be devised and effablished. And the learned Dr. Robertfon has obferved, in favour of this practice-even while he condemns it-that its influence on modern manners, has been found, in fome refpects, beneficial to mankind. "To this abfurd cuftom, fays he, we muft afcribe, in fome degree, the extraordinary gentleness and complaifance of modern manners, and that refpe&iful attention of one man to another, which, at prefent, render the focial intercourfes of life far more agreeable and decent than among the moft civilized nations of antiquity." The Author of thefe confiderations reduces the arguments which have been offered in behalf of the private combat, to these two: I. That the duel is the only expedient to obtain fatisfaction for thofe injuries, of which laws take no cognizance. II. That a man of honour is bound on pain of infamy to refent every indignity that may be offered him, with the point of his fword, or with a pistol.' Thefe pofitions our fenfible Author undertakes to refute; and we fhall give a fpecimen of his reafoning: but, first, it will not be improper to lay before our Readers part of what he has faid on the origin of the fingle combat, or duel. The ancient flates, fays he, of Greece and Rome, from whence we derive the nobleft models of heroifm, fupported private honour, without delivering down to us any evidences of this baneful custom of demanding fo fevere a decifion of private affronts; which confidering the military fpirit of thofe nations, muft, if it obtained at all, have proved more deftructive to them at home, than the united fwords of their enemies abroad. The practice is in fact of later and more ignoble birth; the judicial combat, the parent of modern duels, Springing from monkish fuperftition, grafted on feudal barbarism. Whoever reads Hurd's entertaining and ingenious Letters on Chivalry and Romance, with Robertfon's elaborate Hiftory of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V. will no longer hesitate concerning this clear fact. The judicial combat obtained in ignorant ages, on a conclusion that in this appeal to Providence, innocence and right would be pointed out by victory, and guilt ftigmatited and punished by defeat. But, alas! experience at length taught us not to expect a miraculous interpofition whenever fuperior ftrength, fuperior skill, and fuperior bravery or ferocity, either or all of them, happened to appear on the fide of injuftice.' Dr. Robertfon, above quoted, derives the fafhim (as the Writer of thefe Reflections has obferved) of terminating private differences by the fword, or piftol, from the illuftrious example of the challenge fent by Francis I. of France, to the Emperor Charles V. This was not, indeed, the firft inftance of fuch challenges, among princes; but as our Author remarks, * Author of the Hiftory of Scotland, &c. the the dignity of the parties, in the present cafe, afforded a fufficient fanction for extending this mode of deciding differences, and fettling difputes: to which we may add, that the fpirit of chivalry and romantic knighthood still prevailing in those fighting times, was continually exciting the heroes of the age to this mode of proving their perfonal prowefs and valour. We now return to our Author's manner of reafoning upon the two poftulata before ftated: With respect to the first argument, fays he, if we annex any determinate ideas to our words, by fatisfaction we are to understand redrefs, compenfation, amends, or atonement. Now, Gentlemen! for the fake of all that is valuable in life, condefcend for a minute to bring down your refined notions to the fure ftandard of common fenfe, and then weigh the fatisfaction to be obtained in a duel, Is fatisfaction to be enforced from an adverfary, by putting a weapon into his hand, and ftanding a contention with him life for life, upon an equal chance? Is an offender against the rules of gentility, or against the ocligations of morality, a man prefumptively deftitute of honour himself, fairly intitled to this equal chance of extending an injury already committed, to the irreparable degree of taking the life alfo from an innocent man? If a gentleman is infatuated enough to meet a perfon who has degraded himself from the character of a gentleman, upon these equal terms, and lofes a limb, or his life, what fpecies of fatisfaction can that be called-But it is better to fuffer death than indignity. What from the injurious hand? Correct your ideas, and you will esteem life too valuable to be complimented away for a mistaken notion. If the aggreffor falls, the full purpose of the injured perfon is thus answered, but what is the fatisfaction? The furvivor becomes a refugee like a felon; or if he should be cleared by the equivocal tenderness of a court of juftice, mult he not be a barbarian instead of a gentleman who can feed upon this inhuman bloody fatisfaction, without experiencing the pangs of felf-reproach for having facrificed the life of a fellow-creature to a punctilio; and perhaps involved the ruin of an innocent family by the brutal deed? If, on the other hand, he is really a mistaken man of humanity, what has he obtained? The fatisfaction of imbittering all the remainder of his life with the keenelt forrow; of having forfeited all his future peace of mind by a consciousness of guilt, from which his notions of honour can never release him, till the load drags him down to the grave! If a man of strict honour is reduced to beg his life of a meer pretender to honour, a fcoundrel; what portion of fatisfaction can this be efteemed? Is not this a mortifying painful aggravation of a wrong already fuftained? What confolation can honour afford for fuch a difgrace?' Our Author has fome other very fenfible animadverfions on this first branch of the argument in defence of dueiling; after which he proceeds to the fecond plea, viz. the obligation of refenting affronts in this manner, founded on the infamy of fufpected courage; and, in our opinion, he fatisfactorily proves that this argument is by no means irrefragable: but for his reasoning on this delicate point, we muft refer to his pamphlet,-and proceed to take notice of his plan for putting a stop to the practice of duelling. In the firft place, he recommends that a law be paffed, declaring the act of fending a challenge, or the reducing a perfon to defend his life with fword or piftol, to be felony; and the killing a perfon in a duel, to be punished as murder, without benefit of clergy, unlefs fufficient proof is made that the party killed, really urged the combat.' As this first part of his propofal relates rather to the mode of punishing than to the means of preventing duels, he proceeds: In every quarrel between two gentlemen where fatisfaction is thought neceffary, let the parties be empowered to fummon a jury of honour from among their friends, fix to be appointed by one gentleman, and fix by the other; or in cafe of a refufal of either party, let the fix chofen by the other compleat the number by their own appointment, each nominating one and finally, let all this be done, if poffible, free from the embarraffing intervention of lawyers. Let this jury of honour, when duly affembled, difcufs the merits of the difpute in queftion, and form their opinion by a majority of votes; but to guard against generating fresh quarrels by the difcovery of the votes on either fide, let the whole twelve be bound to fecrecy upon their honour, and the whole twelve fign the verdict of the majority. Let a copy of this verdict be delivered, or tranfmitted to the gentleman whofe conduct is condemned; and if he refuses to make the required conceffion or due fatisfaction, let this opinion be published in fuch a manner as may be thought proper, and be understood to divest him of his character as a gentleman, fo long as he remains contumacious. By this fingle expedient conveyed in a few words, it is hoped the neceffity of duels may be effectually fuperfeded, the practice fuppreffed, and ample fatisfaction enforced for all injuries of honour. In the examination of fubjects of importance we are often tempted to overlook the thing we want, on a fuppofition that it cannot be near at hand. This plan may perhaps admit of amendment, but it is feared, that the more complicated it is rendered, the more difficult it may prove to carry into execution: and it is hoped, fuch as it is, it will not be the worfe thought of, for coming from an unknown pen.' With refpect to the practicability of this fcheme, we appre hend that the great difficulty would lie in the obliging the quarrelling parties, or either of them (who by the Author's plan are merely empowered) to refer them atter to the court of honour. But the Writer does not give this as a finished plan: he barely fuggefts the hint; leaving others to improve upon it, if thought worthy of farther confideration. As to the propofed act for punishing the furvivor, where one of the parties has fallen in the conflict, it is, indeed, a melancholy truth that our laws in being have been found inadequate to the purpofe of preventing duels, by the dread of legal con fequences. fequences. The King of Sweden's method was virtually the fame with that which is here recommended; and it is faid to have been effectual in that kingdom. The great Guftavus Adolphus, finding that the custom of duelling was become alarmingly prevalent among the officers in his army, was determined to fupprefs, if poffible, those false notions of honour. Soon after the King had formed this refolution, and iffued fome very rigorous edicts against the practice, a quarrel arose between two of his generals; who agreed to crave his Majefty's permiffion to decide their difference by the laws of honour. The King confented; and said he would be a fpectator of the combat. He went, accordingly, to the place appointed, attended by a body of guards, and the public executioner. He then told the combatants, that "they must fight till one of them died," and turning to the executioner, he added, "Do you immediately ftrike off the head of the furvivor."-The Monarch's inflexibility had the defired effect: the difference between the two officers was adjusted; and no more challenges were heard of in the army of Guftavus Adolphus. From the peculiar prevalency of this cuftom, in countries where that religious fyftem is established, which, of all others, moft exprefsly prohibits the gratification of revenge, with every fpecies of outrage and violence, we too plainly fee how little mankind are, in reality, influenced by the principles of the religion by which they profefs to be guided:-in defence of which, too, they will occafionally risk even their lives in fight, though fighting is abfolutely forbidden by it!-But, we fear Horace was too much in the right: Naturam expellas furcâ, tamen ufque recurret. ART. V. Juliet Grenville: or, the Hiflory of the Human Heart. By 1774. WE E have fo frequently given our opinion of the merit of this Writer, as a novellift, and the two works which he has published, of this kind, are fo uniformly characteristic, that we have little to add, on the prefent occafion, either of panegyric or of cenfure. Mr. Brooke's heroes and heroines are ftill faints, or angels on earth; too exalted, we apprehend, for mere finful mortals to prefume to emulate, and we fear too, that they have fo much of the old-fashioned form of piety about them, and talk fo folemnly, in the ftyle and phrafe of the fcriptures, that they will not be generally looked upon as fit models for imitation, in this age of freedom and gaiety. Yet, See our accounts of Mr. Brooke's novel, entitled, "The Fool of Quality," given at the feveral periods of its fucceffive publications, in feparate volumes, Review, vols. xxxv. xxxix. xli. and xlii. in justice to the Author we muft obferve, that there is, in this performance (if our memory fails us not) lefs of that enthufiaftic rapture, and that vifionary jargon of fanaticism, than in his Fool of Quality; fo that, with all its imperfections, its fuper-human characters, its forced fituations, its unnatural expedients, its improbable circumftances, and the frequent monkish and fometimes childish ftrain in which the fpeakers, of all ages, deliver themfelves, Juliet Grenville is, indubitably, a work of genius, and of uncommon merit, in various respects: as are, indeed, all the productions of this Writer, from his Guftavus Vafa, to the prefent performance. He entitles it The History of the Human Heart;' and it must be acknowledged, the human heart is a fubject with which Mr. Brooke feems to be fo well acquainted, that we may truly fay he has, in various inftances, fo well defcribed its native operations and genuine movements, that while we read him, our feeling, to ufe his own expreffion, like a tuned though fubordinate inftrument, bear unifon and accord to every word he utters.' We do not attempt to analyse the story of Juliet Grenville; as we apprehend that fketches of that kind would afford but meagre entertainment for the generality of Review-Readers. We fhall, probably, fucceed better by detaching a few pallages from fuch parts of the work as are not infeparably interwoven with the main thread of the narrative; but which will, neverthelefs, fufficiently enable thofe who are not already acquainted with the genius and manner of this Writer, to form a competent judgment of both. In the fecond volume our Author has introduced his fentiments on the fubject of Courage; and what he has faid in regard to this capital male virtue,' will ferve as a proper supplement to our two foregoing articles on Duelling. True courage, he obferves, has a two-fold virtue in it. First, it has that of difregarding the danger and damage that may threaten itfelf; and fecondly, it has the virtue of extending its powers to the fupport of the weak, the defence of the affaulted, the vindication of the injured, and the fuppreffion and caftigation of the fpoiler and oppreffor. While courage is thus employed, it is benevolent, it is beneficent, it is justly, it is exaltedly refpectable and amiable. But, when a fpurious and falfe appearance of the quality, called Courage, through motives of ambition or defire of applaufe, or any other incitements merely perfonal and felfifh, exerts its powers in a manner seemingly worthy of praite, it yet lofes the whole nature and ought to forfeit the name of Virtue; and it wants nothing fave to have. thofe motives detected, to become contemptible and deteftable in the eyes of mankind, • Few |