Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. 68, No 422, December 1850

Blackstone, following Hawkins, thus lays down the law in the case of duelling: "Express malice is, where one, with a sedate deliberate mind, and formed design, doth kill another, – which formed design is evidenced by external circumstances, discovering that inward intention, – as lying in wait, antecedent menaces, former grudges, and concerted schemes to do him some grievous bodily harm. This takes in the case of deliberate duelling, where both parties meet avowedly with an intent to 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 divine or human, but in direct contradiction to the laws of both God and man; and therefore the law has justly fixed the crime and punishment of murder on them, and on their seconds also."50 This passage may be said to reflect a somewhat ghastly light on the three sections of the statute law given above, such as must have startled the Earl of Cardigan and his advisers, as soon as they found that he had been made the subject of bonâ fide prosecution under that statute. We affirm unhesitatingly, and no one will deny, that the facts relating to the duel, as they appear above stated, brought Lord Cardigan's case within every one of these three sections – as clearly within the first, rendering the offence capital, as within the other two, declaring it felony punishable with transportation. This the Attorney-General himself stated to the House of Lords, in opening the case against the prisoner: "The present indictment might have been framed on the capital charge." A wound had been inflicted, which constituted one branch of the capital offence; but "the prosecutor had, very properly, restricted the charge to firing with an intent, without alleging that a bodily injury dangerous to life had been inflicted."51 The indictment was founded on the third and fourth sections alone; charging, in the first count, a shooting with intent to murder; in the second, to maim and disable; in the third, to do some grievous bodily harm. Indictments were preferred before the grand jury, at the Central Criminal Court, against both principals, and both seconds. The grand jury ignored those against Captain Tuckett and his second, but "found" those against Lord Cardigan and his second. As probably the same evidence, precisely, was laid before the grand jury in both cases, it is certainly difficult to account for the totally different results, except on the supposition that the grand jury weakly suffered themselves to be hurried into a forgetfulness of their sworn duty, by feelings of commiseration for the party who had been wounded by one who had escaped unhurt. Lord Cardigan was reputed to be "a dead shot," and was certainly very unpopular; but there was no pretence whatever for saying that he had acted otherwise than with rigorous fairness in his encounter with Captain Tuckett, who, for all the grand jury could tell, was as "dead a shot" as the Earl. We would, however, fain hope that this secret-sworn inquest were not obnoxious to the censures which Mr Townsend52 and others have levelled at them in this matter. On the bill being found, Lord Cardigan, of course, claimed his right to be tried by his peers – (i. e. pares, æquales) – a right which he possessed in common with every fellow-subject; and the indictment was removed by certiorari, to be tried before the House of Peers in full Parliament. The court of the Lord High Steward of Great Britain is one instituted for the trial of a Peer indicted for treason, or felony, or misprision of either;53 but when the trial take place during the session of Parliament, as was the case on the present occasion it is before the High Court of Parliament. A Lord High Steward is appointed in either case; but in the latter he officiates, not as the supreme judge in matters of law – as he would be in a trial during the recess – but as speaker, or chairman, having an equal voice with his brother peers, in matters both of law and fact.

This was the first time that duelling had been made the subject of prosecution under the statutes against shooting with intent to kill, maim, disable, or do grievous bodily harm; and the position of the Earl of Cardigan had suddenly become perilous in the extreme, and doubtless occasioned most serious apprehensions to himself and his advisers. If his case should be held to fall within the statute in question, not only was he liable to transportation for life, – and he knew that the House of Peers would firmly do its duty, especially conscious as it was that upon it were fixed the eyes of the whole country, – but what would be the effect of a conviction of felony on his property? Four days after the trial, it was stated in the Times newspaper,54 and has not been, as far as we know, contradicted, that "such had been the doubts as to the issue of the trial, entertained by Lord Cardigan and his legal advisers, that his lordship, to prevent the whole of his property being forfeited to the crown, executed, some time before, a deed of gift, assigning over the whole of his valuable possessions to Viscount Curzon, the eldest son of Earl Howe, who had married a sister of the Earl of Cardigan. It is stated that the legal expenses of this transfer of property, arising from fines on copy-holds and the enormous stamp-duties, amounted to about £10,000; and as the deed of transfer was said to have been enrolled in due form, in the event of an acquittal the immense expenditure would have to be again incurred, in order to effect a re-transfer." So serious a matter, even in a pecuniary point of view, has now become the fighting a duel, to a nobleman or gentleman of fortune, who are recommended, consequently, not to fight in a hurry – at all events, till they shall have had an opportunity of taking the best advice of counsel learned in the law. The deed of transfer in question, if executed at all, had probably been executed before it was known to Lord Cardigan and his advisers, that it was not intended to indict him for a capital offence, under the second section of stat. 1 Vict. c. 85, and that he could not, consequently, be attainted. Even, however, as the case stood, if he had been convicted of the felony with which he was charged, the validity of his expensive attempt to obviate the legal effect of that conviction upon his large property would have been gravely questionable, had the law advisers of the crown felt it their duty to impugn the transaction.

The House of Lords presented, on the morning of Tuesday the 16th February 1841, a most imposing appearance. Lord Denman, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench had been appointed by commission from the Queen, pro hâc vice, Lord High Steward.55 The judges were in attendance in their state robes, and took their seats on the woolsack. The peers were attired in their robes, such of them as were knights also wearing the collars of their respective orders. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottenham) was absent through illness; but there were, independently of the Lord High Steward, no fewer than five law lords present – Lords Lyndhurst, Brougham, Wynford, Abinger, and Langdale. The side galleries were covered with ladies; and the scene was one of great solemnity and magnificence. The Lord High Steward having made reverences to the throne, to which he had been conducted by the state officer – the Garter King-at-Arms bearing the sceptre, and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod the Lord Steward's staff – took his seat on the chair of state placed on the upper step but one of the throne. The necessary formalities of reading the commission, the writ of certiorari, and indictment, having been gone through, the Lord High Steward ordered proclamation to be made to the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod "to bring James Thomas, Earl of Cardigan, to the bar." This was quickly complied with – the Earl, accompanied by the officer above mentioned, appearing at the bar, dressed in plain clothes. As he approached, he made three "reverences," and knelt, till directed by the Lord High Steward to rise. He again made three reverences, respectively to the Lord High Steward, and his brother peers on each side of the house, they returning his courtesy. He was then conducted to a stool within the bar near his counsel. His demeanour was calm and dignified, and he had a very soldierly bearing. He was then in his forty-fourth year. The Lord High Steward's deep impressive tones were then heard, as he thus addressed the noble prisoner: "My Lord Cardigan, your lordship stands at the bar charged with the offence of firing with a loaded pistol at Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, with intent to murder him; in a second count, you are charged with firing with intent to maim and disable him; and in a third count, you are charged with firing with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Your lordship will now be arraigned on that indictment." The Earl was then arraigned in the usual manner, by the Deputy Clerk of the Crown, in the Queen's Bench, who thus proceeded: —

"How say you, my Lord, are you guilty of the felony with which you stand charged, or not guilty?"

Earl of Cardigan.– Not guilty, my lords.

Deputy Clerk of the Crown.– How will your lordship be tried?

Earl of Cardigan.– By my peers.

Deputy Clerk of the Crown.– God send your lordship a good deliverance.

The Earl then, by leave of the House, sate down uncovered: and after the usual proclamation had been made for all persons to come forward and give evidence, the Lord Steward, with the leave of the House, descended from his seat on the throne, and took his seat at the table. The counsel for the Crown were the Attorney-General (the present Lord Campbell), and Mr Waddington, (now Under Secretary of State); and for the prisoner, Sir William Follett, Mr Serjeant Wrangham, and the late Mr Adolphus. It has been said, and is indeed intimated by Mr Townsend, that, imperturbable as was the self-possession of Sir William Follett, on this occasion he exhibited unusual indication of an oppressive sense of responsibility. Both facts, indeed, and law were so dead against his noble client, and the consequences of conviction so exceedingly serious, that nothing was left for him but to watch with lynx-eyed acuteness, in order to see that nothing but rigorously exact legal proof was adduced against his client.

The opening address of the Attorney-General was temperate, clear, and able; most faithfully stating the law which he charged Lord Cardigan with having violated, and the facts constituting the violation. He reminded the House that sixty-four years had elapsed since a similar trial had taken place – that of Lord Byron, for killing his opponent in a duel. "I am rejoiced, my Lords, to think," continued the Attorney-General, in terms which immediately occasioned great observation, "that the charge against the noble prisoner at the bar does not imply any degree of moral turpitude; and that, if he should be found guilty, the conviction will reflect no discredit upon the illustrious order to which he belongs. But, my Lords, it seems to me that he has been clearly guilty of a breach of the statute law of the realm, which this and all other courts of justice are bound to respect and enforce. Your lordships are not sitting here as a court of honour, or as a branch of the legislature, but as a court of justice, bound by the rules of law, and under a sanction as sacred as that of an oath… Your lordships are aware that the noble Earl is in the army – Lieutenant-colonel of the 11th Hussars; and I have no doubt that, on this occasion, he only complied with what he thought necessary to the usages of society. But, under these circumstances, though it would have been considered, if death had ensued, a great calamity, and not a great crime– though moralists of the highest authority have defended duelling – it remains for your lordships to consider what duelling is by the law of England." After quoting from the known great authorities, Hale, Hawkins, Foster, and Blackstone, proving that a death by duelling was wilful murder, the Attorney-General correctly observed – "It necessarily follows, from this definition of murder, that the first count of the indictment is [that is, he expected that it would be] completely proved. The only supposition, my Lords, by which the case can be reduced to one of manslaughter would be, that Lord Cardigan and Captain Tuckett casually met at Wimbledon Common – that they suddenly quarrelled – and that, while their blood was up, they fought. But your lordships can hardly strain the facts so far as to suppose that this was a casual meeting, when you find that each was supplied with his second – that each had a brace of pistols – and that the whole affair was conducted according to the forms and solemnities observed when a deliberate duel is fought." Could anything be more clear and cogent? "Then, my Lords, with regard to the second and third counts of the indictment, I know not what defence can possibly be suggested; because, even if there had been this casual meeting, contrary to all probability and all the circumstances of the case – if it would only, had death ensued, have amounted to the crime of manslaughter – that would be no defence to the second and third counts of the indictment, as has been expressly decided (in the case of Anonymous, 2 Moody's Crim. Cases, p. 40) by the fifteen Judges of England."

Such was the opening of the Attorney-General – such as must have left not a single crevice through which a glimpse of hope could be caught. The words of the Act of Parliament could not have applied more exactly to the facts of the case, as our readers must see, even if the act had been expressly framed to meet these particular facts! The miller of Wimbledon, his wife and son, had witnessed the whole affair – the arrival of the parties on the ground, and the double interchange of shots. Lord Cardigan, on the spot, and at the police office, in plain terms avowed who he was, and what he had done, and who had been his second – the inspector of the police-station being present to prove such avowal. Sir James Anderson, the surgeon, who had also seen the duel, and accompanied Captain Tuckett home, was in attendance as a witness. The miller, who had received Captain Tuckett's card, went, a week afterwards, to the residence mentioned in the card, and asked for, and saw, Captain Tuckett. It would seem as though the wit of man could not suggest how these facts could be evaded, or how they could fail of being proved! Yet the case totally broke down; the whole prosecution crumbled into pieces, under the subtle and watchful dexterity of the consummate advocate to whom Lord Cardigan had committed his almost hopeless case. What does the reader suppose to have been the fatal flaw? The prosecution could not prove the identity of Captain Tuckett! Each of the three counts in the indictment charged Lord Cardigan with having fired at – Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett. That was his real name, but it became impossible to prove the fact; and, without such proof, the prisoner was, beyond all question, entitled to an acquittal. A man cannot be indicted for firing at A B, and convicted of firing at C D. If Captain Tuckett had been called, he could, of course, have instantly disposed of the difficulty; and it is said that that gentleman was actually in, or near, the House of Lords; but the Attorney-General explained that he could not call that gentleman, nor his second, because, though the bill against them had been ignored by the grand jury, "they were still liable to be tried," and therefore "it would not be decorous to summon them to give evidence which might afterwards be turned against themselves." And as for Captain Wainwright, he was in the situation of his noble fellow prisoner, as a true bill had been found against him at the Central Criminal Court. What, then, shall be said against calling Sir James Anderson? Fortunately for himself and for Lord Cardigan, he was in a position to be tried himself on a charge of having been present, aiding and assisting at the commission of a felony. On this gentleman being sworn, the Lord High Steward thus cautioned him, as he was bound to do in the case of any witness similarly situated: —

"Sir James Anderson, – With the permission of the House, I think it my duty to inform you, after the opening we have heard made by the Attorney-General of the facts of the case, that you are not bound to answer any question which may tend to criminate yourself." Doubtless, Sir James Anderson expected nothing less, and had come to the House of Lords perfectly at his ease. Therefore he came like a shadow, and so departed. Thus "had he his entrance and his exit."

"Attorney-General.– Of what profession are you?

"A.– I am a physician.

"Q.– Where do you live?

"A.– New Burlington Street.

"Q.– Are you acquainted with Captain Tuckett?

"A.– I must decline answering that.

"Q.– Were you on Wimbledon Common on the 12th September last?

"A.– I must decline answering that also!

"Q.– Were you on that day called in to attend any gentleman that was wounded?

"A.– I am sorry to decline that again!

"Q.– Can you tell me where Captain Tuckett lives?

"A.– I must decline answering the question!

"Q.– Has he a house in London?

"Sir William Follett.– He 'declines to answer the question.'

"A.– I have already said that I decline answering the question.

"Attorney-General.– Where did you last see Captain Tuckett?

"Sir William Follett.– We [the counsel for the prisoner] have no right, my Lords, to interfere in this case;56 but, the witness having several times declined to answer the question, I apprehend that it is not regular for the Attorney-General, by circuitous questions, to endeavour to get him to answer.

"Attorney-General.– I have never pressed him in any question I have put. [To Sir James Anderson.] – Do you decline answering any question whatever respecting Captain Tuckett?

"A.—Any question which may 'tend to criminate' myself.

"Q.– And you consider that answering any question respecting Captain Tuckett may tend to criminate yourself?

"A.– It is possible that it would.

"Q.– And on that ground you decline?

"A.– Yes.

"Attorney-General, [to the House.] – Then, unless your Lordships wish to ask any question of the witness, he may withdraw.

"The witness was directed to withdraw."

Here, then, were four avenues through which light might have been thrown on a transaction which was the subject of such solemn and dignified inquiry by the most illustrious judicial assembly in the world, carefully closed: Sir James Anderson, Captain Tuckett, Captain Douglas, and Captain Wainwright. It will be further observed that Lord Cardigan, in his frank avowal at the police station, had happened not to mention the name of the gentleman whom he had fought and wounded – an omission probably altogether accidental, for his Lordship seems to have been in a humour of signal yet becoming and characteristic frankness.

The sole question in this celebrated case thus became one of identity – the indictment charging Lord Cardigan with having fired at one Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett– it being the duty of the prosecutors to prove that the prisoner fired at a person bearing these names. There was abundant evidence that Lord Cardigan had fired at and wounded a Captain Harvey Tuckett; but this might be a person totally different from him named in the indictment. The skill and vigilance of the prisoner's counsel were visible in tripping up his opponents whenever they approached inconveniently near his client. There is no reason to believe that Lord Cardigan's counsel were aware of there being the slightest difficulty, on the part of the prosecution, in proving the identity of the wounded man with the one specified in the indictment; but at the very first start, Sir William Follett perceived a faint possible advantage, and never for one instant lost sight of it.

"You tell us," said the counsel for the prosecution, examining the first witness – the miller, "that you saw the pistols fired a second time: did you observe whether either of the shots took effect?

"A.– I thought Captain Tuckett was wounded – or, at least, the other gentleman: I did not know who it was.

"Q.– You thought that the gentleman, whom you afterwards knew to be Captain Tuckett, was wounded?

"A.– Yes.

"Q.– Did you see what that gentleman did with his pistol, after the second shots were fired?

"A.– No.

"Q.– You did not see whether he held it in his hand, or what he did with it?

"A.– Which are you alluding to?

"Q.– I am speaking of Captain Tuckett.

"Sir William Follett.– He has said he did not know who it was!"

Here was a stumble by the prosecutors, which their wary adversary never allowed them to recover. The miller then stated the giving of the card of address of "Captain Harvey Tuckett, 13 Hamilton Place, New Road," and produced it; but Sir William Follett would not allow it to be read in evidence against Lord Cardigan, without evidence that Lord Cardigan had seen it given, and was aware of what it was: and such evidence was not forthcoming. The Attorney-General then withdrew the card for the present, and asked the miller whether, on receiving it, he allowed the wounded gentleman to go; to which the answer was "Yes." – "In consequence of receiving this card, did you afterwards call at a particular house?" (meaning the house mentioned on the card, but which Sir William Follett had succeeded in excluding, for the present, from evidence.) Sir William Follett objected that the question was a leading one, and it was not pressed. The witness then stated that, a week afterwards, he called at No. 13 Hamilton Place; asked for "Captain Harvey Tuckett."

"Q.– Whom did you see?

"A.– Captain Harvey Tuckett.

"Q.– Did you speak to him?

"A.– I did.

"Sir William Follett.– I wish you would put your questions differently!

"Attorney-General.– We ask him whom he saw.

"Sir William Follett.– He does not know Captain Harvey Tuckett, I suppose.

"Q.– Did you speak to him?

"A.– I did."

The Attorney-General then tendered the card in evidence: and Sir William Follett, ignorant of what was written in it, (for the Attorney-General had not specified in stating the case,) objected to its being received. On this a very ingenious and elaborate argument ensued between him and the Attorney-General, whether this card was or was not admissible in evidence, at all events in that stage of the case. The latter insisted on the affirmative, on the ground that the card had been given to the constable in Lord Cardigan's presence, and the constable had afterwards gone to the address specified in the card. It was therefore a part of the res gestæ. "No," answered Sir William Follett; "it does not appear who it was that gave this card, or that Lord Cardigan saw it, nor that he knew what was written on it. The Attorney-General is trying to prove an important fact in the case, by an apparent admission of Lord Cardigan; whereas he is not shown to have had any cognisance whatever of the fact which he is supposed to have admitted!" The Lord High Steward said that, at all events, the House would postpone for the present its decision as to the admissibility of the card. "Whether the Attorney-General," said Sir William Follett, "will have any other evidence to prove who it was that had given the card, or to connect the card with the Earl, is another question" – which doubtless occasioned no little anxiety to the Earl and his astute counsel.

The next witnesses were the miller's wife and son, who were cross-examined by Sir William Follett irritably and severely, but ineffectually. They did not, nevertheless, appear to carry the case much farther than had the miller. Then came Mr Busain, the police inspector, who gave evidence of the facts already stated in connection with his name, in the Earl's avowal that he had just fought a duel, and hit his man. On his being asked a very critical question, viz., as to Captain Tuckett's having called at the magistrate's office and given his name, Sir William Follett anxiously and hastily interposed – "Was Lord Cardigan present then and there?" to which the answer was, "No, he was not." Sir William Follett therefore succeeded in excluding what Captain Tuckett had said on calling at the magistrate's office, and thus again "averted the decisive stroke."57