In 1829, George Finch-Hatton, the Earl of Winchilsea penned a letter to Kings College accusing Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, of "the introduction of popery into every department of the state." Playing out against a backdrop of Wellington's support for the Catholic Relief act, the Earl's withdrawal of support for King's College and the Earl's needling opposition to the act, Wellington seems to have been quite bothered by the Earl's words and demanded a duel. The Earl refused to issue an apology to get out of the duel, and so the two met to fight one another. When the duel began, the Duke of Wellington shot first, but the bullet didn't hit the Earl of Winchilsea. The Earl then pointed his gun upwards and fired into the air, and right afterwards went up to Wellington's group and handed them a letter of apology!
What in the world motivated the Earl of Winchilsea to refuse to apologize before the duel, but not actually shoot the Duke of Wellington? Did the Earl genuinely suspect Wellington of being a crypto-catholic, or was there some other reason for his opposition to Wellington's connection to Kings College? The King's College website on the duel suggests that the outcome was predetermined, as shown by the Earl already having prepared an apology for after the duel. While this seems to suggest that Winchilsea didn't plan to shoot Wellington, it doesn't totally clear up whether Wellington was actually trying to shoot Winchilsea! Is there any further knowledge about whether this duel was a 'sham,' or is the story simply too apocryphal to be sure?
Sorry for the flurry of questions. I'd like to know a lot more about the story of this duel and the context of why it even happened in the first place.
You seem to have the gist of how things went with the Duke's duel down, namely that Winchilsea deloped his fire, and then turned over a apology that was already prepared. The reason for this is that he essentially knew himself to be in the wrong, but didn't feel that he could say as much prior to the duel, as it would both give rise to accusations of cowardice on his part and also, in his mind, deprive the Duke of his right to take a crack at the Earl, which the Earl felt he deserved. After the two had exchanged fire - and Winchilsea of course no where near his opponent - there would be no stain on his honor by apologizing. Stephen Banks sums this up wonderfully when he writes:
No one supposed that the purpose of the duel was to demonstrate the veracity of a claim. To deny a gentleman an opportunity to demonstrate his honourable courage merely because he was at fault would have been contrary to the purpose of an institution which was redemptive rather than judgemental.
Shots now fired, Winchilsea had no qualms stating publically, as his letter did, that "he did not hesitate to declare of his own accord, that he regretted having unadvisedly published an opinion which had given offence to the Duke of Wellington".
As to whether Wellington intended to miss, or simply did by chance, we can be less certain, but his Second did claim that Wellington intended to shoot at Winchilsea's legs to reduce the chance of a serious would.
Polite Exchange of Bullets by Stephen Banks