Analysis of the Famous Trial of Earl of Cardigan.

This is a case which took place in the House of Lords, the trial of peer by his peers, the trial of the Earle of Cardigan, who was the man who led the Charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Baklava, and who rode at the head of the “Gallant Six Hundred” of whom Tennyson has sung. The Earl was indicted for fighting a duel. He had challenged one of his subordinate officers, captain Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett, to meet him in Wimbeldon Common. The captain having married a very attractive young woman, the Earl became quiet attentive to her and this led to the quarrel. The Earl being member of the House of Lords, claimed the privilege of being tried by the peers, and for the first time in sixty years since the trial of Lord Lovatt, the House of Lords including Lords Bourgham, Lyndhurst, Denman, Wynfold and others, met to try a Noble Lord. The question was whether Earl had violated the statue which made dwelling a capital offence, provided ofcourse there was intent to kill. The Attorney- General at that time was Sir.John Campbell, author of the Lives of the Lord Chancellors, subsequently himself a Lord Chief Justice of England, and still later a Lord Chancellor and more over he was the Son-in Law of Sir.James Scaelett.

          The opening words of the Attorney –General indicted absolute assurance that he was going to convict and everything undoubtedly showed that the Earl had sent the challenge. On a hill which over looked the Common there stood a mill with a platform around the upper portion, from which point of vantage the miller and his son had seen the carriages containing the dueling parties approach. They saw the parties slight, saw the seconds advance, then stoop over something which evidently was a box containing pistols: take out the pistols, examine them and then pace off the distance: then they saw the principals themselves approach, and take the exact position designated by the seconds, wheel and fire; one fell.

          The miller who was himself a constable, seized his long staff of office and immediately approached the field and made arrest. He took the men up to his house: and asked them separately for their cards. One card was handed to him by the wounded man, which contained the name Phipps Tuckett. The Earl had no card, but said he was the Earl of Cardigan.

          “Attorney-General, confident that no answer could be made by the Earl to the facts of the case, arguing on the meaning of the statue, contented himself by putting in evidence the facts which had been detailed above and the card which captain Tuckett had handed to the miller. Instantly, the most accomplished of English Advocate, Sir. William Follet objected. His objection was based on the facts that the card had been handed by Tuckett to the constable in the absence of the Earl, and the Earl of course could not be bound by anything which took place in his absence, particularly if anything was written on the paper.

          Well the objection was so unexpected that it irritated Campbell, and he attempted to argue that it was preposterous for his friend to object to that. He said that the Earl had been identified as the man on the ground, that he had been arrested without any attempt to escape, that he had fired in the direction of Tuckett, that Tuckett had fallen, was wounded, and then a few minutes later handed a card to the onstable, and there had been no separation of the parties. The Court was presided over by Lord Deneman. The Chief Justice waived the objection aside, saying that this was not the exact stage at which the offer should be introduced. Campbell went on and attempted to show exactly what who Captain Tuckett was and what relations he maintained to the Earl, and then suddenly closed his case: but just before closing he made a second offer to the card.

          Follet believing that there was some good reason why the Attorney-General was so anxious to have the card in evidence said; “I have no objection to the offer of this in evidence.” It was received with the words on it, “Philipps Tuckett”. The Attorney-General then said: the Crown rests”. Follet rose and impressively said: “the defence has no evidence to offer; I move for the discharge of the prisoners.” “On what ground?” asked the astonished Campbell. “the indictment charges that the Earl of Cardigan drew a deadly weapon and with intent to kill fired at one Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett; on his card which was handed by the wounded man are the words Phipps Tuckett; there is no proof that Harvey Garnet Phipps tuckett and Phipps Tuckett are the same man.”

                                     Critical Analysis of the Case:

          Was the Attorney-General bias or negligence in the case? Or was he over confident or he over looked some vital matters in the case?