TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LORD CARDIGAN'S TRIAL.
It is hard to decide whether the conduct of the Prosecution in this case, of the Defence, or of the Court, has been most equivocal.
The Attorney-General began by protesting that "he was re- joiced to think that the charge against the noble prisoner at the bar did not imply any degree of moral turpitude; and that if he should be found guilty, the conviction would reflect no discredit on the illustrious order to which he belonged." After stating the law of 'the case, and laying before the Court an outline of the facts he intended to prove, Sir JOHN declared, "he should offer no evi- dence—indeed he could offer no evidence—as to the quarrel out of which this duel had sprung " : taking care to add, that "he ac- quitted the noble lord of any thing unfair in the course of the duel"; that "he did not suppose there was any grudge, personal animosity, rancour, or malignity against Captain Tuckett, in the breast of the noble earl" ; and that "he had no doubt that upon this occasion the noble earl only complied with what he thought necessary to the usages of society." In short, the manager of the prosecution took care at the very outset to convince the judges, that the Earl of CARDIGAN was put upon his trial for a mere tech- nical violation of the law, more out of respect to forms than for any serious offence. He at the same time restricted the range of in- quiry within the narrowest possible limits ; taking care to pre- vent any aggravating circumstances in the conduct of the accused to appear—although, the crime charged being of that class in which the judge possesses the power of increasing or diminishing the punishment within a limited range, such circumstances were essentials of the case ; and thus laid himself more open to be defeated upon some narrow technical objection. The suspi- cions of collusion on the part of the Prosecution, arising out of this preamble, are rather strengthened than diminished by the subsequent proceedings. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL has the reputation of being not only a sound, but what the Scotch call a loopy lawyer ; and _Mr. VIZARD, who had the getting-up of the case, is a sagacious
and experienced man of business. If any knowledge confined to
the-practitioners in the criminal courts were necessary, the Crown Lawyers could have commanded any assistance they pleased. 'Yet, when the counsel-for the defence urged objections to evidence 'wbiühnnjst have been foreseen, the prosecution was, or pretended to be, unable to supply the deficiency. And lastly, when Sir WIL- L/am FOLLETT objected to the validity of Captain Tacitares card as evidence, mid argued upon decisions, Sir JOHN CAstrneee, an experienced lawyer, knowing that the opinion of Lord DENMAN would guide -the Lords, instead of meeting Sir WILLIAM'S argu- ment, talked about "inferences that would be drawn by reasonable beings out of court." From beginning to end, the conduct of the Prosecution shows a predetermination to allow the accused to escape; and the sham fight was not even kept up with sufficient appearance of -earnestness to deceive the bystanders. the-practitioners in the criminal courts were necessary, the Crown Lawyers could have commanded any assistance they pleased. 'Yet, when the counsel-for the defence urged objections to evidence 'wbiühnnjst have been foreseen, the prosecution was, or pretended to be, unable to supply the deficiency. And lastly, when Sir WIL- L/am FOLLETT objected to the validity of Captain Tacitares card as evidence, mid argued upon decisions, Sir JOHN CAstrneee, an experienced lawyer, knowing that the opinion of Lord DENMAN would guide -the Lords, instead of meeting Sir WILLIAM'S argu- ment, talked about "inferences that would be drawn by reasonable beings out of court." From beginning to end, the conduct of the Prosecution shows a predetermination to allow the accused to escape; and the sham fight was not even kept up with sufficient appearance of -earnestness to deceive the bystanders.
The conduct of the Defence was, under such circumstances, no
very difficult task. But the counsel for the defendant went be- yond their brief, and indulged in certain Old Bailey practices, which, as quite unnecessary, were in bad taste, to say nothing of their morality. For example, Sir WII.LIAM FOLLETT, finding in a me- morandum of Deem the miller, a note of the number of miles he 'had travelled on the business, remarked, "You seem to have gone about a great deal ufter this affair " ; and followed up the inuendo subsequently by very pressing inquiries as to whether he had been paid his charges. Sergeant WRANGHAM'S cross-examination of the miller's son—a boy of fourteen—closely resembles the account of a parallel process in the Pickwick Papers. For example : "Do you then mean to say, you could at the instant distinguish who the par- ties were kneeling ?"—" I could see who they were." "That is distinguishing, is it not ?"—" Yes. (A laugh.)" And when the boy attempted to show the learned Sergeant that he had misappre- hended one of his answers—" Oh, explain your answers in any way you like, Sir:" The same system was pursued with MTS. DANN ; who was pestered with such questions as—" All the gentlemen, then, had red faces, had they ?"—" Who has been telling this story ? who has been examining you ?" and with a silly laugh raised against her when she said, "I can see better on the common—where lam more practised,"—the fact that she could see better en the open common than in the dim Painted Chamber being apparent, whatever might be her expertness or awkwardness in explaining the circumstance. This attempt to shield the accused by browbeating honest witnesses, and insinuating charges against their veracity, is common enough at the Old Bailey, but we should have expected more regard for right feeling among the aristocracy of England, than to permit such vulgar licence to counsel at the bar of the High Court of Parliament.
And now as to the Court itself. Notwithstanding the care of the
Prosecution to withhold evidence, ancrof the Defence to divert attention from what could not be withheld, the following facts were established. Mrs. DANN saw two gentlemen kneel and load pistols, then rise, stand back to back, walk asunder some paces each, plate other two at the points thus fixed, put pistols in their hands, stand aside till they fired at each other, give them fresh pistols, and stand aside till they tired again. Mr. Detre saw the combatants stationed; saw them fire both times ; never lost sight of them till he reached the ground ; when he saw one gentleman wounded, and took the pistol from the hand of another, that other being one of those who fired, and also Lord CA.RDIGAN, the prisoner at the bar. SEBASTIAN DANN saw the kneeling of the seconds, the firing of the principals, and the wounded gentleman with a grept deal of blood on the ground. There cannot exist a doubt that Lord CA.RDTGAN discharged two pistols at some individual, and wounded him the second time ; it having been also proved that he said to the Inspector of Police—" I have been fighting a duel, and have hit my man." Then as to the identity of the wounded antagonist of Lord CARDIGAN. DANN allowed him to go home with his surgeon, upon giving his address; that address was " Captain Harvey Tuckett, 13, Hamilton Place, New Road." DANN called there three times; and each time, on asking for Captain TUCKETT, was ushered in to the wounded gentleman who gave him the address ; and on one occasion that gentleman sent a note by DANN to the Magistrates, which he signed with the name " Tuckett: Mr. WALTHEN gave evidence to the effect that a gentleman of the name of HARVEY TUCKETT had rented business chambers from him for upwards of a year, who gave his card of reference "Captain Harvey Tuckett,13, Hamilton Place"; and that he had sent a hamper to the gentleman by that address. It was proved that the Earl of CARDIGAN deliberately discharged two pistols at a person of the name of Captain HARVEY Tucaerr, and wounded him. This was the charge against the Earl,--a charge e hich, as stated by the pro- secution, admitted by the Court, and not questioned by the defence, if proved rendered him liable to punishment. The counsel for the accused objected to the production of the card : it was proved without the card that the wounded man gave the name and place of residence above mentioned, that he was repeatedly seen there during his convalescence, and that a person of that name and title resided there. If there were any thing extenuating in the circum- stances out of which the duel arose, that was a portion of the de- fence. The criminal act was proved, and brought home to the Earl of CARDIGAN. And yet the members of the House of Peers, the conservators of the piety, morality, and law of the empire, after commencing their proceeding with a solemn appeal to the Deity, rose up one by one when called upon, and each in succession, placing his right hand upon his breast, said, "Not guilty, upon my honour." Alas for the honour of the British nobility 1 it is much upon a par with the veracity of the fiery knights, who in the First Part of SHAKSPERE'S Richard the Second thrust the lie down each other's throats.* The conduct of the Prosecution, Defence, and Judges, has all the appearance of being each a part in a common conspiracy to defeat the ends ofjustice. The whole proceedings of the House of Lords suggest a predetermination to allow the accused to escape by some subterfuge or other. Viewed in this light, the Earl's appeal from the Judges of the land and a Jury to his Peers, was an appeal from a tribunal in which an attempt would be made to discover the truth and punish the guilty, to a tribunal where, guilty or innocent, he thought he was safe.t The privilege of the Peers to be tried by and to try each other, wears the aspect of an exemption from the penal law of the land: it seems to proclaim one law for the nobility and another for commoners.
If the mischief ended with now and then allowing a guilty Peer to escape the punishment incurred by his crimes, it would be com- paratively venial : but the trifling and equivocating with solemn duties, in the late trial, is worse than that ; for the House of Lords is a court into which any civil question may be carried by appeal. There is not a case, where there is a sufficient interest at stake to admit of the expense being incurred, but may come to be tried in last resort by the same judges who, after hearing the evidence recapitulated above, declared "upon their honour" that Lord CARDIGAN was not guilty. Nay, this same corporate body has the power, in its legislative capacity, to prevent the passing of any legislative act that would alleviate or amend the evil. As judges, they have it in their power to twist the law as they please ; as a legislative body, they have a veto upon all reforms ; as the habitual associates of the Sovereign, they in- fluence the Crown ; as large landed proprietors, they decide the elections to the Commons. In them resides the real sovereignty of Great Britain. And their conduct at the trial of Lord CARDIGAN shows how loosely they wear the restraints of moral precepts, and how little care they think it worth while to take to conceal their levity from the public gaze. "Wasps break through the cob- webs in which flies are caught," and make a triumphant buzzing to call attention to the fact.
The question is between the Peers and the People : Lord CAR, DIGAN'S share in it is scarcely worth notice. To be sure, the At- torney-General was allowed to declare without contradiction, that the duel in which Lord CARDIGAN had been engaged—taking it, of course, with all its attendant circumstances—" did not imply any moral turpitude." This was a volunteer statement on the part of Sir JOHN CAMPBELL; there was no call upon him to make it; and he made it well knowing the notorious facts of the case, although he did not choose to lead evidence regarding them. The
declaration of the Law Officer of the Crown, listened to in appa-
rently approving silence by the Lords4 amounts to this—A Peer may taunt and tyrannize over the officers of his regiment until one by one he disgusts the whole of them wi• h their profession' and when one of them complains he may silence by shooting him ; * From this censure the Duke of CLEVELAND of all the Peers present, is alone exempted. In extedeite irony he declared, "Not guilty, le/ally, upon my honour." .1. The prisoner arraigned before our Common Law Courts claims to be tried "by God and his country ": Lord CARDIGAN claimed to be tried "by his Peers." It sounds like a disclaimer alike of Divine and human jurisdiction. Some of their Lordships have protested against the doctrine since the above was in type : see Porrscrirrr, for a brief notice of proceedings in the House of Lords last night. while a weaver, half-mad with suffering, must be severely punished, if, in imitation of the noble lord, he threatens to betake himself to "physical force." A Peer may shoot a man under the circum- stances alluded to, while commoners (see the case of the duel between Er.mor and Mittrix) are punished even for acting as seconds. The cases of the two Wimbledon duels are not so very different as might at first appear. In Emaor's case there is more rude blackguardisin ; in that of Lord CARDIGAN there is more tad envenomed despotism; but both are examples of an individual, etinfident in his own superior skill and courage, venturing to insult tina 'outrage others. The Peers claim immunity for such of their number as thus abuse their power, and have thereby done more than enemies could do to weaken their influence. No man or class of men can with impunity outrage the moral sense of a nation. "Aristocracy," says the Globe, "is the element in which we live and breathe": if so, it is high time we were seeking to recruit our health by trying a purer atmosphere.
Previous page
