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

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.