The Statesman. — London, England, 1809-12-12 00:00:00

s evareevy tree t i bit i lifebetttlang known Mr. 'Stoles, stn I was he astameit of having known lieu, boil it entair of the Atterney-General to make 'out i!is case by adverting ripe intimacy between -nem. 11. must speikfreety of "the eetividual with -snout 'sr had !meal ht habits of ; sod the verdict of the Jury otv their daywould Jeci le upon! the future intercourse hetweeti them. If the Jury should find the Defendant s p e tty, Mr. Stokes and from that moment, ,should know each other no more. Why, fureeeth, wes Mr. Stokes to be believed ? thus: principle of having no in terest in the •ucci•ss' 41 the cause? So far fruits that being the case, he hid the greatest possible interest in it, while, as he had already shown r and again would show, Mr. Wardle had not even the possibility of interest iii it. Mr. Stokes had ere s interest in the success of his clients, and io hie pwn fame and reeetation, but th e r e su lt o f th(S * trial. could not ilifluence the question of the late verdict. Nn record of conviction could be given in evi. dunce, unless the parties w ere the same who had before litigated. The parties in this cause were nut the same, and therefore the former trial could not he given in evidence. Colouel Wanlla could not, therefore, by the event of this trial, be it as het 1' might, protect himself frum the d images' that hail been given against hius. In equity also, it was an invariable rule, that although there may have been plunder and perjury, the Court will nut sustain a con ictiun —it would be violating the very list principles of equity. In sliort,the result of this trial could Out affect Colonel Wardle with respect ro the damages is the other cause, any more than his being in Yorkshire, to which the At. torney-General had alluded, could have affected it. But how did the evidence of Mr. Stokes look in this cause ? He confines the secret of this con versation at Colonel IVardle's house in his owe breast till this slay, notwithstanding that it would have been so important to have brought it for. ward on the former trial, when it might have so powerfully ,corroborated the testimony of Daniel Wright and Mrs. Clarke. Bit it seems so far from that, although he knew it itt Feb. last, he swears that he never communicated it to any i•vely, not even to F. Wright himself. Wits knew of a con. spiraity to subvert the bootie r ; mid reputation of the Duke of York, he was guilty of a spi•cies of mis prision of treason, ny cons.eilin.; it during all that interval. W4y was not Mr. Stolets called upun at the last,triA to give that daniiiing roof ? Why did Iliet Ite• torn say, here's Colonel Wardle has the 'pf idigacy to deny that be ordered the furniture?. Why did he set the case go to the Jury, urn the evidence of Daniel Wright aed Mrs. Clarke, which was so iucunclu. sive to t ie lands of they Jury, that it was wily gi e e a r:letiberiitiou of hire, hours that they found a, mirdt fur the Pleintie ? Why bed Mr. Stukee inddealy' lugged tinvilvat evidence which he bad declined giving on the former trial, the re. stilt q( which, then so doubtful, might have becteao strengthened and secured by this evidence But the Must extraordinary part tit this case, is tue sudden alteration in the course of the defence.-- 'fne krt.-,rney.General bad declared in a part of his speech, that, by this indictment fur a cuospi. raw", they were deprived of all their witnesses— be bad said they had nu witness who could prove any testimony on tutu transaetiowe Uow hap. p, ee e jt j SS Wait seen that this cause was likely to • turn *mist the Difeitiauts, that Mr. Stokes all of a sudden gets up to give his evidence ? Ilail Air. Stokes been amen; the proofs its the brief, the Attorney-Genital would not have dellieied ~exactly that speech which had been heard. Hod v ibe evidence of Ntr...fitokes been contemplated when he began his speech, the Learned Gentleman ;'mould not have told the Jury that he had no evideoce— that all his witnesses %ten: shut op in " the Parchni.”st ey. that Indictment." It was, indeed, must extraordinary that he should after. wards hive priltlueed a Gentleivait w lit, was ass shut upiii nt fb it indictment, to prop up his toads, ing cause. What, he would ask, was there either) in the evidence or character of Col. Wardle rote shire the Jury to discrediohis testimony ? 01 Mr.' Stokes's erssiti bitty he could fey nething. Whether hr here4fter should esteem him must te:pend upon tee verdict of the Jury. Let those who had witness. eskthe evidence of Colonel Wardle say, it there had been ant to inspeaeli it. Had lie hesitated— bad he sire is li-red—had he not delivered his e es timetty promptly, boldly, and with the greatest decision ? lie had spoken as clearly and as explii.itly as man could steak. The balance, be must say, was greatly in favour of Cul. War. di-. It bail been said that Mr. Stokes had nu interest in the incise of this cause ; but what would become of him, should his de uis 11.. t con. vested laterest must have great weight wi h Mr. Stokes—brit not so with Clone! Wardle. , —Much serpiltd lad been sleeted at the bill which Mrs. Clarke gave to Mr. Illingwortls, nut baling been produced—but this was a feeble ob. jection—her book, from which the only means of payment could he derived, was nut disosed of— and it was therefore clear, thit applicatiou to her . f o r pay uncut would have tweet fruitless. She could not get Is r price from Sir Richard Phillips, and it would have been idle to have called upon her for the menet.. With respect to the receipt given by Mr. 1. Wiiiht to, Mr. Illitigworth, tei which so mucb stress had been dial, hy o term was that receipt given ? by Mr. Wright himself ; it was his receipt, his own words. And to .shum was it given t nut to Col. Wattle;; hell it been given to him, and he had accepted it, without objecting to the terms o f i t , then there might have been a colour, at least, fur the objictiusi ; but, given as it was by N. Wriehtile Mr. Illingworth, it tended to prime as s - rdeglyeas any evidence that had been -Atte dueettethteezislance of the cunseiraey. There was eirryiippearance of the trice being then devised by 7: Wright, who says to him-elf, " now !• walls,: this trick, by giving to Mr. Wing. wutth, who knows nothing of the trensretioe, ." a rcediratfifue 5001. in part payment of the 'ti ihone worth 44 furniture, scut into West. rs buurue-platee inst.a 1 of a receipt for 5001. on " SeC'erent of the old debt." That was the trick, to which, tu fact, might be traced the oriein of be couteakeei t; This receipt, Mitt' id of mi . litating .!seeec t very strongly supported it. P : ~i I If Cul. Wardle, or Major Dodd, or Mr. Weeny, had paiv, thw money i•istend of Mr. Illingworth, and takin sorb a receipt, the cue had brae essen tially diffcrert. Wright thought he had fixed Col. Wardle by that receipt, and which, in fact, ' h iil only been l int into his hands by Mr. illngworth a little lime before the trial. The evidence of Major Dodd had been treated as not deserving credit, because being in a confi- Aential situation with the Duke of Krot, he hill listened to conversations in which the character of his Royal Brother was implicated, without mak rig any communication to•the Duke of Kent ; but Major Dodd had assigned the moat satisfactory of transom for his silence. It would .uot,as he justly said,' have been delicate in him to have communi cated to the Duke of Kent, facts and conversa tion; so &clay affetkting his Royal Brother. Major Dodd was then attackedlor having at all interested himself in the subjects on which the investigation was founded, but from all possible imputation °rim. propriety on that score Major Doild hall effectually exculpated himself, at least in the rntil of every candid and diquissionatc person. He had been in the army nineteen years; he knew that abuses .1 existed ; and he felt the anxiety of a man who - I had the gootl of hi, country, 1610 t h ' honour of his profession at heart, for the eradication of curreption and the refortnatiun of abuses. With respect to an allusion which he (Mr. Alley) had made respecting the payment (if 10,0001. by Lord Chichester, he regretted that-he had mentioned the circumstance, which lie should pass over without further obseivation. The Attorney-General had made many conetients on that part of the evidence of Mr. Glenn,, in which he stated, that F. Wright told hint that the reason why he gave the fresh credit to Mrs. Clarke was, the hope of getting, by that means, the money which she already owed him. But lie (Mr. Alley) drew conclusions from this evidence, very different from those of the A tturtiev-General, in which, lie had no doubt, the Jury would concur with him. The Jury had been called upon to reject Cie evidence of Co lonel Wardle (amongst other reasons), for having given Mrs. Clarke one huldred pounds previous to having given her evitleare Iszfa.-e the House. llat cider what circumstance Mid he given bet. that money i They were goring nut of town—it a/a .1 mere (aide. an inconsiderable Ise ' eionstiodritian—and he w •.,Id ask, -o hether it is ant the I Ldaily practice to voippnrt trimmers fir the Crayon? lie • eould not for himself see even tho,,grouni on winch this was attempted to he imputed to Calosiel Wardle as a crime. That I i the story wh'eh Mrs. Clarke told Iva: i:ne, certainly (termed : arras corrillrontsrm from the enter anklet/ with *hien her , prmaisod publications was anticipat-d ; and from the airs. routed avidity with which it had been bought up. Tee 1 Attorney-General had etprested his surpoiass, that Mr. , Satire* flea had not h'en called as a wham. lie had berm set ponied income:qui-rice of what bail fallen, on a for ' mrr occasiou, from the Attorury-General, whirls i uhiced a I suspicion, that Mr. Corield, the attorvey for Mr. Wardle its i a fanner actions, a gentleman whose respectability was otto , impeachable, to;gat have been called on the part 44 the 1)e -' frt.-lams. What that Gentleman might have Mal called for, or what the Defendants might, through his evidence, have , attempted to insinuate, it was impossible to telh----it ' had, however, beeu deemed prudent to tutrpeena Mr. S-rjeaot Bet., that tbe twoefit of his testimony might have been had in raw the Defendants had thrin-thl proper to calf C M sua r. . r tn a I.vlieri.dl;"—With rues, he i g i; A C i c i a lt s . n i i i n li t . v th h e :,tl A i l i i irt ae ;o 1 .; m ist , *personal complalat—he trusted itmi that l.earoverl Gentleman did not think that ;.e wa4 attatimil to any thiag like party, or that his concinct in the nana...missert of iba cause was laduemed by aoy consideration ofthat n inure. If he ; nnfortoos,telv did thick sn, he lab-oared under a very gims Palmlike. He (Mr. Alley) woos. not attached to any party, nor wag he court, og popular applause. The huzzis of the mitltita ie, he aril koe ir, were .ometinses bestowed a ithout merit, as they Were also at others, a Ithdrawn minions rea son ; and to suppose coat he shoed ray any taine. wish the view of obtaining the shouts or the multitude, am incorrect The a.ttraordinary length to which this Witt hail been protracted, rendered hint unable to say all that he might have said on the presero occasion, in support of the prosecotioon—froni slim circumstance, added to the late ens of the hour, he should decline adding mare than the ex prestioa of his thanks for the patient indulgence with which -he had been heard by his Lordship and by the Jure, to whom he would add, that the eye •f the Uoited kingdom were open aria. THE - STATESMAN. • V , _, gins toispv-pald to het when she was going awl of t0w.0.:- and that W. were given afterwards, that would have im peached her testionozny in the House of Gammas, where she gave it; and if it had been before a Court of Justice, sad she hadsworn uatruly, it would have subjected the party so giving the money too an accsnation of subornation of perjury. What was the 3001 but a bonus fur testimony? I know of no other name by whoch it C3ll be characterized. Whether it be accessary to his fame, his Interest, or his popularity, the man who gives it ise , ses money acts corruptly. You are to take It that her testimony with respect to any promise is fully denied by Mr. Wardle. The nett part of her testimoay-- that she introduced Mr. Wardle to D. Wright, saying, " This Is the Gentleman who iv to furnish soy house." (Here his Lordship lead Mrs. Clarke's evidence, from the notes of Mr. Dowling, micro on the former trial). Now you have un questionably beard to.roy, that M.sjoor Dodd and Mr. War dle deny, not merely a pvt, but the whole of this witness's evidence. It is, however, very difficult to conjecture, why they west at all with Mrs. Clarke to her upholsterer's I—for if a man does not go with a view of being the paymastsr, it is certainly a dangerous sitontion for a man to trust himself in. By both their accounts, they nere there near three quarters ()fan hoar. They had certainly, at that time, got from her what they wanted ; and if there were a period of rcmunera- lino, that, doubtless, was the time ;for, it is to he remembered that she was yet to be exposed to a serutinous examination before a Committee of the whole !louse of Colnmoni. And although it might not be erpeeted to last se many nights. it was a must serious and formidable ordeal fur a fe male to pass through.—ls it likely that a woman, embarking is an expensive establishment, could ap pear with great (Vat, if she had no money, nor yet the expectatian of money ? If on money had antecedently passed between her nod Mr. Wardle, or even subsequently — or if there hat be1..1 no money dealiugs, no loan of 5.1,P. it would thru be a very strung case, the eotleavnering to fix oa a Gentleman, who calls with a Lady at an upholsterer's shop, a respotuibility for what may. at that time, be ordered. But here you hare n person who gives her IfXl l . and after ' wards ?01. nod then .u' acceptance to meet the 5901. paid by Mr. Illingsvorth's acceptance to Mr. Wright. lie, In fact, I advanced 5 or 6031 These are circumstances waich em ! barrios probability, for n hen a man pats himself against. 9 perms w hove mouths are paillockerLit is' mpossi ble not to look at what is said with great caution. I put n Question, whetair the circuitous mode la which th • ;Ott. W.:4 raised for ‘v r iiht, WAS not singular ? %bat was the ineaui..g ..f th•• tran;acrion being so managed, was it not for the purpose of comeslmest ? ! Can the answer that stas give... hr received as t at isfaesov, What was the purpose of thi, triple security Why sboUld I not Mr. War Ale have given, with his own ban ' a pea -1 missory note or an acceptance to Wright? And vet, he say., it %via not wits a view to concealment I mast weigh these things delibenaely—ym statist construe these things accurately. What is it possible it c ,old be done for, if it is sins not for the purpose of concealment ? I asked another question, the aussier to whichgwas certainly mdgniffrent —bet only so. I asked what was the inducement of Mrs. Clarke foi'going on with her di,coveiies ? " I don't " know, except to do the puidie good." hat, was it only with a view of bring the beatofaetress of her counts) , ? Good God I Can that be true? All these 'natters are lor your con sider:cities. in whose bosom mast re.ide the &vision of ihes • lissues. W here three people are manacled together and fet -lered, will you expects Prosecutor to he - - • SUBSCRIPTION' FOR I'F.IISONS COISIMEREVI AS ti ti !WITI t Y eIt,OhI.:CUTED BY TRY. Pitopntr.rotts ot , Cl) 1:!f TN f vrR E. Pi l ing CO/44i ['TEE respertfuly inf o rm 'hi: PURI.IC, that tit- A PpLic vrioN for ASSL3f- ANCP.. from PERSONS considered as romp natter tb • above dezrription, are more na micron then the pretest . =tide of the ( - UN can possiky clinspig they are, taertfarr. trader the necessity ilicitin4 a con:iiiu vice of tLe utiati- RALITY of OW PURIM, o ltirh Altar eta enable them to carry the tt ishes of the su fist 11l BEI? into effect. •VRACRII.iIOII, r.twa iNVII T.) MU CL:I% ED AT The Mite of Tut (...r st rs•tra N. NI, Fleet,irert ; Mr. Samuel Millor, 11, Skinner-street. ( rreaturrr); Mr. J. l'ottelr, J, (:rote-PI re,C row ttA Sr rret.try I) Messrs. font' :t ad Ilnae, limikvellers„ 'J3I, Strand; Mr. Plustily, soationer, 1, ihke•str -et, Mats hrster-square; Mr. T. Tetg, Hook-eller, I t, ('heap-Lie; Mr. t;7lrttioer, 'Pen, :ofee-1) Igoe, E-41. -court, Strand; Mr. Simmons, corner of Leather-law, Holing's.. A mou nt osubgeri pt im h already adverthed:.• 4115 4 6 .1. P. Nitswall few , tstincli A ch orates to tl.e rause, by the Chebht . face Or,tor, 'r Two C.mtivineu f.asu Corny/al!, d:ltlbted with the insoles: e aid nrutalits of NI-Inners, by R.T 0 10 To meet Corruption in evely It is requested that all Contranolcalions on th e seldeet of the above prl-erutioos roar he made to Mr. %Villiata West, Attorney. Ni.,eleNvenCPllln• PUB! IC DINNEf?. REAL FRIENDS Or THE URANIA, 1 AND REPROBATORS OF MANAOLRIAL IN. SOLENCE AN BRUTALITY, will DINE teertlerr, at the CROWN AND ANCHOR TAY/AN. STRAND, as tatuasui Y. THE 14 ru Is 4. HENRY CLIFFORD, Esq. to TUB OWN. Tickets, 12s. 6tl. each, to be G.td at the Bar of the Ta veni; at Ilattimany's Weave-oflice,Ruxal frotchnote t i :I'M, Is , soksellarr, 111, elteapside 3.raegissszt Nestspaper Otsce, tli, Fleet-street ; and uf Mr. Gardiner, Templet totes house, Ewe t-coart, Strand. Maori-on Table at Flue o'Ciuck, precisely. Tickets alieudy Issued fur Tuesday, the kith instant, will be rcccised act Thtinol.tv. TO THE MEMBERS Or THii COL:iii Or CC M MON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LONDON. - - - - - - - - - 131111TLCIIIIN, OBSERVING, in the Public Prints, 1441. Observations upon my conduct, from my having unit with inners in requesting another Court of Gamma') CeilllC to be called to re-coussider the Address to his Mutest.% fLV It my duty to state the groOnds which actuated my conduct. The Address struck my mind to routmo Iftoctuve not -o;'- able to the dignits which iielungs to the C..i ',oration of Lon dog, ns s. deliberate Body, in expressing it. opinions :1 his Majesty, arid also cootaioing Language not consistent with that respect doe to my Sover•io. to order, there:roman Rite von an opportunity of topsider• in the same I became? mittens that another Glop t should be called; and I do hope you will attend in your places ' and exercise your owl, judgment us to the currectaesa Of th e opi nion I have formed. I am, respectfully, Gentlemen, your most obedleil Sr:roast, Landoll, 9111 Dee. IIiUJ. JOHN A MINS. CHARGr. Lord F.t.t c'ennlt9rGH.—This is an indictment for 3 enn spirary, st Mich charges tae commitsion of an nalawfal act liby unlawful means—oansely, to charge Col. Wardle with a which of right did not !wino; to him, being in fact, con tracted by and due &din Sirs. Clarke, and for which it is [ averred is this indictment, he had never made himself responsi ble. The indictment is neainst three persons, all of whom, on didetent occasions, tamely, twnas witnesses. and tbe third in an answer in Chaucery, have sworn to the facts, which, in this indictment, are averred to he false. What has been sworn in by the witnesses on the former trial, has been con tinued by the answer in Chancery of the third person in this indictment, Francis IVrizht. The Defendants might all have been indicted fur perjury, which, in truth, is the correct course that ought to have bee.) pursued. and I am not a little alarmed at this new measure of combining, in one charge of crirepiracy, all the witnesses to a transaction, re:- perting which t`.ey have given their testimony o•t oath. Indictment for Conspiracy, in every case, has this hordlhip belonging to it, that it deprives every individual included in sac% indictment of the power of calling those as witnesses who are combined in the Intlietownet. If wiseenses, instead of being questioned, and having their credibility impeached, should be thus combined in one aggregate prosecution. and stripped of the advantage of the evidence of each ether, it is a hardship of the most severe nature, and which I shall be very sorry to see imposed agaiu.---It is true you have beard the evidence to %hick they swore en the fJracer trial read, but we all know the disadvantage under which such testinumy lies when conipared w ith oral testimony. D. Wright,who seems to have no manner of comsect inn with the Secusation,is stripped ()revery 'nein@ of proving his innocence, cost in vo lved ins one common accusation in the general charge of evospiracy. It certainly is legally competent to de so ; biti I de wipe, that in future such cases may be tried, so as to give the pieties the fair advantages usual in such ease,. With respect to the testimony given by the toe witnesses on the former trial, you mast give it ' the same credence as if it were now sworn before yna, other wise the Defendants enornebe essnsidered otherwise than as be *delivered bound tit fetteredriato the hatids ef the prosecutor. if beg to be understood Mal my observations en this point ap ply to rases in which thrte ere other remedies, but mot to these where there are no @thew remedies. Mr. .Wardle positively denies, in his ettuninatiou, any such promise as was sworn to by the witnesses on the former trial, or indeed a is w a ft, promise whatever. There has been snuck stress laid oa the Ant sum of money given by Mr. Wardle to lin. Clarke, and very justly. The Learned Advocate for the presets!. tion has complained of this, b. cause it had been the medium through which much itnotation had been cast upon his client's conduct. I (the 1001. given ta Mrs. C. before th.s., went to view the Martrlto Towels, maggot given to her with r: view to g et bet testimony, yet if It bad appeared that sada sous Lad been Ositsti exception, mijor Is Mr. Wardle In that sitnation ? The next 'tithe sis Major Dodd. who states lionselt to have been high in the conatiesice l o f a Nibble Duke w.io sits Gear me. He states himself to have been desirous of assisting Mr. lVardle ia his inquiry, and admits, on his truss-extunination, that be comer ed with him on the subject frequently. his Royal Highness, he says, disapproved in Palo of what was going on rr.prrtin his [Cosa) Brother, yet he, Major Dodd, the Secretary of she Duke of Kent, knowing of thus, bad held comtrimi counsel u ith those who were bis exposure. Is this according to the ordinary operation of human affections I There is a third G er w e t riiii i, and they tsgetuer into the country with Mrs. Clarke, and in the latervalsof the gratification of their examination of the objects which they professedly went in see, they are taking notes for the evidence of this woman This Gentleman Ina only hikes that evi.'ence, hut ne takes what coiniuon feeling might me be supposed to all in' *ay man to take; he lilies aurcdotes of private life,which,in the IflCAO tioth montent•sof unguarded coMidencr. had heat communicated to this worms, respecting that familly to whom we should on everyprinciple look upoostead of whiehlie treasures up anec dotes, and as it werefatlbas on the offal of their character.— Ie this a an who comes so morilly reearnineoded that you will believe him against three persons' so manacled I—As to the receipt givto by Wrigkl, I think it is liable to tune eijections : the Wain of it is, the arknowl.'dgment of n cei sing " 5001. on nrrnout of Household Furniture, delivered " to Nlts. M. A. Clarke, at No, 2, Westbourne-place." This, it must he recoils. , tad. is theta: gmige of WI ight himself; but be most have given that receipt on thechatrceut uo being retunsed the next day, if the terms of it had been coasistr•red as ob jection:slue by Mr Wardle. This is a use am which, consi- Aerie; the great moral dturTer to which the Defendants are exposed, your judgments ought to be exercised dispassion- may amid freely, independent of every previoso consideration. And although I have a high opinioa of the talents of the Learned Gentleman who opened the Prosecutor's case, I think he brought forward unneeroarily the names of swat persons who du not appear to have any connection whatever with the cease. The aurae of the Earl of Chichester was so introduced, as having paid 10,0001. fur the purpose of paying for tree lettel4. If ii were true that this sum was paid as has been intimated, were amost grievous rri m r, bo o m a shadow of evidence been adduced ea the subject, nor enuld any such evidence be received here. The allusion to the displaciug of 011icers, who should Lire to come forward, and the all eg ation of their ill usage, is also reprehensible. 'the Learned counsel knows that such a subject could not be gone into here. I shneld lament these elreamstances more than I do, were it not that I atm sure you will discharge from your minds ts lint has been said on those subjects. I Daniel Wright was asserted to have been a partner, but, to that fart nut el particle of evideoce was ntl.liwed • —it, ther efore, ought not to have been mentioned : there was, indeed, one William MI right who bad, I be lieve, been a partner vial his brother Francis. There wa., likewise, a topic of inflammation n bids has nut been at all cleared up—who that ' Jug,;ter" was, I do not know, he has not been since mentioned. The witnesses, whose evidence I have stated, are the principal ones on both sides, whe have spoken to the farts. I cannot help saying, that this is a complicated indictment. I dare say, the At torney-General has exerrisod a very sound discretion in calling Mr. Stokes, but be certaioly might have beta called at the last trial. The evidence which he gave is, to be sure, such as a man would at any time give r: lectamly. He was, in fact, the conlideMial depository, in some degree, of Mr. %Cordless well as Mrs. Clarke %i ith the exception of hi, evidence, the oral testimony to-day is all on one side, and the Defend ams are, therefore, obliged to fight with all their might to avoid the pelting of that testimony which is given against them. Mr. Stokes has stated a conversatiou with Mr. Wardle at his non house, in, which be says, he dissuaded Mr. Wardle from calling him to the Bar of the Home of Commons, lest he might be compelled to disclose sabot he knew respe.ting the famishing of Airs. Clarke's.buese. He Hoare two suinmonses from the H-e of Cisesmon% an d a copy of a letter to Mr. Wardle, and his answer. which cor roborate a part of his statement ; nod he says, that he told Mr. Wardle that Mrs. Clarke bad iuformed him she was to derive advantages fruits her communications. He adds, that during hit visit, Francis Wright came to the door of Mr. Witalle's house, and that he dlossod. ed Mr. Wardle from seeing hins--" for," says he, " ll ran excuse myself under my privilege, as Mrs. Clarke's Attor ney, hut tney will get every thing out of him, as he h as ., not 11w head to evade it. Stokes sap positively, that he has not the least doubt of Mr. W. speaking to him at that visit of the furnishing of Mrs. C.'s house. The Learned 'newel' for the prosecutiou then pressed that Mr. W. should be tumbled again, whlcb I think was very biting, and be was examieed. [ If Mr. W. did not mean for ever to take leave of hi, befliri, and of all preiemion to character, be could not do otherwise than deo) , some part of what Mr. Stokes s.id said. He was in Cseurt while he gave ,his evidence. Ile dues pot rcol leet what was the reason that Mr. Stokes was not can misled; hut thinks Fee's examination rendered it onneces sary. Ile does not say, ingatively, that Mr. Wright dud n o t eine t o Lis house, bet his testimo n y grows stronger et wards the close, sod be-positively denies thoses ever havin fi said any thing to him, or beta Stokes, on the subject of fur -1 itishing Mrs. Ctarke's hates.-1 oat ha.. now the substance of theevldence. As to the little matters of taking the house la floilessereet, the transactioa with Mr. Curt; they are but (riles in this cause. The insurance is -uauthee cirransetnnee, ' • • I,ON VON Printed .nd Published !iv D. LeveLL, al rite SYATC<N4 OrricE i 17, timier-strest. .q • '77l7'::ter" - but that I tinkles's; a mere i loft of the parties, *ha made a foolish insurance en wbkh hely could tent hasp recover ed .T ha mobs imboSance of what you basil° consider. is, w higher. you will now believe three persons elpabte of brit goo toolkted at the time th .s gave their evident+, by two of the witnesses that you h eve b eard this day. The Whiteness of the testi toeoe I hick Ohre three wketgdsgavewallk.owa and the two velment, might, at that time, have hems I f o r they were present, at [mid the were is the Hill. What does Mr. Wardle say to this? Wily that on begrime something that was said, he wrote* nose lest with a petted, bat think's' that unsafe he ran iota the Tavern, and there *nog a wait which de sent by another person. Now hadhlF.W:erdle hotend of doing this, only made use of his logs to iniughliii imolCoort, no mistake or misconception could pivalblv have happened, Nit w hy was oat Mr. Corkeld, his former Attorney, called. lu his Letter, addressed to the People of England, be certainly does lay the blame on his Counsel. It has Dom also stated Is) one of the Defeadaats, on the former troll, tau a day or two before that trial, Mr. Wardle intimated, by bis attorney, a disposition to compromise that action, and that he elan menaced Mrs. Clarke, in the event of her r e f twa l, with being cut up, upon her cromelandruition, by tae Learned Serienot who afterwards conducted that defence. Why not bring Mr. Corfield to disprove that evidence ? The case, therefore, hey, nut then, nor mew, received all the proof of which It is susceptible ; and in a complicated in dictment like this it is not proper to wave or d , -e any evidence that can this, produced. It is now ,your provii.re to view the whole of the evidence that has been produced.— You hove three pencils accused t,. fore you, ahn must look with intense aatiety to your decision; and though you have only their written evidence, yet, as in the case of an indictment for perjury, sou maid think that those per sons are before you, and delivering that testininay. And al though the w itaesrei against we'll must have beet, mare names rims lu the case of perjury than here, you have te,:i Remy en the there per-um—they are rice-led of compiriug, and are called before you for the soppoved falsehood of •irMst they have sworn. You mot, therefore, as tar as you are able, combine together all the probsbilities of ,he case to enable you to form a correct judgment On this most important cage. Is it likely that Mrs. Clarkeshould hove gone on, out ender strong meats from Mr. Wardle ? 1 say be gave a bribe, whkm he ought not to 'Live given. Money ought not to be g,seo to person about to be examined. Then timer was the low!. which was also an improper *Merrier. flestkoseo, this importune iodic is in your hands, and I hate nu doubt that you will do justice. The Jury. after a consultation of Minot ten minute!, re• turned their VKIDICT—NaT (WIL'CV. The Dukes of Turk, Kent, Sasses, anti Cilouresier. Moira, and other Nitablemra, with Mr. Tierney :mu Mt. Creevey, sat on the Bench by his Lordship, duzicir, tacikr;:d. [The great length of this Trill has c-►mpc!l.d es to condense the evi&ne.e within a Very tuts ew eumpasss ; but to.murr.►.s we -hill dive the en. tire examinations of Ccilonef WARDLE, • hti.►jot Donn, Mr. Gr.rnista, and 'Ur It. Pal t.r.tes.) Ass-oval. Doe. 1 cr • • • • C :re Wildaftwil..••• .0.460 • • •• • U ('otienhurgb.. 1 . • . Li•two .. ••• • U • ' PRICt OF *rocks ril 3 per CAllt.Cinis. shut [teamed 591/ ' 4 per Celle-84n 5 per Geld. ...shut Consols fnr Art. 1)A Y AT ON P: (1113.04,;K. Loft. 111 9-14 Oismitsm prem. India )i:orlt _ter tqa. Each. 8111 Lottery fiekeu 491. 13s. THE STATESMAN. ritorusti a Tl4az. LO N DO N : TUESDAY, D►CEKBBR 12. —..5...-- JOURNALS from Spain and Portugal, to the 2.51 k inst. were received in town this moraing. They are destitute of interest. The Spanish armies are asserted to be advancing. COrSiT GARDEN THEATRE. Tho disapprobation of the Company was last night expressed with undiminished force. The want of spare prevents our detailing the particulars. I 1 •