The room was dimly lit, and when the table was
pushed back, the space for the combatants was but twelve feet by five.
pushed back, the space for the combatants was but twelve feet by five.
Byron
1695), the poet's
great-great-grandfather. The duel between their grand-uncles, William,
fifth Lord Byron, and William Chaworth, Esq. , of Annesley, was fought
between eight and nine o'clock in the evening of Saturday, January 26,
1765 (see _The Gazetteer_, Monday, January 28, 1765), at the Star and
Garter Tavern, Pall Mall. The coroner's jury brought in a verdict of
wilful murder (see for the "Inquisition," and report of trial, _Journals
of the House of Lords_, 1765, pp. 49, 126-135), and on the presentation
of their testimony to the House of Lords, Byron pleaded for a trial "by
God and his peers," whereupon he was arrested and sent to the Tower. The
case was tried by the Lords Temporal (the Lords Spiritual asked
permission to withdraw), and, after a defence had been read by the
prisoner, 119 peers brought in a verdict of "Not guilty of murder,
guilty of manslaughter, on my honour. " Four peers only returned a
verdict of "Not guilty. " The result of this verdict was that Lord Byron
claimed the benefit of the statute of Edward VI. , and was discharged on
paying the fees.
The defence, which is given in full (see Journal, etc. , for April 17,
1765), is able and convincing. Whilst maintaining an air of chivalry and
candour, the accused contrived to throw the onus of criminality on his
antagonist. It was Mr. Chaworth who began the quarrel, by sneering at
his cousin's absurd and disastrous leniency towards poachers. It was
Chaworth who insisted on an interview, not on the stairs, but in a
private room, who locked the door, and whose demeanour made a challenge
"to draw" inevitable.
The room was dimly lit, and when the table was
pushed back, the space for the combatants was but twelve feet by five.
After two thrusts had been parried, and Lord Byron's shirt had been
torn, he shifted a little to the right, to take advantage of such light
as there was, came to close quarters with his adversary and, "as he
supposed, gave the unlucky wound which he would ever reflect upon with
the utmost regret. "
If there was any truth in his plea, the "wicked Lord Byron" has been
misjudged, and, at least in the matter of the duel, was not so black as
he has been painted. For Byron's defence of his grand-uncle, see letter
to M. J. J. Coulmann, Genoa, July 12, 1823, _Life_, by Karl Elze, 1872,
pp. 443-446. ]
[584] {543}[In the coroner's "Inquisition," the sword is described as
being "made of iron and steel, of the value of five shillings. " Byron
says that "so far from feeling any remorse for having killed Mr.
Chaworth, who was a fire-eater (_spadassin_), . . . he always kept the
sword . . .
great-great-grandfather. The duel between their grand-uncles, William,
fifth Lord Byron, and William Chaworth, Esq. , of Annesley, was fought
between eight and nine o'clock in the evening of Saturday, January 26,
1765 (see _The Gazetteer_, Monday, January 28, 1765), at the Star and
Garter Tavern, Pall Mall. The coroner's jury brought in a verdict of
wilful murder (see for the "Inquisition," and report of trial, _Journals
of the House of Lords_, 1765, pp. 49, 126-135), and on the presentation
of their testimony to the House of Lords, Byron pleaded for a trial "by
God and his peers," whereupon he was arrested and sent to the Tower. The
case was tried by the Lords Temporal (the Lords Spiritual asked
permission to withdraw), and, after a defence had been read by the
prisoner, 119 peers brought in a verdict of "Not guilty of murder,
guilty of manslaughter, on my honour. " Four peers only returned a
verdict of "Not guilty. " The result of this verdict was that Lord Byron
claimed the benefit of the statute of Edward VI. , and was discharged on
paying the fees.
The defence, which is given in full (see Journal, etc. , for April 17,
1765), is able and convincing. Whilst maintaining an air of chivalry and
candour, the accused contrived to throw the onus of criminality on his
antagonist. It was Mr. Chaworth who began the quarrel, by sneering at
his cousin's absurd and disastrous leniency towards poachers. It was
Chaworth who insisted on an interview, not on the stairs, but in a
private room, who locked the door, and whose demeanour made a challenge
"to draw" inevitable.
The room was dimly lit, and when the table was
pushed back, the space for the combatants was but twelve feet by five.
After two thrusts had been parried, and Lord Byron's shirt had been
torn, he shifted a little to the right, to take advantage of such light
as there was, came to close quarters with his adversary and, "as he
supposed, gave the unlucky wound which he would ever reflect upon with
the utmost regret. "
If there was any truth in his plea, the "wicked Lord Byron" has been
misjudged, and, at least in the matter of the duel, was not so black as
he has been painted. For Byron's defence of his grand-uncle, see letter
to M. J. J. Coulmann, Genoa, July 12, 1823, _Life_, by Karl Elze, 1872,
pp. 443-446. ]
[584] {543}[In the coroner's "Inquisition," the sword is described as
being "made of iron and steel, of the value of five shillings. " Byron
says that "so far from feeling any remorse for having killed Mr.
Chaworth, who was a fire-eater (_spadassin_), . . . he always kept the
sword . . .
