The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-09-21 00:00:00

Cabinet of the Tuileries, for the establishment of
French sovereignty over the African continent :

"I shall not dwell heri upon the facilities which we shall
have of communicating from Podhor and Gulam, with Mo-
rocco, A!giers, Tunis, 'rripoli, and Cairo; with Timbuctoo,
the country of Eloussa, Tocrrur, Kassina, and from the latter
town by A gades, with Bunton, Sennaar, and Abyssinia; but
I shall remark, that the result of the travels of Brown in
Darfour is, that this internalcountry habitually communicates •
with the kingdom of Darkulla, situated in the centre of
Africa, between the ith and 6th degrees of North latitude,
nearly at an equal distance from Cape Verd and Cape Guar-
dafui ; that these two capes from the extremities of the great-
est diameter in width of the African continent; that the high
masses of the Mountains of the Moon cannot be far from
Darkulla; that the sources of the Great Galbar must be very
near the central region; that it is near the origin of this
~reat western branch which, springing from the mass of the
111,,uutains of the Moon, reaches the Atlantic between Cape
Vergas and Cape Palmas, under the name of the Mountains
of Kong; that one might try to arrive at Darkulla, on the one.
-side by the Galhar;"atitt on the other by thecotinfry-iirMan-
din,y. by Teembon, by Kong, by Kassaha, by Kottokoli, by
Malel, 'because this conimunica'ion is practised, and because
Maki is only separated from Darkulla by an interval of '2.50
leagues."

DUELLING.

(From the Morning Herald.)
They who lecture others should be capable of taking a
lecture with good grace themselves. In saving this, we only
lay down a rule which we are prepared to follow. We gave
a lecture the other day on the subject of duelling, and we
have been since lectured for so doing. This is all fair enough.
Duelling is said to result from difference of opinion, and
there will be difference of opinion about duelling. Our con-
temporary has as much right to his opinion on the subject
as we have to ours, provided he can support it by fair rea-
soning. We think he does not, and we will state why we
think so.
Before we go further, it may not be unnecessary to observe
that we leave the question of style in writing, to the public
taste. Whether ours be solemn and pedantic, or that of our
chivalrous contemporary be pragmatically pert and flippantly
dictatorial, is a question wholly beside the merits of the case
which is the subject of controversy. Our style, whether good
or had, is one which, having found some favour with the pub-
lic, we are by no means disposed to exchange for that of
which he gives the select few who can appreciate the nicer
beauties of fashionable diction so choice au example.
Now, as to the argument. We had ventured—and proba-
bly rash and profane was the attempt-to disprove the cor-
rectness of the position, we will not say, "solemnly" and
"pedantically," but certainly with an air of oracular wis-
dom laid down by our contemporary, that " duelling is an
unfOrtunate necessity of civilisation"—a more unfortunate
defence of duelling we never heard—a more pernicious
fallacy could not be circulated as a philosophical truth. And
surely if the Morning Post had a right to disseminate the
moral poison of such a doctrine through society, the Morn-
ing Herald had as clear a right to endeavour to supply an an-
tidote. But it seems "we usurp the office of the clergy" in
appealing to morality and religion ainst the practice of
fashionable homicide. We ask whose office do they usurp
who inculcate in newspapers the necessity of such a practice ?
We would rather be chargeable with usurping the office of
Christian instructors, than of those whose doctrines tend to
make Christianity appear a fable and its morality a lie.
Christianity itself would be a fiction if it were not untrue
that duelling is "a necessity of civilisation," for the most
efficient power that ever. was employed to civilise mankind
is that Gospel whose moral sentiments our fashionable con-
temporary would merely allow to occupy " the pulpit,"
leaving " the world" to the ethics of a code as opposed to
the instruction of the pulpit as moral darkness is to moral
illumination.
If the words " unfortunate necessity of civilisation"
had hastily slipped from the pen of our contemporary, he
would have taken the opportunity of retracting or ilualifying,
them upon his attention being recalled to the subject. But
as he has chosen to repeat those words, and, of course, re-
inculcating the mischievous morality which they convey, we
must proceed'to vindicate the opinion which we advanced, in
opposition to that maxim, in a very different spirit from one
of cavilling criticism, or disingenuous controversy.
We say, then, that if duelling be " necessity of civilisa-
tion," no civilisation ever did, can, or will exist without it.'
There was pagan civilisation in the world at one time, and
there is christian civilisation now. We deny that it was
necessary to pagan .civilisation, and we deny that it is neces-
sary to christian We proved the first position
by the best examples we could adduce—the examples of re-
fined and polite states of classic antiquity. We thought it
unnecessary to prove the other position by any than a general
reference to the law of christianity—which law is part and
parcel of the law of England. If it he a necessity of civilisa-
tion only exists among us because sets at defiance laws
human and divine.
We have not yet, in this age of conceited utilitarian ig-
ignorance, learned to despise the instructions of that " old
almanack,', which some call " history," nor shall the dread
of being called "pedantic'' prevent us at any time from re-
sorting for practical illustrations of moral or social truths to
that philosophy which " teaches by example." If we could
have found any examples as goOd as those supplied by the
histories of Greece and Rome to illustrate and confirm the
position that-duelling is not a necessity of civilisation, we
would have used them; but, preferring the best evidence we
could get to any of an inferior degree. and choosing not to
limit ourselves to a priori reasoning where we could have the
arguments of experience, we appealed to the glorious states
of the classic ages, not only for the possibility hut the proof
of civilisntion without duelling—civilisation under which the
the manly virtues flourished to their highest perfection—
civilisation rich in the trophies of mind and courage, laden
with the spoils of arts and arms, and displaying the
polished graces of life with the highest magnanimity of
character. -
But, says the Morning Post, " the civilisation of the
Greeks was by no means the same thing as the civilisation
of the British." Well then, this is, at all events, an im-
implied admission that "duelling is. not a necessity of civili-
stolen." Our contemporary may be a very ingenious
; but he will find it difficult to rrnva that a thing is by
showing that it is not. The whole gist of' the argument con-
sists in this one point—whether duelling be necessary to civi-
lisation or not? Our contemporary asserts that it is, and
undertakes to prove it. But part of his case is that it was
not necessary to civilisation among the Greeks. Very well.
Civilisation. and that too of a very high order, can exist
without duelling. Nay more, it has existed without it. Why
not exist without that practice again ? It is because the ci-
vilisation of the Greeks was a pagan civilisation that it could
exist without the absurd and blood-stained practice of duel-
ling? Is it because ours is a christian civilisation that it is
under the unfortunate and fatal necessity of inseparable con-
nection with that silly and homicidal custom?
But, upon his own admission, our contemporary. must now
qualify his words, and, instead of asserting that duelling is a
necessity of civilisation, he must say it is a necessity only of
one sort of civilisation though not of another. It is a necessity
of the civilisation of Christian communities, for the pagan
civilisers of the world knew nothing of it. This is the absurdity
to which the position of the Marning Post is legitimately re-
ducible, and which is only to be got rid of by admitting that
duelling is not a necessity of civilisation at all.
If, indeed, the barbarous custom which is incidental merely
to the present state of society were a necessity of our social
condition, there would be no use in arguing about it. How-
ever great and grievous the evil might be. it must, in that
case, be patiently borne with, simply because it could not be
remedied. Vain would be the reasoning of the moralist—
vain the remonstrances of public opinion—vain the penalties
of any human law to abate the nuisance; and no less vain
*Mild be the denunciations of the pulpit. It would be utterly
useless to direct the thunders of another world aeainst the
greatest roily that disgraces this, if the homicidal custom of
Wimbledon-heath or Chalk Farm controlled civilisation by a
fatal necessity.
But, says our contemporary, by way of showing. we sup-
pose, that he can write about the affairs of the world in the
tone of true "lashon," "The refinement of our society is
derived chiefly from the practice of chivalry, and hence the
sentiment of society prevailing to this day, that personal
honour must he vindicated by personal combat, or rather
by that resemblance of it, to which duelling among gentle-
men has now been brought, and which is rather a mutual in-
curring of personal danger than of coinhat." Oh, chivalry !
"the unbotieht grace of life—the cheap defence of nations
—the nurse of manly sentiment anti heroic enterprise," how
art thou defamed ! Oh, glories of Ashby de la Zouch anti of
the Field of the Cloth of Gobi! how are ye linked in degrad-
ing connection with the blood-stained vice, whose "heroes"
and whose victims are chiefly supplied by the gambling-house
and the salon of vulgar debuchery !
We have it on the authority of our pragmatical contempo-
rary that there is no pedantry in restoring to the " ages of
chivalry" for a defence of duelling, although it is quite " pe-
dantic" to have recourse to the classic ages for arguments
and examples against it. Chivalry might have been a cor-
rective of the legitimised nr, at least, customary system of
violence which characterised the feudal system under which
chivalry rose and flourished; but the feudal system was not
"civilisation," and the argument only goes to show that the
"personal combat, which might have been a necessity of a
semiliarbarous condition of mankind, is itself but a relic of
semi-barbarism in a state of civilised society.
But duelling is the "last resort of a man of.honour." Is
it so? 'What sort of vindication can that be of a man of ho-
nour, which confounds the honourable man with the greatest
knaves that disgrace society? Is a man of honour injured
or insulted by another honourable man ?—the epithet " ho-
nourable" must be misapplied unless the party who is the
aggressor, upon.heing convinced that he had dune injustice,
affords reparation without other inducement than his own
right feeling and good sense. If the man of honour be in-
jured or insulted by a knave, does he vindicate his character
or prove his folly by inviting the knave to discharge a loaded
pistol or two at 'kiln, and thus add the crime of murder to an
act of unatened injustice? The knave is more likely than
the honourable man to have trained his hand to deeds of
blood by the practice of the shooting gallery; and what con-
solation is it to the honourable man, alien mortally wounded
by the pistol of a practised ruffian, to learn that some " fash-
ionable" vindicator of the custom of duelling will have it in-
scribed upon his tomb, bedewed, perhaps, by the tears of a
widow anti orphans, "lie died a martyr to the necessities of
civilisation.".
We say again, and we think even our opponent has shown
that civilisation demands no such sacrifices. Duelling is no
inore a necessity of civilisation than the gambling-house, or
the " fashiounble" den of nightly revelry, where must of the
work of honourable assassination is cut out, for toe "chi-
valry" of the present enlightened age. Chivalry, indeed !
What chivalrous sentiment is his who, having endeavoured
to destroy the domestic happiness of another for ever, offers
satisfaction" by going, pistol in hand, to aim at the heart
of the injured person? Yet such is the character of a great
proportion of those "chivalrous feats" of the nineteenth cen-
tur ! What chivalrous sentiment is theirs who abandon
the bleeding body of the lifeless victim the moment the ho-
micidal operation is completed, leaving it to he dragged
along the ground, like some inferior animal just butchered,
into the open vehicle which is to transport it through the pub-
lic streets to the late home of the slaughtered combatant,
who, whether he be statesman or merchant-tailor, lord or
linen-draper, is to be considered as a fallen child of "chi-
valry," dying in the cause of the refinement of civilisation.
The law, which affords redress for all substantial injuries,
both of action and word, has declared that he, who, whatever
may be the provocation, kills another by the deliberate pro-
cess of duelling, is a murderer, and ought to be hanged bY the
neck until his Cody be dead. Is it to be tolerated that the very
class of men who make and declare the laws, and who have
thus pronounced the last ignominious doom of felony against
the homicide who kills his antagonist in a duel, shall violate
their own laws with impunity, while they cry oat for the in-
exorable execution of the law of death upon all other murder-
ers? Shall the bloodstained hand of him who has pierced
the heart of one whom he had deeply injured be shaken by
honourable men, who turn with aversion and loathing from
the vulgar murderer who may have something of provoca-
tion to plead for his deed of blood ? Can a felon's deed be
chivalry? Can a felon's fame be honour? Let the affirma-
tive of these questions be pioved, and we shall say 'to the suc-
cessful hero of Wimbledon or Chalk Farm, proceed in the
great work of civilising society by deeds of honourable assas-
sination—do that
" And tread upon the Greek and Ronian glory."
nd OWLIIIIIIIIMMI

CoLNE.—We do not know of any district where hand-loom
weavers have suffered so much ; yet we are ham to state
that trade is now very brisk; and although wages are very
iow indeed, yet the weavers wages, for some softy of goods,
have been advanced nearly 20 per cent during the last six
weeks. One kind of work, for which 9d. was paid for wea-
ving 30 yards about two months since, is now paid Is. The
hand-loom weavers at present, when fully employed, cannot
average more than from ss. to 6s. per week.—Manchester
Guardian.