Wellington–Winchilsea duel

The duel was sparked by the Wellington Government's introduction of Catholic Emancipation the same year. This marked a shift in Wellington's position. Although not unsympathetic to Catholics (having served alongside many during his military career), Wellington had previously opposed the proposed measures. However his pragmatic move to accept them angered many of his former supporters, who formed the Ultra-Tory movement. Winchilsea, an aristocrat more than 20 years Wellington's junior, was opposed to Catholic relief. He attacked the Duke verbally and accused him in a letter to The Standard on 14 March 1829 of "an insidious design for the infringement of our liberties and the introduction of Popery into every department of the State". Wellington wrote to him demanding a formal apology but Winchilsea, while privately admitting he had gone too far, felt he could not back down without losing his honour. Wellington then challenged him to a duel. He was likely irritated to find himself in such a situation, having avoided and opposed duels throughout his military career. ==Duel==

The Duke appointed his old comrade Sir Henry Hardinge as his second while Lord Falmouth acted for Winchilsea. John Robert Hume, the military surgeon who had served with Wellington in the Peninsular War and at the Battle of Waterloo, was in attendance. He produced a detailed account of the exchange. The two participants met early in the day at Battersea Fields, with Wellington's party having crossed Battersea Bridge on horseback while Winchilsea's took a more roundabout route via Putney Bridge, By common practice of the era, the combatants were to use duelling pistols rather than swords. The seconds exchanged conversation and it was clear that Falmouth was alarmed in case Wellington was killed or wounded and he should be blamed. (an act known as deloping). c.1829 by Thomas Lawrence. Having faced Wellington's shot there was no longer any allegation of cowardice that could be thrown at Winchilsea. His second, Falmouth, eagerly accepted that Winchilsea had been on the wrong and was now able to apologise unconditionally. However, Wellington's reputation was enhanced, and he was seen to have outflanked his political opponents by impressing public opinion and stopping slanders undermining his government. He said: "The atmosphere of calumny in which I had been for some time living cleared away." The duel was the second and last fought by a sitting prime minister following the 1798 Pitt–Tierney duel on Putney Heath. Relationship afterwards Wellington and Winchilsea subsequently remained on most friendly terms. Wellington frequently invited Winchilsea, a fellow Tory, to various dinners or parties. In 1834, Wellington even specifically came up to London from his country estate to witness Winchilsea's second wedding to his own great niece, Emily Bagot (daughter of Lady Anne Wellesley). After the wedding he went back to his country estate, Stratfield Saye House. ==See also==