The Sun. — 1844-03-15 (London, England)

STANDARD.—The question of duelling was again brought forward in the House of Commons last night. Mr. Turner, after presenting several petitions against the irrational and unchristian practice, moved 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 abolished." The country is indebted to Mr. Turner for his motion, for though the resolution embracing so many abstract propositions—each of them indisputably true—could not properly be adopted by Parliament, which must he, above all things, careful not to affirm mere abstract truths, the Houses of Parliament can hardly be better employed than in discussions calculated to awaken and inform the public mind upon the subject of our social duties. The frank expression of their opinions by such men as spoke last night, all condemning the practice of private combat, must go further to limit, if not to extinguish the practice, than any law could do, as indeed Mr. Turner himself proved by the list of legislators and Sovereigns who had directed laws against duelling, unfortunately in vain. Mr. Turner did us the honour to quote the opinions of the Standard upon the subject of duelling avowed six years ago, and to express his approbation of those opinions, with an observation, however, that the Standard does not now go so far. Mr. Turner does us, however, an unintentional injustice in this last observation. We go as far as ever we went in our condemnation of duelling—but we do not conceal that reflection and experience • have taught us that legislation upon the subject of duelling must fail—we would almost say ought to fail—unless it take the matter up earlier than the actualcombat,or even than the delivery or acceptance of a challenge. In every case of a duel the insulter is the real challenger, and, if death follow the challenge, the real murderer. Men of exalted rank—men of proved and distinguished courage—may, perhaps, smile at insults and pass them by ; but the man of obscure station, and of a peaceful profession cannot, without a grievous loss of estimation in his circle, submit to insult; and even that loss of estimation, though what most dread as the greatest of calamities, is not the worst consequence of his submission, if he is engaged in any pursuit calculated to provoke antagonism or enmity. Once set down as a man who would not resent a personal insult—such a man would .be insulted by bullies every day of his life—persecuted by insult to his final ruin. The gentlemen of the bar are our witnesses; even the humble writers of the periodical press know this. Let not Mr. Turner blame us, then, as having abandoned our abhorrenee of duelling. We have not abandoned that abhorrence. We believe it to be sinful and irrational, and that homicide in a duel is murder, as fully as ever we held that opinion; and we believe that the person who engages in a duel, except upon an unequivocal and intolerable insult, incurs all the guilt and ignominy of a murderer—in intention, or in fact, as the case may be ; but, on the other hand, we must allow that one upon whom an unequivocal and intolerable insult has been inflicted, is not • a free agent, more than any other man thrown upon his defence. Mr. Turner goes a great deal further than we are disposed to do in favour of duellists, for he would mitigate the punishment of murder in a duel to transportation, a change of the law which we should regard with horror, as calculated to facilitate the foulest murder, in the form of a duel—such murders have been committed, and would be committed again, in that state of the law which Mr. Turner proposes. Thirty-six years ago a major in the army quarrelled with a captain of his regiment upon some slight pretence, forced him into a small room at night, without seconds, and under pretence of a duel shot him dead within a few feet of his wife and children ; for this the Major was tried, convicted, and hanged, and most righteously hanged ; but under Mr. Turner's proposed law he would at most be transported, probably only imprisoned two years. Mr. Turner thus recognises a distinction between murder in duels and ordinary murders—a distinction in favour of the former which we utterly reject.