|
|
 |
I
may here refer to an incident which may assist to point a moral, if
inadequate to adorn a tale. In 1862, in one of the journals under
my control, I condemned Du Chaillu, the African traveller, for an
insult he committed on a member of a London scientific society, and
blamed Captain Burton (afterwards Sir Richard Burton) for his partial
vindication of the offence. A few days after I received a formal visit
from Captain Blakeley, who handed me a challenge from Captain Burton
to meet him in a duel! |
| Captain
Blakeley was well known at the time as the inventor of a method for
strengthening field-guns. I had to accept the challenge, offer an
apology, or do nothing. I decided to do nothing. No doubt Captain
Burton, with his old-world notions, thought he sufficiently vindicated
his honour by so challenging me in due form, as I heard no more about
it. I, on the other hand, thought that I as effectively defended myself
by treating his hostile message with contemptuous silence. But suppose
the matter developed differently? Suppose we were equally foolish
and about equal in man-killing ability, that we fought and one or
both of us got killed or wounded? Would right or reason or truth or
honour have been thereby vindicated? Not a jot. But we were not equal
in killing ability. Burton was a soldier, and doubtless a good marksman.
I was neither, and had we pistol-shotted each other it would not have
been right or reason or justice or law that would have triumphed,
but superior marksmanship! War and duelling owe their existence to
the same barbaric origin. Duelling is war between two persons; war
is duelling between two nations. Duelling, thanks to the good sense
of the nation, is now made a criminal and punishable offence; and
war, in due time, by the good sense of the nations, will undergo similar
disapproval and extinction. |
|
|
|