, and that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had, on that occasion, taken great credit to
his Government for exerting their legitimate influence
for the discouragement of duelling, by refusing a pen-
sion to the widow of an officer of great military
reputation, and who had distinguished himself
in the service of his country, but who had
unfortunately fallen in a duel. Those, he believed,
were the exact words of the Right Hon. Gentleman—
no special circumstances had been alleged, beyond
the fact of the officer falling in a duel, to justify the
refusal of the pension. Ile must confess that when
he heard that voluntary declaration of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, he
had been astonished, not so much at the manifest in-
justice of the act, as at the manner in which it had
been attempted to be justified. He had been told that
precedents might be brought forward to support that
act. He had searched diligently for precedents, but
had not been able to find a single one. At the time
the Noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, was Se-
cretary at War, in the year 1817, a pension had
been refused to the widow of an officer who had
committed suicide ; but he would leave the House to
decide whether that could be considered a case in point.
It was not his intention now to enter into any general
discussion of the question of duelling. He would not do
so for this reason. He thought so long as the majority of
Members on both sides of that House were so ready to
follow in the footsteps of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox in
becoming parties to a hostile meeting, that such dis-
cussions were of no avail, and he would suggest to the
Hon. Gentleman who sat below (Mr. Turner), that
he would pursue an advisable course in withdrawing
the resolution of which he had given notice;
and if he would turn his attention to the
state of the law at present on the subject,
and bring in a Bill by which the relations in any case
of fatal duel might come upon the survivor for damages—
as was the law in France ; and, to come nearer home;
Hon. Gentlemen were not perhaps aware that such a law
existed in Scotland—it would have greater effect in putting
an end to the practice of duelling than any other course
of proceeding. The Right Hon. the Secretary at War
had coolly told the House the other night that there was
a clause in the Mutiny Act, by which all officers, or
persons who conveyed challenges to others, were liable
to be tried by court-martial and cashiered. He would
read that clause: it was to the effect, that any officer
or promoted a
another with not
oe
hr a slloel
nd
gi eer
two h oa n
ogtahveer,
or
re n tn,
pchor;ydeeyde d ,
fighting a duel; or, if commanding a guard, should per-
mit any member of that guard to go out to fight a duel,
should be liable, if an officer, to be cashiered or
suffer any other punishment, according to the
nature and degree of the offence as in the
judgment of a court-martial should be awarded.
He (Captain Bernal) did not scruple to say that that
clause was certainly a dead letter. He could state, from
his own experience, that no officer could ordinarily re-'
fuse a challenge ; and he knew of no instance where
the conveyor or promoter of a challenge was brought to
a court-martial for that offence. In looking over the Army
List he saw certainly that an officer on the half-pay list
bad some years ago been struck off, not for fighting a
duel, but for fighting with a superior officer. He alluded
to the case of Ensign Batty; and the superior was
blamed, not for fighting a duel,
.but for fighting with an
inferior officer. But he would give a still stronger proof
that an officer was not allowed to receve an insult
without taking notice of it. He held in his hand a
letter of a man of high military reputation on the
subject. It was to this effect:—" Is a gentleman, who
happens to be a Minister, to submit to be insulted by
any gentleman who thinks proper to impute criminal
motives to him in his conduct as an individual? I can-
not doubt the decision I ought to make upon the
question, and I now call upon you to give me
that satisfaction which every gentleman has a right
to require, and which a gentleman never refuses."
That letter was signed Wellington—(gear)—and that
Noble Individual, it-was needless for him to say, was
now at the head of thellorse-Gukrds, and that letter
was conveyed by the Right Hon. Gentleman who was
now Secretary at War.—(Hear.) He would refrain
from adducing any other examples of duels that had
proved fatal, although he could produce many instances.
Gentleman had said
He would, however, refer to thean cuanseforotuf
naatecald.auleryl.
,orffihceer,
Rwi
ghhot wasH concerned 11
that there was no instance on record of an officer who
had been cashiered for not fighting a duel. If he would
turn back to 1818—he did not mention names for an ob-
vious reason—he would find an instance of a Lieutenant-
General of the Royal Marines, who was brought to a
court-martial for neglecting to demand the honourable ad-
justment of a quarrel, &c.. Another instance: an officer
.
was sentenced, for a offence, to be suspended
for six months ; and in his own regiment he was ae.

quainted with an officer who refused to fight a
duel, and for doing so, he was driven from the
regiment. So that, if an officer obeyed the dictates
of reason, he must give up his commission; and if he
followed those of honour, he was liable to be tried for
his life.—(Hear, hear)—and if an officer fell, they car-
ried their vengeance beyond the grave, and deprived his
widow of a pension. He would now say one word with
respect to pensions. There was some considerable dif-
ference of opinion between Members of that House with
respect to them. Some Hon. Gentlemen thought an
officer's widow was entitled to a pension, but he (Capt.
Bernal)believed that in no case could a widow claim a pen-
sion; it rested entirely with the Secretary at War. In the
present instance, if Lieut.-Colonel Fawcet had sold his
commission before his death, the sum of 3,500/. would
have been at his widow's disposal, but as it is,
she lost both the capital and the pension.
Now, if he might allude to an unfortunate circumstance
that had recently taken place, in connexion with the
State prosecutions of Ireland, he must be permitted
to say that he dirt not do so for the purpose
of indulging in any unworthy taunt. Whatever
difference of opinion there might be in reference
to the trial itself; he thought that the manly and spirited
way in which a certain Right Hon. Gentleman had ex-
plained away his conduct, was sufficient to obliterate all
unkindly feeling, and for his own part he sincerely
hoped that upon this ground the door of legal promotion
would not be closed upon him.—(Loud cheers.)
At the same time he was at a loss to understand the
principle n hich overlooked a practice in one party, and
upon the other, a weaker and more defenceless one,
visited such heavy punishment. Surely it was anguish
enough for this wretched lady, that her husband had
fallen by the hand of her brother-in-law—surely that was
sufficient punishment ; and now that the seconds in the
duel—the more culpable parties by far—( Loud cheers)—
now that they were acquitted and still held their com-
missions, surely it savoured somewhat of persecution
thus to visit upon the wretched woman the consequences
of her husband's fault. At the best, it was paltry to
visit his sins upon her helplessness. He did not know
that unhappy lady, and could have no motive for his
conduct, but that which all in the House would partake
in common with him ; and he could not but entertain a
strong hope that the Honourable and Gallant Officer
opposite (Sir Henry llardinge), whose character for
courage was only equalled by his reputation for hu-
manity, would yet revise his opinion, and agree to the
motion he now submitted to the House.—(Loud and
general cheers from all parts of the House.)
Sir C. NAPIER seconded the motion.

Sir. H. HARDINGE said he should certainly endea-
vour to follow the Gallant Officer with the same
excellent temper and good feeling which he had shown
in introducing his motion.—(Hear, hear.) lle felt
called upon to justify to the House the decision which
he, in the exercise of his judgment, had formed, and
which had been subsequently confirmed by his Right
Honourable Friend. In that decision he was influ-
enced by special circumstances, and not governed by any
direct or general rule. On the contrary, he had been
influenced by considerations, that there were circum-
stances so unjustifiable in this duel that required
the Government to show as much discouragement
and as marked a displeasure as possible. He
would inform the House what had taken place.
In September he received a communication from the
agent, asking for a pension for Mrs. Fawcett. He sent
to the agent a communication, informing him that in his
(Sir Henry Hardinge's) opinion it was a case in which a
pension could not be recommended by him, but under all
the circumstances of the case, he recommended the
agent not to press his application at that time.
In the course of a month he received a letter
withdrawing the first application—he did this in order
that the case of Lieut. Munro, who was then understood
to be about to take his trial, might not be prejudiced
from any record of his that he considered the duel
unjust. He did not, therefore, make any record at the time
of the reasons which influenced him m withholding the
pension, but he had since stated that it was
riot a case in which, in his opinion, a pension ought
to be granted. With regard to what passed
between him and his Right Honourable Friend,
who wrote to him upon the subject of Mr. Munro, from
the country, he begged to state that, in the answer
which he wrote to his Right Honourable Friend,
he said he understood that expectations were held
out by the friends of Mr. Munro that in a
month or two that gentleman would return and
take his trial. This was subsequent to his decision upon
the case of Mrs. Fawcett. Having the expectation that
Mr. Munro would take his trial, he though it would
equally prejudice his case if he had been
deprived of his commission previous to his
His Right Honourable Friend concurred with him in
that opinion, and he also concurred with him in the
opinion that it was not a case, considering the
near relationship of the parties, in which a pension
could be granted to Mrs. Fawcett. But, as he said
before, the pension was refused on special grounds, and
not on any general principle. He would now state what
the practice of the War-office was on this subject.
The Right Hon. and Gallant Gentleman then referred
to a duel which took place in Ceylon in the year 1829.
One of the parties was shot, and an application was
made for a pension for the widow. He made a minute
upon the case to the effect, that it was for public
service performed by the husband that a widow
was entitled to a pension, and not if he lost
his life in any private or personal quarrel. He
also stated that due allowance would be made for the
force of custom and the usages of society ; and that
upon the whole else being known it would
be for the discretion of the War-office to say whe-
ther the circumstances in that case were such as
would justify a pension. He received a re-
port of the case from the General commanding at
Ceylon, but his information upon the subject was as
scanty as his own. Shortly afterwards Mr. Wynn
succeeded him as Secretary-at-War, and he found
that Mr. Wynn made a minute on the subject.
The minute of Mr. Wynn was to this effect, that as there
were no circumstances of palliation in the case, the pen-
sion must be refused. He now came to a more unfor-
tunate case than that of Col. Fawcett--he meant the
case of the late Capt. Boyle. It appeared in that
case that the pistols had been actually forced into Capt.
Boyle's hand, and in that case the then Government,
being of opinion that there were circumstances of pallia-
tion, determined that tile widow of Captain Boyle
was entitled to her pension.—(llear,hear.) The at-
tention of her Majesty's Government had, during the
recess, in consequence of thin unfortunate affair of Col.
Fawcett's, been directed; in attempting to devise means
for the discouragement of duelling. The circumstances
of that case had been brought• prominently under their
attention. The insult had been but trifling. Nothing
had passed between the. parties beyond a request that
.one of them would leave 'the room. Colonel Fawcett was
well known as a gallant officer in the service. His cha •
racter was firmly established. There n as no necessity
for him to have hurried forth in breathless haste to shoot
his brother-in-law in the morning. There was nothing
whatever to justify a duel between such near relatives,
and under these circumstances he felt that he was justi-
fied in refusing to recommend his widow for a pension.
The manner in which pensions to the widows of officers
were granted was regulated by circumstances. If an
officer were killed in action, Isis widow had a double pen-
sion. If the officer was killed in a legal manner the
pension was granted, but he did not think that he should
have been justified in recommending the widow of Col.
Fawcett for a pension, and her Majesty's Government
agreed with him in opinion On that subject. He knew
that in certain cases pensions had been allowed to the
widows of officers killed in duels. Thirty years ago,
when our army was serving with foreign troops, duels
used to take place constantly—sometimes as many as
four or five a day, in consequence of insults offered by
foreign officers to the British uniform. In those cases
the officers were obliged to fight to maintain the honour
of their country, and where in such duels British officers
had unfortunately fallen, it would have been most un-
just to have refused pensions to their widows. He had
taken his line of conduct in the matter, and to that line
he would adhere. As to the case of Lord Londonderry,
to which the Gallant Offieer-had alluded, he was blamed
not for fighting with an inferior officer so much as with
an officer on half-pay; the distinction between whom
and an officer on full pay was known to the Gallant
Officer, who was
,acquainted with the customs of the
service. With respect to the case of the Duke of
Wellington, to which the Gallant Officer had also
referred, that distinguished individual had had a differ-
ence with a Noble Lord who was not in the army, and
it certainly never had been a code of the army that of-
ficers should not resent an insult offered by a party un-
connected with the army. -The Gallant Member had
said that no officer had ever been dismissed the army
for fighting a duel. General Burton, who had fought a
duel on half-pay, had been dismissed on that account.
With respect to the case of the Colonel of Marines, that
officer had allowed several aspersions to be cast on his
conduct, which were afterwards renewed by another
Lieutenant-Colonel, and gave rise to such recrimina-
tions on both sides, that it' was found necessary to re-
move the parties, and, in consequence, one of them was
dismissed the service, and the other was put on half-pay.
He was prepared to state to the House the arrangement
which had received the sanction of her Majesty, and which
would be comprised in a clause to be inserted amongst
the Articles of War. That arrangement, he trusted, would
have the desired effect of putting a stop to the mischie-
vous practice of duelling: the clause would be a declara-
tory one. (The Right Hon. Gentleman here read the
clause, which declared the approbation of the Govern-
ment of the conduct of all officers who, having had the
misfortune of giving offence, or injuring, or insulting
others, should explain, apologise, or offer redress for
the same ; or, having the misfortune to receive an of-
fence, injury, or insult, should cordially accept an ex-
planation, apology, or offer of redress, frankly given; or,
if such were refused to be made, should submit his sub-
ject of complaint to the commanding officer of the regi-
ment, corps, or garrison; and they accordingly acquitted
of all disgrace all officers and soldiers who, being wil-
ling to take such redress, had refused a challenge.) This
clause, he had no doubt, would have a very conside-
rable effect in discouraging duelling to a great extent.
They might not be able to eradicate duelling al-
together ; but he trusted they would succeed in
modifying the practice very much.—(Hear, hear,)
When the officers of the army found what her Ma-
jesty's sentiments were--sentiments so openly expressed
-7-they would act in accordance with those opinions, and
disfavour the practice of duelling as much as lay in
their power. There had not been a single duel in any
regiment for eight years, and he believed there was as
little duelling in the army as elsewhere.—(Hear, hear.)
Notwithstanding
,what the Gallant Officer had said,
there were some cases which defied legislation, for it
was impossible for any Government or any Secretary-
at-War to devise articles of war which would meet every
case.'of duelling. The Articles of War at present existing
referred only to officers in full pay, who were in full
military duty, and did not apply to half-pay officers
who were not in active service. If officers had a quarrel
with private individuals, he would not consent that they
should not have the same opportunities of obtaiiiiDg

satisfaction for an insult as other members of society.
To officers on half-pay he had already said the Articles
of War did not apply, and, unless in a case so flagrant as
to demand the exercise of the Royal prerogative,- they
would be in the same position as civilians. There was
not one duel now for fifty heretofore. The papers the
Gallant Officer called for would be produced, but he
could not hold out any hope that the pension would
be granted to Mrs. Fawcett, as there were many reasons
for not acceding to it which might not exist in other cases.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said he did not think her Ma-
jesty's sentiments on the subject of duelling would have
the effect anticipated by the Gallant Officer. The friends
of Lieutenant Munro had done him (Mr.,Duncombe)
the honour of addressing a letter on this subject. He
believed if all the circumstances of the case were known
Mr. Munro would be entitled to deep commisseration,
instead of the censure of the public.—(Hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that the affair might
have been settled, and ought to have been. If the Right
Hon. Gentleman had a correct statement of the affair he
must have known that the most gross language had been
used to Mr. Munro. The quarrel took place on Thurs-
day evening, and the parties did not fight till Saturday,
the Ist of July. The whole, therefore, of the following
day (Friday) was passed by the seconds and Lieutenant
Munro in taking the opinions of persons of high station,
not in the military life, but in society generally, as to
what ought to be done. Now, Lieutenant Munro had
written the letter to him, from which it appeared that the
opinion of several friends was taken, who all of them
agreed that either an apology must be given to Lieut.
Munro, or he must demand satisfaction; that Lieut.
Munro most deeply deplored the being obliged to go
out; that he did all in his power to prevent it, but that
he was told by his second that Lieutenant-Colonel
Fawcett was so obstinate that there was no hope of his
coming to a friendly understanding. Now that
letter placed the whole affair in a very different
light to what it had hitherto been. Now, what was the
state of the case ? Why Lieut.-Col. Fawcett's widow
was deprived of the pension that would have come to
her if her husband had fallen in any other cause. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that there were spe-
cial circumstances in the case that precluded him from
recommending the Crown to grant the pension. He
(Mr. Duncombe) could easily understand that there
might be such special circumstances not justifying the
Government to grant the pension. Now, what was the
case of Mr. Munro ? The Right Hon. Gentleman had
stated that he should have no objection to grant the
production of the documents asked for. He (Mr. Dun-
combe) would like to add to them copies of all the cor-
respondence that had taken place between Lieutenant
Munro and the Horse Guards as to his being superseded.
He purchased his commission: that was lost, and his
pay from the Ist of July last, though he belonged to the
army up to the end of February in the present year, was
stopped._ _

Sir HENRY HARDINGE—Of course ; he was ab-
sent without leave.

Mr. DUNCOMBE—True ; but then there was on
the part of the Horse Guards a tacit acquiescence in this
absence. But what was the situation of Lieut. Munro
now ? From the touching letter he had received he
found that he was in the most unhappy state that man
could be in, and he (Mr. Duncombe) maintained
that blame did not attach to him, for in point
of fact the duel was forced upon him. He was
a victim to the horrid and barbarous system which
was allowed to prevail in this country. The
parties who were really to blame was that general
officer—(Loud cheers)—and those other officers—
(Cheers)—who told Lieutenant Munro that, at the
hazard of his life, he must stand by not only his own
honour, but the honour of his corps.—(Continued
cheers.) If he had not fought, it was very well known
that he would have been dismissed and scouted from his
corps.—(Cheers.) Were Lieutenant Munro now to
throw himself on the laws of the country, he would most
probably be transported.—(Hear, hear.) So, on the one
side, having fought, he was liable to transportation ;
and on the other, if he had not fought, he would have
been visited with an ignominious dismissal from his
corps.—(Loud cheers.) -It did behove the House to go
a step further than merely denouncing this barbarous
practice—it behoved it to declare that any member in-
dulging in it should be held as degraded. They might
go through the farce—for farce it would be—of agreeing
to those regulations which her Majesty was about to
issue ; but he felt Very sure, that even while condemn-
ing duelling, there was hardly a Member at that mo-
ment in the House who would not resort to it if he
supposed an insult had been cast upon him.—(Laughter
and Hear, hear.) But even as to those regulations, they
must go a step further, by punishing half-pay as well as
full-pay officers taking part in this practice. The sub-
ject was one of the most delicate that could be touched
on in that House ; but whoever assisted to do away
with so horrible a practice would be entitled to the re-
spect and the gratitude of the country.—(Hear.)
Sir CHARLES NAPIER said the Right Hon. and
Gallant Officer (Sir H. Hardinge) said there were
special reasons in the circumstances of this duel which
precluded the Government from giving a pension to Mrs.
Fawcett; but he had not made the House acquainted
with them. He wished him to state whether that lady
herself had or had not anything to do with the fighting
this duel. He for one did not believe that she had. lie
fully agreed in the heinousness of the practice of
duelling; but this duel he held to be the most wicked
he knew of. There was nothing on earth to excuse it.
No brothers, or brothers-in-law, ought ever to fight—he
would go further, and say, cousins ought not to fight.—
(A laugh.) They might laugh, but that was his opinion.
He thought that the general officer was not justified in
the advice which he had given ; and he was of opinion
that the seconds ought not to have suffered them to go
out. If the seconds had refused to act, he would
answer for it that, when the circumstances had been
fully explained, they would have found no other se-
conds.—(Hear.) The seconds had been tried and
acquitted, and had not been punished in any way;
and the Secretary-at-War, in refusing the pension to the
widow of Col. Fawcett, had punished the least culpable
of the parties to the duel.—(Cheers.) The Secretary-at-
Warhad brought forward certain new regulations, which
he did not think would be effectual. There was no officer
in the army or navy who was not aware that there were
certain persons who were practised duellists, men who
were constantly practising with pistols, and who could
shoot out the eye of a sparrow. Now, a pistol was not
a necessary weapon of defence; it was :used only occa-
sionally in the navy, and in the army it was used only
by a portion of the cavalry, and it was of no great use to
either of the services. It would be of great advan-
tage if some regulation were adopted to prevent those
professed pistol-shooters from belonging either to the
army or the navy. They should go further, and pre-
vent duelling in civil life; but if he looked round the
House, he saw many persons high in office, who had
fought duels or sent challenges.—(Cheers and laughter.)
The first Minister of the Crown had done so.—(Laugh-
ter.) But he should like to see a regulation introduced
by which any person who had fought a duel or sent a
challenge should be incapacitated from serving the
Crown either as minister or law-officer.—(Cheers and
laughter.) He knew that if such a regulation were
passed it would thin the benches opposite—(Laugh-
ter)—and perhaps there were many on his side
of' the House who would be unable to take
their seats there.—(A laugh.) He knew that if that
rule were adopted, the country would be deprived of the
services of the Duke of Wellington—(A:laugh)—as Com-
mander-in-Chief----(Renewed laughter)—and of many
other eminent men. The best way to put down duelling
would be to legalise it—to pass a law that all duels
should be fought across a table—that one pistol only
should be loaded, and that the survivor of the duel should
be hanged. If they shot one and hanged the other, an
effectual stop would be put to duelling.—(Laughter.)
Colonel WOOD denied that duelling was more preva-
lent in the army than in civil life. He had known cases
in which officers had been called together and prevented
duels in cases which, had they occurred in civil life,
could not have been prevented.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that as his name had been
introduced in reference to the subject of duelling, he felt
it incumbent on him to say a few words on the subject. The
case alluded to he had forgotten, but from what had been
stated of it, the circumstances entirely differed from that
of the present case. In the case alluded to, an officer
lost his life by his own hand. In the :present case he
had fallen by the hand of another. He considered
therefore, that tho same rule should not apply to both.
The pension was granted not so much for the considera-
tion attached to the case of the widow, as to the services
the deceased officer had rendered. The security that an
officer had of a pension for his widow prevented the ne-
cessity of sacrificing a portion of his pay during his life,
and it was pro tanto recompense. He should have been,
in this case, disposed to come to a different conclusion from
the Government. The only circumstances he had learnt
were from the newspapers; and from the reports there it
would appear that Colonel Fawcett was the least to
blame. The challenge was not from .him. He thought
the seconds were blameable in the next degree, as, if
they had exerted ordinary means, they might have pre-
vented the duel which ensued. With respect to the new
Articles of War, he thought if the old ones had been en-
forced they would have been sufficiently stringent. He
agreed in the opinion that the army could not be ex-
pected to act differently from the rest of the community;
and, as long as the practice found favour in society, it
could hardly be extinguished in the army. If it were the
determination of the Government to withhold pensions
from the widows of all officers who fell in duels, they
had better record their determination publicly ; but he
would still entertain a hope that Government would re-
consider the present case, and if there were not some
very aggravating features in it, which the public were
not yet apprised of, that they would grant Mrs. Fawcett
the pension.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he gave his cordial appro-
bation to the course pursued by the Secretary. at-War.
Last session he (Sir H. Peel) had acquainted the House
that it was the intention of the Government to discou-
rage as far as they could the practice of duelling, al-
though they dispaired of introducing any effectual en-
actment on the subject. The Government disapproved
of making any enactments, and approved of the course
taken by his Right HOD. Friend. There was a general
rule of the War-office, that it was not the circumstances
or the merits of the widow that should entitle her to the
pension, but the merits of the deceased officer. Now,
surely it was no additional claim in favour of Mrs.
Fawcett that her husband should have fallen in a duel.
No doubt there might be circumstances of hardship at-
tached to her case, and so there were in every
case in which a rule was rigidly acted upon.
If they merely looked at the condition of the
widow, the case of a widow whose husband had fallen
by his own hand, might be quite as distressing as the
case of an officer who had fallen in a duel. Now, with
regard to this particular case, he did not think it such
as to merit any exception; at the same time he would
cautiously guard himself against using any expression
in the least disrespectful to the memory of Lieutenant-
Colonel Fawcett, or the character of Lieutenant Munro.
It should be recollected that Lieut.-Col. Fawcett was all
officer high in rank—he admitted a distinguished officer
—but it should not be forgotten that, with all his experi- '

ence, he selected as seconds two very young men. He
(Sir R. Peel) must again express his sorrow at being
obliged to enter into these matters, but he really did
think, from all the circumstances that had come to his
knowledge, that it:would not have been inconsistent with
the honour of Lieut.-Colonel Fawcett to have offered an
apology to Lieutenant Munro, and he (Sir R. Pee))
thought it was his duty to have tendered this apology.
If his Right Honourable Friend gave the pension
in this case, it would act as an encouragement
to duelling in the army. Now, with respect to
the disniissal of Lieutenant Munro, he hardly "thought
that course could have been objected to. Lieutenant
Munro was not dismissed in the first instance. He was
told he would be tried for wilful murder, but he chose to
absent himself for two sessions, and then, and not till
then, did the Commander-in-Chief dismiss him, having
no other course left open to him. (The Right Hon.
Gentleman then read the new articles of war, which
earnestly recommended the discouragement of the prac-
tice of duelling in the army ; and if one officer had the
misfortune to offend another, he should offer a fair and
frank apology ; and if, on the contrary, an officer had
been offended, be should receive an apology, in the same
frank and generous spirit. They further declared that
no officer should be considered as having in the least
forfeited his pension for having refused to accept a chal-
lenge ; and in cases where an amicable arrangement
could not be effected, it was recommended that the matter
should be laid before the commander of the regiment.)
New, said the Right Hon. Baronet, if these declarations,
coming from so high a quarter, do not discourage the
practice, he feared that any step taken by that House
could not have so desirable a result.-

Captain BERNAL was sorry that this unfortunate
affair had been so re-opened, particularly by the Right
Hon. Baronet, who had just sat down, and agreed in the
view taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary-
at-War, that the pension could not be demanded as a right.
They were driven to the necessity of either fighting a
duel or losing caste in society ; yet the Government
now refused to grant a pension to the widow of Colonel
Fawcett. He knew nothing about that lady's present
circumstances, but he was aware that Colonel Fawcett
had been signalised for his bravery in China during the
late war in that country. He knew nothing either of
Lieutenant Munro beyond the fact that he was univer-
sally spoken of as a gentleman. After considering the
regulations and the Articles of War, he (Captain Ber-
nal) felt sure that no officer in that House would rise
and say but that a military man was placed in pecu-
liarly trying circumstances in some of those matters.
Lord HO WICK said, that after what he had stated
on a former occasion, no person for a moment could
doubt the sincerity with which he would join the Govern-
ment in any course which would have for its object the
putting down of duelling. He should, in touching upon
the present case, not at all allude to what was called the
various causes of aggravation to which men were sub-
ject. If the object the Government contemplated by the
course which they now adopted towards Colonel Favv-
cett's widow were likely to put a stop to the practice of
duelling, no man would sooner coincide with them than
he would ; and he should be at once in favour of
withdrawing the pension ; but if there existed
a connivance on the part of those in authority
at this custom, he thought the withdrawal of the pension
was nothing more than a ease of individual hardship,
which was likely to produce no social effect. If he were
asked whether, during the course of this debate the effect
likely to be produced upon the public mind was not
quite the reverse of a tendency to put down duelling, or
-to discountenance it , he should answer distinctly, that
it would have a wholly different effect upon the public
mind. The tone of the debate was merely that the two
persons were both to blame, and no strong criminality
was attached to either. According to the doctrine
now laid down, officers in the army were
not allowed the same privileges of protecting them-
selves from insult as civilians were. This he (Lord
Howick) thought was most essential where a number
of officers were serving in the same regiment, because a
contrary course would be subversive of all military dis-
cipline ; but, in the case of Colonel Fawcett he did think
that principle was inapplicable. The practice of duelling
would never cease in the army so long as it was allowed
to prevail amongst civilians ; and he called upon the
Government to put it down amongst that class, first,
before they punished the widow of an officer, who fell in a
duel, by withholding her pension. Before sitting down
he should say that he agreed with the Right Hon. lita•
ronet in his assertion, that, speaking comparatively,
there were fewer duels amongst military men than civi-
lians; and he also concurred in the opinion that that
reflected much credit upon them. The only possible ex-
cuse to render for the course adopted in this case was,
that it might tend to prevent duelling, but it had not the
slightest likelihood of producing that effect ; he thought
it was a most severe course to adopt towards the widow
of Colonel Fawcett.

Mr. W. COWPER said he quite agreed with what
had fallen from the Noble Lord, the Member for Sun-
derland. He believed that duelling was a crime con-
demned by the laws of God and man. He believed that
there were no circumstances which were sufficient to
justify a duel. The Hon. Member for Weymouth said
he doubted whether there was any one who, on religious
grounds, would refuse to fight a duel. Now he (Mr.
Cowper) felt it his duty to state that he, for one, would.
—(Cheers.) There were many persons, who stood high
in the army and navy, and whose courage was un-
doubted, who had pledged themselves to do all in their
power for the suppression of duelling. He thought the
Government had taken a step in the right direction
when they recommended that disputes between officers
should be referred to the commanding officer of the
regiment ; but this, however, did not go far enough.
He thought that all commanding officers ought to have
instructions given to them of summoning courts•martial
to inquire into the merits of disputes between officers.
There were precedents for this. During the reign of
George the Third two cases occurred, in which the
matter was settled by the intervention of the Horse
Guards. One was a dispute between Lieut.- General
Murray and Sir William Draper. In both cases, the
parties concerned pledged their honour that they would
abide the decision of the court, and in this way their
differences were settled.
Sir R. INGLIS could not sufficiently express his re-
spect for the moral courage which had been shown by
the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down.—(Hear.)
He thought that it required more courage to make a
declaration like that just uttered by the Hon. Gentle-
man, than it did to fight a duel. He (Sir R. Inglis)
thought the Government was now called upon to adopt
such measures as would show that they had a disposi-
tion to discourage to the utmost of their power the
practice of duelling. It might not be in the knowledge
of many Members of that House, and the Hon. and
Gallant Gentleman who had just sat down—
An HON. MEMBER—Not Gallant.

Sir R. INGLIS—Yes, Gallant ; and it was this that
made the declaration which the House had just heard
from the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman the more praise-
worthy. It might not be in the knowledge of many
Hon. Gentlemen, that an association had been formed
for the discontinuance of duelling. They sought for no
legislation on the subject ; they only sought the means
of discouraging the practice of duelling. They had ad-
dressed her Majesty on the subject. The memorial
was sent to the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary
for the Home Department, for presentation, and though
he (Sir R. Inglis) did not complain of a want of cour-
tesy towards him personally, on the part of the Right
Hon. Baronet, yet he did complain of the manner in
which the memorial had been received. The answer to
the Noble Lord, who was chairman of the Association,
was merely, " I have the honour to acknow-
ledge the receipt of your memorial for presentation
to her Majesty, and to inform your Lordship that it has
been laid before her Majesty."—(" Hear, hear," from Sir
James Graham.) The Right Hon. Baronet recognised
the accuracy of his (Sir R. Inglis's) detail, and he grieved
to think that he also recognised the propriety of the
answer. He thought the Right Hon. Baronet, in his
answer, might have thrown some discouragement upon
the practice of duelling, by simply stating that her Ma-
jesty had taken the subject into consideration ; and he
might at least have appreciated the purity of the mo-
tives of those from whom the memorial had emanated.

Mr. W. 0. STANLEY thought the time was now
come when the law with respect to duelling ought to be
put into full force. He thought the public out of doors
would not be satisfied with the explanation of the Go-
vernment that night. lie trusted that measures would
be adopted, by which -every officer guilty of fighting a
duel should be tried by a court-martial, aad punished
accordingly.
Mr. TURNER thought the feeling of the public at
large had been so roused upon this subject, that sooner
or later her Majesty's Government would be compelled
to bring a Bill into Parliament for the entire suppres-
sion of duelling.
meLnotrdforß.hGavlitnOg
BVtatNen°tßhefeslutbler:ttefulup to the te
the Gmoaviceinrner-
they had done, although he regretted that they had not
gone much further. The discussion that night had
turned :on the subject of duelling in the army only, but
the practice of duelling amongst the other portions of
her Majesty's subjects it had left untouched. The
matter, therefore, 'could not rest where it at present
stood.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure, after what had
passed, more would be done. He trusted that those
who felt with himself would give due time for these
matters to be settled, because he felt if they legislated
in too great a hurry they would run the risk of aggra-
vating the evil.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON said that, although several Hon.
Members had declared that duelling was contrary to the
laws of God and man, yet it was chiefly among the
higher "classes that it took place. He for one would
never give or accept a challenge. Let the principle of
duelling be discouraged, by its being considered dis-
graceful to send a challenge. He would say, let 'the
House express some opinion of its abhorrence at the
system, and public opinion would put down the system.
The resolution was then withdrawn, and the Report
on the Committee of Supply _was brought up.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES.

Mr. O'CONNELL obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to alter and amend the law relating to Roman Catholic
charities, and the tenure of lands for the purposes of
Roman Catholic worship, in Ireland, which was read a
first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the
19th of April.