The Sun. — London, England, 1841-02-17 00:00:00

; • r. I Ir• ) 0 a As • is b ,e I, Ir r• 111 ' a. of er tb • r of IH 0' 1i I; • Ot ig ; er of of let I 0 ra 06 0• 10, Ito r us IN of bl Its 11 oa fel KI le lb le of rl6 Ip 4 re I( IP II 1 • • i Oe ifi re he r); Hi; 0 ; 119' ill r li' l v iog ,iol ii , telf' EVENING EDITION PA RLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. PUBLIC COMMITTEES. 1. FOR WEDNESDAY, FED. 17, 1841. F actories (to consider the subject of Silk and Lace Mills) at one. 2. Standing Orders, at two. 3. Banks of Issue, at three. At Mr. Speaker's House, NOTICES GIVEN AT TIIE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE. TUESDAY, FEB. 16. 1. M anchester and Leeds Railway, Committee on Petition, post. Potted from Monday 22d February till Monday 10 March. 2 . Belfast Barbour,—Committee on Petition, postponed from Thursday 25th February till Thursday 11th March. MEETING Or MIDDLESEX MAGISTRATES. An adjourned meeting of the Maeistrates of the county of Middlesex was h e ld yesterday at the Sessions House, Clerken -21.1, when th e di scussion on the motion of the Rev. Mr. Trim- L'e relative to the managemeet of the County Lunatic l 'An t e , a Hanwell, was resu me d. The qu es tion is one that esso xcited gr eat i nterest, and occasioned an unusually full at .l, d ance of Alagistr a t es . C o l one l J . W oo d an d G eo . Bysig, t ' .. ea sq., the Members for th e coun ty, an d near l y fifty other Magis -19 were present. Zr. WITHAAI was in the Chair. et „ Enblustns, the Deputy Clerk of the Peace, read a o rj ° ' the notic e o f mot i on g i ven by Mr. Evart in the House i not ut ußnts, for a Committee to inquire into the state and .. r gement of th e C ounty P auper L unat i c A sy l um at H anwe ll. • Ronti said that he would admit the value of the ser esaof the Visiting. Justices of the Hanwell Lunatic Asylum, of leso those of Dr. Conolly, tor they had brought the affairs . 4 ,t_n r Asylum from a state of utter confusion among its iis..-e:zeev.si.s,:inrvg ants, patients, and even accounts—( Hear, hear) s t o oo methine- like a proper state; but in the Report of Justice's which was then under discussion, they much credit to themselves. Some of the ex t 11;1:us:its in : their Report were a little too strong, particularly dr % 4 °w ing i—" Though no fair conclusion could have been (if n as to its intrinsic value from any accidental instances toe'alplre, seeing that accidents are not unfrequent where to r e ni n on is systematicy applied as the means of repressing ae v e l a ce, it is still moat gratifying and cheering to those who el inusly watching the progress which this system is mak e, Hanwell, and w h o t a k e a d eep i n t eres t in it s success b ee t hing of national importance, to know that there has Zlto occurrence of an untoward kind which could in the ernedotest way b e connected with the en j oyment of persona l for pberysotnhe patient s , nor an y act of violence which called t ly restrai n t." H e (M r. R e t c h) t h oug ht th a t no im could have listened to the statement that had st4,„,, l 'ade by the Rev. Mr. Trimmer, and the explanation Siti s i tuent lY given by the Visiting Justices, without being 4ae ed that their explanation was satisfactory ; that it tthleletely exonerated them, and that they were ignorant toe" facts stated by the Rev. Mr. Trimmer, which were Ih t t i ed from them by the officers of the institution. tin y e , thought that the language of the Visiting Jus t% ' st ; 11 praise of the new system, was a great deal feed ' e n& and that the Rev. Mr. Trimmer was per t* j Y t justified i n ce ili ng t h e attent i on o f th e M ag i s t ra t es . H e bad, however, been attacked for so doing, be Canner that he certainly ought not to have been ; but Initti.: ll g, i ; t the matter should not be referred to any Com te c o ' either of the Magistrates of the county or of a House to i -ulre ° 49 - What, after all, was there for any Committee je neuire about? Was the Court not fully satisfied with the aitre ilies t hat bad alread been made, and the reply of the Vi t4ine,Jnotices to the cha y rges that had been brought against dreg Of the mass of those charges, ninety-nine out of a hun ts% '",‘" been comletey diroved. Even if the steer.ts th ett s e tle, the fact s p were l unkn sp own to the Visiting Justices; and de e , tb e as nothing, even if they (lid know them, that should in witil".e, Court to give up or relax the system of non-coercion kelt f ui eY bad adopted—a system which it was extremely M ettle ba carry out while the old officers, who were averse to it, Visiti ret ained in the establishment. He admitted that the b ut t il k g Justices of the Asylum had done a vast deal of good; me , took t oo muc h credit to themselves in stating that it w lle a - eoercion system had originated with them, when 1 :04, 4 „ 1 ,kn0wn that it existed at the Asylum at Northarnp atet:r.e, in the last eight months, only one patient had thei t 'atieeted to any species of mechanical restraint. In con •!tae-i,,t,lte worthy Magistrate stated the Rev. Mr. Trimmer his opinion, perfectly justified in bringing forward the the "" then under discussion ; but still he thought, that after ett,3:Planations that had been given no further inquiry was li ( e it. tr Y, and that, in fact, there was nothing left to inquire eg o e i • Sergeant ADAMS, in explanation, said the Visiting Jus tam 'Ad freq uent l y a d m i tte d t h at th e m ild s y s t em did not onl y a with them, but existed previously in other asylums. *. 2 (the Visiting Justices) were but humble instruments in therif out th e v i ews o f th e i r ex c e llent physicians, and in so tas4 the only inconvenience they sustained arose from the Nth, " i n which it was opposed by the old officers of the insti the Unless the grossest deeeptions had been practised on i 'Clumittee of Visiting Justices, the scenes of violence aud • , i'„ e 4 asylum would have been greatly diminished, tit ed:had been, to an extent that was almost incredible. 14 : - : "ie n, the Learned Magistrate said, with considerable tices I.th " Strike hut hear. Censure the Visiting Jus teut .eir vain-doriousness if you like, say they are enthu do n o You thi n k proper. Call them mad if you please, but isti;;`ineddle w i t h th e mild system which they have adopted ▪ fietn till you have given it a fair trial.—( Hear, atee / i a very long and stormy discussion, Sir J. LILLIE with- Is amendment. the b „, * Weees suggested the propriety of the Court leaving reirs7, tter to be invested before a Parliamentary Committee, Ahab to the notice which had been given by Mr. Evart. 'netwaet, approved of this suggestion. w as ultimately adopted, and the meeting then adjourned. tv. 1 , ,, 5t -.TIN G OF MIDDLESEX MAGISTRATES.— ' the e r i , dl lY, Pursuant to adjournment, a very numerous meeting of • % pi , lagistrates of the county took place at Hicks's-hall, ta ct swell -green, when the adjourned debate on the manage at t w . a , t 'Hanwell was ' resumed. Mr. Witham took the chair for .`,'" o'clock. A fter some objections, the notice of motion Avyf tl '°rnmittee of Inquiry into the state of the Hanwell treat in, and the condition of the paupers as to their general r em. l nent, given by Mr. Ewart in the House of Commons, was Net, After an able speech from Mr. notch, Mr. Sergeant Iltut o n entered i n t o a laboured defence of the conduct of Dr. • bi t in the course o f w hi c h h e t oo k occas ion to question o n i„ e lgeant Adams as to whether he had not, as was believed, correc t e d c orrec t e d the Report of the proceedings of the tv,7lltrates on the last day of their meeting, and expunged rles.;, ‘ is "lng that t o ld aga i ns t the management at Hanwell; for the Visi t fPers contained a full account of the explanations of the ; l ag Justices, while every material thing said on the other 44.141)peared to have been sedulously excluded. Mr. Sergeant Ittteri 3 Faye a short, but indignant reply to the charge—it was Ra s Y false . The discussion (for which we cannot find room) ditt er ea t e ried on up to a late hour. The opinions expressed bj adoi l t„ A t Magistrates as to the most advisable steps to . be fo r , f .,sm Were various and conflicting. One advocated a motion allt te "nnittee of the Magistrates, and another for a Corn tio4. rd the House of Commons, to inquire into the allega kihi "lon that - :',. l e by Mr. Trimmer. The Dean of Carlisle thought ',ha; r ,`-'emmittee of the House of Lords would be the c best, el Wood proposed a properly qualified Medical om iltp:l„_te inquire into the practical working of the new system, ax e i'vrlY designated the non-coercion system, instead of a v . rn kof . LI - ere th , restraints. However, unsuperable objections tions against the adoption of any one of these propos ), Pen:, "ne general opinion of the Bench seemed to be that of krtue, sat isfaction with the present improved state of the tin ' 'kb:me inmates of the County Asylum at Hanwell. The sin e S. terminated at a late hour in a motion for adjournment l e. "--Morning Chronicle. LAW IN TELLIGgNCE. SHERIFFS' COURT, FEB. 16. Of 'C l l4 43K V. DRE (Refere Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.) IVE. EIGHTEEN GUINEA TEETH WAIL- Thi RANTED "TO EAT'' A BEEFSTEAK. bek.a action was 'b rought to recover the sum o f 151. lb s . defog the balanc e o f 161. 18 s . f or a se t o f ar tifi c i a l t ee th ; the of iimant having pleaded that she was only indebted in the sum Si r aa., and t h at s h e h a d pa id i nto C ourt . deati . Pr rensnoner stated.that in:this case Mr. Moggridge, n bre_st, of Old B ur li ng t on - stree t, was th e plaintiff, and Mrs. , ai elis e, a l a d y of fortune, residing in Compton-street, Bruns; of j c ,!are, was th e d e f en d an t, an d was ca ll e d u p on i n a the The Whi c h i Learned C ounse l h av i ng state d t h e f acts o f t h e case, , k r t Proposed - to establish by evidence, called his witnesses. • hi; iglu. addressed the Jury for the defendant. 111 1 d lk •nn Hodges stated she was daughter of the defendant, 1 -. 1 - li t f t e l I h t With hir in July to Mr. Aloggriclge. Her mother • 4 01 a l ew parts of her teeth left. Her mouth was pecu eousle examined her mouth, and spoke with great iirece that he should be able to fit her " mouth." itad`• HILL —Did he make any particular promise? Mrs. (Le gel " - Yea • he said she would be able to eat a beefsteak.— tid , .„ gnter. take I. * 'l4L—Has she done so? Mrs. Hodges—She had to )augiluteerr teeth out before she could eat . a bit of bread.—(Loud te tA 4 • • ) Mr. Moggridge said he did not expect her mother t i y If the teeth did not fit. she PILL—Did she persevere ? Mrs. Hodges—Yes, but Ith;:aid never swallow anything but a piece of sopped bread. tetild I,ll4l—Could she speak? Mrs. Hodges—Yes, but you bet s w .", a , r dlY understand her.--(Loud laughter.) She could V 0 ;"ow when these teeth were in her mouth.—(A laugh t .) kld r l e laarained—She complained the feud . got between he e _ 11 0, 4 - , r nee gums, and she could not turn it in her mouth. "volt l aughter .) She only had the teeth at intervals, and tainu ip e al, out at meal times.—(Excessive laughter ft)r some t ake th -3 ') When she had the " teeth in" she was oblid to tile% i e Nod out.—( Great merriment.) She could notewear ahey,;: r a whole da • for she could not eat.—(A laugh.) If 80 , ree - d,, - 4 ' 0 4 she day, not get through it.—(Laughter. ) , ° 1 a d a — ,. she would " wear" the teeth for two or three hours J kHz • Ake_ etunes not at all. them other evidence, Mr. PETERSDORFF replied, and thek o ulit ra-SsotcalF F , in his charge to the Jury, left it for Derf orro; al_ 3' whethe r t h e pla i nt iff h ad had the opportunity of Tenth" in.g the co n t ract he had entered into, and had the de- T he given the t eet h a fa i r trial. Jury found for the plaintiff for 151. 15s. ARCHES' COURT. FEB. 16. (Before Sir HERBERT JENNER.) This w RIVES V. RIVES. 4%5n...:n RS a suit promoted by Mrs. Lavinia J. H. Rives 1821t.. 5 t Alr. Anthony Thomas Rives, her husband, for a divorce, en io ground of adultery. The parties were married in t_4, and the cohabitation ceased in 1838, when it came . h in wledge of the lady that the husband had had four children 11...! servant, who formerly lived in the family, after which Alr. , hililasuedatirely left his wife. There was no appearance for the I 0 SsiirrBll.THE XIII v i e E , lt T J ENN E R pronounced in favour of the prayer OFFIC E or TAE JUDGE PROMOTED BY BGRDER Th;s i s • . V. SPEAR. a loted b a suit in which the office of the Judge has been_pro n - - t h emer y Air. Bader, the secretary to the Lord Bishop of WI T__ agaMst the Rev. Mr. Spear, the perpetual curate of Ile_Asoses baton; for uilt, as alleged, of habitual drunken ti, ~atrid that too while performing Divine service. The mate la'is I et* were reported at the sittings in Michaelmas term of s it ' Zetr, when the articles exhibited against the Rev. Mr. space admitted, with a slight alteration, by the Learned Af r .'",:, r rom this decision an appeal was promoted by the Rev. "war o to The d t "W the Judi c i a l Comm i ttee of the Privy Council. you, oof Sir Herbe r t J enner was a ffi rme d, and with The g h ear i n The cause having been remitted back, now ca me on f or ; .e the r .wog of the evidence, &e., occupied the Court daring ernainder of the day. ",.........._ 'l4kll bat "*ItIAGES IN HIGH LIFE.—It is reported for ti?louel Powell, of Nanteos, Lord Lieutenant of and M.P. Ihta, Iti e b , c lantY of Cardigan, will he married in a few days to the Nita b r i ad "irs• Ackers, of Suffolk-lawn, Cheltenham. The gal ,tit. iii'lgrourn elect is a 1 -er It is added that his rela ' 10.4111' lor.Lewis, of Llanay u r o o: (who was High Sheriff of t2ar t'4 fai r ' n 1840 -41) will be married about the same time to Ltiet itert e ac " m P l ished daughter of an eminent divine in TRIAL OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JAMES THOMAS EARL OF CARDIGAN, IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. (YESTERDAY.) [Examination of Sarah Dann, continued from The Sun of yesterday.] What followed next ?—These gentlemen came towards them. Did they come up to them I—Yes. One came up to each of the others ?—Yes. What was done then I—Each of the gentle men beckoned to took a pistol. You saw pistols given to them I—l did. When the pistols were given to them where did the gentlemen who had been kneeling down go to ?—They stood a little to the right of them. What happened then 1-The gentlemen turned side face and apparently fired at each other. Did you see the pistols at the time I—l did. 'Vas it a sunshiny day—did you see them glistening 1-1 did. Did you give information to your husband 1-1 did. When was it that you gave the information to your husband—before the pistols were fired ? Before the pistols were fired I thought they were about a duel, and after one of the pistols were fired I called to him just outside the gate. When was the time you called for your hus bandl—When he was advancing towards them. What happened after you saw the first shots fired I—l saw one gentleman advance towards the other gentleman, and take a second pistol as soon as the first pistol was fired. Did they both fire a second time I—They Were they standing in the same place when they fired the second time, as when they fired the first time I—Yes, Sir. Did you see your husband go up to them ? I did. Did you afterwards see all the party come to the mill together?—No, Sir; I saw two come first. Which way did they go 1--The ,gentleman w that was wounded and the one that as attend ing him. How did you know he was wounded 1-1 saw them unfastening his clothes. Where was he when you saw them unfastening his clothesl—Standing where he was. What—when the shots were fired I—Yes. Several Peers here stated that they could not hear a single answer that the witness gave, and the short- hand writer read several of the pre ceding- questions and answers. Are you quite sure the gentleman whose clothes you saw unfastened was one of the gen tlemen who fired the pistols ?—Yes, sir. Now when this gentleman and another came to the house did you give them anything, did they ask for anything ?—I was not in the house when they came first. Did you afterwards give them anything I—l I gave them a basin of water and a towel. Did they go into a room together I—They did. Did the other gentlemen afterwards come to the house I—They came into the yard. Did your husband come with them ?—He came with one ; the other two comic a little be fore him. Who was the gentleman he came with 2-1 was told it was Lord Cardigan. See if you see him before you.—That is the gentleman (pointing to the prisoner). Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—I am not quite sure whether I understood you correctly. Where were you during the transaction?—On the stage. During the whole of time I—During the whole of the time. When did you first go upon the stage in the morning ?—I went when I was called. Who called you?—My little boy. Do you know what time it was at all ?—About five o'clock in the afternoon. Did you remain on the stage during the whole time the wounded gentleman came to your house ?—I did. Now, observe—you and all the witnesses be fore you have said that the distance from your house to the spot was two hundred and twenty yards, has that been measured ?—I think it has. • Could you at the distance of two hundred and twenty yards see the persons knocking the pis tols I—Yes. What do you suppose to be the distance from which you arc standing now to the end of the House?—l should not have thought it was more than one hundred yards when I first saw them. You are speaking now of Wimbledon Com mon. But you say it is two hundred and twenty yards ?—I have been told so. Well, at a distance of two hundred and twenty yards, could you see persons kneeling and knocking pistols ?—Yes, I could. Could you distinguish their features could see their countenances. Can you distinguish the countenances or fea tures of any gentleman standing at the bottom of this House 2-4 could see whether they were red or pale. Can you see whether the gentlemen at the bottom of this House are red or pale ? (Laughter.)—Yes, I can.—(Renewed laughter.) Are you quite sure of that? Can you distinguish whether the gentlemen arc red or pale, at the bottom of the House ?—I can see better on the Common, Sir, where I am more practised. You can see better in some places than an other, can you ?—Yes, Sir; I have been a good many years on the Common. Therefore that's the place where you see best, is it?—(Laughter.)—lt is. Now on the Common where you see best can you distinguish the features of gentlemen 200 yards off, and whether their faces are red or pale? —They looked to have red faces in the sun. What, all the gentlemen had red faces, had they?—(Laughter.)—No, not all. How many had red faces—can you tell 1— (No answer.) Now, pray who has been telling you this story, or who has been examining you—have you never been examined as a witnessl—No. Were you not before the Grand Jury I—No. You were not I—Oh yes, I was. You were ?—Yes. Who desired you to go before the Grand Jury ? —I was subpoenaed. Who subpoenaed you, do you know I—l forget. Do you know who was conducting the prose cution at the time I—l believe Mr. Hobler was the gentleman. Was it he that subpoenaed you ?—(No answer.) When did he subpoena you I—The subpoena was brought to my house. And you then went before the Grand Jury ? Yes. Were you not examined by any one, before you went before the Grand Jury•l—No. By no body I—No, Sir. You are quite certain, are you; recollect your self ? Were you examined by no one, before you went before the Grand Jury?—No, Sir. No one at all I—No. Then, do I understand you to state that the first time you gave any account of what you saw was before the Grand Jury ?—Yes. Are you certain of that ?—Yes. Were you not examinedbefore the Magistrates? —No, Sir, I was not. Were you examined more than once before the Grand Jury ?—I went in twice or three times in one day. Giving the same account over and over again, I supposel—Answering questions they might ask. Have you been examined at the Home-office by Mr. Vizard ?—I have. Were you subpoenaed by him to attend here? —I had notice. Had you no subpoena?—No. Were you all examined together ?—Separately. In the presence of one another I—No, Sir. You were called in separately, were you?—Yes. Then what you stated was taken down in writ ing, was it I—l don't know that it was. Was there no one there writing at the time ? There was a gentleman writing. That was last week, I believe, some time ? Last Saturday. Now to come back to the transaction on the Common. You say you went upon the stage, as you were ordered. Who ordered you ?—My son called me. Did not your husband give you directions 1— He sent the boy. Was your husband on the stage when you went there ?—He was. Were you told to watch ?—Yes. And to give notice to him?—l was told to stand and see what the gentlemen were doing. Were you told to give notice to him as soon as you Oiscovered they were going to fight a duel ? —He left me there. You must answer my question—were you told to give notice to him as soon as you discovered they were going to fight a duel?—He told me to watch what they were about, and he wouldbe there again directly. Then he did not give you notice that they were going to fight a duel ?—No. Did you give him any notice at all I—l called to him. • If I understand you, you did not call on him till after the shot was fired. Is that so ?—He went from me directly he told me he suspected what was going on. (The last answers of this witness not having been heard in the House, the short-hand Writer's notes were referred to.) Did not you call to him until after the shots were fired?—No, I did not. Did you say anything before the pistols were fired ?—Yes ; I said I thought I saw pistols. Did you speak to your husband before he went down ?—No, I did not. Did you, after he was gone down, call to him at all when the shots were fired?—Yes. After the first shot was fired I called to him. After the first shot?—Yes. Very good. Did you hear the report of one pistol or of two heard the reports of two. Were they close together?—Very nearly. What do you suppose was the interval between the firing of the first pistol and the second ? It was a short time. I understand you heard two shots. What was the distance ? Were they close on each other ?—I heard the first when my husband was on the bridge. How soon after was the other fired, was it in the course of a minute or so ?—lt was just after the second firing had taken place. Do I understand you to say you saw the pistols in the hands of the gentlemen at that distance ? —Yes, I did. And they fired directly?—Yes, when the pis tols were put into their hands. Did you know any of these gentlemen before ? o. Have you ever seen the Noble Lord sitting here before that day ?—No, never. Did you see him before the Magistrates —Yes, _ I did. - Have you seen any , of the other gentlemen before that day?—No, I have not• The cross-examination of the witnesses here closed. Mr. WADDINGTON observed that he had no further questions to put. The proceedings were here suspended for a few minutes, during which the Earl of Cardigan re tired from the bar. Oa the return of the Earl of Cardigan to the bar, Sir James Eglinton Anderson was called and examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. What is your profession ? The LoUD 111G1I STEWARD—Sir James Ander son, from what has passed elsewhere I deem it my duty to inform you that you are not bound to answer any question that may tend to criminate yourself. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—What is your pro ession ?—A physician. Where do you live ?—ln New Burlington street. Are you acquainted with Captain Tuckett?—l roust decline answering that question. Were you at Wimbledon Common on the 12th of September last ?—I must decline that question also.—(Laughter.) Were you on that day called on to attend any gentleman who was wounded ?—I must decline that again.—(Laughter.) Can you tell me where Captain Tuckett lives ? must decline answering that question. Has Captain Tuckett any house in London ? I decline answering that question.—(Laughter.) When did you last see Captain Tuckett? Sir W. FOLLETT—The witness having declined answering questions, I apprehend it is not right in the Attorney-General to put circuitous ques tions to him. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—You decline an swering any question whatever respecting Cap tain Tuckett?—l decline ansiverino• any question that may tend to criminate myself. And you consider any question respecting Capt. Tuckett may tend to criminate you ?—Possibly. The witness was then desired to withdraw. John Busain was then called and examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Are you an Inspector in her Majesty's police ? —I am, Sir. Where were you on the evening of the 12th of September?—On duty at the station-house at Wandsworth. Did any person arrive at the station-house at that time ?—There did. Who were they ?—A post- chaise drove up to the door at a quarter to six in the evening, and two gentlemen got out. One rapped at the door. I went to the door and perceived it was his Lordship. I bowed and asked his business there. Was that the Earl of Cardigan ?—lt was, and there was another gentleman with him who gave the name of Capt. '.l - ohn Douglas. _ _ Was Dann, the Wimbledon miller, there ?—I did not see him; I bowed to his Lordship. Had you seen the Earl of Cardigan before ? No, but I saw he was a gentleman. Did he say anything to you ?—Ho said, " I am a prisoner, I believe." What did you say t—l said, " Indeed, Sir, on what aveount?" What did his Lordship say ?—The door was open, and his Lordship walked in. His Lordship saiet " I have been fighting a duel, and I have hit my man, but not seriously ; I believe slightly —a mere scratch across the back," and his Lord ship passed his hand across his back this way.— (The witness passed his hand across his back). His Lordship also looked over his shoulder and said, " This sentleman also is a prisoner —my second, Captain Douglas." Did you see anything more then ?—His Lord ship passed his hand behind him into his pocket ; some cards fell upon the floor • he presented me with one. When I saw the address, " the Earl of Cardigan, 11th Hussars," I alluded to the duel again, and said, " I hope not with Captain Rey nolds." The Noble Lord appeared indignant and said, " Do you think I would fight with an officer of my own 7" The short-hand writer was asked to repeat the answer. He read it, "Do you think I would fight with an inferior officer ?"—(There were loud cries of " No, no.") The Lord HIGH STEWARD desired the witness to repeat the question. Witness—To the best of my recollection his Lordship's reply was, when I mentioned the name of Captain Reynolds, " No ; do you sup pose I would fight with one of my own officers?" These were his words to the best of my recollec tion. By the ATTORNEY...GENERAL—WM any pis tols produced to you ?—There were. From whom did you receive them ?—From Dann, the miller, who stepped in after his Lord ship and Captain Douglas. Do you produce those pistols ?—I do. These are the two cases; they have not been out - of my possession since. Those his Lordship c' aimed are marked with his crest. The other case has never been claimed at all. Have you had them in your cusdody ever since? —I have. The pistols were produced, and seemed to cause considerable sensation. How long did the Earl of Cardigan remain at the station-house ?—No longer than till I had taken the charge. I took his own bail for his appearance on the Monday morning. And the same by Capt. Douglas?—Yes. And they did appear ?—They did. Did you take Capt. Tuckett into custody ?—By order of the Magistrates, I did. When ?—When he appeared Wore the Magis trates, on the 14th Oct. Did he give his name at that time ? Sir W. FOLLETT—Was Lord Cardigan present on that occasion ?—No ; he then stood commit ted by the Magistrates. Was he present I ask you, Sir ?—No. A gentleman appeared before the Magistrates on the 14th October whom you had taken into custody ?—I had not then taken him into custody. ' Now, Sir, attend to the question and answer it. Were you present on the 14th ?—I was. And Lord Cardigan was not?—He was not. No* attend to some of the answers you have given in your former examination. You were pre sent before the Magistrates on the 14th; were you examined before the Magistrates two days after the event took place ?—Yes, after his Lordship was in my custody. On the 14th of September ?—Yes. Were you examined after that before the Ma gistrates ?—Yes. When was that?.—On the Saturday following. Were you examined a third time ?—Yes. Upon oath each time ?—Yes. Now, Sir, I ask you upon tlitaloath you have taken, did you say one word On the two former examinations about Lord Cardigan saying that he had hit his man? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lords, I ap prehend that that question cannot be asked un less the depositions, which no doubt were taken, are put in. The LORD HIGH. STEWARD—Witness, wasyour evidence in the first instance taken down in writ ing ?—No, not all ; the Magistrate saying his Lordship's expressions were irrelevant to Ethe matter. Sir WM. FOLLETT—NOW, Sir, I ask you upon your oath, whether you ever said one word upon the two first examinations about Lord Cardi gan's saying that he had fought a duel and had hit his man ? The ATTORNEY. - GENERAL...—My Lords, I must again repeat my objection. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—Sir Wm. Follett, is there any objection to the putting in of the depositions ? bir WM. FOLLETT -- My Lords, it is impossible for us to say whether there are any depositions, or, if any, what they contain. We understand that the Clerk to the Magistrates has been sub mimed for the prosecution and he has refused to give us any information. The Anoway-ezNEJtArr—M7 Lords, we can , 41t , talt, THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 184 t. know nothing at all of that. I presume that the depositions will be before this high tribunal in. the same manner as they would be before the: Central Criminal Court. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—After looking; over the papers in the cause, the depositions re-• turned to the House appear to me to have been taken on the 28th of September. The House has none of an earlier date. _ _ _ Sir Wm. FOLLETT (to the witness) —If I under stood your answer right, Sir, you were examined on the 14th and the 10th ? The LORD HIGH STEWARD—Sir Wm. Follett, do you mean to go into the examination of the 14th ? Sir WM. FOLLETT—Yes, my Lord. The LORD HIGH STEWARD to the witness — %Vas your exaimination—were the statements made by you on the 14th, taken down in writing? —Not to my knowlege, my Lord. Sir Wm FOLLETT—Was any statement taken down, Sir ?—Yes, but not all. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—Was any part of your statement taken crown in writing ?—Yes, some parts, my Lord, but not all. The Earl of RADNOR—Was that taken down and read over to you '1 —lt was. And did you sign it ?—I signed it as far as it went, my Lord. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I am utterly igno rant of this Ceposition, my Lords; but the Clerk to the Magistrates is in waiting, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will call him. Sir WILLIAM FoLLETT —I have something further to ask this witness. I understand you to say, that on the 14th you made a statement, some part of which was taken down, which was read over to you, and signed by you ?—lt was. Were you examined on the 19th of September? —Yes. Was your statement then read over to you ? It was. Were you asked if you had anything to add to it ?--1 do not recollect that I was asked that question in the second instance. I ask you, on your oath, was not the question put to you whether you had anything to add to your former statement ?-1 do not recollect that question being put to me on my second ex amination. _ _ _ I ask you did you not say that you had nothing to add 1- - 1 did not say so. Now attend.. - I ask you did you swear that you were not asked whether you had anything to add, and whether you did not say, I have nothing to say ?—When I was asked if I had anything to add I answered No. Sir W. FOLLETT (to the House) —My Lord, he says, I was asked whether 1 had anything to add, and I answered " No." (To witness) — When did you state what Lord Cardigan said to you ?—On the 14th, and I repeated the same ob servations on the 19th. Had you not heard a great deal about the duel in the meantime ?—No, I am not sure that I had. I heard some talk about it. _ _ Did you not read a good deal about it in the newspapers?—l think there was a good deal about it in the newspapers. Were you bound over to prosecute in the case of Lord Cardigan was not bound over in the case of Lord Cardigan, but of Captain Tuckett. Who was bound over in Lord Cardigan's ? Superintendent Picton. Why was he bound over ?—Because he was the head of the police in the district where the duel took place. By whom was he bound over ?—By the Magis trates at Kingston. Were you examined on all the bills I—l do not know; I was examined twice before the Grand Jury. Were you examined twice at the same time ? —Yes. I Come now to another part of your conversa tion. You say that you asked Lord Cardigan if he had been fighting with Captain Reynolds. Now I ask you, Sir, did he not say, " It is not my principle to fight with officers under my command'."—No, he (lid not, I told you what lie said. I ask you, Sir, did not Lord Cardigan say, " It is not my principle to fight with officers under my command ?" —N o ; what he said was, " Do you think I would fight with one of my own officers?" _ . _ . Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.— When you were examined on the 14th, did you make the same statement ? Sir W. FOLLETT—I object, Mr. Attorney- General, to your putting that question, unless you put in the depositions. You objected to my putting the some question, without the deposi tion, and my Lords decided that it could not be put. If it cannot be put on the part of Lord Cardigan, it must not be put by Mr. Attorney- General. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My question is not the same. Lord BROUGHAM—Let the short-hand writer read his notes. The short-hand writer then read his notes of all that part of the witness's cross-examination which referred to his alleged conversation with Lord Cardigan. Lord BROUGHAM—That is all I want. Now which of the accounts do you abide by—the statement that you were asked if you had any thing to add, and that you said no—or that the question was not put to you ?—I was simply asked the question, my Lord, " Have you anything to add to your former statement ?" Of course I took that to be the statement which I made at large, and I replied, " No, I have nothing to add to the former statement," because I then made use of the exact words which I have now. Sir W. FOLLETT—I ask you when your former statement taken down in writing was read over to you before the question was put, whether you had anything to add to it ?—I think the book was open and it was said " Have you anything to add to your former state ment ?" I ask you upon your solemn oath if that former statement was not read over to you, and if you were• not asked whether you had anything to add to it ?—I think the question was asked upon the books being opened in this way—" Have you anything to add to your former statement ?" Answer my question.—l will do so. I was asked " Have you anything to add ?" It was read over to you, and then upon its being read over you were asked if you had anything to add, and you said that you had not ? Lord ELDON—Does the Learned Counsel mean to ask whether the witness said he had anything to add to the statement made, or to the record that was taken ? Sir W. FOLLETT—If I understand you, the former statement that you made was read over to you—was it so ?—Yes, the portion that was in writing was read. The statement that was in writing was read over to you ?—Yes. And then you were asked if you had anything to add ? —Yes. And you said no ?-1 said no. The Earl of RADNOR—Was it the whole of the state • ment that was read over to you ?—The whole statement was not taken down. Sir W. FOLLETT—With deference to your Lord ships, the question is as to the contents of the deposi tions, which we are not allowed to examine into. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lords, there can be no difficulty on the part of my Learned Friend, for the depositions are in Court. Sir W. FOLLETT—On the contrary, their Lordships have told me that the Magistrates only returned the depositions of the 28th, The ATTORNEY...GENERAL-4 am informed by a gentleman who is now at the Bar that the depositions of the 14th and 19th are here, and ready to be laid before the Court. Sir W. FOLLETT—Here But they ought to have been presented before. The Earl of RADNOR—When you were examined on the 14th of September did you make that state ment to the Magistrates or the Clerk, that he might prepare the statement for the Magistrates ? I made that statement to the Ma gistrates. I was asked if my subsequent ex. I then said to Mr. Adolphus that I had made that statement almbinaadtionmadbeer.trheat hsistateLmoerndtshoipn. in the first instance, and I appealed to his Lordship, and he did Hot deny it. Now, you made that statement to the Magistrates in the hearine of the Clerk ?—I did. And the Clerk said it was not relevant ? Sir W. FOLLETT- 1 beg your Lordship's pardon ; I should suggest that is not a proper question. The Earl of RADNOR—I ask him as to what the Clerk ' said on that occasion ; that is my question, and the whole of my question. I submit that the question is perfectly regular, and that it should be put down upon the minutes with the answer. A PEAR—WEIS everything put down by the Clerk?— It is not the custom to take down the whole deposition in full. A minute is made, sufficient to justify the ?Aegis. trates in remanding the party for re-examination, until the whole of the evidence can be gone into at length. The witness then withdrew. Charles William Waltham was then called and sworn. Examined by Mr. WADDINGTON.--Mr. Waltham, do you reside at No. 29, in the Poultry ?—I do, Sir. Are you a chemist? -1 am. Carrying on business there ?—Yes, Sir. Do you know a Captain Tuckett ?—I do, Sir. Does he occupy a room in your house ?—He occupies rooms. He occupies rooms in your house ? Yes, Sir. i?n—essYiens'these offices?— es. liy them ?—As offices. Sir. DoesFH o o r w w l h h o e a n what gc p ahr u ra r ys p o hb s eu e sci d na o re r e s i s se d h o n e o n o t h e be e ur u Nearly fifteen months. Where is his house—where does he live ?—Hamilton. place, New-road. What number 13. Tell me what his Christian names are if you know them. Sir W. FoLLWri....Wait a moment. YoU say Captain " to• Hamilton-place, New-road, is the man who fought the duel with Lord Cardigan on the 12th September, on Wim bledon Common. Is there any doubt that it was the Cap tain Tuckett who took the premises 29, in the Poultry ? At the tmb he did that act he gave his reference to No. 13, Hamilton-place, New-road, and although there is no evidence to demonstrate directly— although there is not sufficient evidence to show that he who took this place of business was the same Captain Tuckett who held the house, No. 13, Hamilton-place, New-road, and was the antagonist of Lord Cardigan, we now have only one other stage, and that is, whether the Captain Tuckett, who fought the duel, is the same of whom Air. Codd spoke, and whose naive he proved to be Captain Harvey Tuckett, and had been an otliecr in the 11th Hussars. Sir W. FOLLETT—There is no proof whatever of that —there is no evidence that Lord Cardigan is Colonel of the 11th Hussars. The ATTOTtNEY-GENERAL—It was stated in evidence, 1 think, by the policeman. He said so most distinctly, but he was not cross-examined. Well, my Lords, the Captain Tuckett whose name is Harvey, was proved by Mr. Codd to have been an officer of the 11th Hussars, Lord Cardigan's regiment. He gave him his card, with 11th Hussars upon it. Sir W. FOLLETT—No, no; you are mistaken. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—WeII. This Capt. Tuckett has the name of Harvey, and thus we have at least one name corresponding with that of the person who fought the duel or, the 12th September on Wimbledon Common. Will your Lordships require positively strict evidence as to this gentleman's Christian name ? If there is evidence from which the inference may be fairly drawn, is it not suffi cient for any Court of Justice ? Well, then, here is Captain Tuckett, whose name is proved to be Captain Harvey Tuckett, who had been in the 11th Hussars, who retired some few years ago, and who receives half pay. May it not, then, be fairly inferred by any one of your Lordships that this Captain Harvey Tuckett, who had been in the 11th Hussars, who bad retired some three or four years ago, and who receives his half-pay quarterly, is the same Captain Harvey Tuckett who lived at, or who had the place of business in the Poultry, who had the house in Hamilton-place, New-road, and who fought the duel on the 12th of September on Wimbledon Common ? h there not evidence, I say, from which that identity may be fairly proved? Is the prosecution to be stopped on the ground, that there is no evidence to go to your Lordships—not a particle or scin tilla of evidence to show that this Captain Harvey Tuckett, whose name I have proved to be such, is the same as the antagonist of the Earl of Cardigan ? I believe there is no human being who having heard the evidence out of the Court of Justice, would hesitate in drawing the in ference. I believe that the same weight of evidence suffi cient to convince a reasonable man out of a Court of Jus tice, ought to convince a Judge or Judges sitting in a Court of Justice that that from which the inference is to be drawn is to be received. According to the rules of evidence, would any person out of a Court of Justice doubt for a moment, that this is the same individual who fought on the 12th of September. If the inference would have been drawn out of a Court of Justice should it be said that in a Court of Justice there was not a scintilla of evidence from which it could be drawn ? This would be a most unsatisfactory conclusion to this trial. Your Lordships will weigh the evidence fairly and deliberately. If you think that this is not the same individual of course you will say " not guilty upon my honour," but you will not stop the prosecution upon this objection which must be considered a trivial one. Sir W. FOLLETT in reply said, that certainly his Learned Friend the Attorney-General had failed in proving a very essential part of the prosecution. Their Lordships would recollect whether the prosecutor had proved any essential part of the posecution. He would show their Lordships that no evidence at all had been given to prove the name of Captain Tuckett. It was asked, should they call the clerk of the parish, or the parents of Captain Tuckett, to prove what his name might be? Now, that was not the objection. What he objected to was, that they had called a person named Codd, who proved that he knew a person of that name, but he gave not a" scintilla" of evidence (he would use the Attorney-General's own words) to con nect that Captain Tuckett with the gentleman who fought the duel cn Wimbledon Common. The question altoge ther depended upon Mr. Codd's evidence, and he (Mr. Codd) was to show that a person of whom he spoke was the mail who fought the duel. His Learned friend had said that Captain Tuckett had been formerly in the 11th Hussars. Now, would they leave to a Jury such a question as the present to decide upon, on the fact that he was formerly in that regiment? There was a statement made by Mr. Codd, that on the 13th of September Captain Tuckett was at his house ; but the fact of his ap pearing there is inconsistent with the evidence given, that he would be unable to appear before a Magistrate in con sequence of the wounds he received, at least, for some considerable time. He ( Sir William Follett) must say that his Learned Friend the Attorney-General knew he had failed in proving his case, otherwise his Learned Friend would not have so put his case. Might he ask their Lordships, was! that the way in which a trial should be conducted ? Were they to be led by what opinions a person out of Court might or might not form. Their Lordships in that House must be satis, fled that Captain Tuckett is the same person who fought the duel on the 12th of September, on Wimbledon Common. Their Lordships were now sitting as Judges, and they should dismiss from their minds any thing that they might have heard before relative to the question of the subject of the trial. Their Lordships were to say whether because Captain Tuckett bore certain Christian names he was the person who fought the duel. Captain Tuckett may have lived in Hamilton place, New-road, or in the Poultry, but how did that prove that it was he who fought the duel? Tke whole of the evidence of Mr. Codd was that he knew a per son of such a name who formerly received half-pay. But there is no evidence, my Lords, to show that this Harvey Tuckett mentioned in the evidence of Codd is the same Harvey Garn et Phipps Tuckett mentioned in this in dictment, as having been on Wimbledon Common on the occasion in question. No Judge sitting in a criminal Court would leave such a question to the decisionof a jury. There may be two Harvey Tucketts ; and since my Learned Friend the Attorney_ General has referred to your Lordships' knowledge of what may have occurred out of doors, I would remind your Lordships that in the very regiment commanded by the Noble Defendant there were two officers bearing the same surnames certainly, and I think the same Christian names. I submit to your Lord ships that there is no evidence whatever to prove that Captain Harvey Tuckett, mentioned in the evidence of Mr. Codd, is the same person as the Har vey Garnet Phipps Tuckett, mentioned in this in dictment ; and however unpleasant it may be to the per sons conducting the prosecution, I submit to your Lord ships that they have entirely failed in the proof of their identity. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—I stated when this objec tion was first taken that I thought strangers ought to withdraw, and I am still of that opinion. The Learned Counsel, however, did not object to the argument of the Attorney-General, and I did not think it right to interrupt him ; but when similar objections ere taken in a Criminal Court, I believe the Counsel for the prosecution is merely called upon to state w hat portion of evidence he believes to be sufficient to make out his c ase. Ido not recollect any case in which an argument has been heard on the subject. I mention this as a point which may be of consequence in the prac tice of the Courts of Criminal Law hereafter. I now move, your Lordships, that strangers be ordered to withdraw. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, while their Lordships considered the point raised by Sir W. Follett. On our return to the House, we understood their Lord ships to have decided the objection as valid ; and we found the Lord High Steward at the Chair putting the question to each Peer—Guilty or Not Guilty, e. g.-- John Singleton Lord Lyndhurst, how says your Lordship, is Henry Thomas Earl of Cardi gan Guilty of this felony whereof he stands indicted, or Not Guilty ?" Whereupon each Peer, upon his name being called, rose, and placing his right hand upon his breast, said, " Not Guilty, upon my honour," the only exception to the general rule being the Duke of Cleveland, who said—" Not Guilty, legally, upon my honour." After all the Peers had given their verdict, the last of whom was the Duke of Cambridge, The LORD HIGII STEWARD, standing on the steps of the Throne himself, said, " Not Guilty, upon my honour." The SERGEANT-AT-ARMS then said " Yeoman Usher, call in James Thomas Earl of Cardigan." The Noble E rcl was then placed outside the Bar, when The Loan lITGIi STEWARD addressing him, said— " James Thomas Earl of Cardigan, you have been indicted fur a felony, for which you have been tried by your Peers, and I have the satisfaction of declaring to you that their Lordships have pronounced you Not Guilty' by an unanimous sentence. The number I have not precisely at this moment before me, or I would have been glad to have stated it to your Lordship, but their Lordships have unanimously said Nut Guilty.'" The Earl of Cardigan then bowed and retired. The Proclamation dissolving the Commission was then read, and his Grace, the Lord High Steward, standing in front of the Throne, received the Staff from the Garter King-at-Arms, and the Usher of the Black Rod jointly, held it in both hands and broke it in two, and so the Com mission was dissolved ut Half-past Five o'Clock. Tuckett lives at No. 13, Hamilton-place, New-road,—be fors you ask that question, you should ask anothcr,—you should not ask him tor a knowledge which he has not. Mr. WADDINGTON—I am now asking him to another point. Sir Wm. FOLLETT—Yes, I know you arc, but that other point must be found first. Mr. WADDINGTON—I ask the witness what hisThris tian names are. Sir W. FOLLETT--.Alld I object to the question. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—PVC may ask what are the Christian names of this gentleman, who took rooms from this witness. Sir W. FOLLETT—I MUM Object to this Course of exa mination. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—The question is, what are the names of the party who took rooms in this house. Sir Wu. FOLLETT—That question can have have no relevancy, unless the person for whose Christian name you arc inquiring be in some way connected with this transaction ; and it would be fairer, I submit, on the part of the Counsel for the prosecution not to take an answer to a question which is put in the witness's mouth without asking him whether he does or does not know the fact which he deposes. Your Lordships are aware, that by the question which my Learned Friend has put to this witness, as to the house where he lives, arid the an swer, No. 13, Hamilton-place, it is sought to identify this Captain Tuckett with a Captain Tuckett who carries on business in the Poultry. I wish my Learned Friend first to inquire whether he really knows that fact, and I suggested whether he had ever been to that house and seen Captain Tuckett there, and he answered in the negative that he never had, show ing, therefore, that he does not in point know the fact, which is to lead to the second question. The Lora) HIGH STEWARD—The question is as to the Christian names of some person whose surname is Tuckett. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The tenant of the witness. The Loan HIGH STEWARD--h will not he relevant un less you connect them. Sir W. FOLLETT-- It will be far more relevant in the first instance to put the question and the foundatien after. wards. The LORD HIGII STEWARD-1 quite agree with you that there is no proof that this person lives at 13, Hamilton. place, New-road. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL— I perfectly concur in what has been stated. There is no evidence of that at this moment. But, my Lord, we simply ask what is the name of that individual who rents rooms of the witness at the Poultry. Surely there can be no objection to that question—Y9u know the name of that gentleman?— The only name 1 know him by is Harvey Tuckett. Now you have said that he lives at 13, Hamilton-place —how do you know that ? Sir W. FOLLETT —That is not the right way to put the question. Mr. WADDIN . GTON—How can I put it? If I don't know how he found his knowledge I must ask him. My Lords, I ask him then how he knows that Captain Tuckett lives at 13, Ilamilton-place, New-road ?—As being the reference he gave me when he took my premises. Sir W. FOLLETT—I do not know whether my Learned Friend means to say that this is evidence. The ATTORS EY-GENERAL—I think that it is evidence in this case, and ought to be received. There is a person of the name of Tuckett who takes premises— . _ • Thu LORD HIGH STEWARD—When was that reference given?—Last November twelve months. On what occasion ?—When he took my premises. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Last November twelve months ?-IVhen he took my premises 15 months ago. Mr. WADDINGTON— Have you ever, since that, addressed letters to him there ?—No. Have 3ou addressed parcels to him ?—I have forwarded a hamper to him. A PEEK—What business does Capt. Tuckett carry on at your place?—East India Colonial agent. Sir W. FOLLETT—I have no question, my Lord, to put to this witness, Edward Septimus Codd, sworn and examined by the ATTORNEY- GENERAL. What arc you ?—An army agent. Do you know Captain Tuckett ?—I do. Is he in the army now ?—No ; he is on half-pay. Do you know what regiment he belongs to ?—The 11th Light Dragoons. Who pays him his half-pay ?—The Paymaster-Ge neral of her Majesty's Forces. Sir Wm. FOLLETT—HOW do you know these facts?-- I receive his half.pay for him. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—HOW long is it since he retired ?—I don't know exactly; it is about three or four years. How often is it payable?—Quarterly. And you have received it during that time ?—I have. Have you paid it to him ?—I have. Where have you paid it to him ?—At 15, Fludyer street, my residence. Have you never seen him except then ?—I have not. When did you see him last ?-011 or about the 31st of December. When did you see him before then ?—About the 30th of September. Where did you see him then ?—At my office. Did he receive quarterly half-pay at that period ?—Yes. What is his Christian name ?—Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett.—(Sen6ation.) It was in September you last saw him ?—Yes. When did you see him before then ?—I can't say. It might have been about the 30th of June. He usually came to receive his quarter's pay. You have not seen him in any place except in Fludyer street ?—I saw him after his return from India, at the Mi nerva Life Office. _ _ You have not seen him at the Poultry ?—No, I have not. Sir W. FOLLETT said he had no questions to ask the witness. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. My Lords, I now propose to read that card, upon which your Lordships were pleased to say that you would consider whether it was admissible in evidence or not; and if your Lordships alit* it right, I now propose to read it. Lord BROUGIIAM—Is that your case? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—That will depend upon whether your Lordships decide whether the card is ad missible in evidence or not. Sir W. FOLLETT—I suggest, my Lords, that the At torney. General should answer the question, in the first place, because he is not now in a situation to ask whether this card should be received or rejected. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—You object to its being re ceived, Sir Wm. Follett? Sir W. FOLLETT—Certainly, my Lord; and I wish to be heard on that point. The LORD HIGH STEWARD—We are ready to hear you. Sir W. FOLLETT requested to see the card, and after having examined it, said—l don't think it necessary to ob ject to this card bring read again. The Clerk-Assistant then read the card, on which was engraved " Captain Harvey Tuckett, " 13, Hamilton-place, New-road," And on the back was " Captain H. Wainwright." Sir W. FOLLETT is that your case ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—This, my Lords, is the case on the part of the prosecution. Sir W. FOLLETT—This being the case on the part of the prosecution I venture to submit to your Lord ships that there is no case that calls on the prisoner for an answer. It is an attempt to prove a case without sufficient evidence. Your Lordships will observe that in the first count of the indictment, the pri soner is charged with feloniously and unlawfully intend. ing to «hoot at Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett, with a pis tol loaded with gunpowder and ball, intending thereby, of his malice aforethought, the said Harvey Garaett Phipps Tuckett to kill and murder ; in the second count, he is charged with intending to maim and dis able the same person ; and in the 3d count with intending to do him some grievous bodily injury. Now, ray Lords, I apprehend it is not necessary to state any authority to your Lord:hips in order to show that the pro secutor is bound to prove the Christian and surname of the person against whom the alleged offence is committed, and if he fails in that he fails in the proof of his case. Your Lordships will see that there is no evidence whatever to show that the person against whom the shot was discharged was Mr. Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett. The evidence before your Lordships would rather lead to a contrary presumption. I apprehend that positive evi dence must be given to prove the identity of the party. Your Lordships will observe the evidence on this point. They call a person named Codd, an army agent, who re ceives the half-pay of a Captain 'Puckett, formerly of the 11th Light Dragoons, and that his name was Harvey Garret Phipps Tuckett; but is there anything to identifyi. him with the person alleged to be at Wimbledon Common on the 12th of September? Mr. Codd never knew anything of his residence, and never saw him except at his office in Fludyer• street, and an insurance office. There is nothing to connect that gentleman with the transaction. What is the rest of the evidence? A person comes from the Poultry, who says that Captain Tuckett occupied offices from him—that he is an East India and army agent— that his name is Harvey Tuckett, and that he does not know where he lives. Now my Lords, there is nothing to connect that Captain Tuckett, spoken of by Mr, Codd with the party who was an Wimbledon Com mon on the 12th of September, therefore, 1 contend that they have entirely failed in an essential part of this prose cution. My Lords, this point is expressly decided in the case of the King v. Robinson, in Holt's Reports, in which i t is laid down that it is essentially necessary to prove the Christian and surname of the party against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, and of that there is no proof in the present case. The ATTORNE G ENERAL —My Lords, the question is, whether there can be any other evidence to prove the fact of the Christian name of Captain 'Puckett, the gentleman wounded. If there be the smallest scintilla of evi dence on this point, we are not to be stopped. We arc now as if we were before a Jury, and that the Learned Judge wished to direct them to acquit the prisoner on the ground that there was no evidence to go before them. My Lords, I contend that if we had been before a Jury they would have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion that the name of the party wounded was Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett. How does the case stand? My Learned Friend withdrew all objection to the reading of the card. Well then the gentleman who was wounded, and against whom Lord Cardigan shot on the 12th of September, was Captain Harvey Tuckett. We have got, therefore, as far as one of his names, and how does it stand with regaid to the rest ? Ant I obliged to call the clerk of the parish where he was baptised in order to prove the baptismal registry ? Ain I obliged to call his godfathers and godmothers who attended at the baptismal font? I apprehend such evidence is wholly unnecessary. I contend, that from the facts proved, no reasonable man could draw an inference contrary to that which we wish to be drawn. There is abundant evidence to go to a Jury upon that point, and your Lordships will now have to say whether there is evidence to show whether the Cap tain Tuckett who was wounded was the pe rson who resided at 13, Hamilton-place, New-road. Each time s Dann asked for Captain Tuckett, and each time hanie me introduced to a gentleman answering to ha n 'Puckett ; therefore your Lordships will have i)1 believing that the Capt. Tuckett who Ivrea no No. difficulty;3, IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 110 USE OF COMMONS, FER 16. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Mr. MORGAN took the oaths and his seat as Memler for Monmouthshire. The lion. Member was introduced by Mr. Baillie and Lord Granville Somerset. Mr. ANTROBUS took the oaths and his scat as Member fur East Surrey. r. LIDDELL presented a petition fro m c e rtain M for an alteration in mariners of the River Tyne, praying the distribution of the Merchan t Seamen's I'und. Mr. INGHAM presen ted a similar petition from about 3,000 seamen of the port of Tyne. Mr. DAVID ROCIIE presented a petition from a pa rish in Limerick in favour of Medical Reform from various , Sir R. 11. INGLIS presented petitions parishes in Berkshire, Bedfordshire, and Wiltshire, pray ing for additional Church accommodn from ation the Hull and . Mr. HUTT presented a' petitio complaining of the manner o f Selby Railway Com p any, le v ying taxation o n railways. Mr. CO LQIIIIOUN prese nted a petition from the East India As sociation in Clasgow, complaining that the grievances with regard to their trade with Java h a d nut been redres sed, and that the grievances on the ' hubject of their trade with Jamaica had been increased. Lord of the Lord It. GROSVENOR presented a petition, orofucslyhessigtenre,di,af from favour the o f ll t l i a i e y Mayor Billn n d fo i r n inhabitants periodof be for mune. ants . of the city Sir IL PEEL presented a petition punishment of death. from . Braintree, is appointment of the Essex, praying that the Poor-law Commissioners might The petitioners ali.ci complained for a limited period. chil dren from their parents in the o f the separation of Union workhouses. EVENING EDITION Mr. FOX MAU LE presented petitions from various parishes in Perthshire, praying for the abolition of Church Patronage in Scotland. Mr. MILES presented a petition from Horsington, in Somersetshire, in favour of Church Extension. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Cionrush, in the county of Galway, against Lord Stanley's, and in favour of Lord Morpeth's, Irish Registration Bill. Mr. MUNTZ gave notice that in the Committee on the Medical Bill he should move that all prescriptions be written in English and at full length—(Laughter)—and that all labels in druggists' shops should be written in the same manner. DANISH CLAIMS Mr. CRE SSWE L L rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move that this House will, upon Tuesday, the 23d day of this instant February, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of the fol lowing Address to her Majesty, that is to say, that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into conside tion the Report, bearing date 12th May, 1840, made by the Commissioners to whom it was referred to examine and adjudicate upon the claims of certain British subjects, for losses sustained by the seizare and confiscation of their ships and cargoes by the G3vernment of Denmark in tho year 1807, and that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to such claimants the amount of their respec tive losses as ascertained by the said Commissioners, and to assure her Majesty that this House will make good the same. The Hon. and Learned Member briefly a;lud , 2d to the facts of the case, and to the classes of claimants—those. who had ships and goods, and thme who had goods ashore and book debts. He had hitherto been opposed by the Government; but he would net then enter into the merits of the question. If, however, he should hear any nevi arguments urged against the motion, he should use his privilege of replying to them, Mr. HUTT said-1 rise for the purpose of seconding this motion. It has been with feelings of regret that 1 have for some time observed the Right Hon. Gentleman tha Chancellor of the Exchequer give to this subject the same opposition as his predecessors, and adopt all the ex parte considerations by which they were influenced. From the straightforward, manly character of my Right Hon. Friend, I would have imagined that he would not interpose his au thority to prevent the compensation justly due to those claimants. With every feeling of respect, I must say, that I believe the Right Honourable Gentleman does not understand the merits of this use. When this British property was seized by the Danish Government the Bri tish Government had seized upwards of 1,300,0001. worth of Danish property, without providing any protection for British merchants. That property was always represented and understood to be intended as a fund nom which compensaticn should he 'given to the British merchants who were sufferers by the course pursued by our Government. These persons have constantly since that time down to the present period, pressed their claims. The House of Commons has order: , d payment to be made to two classes of claimants—to those who had claims for book debts, and to those who had their goods seized in the ports. NON there is a third party who have had ships and cargoes seized at sea by Danish ships. I cannot see how the Right Hon. Gentleman can oppose himself to these applications. The judgment of the House has been . . on two several occasions pronounced i❑ their favour; and I am sure, Sir, that it does not become the character of this House, to do that which would be considered mon- streus in a Court of Justice—to reverse the decision which iL has twice pronounced, when there are no new facts b, which its judgment can be influenced. I cannot think the House will do so; still less can I think that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth,Jvho has ever shown the greatest regard for maintaining the character and consistency of the House, would recommend such a course. For my covn part, I must say, thaVhaving advo cated those claims for nine years, it is with feelings of in- dignation I am compelled to come forward on this occa sion. A large sum of money was obtained previous to the war at the sacrifice of British property. Surely no one will pretend that the object was to plunder the owners? —( Hear.) I hope the House will do them fair and honour able justice.—( Hear, and a laugh.) They ought to be paid not only the principal, but I am quite sure that there claimants whose case has been so improperly delayed, ought to receive compensation for that delay.—( Hear.) I will not further trouble the House on this occasion ; but I will say that this is not a party question. The House has twice declared itself in favour of these claims; and I trust it will not now reverse its decision.—( Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sorry, after what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said, to announce that he should not only follow the course of his predecessor upon this question, but was fully pre pared to appeal for support and approbation to the House, and even to the country at large.—(Cheers from the Tory benches.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was an old advocate, and he broneht to hear upon this question his habitual adroitness. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman always put this question as between the Chan cellor of the Exchequer and the claimants. That was a most adroit way of putting the question certainly ; but the real question was, were they justified in calling upon the people of England to pay those claims. Were they justi fied in taking the money out of the pockets of other people to put it into the pockets of these respectable persons re siding in Liverpool ? From the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, he was of opinion that they had no right to call upon the public to do so. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and the Hon. Gentleman who had followed him, had carefully avoided all allusion to that portion of the question. He had alluded to the decision which the House had already made. He admitted that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had had one decision in his favour ; but the first decision which had been come to, and been come to by the very Parliament which had directed the other classes of claims to be paid, had been against the claims which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was then advocating. ,}accordance with the expressed opinion of the Reformed - House of Commons Lord Spencer had given way, and admitted the claims of the two first classes of claimants, which claims had been paid. The very claims which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was now advocating had been submitted to them, and they had refused to admit them. It was remarkable also that S;r James Mackintosh, who was the first who had brought the subject of the Danish claims before Parliament, had in his speech on that occasion only alluded to those claims which were already settled. Time were the only claims which he thought the country called . on to pay. In that speech he had stated that there were certain acts which the Danish Government had committed contrary to the laws of war and the laws of nations; by those acts British subjects bad suffered wrong. The English Government, at the making of peace, had a right to call upon the Danish Go. vernment for compensation for these wrongs. They had, however, neglected for some reason or other to do so, and he had argued that, in consequence of having thus ne glected their duty, which was to enforce these claims as against the Danish Government, they had taken upon themselves the duty of compensating the English subjects, who ought to have been compensated by the Danish Government. That the claims now brought forward by the Learned Gentle man had never entered into the contemplation of Sir James Mackintosh, appeared still more clearly from the calcula tions which he had made on the subject. On that occa sion, Sir James I.lackintosh had stated that the outstanding claims amounted to about 200,0001., but that they had been reduced by various circumstances to about 100,000/. Now the Government had already paid 284,0001. on ac count of those claims, and here was another class of claims now brought forward, amounting to an additional quarter of a million. It was obvious that there was a great dis tinction between these claims and those which had already been paid. Danmark was bound to pay the other classes of claimants ; she might have been compelled to do so. Now there was no doubt that, according to the laws of war and the laws of nations, Denmark was perfectly justi fied in confiscating the property in question. She was per.. fcctly justified in making this seizure; consequently no claim could be brought against Denmark, and no claim could be made against her for compensa tion. Therefore, the grounds on which the former claims had been voted did not exist in the pre sent instance. The following argument had also been attempted to be raised in support of those claims. It was stated that we having received a large sum of money for seizures taken from Denmark were bound t 6 give compen sation to these claimants. He knew not on what ground the Hon. and Learned Gentleman assumed that they were in possession of that sum of money. As far as he could ascertain, after the expenses of the captors and of adjudi cation had been liquidated, and the other expenses had boon paid, the sum remaining had, if not the whole at least, by far the large portion cf it, had been already paid for those Danish claims which Parliament had already voted. The payment of those claims had, us nearly as possible, eaten up the whole of the money received as the produce of those seizures. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had contended that those claims ought to be satisfied out of the droits of the Crown, but as ho had before stated, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that afer paying he expenses of the cators an the ament of t the claims t already liquidated , there was an d y surplus re. maining. Mr. CRESSWELL here expressed his dissent. Th e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER __ Would the Hon. an d Learned Gentleman put it upon that footincr? He could assure the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that after paying e.iptions, ari d expenses, and i t would be found that there was scarcely any certainly nothing like the amount of othersurplus o c laims, rlemosr 100,00 Hon. Gentleman seemed The Hon. and Learned to imagine. Gentleman had not remaining, , as the r a f i ec tadmitted ouse btylia any t n i y f gone very fu ll y into the sub j ect ; and he ( the Chancellor oicfntgliteheEnxleoqbuseerr%)awticeunls. H d not e deta i n y t he House the claim were founded on justice the amount of the claim activeG e ntl c n e t a c n n v a t s h s e re whichw ho h w e e r k e n u e i l i v d e i r i a e been influen ce c: ought not to be taken into account. But if th ere wer e carried d o o f n t , he warned them that the case was not a trilling one, and that which happened once might happen again. He thought it necessary to caution them that they would not be vot ing a quarter of a million, but a million in full. There were five cases of the same nature iu which he believed similar claims would be put forward, and he would tell them that they knew not what might happen if they once opened their doors to such applications. It was sup. posed that the Danish claimants were the only claimants of the kind ; but if the House should grant the motion of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman they would have similar claims submitted to them on the part of the Spanish Governments for the amount of 60,600/. The more they admitted such a principle the more would parties endeavour to avail themselves of it. If they let in nue end of the wedge the rest would be to follow, and they would find that the annual ex pense c l a i m s would form a very largo it public expen diture. The Hon. and Learned t m se in in the meeting such Gentleman had urged the claim then under their conside ration, at a very unusual time—before they had voted any of the supplies on the estimates for the Army, the ot h er public expenses. But let them look to natur e of the claim itself. He found that there were ou t of the mill ion about 55,000 /. paid to Insuran c e offices. Now he (the C hancell or of the Exchequer) did not sec t N he av y, or w hy the underwriters should come and recompense them selves out of the taxes of the country, which they were to put into their own pockets, because they must have been