CHAPTER V.
Female Honour.—Agreement among Women.—Penalty of Exclusion.—Law of Honour.—False Dignity.—New Penalty.—Compact against Duelling.—Ruffians and Calumniators.—Association against Duelling.—Court of Honour.—Abolition of Duelling.
“That public opinion, if rightly directed, is capable,†continued Mr. Adamson, “of completely affecting the desired object without the duel, even better than with it, which is what we of the present day are so happy as to know by experience, these reformers anticipated partly from the enforcement among ladies of the laws of female honour before that absurd ordeal had been instituted. Women moving in circles of good society had kept up its character, it was observed, at least as well before the ordeal came into use, and quite as well as men of a corresponding class maintained the laws ofmasculine honour; and this was effected simply by a tacit agreement among women of character not to associate with any woman who was known to have violated these rules. ‘If, therefore,’ said they, ‘ladies will return to this system, and gentlemen will adopt a corresponding one, the rules of good society, whatever they may be that it thinks fit to impose, will be enforced by the simple expedient of denouncing exclusion against the violators of them, absolutely, and without offering the alternative of a duel.’
“It was remarked, indeed, by some of you,†said Mr. Adamson, “that in Europe the ladies, and also some other classes of persons who are exempted from the liability to a duel, are apt to avail themselves of this exemption by a less scrupulous adherence to truth and to courtesy of language, or by throwing such aspersions on their neighbours as would involve in personal danger those not so privileged; and such instances of falsehood, insolence, and calumny were attributed by some of you to the absence of the salutary check of the duel.
“As to the precise state of the fact, indeed,you appeared not to be quite agreed: but admitting the most unfavourable representation to be true, you may perceive, even from what comes under your own experience, without resorting to ours, that the inference drawn is not correct; for it appears by your own account that the English women, of the higher classes at least, though all kinds of duel are unknown among them, yet keep up the character of their society in respect of female purity. And, as this is effected through the direct influence of public opinion,—by simply enforcing the penalty of exclusion on any female of blemished reputation,—it is evident that if in respect of veracity, integrity, or any other point, they fall short of what is required of gentlemen, this must arise from the standard ofhonourbeing different in the two sexes. I collect that among you the character of ‘an honest woman’ does not coincide with that of ‘an honest man,’—and that even the word ‘virtue’ has a somewhat different signification in reference to women and to men. It cannot be therefore that public opinion is insufficient to enforce the laws of honour without the intervention ofduels, since modest women do succeed in maintaining the purity of the society in which they move; but the laws of honour are themselves not the same among ladies and among gentlemen. The fact is, few persons, either men or women, will venture to incur infamy; andthatis the penaltywhichsociety may denounce against the violation of its rules, be those rules what they may. Let society determine what shall be the point of honour for each sex, or class of persons, or for all, and denounce the penalty of exclusion against such as violate its rules; and that those rules will be generally observed, without the intervention of duelling, is proved by the very circumstance that women enforce their own law of honour as successfully as men do theirs!
“By acting on these principles,†continued Mr. Adamson, “you would have the additional advantage of imposing a restraint on those females, and others, who, you complain, are disposed to take advantage of their exemption from danger of a challenge by indulging in defamatory or insolent language, &c.; for, as I just now observed, conduct of this kind is regardedamong you with somewhat the less of unmixed disgust and contempt, from the very circumstance that among laymen of a certain station it may lead to a duel. It is considered as in some degree a mark of ‘spirit.’ The courage which braves death, even when disapproved as a brutal kind of courage, yet shelters its possessor from the last extreme of ignominy. Now, though the degree of false dignity with which insolent behaviour is thus investedoughtcertainly to be at least confined to those who actually do run a risk in displaying it,—though women and clergymen, for instance, since they run no risk, and consequently display no courage by such behaviour as would expose a layman to personal danger, should properly be considered base as well as unmannerly when they are guilty of it,—yet this distinction is one which we cannot expect will be carefully kept in view and uniformly observed. A kind of association of ideas is created in people’s minds between what is called ‘spirited behaviour,’ ‘strong language,’ &c. and ‘manly boldness;’ and this association continues to affect their judgment even in cases where no boldness isreally displayed, because no danger is encountered. Thus, such conduct, in a woman for instance, or in a clergyman, as would otherwise incur unmixed contempt, is likely to be, if not altogether honoured or approved, at least in some degree tolerated.
“But let the system be changed, and the tone of manners inallclasses would be raised. When duels are unheard of, such offences as are now regarded with a mitigated disapprobation on account of the personal intrepidity which they are supposed sometimes to imply in the offenders, would become the subject of unmixed disgust; the only danger braved being that of the disesteem of reputable people. Andthiskind of penalty extending toallclasses and both sexes alike, (at least among the gentry,) would of course tend to restrain all of them alike within the rules of honour and politeness. There may be some reason why, among you, a woman should not be called out tofight; but there could be none, why she should not incur, as well as a gentleman, the penalty, when that was thesolepenalty for both sexes alike, ofexclusionfrom good societyif she transgressed its rules: a penalty which in fact actuallyisenforced, with unrelenting strictness, for a violation of the rules of what is now accounted feminine honour.
“Such nearly,†continued Mr. Adamson, “was the train of argument, as far as applicable to the then-existing condition of society among us, which was strenuously urged, and assiduously circulated by the association against duels which I have alluded to. The novelty of the arguments contributed, along with their intrinsic force, and the high character of those who urged them, to excite a general and serious attention; and the judicious course pursued by the authors of the undertaking secured them ultimate success. The members of the association bound themselves, by a solemn compact with each other, never to give or accept a challenge to any kind of duel, whether by the ordeal, or by single combat; never to behave in such a manner as might otherwise have afforded occasion for a duel; and not to countenance or receive into their society any one who should violate either of the above rules. In cases of personal assault, they were at liberty to defendthemselves by force on the spot; but not to seek any subsequent satisfaction, except by an appeal to the laws, and by agreeing to shun the society of the offender as of a ruffian. They were to defend themselves against slander byliving it down—by giving the false accuser the lie in their conduct; but they were to seek no other redress (unless they thought fit to bring a legal action for defamation) than by excluding calumniators from their society.
“And the same in respect of rude and insolent language: intotheirsociety, no daring ruffian, however expert in snuffing a candle with a bullet, could, as formerly,fighthis way, by inducing those who really thought him no fit company for gentlemen, by a tacit appeal to their personal fears to admit him as an associate; each inwardly wishing all the while that one of the others would undertake the perilous task of tying the bell round his neck. Every such person, and every one in any way of exceptionable character, was under the ban of hopeless exclusion. It was useless to challenge the excluders, since they had proclaimed that they would not fight. From personal violencethey appealed to the law: insolent vituperation was unavailing; since being directed against men who had abjured duels, it was understood to imply no personal risk, and consequently to give no proof of courage. From well-founded accusations, their blameless life and decorous behaviour secured them; unfounded charges only proclaimed the authors of them to be themselves liars.
“Very early in the history of this association, a question arose among its members, on the decision of which, probably, their final success turned. It was at first designed that they should continue formally to enrol as members as many unexceptionable persons as could be induced to join their society. Some of their number, however, objected that this would be likely to impede their progress in the reformation they were aiming at. A jealousy, they said, would be likely to arise in the minds of some persons against the pretensions, real or supposed, of an association of which they were not themselves the founders or leaders. They would therefore be apt perversely to refuse joining it, as disdaining to follow in the wake of others; andwould then set about justifying their conduct by exciting suspicion and organizing opposition, as against a party combining to set up themselves as arbiters of good manners,—guides to the rest of the world,—a self-constituted tribunal, &c.
“These representations prevailed; and a resolution was adopted, and publicly announced, (accompanied with a frank statement of the reasons for it,) not to admit formally from thenceforth any more persons as members, except such as might have been actually engaged in a duel, and were desirous of thus solemnly and publicly proclaiming their renunciation of a practice to which they had thus once lent their countenance. But all other persons of respectable character, it was declared, should be thenceforth regarded as virtually members of the association, without any formal admission or engagement, so long as they should continue in practice to comply with the fundamental rules of the society, by abstaining from duels, and from everything calculated to provoke a challenge, and by shunning the company of those who acted otherwise. If anyshould in practice violate these regulations, or should openly proclaim his determination not to adhere to them, then, and then only, he was to be regarded as excluded from the number of the associates.
“In all cases of dispute arising between one gentleman or lady and another, the cause was to be referred to the decision, not of any self-appointed tribunal, nor of any formally-elected court of honour (either of which might have furnished occasion for jealousy), but of a committee of the neighbours meeting for the purpose, with the stipulation only that they should be persons received in good society and adverse to duelling. Of such persons, each of the parties chooses (for the custom was adopted, and still exists among us,) one or two of his acquaintance,—each of whom again names two or three others as assessors,—and the judges thus nominated privately hear and try the cause, calling in, in case of much difficulty or disagreement, the assistance of others. It is seldom that the parties do not readily acquiesce in the decision; and the public in general are, as you may suppose, fully prepared to thinkthat this must be at least more likely to approach to a right judgment than a pistol-ball or a blast of choke-damp.
“In this way it was that the custom of duels gradually, and not very slowly, went out of fashion among us. It has been wholly extinct for more than a century; for my father, who, as I mentioned just now, remembered as a boy the final prevalence of this reform, was born nearly one hundred and thirty years ago.
“If the same reform,†he added, “is not effected by the gentry of Europe, when they have only towillthat it should be so, their claims to a high degree of civilization and refinement (to say nothing of humanity or morality) can hardly be admitted. For example, as it is, any one who offers an affront to another, and on being challenged refuses to fight, is excluded from the pale of good society; unless it be a woman—a clergyman—a quaker—a person bound over to keep the peace, under the penalty of forfeiting a sum of money—(a curious exemption this!)—or belonging to some other description of privileged persons. All you have to do is to resolve that theofferingof the affront shall place any person under the same ban as he is now placed under for refusing, after being challenged for the affront, to fight. Lay down this rule; and let there beno exemptionson the ground of sex, profession, or any other plea whatever, and the object is accomplished.â€