The Sun. — 1853-03-22 (London, England)

CONNELL-or, going a little farther back, of CANNrNG and CASTLEREAGH, CURRAN and GRATTAN, had been inscribed in the Newgate Calendar as murderers— wilful and deliberate murderers—who had expiated their offences on the scaffold, or, through the interposition of the Royal prerogative of mercy, in perpetual exile from their native land. There must have been something rotten in the state of affairs that placed such men in opposition to the law on one point, of which they were in all other respects the most strenuous supporters. There must have been something radically wrong in the enactments, which juries repeatedly, almost invariably, refused to lend their aid in carrying into execution—violating their oaths rather than become participators in what they conceived to be the infliction of a still greater wrong on the parties on trial.  A healthier and a better state of feeling, however, arose. Public opinion became opposed to the " monomachia," or single combat. Juries were found to execute their painful duties faithfully and truly ; and the case of Lieutenant MUNRO, on which we have repeatedly commented, proved that there might be a capital conviction although there had been no foul play—nothing unfair in the management of the duel, and the survivor had done all in his power to avoid the painful alternative. This conviction gave a heavy blow and a great discouragement to the practice of duelling—none could be found willing to brave the fearful results of a conviction ; and even if men allowed their passions so far to prevail over their reason, they could not find friends, real or nominal, to act as seconds. The consequences were too formidable to be lightly encountered, duelling became obselete, and the efforts ' that were made to revive the objectionable practice only entailed ridicule and contempt on those trying the experiment. This salutary state of affairs has, however, been completely altered. A duel, in which foreigners °mafatal termination y were engaged—men ignorant alike of English law and English ignorant have been feeling on the matter—had a Noghing could, we believe, fully and fairercom ;Ilan the entire transaction. We thin th completely exonerate the parties concerned from slightest suspicion - g are personally at could create the cooinfeeeulrnie)alay ; lavned,sroe oi fare ea s theythat they have been practically exempted stringent consequences of the offencefrom Imvioiirceh they were implicated. The LearnedanJduudgne_ equivocally. who presided laid down the law clearly " He declared that, if two or more personswent ou armedwith deadly weapons, forcommitting an, uniatv_ ful act, which fighting pt togetheroseof a duel undoubtedly was, and the purpose the death of one of the parties ensued, it was in , the eye of the law in every one of the parties connected with the transaction, and that  it applied equally to the seconds of the deceased as well as those of the survivor—that all should be held responsible for that which might be regarded as the natural result of the act they were about to commit." The only real questions for their consideration then were—Did a duel take place? Was the deceased wounded in that duel ? Was that wound the cause of his death? Aed were the defendants engaged therein ? There should then have been either a conviction on the entire charge or an absolute acquittal. There was no intermediate course, no compromise, that could properly be adopted. They might as well have returned a verdict of petty larceny, or libel, as of manslaughter. We fear that the effect of the verdict and the sentence (two months' imprisonment) will be to bring duelling again into fashion. We would, therefore, once more urge the necessity of special legislation on the subject—of an enactment rendering duelling a grave misdemeanour, punishable with fine and imprisonment, no matter what might be the result, and making all parties in any degree concerned, either at the meeting or as acoessaries before the fact, liable. The power of adding " hard labour " at the discretion of the presiding Judge would be exceedingly beneficial, so as to prevent single combats on trivial, or insufficient, or indeed on any grounds, and to restore matters to the same state that they had been before these refugees engaged in the transaction which led to the investigation at Kingston, to which we have considered it our imperative duty to direct the public attention.  A