give an answer to this question, I should say in general terms that whatever fact requires proof in the course of any judicial proceeding ought to be made out by adequate means by the party on whom the burden of proof is cast by the law, -that is, by the prosecutor of an indictment, where the plea of Not Guilty puts in issue all the facts that go to make up the offence charged. But it was not contended at the bar that any proof from the baptismal register was indispensable, or that it would not be enough to produce evidence of the party's bearing, using, or being known by the name attributed to him. It was not urged that Mr. Codd's knowledge that the person of whom he spoke used the four names in the indictment might not rationally convince your Lordships that the four names belong to that person; but it was urged, that the person using and owning the four names was not shown to be the same person who, under the name of Captain Harvey Tuckett, had been engaged in the duel fought on Wimbledon Common. No fact is easier of proof in its own nature, and numerous witnesses are always at hand to establish it with respect to any person conversant with society. In the present case the simplest means were accessible. If those who conduct the prosecution had obtained your Lordships' order for the appearance at your bar of Captain Tuckett, and if the witnesses of the duel had deposed to his being the man who left the field after receiving Lord Cardigan's shot, Mr. Codd might have been asked whether that was the gentleman whom he knew by the four names set forth in the indictment. His answer in the affirma tive would have been too conclusive on the point to admit of the present objection being taken. Several other methods of proof will readily suggest themselves to your Lordships' minds. Even if obstacles had been interposed by distance of time and place, by the poverty of those seeking to enforce the law, by the death of witnesses, or other casualties, it cannot be doubted that the accused must have had the benefit of the failure of proof, however occasioned; and here, where none of those causes can account for the deficiency, it seems too much to require that your Lordships should volunteer the presumption of a fact, which, if true, might have been made clear and manifest to every man's understanding by the shortest process. Your Lordships were informed that no person out of doors could hesitate, on the proof now given, to decide that the identity is well made out. Permit me, my Lords, to say that you are to decide for yourselves, upon the proofs brought before you, and that nothing can be conceived more dangerous to the interests of justice, than for a judicial body to indulge in any speculations on what may possibly be said or thought by others who have not heard the same evidence, nor act with the same responsibility, nor (possibly) confine their attention to the evidence actually adduced. If, my Lords, the present were an ordinary case, tried before one of the inferior courts, and the same objection had been taken in this stage to the proof of identity, the judge would consult his notes, and explain how far he thought the objection well founded, and I apprehend that the jury would at once return a verdict of acquittal. Your Lordships, sitting in this High Court of Parliament, unite the functions of both. I have stated my own views as an individual member of the court, of the question by you to be considered, discussed, and decided. Though I have commenced the debate, it cannot be necessary for me to disclaim the purpose of dictating my own opinion, which is respectfully laid before you, with the hope of eliciting those of the House at large. If any other duty is cast upon me, or if there is any more convenient course to be pursued, I shall be greatly indebted to any of your Lordships who will be so kind as to instruct me in it. In the absence of any other suggestion I venture to declare my own judgment, grounded on the reasons briefly submitted, that the Earl of Cardigan is entitled to be declared Not Guilty. After deliberation, 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 were again admitted. Then, 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 John Lord Keane, standing up in his place uncovered, and laying his right hand upon his breast, answered, "Not guilty, upon mine honour." In like manner, the several Lords after mentioned, being all that were present, answered in the same words. Thomas Lord Monteagle of Brandon. Nicholas William Lord Colborne. William Lord Bateman. James Lord Abinger. William Lord Fitzgerald. John William Lord Duncannon. George William Fox Lord Rossie. Thomas Lord Melros. John William Robert Lord Ker. James Andrew Lord Dalhousie. George James Lord Arden. John Lord Colville of Culross. leigh. William Lord Ward. Thomas Miles Lord Beaumont. Peter Robert Lord Willoughby d' Eresby. George Edward Lord Audley. John Robert Viscount Sydney. Henry George Francis Earl of Ducie. Thomas William Earl of Lichfield. Thomas Philip Earl de Grey. Earl of Bradford. Edmund Earl of Morley. James Walter Earl of Verulam. George Charles Earl of Lucan. Henry John George Earl of Car Arthur Blundell Sandys Trumbull Earl of Hillsborough. Henry George Earl Bathurst. George John Earl De Lawarr. Heneage Earl of Aylesford. Montagu Earl of Abingdon. Constantine Henry Marquess of Normanby. George Horatio Marquess of Cholmondeley. Henry William Marquess of Anglesey. Spencer Joshua Alwyne Marquess of Northampton. Brownlow Marquess of Exeter. John Marquess of Bute. James Marquess of Abercorn. James Brownlow William Marquess of Salisbury. Richard Plantagenet Duke of Buckingham and Chandos. George Duke of Marlborough. Edward Adolphus Duke of Somerset. George William Frederick Earl of Clarendon, Lord Privy Seal. Henry Marquess of Lansdowne, Lord President of the Council. His Royal Highness Adolphus Frederick Duke of Cambridge. But William Harry Duke of Cleveland answered, "Not guilty legally, upon my honour." Then the Lord High Steward, standing up uncovered at the chair as he did when he put the question to the other Lords, declared his opinion to the same effect, and in the same manner. Then the Lord High Steward declared that the Earl of Cardigan is acquitted of the felony whereof he stands indicted, all the Lords him "Not guilty." present having unanimously voted Proclamation was made for bringing the prisoner to the bar. The Earl of Cardigan was brought to the bar by the Yeoman Usher. Lord High Steward.-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 declaring to you that their Lordships have pronounced you not guilty by an unanimous sentence. The number of their Lordships present 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." His Lordship 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 his hands, broke it in two, and declared the commission dissolved. [As a pendant to the above trial, that of one of the seconds, before one of the ordinary tribunals of the country, is here added.] CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, March 3. John Douglas, Esq., captain in her Majesty's Eleventh Hussars, being placed at the bar, Mr. Clarke (the clerk of the court) read the indictment, which charged the prisoner with having, on the 12th of September last, in the parish of Wandsworth, with a certain pistol, loaded with gunpowder and a leaden ball, at and against one called Captain Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, feloniously shot, with intent to murder the said Captain Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett. A second count charged the prisoner with wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully, having shot at the said Captain Harvey G. P. Tuckett, with intent to maim him. A third count charged the prisoner with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to the said H. G. P. Tuckett. The prisoner pleaded Guilty" in a confident tone. "Not Mr. Justice Williams inquired if any one appeared for the prosecution? This question was answered in the negative by Mr. Clark. The solicitor who originally had the case for the prosecution in hand (Mr. Hobler) was in court, but he was not empowered to instruct counsel or take any part in the proceedings of this day. It appears that, since the examination of the witnesses before the grand jury, he had taken measures to secure the attendance of other persons whose evidence would have been important, some of them he had subpoenaed, and was just about to issue summonses for the others, amongst whom were the post-boys who drove the parties to Wimble don-common, when he received an intimation from the Police Commissioners to stay all proceedings. No explanation of the reason why this extraordinary course was to be pursued was given. But in the interim, Mr. Vizard had been appointed solicitor to the Home Office, and to him was the business transferred. Mr. Hobler, however, ventured to advise the Commissioners to instruct counsel to appear to-day, and say, that after what had passed elsewhere, no evidence for the prosecution would be offered; the authorities of the Home Office, however, declined to act upon that advice, leaving the matter to their new functionary, Mr. Vizard Mr. Justice Williams directed the trial to proceed, and the witnesses, T. H. Dann, the miller, constable of the parish of Wimbledon; Sarah Dann, his wife; his son, a lad aged fourteen; and John Busain, Inspector of Police, were examined at length, and repeated the statements made at the trial of the Earl of Cardigan. Sir J. E. Anderson, M.D., who attended the duellists professionally, declined, as before, to answer any question, lest he should implicate himself. None of the Dann family could identify Captain Douglas, and Mrs. Dann pointed him out as the wounded man. Thomas Bicknell, superintendent of the V division of police, stated that he had no evidence to give, but he had been bound over as the public prosecutor in this case, of which he knew nothing. Mr. Justice Williams: Of course, then, I can ask you nothing. I had no deposition of yours, and could not tell what you knew or did not know. Thomas Dann, the constable, was recalled by the Court, and produced a card which had been given to him at his own house by one of the five gentlemen who were all present at the time. It was given to him either by Captain Tuckett or by Captain Wainwright. Mr. Thesiger objected to the card being received as evidence against the prisoner, and the objection was allowed. Superintendent Bicknell re called, Mr. Justice Williams, addressing him, said: You say you were bound over to prosecute. I have examined those witnesses of whose depositions I have been informed; I have also called those named on the back of the indictment, and who have been presented to the grand jury. Is there any other witness you are aware of who can give evidence in this case? Bicknell: None but Mr. Fletcher, the magistrate's clerk. But I do not know what he has to state. George Chas. Fletcher was then called, but he had no evidence to give, nor did he know of any. Mr. Justice Williams, addressing the jury, said he was wholly ignorant of the circumstances or causes by which it had happened that nobody appeared in behalf of this prosecution. He ought to regret it, for it had imposed upon him the somewhat difficult and arduous task of examining the witnesses, and also a certain degree of anxiety to take care, whatever might be the cause of no person appearing to conduct the prosecution, that it should not fail for want of any witness or witnesses being called that knew anything of the transaction. Every witness of whom he had heard had been called and examined to the best of his ability, in order to bring from them every fact and circumstance connected with the case; nay, in addition to that which was considered the ordinary course of proceeding, and the duty of a judge, he had called upon the party who was bound over to prosecute, if he could furnish more evidence, to throw additional light upon the case. Now, therefore, the ordinary course having been pursued, and somewhat more, and all the sources of information at his command having been exhausted, it remained for him only to communicate his judgment, as to whether any case should be submitted to their consideration. They could not close their eyes to the fact that a duel had been fought on Wimbledon-common on the day mentioned. That the jury must be as much convinced of as that he was then addressing them. The prisoner was indicted for shooting at Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett, and it was essential that it should be proved that a man bearing that name was so shot at by the prisoner at the bar; but of that there was not one tittle of evidence. Mention was made of a card, and, thinking that it might have borne some evidence against the prisoner, he had called for it. When that card, however, was presented to |