{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_6085/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_6085","id":"gutenberg_6085","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6085","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Dueling"],"text":"Produced by Holly Ingraham\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CODE OF HONOR;\n\nor\n\nRULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT\n\nof\n\nPRINCIPALS AND SECONDS\n\nin\n\nDUELLING\n\n\nby John Lyde Wilson\n\n\n\nSummary:\n\nOriginally this was published by the author (1784-1849), a\nformer governor of South Carolina, as a 22-page booklet, in 1838. Before\nhis death he added an appendix of the 1777 Irish duelling code, but\nthis second edition was not printed until 1858, as a 46-page small book,\nstill sized to fit in the case with one's duelling pistols. This code\nis far less blood-thirsty than many might suppose, but built on a closed\nsocial caste and standards of behavior quite alien to today.\n\nTranscriber's Note: In the appendix the term \"rencontre\" is used. In\nBritish law (then covering Ireland) this refers to an immediate fight in\nthe heat of offense. A duel would be undertaken in \"cold blood\" if not\ncool temper. Killing a man in a rencontre counted as manslaughter; in a\nduel, as murder.\n\nOn more than one occasion, the author refers to \"posting\" an offender.\nThis refers to posting to the public a notice as to his behavior in some\ncentral club or business spot frequented by all men of that level of\nsociety; exactly where varied from town to town. It was the ultimate\nsanction, making the challengee's refusal to either apologize or fight a\npublic stain upon his character.\n\n\n\n\nTO THE PUBLIC\n\nThe man who adds in any way to the sum of human happiness is strictly in\nthe discharge of a moral duty. When Howard visited the victims of\ncrime and licentiousness, to reform their habits and ameliorate their\ncondition, the question was never asked whether he had been guilty\nof like excesses or not? The only question the philanthropist would\npropound, should be, has the deed been done in the true spirit of\nChristian benevolence? Those who know me, can well attest the motive\nwhich has caused the publication of the following sheets, to which they\nfor a long time urged me in vain. Those who do not know me, have no\nright to impute a wrong motive; and if they do, I had rather be the\nobject, than the authors of condemnation. To publish a CODE OF HONOR,\nto govern in cases of individual combat, might seem to imply, that the\npublisher was an advocate of duelling, and wished to introduce it as the\nproper mode of deciding all personal difficulties and misunderstandings.\nSuch implication would do me great injustice. But if the question be\ndirectly put to me, whether there are not cases where duels are right\nand proper, I would unhesitatingly answer, there are. If an oppressed\nnation has a right to appeal to arms in defence of its liberty and the\nhappiness of its people, there can be no argument used in support of\nsuch appeal, which will not apply with equal force to individuals.\nHow many cases are there, that might be enumerated, where there is no\ntribunal to do justice to an oppressed and deeply wronged individual?\nIf he be subjected to a tame submission to insult and disgrace, where no\npower can shield him from its effects, then indeed it would seem, that\nthe first law of nature, self-preservation, points out the only remedy\nfor his wrongs. The history of all animated nature exhibits a determined\nresistance to encroachments upon natural rights,--nay, I might\nadd, inanimate nature, for it also exhibits a continual warfare for\nsupremacy. Plants of the same kind, as well as trees, do not stop\ntheir vigorous growth because they overshadow their kind; but, on the\ncontrary, flourish with greater vigor as the more weak and delicate\ndecline and die. Those of different species are at perpetual warfare.\nThe sweetest rose tree will sicken and waste on the near approach of\nthe noxious bramble, and the most promising fields of wheat yield a\nmiserable harvest if choked up with tares and thistles. The elements\nthemselves war together, and the angels of heaven have met in fierce\nencounter. The principle of self-preservation is co-extensive with\ncreation; and when by education we make character and moral worth a part\nof ourselves, we guard these possessions with more watchful zeal than\nlife itself, and would go farther for their protection. When one finds\nhimself avoided in society, his friends shunning his approach, his\nsubstance wasting, his wife and children in want around him, and\ntraces all his misfortunes and misery to the slanderous tongue of the\ncalumniator, who, by secret whisper or artful innuendo, has sapped and\nundermined his reputation, he must be more or less than man to submit in\nsilence.\n\nThe indiscriminate and frequent appeal to arms, to settle trivial\ndisputes and misunderstandings, cannot be too severely censured and\ndeprecated. I am no advocate of such duelling. But in cases where the\nlaws of the country give no redress for injuries received, where public\nopinion not only authorizes, but enjoins resistance, it is needless and\na waste of time to denounce the practice. It will be persisted in as\nlong as a manly independence, and a lofty personal pride in all that\ndignifies and ennobles the human character, shall continue to exist. If\na man be smote on one cheek in public, and he turns the other, which\nis also smitten, and he offers no resistance, but blesses him that so\ndespitefully used him, I am aware that he is in the exercise of great\nChristian forbearance, highly recommended and enjoined by many very good\nmen, but utterly repugnant to those feelings which nature and education\nhave implanted in the human character. If it was possible to enact\nlaws so severe and impossible to be evaded, as to enforce such rule of\nbehavior, all that is honorable in the community would quit the country\nand inhabit the wilderness with the Indians. If such a course of conduct\nwas infused by education into the minds of our youth, and it became\npraiseworthy and honorable to a man to submit to insult and indignity,\nthen indeed the forbearance might be borne without disgrace. Those,\ntherefore, who condemn all who do not denounce duelling in every case,\nshould establish schools where a passive submission to force would be\nthe exercise of a commendable virtue. I have not the least doubt, that\nif I had been educated in such a school, and lived in such a society,\nI would have proved a very good member of it. But I much doubt, if a\nseminary of learning was established, where this Christian forbearance\nwas inculcated and enforced, whether there would be many scholars.\n\nI would not wish to be understood to say, that I do not desire to see\nduelling to cease to exist entirely, in society. But my plan for doing\nit away, is essentially different from the one which teaches a passive\nforbearance to insult and indignity. I would inculcate in the rising\ngeneration a spirit of lofty independence; I would have them taught that\nnothing was more derogatory to the honor of a gentleman, than to wound\nthe feelings of any one, however humble. That if wrong be done to\nanother, it was more an act of heroism and bravery to repair the injury,\nthan to persist in error, and enter into mortal combat with the injured\nparty. This would be an aggravation of that which was already odious,\nand would put him without the pale of all decent society and honorable\nmen. I would strongly inculcate the propriety of being tender of the\nfeelings, as well as the failings, of those around him. I would teach\nimmutable integrity, and uniform urbanity of manners. Scrupulously\nto guard individual honor, by a high personal self respect, and\nthe practice of every commendable virtue. Once let such a system of\neducation be universal, and we should seldom hear, if ever, of any more\nduelling.\n\nThe severest penal enactments cannot restrain the practice of duelling,\nand their extreme severity in this State, the more effectually shields\nthe offenders. The teaching and preaching of our eloquent Clergy, may\ndo some service, but is wholly inadequate to suppress it. Under these\ncircumstances, the following rules are given to the public, and if I can\nsave the life of one useful member of society, I will be compensated.\nI have restored to the bosoms of many, their sons, by my timely\ninterference, who are ignorant of the misery I have averted from them. I\nbelieve that nine duels out of ten, if not ninety-nine out of a hundred,\noriginate in the want of experience in the seconds. A book of authority,\nto which they can refer in matters where they are uninformed, will\ntherefore be a desideratum. How far this code will be that book, the\npublic will decide.\n\nTHE AUTHOR\n\n\n\n\nRULES FOR PRINCIPALS AND SECONDS IN DUELLING.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. The Person Insulted, Before Challenge Sent\n\n1. Whenever you believe that you are insulted, if the insult be in\npublic and by words or behavior, never resent it there, if you have\nself-command enough to avoid noticing it. If resented there, you offer\nan indignity to the company, which you should not.\n\n2. If the insult be by blows or any personal indignity, it may be\nresented at the moment, for the insult to the company did not originate\nwith you. But although resented at the moment, you are bound still to\nhave satisfaction, and must therefore make the demand.\n\n3. When you believe yourself aggrieved, be silent on the subject, speak\nto no one about the matter, and see your friend, who is to act for you,\nas soon as possible.\n\n4. Never send a challenge in the first instance, for that precludes all\nnegotiation. Let your note be in the language of a gentleman, and\nlet the subject matter of complaint be truly and fairly set forth,\ncautiously avoiding attributing to the adverse party any improper\nmotive.\n\n5. When your second is in full possession of the facts, leave the whole\nmatter to his judgment, and avoid any consultation with him unless\nhe seeks it. He has the custody of your honor, and by obeying him you\ncannot be compromitted.\n\n6. Let the time of demand upon your adversary after the insult, be as\nshort as possible, for he has the right to double that time in replying\nto you, unless you give him some good reason for your delay. Each\nparty is entitled to reasonable time, to make the necessary domestic\narrangements, by will or otherwise, before fighting.\n\n7. To a written communication you are entitled to a written reply, and\nit is the business of your friend to require it.\n\n\nSECOND'S DUTY BEFORE CHALLENGE SENT.\n\n1. Whenever you are applied to by a friend to act as his second, before\nyou agree to do so, state distinctly to your principal that you will be\ngoverned only by your own judgment,--that he will not be consulted after\nyou are in full possession of the facts, unless it becomes necessary\nto make or accept the amende honorable, or send a challenge. You are\nsupposed to be cool and collected, and your friend's feelings are more\nor less irritated.\n\n2. Use every effort to soothe and tranquilize your principal; do not see\nthings in the same aggravated light in which he views them; extenuate\nthe conduct of his adversary whenever you see clearly an opportunity to\ndo so, without doing violence to your friend's irritated mind. Endeavor\nto persuade him that there must have been some misunderstanding in the\nmatter. Check him if he uses opprobrious epithet towards his adversary,\nand never permit improper or insulting words in the note you carry.\n\n3. To the note you carry in writing to the party complained of, you are\nentitled to a written answer, which will be directed to your principal\nand will be delivered to you by his adversary's friend. If this be not\nwritten in the style of a gentleman, refuse to receive it, and assign\nyour reason for such refusal. If there be a question made as to the\ncharacter of the note, require the second presenting it to you, who\nconsiders it respectful, to endorse upon it these words: \"I consider the\nnote of my friend respectful, and would not have been the bearer of it,\nif I believed otherwise.\"\n\n4. If the party called on, refuses to receive the note you bear, you are\nentitled to demand a reason for such refusal. If he refuses to give\nyou any reason, and persists in such refusal, he treats, not only your\nfriend, but yourself, with indignity, and you must then make yourself\nthe actor, by sending a respectful note, requiring a proper explanation\nof the course he has pursued towards you and your friend; and if he\nstill adheres to his determination, you are to challenge or post him.\n\n5. If the person to whom you deliver the note of your friend, declines\nmeeting him on the ground of inequality, you are bound to tender\nyourself in his stead, by a note directed to him from yourself; and if\nhe refuses to meet you, you are to post him.\n\n6. In all cases of the substitution of the second for the principal,\nthe seconds should interpose and adjust the matter, if the party\nsubstituting avows he does not make the quarrel of his principal\nhis own. The true reason for substitution, is the supposed insult of\nimputing to you the like inequality which if charged upon your friend,\nand when the contrary is declared, there should be no fight, for\nindividuals may well differ in their estimate of an individual's\ncharacter and standing in society. In case of substitution and a\nsatisfactory arrangement, you are then to inform your friend of all the\nfacts, whose duty it will be to post in person.\n\n7. If the party, to whom you present a note, employ a son, father or\nbrother, as a second, you may decline acting with either on the ground\nof consanguinity.\n\n8. If a minor wishes you to take a note to an adult, decline doing so,\non the ground of his minority. But if the adult complained of, had made\na companion of the minor in society, you may bear the note.\n\n9. When an accommodation is tendered, never require too much; and if\nthe party offering the amende honorable, wishes to give a reason for his\nconduct in the matter, do not, unless offensive to your friend, refuse\nto receive it; by so doing you may heal the breach more effectually.\n\n10. If a stranger wishes you to bear a note for him, be well satisfied\nbefore you do so, that he is on an equality with you; and in presenting\nthe note state to the party the relationship you stand towards him,\nand what you know and believe about him; for strangers are entitled\nto redress for wrongs, as well as others, and the rules of honor and\nhospitality should protect him.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. The Party Receiving a Note Before Challenge.\n\n1. When a note is presented to you by an equal, receive it, and read it,\nalthough you may suppose it to be from one you do not intend to meet,\nbecause its requisites may be of a character which may readily be\ncomplied with. But if the requirements of a note cannot be acceded to,\nreturn it, through the medium of your friend, to the person who handed\nit to you, with your reason for returning it.\n\n2. If the note received be in abusive terms, object to its reception,\nand return it for that reason; but if it be respectful, return an answer\nof the same character, in which respond correctly and openly to all\ninterrogatories fairly propounded, and hand it to your friend, who, it\nis presumed, you have consulted, and who has advised the answer; direct\nit to the opposite party, and let it be delivered to his friend.\n\n3. You may refuse to receive a note, from a minor, (if you have not\nmade an associate of him); one that has been posted; one that has\nbeen publicly disgraced without resenting it; one whose occupation is\nunlawful; a man in his dotage and a lunatic. There may be other cases,\nbut the character of those enumerated will lead to a correct decision\nupon those omitted.\n\nIf you receive a note from a stranger, you have a right to a reasonable\ntime to ascertain his standing in society, unless he is fully vouched\nfor by his friend.\n\n4. If a party delays calling on you for a week or more, after the\nsupposed insult, and assigns no cause for the delay, if you require it,\nyou may double the time before you respond to him; for the wrong cannot\nbe considered aggravated; if borne patiently for some days, and the time\nmay have been used in preparation and practice.\n\nSecond's Duty of the Party Receiving a Note Before Challenge Sent.\n\n1. When consulted by your friend, who has received a note requiring\nexplanation, inform him distinctly that he must be governed wholly by\nyou in the progress of the dispute. If he refuses, decline to act on\nthat ground.\n\n2. Use your utmost efforts to allay all excitement which your\nprincipal may labor under; search diligently into the origin of the\nmisunderstanding; for gentlemen seldom insult each other, unless\nthey labor under some misapprehension or mistake; and when you have\ndiscovered the original ground or error, follow each movement to the\ntime of sending the note, and harmony will be restored.\n\n3. When your principal refuses to do what you require of hi, decline\nfurther acting on that ground, and inform the opposing second of your\nwithdrawal from the negotiation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. Duty of Challenger and His Second Before Fighting.\n\n1. After all efforts for a reconciliation are over, the party aggrieved\nsends a challenge to his adversary, which is delivered to his second.\n\n2. Upon the acceptance of the challenge, the seconds make the necessary\narrangements for the meeting, in which each party is entitled to\na perfect equality. The old notion that the party challenged, was\nauthorized to name the time, place, distance and weapon, has been long\nsince exploded; nor would a man of chivalric honor use such a right, if\nhe possessed it. The time must e as soon as practicable, the place such\nas had ordinarily been used where the parties are, the distance usual,\nand the weapons that which is most generally used, which, in this State,\nis the pistol.\n\n3. If the challengee insist upon what is not usual in time, place,\ndistance and weapon, do not yield the point, and tender in writing what\nis usual in each, and if he refuses to give satisfaction, then your\nfriend may post him.\n\n4. If your friend be determined to fight and not post, you have the\nright to withdraw. But if you continue to act, and have the right to\ntender a still more deadly distance and weapon, and he must accept.\n\n5. The usual distance is from ten to twenty paces, as may be agreed on;\nand the seconds in measuring the ground, usually step three feet.\n\n6. After all the arrangements are made, the seconds determine the giving\nof the word and position, by lot; and he who gains has the choice of the\none or the other, selects whether it be the word or the position, but he\ncannot have both.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. Duty of Challengee and Second After Challenge Sent.\n\n1. The challengee has no option when negotiation has ceased, but to\naccept the challenge.\n\n2. The second makes the necessary arrangements with the second of the\nperson challenging. The arrangements are detailed in the preceding\nchapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. Duty of Principals and Seconds on the Ground.\n\n1. The principals are to be respectful in meeting, and neither by look\nor expression irritate each other. They are to be wholly passive, being\nentirely under the guidance of their seconds.\n\n2. When once posted, they are not to quit their positions under any\ncircumstances, without leave or direction of their seconds.\n\n3. When the principals are posted, the second giving the word, must\ntell them to stand firm until he repeats the giving of the word, in the\nmanner it will be given when the parties are at liberty to fire.\n\n4. Each second has a loaded pistol, in order to enforce a fair combat\naccording to the rules agreed on; and if a principal fires before the\nword or time agreed on, he is at liberty to fire at him, and if such\nsecond's principal fall, it is his duty to do so.\n\n5. If after a fire, either party be touched, the duel is to end; and no\nsecond is excusable who permits a wounded friend to fight; and no second\nwho knows his duty, will permit his friend to fight a man already hit.\nI am aware there have been many instances where a contest has continued,\nnot only after slight, but severe wounds, had been received. In all such\ncases, I think the seconds are blamable.\n\n6. If after an exchange of shots, neither party be hit, it is the\nduty of the second of the challengee, to approach the second of\nthe challenger and say: \"Our friends have exchanged shots, are you\nsatisfied, or is there any cause why the contest should be continued?\"\nIf the meeting be of no serious cause of complaint, where the party\ncomplaining had in no way been deeply injured, or grossly insulted, the\nsecond of the party challenging should reply: \"The point of honor being\nsettled, there can, I conceive, be no objection to a reconciliation, and\nI propose that our principals meet on middle ground, shake hands, and\nbe friends.\" If this be acceded to by the second of the challengee, the\nsecond of the party challenging, says: \"We have agreed that the present\nduel shall cease, the honor of each of you is preserved, and you will\nmeet on middle ground, shake hands and be reconciled.\"\n\n7. If the insult be of a serious character, it will be the duty of\nthe second of the challenger, to say, in reply to the second of the\nchallengee: \"We have been deeply wronged, and if you are not disposed\nto repair the injury, the contest must continue.\" And if the challengee\noffers nothing by way of reparation, the fight continues until one or\nthe other of the principals is hit.\n\n8. If in cases where the contest is ended by the seconds, as mentioned\nin the sixth rule of this chapter, the parties refuse to meet and be\nreconciled, it is the duty of the seconds to withdraw from the field,\ninforming their principals, that the contest must be continued under the\nsuperintendence of other friends. But if one agrees to this arrangement\nof the seconds, and the other does not, the second of the disagreeing\nprincipal only withdraws.\n\n9. If either principal on the ground refuses to fight or continue the\nfight when required, it is the duty of his second to say to the other\nsecond: \"I have come upon the ground with a coward, and do tender you\nmy apology for an ignorance of his character; you are at liberty to post\nhim.\" The second, by such conduct, stands excused to the opposite party.\n\n10. When the duel is ended by a party being hit, it is the duty of the\nsecond to the party so hit, to announce the fact to the second of the\nparty hitting, who will forthwith tender any assistance he can command\nto the disabled principal. If the party challenging, hit the challengee,\nit is his duty to say he is satisfied, and will leave the ground. If the\nchallenger be hit, upon the challengee being informed of it, he should\nask through his second, whether he is at liberty to leave the ground\nwhich should be assented to.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. Who Should Be on the Ground.\n\n1. The principals, seconds, one surgeon and one assistant surgeon to\neach principal; but the assistant surgeon may be dispensed with.\n\n2. Any number of friends that the seconds agree on, may be present,\nprovided they do not come within the degrees of consanguinity mentioned\nin the seventh rule of Chapter I. 3. Persons admitted on the ground, are\ncarefully to abstain by word or behavior, from any act that might be\nthe least exceptionable; nor should they stand near the principals or\nseconds, or hold conversations with them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. Arms, and Manner of Loading and Presenting Them.\n\n1. The arms used should be smooth-bore pistols, not exceeding nine\ninches in length, with flint and steel. Percussion pistols may be\nmutually used if agreed on, but to object on that account is lawful.\n\n2. Each second informs the other when he is about to load, and invites\nhis presence, but the seconds rarely attend on such invitation, as\ngentlemen may be safely trusted in the matter.\n\n3. The second, in presenting the pistol to his friend, should never\nput it in his pistol hand, but should place it in the other, which is\ngrasped midway the barrel, with muzzle pointing in the contrary way to\nthat which he is to fire, informing him that his pistol is loaded and\nready for use. Before the word is given, the principal grasps the\nbutt firmly in his pistol hand, and brings it round, with the muzzle\ndownward, to the fighting position.\n\n4. The fighting position, is with the muzzle down and the barrel from\nyou; for although it may be agreed that you may hold your pistol with\nthe muzzle up, it may be objected to, as you can fire sooner from that\nposition, and consequently have a decided advantage, which ought not to\nbe claimed, and should not be granted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. The Degrees of Insult, and How Compromised\n\n1. The prevailing rule is, that words used in retort, although\nmore violent and disrespectful than those first used, will not\nsatisfy,--words being no satisfaction for words.\n\n2. When words are used, and a blow given in return, the insult is\navenged; and if redress be sought, it must be from the person receiving\nthe blow.\n\n3. When blows are given in the first instance and not returned, and the\nperson first striking, be badly beaten or otherwise, the party first\nstruck is to make the demand, for blows do not satisfy a blow.\n\n4. Insults at a wine table, when the company are over-excited, must be\nanswered for; and if the party insulting have no recollection of the\ninsult, it is his duty to say so in writing, and negative the insult.\nFor instance, if the man say: \"you are a liar and no gentleman,\" he\nmust, in addition to the plea of the want of recollection, say: \"I\nbelieve the party insulted to be a man of the strictest veracity and a\ngentleman.\"\n\n5. Intoxication is not a full excuse for insult, but it will greatly\npalliate. If it was a full excuse, it might be well counterfeited to\nwound feelings, or destroy character.\n\n6. In all cases of intoxication, the seconds must use a sound discretion\nunder the above general rules.\n\n7. Can every insult be compromised? is a mooted and vexed question. On\nthis subject, no rules can be given that will be satisfactory. The old\nopinion, that a blow must require blood, is not of force. Blows may be\ncompromised in many cases. What those are, much depend on the seconds.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nSince the above Code was in press, a friend has favored\nme with the IRISH CODE OF HONOR, which I had never seen; and it is\npublished as an Appendix to it. One thing must be apparent to every\nreader, viz., the marked amelioration of the rules that govern in\nduelling at the present time. I am unable to say what code exists now in\nIreland, but I very much doubt whether it be of the same character which\nit bore in 1777. The American Quarterly Review for September, 1824, in a\nnotice of Sir Jonah Barrington's history of his own times, has published\nthis code; and followed it up with some remarks, which I have thought\nproper to insert also. The grave reviewer has spoken of certain States\nin terms so unlike a gentleman, that I would advise him to look at\nhome, and say whether he does not think that the manners of his own\ncountrymen, do not require great amendment? I am very sure, that the\ncitizens of the States so disrespectfully spoken of, would feel a deep\nhumiliation, to be compelled to exchange their urbanity of deportment,\nfor the uncouth incivility of the people of Massachusetts. Look at their\npublic journals, and you will find them, very generally, teeming with\nabuse of private character, which would not be countenanced here. The\nidea of New England becoming a school for manners, is about as fanciful\nas Bolinbroke's \"idea of a patriot king.\" I like their fortiter in re,\nbut utterly eschew their suaviter in modo.\n\n\"The practice of duelling and points of honor settled at Clonmell summer\nassizes, 1777, by the gentleman delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Mayo,\nSligo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout\nIreland.\n\n\"Rule 1.--The first offence requires the apology, although the retort\nmay have been more offensive than the insult.--Example: A. tells B.\nhe is impertinent, &C.; B. retorts, that he lies; yet A. must make the\nfirst apology, because he gave the first offence, and then, (after one\nfire,) B. may explain away the retort by subsequent apology.\n\n\"Rule 2.--But if the parties would rather fight on: then, after two\nshots each, (but in no case before,) B. may explain first, and A.\napologize afterward.\n\n\"Rule 3.--If a doubt exist who gave the first offence, the decision\nrests with the seconds; if they won't decide or can't agree, the matter\nmust proceed to two shots, or a hit, if the challenger requires it.\n\n\"Rule 4.--When the lie direct is the first offence, the aggressor must\neither beg pardon in express terms; exchange tow shots previous to\napology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a\nsevere hit be received by one party or the other.\n\n\"Rule 5.--As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among\ngentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult; the\nalternatives therefore are: the offender handing a can to the injured\nparty, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon;\nfiring on until one or both is disabled; or exchanging three shots, and\nthen asking pardon without the proffer of the cane.\n\n\"If swords are used, the parties engage till one is well-blooded,\ndisabled or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being\ndrawn, the aggressor begs pardon.\n\n\"N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable; the disarmer may\n(strictly) break his adversary's sword; but if it be the challenger who\nis disarmed, it is considered ungenerous to do so.\n\n\"In case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone,\nhe must not be killed as formerly; but the challenger may lay his sword\non the aggressor's shoulder, than break the aggressor's sword, and say,\n'I spare your life!' The challenged can never revive the quarrel, the\nchallenger may.\n\n\"Rule 6.--If A. give B. the lie, and B. retorts by a blow, (being the\ntwo greatest offences,) no reconciliation can take place till after two\ndischarges each, or a severe hit; after which, B. may beg A.'s pardon\nfor the blow, and then A. may explain simply for the lie; because a blow\nis never allowable, and the offence of the lie therefore merges in it.\n(See preceding rule.)\n\n\"N.B. Challenges for individual causes, may be reconciled on the\nground, after one shot. An explanation, or the slightest hit should be\nsufficient in such cases, because no personal offence transpired.\n\n\"Rule 7.--But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties\nhave actually taken their ground, without exchange of fires.\n\n\"Rule 8.--In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge the\ncause of his challenge, (if private,) unless required by the challenged\nto do so before their meeting.\n\n\"Rule 9.--All imputations of cheating at play, races, &c, to be\nconsidered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot,\non admitting their falsehood, and begging pardon publicly.\n\n\"Rule 10.--Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection,\nto be considered as, by one degree, a greater offence than if given to\nthe gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.\n\n\"Rule 11.--Offences originating or accruing from the support of a lady's\nreputation, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any other of the\nsame class, and as admitting of lighter apologies by the aggressor; this\nto be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorably\nto the lady.\n\n\"Rule 12.--In simple unpremeditated rencontres with the small sword or\ncouteau-de-chasse, the rule is, first draw, first sheathe; unless blood\nbe drawn: then both sheathe, and proceed to investigation.\n\n\"Rule 13.--No dumb-shooting, or firing in the air, admissible in any\ncase. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving\noffence; and the challenged ought, if he gave offence, to have made an\napology before he came on the ground: therefore, children's play must be\ndishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.\n\n\"Rule 14.--Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals\nthey attend, inasmuch as a second may choose or chance to become a\nprincipal, and equality is indispensable.\n\n\"Rule 15.--Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the\nparty to be challenged intend leaving the place of offence before\nmorning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.\n\n\"Rule 16.--The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless\nthe challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which,\nhowever, he cannot decline any second species of weapon proposed by the\nchallenged.\n\n\"Rule 17.--The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his\ndistance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.\n\n\"Rule 18.--The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give\ntheir mutual honors that they have charged smooth and single, which\nshould be held sufficient.\n\n\"Rule 19.--Firing may be regulated, first by signal; secondly, by\nword of command; or, thirdly, at pleasure, as may be agreeable to the\nparties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable\nleisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.\n\n\"Rule 20.--In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap\nor a non-cock is to be considered as a miss-fire.\n\n\"Rule 21.--Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the\nmeeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.\n\n\"Rule 22.--Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily\nmake the hands shake, must end the business for that day.\n\n\"Rule 23.--If the cause of meeting be of such a nature that no apology\nor explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground,\nand calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses: in such cases\nfiring at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by\nagreement.\n\n\"Rule 24.--In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one\npistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in\nreserve.\n\n\"Rule 25.--When seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots\nthemselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their\nprincipals.\n\n\"If with swords, side by side, at five paces interval.\n\n\"N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned, will be explained\nand cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at\nClonmell and Galway, at their quarter sessions, for the purpose.\n\n     \"CROW RYAN, President.\"\n\n     \"JAMES KEOG,\n     \"AMBY BODKIN, Secretaries.\"\n\n\n\n\nADDITIONAL GALWAY ARTICLES\n\n\"Rule 1.--No party can be allowed to bend his knee or cover his side\nwith his left hand; but may present at any level from the hip to the\neye.\n\n\"Rule 2.--One can neither advance nor retreat, if the ground be\nmeasured. If the ground be unmeasured, either party may advance at\npleasure, even to touch muzzle; but neither can advance on his adversary\nafter the fire, unless his adversary step forward on him.\n\n\"The seconds stand responsible for this last rule being strictly\nobserved; bad cases have accrued from neglecting it.\"\n\nThis precise and enlightened digest was rendered necessary by the\nmultitude of quarrels that arouse without \"sufficient dignified\nprovocation:\" the point of honor men required a uniform government;\nand the code thus formed was disseminated throughout the island, with\ndirections that it should be strictly observed by all gentlemen, and\nkept in their pistol cases. The rules, with some others, were commonly\nstyled \"the thirty-six commandments,\" and, according to the author, have\nbeen much acted upon down to the present day. Tipperary and Galway were\nthe chief schools of duelling. We remember to have heard, in travelling\nto the town of the former name in a stage coach, a dispute between two\nIrish companions, on the point, which was the most gentlemanly country\nin all Ireland--Tipperary or Galway? and both laid great stress upon\nthe relative duelling merits of those counties. By the same criterion,\nTennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina, would bear away the\npalm of gentility among the States of the Union.","title":"The Code of Honor: Or, Rules for the Government of Principals and Seconds in Duelling","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":6277}