it has been truly said that during the french revolution, the foot of liberty slipped on blood, and she fell prostrate under a military despotism. under the directory an attempt was made to restore society to its ancient prejudices, modified by the times, and duelling became fashionable amongst the upper classes of society, more especially in upstart circles, while in the army it was constantly resorted to both by officers and soldiers. scarcely a day passed without a meeting in the bois de boulogne, while garrison towns were continually disturbed by desperate duellists; pistols were now adopted by civilians, and the sabre, rarely the small sword, became the arm of the military.

that duels should prove of frequent occurrence amongst soldiers and officers of lower rank might be expected, since general officers showed the example. in 1802, generals destaing and reynier having quarrelled in a discussion relating to the egyptian campaign, destaing was 238 killed by a pistol-shot in the breast. napoleon, who was then first consul, expressed his displeasure, and for some time the survivor was obliged to absent himself from paris.

a diplomatic duel took place at naples under the reign of murat. at a levee of the king and queen, count dolgoroucki, the russian ambassador, took precedence of the french envoy, baron durand de mareuil, who as family ambassador had a claim to a prior introduction. the baron took no notice of this circumstance at the time, but on quitting the palace sent a message to the russian nobleman, who replied that he would submit the affair to his court.

the french general, excelmans, who was present at the time, immediately called upon the count de beckendorf, the first secretary of the russian embassy, to demand satisfaction for the insult offered to france in the person of her representative. the challenge was accepted, and at the same time it was agreed that the two ambassadors should be present at the meeting. however, the russian ambassador would not allow his secretary to take up the quarrel, and he accepted the message sent by the envoy of france. the ambassadors becoming principals, the seconds resolved that, according to the ancient italian custom, they should follow their example, and the four combatants met. both 239 ambassadors were slightly wounded, but beckendorf was run through the body by excelmans, and recovered with great difficulty. the war with russia broke out shortly after, and it is generally supposed that this insult offered to france by the russian minister was one of the pretexts that accelerated the event.

napoleon invariably objected to the practice of duelling; and, although he knew from the character of his officers and soldiers, that it was impossible to prevent it, yet he visited with his displeasure all the superior officers who transgressed the regulations on that subject. he was frequently heard to say, that he never could place any dependence upon a duellist in battle, and that latour maubourg, the bravest of the brave, had never drawn his sword in a private quarrel. such was also the opinion of follard, the commentator of polybius, who observed, “that in his time, duellists were in great vogue, but he generally found them the very scum and dishonour of the army, and the first to flee in moments of danger.”

gustavus iv, as has been already related, with more chivalric feeling than wisdom, sent a message to napoleon, who replied, “that he would order a fencing-master to attend him as a plenipotentiary.”

during the reign of napoleon, it appears that duels were not frequent; society was no longer 240 convulsed by party feelings and violent political recriminations; discord had ceased to reign, and all france submitted quietly to the iron yoke of military despotism. former disputes had arisen in the intrigues of courts, in which depraved and ambitious females reigned paramount; and in the incessant altercations of these privileged and honoured courtesans, the fashionable men of the age were constantly involved; political debates were also a common cause of hostile feeling, and a subsequent meeting: but under the empire, no one could express his opinion, and political discussion became merely a matter of form; the press, being also under the immediate control of government, could not give offence, and when it did offend, as it was the organ of the state, the injured party could obtain no public or private redress.

the restoration of the bourbons operated powerfully upon society; all former animosities that had been kindled in silence, and smothered by prudence, broke forth with an uncontrolled fury. the monarch was reluctantly obliged to allow the freedom of the press, and the public journals became the daily vehicle of slander and insult. the french were unaccustomed to this licentiousness, which, from ancient usage, is overlooked in general by british legislation,—lawyers and newspaper writers could not brook these open insults, and literary duels marked 241 this period by their frequent occurrence. the return of the emigrants was also the source of many duels; these unfortunate gentlemen, “who had nothing learnt, and nothing forgotten” during their exile, assumed a haughty bearing towards the officers of the republic and the empire who were without birth or any name but that which their valour had rendered noble, which could not be brooked by these soldiers of fortune. few duels between the ancienne noblesse and the parvenus, it is true, took place at court; but they were not unfrequent in the army, until the sons of the olden times began to respect the children of the revolution for their glorious deeds of arms, the narration of which formed a great part of their conversation. yet much blood had been shed ere this reconciliation had taken place: the noble youth of france who now surrounded the restored throne, devoted their time to obtain some skill in swordsmanship, and in many of their quarrels with the old officers, who had been for years out of practice, they displayed a superiority which the former severely felt.

ancient animosities and disappointed ambition now reigned paramount; one party seeking to recover by violence and power what they had lost by flight; and the other, to preserve what they had acquired at the price of their blood and that of their families. all the wisdom and prudence of louis xviii. could not restrain this 242 impetuous torrent, to which no bounds could be assigned, since the want of solidity of the throne was felt in the vacillating state of every part of the social edifice.

parliamentary debates and studied imitations of british extemporaneous eloquence, and paper-wars, led to constant disputes. st. marcellin, a distinguished literary character, was killed by fayau, his bosom friend. st. morys, lieutenant-colonel of the gardes du corps, was killed by colonel barbier dufay, and beaupoil de st. aulaire paid with his life a paragraph in his printed oration on the duke de feltre. in consequence of this offensive publication, st. aulaire was first called out by the son of the deceased duke; he then had to fight a cousin of the general m. de pierrebourg: the parties met, when st. aulaire proposed the sabre, and pierrebourg wished for the sword, but conceded the point to his adversary; both were perfectly cool, so much so indeed, that at the suggestion of st. aulaire, they changed their ground, as the sun was shining on his antagonist. st. aulaire wounded pierrebourg in the knee, but being uncovered, the other gave point, and wounded him between the ribs, when throwing away his sabre, he exclaimed, “i fear that the wound is too deep;” to which the seconds replied, “it is unfortunate, but it was all fair play.” st. aulaire expired a few minutes after. 243

literary duels became frequent, especially on account of political and historical works. philippe de ségur, author of the campaign of russia, had to meet general gourgaud, one of napoleon’s aide-de-camps, when the author was wounded. a neapolitan colonel of the name of pépé challenged the author of a work, in which he had reproached italy with its pusillanimity, and obtained the satisfaction of wounding him, to prove the incorrectness of his statement.

two enthusiastic novel writers fought in defence of classical and romantic literature, firing at each other four times, and only separated when the severity of their wounds prevented further hostilities. a desperate duel was fought between m. raynouard, commanding the caravanne, and m. garnerey, the artist, who had been sent to paint the battle of navarino. it appears that frequent altercations had arisen between the parties when on board, and garnerey, labouring under fever, was landed by the captain at the lazaret of toulon. the incensed artist wrote a letter, in which he complained that he had been cruelly deprived of medical aid; in consequence of which, raynouard called him out as soon as they were released from quarantine, when garnerey shot him in the hip. he only survived the wound nine days.

notwithstanding the frequency of duels, the 244 survivors were, in several instances, prosecuted. an artillery officer of the name of treins, having called out a person of the name of damarzil, it was decided that they should fight with pistols, at the distance of six paces. having drawn lots for the first fire, it fell upon treins; the witnesses then requested that a greater distance should be taken. treins would not consent to this arrangement, which was contrary to the previous agreement; he fired, and mortally wounded his adversary in the stomach. notwithstanding the severity of the wound, he had sufficient strength to return the fire, wounding his antagonist in the arm. he died a few hours after. the court came to the decision, “that treins having been the aggressor, and having fired contrary to the wishes of the by-standers, at so short a distance, when he was certain of killing his antagonist,—these circumstances did not allow that this case should be included in those cases of duels which are not considered as criminal and punishable as such.” on this occasion the duel was considered an assassination, because the party fired at too short a distance. yet it must be recollected, that had the survivor’s pistol missed fire, his antagonist had an equal certainty of shooting him.

the tribunal of douai came to a similar conclusion in the case of a person who shot another after taking a long and deliberate aim. the 245 court of marseilles gave a similar judgment in the following case:—a man, named roqueplane had called out another of the name of durré. the seconds wanted to place the parties at a distance of twenty-five paces; durré insisted upon fifteen. lots were drawn for the first fire, which fell upon roqueplane, who discharged his pistol in the air. durré insisted that he should fire at him; and, despite the interference of the seconds, his wish was acceded to: but the pistol missed fire; on which durré fired, and shot his adversary dead.

a singular case, somewhat of a similar nature, occurred not long since at bordeaux. a spanish-american gentleman had left his wife in that city, and during his absence her conduct, it appeared, had been anything but correct. on his return, the tongue of scandal and of friendship soon informed him of what was called his dishonour; and he fixed upon a young man of the name of a——, as the person who was to give him satisfaction, on the plea that he had intrigued with his wife. m. a—— refused to meet him repeatedly, insisting upon his innocence; and adding, that even if proofs of any criminality could be adduced, the conduct of the lady had been so improper with various persons, that he would not expose his life in such a business. the husband persisted, and at last meeting him at ’change, struck him repeatedly. 246 a meeting was now unavoidable. forty paces were measured, and eighteen paces told off between the two extreme points, leaving a space of only four paces in the centre of the ground. it was decided that both parties should advance towards this point, and fire whenever they thought proper. the adversaries moved on; but the spaniard, in his vindictive impatience, fired at twelve paces, and missed his antagonist, who continued advancing towards the central point of four paces, while the disappointed spaniard halted where he had fired. according to the pre-arranged agreement, he was ordered to proceed to the centre, where stood his antagonist; when only four paces divided them. m. a—— then stated, that he would not fire, if his adversary was satisfied; to which the other replied, that he would fire, as he was determined that one of them should fall. a—— fired; but the pistol missing, it was found that his second had not put any cap to it: it was therefore decided, that he was entitled to a shot. again he expressed his earnest desire not to fire. the spaniard persisted, and was shot dead. although at the short distance of four paces, so uncertain is the fire of a pistol, that had the ball, which had struck the shoulder and entered the chest, deviated but a line or two, and been reflected from the bone, the wound would have been slight, and a—— undoubtedly 247 would have fallen. m. a——, with the seconds of both parties, was imprisoned for a considerable time; and when brought to trial, acquitted. in this case, most undoubtedly, the fault rested with the seconds, who should not have left to their principals the power of reserving their fire until they came in such a close situation; an arrangement of which every cool person would avail himself. the chances were also rendered unequal by the precipitation of one of the parties. he could have held back his fire until he came to the four-pace interval, if he thought proper; and his adversary was fully warranted in availing himself of the circumstance, while he honourably offered him his life.

in this case, my opinion was asked, as an english officer. m. a—— was a particular friend of mine; and i gave it as my decided opinion, that he had behaved most honourably. he had been fired at, and continued to move forward according to agreement. the spaniard should have done the same; it was therefore but just, that he should not be allowed to receive a——’s fire where he had halted; since, if a—— had missed him, the spaniard’s next fire would have taken place at the central point, on which he most undoubtedly would have advanced, to claim the advantage which he himself had given to his antagonist. in regard to the missing of a——’s fire, had the pistol been 248 capped, most unquestionably he would have had no claim to a second fire; but the unpardonable neglect had not been his, it was the fault of his second; for which, most assuredly, he should not have perilled his life. it is true, that a miss-fire is considered as equivalent to a shot, in primed pistols, but this rule cannot hold good in percussion arms. a priming may be damp, may be shaken out; but the pistol had been properly loaded. a percussion pistol, without a cap, is to all purposes the same as an unloaded weapon; and if such a neglect on the part of a second, was to expose the life of a principal, it might lead to the most treacherous acts and premeditated murders. this case strongly proves the necessity of pistols being loaded in the presence of both seconds; and perhaps so long as this barbarous practice prevails, it might be more prudent not to use percussion arms. i shall return to this most important subject in another part of this work.

in regiments, the strictest discipline could not prevent duelling. it became the boast of particular corps; and before the french revolution, no officer was admitted into the society of his comrades, until he had given proofs of his courage, and fought without any motive. for this purpose, expert fencers were selected, who were called “feelers;”19 and it must be admitted, that 249 in general they merely sought to inflict a trifling wound. another custom prevailed in several regiments, which was called the calotte, and consisted in insulting persons who passed by the coffee-houses which these madcaps frequented. on such occasions they exacted a pecuniary tribute from the offended party, if he declined fighting. it was on an occasion of this kind, that an officer of artillery, named de paris, was attacked at verdun. in the first instance he paid the exacted tribute, and then addressing himself to the officer, who was considered the chief of the calotte, he insisted upon an immediate satisfaction, which was of course granted. the parties met; the chief of this murderous association was killed; and two of his brother officers who succeeded him shared the same fate.

colonels of regiments not unfrequently showed a pernicious example in sanctioning duels. the viscount de noailles, colonel of the king’s dragoons, had said at table, that although he would break, without any hesitation, any officer who would call him out while with the regiment, yet, that when at paris, and in plain clothes, he would always be ready to attend any officer to the bois de boulogne. a captain de bray, of his regiment, who considered that he had been insulted by him, availed himself of this declaration, and severely wounded him. his commanding officer most honourably recommended him 250 to the first vacant majority in the corps. this same de noailles was in the habit of announcing the day of his departure from every place he had been quartered in, in the public papers, for the purpose, he said, of affording an opportunity for settling affairs of every description.

the restoration of the bourbons had gradually calmed the excitement between hostile parties, or rather they were tired of useless conflicts, until the revolution of the barricades once more gave a free vent to the rage of political animosities, and all classes seemed to consider bloodshed as the only means of asserting their rights. an absurd chivalrous character had been given to the heroes of july, and every violent demagogue fancied that he was called upon to display a similar contempt of life.

a paragraph having appeared in the paper called la tribune, containing some reflection on the duchesse de berry, the editors of le revenant, a legitimist publication, demanded satisfaction from those of la tribune. the parties decided that no individual duel should take place, but that a collective meeting should be fixed upon between any two of the editors whose names appeared in the lists, as other newspapers had taken part in the quarrel. at last it was decided that a meeting should take place between armand carrel, editor of le national, and roux laborie, editor of le revenant. the duel took 251 place; when laborie, who was by no means so dexterous as his adversary, was run through the arm. the parties were then separated, when carrel stated that he believed he was wounded; and upon examination it was found that he had received a dangerous injury in the belly. the seconds were about crossing swords in their turn, when the interference of the police put an end to the contest.

challenges were now mutually exchanged between the writers in favour of legitimacy and their republican brethren, until the populace espoused the cause of the latter: publishers and the offices of the royalist papers were besieged for several days by the mob. had carrel died, it is difficult to say to what excesses this exasperation might have led.

brian, editor of la quotidienne, had to fight a duel with one of his colleagues; and hostile meetings between newspaper writers took place, not only in paris, but the principal cities in france. the following extract from a paper of the time (february 1834) will show to what an extent duelling was carried at this period.

“a deplorable mania for duelling has prevailed during the last week. on the same day on which m. dulong was wounded by a pistol-shot by general bugeaud, two medical students were fighting at a few paces from them, and one of them was mortally wounded by a shot in the 252 breast. this morning, three more duels took place, one of them fatal, and all grounded on political differences; and this day, the manager of one of our theatres has fought the editor of a newspaper.”

while political disputes thus led numerous champions into the field, their party warmly advocated the cause which they maintained at the peril of their lives. thus, a duel having taken place between a native of toulouse and marseilles, on electioneering questions, the toulousian being seriously wounded, was carried to the hospital, where he was immediately followed by his partisans, wearing white pinks at their button-holes, and who suspended a crown of laurels and lilies over the patient’s head at marseilles. barthelemy, the editor of the peuple souverain, killed david, who conducted the garde national; and soon after the editor of the gazette de perigord, fought his predecessor of different political opinions.

it would be endless to relate the numerous duels that took place at this period between literary men, not only on account of political divergence of opinion, but on literary claims. thus, alexander dumas fought gaillardet, on account of the drama called the tour de nesle. it appeared that the latter was the original author of this drama, admirably constructed, but unfortunately of a disgusting character, every vice that 253 can disfigure humanity having been brought into action. the manager of the theatre (la porte st. martin) conceived that the dialogue required correction, or that the incidents of the piece might be more powerfully developed; and he, therefore, with the consent of the author, placed the ms. in the hands of dumas. the latter claimed no authorship, until the piece was brought out with great success, and became the rage of the parisians; when, to the amazement of gaillardet, dumas published the play as his sole production. the business was first brought before the tribunals; but the honour of the parties not being satisfied, a meeting took place, when pistol-shots were exchanged at fifteen paces. the infuriated dramatists were resolved to fire until one of them fell; but the seconds very wisely prevented further proceedings. this exasperation, arising from galled vanity, is easily accounted for, when we find that two other dramatic writers, whose productions had been received with doubtful success, and severely criticised in the papers, shut themselves up with a pan of charcoal, and were suffocated in poetical despair.

duels, having thus descended from the aristocracy of the country to inferior grades, became at last common even amongst trades-people. in 1833, we find a silk-mercer fighting a wool-merchant with pistols, and desperately wounding his antagonist; while a bath-keeper 254 called out and fought a crockery-ware seller, for having sold him a cracked stove. at douai, a woollen-draper challenged a brazier to fight him with swords; the parties met, and rushing at each other like two butting bulls, the brazier was run through the throat, and the unfortunate woollen-draper received a mortal wound in the bowels.

nor was difference of rank any protection against the necessity of giving satisfaction. at bordeaux, an officer of cavalry, wishing to dispose of a new uniform coat that did not fit him, called in a jew old-clothesman, who offered him five francs for the coat. the officer, justly incensed at this impertinence, ordered him out of his room. moses refused: the dragoon kicked him down stairs. the exasperated jew immediately challenged the officer, who refused to fight him; when the jew, meeting him in the street, called him a coward, and struck him. the officer would have cut down the israelite on the spot, had he not been prevented, and was about bringing the man before the police, when it was decided by the corps, that the officer, having placed himself upon a level with the jew by striking him, he was called upon to give him the satisfaction he had demanded. the meeting took place, and the israelite went to the ground with a host of his nation. swords being crossed, the hebrew, notwithstanding the loud acclamations of 255 his tribe, could not be brought to stand, but retreated and fell back, until his adversary brought him against a ditch, which at last halted him. here he would not show fight; and the officer would have run him through the body, had not the crowd of jews rushed to his relief; and it was with great difficulty that the dragoon and his second could effect their escape to a carriage in attendance.

it was during these turbulent times, and after the revolution of july, that my friend, colonel trobriant, shot pélicier, of the home department, the dispute having arisen about a popular song. trobriant wanted to fire in the air; but his adversary replied, “no cowardly condescension, if you please, sir. aim at me, sir, for i shall aim at you.” trobriant fired, and the ball entered the forehead of his obstinate adversary.

prefects, magistrates, editors, shopkeepers, had now descended into the camp; and no situation of life, age, or condition, seemed to be matters of consideration. comte leon, a supposed natural son of napoleon, fought several duels; one with the colonel of the national guard of st. denis, and the other with an english officer of the 18th hussars, of the name of hesse, who had lost to him eighteen thousand francs at play. in this last meeting, it was decided in writing, that the parties should be placed at thirty paces from each other, and advance to ten paces. they 256 both moved forward three paces, took aim, but did not fire. hesse made another step, and leon did the same, when both firing, hesse received a wound in the left breast, and expired after three days’ acute suffering. the widow prosecuted the survivor; but after a short trial he was acquitted, mrs. hesse not appearing on behalf of the prosecution.

in the singular duel between two persons of the names of lethuillier and wattebaut, the survivor was condemned to ten years’ imprisonment. the circumstances were the following:—lethuillier and his wife kept a maison de santé at pantin, and wattebaut, who called himself a man of letters, lodged with them. they were both staunch republicans, and their uniformity in political opinions cemented a strict intimacy between them. however, political affections did not prevent wattebaut from paying more than common attention to the fair wife of his host. a dispute arose, when it was decided that they should fight with pistols, and at the same time it was also agreed that no seconds should be present at the meeting, to avoid the possibility of any reconciliation, while at the same time the honour of madame lethuillier would not be compromised by the circumstance being confided to others. the parties met in the wood of romainville; wattebaut in vain sought to reconcile matters by 257 affirming his innocence in the most solemn manner; the husband was inflexible. wattebaut fired, and his ball entering the right temple, grazed along the eye, passed through the root of the nose, and came out by the left eye, lethuillier being struck blind. wattebaut seeing him fall, fancied that he was dead, and fled; but the wounded man contrived to crawl as far as the cemetery of pantin, where his groans attracted the notice of some persons passing by, who carried him home. lethuillier pursued his adversary before the tribunals, maintaining that he had been treacherously wounded before he had taken his ground, and after he had proposed to his adversary to fight across a pocket handkerchief. wattebaut, on the contrary, asserted that he had fired according to the stipulated pre-arrangement, contradicting the charges brought against him in every particular. although no evidence appeared on behalf of the plaintiff or the defendant, the latter was condemned to ten years’ imprisonment.

such was the fury of duelling during these times of excitement, that two brothers actually engaged in a conflict of this nature: one of them fired on his adversary, a dragoon in the 11th regiment, and having missed him, knocked him down with a bludgeon, and only left him when he considered him a corpse.

a duel was fought between cadet gassicourt 258 the chemist, and one of the mayors of paris, and his assistant, viguier, about some repairs that were required in their parish church; and in 1834 the president of the cour royale fought a barrister, when the judge was wounded by the pleader. about the same period the celebrated meeting between general bugeaud and a lawyer of the name of dulong took place. both of them were members of the chamber of deputies, and the quarrel arose in a debate in the house regarding the treatment of the duchess of berry. as this was what was called a parliamentary duel, the particulars of this transaction are curious. the discussion arose on the subject of the imprisonment of the duchess under the general’s custody, when a deputy of the name of larabit maintained that an officer was not obliged to fulfil an ignoble mission. soult replied, “a soldier’s first duty is obedience;” on which larabit observed, “the president of the council says that a military man should obey: this i readily grant; but when a man is conscious of his rectitude, and is ordered to recede from his duty, he should cease to obey his superiors.” “never, never!” exclaimed several members; on which dulong added, with much warmth, “what! is a man in obedience to the command of his superiors to become a gaoler and degrade himself?”

this hasty expression was not distinctly heard 259 by all the members present, nor did it reach the ears of general bugeaud until some friend repeated the offensive language. the general immediately went over and sat near dulong, who gave a satisfactory explanation, disclaiming any personal allusion. here the matter would have rested, had not one of the newspapers taken up the subject, when the general demanded a written apology from dulong, a request to which he immediately acceded by transmitting to the editor of the paper a statement in which he declared that he had meant nothing personal or offensive in his speech. this letter was sent to the general, who forwarded it by m. de rumigny, one of the king’s aides-de-camp, to the editor of the journal des débats. soon afterwards an evening paper published the following paragraph:

“the journal des débats having reported yesterday that m. dulong had made use of language most insulting to general bugeaud, it was this day affirmed in the chamber that the honourable general had insisted on an apology on the part of m. dulong, which will appear to-morrow in the journal des débats.”

on reading this report, m. dulong immediately addressed the editor of the débats to request he would not publish his declaration, and the general himself called at the office for the letter, and afterwards waited upon m. dulong. 260 seconds were appointed, and as matters could not be settled to the satisfaction of all parties, a duel with pistols was arranged to take place the following morning.

general bugeaud, who was considered one of the most dexterous shots in the army, suggested to m. dulong the advantage that might result to him from the use of swords; but dulong, who as a lawyer knew nothing of the use of arms, thought that the pistol would offer him a greater security.

the parties met at the bois de boulogne at the appointed hour, when it was decided that they should be placed at forty paces from each other, and on a given signal advance and fire whenever they thought proper. general bugeaud in the most honourable manner, and to give his adversary every possible chance that the greater distance could afford, fired at the second step, but unfortunately with too much precision, as the unfortunate dulong dropped wounded by a ball that had entered the skull over the left eye, and he expired on the following morning. this fatal event was clearly the work of political writers, who fomented the hostile feelings of both parties, and whose conduct only admitted of this extenuation, that they were always ready to fight amongst themselves, or with any other political antagonist who wanted to decide a question by recourse to arms. 261

this duel caused a considerable sensation in paris; the king was much censured for not having prevented it, as the chances were most unequal between a skilful combatant and a literary man, who had never handled sword or pistol. moreover, the written apology of dulong, instead of being returned to him when the hostile meeting was decided upon, remained in the hands of the general’s second; a most unfair proceeding, since the ill-fated dulong, who fought sooner than give publicity to a statement which was reported to have been obtained by threats, had the unquestionable right to demand the restoration of the document; and this letter, which it was affirmed had been burnt in the palace of the tuileries, appeared a few days after dulong’s death in several provincial papers.

in a former chapter, we have seen with what ferocity many duels were fought in more barbarous times, yet at the period of which we are now speaking, similar acts of desperation were not uncommon. two officers mortally wounded, insisted on being laid upon mattresses, that they might continue to fire at each other, until one of the party expired. two other officers of high rank exchanged five shots, and the sixth only took effect, proving fatal to one of them.

duels were also fought in public. a fatal duel of this nature took place between a m. de c——, an officer of light cavalry, and m. v——, of carcassone. 262 it appeared, that while the regiment of m. c—— was quartered in the latter town, he had courted a sister of m. v——, and, under the promise of marriage, deceived her. the route arrived, and the regiment marched to hesdin, where v—— followed the seducer, and insisted upon his marriage with his sister; to which proposal c—— acceded, stating, that he only waited for the consent of his family. a suspicious delay having taken place, m. de v—— followed him to paris, and demanded a categorical explanation of his intentions; satisfaction was insisted upon, and c—— again renewed his promises, fixing a period. this period having expired, m. de v——, accompanied by his sister and mother, repaired to hesdin, where the regiment was in garrison. c—— continuing to hesitate, a meeting was fixed upon, near the glacis of the town; the commanding officer and the mayor being both apprised of a transaction which was considered unavoidable. the gates of the town were closed after upwards of eighteen hundred persons had assembled to witness the conflict.

on the ground, m. de v—— once more called upon de c—— to fulfil his promise, and rescue his unfortunate sister from ignominy, adding, that from his expertness in the use of the pistol, his life was at his disposal; and he even proposed swords, to afford him a more equal 263 chance in the conflict. this remonstrance and generous conduct were of no avail. m. de c——, it appears, had practised pistol firing for a considerable length of time, and was equally certain of a successful aim. lots were drawn for the first fire, which fell upon c——, whose ball grazed the head of his adversary, who firing in turn, shot his dishonourable adversary through the head.

all distinction of rank appeared to be levelled; and a general officer who was disappointed in his expectation of promotion, actually sent a message to marshal soult, then minister of war, demanding either the advancement he had memorialized for, or personal satisfaction. the age and position of the marshal were sufficient motives to decline this singular meeting; when the general thought proper to call out the marshal’s son, the marquis de dalmatie, to fight for his father, a challenge which, of course, was also refused; when the pugnacious memorialist published an insulting letter addressed to the marquis, in the usual language of what is called “posting;” but this outrageous conduct was very properly treated with the contempt it deserved.

such was the state of society in france after the restoration, and the second revolution. there existed no authoritative power able to control the discordant elements that agitated society. 264 disappointed ambition on one side, and insulting prosperity on the other, came into daily collision. there was no common enemy to fight beyond the frontier, and intestine personal warfare had succeeded foreign military operations. there existed a constant state of agitation and uncertainty which all parties were anxious to subdue; and the editors of the public papers were war-hounds, let loose to stir up universal commotion. batons of marshals and dukedoms were no longer to be obtained by the sword wielded against national enemies, and civil pre-eminence was sought by drawing it on any competitor who stood in the way of advancement. the country was in a febrile state, and loss of blood seemed as necessary to the body politic, as it might have been considered advisable in the case of a morbid individual. there existed no safety-valve from the high pressure of the times; and, fortunately for the country, the occasional explosions that took place were of little importance, and only served to improve the machinery, so ably conducted by its present engineer, the king of the french. any endeavour on his part, or that of the bourbons, after their restoration, to prevent parties from coming into hostile collision, would have been worse than idle. it was a storm, to which a calm might naturally be expected to succeed; and, at the 265 present period, duels in france are scarcely ever heard of; in fact, they are not in fashion.

the french are naturally disposed to fight; and we have had sad proofs of this sanguinary propensity during the late war, when their prisoners on board the hulks, and in the several dép?ts, converted every tool or instrument into a sword; and nails, knives, razors, sharpened iron hoops, were fixed at the end of sticks for the purpose of fighting; fighting and gambling being their only amusements.

many were the melancholy scenes that took place in 1814, when the allies were in paris; duels between the officers of the foreign powers and those of the disbanded french army were incessant, and they generally proved fatal to the strangers. the french were spending their whole days and nights in fencing; and there is every reason to believe, that, not satisfied with their own skill in fence, their prevosts, or fencing-masters, assumed the uniform of officers to meet any imprudent youth who was foolhardy enough to accept their challenges. thus did many an austrian and prussian officer fall in the bois de boulogne.

when the british army occupied the south of france, similar scenes were witnessed, but more especially at bordeaux, where the french officers came over the garonne, for the sole 266 purpose of insulting and fighting the english, who were, in many instances, absurd enough to meet their wishes. it is, however, gratifying to state, that the fortune of arms was generally in our favour; and, in many instances, when our young officers had been so imprudent as to accept a challenge with the sword, their superior bodily strength and utter ignorance of the polite rules of duelling turned to their advantage; in several instances, they rushed on their adversaries, broke through their guard, and cut them down. in vain the french expostulated against this breach of les régles de l’escrime, and called out “foul play;” our seconds usually carried pistols in their pockets, and threatened to shoot any one who interfered; and the french at last were tired of the experiment.20

after the campaign of waterloo, the french were equally anxious to recover by private deeds of courage their lost fame in battle; but past experience had taught the british the folly of 267 attending to their insults. an unfortunate occurrence, however, took place at cambrai. lieutenant g—— of the guards was proceeding to the mess-room, when a french officer in plain clothes followed him, making use of the most insulting expressions; g—— turned round and asked him if his language was addressed to him, when the ruffian replied, “to you, or any english coward.” instead of treating this rodomontade with sovereign contempt, the young man agreed to meet him the following morning with pistols. the report of this intended meeting was generally known in the garrison; and it is deeply to be lamented, that the commanding officer did not place the ardent youth under close arrest, but it appears that he was satisfied with the assurance on the part of the french commissaire de police, that the offending party should be apprehended and sent out of the town. this, however, was not done, and the meeting took place on the following morning. although 268 it had been clearly stipulated that the weapons should be pistols, the frenchman came to the ground with unbuttoned foils, alleging that he could not procure pistols. g—— very imprudently offered him one of his own, and fell, mortally wounded, at the first discharge. it was observed, that on their mutual fire, the frenchman staggered a pace or two; when collecting himself, he advanced to poor g——, who was expiring in the arms of his companions, and said with much sang-froid, “poor young man! had we fought with swords, he would have been spared all this agony.” what he meant by this expression it is difficult to say, whether he would have killed him outright, or slightly wounded him. the latter surmise, however, is not probable.

when a party of men came from the gate to bear away g——’s body, the french officer exclaimed that “it would be treachery to apprehend him;” but he was presently undeceived, and advised in the most honourable manner to effect his escape as speedily as possible. the fellow, however, seemed to confide in the protection of his countrymen and the apathy of our commander, for he went publicly to the coffee-house, boasting that, after killing a prussian, an austrian, a spaniard, and a portuguese, he at last had been lucky enough to kill an englishman. during this conversation he exhibited a silk 269 handkerchief pierced with several shot-holes, and which he said had been grazed by his adversary’s ball. this circumstance, connected with his having staggered on g——’s fire, gives every reason to believe that he wore a cuirass, our inexperienced officers not having insisted upon his stripping, according to the established rule in french duels, when both parties are obliged to show that they wear no protection.