After which, the reckoning being paid, all the company, with the exception of the prisoner, went out of the room to go home, and he called to the deceased, saying, “Young man, come back, I have something to say to you.” Whereupon the deceased returned into the room, and immediately the door was closed, and the rest of the company excluded; but they heard a clashing of swords, and the prisoner gave the deceased his mortal wound. It was also found that, on the breaking up of the company, the prisoner had his great coat thrown over his shoulders, and that he received three slight wounds in the fight; and that the deceased being asked upon his death-bed whether he had received his wounds in a manner amongst swordsmen called fair, answered “I think I did.” It was further found that after the throwing of the bottle, there was no reconciliation between the prisoner and the deceased. Upon these facts all the judges were of opinion that the prisoner was guilty of murder; he having acted upon malice and deliberation, and not from sudden passion. The argument of the Chief Justice went to show, that after the door had been shut the parties were upon an equal footing in point of preparation before the fight began, in which the mortal wound was given. The main point then, on which the judgment turned, and so declared to be, was the evidence of _express malice_, after the interposition of the company, _and the parties had all sat down again for an hour_. Under these circumstances the Court were of opinion that the prisoner had had _reasonable time for cooling_; after which, upon an offer of reconciliation from the deceased, he had made use of that bitter and deliberate expression, “_That he would have his blood_;” and again, the prisoner remaining in the room after the rest of the company had retired, and calling back the deceased by the contemptuous appellation of “_young man_,” on pretence of having something to say to him, altogether showed such strong proof of deliberation and coolness, as precluded the presumption of passion having continued down to the time of the mortal stroke, and that there was no doubt but that he had compelled Gower to defend himself. It was also about this period that Addison and Steele, in the Spectator and the Tatler, endeavoured to draw public attention to this subject, and used both the power of persuasion and raillery to discountenance the disgraceful practice. In No. 84 of the Spectator, Steele wrote an essay against duelling, and in the character of Spinamont he alluded to a meeting that had taken place between Sir Cholmondeley Dering and Mr. Thornhill, when the former was killed. Thornhill was acquitted of the charge of murder; but two months after, he was stabbed by two men on Turnham-green, who exclaimed as they struck him, “_Remember Sir Cholmondeley Dering_.”