bat of mortals and gods is immortalized in the Iliad; and the fight between David and Goliath has often been mentioned to show that the Jews and other Asiatics were acquainted with the practice. The Arabs of Mohammed's time knew it, and it may be asserted that it has been recognized in almost every community. The barbarians who overran the Roman empire gave to duelling its modern character, which is believed to have had its origin in the wager of battle, or judicial combat, the object of which was to vindicate the innocent. To rude races, by whom courage was held in the highest honor, the belief was natural that success in combat was the test of truth. The trial by combat was legalized as early as A. D. 501; the practice extended, and was maintained for centuries after the modes of thought in which it originated had disappeared. It was recognized as legal in England as late as 1818 by the highest law court, and was abolished by parliament in 1819; but in France its judicial character was never formally admitted after 1547. It belonged to the list of ordeals, and the solemnities that attended its observance were calculated to impose upon men's minds, and to give it the force that proceeds from permanence. Jurists and churchmen upheld it, and monarchs were its patrons and regulators. This class of duels became so common that various attempts were made to lessen their number. By the truce of God, 1041, they could not be fought from Wednesday to Monday, the days intervening being sacred to Christ's passion. In 1167 an edict forbade duels upon claims that did not exceed 24d., a circumstance that shows their absurdity, for even allowing largely for the change in the value of money, the sum mentioned was less than a dollar. The occurrence of the crusades and the study of the civil law had some effect in abating personal combats.-France was the country in which the duel was most common, and in the reign of the chivalric Francis I. it assumed the character which it has ever since maintained. That king laid down the principle "that the lie was never to be put up with without satisfaction, but by a base-born fellow ;" and lies were divided into 32 categories, each having its own particular mode of satisfaction. But it was the king's conduct that had the most influence on the minds of fighting men. The personal quarrel between him and the emperor Charles V. was one of the scandals of that age, and grew out of the determination of the former to break the promises which, as a prisoner, after the battle of Pavia, he had made to the latter, in order to obtain his freedom. The emperor accused the king of violating his pledge, and proposed to make his accusation good with his sword. Francis returned the lie in coarse terms, and offered to meet his rival in arms at any place he might name. Charles named the banks of the Bidassoa, the very spot where he had restored Francis to liberty. By quibbling, the king prevented the meeting he had appeared to desire. The violence of the disputants excited

653

much attention, and from their high rank a most pernicious example was set to the hot spirits of the time. It became the custom to decide disputes with the sword, and from that period dates the modern duel "as far as it relates to mortal combat upon a mere point of honor." It was reported that Francis had offered to fight an eminent German who had offended him, but who had declined the proffered meeting. Duelling became the rage in France, and has so continued until now. The lapse of 3 centuries appears not to have changed the character of French duelling, and the combats in which some of Henry III.'s mignons distinguished themselves were in no respect worse than that in which a Paris editor was stabbed by an army officer in 1858. The party dissensions and civil wars of France that raged during the last 30 years of the rule of the house of Valois, and in the early part of the reign of the first Bourbon king, naturally tended to make duelling more common and more savage than it could have been under other circumstances. It was the age, too, of assassination, which shows that duelling does not necessarily imply the existence of the sentiment of honor. Henry IV. has been praised for the efforts which he made to prevent duelling, but his practice was in flagrant opposition to his edicts, and few sovereigns have done more to make single combats fashionable. It is asserted that in his reign 4,000 persons fell in such combats, and that he granted 14,000 pardons for duelling; yet among his edicts was one that made duelling a crime against royalty, punishable with death. He further required that persons who had quarrelled should submit their grievances to the governor of their province, to be laid before the marshals of France and the constable, thus seeking to carry out the idea which had originated with Charles IX., to establish the jurisdiction of the court of honor. Louis XIII. treated duellists as his father had, though justice was done in the case of the infamous Bouteville, one of the Montmorencys, and the worst duellist of his day, who, by the influence of Richelieu, was brought to the scaffold. Louis XIV. set his face against duelling, and the autocratic position to which he attained enabled him to lessen its frequency, though it had been increased by the wars of the Fronde, in the early part of his reign. Edict after edict was issued by him against it, and courts of honor were instituted for its prevention. The regency revived duelling, which Louis XV. sought to stop, but with little effect. John Law was a noted duellist, and the duke de Richelieu was another, while St. Evremont and St. Foix carried duelling to such perfection that they well nigh made it a farce. The reign that ushered in the revolution had its share of duels, a party to one of which was the count d'Artois, afterward Charles X., his antagonist being the duke de BourbonCondé, while two of the most famous swordsmen were the chevalier d'Eon and the chevalier de St. Georges. The duke de Lauzun, who served in the forces that were sent to aid the

made the mere fighting of a duel, though it should have no evil result, punishable with death. -Duelling has been known in the United States from the very beginning of their settlement, the first duel taking place in 1621, at Plymouth, between two serving men. Mr. Sabine thinks it possible that in the ludicrous punishment inflicted on these chivalrous combatants we can find the cause of the difference in opinion on duelling that exists between the North and the South. They were sentenced to be tied neck and heels together for 24 hours, but a portion of the punishment was remitted. Castle island, in Boston harbor, is said to have been a duelling ground for Englishmen. In 1728, a young man named Woodbridge was killed in a duel on Boston common, by another young man named Phillips. They fought without seconds, in the night time, and with swords. Aided by some of his friends, Phillips got on board a man of war and escaped to France, where he died a year afterward. A great sensation was caused, and a new and severe law against duelling was enacted. There were few duels in the revolution, the most noted being those between Gen. C. Lee and Col. John Laurens, in which the former was wounded, and between Gens. Cadwallader and Conway, in 1778, in which the latter received a shot in the head from which he recovered. Button Gwinnett, one of the signers of the declaration of independence, from Georgia, was killed in a duel with Gen. McIntosh, in May, 1777. In 1785 Capt. Gunn challenged Gen. Greene twice, both being citizens of Georgia, and threatened a personal assault when the latter refused to meet him. Greene wrote to Washington, acknowledging that if he thought his honor or reputation would suffer from his refusal he would accept the challenge. He was especially concerned as to the effect of his conduct on the minds of military men, and admitted his regard for the opinion of the world. Washington approved of his course in the most decisive terms, not on moral grounds, but because a commanding officer is not amenable to private calls for the discharge of his public duty. Gen. Hamilton was killed in a duel with Col. Burr in 1804, the latter being vice-president, and the former the greatest leader of the opposition. This duel is always allowed the first place in the history of American private combats. That which stands next is the duel between Capts. Barron and Decatur, the latter being killed, and Barron severely wounded. Henry Clay and John Randolph fought in 1826, and Col. Benton, in closing his account of the fight, says: "Certainly duelling is bad, and has been put down, but not quite so bad as its substitute-revolvers, bowie knives, blackguarding, and street assassinations under the pretext of self-defence." Gen. Jack son killed M. Dickinson in a duel, and was engaged in other "affairs." Col. Benton killed a Mr. Lucas, and had other duels. In 1841 Mr. Clay was on the eve of fighting with Col. King, then a senator from Alabama, and elected vicepresident in 1852. Mr. Cilley of Maine fought

with Mr. Graves of Kentucky in 1838, near Washington, and the former was killed. This duel caused nearly as much excitement as that between Hamilton and Burr. Both parties were members of congress. Duels have been numer. ous in California since that country became a part of the United States, and some of them have been of a very severe character. Formerly they were very common in the U. S. navy, and valuable lives were lost. It is related of Richard Somers, who perished in the Intrepid, and who is said to have been a mild man, that he fought three duels in one day. Capt. Bolton (then Finch) shot Lient. White, on an island in Boston harbor, in 1819; but White forced the duel on him, and fell. In 1830 President Jackson caused the names of 4 officers to be struck from the navy roll because they had been engaged in a duel. These encounters have not been so common in the navy of late years as formerly. The army has furnished duellists, some of them of the highest rank in the service. In the northern states, the force of opinion is strong against duelling; yet, at the beginning of the century, duelling was there common, and several duels were fought in New England, while the "code of honor" was in full force in New York and New Jersey. Five shots were exchanged between De Witt Clinton and John Swartwout, in 1802; and a challenge passed between Mr. Clinton and Gen. Dayton of New Jersey, in 1803.-Duels have been not unfrequent in the different parts of British America, and in Canada and the other provinces the state of opinion resembles rather that which prevails in our southern states than the opinion of neighboring New England.-By the common law, when one of the parties to a duel is killed, the survivor and the seconds are guilty of murder; and the participation in a duel where there is no fatal result, either as principal or second, is regarded as a misdemeanor. Many of the states of the American Union have, however, modified this rule by legislative enactment, and while in some of them the killing of a man is punishable with death, in others a term of imprisonment with forfeiture of political rights is substituted. Some states require certain officers of state to make oath either that they have not within a certain time been, or will not be, concerned in a duel; and in nearly all, the duellist and his abettors are disqualified from holding office or exercising the elective franchise for life, or for a term of years, according to the issue of the duel. In the American naval and military service, an officer implicated in a duel with a brother officer, either as principal or second, is liable to be cashiered, upon conviction by a court martial; and an equally stringent provision exists in the articles of war regulating the British military service. All the legislation that has been directed against it in the United States-and it is much-has been fruitless; and the labors of individuals of the highest character have been equally barren, in more than half the Union.-See J. G. Millingen, "The History of Duelling” (2 vols. London,

DUER

1841); Lorenzo Sabine, "Notes on Duels and Duelling, with a preliminary Historical Essay" (12mo., Boston, 1855).

DUER, JOHN, an American jurist, born in Albany, N. Y., Oct. 7, 1782, died on Staten island, Aug. 8, 1858. He was the son of Col. William Duer of the revolutionary army, and on his mother's side a grandson of Gen. William Alexander, the claimant of the Scottish earldom of Stirling. In his 16th year he entered the U. S. army, but after two years left the service to pursue the study of the law and of general literature. He commenced the practice of his profession in Orange co., N. Y., whence about 1820 he removed to the city of New York, where he resided until his death. In 1825 he was appointed one of the commis sioners to revise the statute law of the state, and afforded valuable assistance in the prepara tion of the first half of the work, his professional labors preventing him from giving more than occasional advice to his colleagues on the remainder. In 1849, after an honorable career at the bar, he was elected a justice of the superior court of New York city, a position which he filled until his decease. After the death of Chief Justice Oakley in May, 1857, he became the presiding justice of the court. He was a delegate to the convention which amended the state constitution in 1821, but seldom took an active part in public affairs. In 1845 he published a "Lecture on the Law of Representations in Marine Insurance," and in 1845-'6 a treatise on the "Law and Practice of Marine Insurance" (2 vols. 8vo.), which has become a standard authority in the United States. In 1848 he delivered a discourse on the life, character, and public services of Chancellor Kent, which was published, and at the time of his death was engaged in editing "Duer's Reports" of the decisions of the superior court. The 6th volume, which he did not live to complete, was revised by him while confined to his bed by a severe fracture of the thigh. Justice Duer was held in great esteem for his eminent judicial abilities, as well as for the dignity and impartiality with which he discharged the duties of his office. WILLIAM ALEXANDER, brother of the preceding, a distinguished jurist, born in Rhinebeck, Dutchess co., N. Y., Sept. 8, 1780, died in New York, May 31, 1858. After serving for a short time in 1798 as a midshipman in the navy, he commenced the study of law, was admitted to the bar in 1802, and having practised for a few years in New York, removed to New Orleans to form a professional partnership with Edward Livingston. Compelled by his health to return to the north, he opened an office in his native village, and between 1814 and 1820 was a member of the state assembly, taking a prominent part in the debates on the establishment of canals and other important questions. In 1822 he was appointed judge of the supreme court in the 3d circuit, an office which he held until the close of 1829, when he was elected president of Columbia college. He discharged VOL. VI.-42

his academical duties with great benefit to the institution until 1842, when he retired on account of ill health, and took up his residence in Morristown, N. J. He is the author of a treatise on the "Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States," of which an enlarged edition appeared in Boston in 1856; of a memoir of his maternal grandfather, Gen. William Alexander; and of various occasional addresses before historical and literary societies. In the early part of his life he was a frequent contributor of literary articles to the periodical press of New York.

DUFAU, PIERRE ARMAND, a French publicist, and director of the imperial institution for the blind at Paris, born in Bordeaux, Feb. 15, 1795. His first important literary undertaking was a continuation of Velly, Villaret's, and Garnier's general history of France. In 1824 he published a collection of the fundamental laws of the nations of Europe and America, with notes upon the history of liberty and of political institutions in modern times. About the same date appeared his work on the "Partition of European Turkey between Russia, Austria, England, and the Greeks, with the Mediation of France." From 1830 to 1840 he was one of the most active writers of the moderate liberal party. He assisted in editing the Temps and the Constitutionnel, and was for a time chief editor of the latter journal. He was a teacher in the royal institution for the blind from 1815 to 1840, and its director from 1840 until within a recent period, when he retired with the title of honorary director. He took part also in founding and supporting other charitable institutions, and fulfilled several public functions until obliged to devote himself excluively to the interests of the establishment confided to him. He continued, however, to write treatises upon political sciences, and for the amelioration of the condition of the blind, and was at the same time a contributor to some of the leading French cyclopædias. Many of his later works were crowned by the academy of sciences, and one of his earlier essays on the abolition of slavery in the French colonies (1830) by the society of Christian morality. He has also published, under the name of Armand, several light theatrical pieces. His latest works are: Statistique comparée des aveugles et des sourds-muets (4to., 1854), and De la réforme du mont de piété, à memoir presented to the academy of moral science in 1855.

DUFAURE, JULES ARMAND STANISLAS, & French statesman and lawyer, born Dec. 4, 1798, was councillor of state in 1836, minister of public works in 1839, a member of the chamber of deputies from 1834 to 1848, and a champion of constitutional liberty until 1844, when he became the leader of a new moderate party midway between the opponents and supporters of the government. Although opposed to the agitation which caused the downfall of Louis Philippe, he adhered to the new republic in 1848, was elected to the constituent and legislative assemblies, and officiated as minister