7. Can every insult be compromised? is a mooted and vexed question. On this subject, no rules can be given that will be satisfactory. The old opinion, that a blow must require blood, is not of force. Blows may be compromised in many cases. What those are, much depend on the seconds. APPENDIX. Since the above Code was in press, a friend has favored me with the IRISH CODE OF HONOR, which I had never seen; and it is published as an Appendix to it. One thing must be apparent to every reader, viz., the marked amelioration of the rules that govern in duelling at the present time. I am unable to say what code exists now in Ireland, but I very much doubt whether it be of the same character which it bore in 1777. The American Quarterly Review for September, 1824, in a notice of Sir Jonah Barrington's history of his own times, has published this code; and followed it up with some remarks, which I have thought proper to insert also. The grave reviewer has spoken of certain States in terms so unlike a gentleman, that I would advise him to look at home, and say whether he does not think that the manners of his own countrymen, do not require great amendment? I am very sure, that the citizens of the States so disrespectfully spoken of, would feel a deep humiliation, to be compelled to exchange their urbanity of deportment, for the uncouth incivility of the people of Massachusetts. Look at their public journals, and you will find them, very generally, teeming with abuse of private character, which would not be countenanced here. The idea of New England becoming a school for manners, is about as fanciful as Bolinbroke's "idea of a patriot king." I like their fortiter in re, but utterly eschew their suaviter in modo. "The practice of duelling and points of honor settled at Clonmell summer assizes, 1777, by the gentleman delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Mayo, Sligo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. "Rule 1.--The first offence requires the apology, although the retort may have been more offensive than the insult.--Example: A. tells B. he is impertinent, &C.; B. retorts, that he lies; yet A. must make the first apology, because he gave the first offence, and then, (after one fire,) B. may explain away the retort by subsequent apology. "Rule 2.--But if the parties would rather fight on: then, after two shots each, (but in no case before,) B. may explain first, and A. apologize afterward. "Rule 3.--If a doubt exist who gave the first offence, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or a hit, if the challenger requires it. "Rule 4.--When the lie direct is the first offence, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange tow shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.