. They counted upon the
generosity of Beauvallon, who, as a gentleman, on discovering his
adversary's utter lack of skill, would disarm, or inflict a slight wound
on him. Unfortunately, young Dumas, with the best intentions,
unburthened himself to that effect among those most interested in the
affair, namely, the staffs of _La Presse_ and _Le Globe_. These two
journals were literally at daggers drawn, and some writers connected
with the latter went hinting, if not saying openly, that Dujarrier was
already showing the white feather. Whether Dujarrier heard of the
comments in that shape, or whether he instinctively guessed what they
would be, has never been clearly made out, but it is certain that from
that moment he insisted upon the use of pistols. "I do not intend my
adversary to show me the slightest favour, either by disarming me or by
wounding me in the arm or leg. I mean to have a serious encounter," he
said. Young Dumas, frightened perhaps at his want of reticence in the
matter, begged his father to go and see Grisier,[15] and claim his
intervention. Alexandre Dumas, than whom no stauncher friend ever
existed who would have willingly risked his own life to save that of
Dujarrier, had to decline the mission suggested by his son. "I cannot do
it," he said; "the first and foremost thing is to safeguard Dujarrier's
reputation, which is the more precious because it is his first duel."

[Footnote 15: The great fencing-master, whom Dumas immortalized
in his "Maitre d'Armes."--EDITOR.]

"His first duel,"--here is the key-note to the whole of the proceedings
as far as Dujarrier and his personal friends were concerned. Had
Dujarrier been in the position of the editor of his paper, Emile de
Girardin,--had he been out before and killed or severely wounded his
man, as the latter killed Armand Carrel nine years before,--he might
have openly announced his determination "never to go out again" under no
matter what provocation. Unfortunately, Dujarrier was not in that
position; in fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Dujarrier paid the
penalty of M. de Girardin's decision. A great deal of mawkish sentiment
has been wasted upon the tragic fate of Armand Carrel; in reality, he
had what he deserved, albeit that no one more than M. de Girardin
himself regretted his untimely end. Most writers will tell one that
Carrel fell a victim to his political opinions; nothing is farther from
the truth. Armand Carrel fell a