a combat between two persons. To distinguish it from the unpremeditated combat or rencontre, it must take place at a time and place appointed in consequence of a cartel or challenge, and generally in presence of two or more witnesses or umpires.

The word is derived from duelum, an antiquated form of the Latin word bellum; and, as a judicial trial, it has been defined "singularis pugnus inter duos ad probandam litem, et qui vicit probasse intelligitur."—(Fleta.)

The origin of duelling may be traced to that barbarous state of society in which personal courage was followed as the ruling principle, and esteemed as the noblest ornament, of life. Under the influence of such principles, the considerations of justice and humanity were little regarded; and patience under injuries being branded as infamous and cowardly, men were naturally impelled, not only to avenge their own wrongs, but to gratify their private resentments, at the point of the sword.

Before the dawn of Christianity had thrown its light upon the interesting doctrine of a providence superintending the affairs of men, the belief of an adequate distribution of rewards and punishments in the present life seems to have been generally received. The rich, the prosperous, and the happy, were apt to be considered as the peculiar favourites of Heaven; whilst disease, misfortune, and sudden or violent death, were regarded as the inflictions of divine vengeance for the crimes of the sufferers. Hence, in a superstitious age, arose the practice of making a direct appeal to the Deity in the single combat, under the persuasion that the justice of Heaven would infallibly declare for the innocent, and visit the perjured and the guilty with dishonour and death.

The duel, as a judicial trial, prevailed at an early period amongst the Germans, Danes, and Franks; and by a law instituted in 501, by Gundebald, king of the Burgundians, it was allowed in legal proceedings in lieu of swearing.

Louis le Debonnaire was the first French monarch who permitted to litigants the trial by arms; and the same mode of trial was introduced into England, with other Norman customs, by William the Conqueror. It was only used, however, in three cases: in the court martial or court of chivalry, in appeals of felony, and in civil cases upon issue joined in a writ of right; in which last it was the only decision, until Henry II., with consent of parliament, introduced the grand assize. None were exempt from the trial by battle but females, the sick and the maimed, and persons under fifteen or above sixty years of age; ecclesiastics, priests, and monks, being allowed to produce champions in their stead.

The trial by battle, however, soon degenerated into a convenient pretext for gratifying private revenge under sanction of the law, or on pretence of discovering truth and punishing perjury. Under the feudal system it was of course warmly patronized, being but too congenial with the feelings and habits of the fierce and haughty barons, who, uncontrolled by any principles of law or religion, disdained to submit their differences to any arbitration, or to seek any reparation for an injury but by the sword. Arms were the sport, plunder and revenge the business, of their lives. And to such a height did the evils arising from their private quarrels and petty warfare increase, that it became necessary to adopt some means for controlling and directing the torrent of military violence which threatened to sweep away every feeling of justice and humanity, and subject the peace and comfort of the community to the unrestrained passions of a fierce and lawless aristocracy. Martial societies were accordingly instituted, whose duty it was to protect the weak and defenceless, to relieve the oppressed, to correct abuses, and to promote the public good.

Hence arose chivalry and knight-errantry, which, although they modified in some degree the evil of duelling, by imposing a minute and punctilious system of observances, had yet a tendency to perpetuate the practice, by instituting false and fantastic principles of honour. With the code of punctilious regulations, the grounds and motives of the duel were changed and extended. Malice and revenge gave place to the gratification of personal vanity, and the desire of that renown for deeds of arms which was considered as the glory of the age. Tilts and tournaments were the pastime of the nobles, and were not only countenanced by the presence of the prince, who not unfrequently shared the dangers of the field, but graced by the attendance of female beauty and distinction, from whose hands the successful champion received the prize of his achievements, and at whose feet he longed to lay the trophies of his victory. See CHIVALRY.

The tournament continued in high estimation, notwithstanding the many valuable lives sacrificed on the most frivolous occasions, until the middle of the sixteenth century, when the death of Henry II. of France, in a tournament given in honour of his sister's marriage, gave a check to these sanguinary amusements. At this entertainment Henry sent his lance to Count Montgomery, the captain of his guards, who at first declined the challenge; but on the king repeating his commands, he was compelled to obey. At the encounter, Montgomery purposely broke his lance against the king's breastplate; but unhappily for the monarch he wore his helmet open, and a splinter of the lance flew up into his eye, and pierced his brain. He survived for about a month in great agony, and died on the 10th July 1559. (Cockburn on Duels.)

In no country has the duel on private and personal quarrels prevailed to so great an extent as in France. Francis I. encouraged the practice by his well-known determination "that the lie was never to be borne without satisfaction but by a base-born fellow." By his challenge to the Emperor Charles V. he set an example which his fierce and haughty nobles were but too eager to follow; and under the countenance of their monarch their native propensity to the single combat was indulged to an extent which all the power of his successors was scarcely able to control.

The power of the church was frequently exerted to restrain these bloody proceedings, especially by a council at Valentia in 855, and lastly by the council of Trent, session xxv. chap. 19, which excommunicated not only the combatants, but their associates, and even the spectators of the battle; declaring the custom to be detestable, introduced by Satan for the destruction both of body and soul. It adds, that "all advisers, supporters, witnesses, or those in any way concerned, are likewise excommunicated. Princes also who connive at duels are to be deprived of all temporal power, jurisdiction, and dominion over the places where they have permitted duels to be fought."

Philip the Fair, at the close of the thirteenth century, forbade all gages or pledges of battle; but this prohibition was afterwards relaxed in several instances; and in 1306 a royal ordinance was published, prescribing rules, conditions, and ceremonies for the combat.

In the reign of Henry II. a noted duel was fought in the king's presence between Guy Clahot de Jarnac and Francis de la Chastaignerie, in which the latter was slain; and on this occasion Henry is said to have taken an oath never to allow another during his reign. An edict was published accordingly; but this, which appears to have been the first royal prohibition of the duel, was productive of no good effects. The prohibition indeed arose rather from the king's grief for the loss of his friend Chastaignerie than from any desire on public grounds to abolish the custom; and it appears rather to have aggravated the evil, by increasing the number of private duels; for the same punctilious notions of honour from which the duel generally originated, and the same dread of the imputation of cowardice which kept it alive, were still entertained; and as the royal permission, without which the duel had formerly been high treason, could not now be obtained, each man became the judge in his own cause; and in those delicate cases, of which the law could take no cognizance, the point of honour was more likely to be stretched than curtailed.

The parliament of Paris in 1599 declared all persons who had assisted or been present at the prosecution of these unlawful quarrels to be rebels to the king, transgressors of the laws, and disturbers of the public peace.

Henri IV., during the first eighteen years of whose reign no less than 4000 gentlemen are said to have perished by the duel, alluded in his edict at Blois, 1602, to the disorders arising from this barbarous custom; and in 1609 he added to the penalties already imposed, punishment by death, confiscation of goods, fines, imprisonment, and degradation from honour, on all who were in any way concerned in these combats, not only principals and seconds, or bearers of challenges, but spectators, and even those who, being accidentally present, did not interfere to prevent bloodshed. The severity of these edicts might have contributed greatly to diminish the evil; but unfortunately they arose rather from the complaints of the people, and the persuasions of the Duke of Sully, than from any desire on the part of Henri himself to abolish a custom for which he privately entertained a great partiality, as was evident from the readiness with which he granted pardons to offenders, and even privately encouraged particular duels. He readily gave permission to Crequy to fight Don Philip of Savoy, and even added this encouraging compliment, "If I were not a king I would gladly offer myself to be your second."

It was not to be expected that laws, however severe, the open violation of which was thus countenanced by the monarch himself, could be productive of any beneficial effects; and we find the passion for the single combat continuing unabated during the reign of the succeeding monarch Louis XIII. To such extent indeed did it prevail, that the common inquiry when acquaintances met was not, "what is the news to-day?" but "who fought yesterday?" and Lord Herbert, who was ambassador at the court of Louis, says, that "there is scarce a Frenchman worth looking on who has not killed his man in a duel."

Two noblemen, however, Montmorenci Count de Bouteville, the most renowned duellist of the day, and the Marquis de Beauron, persisting to fight in defiance of the royal interdict, were tried according to law, and both beheaded. This execution caused for a time a cessation of the sanguinary custom; but it was reserved for Louis XIV. to give the first effectual check to the continuance of the practice.

During the minority of this prince a very desperate battle was fought between the Dukes de Beaufort and de Nemours, each attended by four friends. The seconds of the Duke de Nemours were the Marquis de Villars, the Chevalier de la Chaise, D'Uzerches, and Compan; and the Duke de Beaufort was attended by D'Henricourt, De Ris, Buri, and Brillet. They fought five against five, with swords and pistols. Nemours was shot by Beaufort, the Marquis de Villars killed D'Henricourt, and D'Uzerches slew De Ris; the rest were only slightly wounded.

This, with another desperate encounter fought in 1663, four against four, determined the king on taking some decided step to prevent the recurrence of such disgraceful and bloody quarrels. The famous edict published in 1679, with the solemn agreement entered into by the principal nobility, "that they would never fight a duel on any pretence whatever," and the firmness of Louis in refusing pardon to all offenders, contributed more to restrain this unhappy propensity than all the efforts of his predecessors.

The practice of duelling in England, although it never prevailed to such an extent as in France, may be traced to the same causes which gave rise to it on the Continent. The duel, as we have already mentioned, was early in use amongst the Franks and Normans, and was probably by them introduced into England.

One of the latest instances of the trial by battle occurred in the reign of Elizabeth in the year 1571, of which Sir Henry Spelman, who was eye-witness, gives an account of the whole proceedings, which were conducted, he says, "non sine magna jurisconsultorum perturbatione." A proceeding having been instituted in the court of common pleas, for recovery of some manorial rights in the Isle of Hartle, Kent, the defendant offered to maintain his right to possession by the duel. The petitioners accepted the challenge; and as the court does not appear to have had the power of refusal, champions were appointed, and all the requisite forms adjusted. The queen, to prevent bloodshed, had commanded the parties to compromise; but, anxious at once to save the credit of the defendant, who demanded the combat, and to support the authority of the law, which enjoined its being fulfilled, the ceremony of the duel was allowed to proceed. On the appointed day the justices of the common pleas and the counsellors appeared at Totihill Fields as umpires of the combat; but as the petitioners did not appear to acknowledge their champion, they were unsuited, and victory declared for the defendant. Thus ended the last judicial combat we read of in a civil case. Another, however, occurred in the court of chivalry in 1631, and one in the county palatine of Durham in 1688; and the trial by battle was claimed so late as 1818, in the case of Ashford v. Thornton, in an appeal of murder.

But although the duel was disused in judicial proceedings, the fantastic notions of honour to which it gave rise still prevailed; and as the law could take no cognizance of points of honour and personal affronts, private duelling rather increased in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I.

During the civil wars the minds of men were too much occupied with the agitating events of the time to pay much attention to the settlement of points of etiquette, and private feuds for the time were forgotten. The custom, however, again gained ground after the restoration of Charles II.; and although he did issue a proclamation to put the existing laws in force, this object was defeated by his great laxity in pardoning offenders.

In consequence of a duel between the Duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun in 1712, which was fought with the greatest ferocity and apparent determination of murder, and in which both parties were killed, the subject again came under the consideration of government. At the meeting of parliament in the following year, the queen's speech alluded to the subject in this sentence: "the practice of duelling requires some speedy and effectual remedy." No precise notice was taken of this part of the speech in the address from the House of Commons; and a bill which was brought in for the more effectual restraint of the duel was thrown out on a second reading.

When the fashion of wearing the sword was abandoned, private duels became less frequent in this country, and we have no longer to deplore the numerous and often fatal rencontres which, during the last century, were so frequently begun and concluded in the moment and heat of passion, and not seldom on the most frivolous occasions. Such was the duel between Lord Byron and Mr Chaworth in 1765, which originated in a dispute during dinner about the quantity of game on their respective manors. The parties retired to an adjoining room, where they fought by the uncertain light of one small tallow candle, and Mr Chaworth, although the more expert swordsman, was mortally wounded.

By the laws of this country all the parties concerned in a duel which terminates fatally are guilty of murder, however fairly the combat may have been conducted, and however great the provocation.

The suddenness of the provocation, and the agitation of excited feelings, which in other cases may be pleaded in extenuation of the crime, cannot be urged in favour of those who, after ample time for deliberation, meet for the avowed purpose of murder.

The duel between Major Campbell and Captain Boyd, for which the former was executed in 1808, is well known, and was considered as little better than deliberate assassination. But in the case of Lieutenant Blundell, who was killed in a duel at Carisbrooke Castle, in the Isle of Wight, in 1813, everything appears to have been conducted with perfect fairness; yet the surviving principal, the seconds, and two others who were considered accessory, were convicted of murder at the Hampshire assizes, and sentenced to death; and although the royal pardon was obtained, they were all dismissed from His Majesty's service.

It is not one of the least evils of this system, that the word honour, which, rightly understood, denotes all that is truly noble and virtuous, should be prostituted as a pretext for gratifying the most malignant of human passions, or as a cover for that moral cowardice—the fear of being thought afraid.

With a view to repress this absurd practice in the army, three new articles of war were issued in the year 1844. The first of these, as embodying the chief points, is here given:

"Every officer who shall give or send a challenge, or who shall accept any challenge to fight a duel with another officer, or who, being privy to an intention to fight a duel, shall not take active measures to prevent such duel, or who shall upbraid another for refusing, or for not giving a challenge, or who shall reject, or advise the rejection, of a reasonable proposition made for the honourable 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."

The most salutary effect has resulted from these regulations, and it is to be hoped that the absurd practice of duelling will no more disgrace the service.