we are to expect, or even afk, from God, forgiveness for ourselves. And this preference is justified by the fuperior importance of the virtue itself. The feuds and animofities in families and between neighbours, which disturb the intercourse of human life, and collectively compose half the mifery of it, have their foundation in the want of a forgiving temper; and can never cease, but by the exercise of this virtue, on one fide, or on both.

СНАР.

D

UELLING as a punishment is abfurd; because it is an equal chance, whether the punishment fall upon the offender, or the person offended. Nor is it much better as a reparation; it being difficult to explain in what the satisfaction confifts, or how it tends to undo the injury, or to afford a compenfation for the damage already fuftained.

The truth is, it is not confidered as either. A law of honour having annexed the imputation of cowardice to patience under an affront, challenges are given and accepted with no other defign than to prevent or wipe off this fufpicion; without malice against the adversary, generally without a wish to deftroy him, or any concern but to preserve the duellift's own reputation and reception in the world.

The unreasonableness of this rule of manners is one confideration; the duty and conduct of

2

indi

individuals, whilft fuch a rule exifts, is another.

As to which, the proper and fingle question is this, whether a regard for our own reputation is or is not fufficient to justify the taking away the life of another?

Murder is forbidden; and wherever human life is deliberately taken away, otherwife than by public authority, there is murder. The value and fecurity of human life make this rule neceffary; for I do not fee what other idea or definition of murder can be admitted, which will not let in fo much private violence, as to render society a scene of peril and bloodshed.

If unauthorized laws of honour be allowed to create exceptions to divine prohibitions, there is an end of all morality as founded in the will of the Deity; and the obligation of every duty may at one time or other be difcharged by the caprice and fluctuations of fashion.

66

"But a fense of shame is fo much torture; " and no relief prefents itself otherwife than by an attempt upon the life of our adverfary." What then? The diftrefs which men fuffer by the want of money is oftentimes extreme, and no refource can be difcovered but that of removing a life, which stands between the diftreffed perfon

VOL. I.

T

perfon and his inheritance. The motive in this cafe is as urgent, and the means much the fame, as in the former: yet this cafe finds no advo

cates.

Take away the circumftance of the duellift's expofing his own life, and it becomes affaffination: add this circumftance, and what difference does it make? none but this, that fewer perhaps will imitate the example, and human life will be fomewhat more fafe, when it cannot be attacked without equal danger to the aggreffor's own. Experience, however, proves that there is fortitude enough in moft men to undertake this hazard; and were it otherwife, the defence, at beft, would be only that which a highwayman or housebreaker might plead, whofe attempt had been fo daring and defperate, that few were likely to repeat the fame.

In expoftulating with the fuppofe his adverfary to fall.

duellift I all along Which fuppofition

I am at liberty to make, because, if he have no right to kill his adverfary, he has none to attempt it.

In return, I forbear from applying to the cafe of duelling the Chriftian principle of the forgivenefs of injuries; because it is poffible to fuppofe the injury to be forgiven, and the duellift to act entirely

entirely from a concern for his own reputation: where this is not the cafe, the guilt of duelling is manifeft, and greater.

In this view it feems unneceffary to distinguish between him who gives, and him who accepts a challenge: for they incur an equal hazard of deftroying life; and both act upon the fame perfuafion, that what they do is neceffary, in order to recover or preserve the good opinion of the world.

Public opinion is not easily controlled by civil inftitutions for which reafon I question whether any regulations can be contrived of fufficient force to suppress or change the rule of honour, which ftigmatizes all fcruples about duelling with the reproach of cowardice.

The infufficiency of the redress which the law of the land affords, for thofe injuries which chiefly affect a man in his fenfibility and reputation, tempts many to redress themselves. Profecutions for fuch offences, by the trifling damages that are recovered, ferve only to make the fufferer more ridiculous.-This ought to be remedied.

For the army, where the point of honour is cultivated with exquifite attention and refinement, I would eftablish a Court of Honour, with a power

T 2