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 of; he never was at the 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.4cAtilir'l4lo*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;
.8411 M * nilfet cyntiftir—Ccelltiel Wardle paving Mrs. Clarke
100V-101&4iikpreiiing 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,
. all.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, indeed, 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, mikto#
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.