DUELLING. The rise of the prac tice of duelling is to be referred to the trial by battle which obtained in early ages, jointly with the single combat or tournament of the age of chivalry, which again most probably owed its own exist ence to the early trial by battle. The trial by battle, or duel (as it was also called), was resorted to, in accordance with the superstitious notions of the time, as a sure means of determining the guilt or innocence of a person charged with a trime, or of adjudicating a disputed right. It was thought that God took care to see that, in every case, innocence was vindi cated and justice observed. The trial by battle was introduced into England by William the Conqueror, and established in three cases ; viz., in the court-martial or court of chivalry, in appeals of felony, and in civil cases upon issue joined in a writ of right. Once established as a mode of trial, the duel was retained after the superstition which had given rise to it had died away, and was resorted to for the purpose of wreaking vengeance, or gaining reputation by the display of courage. Then came the age of chivalry, with its worship of punctilio and per sonal prowess, its tilts and tournaments, and the duel, originally a mode of trial established by law, became in time (what it now is) a practice dependent on fashion or certain conventional rules of honour.
It is an instance of the length of time for which abused and improper obsolete laws are often allowed to encumber the English statute-book, that the trial by battle in appeals of felony and writs of right was only abolished in 1818. An appeal of felony had been brought in the previous year, in a case of murder, and the appellee had resorted to his right of demanding wager of battle (Ashford o. Thornton, 1 Barn. and Ald. 405). The appeal was not proceeded with, so that the barbarous encounter did not take place. [AppEsx.
The law of England makes no dia. tinction between the killing of a man in a duel and other species of murder : and the seconds of both parties are also guilty of murder. But the practice of duelling is maintained by fashion against laws human and divine ; and it may be well to enter a little into the reasons of this practice, without reference to its illegality, or to its variance, which no one will dis pute, with Christianity.
The professed object of a duel is satis faction. The affronter professes to have satisfied the man whom he has affronted, and the challenger professes to have been satisfied by the man whom he has chal lenged, after they have fired, or have had an opportunity of firing, pistols at one another. That this satisfaction is of the nature of reparation, is of course out of the question. Satisfaction in this its most obvious sense, or reparation for an injury, cannot be effected by the injured man firing at his injurer, and being Bred at in return.
The satisfaction furnished by a duel is of a different sort, and of a sort which, were it distinctly comprehended, would at once show the absurdity of the prac tice; it is a satisfaction occasioned by the knowledge that, by standing fire, the challenger has shown his courage, and that the world cannot call him coward. Now it is clear that there would be no reason for dissatisfaction on this point, previous to the fighting of the duel, and therefore no reason for seeking satisfac tion of this sort, were it not that the prac tice of duelling existed. Were men not in the habit of fighting duels, and there fore not expected to expose themselves to fire after having received an affront, there would be no ground for calling their cou rage into question, and therefore no ne cessity for satisfying themselves that the world thinks them courageous. The practice of duelling thus causes the evil which it is called in to remedy,—the in jury for which it is required to administer satisfaction. And every one who saw this would immediately see the absurdity of the practice. But the word satisfac tion is conveniently ambiguous. When one speaks of it, or hears it spoken of, one thinks of that satisfaction which means reparation for an injury, and which is not the satisfaction furnished by the duel. Thus are men the dupes of words.