Duelling Pistols

John Macarthur fought the first of at least 3 known duels on the Docks at Gravesend in 1789, while awaiting his ship’s departure for New South Wales. Insolence and ‘ungentlemanly’ conduct fuelled the dispute with the Neptune’s First Master, whom Macarthur had called a ‘scoundrel’. Following the duel, which was carried out nearby at a secret location, the family was given more comfortable accommodation below deck with John conceding that his opponent’s behaviour was that of a gentleman and man of honour.

John’s second duel was fought with Colonel Paterson, his commanding officer on 14th September 1801, at 1 pm. Following a number of disagreements with Governor King, Macarthur drew fellow officers into a plan to boycott government house.

When Paterson continued to visit the governor, Macarthur’s response was to orchestrate a messy series of insults and personal slurs aimed at Paterson and his wife. On the basis of ‘revealing private conversations in public’ Paterson demanded a duel. Once again, John was not the challenger, though he had clearly provoked it. Macarthur’s first shot hit Paterson in the right shoulder, leaving a severe and potentially fatal wound. Paterson’s second, or assistant, later accused Macarthur of yelling out a phrase like ‘gotcha’, which would have been highly disrespectful. Demanding the matter be handled in court Macarthur was put under house arrest until a decision was made to return him to London to face a military hearing.

Having recently had samples of his wool forwarded to London for appraisal, Macarthur may have tacitly forced the governor’s hand. A stroke of good luck occurred on the way – the only witness to the duel died when his ship disappeared. Macarthur’s name was cleared for lack of evidence while his plans as a colonial trader and grazier found unprecedented support.

Just before leaving for England in 1809, John duelled again. This time it was with Major Joseph Foveaux who was relieving Macarthur of the position of colonial secretary after the Bligh Rebellion. Foveaux’s accusation was that Macarthur hadn’t accounted for 500 pounds in the accounts. Macarthur was obviously insulted when asked to repay the money, leading him to challenge Foveaux to a duel. John actually repaid the money, so clearly the duel was more about manners.After a coin toss John shot first, standing 10 paces from his target who was quite fat. Foveaux’s second said of the duel that Macarthur “took a very deliberate aim and was perfectly cool, yet missed his object which was of no small magnitude”.

Foveaux then declined to return fire and the duel was concluded. Perhaps he didn’t wish to echo Paterson’s fate?

We can understand Macarthur’s behaviour…by briefly looking at the history of this strange, but very useful practice.

Duelling was introduced in Britain in the late 16thC as one way a gentlemen might deal with a disagreement. They may have been reckless and barbaric, but the duel was as an improvement on earlier methods of settling differences, where assassinations and vendettas sometimes placed a whole family at risk of retribution, Romeo and Juliet style. The duel was a way of localizing or containing violence. It was also neat, private, bound by rules and carefully administered. It seemed quite humanitarian and progressive at the time. The British preferred to use pistols rather than swords, believing this to be fairer and perhaps even less dangerous. Until the early 19th century courts were reluctant to prosecute men charged with wounding or killing someone in a duel.

So what actually happened in a duel? Once gentlemen fell out or felt insulted, a challenge was laid down. They would first of all appoint an assistant, called a second. It was the job of the second to coordinate the show. This included contacting the other gentleman and communicating key details…time, place, etc. The two gentlemen would then meet with their seconds at the appointed place, with a doctor. They would stand quite close to each other, ten to twelve paces. They would either shoot simultaneously or toss a coin and take it in turns. They would have 2 shots each.

People were rarely ever hit and hence very rarely killed. The aim of the duel was to allow men to defend their reputation, in an open display of bravery, beyond question. In a world dominated by the military, valour, courage and integrity were not just badges of approval – they went to core of one’s identity. To be a liar, or a coward, or corrupt, threatened social fabric. The men would also stand side on, meaning there were less of them to hit. In fact, duelling pistols were not rifled so that they were deliberately less accurate. So a bloodless outcome seems to have been encouraged. Clearly the purpose of a duel was not justice, but rather a method of making a dispute strategically, perhaps even politely, go away.