The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-16 00:00:00

TRIAL

OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE -
JAMES THOMAS EARL oil; CARDIGAN,

IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
(THIS DAY.)

Tht trial of the Earl of Cardigan, about which
so much interest has been excited for the last
few weeks, commenced this morning in the House
of Lords. Since Friday night, very extensive
alterations have been made in the House, in
order to afford all the additional accommodation
possible. The side galleries have been extended
the entire length of the House, and the end gal-
leryrusually appropriated to strangers, advanced
several feet further into the body of the House,
and tastefully fitted up for the Peeresses and
other Ladies who were favoured with tickets by
the Lord Chamberlain. Under this gallery, and
immediately below the bar, another smaller one
was erected, which afforded accommodation to
about sixty persons. On the left of the
Bar several benches were fitted up for the re-
porters for the public press, and we may take
this opportunity of expressing our acknowledg-
ments to the Lord Chamberlain (Lord Wil-
loughby De Eresby) for the courtesy with which
every arrangement, consistently with the limited
`pace, was made for our accommodation.
Immediately, in front of the throne a chair of
state was provided for Lord Denman, who, in
the absence of the Lord Chancellor from indis-
position, acted as Lord High Steward.
At half-past nine the entrance to the House of
Lords, termed the Peers' entrance, was opened,
and in half an hour the body of the House was
nearly filled by Peers Lord Lyndhurst, Lord
Wynford, the Duke of Richmond, Lord
Brougham, Lord Monteagle, and Viscount' Mel-
bourne were among the earliest arrivals.
Shortly after ten o'clock the Attorney-General
(with whom was Mr. Waddington) arrived and
took his place at -the bar ; immediately on his
arrival Lord Lyndhurst went up to the bar and
was engaged in conversation with him for some
minutes. The eldest sons of Peers were accom-
modated with scats behind the throne. Among
the occupants of those seats, we observed Vis-
count Howick, the Hon. Thomas Denman, &c. &c.
Strangers, the greater part of whom were la-
dies, continued to arrive in quick succession, and
long before eleven o'clock every place was occu-
pied. The arrangements for affording ingress and
egress were admirably planned and executed,
and nawithstanding the crowded state of the
House no difficulty whatever was experienced in
passing to and fro. Shortly after his arrival the
Attorney-General was joined by Mr. Wadding-
ton, the junior counsel for the prosecution.
Sir William Follett, with Mr. Wrangham and
Mr. Robinson, appeared as Counsel for the Earl
of Cardigan.
The Solicitor-General was absent, we under-
stand, from indisposition.
The ...ridges, on their arrival, took their seats on
the cross benches in front of the chair, with the
exc3ption of Lord- Denman, the Lord High
Steward, andiitord Abinger, who took their seats
among the Pars upon the Barons' Bench. The
coup d'ceil of the House was extremely pic-
turesque and magnificent, the Peers being all
robed, and those on whom the honour of knight-
hood, and other decorations, had been conferred,
smearing the collars of their respective orders.
TheCeers all wore cocked hats ; in order to in-
sure uniformity in this respect a notice had been
posted in the lobbies of the House some days
since, reminding the Peers that it was contra
bonos mores to wear round hats with robes. The
ladies were all in full dress. Lady Cardigan was
one of the earliest arrivals, and took a seat on the
right of the bar, immediately adjoining that oc-
cupied by the Noble Earl. A great number of
the Corps Dlplomatique were in the side galleries
in plain dress, and below the bar were several
Members of the House of Commons.

At a quarter before 11 o'clock the Lord►'
Speaker (Lord Denman) having robed in his pri-
vate room, entered the House. A procession was
formod in the usual manner, his Lordship being
preceded by the Purse-bearer with the purse,
the Sergeant with the mace, the Black Rod
carrying the Lord High Stdward's staff, and
Garter carrying his sceptre.
Garter and Black Rod having taken their
places at the Bar, the Lord Speaker proceeded
to the Woolsack, where, being seated, prayers
were read by the Bishop of Lichfield.

The Clerk-Assistant of Parliament then pro,-
ceeded to call over the Peers, beginning with
the junior Baron, Lord Sydenham.
Much amusement was excited in consequence
Af several of the Peers who were present not an-
swering to their names when called, until re-
mindediu some Noble Lord near them.
While the names were being called over, his
Royal klighness the Duke of Cambridge entered
the House.

Among the absent Peers were—Lords Syden-
ham, De Fresne ' Lurgan, Wenlock, Stuart
de Decies, Furnival, Beauvais, Methuen, Wrot-
tesley, De Manley, Carey, Lismore, Kintore,
Lovat, Portman, Hatherton, Western, De
Saumerez, , Cloncurry, Segrave, Mostyn, Pol-
timore, Panmure, Hamilton, Ludlow, Dun-
more, Chaworth, Sefton, Fingall, Stuart de
Rothsay, Plunkett, Fife, Seaford, Fevers-
ham, Skelmersdale, Rosebery, Heytesbury,
Tabley, Ranfurly, Wigan, Somerville, Gifford,
Bexley, Downes, Delamere, Ravensworth,Driel,
Maryborough, Glenlyon, Kingston, Clanbrassil,
I'Vemyss, Minster, Prudhoe, Harris, Churchill,
Rttss, Melville, Hill, Lynedoch, Hopetoun, Man-
nets, Crewe, Lauderdale, Ardrossan, Mont-
eagle, Erskine, Barham, Sandys, Ellenborough,
Rivers, Abercorn, Loftus, Clanallan, Farnham,
Carberry, Dunsany, Fitzgibbon, Wellesley,
Rolle, Salterton, Stuart of Chapel, Stuart, Thur-
low , Douglas, Dorchester, Tyrone, Montague,
Shil%orne, Powis, Rodney, Dynevor, Foley,
Hawkd, Lovell and Holland, Sondes, Bruce,
Monson, Boyle, Ray, Sinclair, Grey, Forbes,
Howland, Clifford, Stafford, Teynham, Dormer,
Arundel, Petre, Howard de Walden, Seaton de
Peltroe,Vernon, Dacre, De Roos, Paget. Bishops
--Ely, Chichester, St. David's. Viscounts—Pen-
sonby, Cottenham, Canning, Cumberland, Clan-
carty, Hutchinson, A'Court, Exmouth, Lakc,
Luton, Sidmouth, Melville, St. Vincent, De
Vesci, Maynard, Bolingbroke, Strathallen, Ar-
buthnot. Earls—Dudley, Yarborough, Ripon,
Camperdown, Burlington, Munster, Dunravon,
Straidbroke, Glengall, St. German's„ Cath-
cart, Harewood, Harrowby, ROnsdale,
Gre , Rosse, Gosford, Powys, Craven,
0' lb Belmore, Charleville, Liverpool, Mans-
ife
tel , Fortescue, Talbot, Abergavenny, Spencer,
Ilehcster, Cornwallis, Guildford, Egreniont,
Fitz'tvilliam, Buckingham, Portsmouth, Had-
dington, Waldegrave, Graham, Harborough,
Stafford, Dartmouth, Orkney, Arden, Elgin, Al-
bemarle, Suffolk, Pembroke. Marquises--Brtad-
albane, Bristol, Aylesbury, Hastings, Hertford,
Townsend, Tweeddale, Winchester. Dukes—
Sutherland, Wellington, Newcastle,, Manchester
Portland., Brandon, Rutland, Devonshire, Leeds,
St. Alban's, Grafton, Norfik, and his Royal
ILighuess the Duke of Cl7.lnberla• nd, who was the
last Peer called. -''

The Clerks of s...ne Crown in Chancery and in
the Queen's then jointly made three reve-
Ileum's, and the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery,
on his knee, delivered the Commission to the .Lord
Speaker, who gave it to the Clerk of the Crown in
Ills Queen's Bench to read; both Clerks then
retired with like reverences to the table.

The Sergeant-at-Arms then made proclamation,
and the Lord Speaker informed the Peers that
her Majesty's Commission was about to be read,
and directed that all persons should rise and be
uncovered while the Commission was reading.
The Commission appointing Lord Denman as
Lord'High Steward was then read, and Garter
and Black Rod having made their reverences,
proceeded to the woolsack and took their places
on the right of the Lord High Steward, and both
holding the stair presented it on their knees to
his, Grace.

His Grace then rose, and having made reve-
rence to the Throne, took his seat in the Chair of
state provided for him on the uppermost step
ut tine of the Throne, proclamation was then
inaile for silence ; when the Queen's Writ of
'Certiorari to remove the Indictment with the re-
turn thereof, and the record of the Indictment,
was then read by the Clerk of the Crown in the
Queen's Bench. The Lord High Steward
then directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to make
proclamation for the Yeoman Usher to bring
the Prisoner to the Bar.

The Earl of Cardigan then entered the House,
and advanced to the Bar, accompanied by the
Yeoman Usher. Ile made three reverences, one
to his Grace the Lord High Steward, and one to
the Peers on either side, who returned the sa-
lute. The ceremonial of kneeling was dis-
pensed with. The Noble Earl wore a dress
coat, dark trousers, and red waistcoat.
On first presenting himself at the Bar, his
Lordship looked somewhat pale and agitated, but
soo#recovered his self-possession. He was then
conducted within the Bar, AVhere, he remained
stanling while the Lord High Steward, having
directed proclamation to be made for silence,
acquainted. the prisoner with the nature of the
charge against him.
The, prisoner was then arraigned in the usual
form, for firing at Harvey Garnet Phipps Tucket,
on ttel2th of September last, Withl'intent to kill
and murder him. The second count charged him

with firing at the said Harvey Garnet Phipps
Tucket with intent to maim and disable him;
and the third count varied the charge—with in-
tent to do him some grievous bodily harm.
The Clerk then asked, " How say you, James
Thomas, Earl of Cardigan, are you guilty or
not?"

The Earl of CARDIGAN, in a firm voice, re-
plied. " Not guilty, my Lord."
The Clerk—" How will you be tried, my Lord?"
The Earl of CARDIGAN—" BS,- my Peers."
The Noble prisoner then took his seat on a
stool within the bar, and his Grace the Lord
High Steward removed to the table, preceded by
Garter, Black Rod, and the Purse-bearer, as be-
fore, and his Grace being seated, Black Rod took
his seat on a stool at a corner of the table, on his
Grace's right hand, holding the staff, Garter on a
stool on Black Rod's right, and the Sergeant at
the lower end of the table on the same side.
Mr. WADDINGTON then opened the pleadings,
stating the nature of the offence as set out in the
indictment, and added that the Noble prisoner
had, for his trial, put himself upon their Lord-
ships, his Peers.
The ATTORNET-GRNERAL—My Lords, I have
the honour to attend you as Attorney-General
for her Majesty to lay before you the circum-
stances of this case, without any object or wish
except that I may humbly assist your Lordships
in coming to a right conclusion upon it, accord-
ing to its merits. My Lords, an indictment has
been found against a Peer of the realm by the
Grand Jury of the country, charging him with a
felony, the punishment of which is transportation
or imprisonment. My Lords, that indictment
has been removed before your Lordships at
the request of the Noble prisoner, most
properly made, for an inferior Court had
no jurisdiction to try him. My Lords, upon
a charge which upon the face of it so serious, it
would not have been satisfactory if it had gone
off without an inquiry ; and, my Lords, the police-
man who is upon this case bound over to prose-
cute, had fulfilled the conditions of his recogni-
zances by appearing at the Central Criminal
Court and preferring an indictment. My Lords,
in the course of this trial it is possible that ques-
tions of great magnitude upon the construction
of Acts of Parliament respecting the privileges
of the Peerage may arise, which it is of'great
importance to this House, to the Crown, and to
the community, should be deliberately discussed.
My Lords, according to all the precedents that
can be found, wherever there' has been a Peer
tried in Parliament the prosecution has been
conducted by the law officers of the Crown.
Fortunately, my Lords; we have no living me-
mory upon this subject. It is now sixty-font
years since any proceeding of this sort has taken
place; and I am rejoiced to think, my Lords,
that the charge against the Noble Prisoner at the
bar does not imply any degree of moral
turpitude, and that if he should he found guilty
the conviction will reflect no discredit upon the
illustrious order to which lie belongs. But it
seems to me that he clearly has been guilty of a
breach of the statute law of the realm, which
those in all Courts of Justice are'bound to re-
spect and enforce. Your Lordships are not
sitting here as a Court of Honour, or a branch
of the Legislature. You are sitting as a Court
bound by the rules of law, and under a
sanction as sacred as that of an oath.
My Lords, the indictment against the Earl of
Cardigan is framed on an Act of Parliament
which was passed in the first year of the reign
of her present Majesty Queen Victoria. It
charges the Noble Defendant with having
fired a shot at Captain Harvey Tuckett, with
several intents .which are stated in the indict-
ment. I think it but a duty 'that I owe to
the accused on this occasion, to remind your
Lordships briefly of the state of the law on this
subject. By the common law of England when
death did not ensue, no personal violence,
however great, amounted to more than
a misdemeanor, and if the person wounded
did not die within a year and a day
then no felony had been committed. My
Lords, the first Act of Parliament which created
it a felony, where death did not ensue, was the
sth of Henry IV., chap. 5, whereby the cutting a
person so as to injure him, although death did not
ensue, was made felony, with benefit of clergy.
'By the Coventry Act, passed in the 22d and 23d
of Charles 11., any person lying in wait for, and
wounding any person, with intent to maim or
disfigure him, was guilty, of felony, without bene-
fit of clergy. Under both of these Acts your
Lordships will perceive that no offence was com-
mitted unless a wound was inflicted. But by
the Act of the 9th of George 1., com-
monly called the ," Black Act," the at-
tempt, even when no wound was given,
was made felony. By that Act it was
enacted that if any person should wilfully and
maliciously shoot at any person in a dwelling-
house or other place, he should be considered
guilty of felony without benefit of clergy. But I
think it my duty in fairness to the Noble Prisoner,
to remind your Lordships that unless the case
was such that if death ensued, it would be a case
of murder, no offence had been committed within
the statute. My Lords, the law in this case has
been very clearly laid down, in the case of " The
King against Gastineau," which is reported in
the Ist vol. of Leach's Crown Cases, p. 417. In
that case the law is thus stated—the
offence charged in the indictment is de-
scribed in this statute in few and clear
words—it is enacted, " that if any per-
son shall wilfully and maliciously shoot at
any person in a dwelling-house or other
place, he shall be guilty of felony withoutbenefit
of clergy." The words " maliciously" and " wil-
fully" are made to egpstitute the essence of the
crime. No act of shooting is within the meaning of
the statute, unless accompanied by circumstances
which would have made the crime murder if
death had ensued in consequence of such act.
The proposition is clearly laid down, but there
must be clearly the intention of malice, and in no
species of homicide can malice be argued except
in murder; and therefore no accidental shooting,
nor any shooting committed in the transport of
passion, in which case, if death ensues, the crime
is manslaughter only within the meaning of this
statute. My Lords, things continued in this posi-
tion until the Act of the 43d Geo. 111., commonly
called Lord Ellenborough's Act. • This Act did
not repeal the Black Act, but extended it to
many cases which were not before felony. My
Lords, by that Act it was enacted, that if any
person should maliciously shoot at any person
with intent to murder him, or with intent to
maim, disfigure, or disable him, or to do him
some grievous bodily harm, such person should
be adjudged guilty of felony. But, my Lords,
in this Act there is an express provision, that
if supposing death had ensued, it would
not atriount to murder, then the person indicted
skall be acquitted. My Lords, you will observe
that'by this Act of Parliament it is made a capi-
tal offence to, shoot at a person with intent to
murder him, or to maim, or disfigure, or disable
hini, or to do shim some grievous bodily harm;
bat the case is within the meaning of the sta-
tute, only supposing that if death ensued the
case would amount to murder. The next Act
On this subjed is the Act of the 9th George
IV. cap. 31, *licit. is generally called Lord
Lansdowne's t
t, because the Marquis of Lans-
dOwne was at at time Secretary of State for the
Home DepartMent, and he had introduced that
Act into Parliament. It consolidates and amends
the statutes relating to offences against the per-
son ; it repeals the Black Act and Lord Ellen-
borough's Act; but it contains similar provisions
to Lord Ellenborough's Act. By the 10th sec-
tion it is enacted, " that if any person shall ma-
liciously shoot at any other person with intent to
murder him, he shall suffer death as a
felon." By the 12th section it is enacted'
" that if he -shall shoot at any person with
evous
dinotehnitmtosmomaiei4iri disfigure,bo(il3,
oirdisiambrinel
him,
msoh. atlol
suffer death."lT:lt contains, however, he
the same
provisions as r Lord Ellenborough's Act, that,
supposing death ensued in consequence, if the
crime would nbt amount to murder, then the
person should -be acquitted under this Act. But
it was still a eapital offence to shoot at any
person with intent to maim, disfigure or disable
him, or to do Um some grievous bodily harm.
My Lords, tinfigs remained on this footing
until the Act !'Avas passed on which this in-
dictment is fdinided. This Act received the
Royal Assent on the 17th of July, 1837.
It is the Act Ist Victoria, chap. 85, and is en-
titled "Ati Act:to Amend the Laws Relating to
Offences against the Person." It recites the
Act 9 Geo. IV., chap. 21, as relating to these of-
fences, and repeals the Act 9th George
second section enacts that if any person shall
cut, stab, or woniid any person, or in any manner
inflict any injury on any person dangerous to life,
with intent to commit murder, such person shall
be adjudged guilty of felony, and suffer death.
Therefore the shooting at any person, and in-
flicting on such person a wound dangerous to life
a capital offence; but the shooting at any
person where no wound is inflicted is no longer a
capital offence, but remains still a felony. By
the 3d section it is enacted that whoever shall'
shO6tat any person, or shall draw the trigger of
any lOaded firearms, with intent thereby to mur-
der such person, the such person so shooting or
so drawing the trigger, even if no injury shall be
inflicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and
shall be liabik 10 transportation for life or for a
term not less iliab fifteen years., or to imprison-
ment for a terinot liss than three years. By

the 4th section it is enacted that whosoever shall
shoot at any person, with intent to maim or dis-
figure or disable him, or to do him some grievous
bodily harm, shall be adjudged guilty of felony,
and be liable to the same punishment as is
enacted in the 3d section. This Act contains no
provision similar to Lord Ellenborough's Act or
to the Act of 9th Geo. IV., and this is a circum-
stance most material for your Lordships to bear
in mind in deliberating on the judgment you
may have to come to on the third and fourth •
counts of the indictment. I am happy to say the
indictment contains no count on the capital
charge. A wound was inflicted, but the
prosecutor hasvery properly restricted the charge
to firing, without stating that any injury has
been inflicted. The first count charges the
shooting as having taken place with intent to
murder. The second count charges the same
act with intent to maim and disable; and the
third count with intent to do some grievous
bodily harm. It will be for your Lordships to
say whether the facts which I shall lay before
you, and what I am instructed will prove clearly
the act of shooting, are clearly made out;
and if so, whether the crime charged in
the indictment is fully established. My
Lords, the substance of the evidence is this,
that upon the 12th day of September last the
Earl of Cardigan fought a duel with pistols, on
Wimbledon Common, with Capt. Harvey Tuc-
kett, and wounded him at the second exchange
of shots. My Lords, it will appear before your
Lordships, that about five o'clock in the afternoon
of that day two carriages were seen to come in
opposite directions in the neighbourhood of
Wimbledon Common, and a party alighted from
each. It was evident to those who observedwhat
was taking place that a duel *as in contemplation.
They came to a part of Wimbledon Common be-
tween the road that leads by Lord Spencer's
park and the windmill standing on the top of the
Common. The seconds first came upon the
ground, and made the usual preparations. The
principals, the Earl of Cardigan and Captain
Tuckett, were then placed at a distance of
about 12 yards from each other ; they exchanged
shots without effect; they again fired, and Captain
Tuckett was wounded. Mr. Daun, who occupies
the mill to which I have referred, and his son,
together with Sir James Anderson, a surgeon,
who had been standing close by, came up almost
immediately. The wound was examined—it bled
copiously, but most fortunately—and no one, I
believe, rejoiced at that more than the Earl of
Cardigan—it was not of
.a dangerous nature. The
parties were all removed by the miller (who was
a constable, and took them into custody) to the
nearest station. The wound was there further exa-
mined, and Sir James Anderson pressed that he
should be at liberty to take Captain Tuckett to
his house in London, which was. immediately
agreed to upon his promising to appear when re-
covered from the effects of the wound before the
Magistrates. The miller took the Earl of Cardi-
gan and his second, Captain Douglas, into cus-
tody. Captain Douglas was the second of the
Earl of Cardigan, and Captain Wainwright, the
second of Captain Harvey Tuckett. The Earl of
Cardigan had still a pistol in his hand when the
miller apprehended him. There were two cases
of pistols on the ground—one with the crest of
the Earl of Cardigan upon it, which he claimed
as being his property. The other parties were
conducted before the Magistrates at Wandsworth,
and upon that occasion the Earl of Cardigan
made use of these words—" I have fought a duel,
and hit my man—l believe not seriously." He .
then said, pointing to Captain Douglas, " This
gentleman is also a prisoner, and my second."
He was asked if the person he had hit was Cap-
tain Reynolds, to which he replied, " Do you
think I would condescend to fight with one
of my own officers?" He was compelled
by the Magistrates to enter into recog-
nizances to appear when called for, which
he did from time to time, and at last the matter
was sent to the Central Criminal' Court. My
Lords, the witnesses I shall bring before you are
the miller, his wife, and his son, with a police-
man of the name of Dunning, who was at the sta-
tion, and will speak to the declarations of Lord
Cardigan, and what there took place. I shall
offer no evidence, and can offer no evi-
dence before your Lordships, respecting the Origin
of the quarrel. Captain "Douglas is to take his
trial. He, as your lordships will observe, is
jointly indicted with the Earl of Cardigan.
A bill of indictment was preferred against
Captain Tuckett and Captain Wainwright, it was
thrown out by the Grand Jury; but they,
as your Lordships well know, are still liable
to be tried, and it would not be decorous that I
should summon them before your Lordships to
give evidence which might afterwards be turned
against themselves, and prove that they were
guilty of a felony. I will call before your Lord-
ships Sir James Anderson, who has hitherto
spoken freely upon the subject, and I suppose
will now make no objection to state to your
Lordships all that fell within his ob-
servation. Now, my Lords, upon these facts
it will be for your Lordships to say whether all
the counts of the indictment are not fully proved
and supported. With regard to the first count,
it is painful to use the language which the first
count necessarily employs, but it will be for your
Lordships to say whether, in point of law,
the Earl • of Cardigan did not shoot at
Captain Tuckett, with intent to commit that
crime which is there mentioned. My Lords, I
at once acquit the Earl of Cardigan of anything
unfair in the conduct of the duel. Something
has been said about his Lordship's pistols
having rifle barrels, and those of Capt. Tuckett
not having rifle barrels. My Lords, however
that may have been, I have the most firm con-
viction that nothing but what was fair and ho-
nourable was intended, and that the Earl of Car-
digan most probably imagined that when he car-
ried those pistols to the field with him, that one
of them would be directed against his own
person. Nor do I suppose, my Lords, that
there was any grudge, any personal enmity, any
rancour or malignity whatever, when his Lord-
ship gave or received the invitation. I am will-
ing to believe his only object was to preserve his
reputation, and to maintain his station in society
as an officer and a gentleman. His Lordship
is in the a. Day—he is a Lieutenant-Colonel
of the 11th Hussars; and I have no doubt that he,
upon this occasion, only complied with what he
considered necessary to be done, according to the
usages of society. But, my Lords, under those
' circumstances and though, if death had ensued, ,
it would havebeen considered a great calamity,
although not morally a great crime, because high
names have excused and evenslefended duels, yet
your Lordships must consider by the law of Eng-
land—my Lords—by the law of England, there
can be no doubt that the parties who meet delibe-
rately to fight a duel, if death ensues, are guilty of
the crime of murder. My Lords, it will be my duty
to state to your Lordships a few of the leading
authorities upon the subject. I will mention the
four highest authorities known to the law of
England. Hale, Hawkins, Foster, and Black-
stone. In Hale's Pleas of the. Crown, vol. 1 page
463, it is thus laid down—" If A and B fall sud-
denly out and they presently agree to fight in
the field, and run and fetch their weapons and
then go into the field and fight, and A kills B,
this is not murder but homicide, for it is but a
continuance of the sudden falling out, and the
blood was never cooled. But if there were
deliberation, as that they meet the next day,:nay,
though it were the same day, if there were
.such a competent distance of time, that in
common presumption they had time for delibe-
ration, then it is murder." In the Ist vol. of
Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, chap. 13, sec. 13,
it is thus stated :—" It seems agreed that when-
ever two persons in cool blood meet and fight on a
preceding quarrel, and one of them is killed, the
other is guilty of murder, and cannothelp himself
by alleging that he was just struck by the de-
ceased, or that he had even declined to meet Min,
or was prevailed upon to do it by his own im-
portunity ; or that his intent was only to vin-
dicate his reputation, or that he meant not to'
kill, but only to disarm his adversary; for since
he deliberately engaged in an act highly un-
lawful, and in defiance of the laws, he must at his
peril, abide the consequences thereof. And from
hence it clearly follows, that if two persons
quarrel over night and agree to fight the next
day, or quarrel in the' morning, and agree to
fight in the afternoon, or such a considerable
time after as in common pretendment it must
be presumed the blood was cold, and then fight,
and one kill the other, he is guilty of murder;
and wherever it appears from the whole circum-
stances of the case that he who kills another
for a sudden quarrel was master of his temper at
the time, he is guilty of murder, as if, after the
quarrel, he fell into other discourse, and talked
calmly thereon, or if he had so much considera-
tion as to say the place in which the quarrel hap-
pened was not convenient for fighting, or that if
he fought there he would have a disadvantage,
by reason of the length of his shoes." This re-
fers to the case of Lord Morley, where, though
it was only held to be manslaughter, it was
strongly pressed to show it was offence of a deeper
die. The Learned Gentleman then quoted Sir M.
Foster's description of homicide, chap. 5, sec. 4,
in which it is laid down that deliberate duelling,
if is, in the eyes of the law, murder ;
for death ensars
eueg'enerally founded in deep revenge,
and though the
party should. have been drawn
ictilio
into the duel
not front criminal motives, but
merely oil the pui of what was falsely
called honour, that will not be an excuse for him

fsr deliberately seeking the blood of another in
a private quarrel, acting in defiance of all laws,
human and Divine, whatever his motives may be.
Itwould, however, be but manslaughter if the
parties did not act in cold blood, or if it could be
concluded that their judgment had no control
over the first transport of passion, before they
engaged. Sir William Blackstone, my Lords,
in the 4th volume of his Commentaries, thus
writes—" This takes in cases of deliberate duel-
ings, when both parties met avowedly with in-
tent to murder." My Lords, he is then qualify-
ing cases which he considers to be murder ; and
he says that in all cases " When the parties meet,
it is to be considered as murder, thinking it
their duty as gentlemen, and claiming it as
their right to wanton with their own lives,
and those of their fellow-creatures, without any
warrant or authority from any power either Di-
vine or human, but in direct contradiction both
to the law of God and man. And, therefore,
the law has justly fixed the crime and punish-
inent of murder on them and on the second
also." My Lords, those are the highest authori-
ties known to the law of England, and those
authorities have been uniformly followed by
English Judges. It was so in the case of
in the Central Criminal Court,
and it was so in the case of Sir John
Jefcott, which was tried before Mr. Justice I'at-
'teson, one of the most learned Judges on the
Western Circuit; and on that occasion his Lord-
ship laid down the same law in the most precise
and authoritative terms. Such being the defini-
tion of murder to be found in all our books of
authority, and such being the definition con-
stantly given of it on the Bench in the cases of
those who stood for trial, are not your Lordships
to suppose that the Legislature makes use of the
word murder in the same sense, and that
when we find in the oth George IV.,
and in this Act of the Ist Victoria, the expres-
sions " with intent to murder," that that means
with intent to do that which, if accomplished,
amounted, in point of law, to the crime of mur-
deli? The Legislature when they passed those
Acts must be taken—your Lordships must be
taken—as giving a sanction to those—you must
be taken to have well known what was the
legal definition of murder, and to have
ustd that expression, in these judicial Acts,
in its legal sense. Then, my Lords, how-
ever painful the consideration may be, does
it not necessarily follow that the first count
of this indictment is completely proved ? The cir-
cumstances, my Lords, clearly show that the
earl of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett met by
sppointment. Lord Cardigan—the ground being
prepared—twice fired loaded pistol's, taking de-
liberate aim, and hitting and wounding his anta-
gonist. He must be supposed to have intended
that which he did. If unfortunately death had
ensued, would this have been a case of murder?
My Lords, the only supposition by which
it could be reduced to manslaughter would be
that the Earl of Cardigan and Captain Tuckett
casually met on Wimbledon Common; that they
suddenly quarrelled, and that while their blood
was hot they fought. -But your Lordships can
hardly strain the facts so far as to suppose that
this was a casual meeting while each was sup-
plied with seconds—while each had a brace of
pis tols,and allwas conducted according to the forms
and solemnities observed when deliberate duels
take place. Then, my Lords, with regard to the
second and third counts of the indictment, I know
not what defence can possibly be suggested, be-
cause even if there had beers this casual meeting,
contrary to all probability and all the circum-
stances of the case—if it would only, had death
ensued, amount to the crime of manslaughter—
would be no defence for, the second and third
counts of the indictment. MY Lords, I pre-
sume to say so on the authority of a case
which came before the fifteen Judges of
England,
_and which was decided on—two most
learned Judges doubting on that occasion, not
dissenting. Those two JudgeS were his Grace
the Lord High 'Steward, and Mr.. Justice Little-
dale. It Would not now become me to express
the opinion -which I entertain of the learning of
his Grace before your Lordships; but of Mr. Jus-
tice Littledale I will say, that there never was
a more learned or a more acute Jude. The
Bar of England have lately bid him adieu,
aid I know not whether we shall ever
see a more learned Judge on the Bench.
I would therefore ascribe the greatest weight to
doubts even in duel quarrels. But the other
thirteen Judges entertained no doubts, arid they
came to the conclusion, on the 4th section of the
Act of Parliament,-that it was not necessary for
conviction, that if death had ensued the crime
would amount to murder. The case to which. I
refer is to be found in the second volume of
Mudie's -" Crown Cases of Reserve," vol. 2;
page 40. The case was tried before .I.llk.-
Baron Parke,' on the Norfolk Spring Cir-
cuit in 1838. It is entitled " anonymous."
The name of the prisoner is not given,
but the report seems very authentic, and it seems
to be in the words of the case submitted by the..
Learned Judges for the opinion of their brethren.
It will be found, my Lords, expressly in point.
The opinion of the Judges was requested by Mr.
Baron Parke and his colleague on two questions
which arose on the Northern Circuit. It is the first
only that is material here. The case recited the
9th George IV., and the Ist Victoria, andpointecl
out the circumstances that the Act of Queen Victo-
ria, did not contain that same proviso with Lord
Ellenborough's Act and Lord Lansdowne's Act.
It submitted this question for the opinion of the
Judges. Is it any defence to an indictment for
wounding with intent to maim, that if death
had ensued that offence would not be mur-
der, but manslaughter ? Now, your Lord-
ships will . observe that shooting at with in-
tent to maim or disable, and stabbing with
intent to maim or disable, are in the same
category, are subject to the same punish-
ment, and must be attended with the same results.
This, therefore, my Lords, would have the same
authority as if the question submitted by Mr.
Baron Parke had been whether on an indictment
for shooting at with intent to disable, it would be
a defence to show that if death had ensued,
the crime would not have amounted to
murder. The arguments are not given, but
this is the decision of the Judges—" At a meeting
of the Judges in Easter Term, 1838, they all
thought it to be now no defence to such indict-
ment, that if defith had ensued the offence would
not have amounted to murder, but to man-
slaughter, except Lord Denman, the Chief
Justice, and Mr. Justice Littledale, who
doubted." They did not dissent, they only
doubted. The other thirteen Judges seemed
clearly to hold that that this would not amount
to any defence; and I humbly apprehend they
probably reasoned m this manner, that the in-
tention of the Legislature being to mitigate the
penal code, and make those offences which be-
fore were capital now only punishable with trans-
portation, the quality of the offence was not
to be precisely the same; and that if there were
maiming or disabling, or grievous bodily harm,
done when there was a sudden quarrel
in the heat. of the blood without premeditation,
that still it should not be an offence within the
section of this Act of Parliament, which gave a
discretionary power to the Court before which
the offence is tried either to transport for fifteen
yearS, or to imprison for a single -hour. There-
fore those learned Judges, seeing the discre-
tionary power given—seeing the omission of
a proviso—seeing it was no longer a capital
offence, came
.to the conclusion that the.
offence was committed, although if death
had ensued the crime would not have amounted
to murder. Now, my Lords, in that case
I know not what defence can possibly be at,
tempted with regard to the second and third counts
of the indictment. My Lords, I rejoice to con-
sider that the Noble Prisoner will have an advan-
tage that was not enjoyed by any Peer who has
ever been tried at your Lordships' bar
—an advantage which ' was not
enjoyd
by Lord Lovat, or Lord BTr or
Lord Ferrers, or the Duchess of Kingston. He
will have the advantage of having mY most able,
and ingenious, and honourable Friend, Sit Wil-
liam Follett, in his behalf, on the facts and me
rits of the case. This arises, my Lords, from
-
the most admirable law your Lordships, passed a
few years ago, by which in an cases parties accused
have the advantage of addressing, on the facts, the
tribunal which is to determine on the case. But
my Lords, notwithstanding
the learning, and
ability, and zeal of my Learned Friend Sir W.
Follett, I know not how he
.
can at, all per-
suade, your Lordships to an acquittal on any
one count of the indictment. He will
not ask your Lordships, and he would ask you in
vain, to forget the laws by which.yots are bound.
My Lords, Captain Douglas having stood on his
trial before an inferior tribunal,
.that trial had
been postponed by the Judges On the express
grounds that the same case should-first be tried
by the highest criminal Court known in the
empire. You, my Lords, are to lay down the law
by which all inferior Courts are to be, guided.
I would beg leave on this subject to read the
words made use of at this bar by one of the most
distinguished of my predecessors, who afterwards
for many years presided with great dignity on
the. Woolsack in your Lordships' house. I
mean Lord. Thurlovv; who,
when addressing
the House of Lords in the case of the Duchess
of Kingston, 'made ' use of these expressions
--" I do desire to impress _this _ sipon your
'Lordships -as an!: universal hiassim---; that no
more dangerous idea can creep into the mind

of a Judge than the imagination that he is wiser
than the law. I confine this to. no Judge, what-
ever his denomination, but extend it to all ; and
speaking at the bar of the highest Court of Jus-
tice, I make sure of your Lordships' approba-
tion, when I comprise even your Lordships. It
is a grievous example to other Judges. If your
Lordships assume this power of sitting in judg-
menton the law, why not the King's Justices? Why
not the Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer ?
If they do so, why not the Quarter Sessions ?
Ingenious men may strain the law very far, but
to pervert it, and to new model it, the genius of
our Constitution says the Judges have no such
authority, nor shall presume to exercise it." My
Lords, I conclude with respectfully expressing
my conviction that your Lordships' judgment
in this case, whatever it may be, will be accord-
ing to law and the justice of the case, and
that your Lordships will preserve that high
reputation in the exercise of your judicial func-
tions, which has been so long enjoyed by your
Lordships' ancestors.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then bowed
to their Lordships, and was about to withdraw,
when he again turned to the House and said—
Will your Lordships allow me to mention that
on account of the sudden illness of my Learned
Friend (the Solicitor-General) he is deprived of
the honour of attending to-day before your
Lordships.
Thomas Hunt Dann was then called and ex-
amined by Mr. Waddington.
Are you a miller living at Wimbledon ?—Yes,
Sir.

Is your mill close to Wimbledon Common ?
It is on the Common.

Are you a constable for the parish of Wimble-
don ?—Yes, Sir.
Were you at your mill in the afternOon of
Saturday the 12th of September ?—Yes, Sir.
Do you remember, about five o'clock, that
afternoon a gentleman's carriage driving down
the Common ?—This question was objected to by
the opposite Counsel as a leading question.
Did you observe anything before dark that
day ?—I saw a carriage drive opposite to Mr.
James Currie's, and there stop.
Where did that carriage drive to ?—lt stopped
there.

On the Common, or the road adjoining the
Common ?—lt was on the Common.

Is that on the edge of the Common it stopped?
—Yes, Sir.
Was that the only carriage you saw 7—No, Sir.
Tell us what other you saw.—l saw one on the
place of Earl Spencer, and one on the road that
leads from Wandsworth to Wimbledon.

Did you see it moving or stopping saw it
first stopping.
Did you see any one get out of either of those
carriages?—l am not certain I did.
-Did you see any person on the Common
shortly after saw two persons come from the
first carriage, and two from the second.
What did you nee them do ?—I saw them go
into Wimbledon parish, and one into Wands-
worth ; and from the other carriage, one went
intn Putney, and the other into Wandsworth.
Is part of the Common in Wimbledon and
part in Putney ?—Yes; part is in Putney.
Look at his Lordship at the bar. Is that one
of the genthmen?—li is, Sir.
Did you see anything more at that time?—
At that time I suspected that it was a duel.
Don't tell us what you suspected. Did you
see anything more? Did you give any 'directions
to your wife? Don't tell us what they were.
I did.

What, then, did you do ? Were you after-
wards called by your wife ?—Yes..
What, then, did you do ?—I went in-doors and
got my staff, and went to the gate.
What did you see when you came to the gate ?
—I saw two gentlemen standing about twelve
yards apart, presenting a pistol at each other,
and at that moment they fired at each other.
Was his Lordship (the Earl of Cardigan) one
of those gentlemen ?—He was.
Did you hear the reports of two pistols 2-1
did, Sir.
Did you see any other gentlemen at the same
time ?—T saw one previous to that standing under
Mr. Currie's hedge.
At the time the pistols went off did you see
any other gentlemen ?—I saw there were four
gentlemen nearly together at the right hand of
the gentlemen who fired.
Had Lord Cardigan his face or his back to
you ?—His face.
Where was the other gentleman who fired
standing ?—Tle was standing nearer to me, with
his back to me.

State what took place after they had fired ?
I then made the best of my way to the spot, and
a second shot took place when 1 was about fifteen
yards to the left.
From the gentlemen who fired do you mean?
Yes, Sir.
How far was the gate of your house from the
spot where the gentlemen stood ?—Two hundred
and twenty-two yards.
And 'you saw them in the act of getting fresh
pistols ?—I saw them getting fresh ptstols.
How was that ?—I do not know—being in the
act of running I did not see exactly what passed.
Who gava them ?—The two gentlemen who
were acting as seconds.
Were those the two gentlemen you spoke of as
standing on-the right ?—Yes.
Did you see whether Lord Cardigan moved
from his place ?—Yes, he advanced forwards and
then drew back again.
By advancing forwards do you mean that he
went towards the gentleman who was standing
opposite to him or towards the two gentlemen ?
Towards the ,seconds.

And then drew back to his original position?—
Yes.

You tell us you saw the pistols fired the second
time I—Yes.

Did you see whether any of them took effect ?
—I thought Captain Tuckett—l did not know
him then—but I thought the gentleman, who I
now know to be him, was wounded.
Did you See what the gentleman whom. you
thought was wounded did with his pistol ?—No, Sir,
You did not see whether he held it in his hand.
or whether it dropped ?—I don't know. I beg
your pardon, I may have misunderstood you.
Did you see whether the other gentleman, the
gentleman whom you thought was wounded, did
anything with his pistol when the second shot
was fired?—l went up and took a pistol from
Lord Cardigan's hand.
Did you go up to the gentleman ?—I did.
Sir WM. FOLLETT—YOU have not got an an-
swer to your question.
Mr. WADDINGTON—Did you see whether the
other gentleman who fired at Lord Cardigan did
anything with his pistol b—l cannot say what be-
came of it. I did not see.

You then went up to the parties ?—Yes.

What did you do when you got up to
them ?—I went up 'to the gentleman whose
face was towards me, and putting my hand
upon his shoulder, said, " You must con-
sider yourself in my custody for a breach
of the peace, in the name of our Sovereign Lady
the Queen."
Was it to his Lordship you said so ?—lt was.

Had he a pistol in his- hand at that time ?
lie had.
What became of it ?—I took it from his Lord-
ship's hand.
Did you keep it in your possessian ?—I was
requested to allow them to be packed up in their
respective cases. I did so, and put them into
two cases.

By whom were you desired to do so ?—By one
of the gentlemen.
You took possession of them when in the cases?
—I did.

How many pistols were there I—Four, two
cases, and two in each case.
And you took possession of the whole of
them ?—I did. _ .

Did a fifth gentleman come up ?—There was a
fifth gentleman on the ground. •
At what time did he appear ?—After I had ad-
dressed Lord Cardigan in the manner I have
stated, I saw the fifth gentleman on the ground.
What did that fifth gentleman do at-
tended the gentleman who was wounded.
Did you see then whether the other gentleman
was wounded or not ?—I did not.

After you had laid your hand upon the shoulder
of Lord Cardigan, and said what you have told
their Lordships, what did you do next ?—I
turned to the other gentlemen and said the Rune
to them.

What did you do then?—The doctor went to the
wounded gentleman in order to take him to my
house.

Sir W. FoLLETT—Did he say so ?—Yes.
Mr. WADDINGTON—In the hearing of Lord
Cardigan ?—Yes.

By'Lord WYNFORD—Do you know, or did you
know that fifth gentleman to be a medical man?
—l'did not then, my Lord.
Mr. WADDINGTON—You never saw any of
thetn before, I suppose ?—No, I did not.
Was the fifth gentleman examinin the
gentleman who was wounded. ?—Not in my
preSence.

Did you all go to your house ?—Yes.
All the five gentlemen and yourself I—Yea, all
went into the yard, not into the house.
Now then tell their Lordships what took
place when all the five gentlemen and yourself
got into the yard ?—We went into' the yard, and
then - the wounded gentlemen retired into my
room.

Did you see him retire ?—I saw him go into
my room, and come out again.
Did he go by himself?—No one gantleman
went with him.

Was that the gentleman you call the doctor ?
—Yes Sir.

Did-you tee your wife take any thing into the
room I—l did not.

Did they presently come out of the room?—Yes.
What was then done ? One gentleman asked
me to allow the wounded gentleman to return to
his own home, and I consented on their agreeing
to give me his card.
Did the wounded gentleman give you his card
of address ? I had his card, but Ido not know from
whom it came.
You have that card now ?—I have.
Produce it.

Sir W. FOLLETT—I must object to !that, my
Lord, unless the card was given to the witness
by Lord Cardigan.
Was Lord Cardigan present ?—He was in the

yard.
Lord WYNFORD—Was he near enough to see
and hear what was done and said ?—Yes, my
Lord, I think so.
Mr: WADDINGTON—You think the Noble Lord
could see what was done, and hear what was said ?
should think so, but I cannot state precisely.
Was the, card_ given to you in the house, or in
the rird?—ln the yard.
But you cannot say who gave you the card ?
'No I cannot say which.
What do you mean by which?—One of the
two gentlemen who wished to go airayl I mean.
Were they together when they gave tt you?—
Yes:
The two were the wounded gentleman, and an-
other of the party ?—Yes.
Then, upon your telling them that they might
go, upon giving you their card, one of them gave
you the card which you now produce?—Yes.
Mr. WADDINGTON—I now propose, my Lords,
to read that card. _

Sir W. FOLLETT—My Lords, the Counsel for
the prosecution propose, for the purpose of
proving the name of a certain gentleman who
was present on this occasion.
The LORD HIGH STEWARD-Mr. Attorney-
General, do you think it material to press this at
present ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—NO, my Lords, we
will waive it at present.
Mr. WADDINGTON—Did the gentleman who
gave it you write something on the back o
the card ? Yes, Sir.
And upon receiving this card did you allow
them to go ?—Yes, I did.
In consequence of receiving this card did you
call at any house ?
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT—I must object to the
form of this question. My Learned Friend must
alter its form.

Mr. WADDINGTON—In consequence of any-
thing did you afterwards go to any house •In
Hamilton-place did.
What date was that?—lf you will alloW' me to
refer, I will be able to state what was the day of
the month.

What do you want to refer to ?—To a memo-
randum of the date I called at Hamilton-pluce.
Sir W. FOLLETT—When was that tnemorainlum
made ?—At the time—on the day I called.
On the 18th of September you went to Hamil-
ton-place with the card ?—On the 13th.
Whom did you ask to see '1
—Captain Harvey
T uckett.

Whom did you see ?—I saw Captain Harvey
Tuckctt. _ _

Did you speak to him ?—I did.
Sir W. rOLLETT here objected that these ques-
tions were irregular. How did this witness know
that he saw Captain Tuckett? He could only
say that he saw a person whom he believed to
be Captain Tuckett.
Mr. WADDINGTON-I will ask him, then, did
he address the gentleman whom he saw by the
name of Captain Tuckett? Witness—l do not
know that I addressed him by any name.
Did you ever see him before?—Yes.`
Where 7—On Wimbledon Common.
What was he doing 7—He was fighting a duel.
Was he the gentleman Who stood opposite to
Lord Cardigan 7—Yes, he was.
Now, how many of the gentlemen went away
on your receiving the card 7—Three went away
with my permission, and three without.
Did Lord Cardigan remain 7—He did, Sir.
Where did you take him to 7—To the station-
house at Wandsworth.
When did you take him there 7—lmmediately
afterwards.

What did you do with the pistols after you
put them in the eases ?—I took them to Wands-
worth.

Did you give them to any one ?—I did. I gave
them to the Inspector, at the station-house.
Sir W. FOLLETT--I object to this mode of
questioning. You should ask him, what did he
do with the pistols?
Mr. WADDINGTON—WCII, then, I shall put it
so. When you took the pistols to Wandsworth,
what did you do with them ?—I gave them to the
Inspector of the police..
What was his name ?—Busain.

Was anything said by Lord Cardigan in your
presence respecting the pistols?—He owned one

case.

Can you state what he said ?—T am not exactly
certain that he said anything particular, but some-
thing like " This is mine;" and then he took one

case.

Did you observe anything on these pistols ?
Fes; a crest.
'Mr. WADDINGTON—That is all I shall ask this
witness.

[The Attorney-General, however, stopped Sir
William from cross-examining, and held a short
conference with Mr. Waddington, who resumed.]
I wish, my Lords, to ask the witness one' other
question. There was a fifth gentleman, whom
you call the doctol-; did you ever see him after-
wards ?—Yes, I saw him at Wandsworth.
Where and when ?—At the Magistrates' office.
on the 14th.

What was going on then ?—The examination
of Lord Cardigan.
Did you afterwards 'see him anywhere else ?
I saw him at his own house, but I forget the
number and the name of the street, but it is
very handy to Pimlico.
Was there a name on the door ?—Yes.

What was it?—Sir James A. Anderson.
Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT.—Give me
those memoranda. Now, tell n-e when did you
write them ?—I wrote them every day, as the
things occurred.
Beginning on the 12th?—Yes.
By whose desire did you do so?—By no one's.
I did them for my own purpose—for my el-
penses.
For you own expenses. But did no one tell
you to make them ?—No ; there did no one tell
me.

The LORD HIGH STEWARD—Ask him are those
papers the original memoranda which he made
from day to day?
Witness—No, they arc not. These are what I
copied, a few ,days ago.
Sir Wm. FOLLETT—What is the meaning of
these figures ?—They signify the number of miles
each day.
Who,is indebted to you for those expenses?
—The Magistrates.
The Magistrates,; give me their names—Mr.
Nottidge, the Chairman, Mr. Bainbridge, Mr.
Wilson, and Captain Phge.
Who gave you orders to go to Hamilton-
place ?—No one. I got a letter from the. Inspec-
tor of police, and in consequence of that I went
there.

How often did you go there I—Three times.
AlWays by the same order I—No I .went once
by the direction or Captain Page. •
What was the object of your going therel-
- first was, to inquire after Mr. TuCketes
health

But who ordered you to go to Mr. Wain
wright?—l do not know.

Were the Magistrates getting up the prosecu.
tion P—l do not know.

Were not they, the Magistrates, the Judges
before whom the case was tried ?—Yes, they were.
And am I to understand that they are the
persons who sent you to those different places to
make inquiries ?—Yes.
Did tliey,send you to the Old Bailey also to
give evidence ?—No, they did not. I was bound
in a bond to go there, and.4l was told by the In-
spector when the trial was to come on.
You were examined before the Grand Jury ?

—I was.
On both the bills ?—Yes. •
On the bill that was found against Lord Cardi-
gan and the bill against the other gentleman that
was thrown out l—Yes.
The same witnesses were examined on both
the bills ?—Yes.
You were examined on both ?—Yes, I was.
And pray did you give the same evidence on
both?—Yes, Sir, I did.
And upon the same evidence and the same wit-
nesses one bill was found, and the other bill was
thrown out ?—Yes, Sir, it was so.
Will you be so kind as to go back a little and
state what you have said. Did you see three
persons get out of the carriage and go to the
place where you saw the firing ?—Yes, I did, Sir.
You state that when you saw them you recog-
nised one of them to be Lord Cardigan ?—Yes.
Pray what distance from your house was the
place where you saw them get out ?—Two hun-
dred and twenty yards.
Do you mean to say that at that distance you

were able to see and recognise the persons of
those three parties ?—No Ido not say so; but
never lost sight of them from that time.
You did. You say that at that distance you
knew Lord Cardigan—didyou not ?---No, I never
said so.
Could yon, at that distance, know any of the
parties so as to be able to speak to them again
—No, I could not.
You have said that you saw them come out
of the carriage, and that you knew and neverrco
nized one of them to be Lord Cardigan
said so. If I did say so I mistated. I did not mean
it. But I never lost sight of them from that time
till I came up.
You say that when you first saw the fire Yc'l,
were standing at the gate; at what distance was
that I—About the same distance-220 yards.
Could you at that time recognise the persons
—No, I could not.
You say you-went towards theml—Yes; I (lid.
Where were you first able to recognise their
persons?—l did not lose sight of them at all.
I am not saying you did ; but I ask you, when
were you first able to discover who they were
I cannot say. It
Was it after or before the second shot .---:
was after the second shot.
Then I understand you to say now that ye!l
were not able to recognise them or to know their
person, so as to speak to them at another tinie,
until after the second shot I—No, I cannot 0Y
that. I did not lose sight of them at all.
Where was Lord Cardigan when yo-a first re'
cognised them I—Standing near the spot. Yes:
That was when you came up to thern?--
the
Where were all the other gentlemen at
time ?—Close by.
And what were they doing ?—f cannot ex,:
actly say.what they were doing because Toy aL
tention was directed entirely to Lord Cardigall,;._
Your attention was directed entirely to 115
Lord ship—Tou not know what the
were doing?—Not for a second or two. the
Were you then able to tell which of
parties it was that fired the shot was certaal
others
as to which was the party, because I never ("'
sight of them till I got up to them.
You never lost sight of them, but how did yonr%
cognise the party I—Because I saw the pistol 1
his hand.
He had a pistol in his hand when you came
up ?—Yes.
the
How soon after that was it that you tow
other gentleman that you said was a doctort' a
When I turned round from Lord Cardiganhe
I perceived there were four. ou
Very well, then ; how soon after that did ,di•
see another You saw four besides Lord -Car

gan tobe`
Did you recognise the prisoner so as
able to know him again ?—Yes. h• t
And he went up to the hougo also
with
other parties ?—Yes. that
Very well. Now there is one questionyou
places that
have been to. Have you been paid your chafes
•
for
Didi yooini
gugo to the Home-office at tinY rne?-"'"
Yes.

When ?—A week ago last Saturday., ato go
What did you go far ?—I was requeste-f„ n3l
there, and then I was asked questions as
evidence. ec ?
Who asked you, questions at the Home-o{
-..--A gentleman of the name of Vizard.
Was your examination taken down at the tletilt
--A gentleman was writing at the 61'1' got
whether he wrote down what I said, I u"
know. t watas
You had not been therebefore ?-Isl.o i thn
the first time. youri4
And that was the only examination o.e
taken for the purpose of this trial ?--Y
You had not been examined from the
egtinio),::,l
went to the Old Bailey till you went to the 1-1( be.
office last week. Was any one else there inia
sides you ?—My wife and son, Mr. Busaanaffiett
Mr. Bignall. We all went to the Hthnel"-
only
but what occurred there I know not.
answer for myself. lig e Aar
Have you presented this bill anyw—r nil
payment ?—I applied to the Magistrates for
expenses, and they gave me a certificate. .r have
Very well, have you received it ?—N°I j
not. that
Now I understand you, Mr. Dann, to at9L., the
you never lost sight of these gentlemen frolir, I
time when you first saw them ?-011 no,
have not said that. it too;
Did you tell me in answer to a question oilig
meat a‘ro When I asked you about their c°, tof
from thel curricles that you .never lot siga
them ?—lt certainly was a mistake if I did.
You -certainly said so ?—lt was a rnistalli.ter I.
Then you did lose sight of them ?----", /1"
first saw them come on the ground I did.
For how long l-A few minutes. ~ 05 on
Where were you during that time ?----a- 1 went
the stage of the mill, twenty feet high. till A
to my house ; there ! I lost sight of theint.
came to the gate; then I did not lose sigehr than
HoW long did you lose sight ?--NOlO4-able'il
it took me to lay my hand upon my coils
a - u o
stir
. Why did you not go at once when Y° go
pected a duel ?—t thought it better 11°'t t
without authority. 0 ld fight
You thought it better that they 5.1 1--Ttioid tiot
the duel before you interfered ?—N°,'
think that. ova
What was the meaning of your ans‘ve}llset
you said. that you told your wife to walla!:os A
my. wife to watch and let me know
duel. he '1
Your wife was to watch and as soon a' 95 to tell
what was sufficient for a duel, then she "yards for
you, and then you were to go 12° Y.gs Y°ll,
the purpose of preventing it—that 353
plan ?- --Yes.
And when you got up you found that the ben
tlemen had exchanged two shots I—Yes'utiell
• Who instructed you to prevent the ge•
0-toin°°
from 'fighting a duel on Wimbledon-0o the
—Mr. Carter, the Coroner, I believe, '
person. „......ires.. 't?
And you have ever since interfered • de of
And this was the first job that you nal
n
Why did
—T have pr
you not call evented severout to those gent tle
glite a
fi.,,
when you supposed they were about t° to die"-
duel?—l do not know my reason. I ran
as fast
You changed as could. , ?....s°'
your coat, did you no. oti
Did you stop the mill ?—No. pia Ira,
Re-examined by Mr. WADDINGTON". in ),--t
state what was the number of the lieuse_, ilia
milton-place where you saw the gentlenirare'
you call Capt. Tuckett?-13, Hatniltolll Three
How often did you see him
~o.oit
times. ;00 1.1
Upon three different days ?—Three t.-
, three different days. .. : ?.----
y.es.
Did you ask for hirreon each oceascierdlid. , ,ie
You asked for Captain Tuckett ?-4 I,t ottani-,
You have been asked as to losing Sig. the the eV
gentlemen. Did you .ever lose sight the tinle,,
tleinan,who fired the first shot from l ?----IN''''r
,tiaeCt,,ganed3iTtolo4u undertake4o. to state'
leaving your gate till you got up to then where
there •
who fired the sPe°csoittlitivesi.ritetste't;
tl
the same as fired the first ?—lain posinv CaPtald
.-Ti.'i-Wckiel'ettn‘ h-a3rcloua gpoitstoulp
iii his
Cardigan:also a ' Ihis hand?. t Vt'n
, psto in tha 'fain
. The ).arl: of RADNOR—Each talc Cie
went to Hamilton-place did you asic - i
Tnekett?—Yes my Lord. qlll‘,
, gent'e-
AV ere,you each time shown to the s. ?
man ?--Yes. • no tile°
,entleni
And did you see any other f CAP.
—Ycs.naive
o .
, - t'
And.did you address him by. they3.l deter'
sgilldt.llslktilad -1-'°.r.,
thin Tuckett ?—I don't know that 1 aid. iti
Did anything that passed enable PI 11ot - a
mine that it was Captain Tuckett, tine Icrote
other gentleman ?—Yes, my Lord'l,l; 'ilallle.l4
note to the Magistrates, and signed. ...A yes,
A PEER—Signed hispanic Tuckett? ---
aor In
Lord. It. . -on it
Was the other the gentleman that 3 .it 0,
Wimbledon Common ?—No, InY 1' c that
different gentleman. ;Ale
-erY t?---
--1 till°
Did you see..that gentleman
uecliett
you were shown up to Captain T
I did not see him the last time.
es inY eft f
did not see him every time.?-1( t Toel:o
The Earl of RADNOR—You are, sure tfilloart4:
In each case you asked for CaPtaln"
tletnani‘
Yes, my Lord. ellhere re'
(The shorthand writer's notes v 4 to
ios- • 1
You were shown directly up to thi,sere ,
ferred to.) NV Pr'l • ig li
Tile ATTORNEY-GENERAL-1 110 _ bru oie
your Lordships that I be permittelidy t°
ered t°, the
evidence the card which was df.. ble f',llll,_„rt
witness in the presence of the .1-'' °
that it if. r. 5,
of the MS geste, and on that blind it the v,,,,,:
prisoner at the bar. I apprehend ,4 is A(1111:4,
Bible. Your Lordships will observe
_ta,,as oven I'll 4
deuce relating to it is not that it
.7.1 witli
Lord Cardigan, but that it was gi el
of
Ear/ e
knowledge. -
+hat the !hence'e"
Sir W. FOLLETT—It is clear v id
Ile ( a
Cardigan did not see the cord. . no eveiug
what was written upon it. There 18 . curd b_ove
to show that he was aware of anZ i, to Pa
given. The object of this evident(' i
it is snit fir
1
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL says
care! pO.
~ii
gave that card of of tter
a ca• rali,
who the person was who
might give
res geste. A person
le, but of _tiie co
the purpose of giving his realnan . ~_b 01
another, and unless that was done Tx''

I