Mystery Duel in 1785
S. S.
While reading The History of Dueling (1841) by J. G. Millingen, I came across the following entry:
BETWEEN THE EARL OF A—— AND
MR. F—— M——.
June 19, 1785.
This day a duel was fought, near Grosvenor-gate, between the Right Hon. the Earl of A——, of the kingdom of Ireland, and Mr. F—— M——, of the same kingdom.
The affair happened from a punctilio of honour. After they had taken their ground, both attempted to fire at the same time; but his Lordship’s pistol missing fire, and Mr. M——’s shot not taking effect, the affair ended satisfactorily.
Who exactly is the earl referenced here? It is stated that it is an Irish earl, but which one? I can only think of Aldborough; Altamont; Antrim; Arran and Athlone.
S.S.
dpth...@gmail.com
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435054261755&seq=130
I looked through the index to the Walpole Correspondence, which mentions many duels, but this one was not mentioned. He did, though, mention the second item in the attached. his friend Hon. RIchard Fitzpatrick's balloon ascent. :)
dpth...@gmail.com
2nd Lord Bruce of Kinloss, Aug 1613
4th Duke of Hamilton, 15 Nov 1712
Richard, Lord Delvin, eldest son of 6th Earl of Westmeath, d.6 Aug 1761 of wounds sustained in a duel
Robert Villiers, called Viscount Purbeck, Apr 1684
Arthur, Viscount Forbes, eldest son of 2nd Earl of Granard, was k.a. Blenheim 13 Aug 1704, per CP, though Collins says he was k. in a duel in Flanders
William, 9th Earl of Meath, k. in a duel 26 May 1797
Charles John, 9th Viscount of Falkland, d.28 Feb 1809 of wounds received in a duel two days earlier
Sir James Stuart, Master of Blantyre, eldest son of 1st Lord Blantyre, k. in duel [with Sir John Port, who was also killed] 8 Nov 1609
Charles, 3rd Lord Mohun, d.29 Sep 1677 from wounds received in a duel on 17 Nov 1676, at which he was a second
Charles, 4th Lord Mohun, k.in duel 15 Nov 1712)
Thomas, 2nd Lord Camelford, d.10 Mar 1804 from wounds sustained in duel 7 Mar 1804
Francis, 11th Earl of Shrewsbury, d.16 Mar 1668 of wounds sustained in duel with Duke of Buckingham
William, Master of Gray, eldest son of 7th Lord Gray, k. in duel Aug 1669 with Earl of Southesk
dpth...@gmail.com
S. S.
dpth...@gmail.com
See the paragraph toward the bottom of this page of the Walpole Correspondence, along with footnotes, continuing on to the next page.
https://libsvcs-1.its.yale.edu/hwcorrespondence/page.asp?vol=20&seq=325&type=b
dpth...@gmail.com
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009221634&seq=110
It is also mentioned in a footnote in The Complete Peerage, sub Pomfret.
bx...@yahoo.com
dpth...@gmail.com
Additional Peers, Baronets, and agnatic descendants thereof, who died as the result of duels (in addition to the ones I listed earlier in this thread):
Alexander Agnew, son of Sir James Agnew of Lochnaw, 4th Bt.
Sir Robert Balfour, of Denmiln and Kinnaird, 2nd Bt., k. in duel 1673
Sir Valentine Blake, 5th Bt., k. in a duel at Galway ca 1672
Sir Alexander Boswell, of Auchinleck, 1st Bt., k. in duel 27 Mar 1822
Sir John Conway Colthurst, 2nd Bt., k. in duel by Dominick Trant 15 Feb 1787
Sir Cholmeley Dering, 4th Bt. (23 Jun 1679-k. in duel 9 May 1711
Sir James Enyon, of Flore, 1st Bt., k.in duel 1642
Sir William Estcourt, 3rd Bt., k. in duel 1684
John Forster, brother of Sir Humphrey Forster, 2nd Bt., killed in duel 1683
The eldest son (name unknown) of Sir Edward Goodere, Bt., was killed vp in a duel
Sir Richard Kennedy, 4th Bt., k. in duel April 1710
George Killegrew, only son of SIr Peter Killegrew, 2nd Bt., was k. vp in duel 20 Mar 1687
John Langrishe, son of Sir Hercules Langrishe, 1st Bt., was k. in a duel 6 April 1780
Walter Littleton, son of Sir Edward Littleton, 2nd Bt., killed in duel, as was his youngest brother Adam [or Adean]
Edward Lyttelton, son of Sir Thomas Lyttelton, 1st Bt., was k. in a duel at Worcester
Alexander MacDonnell, elder son of Sir James MacDonnell, 2nd Bt., was k. vp in a duel 1677
Thomas Mackworth, grandson of the 1st Mackworth Bt., and uncle of the 6th Bt., was k. in a duel
Robert Montgomery, son of Sir William Montgomery, of Magbiehill, 1st Bt., was k. in a duel 6 April 1803
James Moore O'Donnell, second son of Sir Neale O'Donnell, 1st Bt., was k. in a duel
Sir George Ramsay, of Bamff, 6th Bt., d.16 Apr 1790 of wounds received in a duel
George James Riddell, son of Sir James Riddell, of Ardamurchan, 1st Bt., was k. in a duel 23 April 1783
Hon. Robert Southwell, son of 1st Lord Southwell, k.in a duel 30 May 1724
Charles Strickland, son of Sir William Strickland, of Boynton, 3rd Bt., k. in a duel at Henley-upon-Thames
Frederick Thomas, son of Sir Edmond Thomas, 2nd Bt., was k. in duel with Hon. Cosmo Gordon 5 Sep 1783
Sir Bourchier Wrey, 4th Bt., d.28 Jul 1696 of wounds received in a duel in May
William Byng, great-grandson of 1st Viscount Torrington, k. in duel at Guernsey 1795
Hon. James Cathcart, son of 7th Lord Cathcart, k in duel 13 June 1716
Hon. Henry Ramsay, son of 8th Earl of Dalhousie, d. of wounds received in duel 24 Jul 1808
Hon. John St. Leger, son of 1st Viscount Doneraile, k. in duel 1741
Hon. Alexander Scrymgeour, son of 2nd Viscount of Dudhope, k. in a duel Aug 1661
Hon. Sir George Wharton, eldest son of 3rd Lord Wharton, died 8 November 1609, having killed, and was killed by, the Master of Blantyre
as immediately above, James Stewart, Master of Blantyre, son of 1st Lord Blantyre, killed, and was killed by, Hon. Sir George Wahrton
Hon. William Wharton, son of 4th Lord Wharton, k. in duel 14 December 1687
Hon. John Talbot, son of 11th Earl of Shrewsbury and Waterford, k.in duel with Duke of Grafton 2 Feb 1686
Thomas Grey, son of Sir Henry Grey, of Howick, 1st Bt., k. by Lord Lempster in a duel nr Marylebone, 24 February 1752
Popham Seymour-Conway, son of Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt., was k. in a duel 18 June 1699; had he lived it is likely that he or his sons, as possessors of the vast Conway estates, would have attained the great honours attained by his nephew, the 1st Marquess of Hertford
Hon. John Tollemache, son of 4th Earl of Dysart, k. a New York in duel with the later 2nd Lord Muncaster 25 Sep 1777
Henry Hervey Aston, of Aston, great-grandson of 1st Earl of Bristol, k. in duel 23 December 1798
Sir Henry Hobart, 4th Bt. (father of 1st Earl of Buckinghamshire), k.in duel at Cawston Heath 21 August 1698
Sir Arthur Forbes, of Castle Forbes, 1st Bt. (father of 1st Earl of Granard), k.in a duel at Hamburg 14 April 1632
Roger Grosvenor, eldest son of Sir Richard Grosvenor, 2nd Bt., was k. in a duel 22 August 1661
Henry Compton, grandson of 1st Lord Compton, k.in a duel with Lord Chandos 13 May 1652
Alexander Sinclair, of Olrig, grandson of Sir James Sinclair of Mey, 1st Bt., k. in duel 1710
Hon. William Carnegie, son of 3rd Earl of Southesk, k. in a duel at Paris 1681 by Hon. William Tollemache
dpth...@gmail.com
In addition, numerous duels were mentioned in the Walpole Correspondence, including many which resulted in no fatalities. Those mentioned are listed in the Index in Volume 45, pages 781-2.
https://libsvcs-1.its.yale.edu/hwcorrespondence/page.asp?vol=45&seq=201&type=b
colinp
dpth...@gmail.com
As for those duels listed in the index to the Walpole Correspondence, I thought it might be interesting to show some details of each as shown in the Yale Edition of the Correspondence. Some of the ones below are already in the lists above in this thread. Most of the ones I will mention involve British/Irish nobles or gentry.
Because this will be so long, I will break it into three parts.
1.
"Colonel Ackland, after all his escapes in America, is killed by an officer in Devonshire..."
John Dyke Acland, eldest son of Sir Thomas Dyke-Acland, 7th Bt., died 15 November 1778 [editors of the Yale Walpole cite sources showing the dates of 31 Oct and 22 Nov, sometimes given, are incorrect], after a duel with a "Lieutenant Lloyd", resulting from a quarrel about the courage of the Americans. The Yale Walpole cites several sources which conflict about whether Acland was killed in the duel, or died shortly thereafter from a fall, or from other effects of the duel.
2.
"...and the Vicomte du Barri [was killed] by his friend at Bath... They quarrelled at the tavern, took a coach at three in the morning, and sat in it very sociably till daylight, when they fought..."
Jean-Baptiste de Barry (1749-18 Nov 1778), nephew by marriage of Mme du Barry. The other was James Louis Rice (ca 1730-1801), son of Thomas Rice, of Ballymacdoyle. J L Rice was created an Imperial Count. He was tried and acquitted of manslaughter for this duel.
3.
Hon. Charles James Fox was wounded in a duel 28 Nov 1779 by William Adam, MP (1751-1839), nephew of the architects. The duel was a result of Parliamentary oratory between the two.
4.
Edward Ligonier, 2nd Viscount and later 1st Earl Ligonier, fought a duel with Conte Vittorio Alfieri (1749-1803) in Green park 7 May 1771. Alfieri had supposedly had an affair with Ligonier's wife, whom he later divorced. Alfieri was also invloved, perhaps romantically, with the Countess of Albany, wife of the Pretender.
5.
Henry Hervey Aston, of Aston, great-grandson of 1st Earl of Bristol, k. in duel with “Major Allen” 23 December 1798, at Madras. According to the notice in Gentleman’s Magazine, he had fought a duel on the previous day with a Major Picton, ending when the two fired into the air. Earlier, Hervey Aston is said to have sent a challenge to the Marquess of Buckingham in 1785, but withdrew it.
6.
George Robert Fitzgerald, of Turlough, was executed 12 June 1786 after being convicted of murder. Walpole to Mann, 16 March 1786, mentions that Fitzgerald had been wounded in a duel some time in the past, but no further details are given.
Walpole to William Mason, 3 April 1775, refers to an incident involving Fitzgerald, and the editor's footnotes state that Fitzgerald had "caned" Thomas Walker at Ascot races and then fought a duel with him in which Walker was injured.
7.
This is a different Fitzgerald: Conway to Walpole, 12 August 1746: "... a duel has been fought between a Capt. Hamilton and a Capt. Fitzgerald, who quarreled six years ago in the West Indies and the former being just arrived in England set out immediately for this place [Fort Augustus] to fight Fitzgerald and has had the satisfaction of running him twice through the body, one of which wounds is through his lungs, yet the surgeon says he may recover." The editors of the Yale Walpole note that the parties cannot be identified further, and that no other reference to this duel has been found.
8.
Walpole to Mann, 2 November 1780:
"Our old acquaintance Lord Pomfret, whose madness has lain dormant for some time, is broken out again; I mean, his madness is. He went down to Euston last week, and challenged the Duke of Grafton for an affront offered to him, he said, when the Duke was Minister.. you know what an age ago that was. The Duke declared his innocence, and advised him to consider on it. He did for two days; then said he was now cool, yet insisted on satisfaction. The Duke gave both letters to a magistrate, and then swore the peace against him ; the only rational thing to be done. The Earl some years ago had many of these flippancies, and used to call out gentlemen in the playhouse, who he pretended had made faces at him. As madmen are generally cunning and malicious, it was generally such as looked unlikely to resent, whom he picked out. Once he unluckily selected General Moyston, and drawing his curtains early in the morning, bade him rise and follow him into Hyde Park, for having laughed at him at court. Moyston denied having even seen him there. "Oh, then, it is very well," said my lord. "No, by God, is not it," replied the general; " you have disturbed me when I had been in bed but three hours, and now you shall give me satisfaction:" but the Earl begged to be excused. There was a Mr. Palmes Robinson, who used to say publicly that he had often got Lord Pomfret as far as Hyde Park Corner, but never could get him any farther."
Earlier, when Pomfret was still Lord Lempster, Walpole wrote to Mann, 27 February 1752:
"Poor Lord Lempster has just killed an officer [Thomas Grey, of the Baronets] in a duel about a play debt, and I fear was in the wrong. There is no end of his misfortunes and wrong-headedness!"
9.
The editors of the Yale Walpole have a footnote about one Bennet Allen (ca 1737-d.1782 or after), son of James Allen of Yazor, co Hereford: "on 18 June 1782 fought a duel with Lloyd Dulany, who died of his wounds three days later; convicted of manslaughter 5 July 1782, fined 1s, and sentenced to six months in Newgate".
10.
The editors of the Yale Walpole have a footnote about one Andrew Stuart (1725-1801), a Scots lawyer involved in the famous Hamilton vs. Douglas case, and fought a duel with opposing counsel, Edward Thurlow.
dpth...@gmail.com
11.
Walpole to Mann, 22 October 1741:
"I wrote you word that Lord Euston is married; in a week more I believe I shall write you word that he is divorced. He is brutal enough; and has forbid Lady Burlington his house, and that in very ungentle terms. The whole family is in confusion; the Duke of Graflon half dead, and Lord Burlington half mad. The latter has challenged Lord Euston, who accepted the challenge but they were prevented."
12.
The editors of the Yale Walpole have a footnote stating that [William, later Earl of Bath] Pulteney's attacks on Lord Hervey in a pamphlet in 1731 led to a duel. Sir John Rushout, 4th Bt., was Pulteney’s second.
13. Walpole to Mann, 22 October 1741:
"Do but think on a duel between Winnington [Thomas Winnington (1696-1746)] and [Hon.] Augustus Townshend. The latter a pert boy, captain of an Indiaman; the former declared cicisbeo to my Lady Townshend. The quarrel was something that Augustus had said of them; for since she was parted from her husband, she has broke with all his family. Winnington challenged; they walked into Hyde Park last Sunday morning, scratched one another's fingers, tumbled into two ditches-- that is, Augustus did, kissed, and walked home together!"
14.
Walpole to Mann, 17 December 1741:
"There was a strange affair happened on Saturday; it was strange, yet very English. One Nourse, an old gamester, said, in the coffee-house, that Mr. Shuttleworth, a member, only pretended to be ill. This was told to Lord Windsor,(362) his friend, who quarrelled with Nourse, and the latter challenged him. My lord replied, he would not fight him, he was too old. The other replied, he was not too old to fight with pistols. Lord Windsor still refused: Nourse, in a rage, went home and cut his own throat. This was one of the odd ways in which men are made."
15.
From Walpole's "Last Journals", dealing with the month of February 1773:
"An affair that made most noise was Lord Townshend’s quarrel with the Earl of Bellamont, a brave young Irish lord, whom he had offended by refusing to see him at Dublin. Lord Bellamont waited till his return to England, then resigned his post of Quartermaster-General, and sent Lord Cbarlemont to demand satisfaction. After many evasions, Lord Bellamont required Lord Townshend to give, under his hand, a formal denial of having intended to affront him. Four challenges evaded made Lord Townshend’s lingering in Ireland, on purpose to fight, completely ridiculous. He refused to give the written satisfaction, and sent Lord Ligonier to Lord Bellamont to declare he would not, but making an apology, and declaring sorrow for what had happened, with which Lord Bellamont contented himself. However, the story being reported very differently by the two parties, great clamour pursued Lord Townshend; and Lord Bellamont having drawn up the state of the quarrel between him and Lord Townshend, and got it signed by his friends Lords Charlemont and Ancram, and determining to publish it, Lord Townshend found it disgraced him so much, that he at last sent Lord Bellamont a challenge, and they fought between four and five in the afternoon, when Lord Townshend, firing first, shot Lord Bellamont in the belly, who then fired, shook hands with Lord Townshend, and was carried home to have his wound dressed."
16.
Walpole to Lady Ossory, 13 November 1777:
"... Captain Tollemache, Lady Bridget's husband, is killed in a duel at New- York, by a Captain Pennington [later 2nd Lord Muncaster], on a foolish quarrel about humming a tune. There is strange fatality attends the House of Tollemache: two brothers drowned and a third killed ! My poor niece, Lady Dysart, who is all goodness and good-nature, will be very unhappy as she was about the last brother ! But indeed if she can love the eldest, it would not be just to be indifferent to the others ; though, except the second, I never heard much good of any of them. I know which is the worst. "
17.
Walpole to Lady Ossory, 14 December 1773:
"We are now picking a duel between a Mr. Temple [John Temple (1732-1798), who wrongly assumed the Temple of Stowe Baronetcy in 1786] and a Mr. Whateley [William Whateley (d.1782), a banker], the latter of whom has been drilled with as many holes as Julius Caesar or a cullender..."
18.
A footnote mentions the duel in 1788 between the Duke of York and Charles Lennox, but it seems to have been resolved amicably.
19.
Walpole to Mann, 28 August 1755:
"I have already given you some account of [General] Braddock; I may complete the poor man's history in a few more words: he once had a duel with Colonel Gumley, Lady Bath's brother, who had been his great friend: as they were going to engage, Gumley, who had good humour and wit, (Braddock had the latter,) said "Braddock, you are a poor dog! here take my purse; if you kill me you will be forced to run away, and then you will not have a shilling to support you." Braddock refused the purse, insisted on the duel, was disarmed, and would not even ask his life. However, with all his brutality, he has lately been Governor of Gibraltar, where he made himself adored, and where scarce any Governor was endured before."
20.
Mann wrote to Walpole, 23 March 1753, of a duel fought in Italy between Charles Lee (1731-1782), an officer and later an American General, and Leopold Laugier, a Lorrainer serving with the Tuscan army.
dpth...@gmail.com
21.
Walpole to Mann, 22 November 1751:
"[Theobald] Taaffe [b.before 175, d.after 1777; Irish MP] is an Irishman, who changed his religion to fight a duel, as you know in Ireland a Catholic may not wear a sword."
22.
Just to show that it was not only the British/Irish who fought duels: Mme du Deffand to Walpole 27 Jan 1772:
"Le folie des duels se renouvelle, il y en a eu deux depuis quinze jours, M. de Buzançais et le Prince de Nassau, le fils aîné du Prince de Salm, et le Chevalier d'Arpajon, qui n'a que seize ans."
[The madness of the duels is renewed, there have been two in the past two weeks, M. de Buzançais and the Prince of Nassau, the eldest son of the Prince of Salm, and the Chevalier d'Arpajon, who is only sixteen years old.]
23.
About the famous Lord Byron incident, Walpole to Hertford, 27 January 1765:
"Since I wrote my letter, the following is the account nearest the truth that I can learn of the fatal duel last night: a club of Nottinghamshire gentlemen had dined at the Star and Garter, and there had been a dispute between the combatants, whether Lord Byron, who took no care of his game, or Mr. Chaworth, who was active in the association, had most game on their manor. The company, however, had apprehended no consequences, and parted at eight o’clock; but Lord Byron stepping into an empty chamber, and sending the drawer for Mr. Chaworth, or calling him thither himself, took the candle from the waiter, and bidding Mr. Chaworth defend himself, drew his sword. Mr. Chaworth, who was an excellent fencer, ran Lord Byron through the sleeve of his coat, and then received a wound fourteen inches deep into his body. He was carried to his house in Berkeley Street,—made his will with the greatest composure, and dictated a paper, which, they say, allows it was a fair duel, and died at niue this morning. Lord Byron is not gone off, but says he will take his trial, which, if the coroner brings in a verdict of manslaughter, may, according to precedent, be in the House of Lords, and without the ceremonial of Westminster Hall. George Selwyn is much missed on this occasion, but we conclude it will bring him over. I feel for both families, though I know none of either, but poor Lady Carlisle, whom I am sure you will pity."
24.
Walpole to Mann, 14 March 1743:
"But not to detain you any longer with flourishes, which will probably be inserted in my uncle Horace's [later Lord Walpole of Wolterton] patent when he is made a field-marshal ; you must know that he has fought a duel, and has scratched a scratch three inches long on the side of his enemy — Io Paean ! The circumstances of this memorable engagement were, in short, that on some witness being to be examined the other day in the House upon remittances to the army, my uncle said, "he hoped they would indemnify him, if he told anything that affected himself." Soon after he was standing behind the Speaker's chair, and Will. Chetwynd [brother of Viscount Chetwynd], an intimate of Bolinbroke, came up to him, and said, " What, Mr. Walpole, are you for rubbing up old sores?" He replied, "I think I said very little, considering that you and your friends would last year have hanged up me and my brother at the lobby-door without a triaL" Chetwynd answered, "I would still
have you both have your deserts." The other said, " If you and I had, probably I should be here and you would be somewhere else." This drew more words, and Chetwynd took him by the arm and led him out In the lobby, Horace said, " We shall be observed, we had better put it off till to-morrow." " No, no, now ! now !" When they came to the bottom of the stairs, Horace said, '^ I am out of breath, let us draw here." They drew ; Chetwynd hit him on the breast, but was not near enough to pierce his coat. Horace made a pass, which the other put by with his hand, but it glanced along his side — a clerk, who had observed them go out together so arm-in-arm-ly, could not believe it amicable, but followed them, and came up just time enough to beat down their swords, as Horace had driven him against a post, and would probably have run him through at the next thrust. Chetwynd went away to a surgeon's, and kept his bed the next day ; he has not reappeared yet, but is in no danger. My uncle returned to the House, and was so little moved as to
speak immediately upon the Cambric bill, which made Swinny say, " That it was a sign he was not ruffled. Don't you delight in this duel ? I expect to see it daubed up by some circuit-painter on the ceiling of the saloon at Woolterton."
25.
Walpole to George Montagu, 30 May 1751:
"...I suppose you would not give a straw to know all the circumstances of a Mr Paul's killing a Mr Dalton, though the town who talks of anything, talks of nothing else."
The duel was between Horace Paul, later St. Paul (1729-1812), who was later created an Imperial Count, and William Dalton (ca 1726-1751). It was occasioned by a dispute over a snuffbox belonging to Dalton's fiancée, a Miss Green. The editors note that "the complicity of Miss Green was hotly debated." Miss Green is said to have died of grief and shame followin publication of an abusive letter.
26.
Walpole to Mann, 1 September 1763:
"The famous Mr. Wilkes was challenged at Paris, by one Forbes [John Forbes of Skellater, later a Portuguese Field Marshal], an outlawed Scot in the French service, who could not digest the North Britons. Wilkes would have joked it off, but it would not do. He then insisted on seconds ; Forbes said, duels were too dangerous in France for such extensive proceedings. Wilkes adhered to his demand. Forbes pulled him by the nose, or, as Lord Mark Kerr, in his well-bred formality, said to a gentleman, " Sir, you are to suppose I have thrown this glass of wine in your face." Wilkes cried out murder! The lieutenant de police was sent for, and obliged Forbes to promise that he would proceed no farther. Notwithstanding the present discussion, you may imagine the Scotch will not let this anecdote be still-born. It is cruel on Lord Talbot, whom Wilkes ventured to fight."
The Talbot reference is to a duel at Bagshot Heath on 5 October 1762, in which Wilkes and Talbot both fired their guns, but no one was hurt.
Later in 1763 Wilkes fought a duel Samuel Martin in Hyde Park, when WIlkes was shot, but recovered.
27.
Walpole to William Mason, 22 March 1780:
"Mr Fullerton Lord Stormont's late secretary at Paris, broiling over the censure passed on him and his regiment in the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond and Lord Shelburne, particularly the latter, took advantage of the estimate of the army to launch out into a violent invective on the Earl, whom he named, but was stopped by Ch[arles] Fox and Barré. Not content, nor waiting to see if Lord Sh. would resent, he sent the latter an account of what he not only had said but intended to have said, if not interrupted; the sum total of which was to have been that his Lordship's conduct had been a compound of insolence, cowardice and falsehood -- very well, but to heap indiscretion on passion, he reproached Lord Shelburne with having as he had heard abroad, kept a correspondence with the enemies of his country. My Lord replied, that the best answer he could give, was to desire Mr F. would meet him the next morning in Hyde Park at five o'clock. They met accordingly: Lord Frederick Cavendish was the Earl's second: Lord Balcarras, Fullerton's. Lord Shelburne received a ball in the groin, but the wound is slight and he was so cool, that being asked how he did, he looked at the place, and said, 'Why I don't think Lady Shelburne will be the worse for it."
28.
Walpole to Mann, 18 December 1770:
"...a duel that happened yesterday between Lord George Germaine and a Governor Johnstone, the latter of whom abused the former grossly last Friday in the House of Commons. Lord George behaved with the utmost coolness and intrepidity. Each fired two pistols, and Lord George's first was shattered in his hand by Johnstone's fire, but neither was hurt."
dpth...@gmail.com
S. S.
dpth...@gmail.com
"Frederick Thomas, son of Sir Edmond Thomas, 2nd Bt., was k. in duel with Hon. Cosmo Gordon 5 Sep 1783"
https://libsvcs-1.its.yale.edu/hwcorrespondence/page.asp?vol=33&seq=131&type=b
First, it gives his dates as ca 1737-1813. No dates for him are given in Burke's, nor in Scots Peerage. (He is not to be confused with his contemporary, Cosmo Gordon, MP (ca 1736-1800).)
Second, it gives some information about his activities as a scandal-monger for one of the daily newspapers, with a long list of sources for information about him.
dpth...@gmail.com
See https://libsvcs-1.its.yale.edu/hwcorrespondence/page.asp?vol=9&seq=123&type=b
and following pages, and also the footnotes. Walpole was not yet a friend of Lady Mary, and sided somewhat with Coke, which accounts for his claim that the Campbells wanted to murder Coke.
dpth...@gmail.com
Thomas Gray to Wharton, 22 April 1760: "...they met near Marybone, and the D: in making a pass overreached himself, fell down, and hurt his knee. The other bid him get up, but he could not. Then he bid him ask his life, but he would not. So he let him alone, and that's all. Mr Steuart was slightly wounded."
dpth...@gmail.com
Walpole to Montagu, 4 November 1760:
"An extraordinary event has happened to-day; George Townshend sent a challenge to Lord Albemarle, desiring him to be with a second in the fields. Lord Albemarle took Colonel Crauford, and went to Marybone; George Townshend bespoke Lord Buckingham, who loves a secret too well not to tell it; he communicated it to Stanley, who went to St. James's, and acquainted Mr. Caswall the captain on guard. The latter took a hackney coach, drove to Marybone, and saw one pair. After waiting ten minutes, the others came: Townshend made an apology to Lord Albemarle for making him wait -- 'Oh!' said he, 'men of spirit don't want apologies -- come, let us begin what we came for' -- at that instant, out steps Caswall from his coach, and begs their pardon, as his superior officers, but told them they were his prisoners; he desired Mr. Townshend and Lord Buckingham to return to their coach; he would carry back Lord Albemarle and Crauford in his. He did, and went to acquaint the King, who has commissioned some of the matrons of the army, to examine the affair and make it up. All this while, I don't know what the quarrel was -- but they hated one another so much on the Duke's account, that a slight word would easily make their aversions boil over."
In the Correspondence, "the Duke" always means "the Duke of Cumberland" unless the context makes clear it is some other duke.
The editors of the Yale Walpole in a footnote say "Townshend had caricatured the Duke, whose aide-de-camp Albemarle was. The immediate cause of the duel was Townshend's resentment over a pamphlet condemning his conduct at Quebec."
Paul Theroff
Lady Sarah Napier to Duchess of Leinster, 9 March 1787:
"By the way, I fear the south rioters are not
likely to subside, for you know I conclude that Mr Trant wrote a pamphlet in a manner under the inspection of the Bishop of Cloyne, that he abused Sir John Colthurst in it, who insisted on fighting him, and was killed by Mr Trant, who, poor soul, suffered dreadfully from great feeling on the occasion. It is now said that Sir John's corpse was carried in form to the south and attended by thousands of people without their hats, which all vow vengeance on Mr Trant."
From the Dictionary of Irish Biography:
https://www.dib.ie/biography/trant-dominick-a8621
"[Trant] published, with Woodward's financial backing, Considerations on the present disturbances in the province of Munster (Dublin, 1787), in response to the Rightboy protests in Co. Cork. Trant defended the established church and the imposition of the tithe on a largely Roman catholic populace, arguing that the burden on the poor could instead be alleviated by lower rents. Describing the recent disturbances, he located the greatest discontent in north Cork, accusing the local gentry of being far from resolute in their defence of the rights and privileges of the established church. Furthermore, Trant hinted strongly at the identity of an unnamed individual who, he alleged, was complicit in the Rightboy disturbances and had demonstrated a ‘love of plunder, and an innate and habitual passion for anarchy and tumult’ (Considerations, 48–9).
"Sir John Conway Colthurst, a landowner in Cork and Kerry, took strong offence at these remarks, believing they were directed at him. Trant's sister-in-law Arabella Jeffereyes was also intimately involved, wearing the cap of agrarian reform and supporting some of the Rightboy protests. On 12 February 1787 Colthurst challenged Trant to a duel through his friend John Egan, after Trant had refused Egan either an explanation and or a disavowal of the libel. Colthurst, an experienced duellist and ‘reckoned to be one of the best shots in Munster’ (Finn's Leinster Journal, 17–21 February 1787), and Trant, noticeably near-sighted, agreed their parties would meet the following day at Ballsbridge, south of Dublin. The duel was abandoned when the local sheriff apprehended Colthurst, taking him to Judge William Henn (possibly a relation of Trant), who bound him over to keep the peace. The combatants arranged to meet the following afternoon in Bray, Co. Wicklow. Before an audience of nearly 400 people, each combatant fired twice, with Colthurst's hat being grazed, as was Trant's coat. After lengthy discussions between the seconds and Colthurst, Trant suggested that the matter should be given over to arbitration by three gentlemen selected by Colthurst from among nine to be proposed by himself. Colthurst rejected this suggestion, while Trant again refused to offer any explanation; a third exchange of fire failed to alter anything. Trant's fourth shot proved fatal, lodging under Colthurst's right shoulder and leading to his death five days later.
"The day after the duel Colthurst dispatched his surgeon to inform Trant that he was entirely satisfied with Trant's conduct, and that he should have been satisfied after the first three shots. On 20 February 1787, following a coroner's inquest, a verdict of ‘manslaughter by Dominick Trant in his own defence’ was passed. Trant was brought to trial accused of Colthurst's murder and found not guilty in July. Trant's gentlemanly conduct, in both standing his ground and trying to avert bloodshed, was widely acclaimed, though Woodward subsequently distanced himself from Trant. Remembered as one of the most notorious duels of the eighteenth century, it highlighted the inability of the authorities to prevent determined combatants from meeting."