The National Register. — London, England, 1809-12-17 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER. nEC. 17. down his conversntioa with Mr. Wardle; he did not bring in 'Wright to Colonel Wardle when Wright called at Colonel Wardle's lest he should be further committed. He made no _communication to the. Duke of York, nor was there any cam , inunication made that he knew o f ; h e never was a t th e Oat _ lands, but he once got an order to see the grotto there, which he gave to some common friends of his and Mr. Alley's. Ile knew Mr. Wilkinson; he told him about the furnishing Mrs. Clarke's house last Michaelmas term, not hofore it; his desise to see the grotto was merely curiosity; he did not communicate to any one what he knew as Mrs. Clarke's attorney ; he told Wilkinson. un the indictment fur a conspiracy being found. Colohel Wardle was then again called. He remembered the circumstances of Stoke's calling on him, and of the tire ira the back drawing-room being lighted. Stokes was summoned to • the Noose of Commons on the business of leer, and he thought it better let alone. Ile positively swore that Stokes never as signed the furnishing othlrs. Clarke's house as a reason for his not going. Stokes had received a second sununous; the reason .of that was beeause Mrs . Clarke had said, that in Few's bu . vineseilteht:d,hotiouriblV Paid the debt from which she she was . freed, by having pleaditriler etiVertule. .the'ATTi/JRNEY4OEN Eiti tadveryed to the evidence of Co , linkriVartge, a&I in doing to 'begged Colonel Wardle's tempo-_ . rag? front Conn.'Colonel Wardle' here left the Courf.T pitied of . having him called was to con: ..tritai&4lo. 4 cAtilir'l 4 lo*hebegged the Jury, in the first place, Ifil.inlisitiWtfie-bilitnier of each in giving their evidence; Colo tf/eP4raillle -itisealtitig:Trom'ieVollectton—Mr. Stokes. in giving 4iis-444dces . 0 . , .aiutiorritTS , alipartug it with written documents; .8 4 11 M * nilfet cyntiftir—Ccelltiel Wardle paving Mrs. Clarke 100V-101& 4 iikpreiiing the cirentbstance—lir. Stokes doing no such thingj. their interest in the cause—Mr. Stokes none what -spettlEig the truth—Colonel 'Wardle every telia'phld bias a ran:-Llis Character—his former con • ‘lstent4litii. future tame. fie was pained in being compelled to draw thaseitiMpiirisons ; `hut it was one of the disagreeable duties of the . piWeserioni and hewever painful, it must he per formed ;Lite. thouglit• it would have been better for Colonel Wardle to : have been in Yorkshire•tbain to have come forward thug tok impugn . -without grounds thetentimiitty of a creditable witners.s- The. respectability of Mr. Stokei was not to be doubted, -for •he was in* habits 'of Wining with his Learned Friend, and that was a sufficient passport of recommendation. Mr. Aia.irit, during a practice of fifteen years at the pro fession, never felt himself so distressed as at this moment: he bad to .contend against the conflicting circumstances of duty knii• friendship : he confessed he was not ashamed hitherto • of. Mr. Stokes acquaintance, but its continuance must totally depend upoothe verdict of the Jury : if that . verdict bore out his testimony, of course - he should continue to respect him; but : If it did. not, -thee his conduct must he squared accordingly. ' After soinc.feiv general observations on the evidence he said - the &Chloe of the CitllSO was with the Jury •'; the eyes of the country Wercon them ; and Europe, he hoped, should see from a British Jury another monument of eternal justice. • Lott Entaissoftoutia said, this was an indictment for a :consPicaey, to Mee debt upon Colonel Wardle, which in :fact *aanet . dne by - bin), and tending to free Mrs. Clarke from such ,debt. The indictment was laid against three person 4. two or whom bad given a positive testimony iu a former cause; and 'the third of whom had confirmed that testimony, by his sown deposition, in answer to a bill in Chancery. Now all these people might have been sepa rately indicted for perjury if they had been suspected of 'it, which would have been a much preferable mode to in , dieting them in the present form. He could net help pausing here to express his alarm at this certainly legal but new, and unusual mode of proceeding ; he could not suf ficiently regret the introduction of a practice of com bining in one general and including charge of conspiracy, . a ll .thuse Which gave evidence in any cause which might be liable to suspicion. It was grievous indeed. upon the ac cused, because _it prevented. them from 'profiting as they I might in a' separate charge of perjury, by each other's evidence. .11 this Was to be adopted generally, he could not sufficiently lament it; it would be combining all in one nggregate prosecution, and stripping them of advantages' Which even strict justice would very well allow them. In the present case, the Defendants must feel its hardship ; f9r though it was true, the Jury had their written tecti. kt i'l).• a, mouy, yet still he would be ill .employing his time in de scanting upon the advantages of oral in comparison. Daniel Wright, fur instance, was now completely deprived of evidence. which he might have had ; and which, per• haps, might have made his exculpation apparent. It was. indeed, strictly legal; but still it *as an abuse of a legal right, and he hoped he should nut have in future to repro. bate its continuance. His Lordship here entered into a recapitulation of the evidence. As to Mrs. Clarke, there was little doubt that her testimony in the enquiry in the House of Commons was prejudiced ; for even suppose she had not received the one hundred pounds at all, still what was the five hundred giveri to her subsequently but a bonus? Colonel Wardle and Major Dodd were very ready to deny every thing which Mrs. Clarke lutd asserted ; yet what could possibly induce Colouet Wardle to accompany Mrs. Clarke to the auctioneers, unless he intended to pay the purchase mo ney ? It was a perilous situation for a man who had not even an Intention to put himself into what was the proba bility in the case, for where there was oath against oath, they could only form their judgment open probabilities. If no money had passed between Coloael Wardle and Mrs. Clarke, or noecuniary transaction whatever bad takers place, then, i ndeed, the case would have been altered s then to attempt to fit the debt uPoa him would be imput ing to him the.allizing a lien to alibis owe ramoses but money had, it appeared. been given alaeedyo And dealings in this way were become &maw. Colonel Wardle then was incapacitated from appearing bribe, them its a 'elicit. ly pure and uncontaminated Audios. from the very err. cumstance of his having given Ira. CletlcethelOtot The Jury had a right to examine strictly into * man's pretax lions who appeared before thein_With thlfarotwed.dessga of invalidating the former testimony of three sritnesseOrliose sooLths were now padlocked, and who• were prevented from answering and defending themselves. It was for the Jury then to see whether Colonel Wardle was consistent. What was his answer when asked from the. Beech where the occasion was for this triple security. for idingworthlk Bill, if all wits meant to be fair and open. What possible reason could induce such caution, except the apparent one of concealment ? He was asked another question from the Bench, which was, what possible reason Mrs. Clarke could have for coming forward into a situation of such delicacy. and even danger—she a selfish woman, bred up in prodigal habits, and of an abandoned course of life ? What was his answer ? A most magnificent answer, but nothing more —nothing which could carry conviction, or the shadow of conviction, to men of sense. Who could believe it of 4 woman in her situation? She was, he " supposed, in fluenced by her lo ve of country ?" This was really too incredible in a proSecutor, in such a case, a man of the most unsullied purity should be required—a man in the language of the Law, " Omni exception major.' Is Co. lone) Wardle suck a man ? Major Dodd was another wit. ness; h., it seems, held a lucrative and confidential situa. don under the Duke of Kent, and yet this man kept con. cealed from his Royal employer the knowledge which he had of a conspiracy existing against his brother ! Was this a man upon whose testimony former witnesses were to be impeached ? Why should tie not even have taken common counsel, how to preserve unhurt the relative Of his Illustrious Master ? From the common impulse of yeti tude—frum *Section for benefits received—from duty ars faithful servant--but, above ell, from the high sod I*, - nourable spirit of the profession of which be wags am. her, this was to lave been expected. Yet be did so Wit thing. What was the conduct of the third.wisness, m ik t o# Mamie? He went on the Martello Tower elteurinses test employed himself in taking down in writing every sow. meat which the. Duke of York bad uttered to Mrs. auk. concerning the-_/Loial Family ! What . was this honour. able or just, to ' take - advaatage of (for nottwithitandioe the presence he was in, he would say iti the lames* sr. discretion of the Royal Duke ? Evert if he employed his.