The Attorney-General said, he would now, with their lordships’ permission, propose to read the card, upon which their lordships had been pleased to say that they would consider whether it was admissible or not. On being asked by Lord Brougham whether that was his case, he replied, that he should first wish to know whether the card was to be received or rejected. Sir William Follett requested to see the card; and, having examined it, he said he did not think it necessary to object to its being read. It was accordingly delivered in and read. Upon one side was engraved “Captain Harvey Tuckett, 13, Hamilton Place, New Road;” and on the other was written “Captain H. Wainwright.” The Attorney-General said that that was the case on the part of the prosecution.
Sir William Follett.—“This being the case on the part of the prosecution, I venture to submit to your lordships, that there is no case which calls on the prisoner for an answer; and I think your lordships will see at once, that the counsel for the prosecution have failed in proving an essential part of their case. My Lords, I apprehend it is not necessary to cite any authority to show that the prosecutor is bound to prove the Christian and surname of the person against whom the alleged offence is committed; and that if he fails to prove either the Christian or the surname, he fails in his case. Now, there is no evidence whatever to show that the person against whom the shot was discharged was Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett. The evidence before your lordships would rather lead to a contrary presumption, if presumption could be acted upon in a case like this. I apprehend that positive evidence must be given to prove the identity of the party. The evidence is this,—the counsel for the prosecution have called a person named Codd, who is an army-agent, and who receives the half-pay of a Captain Tuckett, who was formerly in the 11th Dragoons, and is named Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett. Is there anything in this evidence to identify that Captain Tuckett with the person alleged to have been on Wimbledon Common on the 12th of September? Mr. Codd does not know where that Captain Tuckett lives; he never saw him except at his office in Fludyer Street, and at an insurance office. What is the rest of the evidence on this point? A person who lives in the Poultry says that a Captain Harvey Tuckett rents offices of him, but that he does not know where he lives. There is, therefore, not an iota, not a scintilla of evidence, to connect that Captain Tuckett with the gentleman supposed to be engaged in this transaction. I therefore submit that my learned friends have entirely failed in an essential part of the case for the prosecution. I would beg leave to refer your lordships to the case of the King v. Robinson, in Holt’s Reports, p. 595, in which it 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 there is no proof of his Christian name in this case.”
The Attorney-General.—“My Lords, the question is, whether there is any evidence whatever to prove the fact of the Christian name of Captain Tuckett, the gentleman wounded. If there is the smallest scintilla of evidence on this point, the prosecution cannot be stopped on the ground taken up by my learned friend. We are now as if we were before a jury, and the learned judge who presided were called upon to direct an acquittal, upon the ground that there was no evidence for their consideration. I submit to your lordships, that there is abundant evidence to show that the name of the party wounded is Harvey Garnett 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 by Lord Cardigan on the 12th of September, was Captain Harvey Tuckett. We have got, therefore, one of his names; and how does the case stand with regard to the rest? Am I obliged to call the clerk of the parish where he was baptised, in order to prove his baptismal register? Am I to call his father or his mother, or his godfathers or godmothers, to prove the name that was given to him at the baptismal font? I apprehend that such evidence is wholly unnecessary. I contend that, from the facts proved, there is abundant evidence to show the identity of the party wounded was Captain Harvey Tuckett. I suppose my learned friend will not deny that there is abundant evidence to show that the Captain Tuckett who was wounded lived at No. 13, Hamilton Place, New Road. One of the witnesses called there three times; he asks each time for Captain Tuckett, and each time he is introduced to a gentleman bearing that name. Your lordships, therefore, will have no doubt that the Captain Tuckett who lives at No. 13, Hamilton Place, New Road, is the one who fought the duel with Lord Cardigan on the 12th of September, on Wimbledon Common. Now, my Lords, we go by steps. Is there any doubt that this Captain Tuckett is the Captain Tuckett who took the offices in the Poultry? At the time he did so, he gave a reference to No. 13, Hamilton Place, New Road; and your lordships will therefore feel, no doubt, that there is evidence to show that the Captain Tuckett who took the place of business in the Poultry, was the same who lived in Hamilton Place. Then we have only one other stage, and that is to see whether the Captain Tuckett is the Captain Tuckett of whom Mr. Codd spoke, whose name he proved to be Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, and who had been an officer of the 11th Dragoons, of which regiment the Earl of Cardigan was, and still is, the colonel.”
Sir W. Follett.—“There is no proof of that whatever.”
The Attorney-General.—“It was so stated, and the witness was not cross-examined. Well, then, my Lords, a Captain Tuckett, whose name is Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, was proved by Mr. Codd to have been an officer of the 11th Hussars, Lord Cardigan’s regiment. He gave his card, with the 11th Hussars upon it.”
Sir W. Follett.—“No, no; you are quite mistaken.”
The Attorney-General.—“Well, he has one name at least corresponding with that of the Captain Tuckett who fought the duel on Wimbledon Common. Will your lordships require strict evidence of this gentleman’s Christian name—evidence that will amount to a demonstration? If there is evidence from which the inference may be fairly drawn, is not that sufficient? Well, then, here is a Captain Tuckett, whose name is proved to be Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, who has been in the 11th Hussars, from which he retired three or four years ago, and who receives his half-pay quarterly from Mr. Codd, his agent. May it not be fairly inferred from these circumstances, that this was the same Captain Tuckett who had offices in the Poultry, and who had fought a duel? Is there not evidence from which that identity may be fairly inferred? Is the prosecution to be stopped on the ground that there is no evidence whatever to go to a jury, or to your lordships, that this Captain Tuckett, whose name is proved to be Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, is the same who was the antagonist of the Earl of Cardigan on the 12th September? I believe there is no reasonable being, who, having heard this evidence out of a court of justice, would hesitate in drawing the inference. I apprehend, that what is sufficient to convince a reasonable man out of a court of justice ought to be sufficient to convince a judge or judges sitting in a court of justice, if the inference which is to be drawn can be drawn according to the rules of evidence. Now, 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? Well, then, if that inference would be drawn out of a court of justice, can it be said that in a court of justice there is not a scintilla of evidence from which such an inference can be drawn? This would be a most unsatisfactory conclusion of such a trial. Your lordships will weigh the evidence maturely and deliberately, and if you think that it is not sufficient to convict the noble Lord at the bar, of course you will acquit him, and will say, ‘Not guilty, upon my honour,’ but you will not stop the prosecution upon an objection like this.”
Sir W. Follett.—“My Lords, I will trouble your lordships with a very few words in reply to the observations of the Attorney-General. It may be a very unsatisfactory termination of this case after all the care and trouble which has been bestowed upon the prosecution, but I apprehend that this is not a case in which the noble lord at the bar will have to appeal to the honour or the conscience of his peers. The question is, whether sufficient evidence of identity has been given. My learned friend asks whether he is to call the clerk of the parish, or the father or mother of Captain Tuckett, to prove his Christian name. Now, that is not the objection, and the Attorney-General knows it perfectly well. What we object to is, that the counsel for the prosecution have called a person of the name of Codd, who has proved that he was acquainted with a Captain Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, but there is not a scintilla of evidence to connect that Captain Tuckett with the gentleman who fought the duel on Wimbledon Common. What is the proof? Does any judge who hears me feel himself prepared to say that the fact of a Captain Tuckett having been in a particular regiment is evidence of identity in this case? My learned friend says, that if a person out of the House may fairly draw such an inference, such an inference may properly be drawn within its walls. May I ask your lordships if that is the way in which trials of this nature are to be conducted? It is possible that your lordships sitting out of the House, after all that has been said and written, might draw such an inference as that which my learned friend wishes you to make; but you are now sitting here, as if you had never heard one word of the case before. You are now sitting as judges on the evidence adduced, and you are to say whether, because a Captain Tuckett who was formerly in the 11th Dragoons has the same Christian name, he is to be identified with the Captain Tuckett who fought on Wimbledon Common. There is no evidence to show that the Harvey Tuckett mentioned in the evidence of Codd, is the same Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett mentioned in this indictment. Mr. Codd does not know him to be the same; he never saw him either in the Poultry or at Hamilton Place. The whole of his evidence is this,—that he knows a Captain Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, that he was in the 11th Dragoons; and that he receives for him his half-pay. 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 Lord at the bar there were two officers bearing the same surnames certainly, and I think the same Christian names. I submit to your lordships, 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 Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett mentioned in this indictment; and, however unsatisfactory a termination it may be to the persons conducting the prosecution, I submit to your lordships that they have entirely failed in the proof of their identity.”
The Lord High Steward.—“I stated, when this objection 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 therefore I did not think it right to interrupt him; but I wish to say, with a view to the general administration of criminal justice, that, when similar objections are taken in a criminal court, the counsel for the prosecution is at the utmost called upon to state what portion of evidence he believes to be sufficient to make out his case. I do 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 practice of the courts of criminal law hereafter; and I now move your lordships that strangers be ordered to withdraw.”
The counsel and strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Earl of Cardigan retired in the custody of the Yeoman Usher. A protestation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, for himself and the rest of the Bishops, was delivered, desiring leave to be absent when judgment was given; leave was accordingly given. After which, the objection taken by Sir William Follett was taken into consideration. After the Lord High Steward had delivered his opinion thereupon, as an individual member of the court, and declared it to be his judgment that the Earl of Cardigan was entitled to be declared Not guilty, it was moved, that the House do now proceed to give their opinion whether the said Earl is guilty or not guilty of the charge in the indictment; which, being put, passed in the affirmative. Strangers being again admitted, after proclamation made for silence, the Lord High Steward, standing up, by a list called every peer by his name, beginning with the junior Baron, and asked him, “John Lord Keane, how says your lordship; is James Thomas Earl of Cardigan guilty of the felony whereof he stands indicted, or not guilty.” Whereupon each peer, upon his name being called, standing up in his place uncovered, and laying his right hand upon his breast, answered, “Not guilty, upon my honour:” the only exception being the Duke of Cleveland, who said, “Not guilty legally, upon my honour.” After all the peers had given their verdict, the Lord High Steward, standing up uncovered, declared his opinion to the same effect. The Earl of Cardigan being then brought to the bar, the Lord High Steward said, “James Thomas Earl of Cardigan, you have been indicted for a felony, for which you have been tried by your peers, and I have the satisfaction of informing you that their lordships have pronounced you not guilty, by an unanimous sentence. The number of their lordships who gave this verdict I have not precisely at this moment before me, or I should have been glad to have stated it to your lordship; but their lordships have unanimously said ‘Not guilty.’” The Earl of Cardigan having retired, proclamation was made for dissolving the commission; and the white staff being delivered to the Lord High Steward by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, his Grace stood up uncovered, and, holding the staff in both hands, broke it in two, and declared the commission to be dissolved.