Simpson & Bulkeley — An Abortive Norwich Duel — Two Rare Pamphlets, 1826 — James Stowe & R. C. Fiske Provenance

Two exceptionally scarce Norwich pamphlets documenting an abortive duel between a young officer of the 40th Regiment and William Simpson, preserved together with a contemporary ownership inscription dated in the very midst of the affair.

Norwich: S. Wilkin, Upper Haymarket; and Matchett & Stevenson, Market-place, 1826. First editions. Two pamphlets bound together in later quarter black morocco over marbled boards, spine ruled and lettered in gilt “BULKELEY V SIMPSON — NORWICH, 1826.”

An extraordinary survival of a provincial quarrel which rapidly escalated from a street scuffle into the formal preliminaries of a duel.

The first pamphlet, William Simpson's Statement of the Facts which occurred in the late affair between Mr. Bulkeley, of the 40th Regiment, and Mr. William Simpson, opens with Simpson's account of an altercation on the evening of 21 June 1826. According to Simpson, he and Lempster Bulkeley of the 40th Regiment “collared” one another before a scuffle ensued. Bulkeley subsequently claimed to his brother officers that he had given Simpson “a damned good thrashing,” and the dispute developed into a question of honour requiring satisfaction.

The pamphlet provides a remarkably detailed account of the conventions surrounding an intended duel. Bulkeley initially called upon Mr. Whitbread to act as his “Friend” — effectively his second. Whitbread met Simpson at the Norfolk Hotel and attempted to arrange an amicable settlement, explaining that he had no intention of “going out with Mr. Bulkeley,” since “expulsion from the University” would be the consequence. Bulkeley subsequently selected Mr. Dye in his place, while Simpson entrusted his side of the affair to W. V. Bacon.

The negotiations failed to produce a meeting. Simpson eventually declared Bulkeley a coward for refusing the satisfaction he believed honour demanded. Bulkeley instead made a deposition before the Chief Magistrate of Norwich, following which Simpson was bound over to keep the peace.

Simpson's pamphlet concludes with a postscript dated 21 August 1826.

Of particular interest, its title-page bears the contemporary ownership inscription:

“James Stowe / Augt 23d 1826.”

The pamphlet was therefore in Stowe's possession only two days after Simpson's concluding statement, demonstrating almost immediate contemporary circulation.

Three days later, on 26 August 1826, Bulkeley issued the second pamphlet bound here, A Reply to Mr. Simpson's Statement. His version is considerably less conciliatory. Bulkeley states that Simpson's behaviour had been “ungentlemanly and insulting” and admits that:

“I … knocked him down and struck him several times with my stick.”

Across fifteen pages Bulkeley systematically answers Simpson's accusations and defends his refusal to resolve the affair by duel, concluding from the barracks on 26 August 1826 that he had published his account in order “to set the public right in regard to the true merits of the case.”

Together the two pamphlets preserve both sides of an unusually well-documented dispute, printed within days of one another by two different Norwich presses.

The Whitbread connection

The “Mr. Whitbread” whom Bulkeley initially asked to act as his second is very probably Edmund Salter Whitbread (1804–1890).

Whitbread was then an undergraduate at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, taking his B.A. in April 1827. The identification fits the pamphlet's explicit statement that participation in the duel would expose Whitbread to expulsion from the University. He was also firmly connected with East Anglia: born in Suffolk, ordained at Norwich Cathedral in 1828, and later Rector of Strumpshaw with Bradestone in Norfolk for more than half a century.

The pamphlet itself gives only the surname, however, and the identification should therefore be regarded as highly probable rather than proven.

Provenance

James Stowe, contemporary ownership inscription dated 23 August 1826 to the title-page of Simpson's Statement.

Later from the library of R. C. Fiske, North Walsham, with his engraved armorial Ex Libris R. C. Fiske Nth. Walsham bookplate.

Fiske was a significant Norfolk antiquarian collector whose library included substantial holdings of Norfolk, naval and Nelson material.

Bibliographical note

The pamphlets are of considerable rarity. A previous specialist auction catalogue described both as first editions and recorded them as absent from COPAC at the time of cataloguing.

Army List records Bulkeley’s commissions as Ensign, 8 April 1825; Lieutenant, 29 May 1828; and Captain, 9 January 1835.

Physical description

Octavo. Two separately printed pamphlets bound together:

SIMPSON, William. Statement of the Facts which occurred in the late affair between Mr. Bulkeley, of the 40th Regiment, and Mr. William Simpson. Norwich: printed by S. Wilkin, Upper Haymarket, [1826]. 16 pp.

BULKELEY, Lempster. A Reply to Mr. Simpson's Statement. Norwich: Matchett and Stevenson, Printers, Market-place, [1826]. 15 pp.

Later quarter black morocco over green and red marbled boards; spine ruled in gilt and lettered “BULKELEY V SIMPSON / NORWICH, 1826.”

A substantial number of later binder's blanks have been inserted before and after the original pamphlets, evidently to give sufficient body to the very slender publications when they were rebound. These blanks are part of the later binding structure and do not represent missing or removed material.

Condition

Very good.

Binding sound and attractive, with light rubbing and minor marks commensurate with use; small ink numeral “6” to one marbled board. Spine gilt remains bright.

Original pamphlets with light age-toning, occasional spotting and handling marks; Simpson's title somewhat toned and creased, but entirely legible. Contemporary James Stowe inscription clear at the head of the title. Both pamphlets complete, Simpson concluding at p. 16 and Bulkeley at p. 15.

Numerous clean later binder's blanks before and after the original texts. R. C. Fiske bookplate internally.

A particularly appealing copy of two exceptionally scarce pieces of Norwich ephemera, preserving the accusation and rebuttal together.