The possibility that assisted suicide may soon be legalised in the United Kingdom, in imitation of Canada and the Netherlands, opens the prospect for us here to follow other related policies from overseas which might improve our quality of life and the efficiency of the British state. A logical progression from assisted suicide is, of course, the reintroduction of duelling. 

An excellent article in the latest History Today describes how Uruguay legalised duelling in 1920, and only outlawed it again in 1992. For most of the twentieth century it proved to be of considerable social utility there. Primarily, the institution acted as a more effective sort of Ofcom, making politicians and journalists think twice before publishing intemperate or slanderous remarks about their rivals. A quick visit to the duelling ground proved far speedier and more effective as a dispute resolution mechanism than a grinding journey through the libel courts, and not that many people were actually killed. A graze to the shoulder from a bullet or a glancing blow from a sabre, accompanied by negotiations from the seconds and other friends, usually brought about a settlement that satisfied all parties and the requirements of gentlemanly honour. 

The social utility of duelling is plain to see, but the real case to advance is one of moral consistency

What worked well in twentieth century Uruguay should work brilliantly well in twenty-first century Britain. It’s not just the libel courts that are slow here, and it’s not just rich celebrities like Rebeka Vardy and Coleen Rooney who could have saved themselves a fortune in legal fees with the right to duel restored. Think of every neighbourhood dispute, every disagreement over hedges or a misplaced right of way interminably festering in the vortex of litigation — all solved instantly, cleanly and cheaply by the exchange of gunfire at dawn. 

Indeed, given the dissatisfaction expressed by community leaders at the state of the criminal courts following the acquittal of the Police Sergeant Chris Blake for the shooting of South-London gangster Chris Kaba, perhaps that most ancient form of the duel known to the English legal system, trial by combat, should be reintroduced. One feels certain that a wager of battle between the quarter-stave-wielding champions of Kaba’s Brixton Hill 67 Gang and the Metropolitan Police would make more sense to the self-appointed community leaders than the tedious, and costly, two-year independent forensic investigation which took place instead.

The reintroduction of duelling would certainly be a great boon to the Police. No longer would they have to respond to calls to break up the machete and knife fights which are an ever more colourful part of our urban and civic life. The constabulary could assume that these were all engagements permitted by the new duelling law, and instead devote themselves to the more pressing business of patrolling social media. One need hardly spell out the consequent savings that would follow from knife-crime or gun offenders never needing to trouble the prisons and probation service, rather than the latest rather futile practice of releasing them from jail after serving 40 percent of their sentences.  

… the reintroduction of duelling would beyond doubt improve the whole ecosystem of online public discourse

One mentions social media, and the reintroduction of duelling would beyond doubt improve the whole ecosystem of online public discourse. In case of some outrage or piece of alleged misinformation, one need no longer wait for the clunking moderators of Facebook or X to turn up, nor to fritter away precious hours in hysterical online disputes over who said what or what is true. Rather, these spats could be cleaned up offline in some quiet corner of Hyde Park, where we might see Douglas Murray locking rapiers with Owen Jones. Jeremy Corbyn, instead of his passive aggressive posts lambasting anyone who thinks Israel might have a point, could work out his anger by challenging members of Mossad to combat by prize beetroot at 40 paces in his Islington allotment. The endless pent-up streams of vitriol could be drained from our social media feeds by being healthily turned into a few moments of real physical fury, thus freeing up the attention of our media and governing classes towards more urgent concerns.

The social utility of duelling is plain to see, but the real case to advance is one of moral consistency. If Parliament finds that there is no objection to doctors being permitted to help someone kill themselves because that person consents, then why on earth should two people who wish to fight to the death, both freely consenting, not be permitted to do so, particularly — as with assisted suicide — when there are so many social benefits? 

Indeed, we can take comfort from the fact that when Uruguay reintroduced duelling in 1920 it prided itself as being the most progressive, liberal, and secularising state in the whole region, which even rebranded Holy Week as “Tourism Week”. Although there were some qualms about the reintroduction of duelling, it was lauded as a great egalitarian policy, which gave every citizen the chance to defend their honour, regardless of their class background. Surely we can follow Uruguay’s lead, if they were able to find a place for duelling amongst so many progressive reforms? 

Indeed, it was the most reactionary part of English society in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — the evangelical Christian circle around William Wilberforce and the Clapham sect — that led the campaign for the abolition of duelling in England. How can one not find their rhetoric against the practice off-putting? Take the ranting of Granville Sharp, Wilberforce’s friend, in his tract attacking duelling: “How can Honour be vindicated or retrieved by the commission of a notorious Felony?… It is cowardly… because a man submits to it… for fear his courage… should be called in question; and yet he has not courage enough to withstand the barbarous prejudices of a depraved world…” As we should have ignored the admonitions of Wilberforce and Granville then in the name of personal autonomy and efficiency, so let us also ignore the ravings of the bishops and clergy today who also wish to stand in the way of consumer choice.