Duel on the Wimbledon Common
On Saturday 12th September 1840 Lieutenant-Colonel James Thomas Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan, and Captain Harvey Tuckett, both 11th Hussars, stood facing each other on the Wimbledon Common. Pistols in hand, seconds at their sides, they both fired their first shots. From the outcome of the duel, one could guess that they were playing by the rules of first blood, as, the first shots having missed, a second was then fired. Tuckett was hit in the hip and Cardigan was seemingly satisfied, boasting “I have hit my man”.
Dueling was a relic of a by-gone era by 1840, having peaked in popularity on the continent during the seventeenth century. But it was ingrained in aristocratic tradition, especially in situations that called into question a man’s honour. There were laws in place in England against duelling, and a man could be tried for murder should his opponent be killed during a duel; however, courts were generally lax in using the full extent of the law – they remained sympathetic to the aristocratic culture of honour.
If it had fallen so out of fashion by the onset of the Victorian era, why then were Cardigan and Tuckett witnessed duelling on the Wimbledon Commons? To answer this question, we must first turn to the backgrounds of these two men, and the events leading up to 12th September 1840.
Lieutenant-Colonel James Thomas Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan
Born on 16th October 1797, Lord Cardigan was the only surviving son of Robert Brudenell, 6th Earl of Cardigan. He initially joined the army in 1820 as a Captain in the Northamptonshire Yeomanry cavalry, forming his own troop to guard against possible reformist demonstrations. His first official role in the army would not be until 6th May 1824, when he joined the 8th King’s Royal Irish Hussars, after purchasing a commission as Lieutenant.
Cardigan would go on to abuse the commission system, purchasing a Captaincy in June 1826, a Major in August 1830, and then a Lieutenant-Colonel on 3rd December 1830. By 16th March 1832 he had obtained command of the 15th The King’s Hussars. Cardigan also held a parliamentary seat, and this delayed him from physically taking command until May.
In both his military and parliamentary career Cardigan developed a reputation for being a bully. Historians have pegged both his young age and his lack of experience (especially compared to veterans of the Napoleonic Wars) as being the cause of his insecurity. This would then manifest itself into petty-minded bullying of the men whom he commanded.
In 1833 Lord Cardigan would be publicly chastised for his ‘reprehensible conduct’ in a court-martial held to determine charges that he had laid against Captain Augustus Wathen – one of the men under his command. As a result, Cardigan would be dismissed from his command of the 15th, via a personal order from King William IV. Lord Cardigan did not take this well, and would spend the next three years beleaguering his sister, Harriet, alongside other senior officers and politicians to help him regain a position in the military.
Harriet Georgiana Brudenell had married Richard Curzon-Howe, 1st Earl Howe, fourteen years prior. As of 1830 Lord Howe held the position of Lord Chamberlain to Queen Adelaide, which granted him influence in the court of King George IV. It was perhaps through his inquiry, along with Cardigan’s own persistence, that finally saw him gain command of the 11th Light Dragoons in March 1836. Despite this, he failed to join the regiment in India until October 1837. It was here that he would meet the man whom he would duel less than three years later.
Captain Harvey Tuckett, 11th Light Dragoons
Comparatively little is known about Captain Tuckett before the events of 12th September 1840. Born on 17th November 1799, he would join the army on 7th February 1815, aged 15. Tuckett purchased a commission as an Ensign in the 87th Regiment of Foot and would serve with them in both Guernsey and Gibraltar.
On 23rd January 1823 he transferred to the 11th Light Dragoons, holding the rank of Lieutenant. In the 11th’s Regimental History, he is noted for his service at the Siege of Bharatpur (Bhurtpore) in December 1825, and he even went on to be awarded the Bhurtpore Medal 1825/26 the following year. Tuckett seemingly remained with the regiment, and was once again in India in 1837, where he likely met Lord Cardigan for the first time.
The Regimental History also tells us that he went on half-pay on 2nd November 1838, and officially retired from the regiment/military altogether on 28th January 1842.
The Black Bottle Affair – May 1840
In May 1840 the 11th were back in England, being stationed at the Canterbury Barracks. On 18th May they held a formal mess to celebrate a visit from General James Sleigh, the Inspector-General of Cavalry.
One Captain John William Reynolds ordered that a bottle of Moselle wine be brought to the table for General Sleigh, seemingly a personal favourite of his. The wine was served in a black bottle, similar to that of porter beer, which Lord Cardigan mistook it for. Deeming this unacceptable, he went on to reprimand Reynolds for his ungentlemanly behaviour in front of the General.
Reynolds, having not made the blight that Cardigan accused him of, refused his reprimand, for which Cardigan then placed him under close arrest. This meant that, whilst still stationed at Canterbury, Reynolds was confined to his quarters for twenty-two hours per day. After three days this was then relaxed to open arrest, as Cardigan was travelling to the Horse Guards in London to complain about Reynold’s behaviour.
Whilst there, Cardigan persuaded General Rowland Hill, 1st Viscount Hill, the Commander-in-Chief of the Horse Guards to send a letter of admonishment to Reynolds. Similarly to his initial reprimand, Reynolds also refused to accept this, writing a response requesting permission from Viscount Hill to leave the Army. Reynold’s request was also supported by Henry Harvey, an influential society figure, who put pressure on Viscount Hill by threatening to release the whole affair to The Morning Post.
The matter was seemingly resolved by Lord FitzRoy Somerset, Military Secretary. Lord Somerset persuaded Reynolds to stay in the army, promising him six months of leave, a two-year senior command course at RMC Sandhurst upon his return, and a promise that he would never have to serve under Lord Cardigan again – which Reynolds accepted.
Cardigan however, refused to let the matter lie. His resentment for Captain Reynolds rose when a court-martial he was serving as president on had denied Cardigan’s wish for a conviction. Cardigan was also noted as claiming that officers like Reynolds, who had primarily served in India, lacked adequate discipline. Lord Somerset feared a larger scandal would grow from this, as a large proportion of the Army’s Senior Command had also served in India.
The Duel – 12th September 1840
A short while after the ‘Black Bottle Affair’, the 11th were stationed in Brighton, and it was whilst they were here that matters regarding their Commanding Officer grew to a head. A significant number of ‘differences’ between Cardigan and his officers began to emerge, which ‘placed his character’ in an unenviable position. Numerous complaints against him were raised at the War Office, and the subject was soon picked up and became popular in various newspapers of the day.
One in particular, The Morning Chronicle, would prove to be the largest issue for Lord Cardigan. The publication featured a segment regarding prominent debates, in which a series of defamatory letters about Cardigan were printed. “An Old Soldier” wrote one such letter that contained material so offensive to Cardigan and his honour, that he set out for retribution. It is likely that this letter detailed an account of the ‘Black Bottle Affair’, suggesting that Cardigan was in the wrong for his behaviour towards Reynolds, and that he had abused his position of authority to force a punishment upon him.
The letter was proven to be from a “H.T” – Harvey Tuckett, who had served under Cardigan in India in 1838. Cardigan called upon Captain Tuckett “to afford him that satisfaction usually deemed to be due from one gentleman to another under circumstances of insult or any other provocation”.
From here, the two men would then meet on the field of Wimbledon Common. Cardigan may have won the duel, but he failed to keep the meeting hidden, as, noted in the Newgate Calendar, ‘some persons resident in the neighbourhood’ witnessed the whole thing and summoned the police.
As such, both men and their seconds had bills of indictment laid against them. Captain Tuckett and his second, Captain Wainewright, would avoid prosecution, but Lord Cardigan, alongside his second, Captain John Douglas, would be called to trial. As an earl, Cardigan could not be tried by the judges of the Old Bailey, and so he instead he would stand before a jury of his peers. He also had to wait until the next assembly of Parliament could properly read through all the necessary forms required for his trial. This meant that it did not take place until Tuesday 16th February 1841.
For simplicity’s sake: the outcome of the trial was a verdict of not guilty, due to insufficient evidence regarding the identity of the victim. At the start of the trial, the victim had been named as ‘Mr Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett’, the full legal name of Captain Tuckett, but the defence argued that there was no evidence such a man had participated in, nor been shot during, the duel with Lord Cardigan. In short, Lord Cardigan got off an attempted-murder trial due to the pedantry of his peers.
His second – Captain John Douglas, would be tried at the Central Criminal Court on Wednesday 3rd March 1841. The same conclusion regarding lack of clarity
Both Lord Cardigan and Captain John Douglas remained with the 11th, going on to serve in the Crimean War. Captain Tuckett retired from the army to pursue a career in acting, touring with a company across Britain and Ireland for much of the 1840s. By 1847 he had moved to the U.S, where he briefly continued his acting career in Philadelphia. Upon his death in 1854 he had had a brief career as an insurance actuary for life insurance companies – quite the different route from his former adversary.
