The D. does not seem to have existed in Egland in Anglo-Saxon times, and was prob ably introduced at the conquest. In its judicial form, it was not entirely obsolete in the reign of queen Elizabeth; and sir Henry Spelman gives an account of a trial by battle, which terminated, however, without actual combat, in the year 1571. See BATTLE, TRIAL By. Private dueling was common, however, both in Elizabeth's reign and in that of her successor, by whom a severe statute against it was enacted in Scotland (1600, c. 12). During the civil wars, men's minds were too much occupied with questions of grave importance to leave time for questions of etiquette, and the D. consequently declined; but it became exceedingly prevalent during the dissolute reign of Charles II. Some attempts were made to suppress it in the reign of William III., both in England and Scotland, and. in 1712, the subject was recommended to the attention of parliament in the queen's speech. But the bill which was brought in by the government was thrown out, and the practice continued to prevail. When the custom of wearing the sword was abandoned, the number of duels diminished, though it was then that their irrational character may be said to have attained its maximum. The pistol was substituted for the sword, and the doctrine of chance—which was reduced to an absurdity by the medical D. of a couple of pills, cne composed of bread and the other of poison—was inaugurated. Since this period, the practice has fallen into disrepute, by the gradual •operation of public opinion, and in this country it ma probably be now regarded as finally abolished. By the laW of this country; the act of killing in a.D. has always been regarded as murder, however fair the D. may have been ; but whilst the practice was countenanced by public opinion, it was generally found impossible to induce a jury. to convict. That a verdict of acquittal could not lie looked for with the same security in the present day, is probably a pretty good guarantee for the practice not again making its appearance even in exceptional instances. In France it still prevails to a certain extent.
The duels of the students at the German universities, of which so much has been said and written in this country, are nothing more than fencing-matches with sharp weapons. They are foolish, but not deadly affairs, as the seconds, who are also armed, always interfere to prevent serious bloodshed.
In 1844, several new articles of war were issued by the commander of the forces, with a view to the abatement of dueling in the army.
1. Every officer who shall send a challenge, or who shall accept a challenge to fight a D. with another officer, or who, being privy to an intention to fight a D., shall not take active measures to prevent such D., or who shall upbraid another for refusing or not giving a challenge, or who shall reject or advise the rejection of a reasonable proposi• tion made for the honorable adjustment of a difference, shall be liable, if convicted before a general court-martial, to be cashiered, or suffer such other punishment as the court may award.
2. In the event of an officer being brought to a court-martial for having acted as a. second in a D., if it appear that such officer exerted himself strenuously to bring about an honorable adjustment of the difference, but failed through the unwillingness of the adverse parties, then such officer is to suffer such punishment as the court shall award.
3. Approbation is expressed of the conduct of those who, having had the misfortune to give offense to, or injure or insult others, shall frankly explain, apologize, or offer redress for the same, or who, having received offense, shall cordially accept frank explanations or apologies for the same; or, if such apologies are refused to be made or accepted, shall submit the matter to the commanding officer; and, lastly, all officers and soldiers are acquitted of disgrace or disadvantage, who, being willing to make or accept such redress, refuse to accept challenges, as they will only have acted as is suitable to the character of honorable men, and have done their duty as good soldiers who subject. themselves to discipline.
Partly in consequence of these regulations, but still more as a result of the increasing reason and humanity of English society, the practice of dueling has become almost as entirely obsolete in the British army as it has in the country generally. See ORDEAL.
DUEL (ante). In the southern portion of the United States the custom of dueling, though of late years falling into disuse, is a recognized institution of society. Half a. century ago the pistol and the bowie-knife were as much a part of a man's equipage as his hat or his boots. A gentleman of good social position who had not fought at least, one duel was often looked upon as deficient in the qualities proper to his station. Sudden affrays in the streets, stealthy assassinations, and bitter family feuds, were the consequences. These feuds rivaled in duratioh and ferocity the Venetian vendetta. The land was full of swaggering bullies who had, metaphorically, in one hand a pack of cards and in the other a pistol. Modern civilization, and more especially the war of the rebellion, in which the southern states suffered so terribly, have greatly modified this fire-eating spirit. Other influences have assisted. Not only is the general voice against the practice, but in a large number of the states laws have been enacted which pronounce the killing of a fellow-being in a duel to be murder, and in still more states the mere sending of a challenge is a felony. The first duel on record in America was fought June 18,1621, in New England, between two servants who fought with sword and dagger, and both were wounded. They were sentenced to have their heads and feet tied together, and lie 24 hours without meat or drink. In 1728, one young man killed another on Boston common in a night duel with swords. The survivor escaped from the country, and a severe law against dueling was enacted. During the revolution there were a number of duels. Charles Lee and John Laurens fought, and the former was wounded; Gwinnett, a signer of the declaration of independence was killed by gen. McIntosh. Gen. Greene was twice challenged, but refused to fight, and Washing ton approved his refusal. The most notable duel in the country's history was when Alexander Hamilton was slain by Aaron Burr. On that occasion a great man was lost to the nation, and a dangerous demagogue was socially and politically ruined. In the navy the duel in which Decatur was killed and Barron wounded holds the first place. Andrew Jackson killed a man named Dickinson, and was engaged in several other eon diets. Col. Benton killed Lucas, and also had other duels. Henry Clay and John Ran dolph, the two most brilliant men at that period in congress, fought in 1826. Jonathan Cilley, a member of congress from Maine, was killed by William J. Graves, a member from Kentucky, in 1838. Although himself a duelist, Jackson, while president, expel led officers from the navy for dueling. At the present time a person in the military or naval service implicated in a duel, either as principal or second, may be summarily cashiered. In the northern states the appeal to arms is seldom heard of, though by no means uncommon at the beginning of the century. De Witt Clinton fought with and wounded John Swartwout in 1802, and the next year challenged gen. Dayton of New Jersey. One might suppose that journalism was a calling of any other than a warlike nature, but there have been several notable duels between editors. In 1804, James Cheetham, editor of the American Citizen, challenged William Coleman, editor of the New York Evening Post. The two did not fight, but there was a duel growing out of the challenge between Coleman and a harbor-master named Thompson, and the latter was supposed to have been killed. John D'Oley Burke, an Irishman, author of a drama called Bunker Hill, or the Death of Warren, and editor of a paper in New York, was killed in a duel in 1808. In 1846, Thomas Ritchie, jr., and John H. Pleasants, editors i of the Enquirer and the Whig of Richmond, Va., met in a field, armed with swords and pistols, and had a desperate fight, in which Pleasants was killed, Ritchie being only slightly wounded. In 1842, James Watson Webb, editor of the New York Courier and Enquirer, fought with Thomas F. Marshall, a member of congress from Kentucky, and Webb was slightly wounded. The number of duels among editors in the southern states is very great. In some of the states the killing of a man in a duel is punishable. with death; in others by imprisonment and forfeiture of political rights. In some states certain officers are required to swear that they have not been, within a certain period, and will not be, engaged in a duel.