at the paperwork, and sided with the contractor. Seymour insulted Scott, who "had no alternative but to request an explanation". He had no intention of fighting a duel. Seymour insisted they fight with swords. Scott came to the place appointed for the duel, but Seymour did not, citing Peard's veto on the duel. Seymour later laid in wait with accomplices for Scott, and beat him. Aftermath The contractor was named by Scott as S. Isaac, Campbell & Co.; Scott said he had met Samuel Isaac in Naples, in October. Isaac wrote a conciliatory letter, published in the Army and Navy Gazette of 15 December 1860, referring to the assault as "an old man beaten over the head with a hunting crop". Seymour associated at this time in Naples with Laurence Oliphant and stayed with Lady Holland, widow of Henry Fox, 4th Baron Holland. He returned to London around the end of November 1860. The civil action Scott v Lord Seymour for tort (assault and false imprisonment) in the Court of Exchequer was argued in April and May 1862, with judgement for the plaintiff Scott. In December 1862 an appeal on the conflict of laws aspect of the case upheld the judgement. Seymour paid Scott £500 for the assault. Elevation to the House of Lords In July 1863 Seymour was summoned to the House of Lords through a writ of acceleration in his father's junior title of Baron Seymour. Personal life and the Seymour succession In 1866 Seymour began a relationship with a 17-year-old maid called Rosina Elizabeth Swan, of Higham, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. He took her with him during his travels, returning to England with her in 1868 to live near Brighton. Seymour and Rosina had two children; a girl Ruth Mary (1867–1953) was born whilst the couple were in Tangier and a boy Harold St. Maur was born in Brighton. A few months after the birth of his son, Seymour died during a botched emergency tracheotomy at his flat in Dover Street, Mayfair, London. If Seymour had been married to Rosina, Harold would have now been the heir to his grandfather's dukedom; and he spent years trying to prove that a marriage had taken place. Searching for a possible Dutch witness to the marriage, by the name of Ravesteyn, he vainly published an advertisement in a newspaper in the Netherlands in 1924, offering a reward of £50 for