ment, the venerable Lowth diftinguished himself above all his cotemporaries, by adorning the profound eft difquifitions in facred literature, with all the charms of claffic elegance. And the excellent Jortin, in the juttnefs and comprehenfion of his views, the clearness and accuracy of his reafonings, attained to high, perhaps unrivalled pre-eminence. His Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory abound with the molt candid and liberal fentiments: and his Life of Erafmus discovers a mind perfectly congenial with that of the illuftrious fcholar, whofe portrait he has delineated the fame ingenuous fimplicity, fame urba. nity, wit, and polished keennefs of fatire-in rectitude equal, in fortitude fuperior. Had Erafmus flourished in our days, Jortin would furely have been his favourite and chofen friend; for we know that his admired and beloved Colet was but the Jortin of a former age. For the famous and incomparable preface prefixed to his Remarks, he is faid to have been menaced by the high church bigots of his time with a legal profecution; but this threat was rendered ineffectual by the moderation of the governors of the church at that period, and particularly of Herring, archbishop of Canterbury-a prelate eminent for difcernment, candour and benignity, and who had declared to Dr. Jortin that he would be to him what Warham had been to Erafmus. It was, however, late in life before the extraordinary merits of Jortin attracted that attention to which they were fo well intitled: and he himself truly and feelingly fpeaks of the patronage faid to be afforded to literature by men of rank and fortune, as a Milefian fable of a fairy tale.' Before the conclufion of this reign, Reynolds in painting, in fculpture Wilton, began to rife into fame: and the exquifite mufical compofitions of Handel were vigorously emulated by Arne and Boyce. But to whatever degree of perfection fcience, literature, and the arts, arofe during even its laft fplendid and memorable period, the fole and exclufive honor of patronage appertains-not to the court-not to to any Mæcenas or Dorfet of the age not to the encouragement derived from academical honors or premiums but to the tafte, difcernment, and generofity of the nation. ON DUELLING. WHEN we are difpofed to pride ourselves on that fuperior degree of light and knowledge which we enjoy, our vanity might be very feasonably corrected, by our reflecting at the fame time, that, in many refpects. we have not conquered the moft abfurd of all prejudices, and have by no means profited by our light and knowledge, as we might have done had we given fair play to reafon and common-fenfe. I might enumerate many instances wherein we have come very far fhort of the expected and natural fruits of the knowledge and experience of fo many centuries; but it is fufficient for my prefent purpose to give only one, in which men of very found minds and upright intentions continue to indulge a barbarity of opinion, more befitting the fourteenth than the eighteenth century: I mean the practice of duelling, which frequently occurs, and the principle of which feems to be deeply engraven on the hearts of all men who esteem themfelves, or would be thought, men of honour. That men of good characters fhould be of opinion that duelling is neceffary, muft feem wonderful, because it is contrary to the laws of God as well as of man; and that men of reputed wifdom should justify the practice, is no lefs wonderful, becaufe it is in its nature a grofs abfurdity. Thefe two pofitions may be easily proved. But I fhall firft obferve that duel ling is a modern practice. It can plead neither antiquity nor univerfaliI i ty. 250 ty. Among the ancients, there is not The connexion between modern duelling and ancient tiling, or rather the pedigree of the former, is thus ingenioully traced by Montesquieu. If an accufer began by declaring before a judge that fuch a perfon had committed fuch an action, and that the impleaded had given him the lie, the judge gave his order for a duel. Hence arole the custom, that whenever a man received the lie, he was obliged to challenge the offender to combat with him, for having dared to offer him that grofs affront. When a perfou had declared himself both willing and ready to combat, he could not evade it afterward, if he even at tempted it; and he incurred the penaty annexed to fuch a recreancy. Hence the cultom was established, that when a man had once given his hand, the law of honour forbade his receding from it.-Gentlemen encountered each other on horfeback, and with arms: Plebeians fought on foot, and I have faid that duelling is in its nature a grofs abfurdity. This will appear, if we confider that the only purpofes it is intended to ferve are thole of punishment or reparation. Perhaps I ought to fay, that these are the only ends which common fenfe can difcover, that duels are calculated to andwer. An injury is committed, or fuppofed to be committed. All injuries demand punishment or reparation, which in one word amounts to jaisfaction. But duelling (fays archdeacon Paley) as a punishment is abfurd, because it is an equal chance whether the punishment shall fall upon the offender or the perfon offended. Nor is it much better as a reparation, it being difficult to explain what the fatisfaction confifts in, or how it tends to undo the injury, or to afford a compenfation for the damage already futained.' That it is abfurd as a punishment is a pofition fo clear, as to render it unneceflary to offer any illu? ration. Punishment, in order to be effectual, must be inflicted by a fuperior upon an inferior, but duellifts generally are and and always may be upon a level; and in order to be impartial, it must be inflicted by one who has no concern with the par ties offending or offended. A judge about to inflict the punih ment of the laws upon a convict, would appear in a most ridiculous light, were he to enable the convict to infiict the fame punishment upon himself. But, however abfurd this may feem, if we confider that in all cafes of injury, anger and revenge are the paffions firit excited, we thall be convinced that the idea of punishing his adversary is the firft which occurs to the mind of a duellift. And if it fo happens that in inflicting this punishment we fubject ourselves to the very fame, and give our adverfary an opportunity to efcape and triumph over us, nothing more need be faid to prove that duelling as a punishment is a very grofs abfurdity. Experience confirms this, for in the cafe of many duels, which have occurred in the memory of every perfon who may read this paper, it happened that the injured party was killed. Now, however, we may look back upon former ages with a degree of contempt, for their barbarous tilts and tournaments, and with a confcioufnefs of our fuperiority, it must be confeffed by every prejudiced thinker, that in this refpect, at least, we have not advanced one inch farther in juft and proper ideas of the mode of revenging injuries. Nor is duelling much better as a reparation'. Men are always apt to differ when they compare their notions of injury. Every man thinks himself of more confequence than any other man or body of men think him. When he receives an injury, real or fuppofed, and does nor choose to appeal to the laws of his country, he weighs that injury in the balance of felf-conceit, overloads his own confequerce, and almoft always, tranfgreffes the bounds of justice. There are a thoufand fpecies of injuries for which the wifelt men cannot certainly fay what fatisfa&tion ought to be given; and hence a fair and equal law is appointed to which all fuch may be referred, namely, the opinion of twelve men unbiailed and unconnected with the parties. That this mode of decifion is just, appears from this circumftance; that the decifion' of a jury (with very few exceptions) gives fatisfaction to every perfon, unlefs the party against whom the 'dccifion is given. Perfection is not the attribute of man, and juries may err, but this is an occurrence fo extremely rare, that this tribunal may be, without hazard of contradiction, pronounced the most perfect that the wif dom of man has ever invented, or ever can inve Farther we may fay, in this view of the matter, that reparation can never be made according to the ftrict and immutable laws of justice, if a man is allowed to veft in his own-perfon the diftinct offices of accufer and judge. In no nation, advanced the smallest degree in civilization, do we' find that it is permitted to any man to be his own avenger, or as the phrafe is, to take the law into his own hands. That this ought not to be fo, is confiftent with the most fim-' ple and natural principles of juftice, and it is a conviction impreffed on the minds of all mankind. Were it once allowed in a civilized nation, that every man should avenge his own caufe, what would be the confequence? That nation would foon be involved in a state of barbarity more hideous than ever stained the page of hiftory. We may from an inftance form fome conjecture of the progrefs of fuch a fyllem. A. receives an injury from B. and kills him. C. revenges the death of B. by killing A: D. revenges the death of A. by killing C. and fo on throughout a numerous circle of friends, relations, and dependants. The obvious reafon why all nations, and particularly civilized nations, have refufed to individuals the privilege of revenging their own injuries, is, that no man can fairly judge of the quantity of injury he has received, nor of the puujhment that I i2 ought ought to be inflicted. Refentment A law of honour! Where is this law is a paffion which excludes reasonable enquiry; and hence it is that men are felected as judges of injuries and punishments, who cannot be fuppofed to at under any influence that interferes with ftrict impartiality and juftice. Were not this the cafe, I do not fay that in all inftances juftice would be a mere farce, but I will fay that the decifion in almoft every instance would be a crime. The life of man is too facred a thing to be the fport of refentment or anger. Thus far, duelling has been confidered as a mode of punishment, or reparation. That it is contrary to the laws of God and man, requires no proof: it is only a matter of furprife that thofe who will allow that it is perfectly illegal, cannot prevail upon themfelves to act agreeably to a conviction of fo much importance. They may, perhaps, think, that the laws of man, being merely political regulations for a numerous fociety, may be in certain urgent cafes difpenfed with, and that the prefent fecret mode of condutting a duel, while it answers its purpotes, preferves a refpect for fuch regulations. But were we difpofed to grant this, we have got over only the leffer difficulty, and it would be wafting words to prove that a man has not done a very wife or a very good action, who boasts that he has eluded the laws of his country, and defpifed thofe of his God. But we shall be told, that neither punishment nor reparation are intended by duels. A law of honour,' fays the excellent author above quoted, 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 adverfary, generally without a wish to deftroy him, or any concern but to preferve the duellifts own reputation and reception in the world. Such is unquestionably the language of duellifts, and fuch is the defence they fet up. to be found? In what fenate was it enacted? By the confent of what people? Is it of man, or an emanation from the Deity? In what age of the world did it originate, and in what books are we to find it? A fhort charafter of it is to be found in Paley, and I will tranfcribe it for the information of men of bonour, that they may know what glorious provisions this law has made for the welfare of fociety. The law of honour is a system of rules conftructed by people of fashion, and calculated to facilitate their intercourfe with one another; and for no other purpofe. Confequently, nothing is adverted to by the law of honour, but what tends to incommode this intercourfe. Hence this law only prefcribes and regulates the duties between equals; omitting fuch as relate to the Supreme Being, as well as thofe which we owe to our inferiors. For which reafon, profaneness, neglect of public worship or private devotion, cruelty to fervants, rigorous treatment of tenants or other dependants, want of charity to the poor, injuries done to tradefmen by infolvency or delay of payment, with numberless examples of the fame kind, are accounted no breaches of honour; becaufe a man is not a less agreeable companion for thefe vices, nor the worfe to deal with, in thofe concerns which are usually tranfacted between one gentleman and another. Again, the law of honour being conftituted by men occupied in the purfuit of pleafure, and for the mutual conveniency of fuch men, will be found, as might be expected from the character and defign of the law-makers, to be, in molt inftances, favourable to the licentious indulgence of the natural paffions. Thus it allows of fornication, adultery, drunkennefs, prodigality, duelling, and revenge in the extreme; and lays no ftrefs upon the virtues oppofite to thefe.' Such is the law of honour, if that really deferves to be called a law, which in fact is the capricious confent of a certain defcription of people, to fet aide the laws of God in their petty quarrels. It is a law (for I must still ufe the word) which naturalizes and legalizes the paffions of pride and refentment, and gives a fanction to murder, which takes from it all that horror with which it would inspire a good mind. It is easy to perceive, that whoever wishes to take away another's life has only to provoke him to a duel, in which from fuperior skill he may fecure the advantage. And that duellifts, in general, are regulated by this law, and no other, will appear, if we confider the hiftory of fuch duels as have come within our knowledge for the laft thirty years, who were the parties, and what the fubject of the dispute. It would appear invidious to enter too minutely into this confideration, because there may be a few cafes, in which one of the parties may have been impelled to give a challenge, in compliance with this law of honour, and contrary to his own sense of duty. It remains for fuch to confider, whether, to preferve a man's reputation, he has the right to take away the life of another? To this the answer will be, no; because this is forbidden by the laws of heaven and earth; but if the answer fhould be in the affirmative, it will only ferve to introduce another abfurdity in the genius of duelling. Taking away a man's life will not in fact answer this purpofe. It will not preferve the reputation of him who takes it away. For example, if A. has committed a crime, and to fcreen it, tells a lie; he challenges B. who gives him the lie, and kills him. But all who know the affair know that A. did tell a lie, and therefore all the fatisfaction he gets is, that he has now the reputation of a murderer added to that of a liar. Suppofe that B. was wrong, and that A. did not tell a lie, will the reputation of the latter be better preserved by fighting, or by proving that B. was in the wrong? How comes it that telling a lie, which may after all arife in a mistake, is to be punished with death, and all the crimes enumerated by Paley, are not confidered worthy of punishment by the laws of honour? Is it poffible to entertain the smalleft degree of Chriftian faith or moral principle, and liften with patience to fuch abfurd pretences, as a law of honour paramount to both? If a man commits all thofe crimes, is not his reputation tarnished? Will not all who fpeak, call him a villain,, and will his reputation be restored, and all the foulneffes of his character be done away, merely by his having the courage to fight a duel? As well may we fay that it is impoffible to think ill of a man who has a good conftitution, or to blame the character of him, who is infenfible to fhame or forrow?` Let us now confider fome of the arguments which are used to defend duelling, as a public good, for ftrange as it may feem, fuch have been offered. It is faid that it has been of great ufe in the civilization of mankind, who in great focieties, would foon degenerate into cruel villains and treacherous flaves, were honour to be removed from them. This is an argument not lefs extraordinary for the manner in which it is expressed, than for its being totally contrary to fact. Duelling, if encouraged, muft in the very nature of things produce that cruelty and treachery, which it is faid to prevent. Take away from men the restraints of divine and human law, and you make them the worst of barbarians, every man avenging his own quarrel, and in his own way. But the affertion is totally contrary to hiftorical evidence; for no fooner did men begin to be civilized, than they enacted laws against duelling, and every remains of the ancient combats. On the other hand, it does not answer the purpose of civilization, for duelling is more common now than ever, and yet, I prefume, it will not be faid that we are returning to the days of |