man dictated, or to which his weakness submitted; nay, more, that they should yield a slavish compliance with its sanguinary enactments, without resistance, and even without inquiry!

The "laws of honour," and the results of their practice, only require to be fairly stated, and duly considered, to make the mind of any truly honourable, rational, and candid man, recoil with horror at the enormity and variety of the guilt to which they lead. Impressed with this belief, and persuaded that the practice of duelling would be much less prevalent if its deluded votaries had an opportunity of viewing it in all its bearings, stripped of the false gloss that makes men think it honourable, and exhibited in its true colours, I have been induced to publish this little work, in hopes that, by the Divine blessing, it may be instrumental in removing, or lessening, the evil.

With this view, I have divided my little treatise (if such a composition may be so called,) into two parts. The first contains a few brief but pointed tests, to show that the law of honour, and the practice of duelling, abound with irreconcilable inconsistencies and absurdities, and are contrary to common sense.

That whilst the law in question pretends to be based on the purest principles of moral rectitude of conduct, by duellists termed "honour," it in

reality sanctions, nay, peremptorily calls for, the abandonment of the most solemn moral obligations that man can enter into with his species; and leads to the commission of the blackest and deadliest crimes.

Secondly, That it is contrary to the law of God, and the precepts and doctrines of the christian religion.

.7.

CHAPTER II.

THOSE who are favourable to duelling, or at least profess to be so, will tell you that the perfection of their system consists in the following leading points:

First, That they are under a superior law,"the Law of Honour."

Secondly, That this "law" is peculiarly adapted to the case of gentlemen, and intended solely for their use.

Thirdly, That it furnishes a means whereby a gentleman can vindicate his character, or redress a grievance, in cases where the law of the land (they say) gives no adequate remedy.

Fourthly, That it places the weak upon a par with the strong, and enables all parties to engage on an equal footing.

Fifthly, That it is based upon the highest principles of honour; embraces a pure system of morality; ensures the most exalted practice of it; and enforces the observance of the courtesies of

life.

In these five particulars, "men of honour," as they are emphatically termed, usually take their stand when called upon to defend the sanguinary practice of duelling.

It is my intention very briefly to examine, and I hope clearly to show, the utter fallacy of each of these pretensions, by which multitudes of truly honourable minds are deceived, simply because they will not investigate them.

It is necessary to premise that, by the laws of honour, every gentleman who receives an affront, insult, or injury, from another, must immediately, on pain of "losing his place and station in society," wipe out the alleged stain upon his honour by sending a challenge to the person who offended him, and demanding satisfaction from him.

The offences for which a duel is thus required to be fought, are multifarious in character, heterogeneous in kind, and unlimited in number; embracing an extended range-from an offensive gesture, to the greatest injury one man can do to another, whatever each injured party may consider the greatest to be.

Classification of crimes is however unnecessary, because the mode of redress, and the punishment to be inflicted, are the same in all cases, without the slightest regard to their magnitude; as I shall afterwards show.

For the information of the uninitiated, it may be well to state, that a modern duel is thus conducted ::

As soon after the offence is given, as circumstances will admit, the offended party applies to his "honourable friend" to take a message to the opposite party to demand "satisfaction" for the real or imaginary injury complained of.

This "satisfaction" consists in an explanation, or an apology, or a hostile meeting.

The "friend" calls upon the offender, and delivers his message, which is in general fastidiously polite, and studiously laconic.

This message is received with equal politeness, and an assurance is given, that his (the offender's) friend shall immediately convey the necessary

answer.

The original offender then goes to his friend, desiring his assistance in a delicate affair, and that he will arrange the matter for him.

The two principals having thus placed their "honour" and their lives in the hands of their respective friends," become thenceforth mere automatons. If no apology is made or offered, the seconds arrange together the time and place of meeting.

Where the feud is really not a very deadly one, much depends upon the seconds; and many a