Star.
London, England, 1809-12-12 00:00:00

Mr.Paniel Wright was a most unimpeach-
Alessi and if he could be impeached, it must
be alliyend that sufficient industry was exhibited in
the course of, this trial to find out something against
him. • This industry was exhibited in subpoenaing
no less eau three of the Royal.Farnily, and a num-
ber of the Peers of the Realm. These witnesses,
although subpoenaed and attending, were not exa-
mined, and he would confidently say, that the
only reason of subpoenaing them, was that there
should be the appearance of something extraordinary
in the present case, and that the public should believe
that there was something secret and mysterious in it.
When his Learned Friend talked of 4, the principal
juggler," and said that he knew who he meant, he
must declare that his Learned friend was entirely
mistaken. He did not know or conceive who was
meant ; and if he had known, he should have taken
care immediately to bring that man forward, if he
was within the reach of a messenger. If the Jury
were now to pause and consider how the two diffe-
rent cases presented themselves ; he would say that
all the probabilities of the case were on the side of
his clients ' • for it was the most improbable thing in
the world, that Wright should have advanced a fur-
ther sum of 20001. when he had little chance of. re-
covering the 6001. which had been so long due. There
was also hardly a possibility of construing the rc•
ceipt in any other way but as an acknowledgement
on the part of those who took it, that this 5001. was
given, not in consideration of any whole debt, but on
account of the goods sent into the house atWestbourne-
place. The probabiliticsof the case being entirely with.
his client, he believed that the facts would appear so
also, if the evidence was considered, which had been
given by the present Defendants at the former trial.
It was an extraordinary thing that the Prosecutor did
not venture to examine Scrjeant Best on the present
occasion, although he had been subpoenaed, and was
then in Court. If he had been examined, he must
have contradived that assertion which Colonel War-
dle made in his Address to the People of the United
kingdom. The Attorney-General then stated the
evidence which Mr. Stokes would give, and com-
mented with great force on the want of memory in the
Prosecutor, who could forget that there was such evi-
dence in his power. to command.
k!'. STOKES called and examined.
Witness said he was an attorney; he was employed
for the Plaintiffs in the former action, and for the De-
fendants in this. He was summoned to attend the
/louse of Commons during the late enquiry. Before
his obeying the summons, he went to see Col.Wardle,
by his desire—[here the summons to Mr. .Stokes and
Colonel Wardle's letter to him, were read]—Hefound
Colonel Wardle at breakfast in his front drawing-room;
a fire was ordered to be lighted in the back drawing-
mom, whither he and Colonel Wardle retired. He said
to Colonel Wardle, What could induce you to call,
me'as a witness r Colonel Wardle said, it 'eras to'
speak upon the subject of Few's action. Mr. Stokes
said, that Perhaps Colonel Wardle was not aware of
the danger of calling him, as he was liable to a cross-
examination, and would be obliged to tell all he knew
of the investigation ; he would be obliged to tell that
Mrs. Clarke had told him that she expected to derive
considerable advantage from her evidence ; he did
not wish to be called to hurt Mrs. Clarke, but if called
he could not help it. Colonel Wardle was then safe
from his evidence, as, if he was called by the other',
side, he could claim the privilege of secrecy as Mrs.
Clarke's Attorney. Colonel Wardle replied, that if
that was the case, he would not call him. When he
was there, a Mr. Wright was announced, who Colo-
nel Wardle said was the upholsterer, who came to
he examined by him, upon which he said, he hoped
Colonel Wardle did not mean to call him, as he
would do him much mischief ; because he could not
claim privilege as an attorney, and then the whole
circumstances of Colonel Wardle furnishing Mrs.
Clarke's house would be discovered, and also his
sealing Wright to him to bring an action against
the Duke of York. Cobmel Wardle asked him, ilbe
thought then that there would be danger in calling
Wri,ht•' to which he slid, he thought there would, as
he did not think Wright would conceal the truth; and
that even if he did, he had not head enough to evade
the question. Colonel Wardle then said, What shall
I do with him ? on wh;ch witness said it would be dan-
erous for him to see Wright at all; and then Colonel
Wardle desired witness to go down himself and dis-
miss Wright, which he did. After this he got a second
summons to attend the House ofCommons,upon which
be wrote to Colonel Wardle, who told him he had not
summoned him, and if the summons did not come
from the other side never to mind attending. He
did not attend, and heard no more on the subject ;
be heard Wright was not summoned ; he was positive
as to the fact of his speaking to Colonel Wardle of the
circumstance of Mrs. Clarke's house being furnished;
he did not write down his conversation with Mr.
Wardle ; he did not bring in Wright to Colonel
Wardle when Wright called at Colonel Wardle's 1 est
he should be further committed. He made no com-
munication to the Duke of York, nor was there any
communication made that he knew of ; he oever was
at Oatlands, but he once got an order to see the
grotto there, which he gave to some common friends
of his and Mr. Alley's. He knew Mr. Wilkinson ;
he told him about the furnishing of Mrs. Clarke's
house last Michaelmas term, not before it ; his desire
to see the grotto was merely curiosity ; he did not
communicate to any one what be knew as Mrs.
Clarke's attorney ; he told Wilkinson, on the indict-
ment for a conspiracy being found.
Colonel 'Wardle WAS then again called. He re-
membered the circumstance of Stokes calling on him,l
and of the tire in the back drawing-room being lighted.
Stokes was summoned to the House of Commons on
the business of Few, and he thought it better let alone.
He positively swore that Stokes never assigned the
furnishing of Mrs. Clarke's house as a reason for his
not going. Stokes had received a second summons ;
-A was, because Mrs. Clarke bad said,
isiness she had honourably paid the
she was freed, by having pleaded her

Y.CENERAL adverted to the evidence
:tile, and in doing so begged Colonel
iporary absence front Court. [Co-
here left the Court.] He said, the
'ng him called was to contradict
(ow he begged the Jury, in the first
ler the manner of each in giving
Colonel Wardle speaking ft.mn re-
G:okes, in giving his evidence, cau-

tiously comparing it with written documents, their '
former conduct—ColonelWardle paying Mrs. Clarke
£lOO, and suppressing the circumstance—Mr. Stokes
doing no such thing;, their interest in the cause—Mr.
Stokes none whatever to prevent his speaking the
truth—Colonel Wardle every thing which could bias
a man—his character—his former consistency—his
future fame. He was pained in being compelled to
draw these comparisons ; but it was one of the disa-
greeable duties of the profession, and hipwever pain-
ft:'., it must be performed—he thought it would be
better for Colonel Wardle to have in in York-
shire than to have come forward thus to impugn with-
out grounds the testimony of a creditable witness. The
respectability of Mr. Stokes was nct to be doubted,
for he was in habits of intimacy with his Learned
Friend, and that was a sufficient passport of recom-
mendation.

Mr. ALLEY, during a practice of fifteen years at the
profession, never felt himself so distressed as at this
moment : he had to contend against the conflicting
circumstances of duty and friendship : he confessed
he was not ashamed hitherto of Mr. Stokes' acquain-
tance, but its continuance must totally depend upon
the verdict of the Jury ; if that verdict bore out his
testimony, of course be should continue to respect
him; but,if it did not, then his conduct must he squared
accordingly. It was said Mr. Stokes had no in-
terest. Were the circumstances of character, fame,
and professional emolument of no concern ? Mr.
Wardle had indeed no interest ; none but the public
good. There was nothing which could possibly
occur to-day, which could save him from the verdict
of the former Jury as to damages, because in this
and the former action the Plaintiffs were different : in
this action the King was the Plaintiff, in the former
action, Mr. Wright. But it was confessed that
Stokes knew of the conspiracy against the Duke
of York, and yet he did not-communicate a tittle
of it to him ; this he could denominate nothing short
of misprision of treason. He was taken by surprize in
his reply, because the Attorney. General had in thecom-
mencement of his speech, said he would call no evi-
dence, and all of a sudden, towards the conclusion, had
changed his determination ! He then could be expected
exhausted as he was in body and mind, to go but on
few points; he wished, however, chiefly to shield Col.
Wardle from the imputation of interest. No ; be had
come forward freely, openly and promptly to serve
no other interest than that of his country ; he was
indeed, a proud and independent client. Major Dodd
was beyond all suspicion in his evidence ; it was un-
impeached, and would continue unimpeachable.—
Major Glennie was in a similar situation; but Colonel
Wardle, it seemed, was to be attacked, because he
had given Mrs. Clarke £lOO ; the fact was, however,
she could not have gone to see the Martello Towers
without that sum, in order to discharge a few trifling
bills ; and he hoped the giving her this would not be
considered such a mighty crime, when it was con-
sidered that the witnesses for the Crown were paid,
and that she was in a situation of all others, in which
it was necessary to keep her mind as from all in-
tricacies as possible. It was objected to him that
he did not call Serjeant Best; but the fact was, he had
been subpoenaed only to defend Mr. Corfield, Colonel
Wardle's former Attorney, if impeached ; and as Mr.
Corfield had not been impeached, the calling him was
unnecessary. He couldnot help defending himselffrom
an imputation which the Attorney-General seemed to
cast on him in consequence of the noise out of doors.
He was not the slave of politics or party; free and
unfettered in his mind and principles, he came for-
ward fearlessly to the discharge of his professional
duties ; he was bound to no man, or set of men, but
appeared there as the legal advocate of a casual client
arlificiur in verba jurarc magistri." The fickle
breath of popular applause was far from his ambition;
it was, indeed, an ephemeral distinction—a mush-
room honour, springing up with the morning dew,
and ready to fade before the cloud of evening. No :
he wished only for an honest fame, and an unsullied in-
tegrity, which should accompany him to his grave, and
then descend a pure and proud inheritance to his child.
He now thanked them for their attention, and left
them to the decision of the cause ; the eyes of the
country were on them ; and Europe, he hoped, should
see from a British Jury another monument of eternal

justice. I
Lord ELLENNOROUGII proceeded to charge the Jury. I
His Lordship observed, that the present case w.is an
Indictment for a Conspiracy against three Persons,
two of whom had been examined as witnesses upon
their 'oaths in a former action, and the third, Francis
Wright, for having in his answer to a Bill, filed in
Chancery, sworn to the truth of the other's statements.
They might all have been indicted for perjury. Such
would have been the correct course and feeling, as he
ought to do, for the rights of accused persons; he
could not but express his alarm at the new and almost
unpreced cited course which was adopted in the pro-
secution of that day. By that course the accused w,ere
deprived of almost all the means of being heard in
their defence. They could not avail themselves of each
other's testimony to retract any part of the accusation.
If such a mode of proceeding should grow into prac.
tice, by which all persons, whom it should be thought
convenient to accuse, were combined in one aggregate
prosecution, it was impossible to foresee the mischiefs
which might follow. It was a hardship which he
would be extremely sorry to see imposed at any future
occasion upon the subjects of this land. Though the
advantage of the written evidence was allowed, no
person could deny the hazard and hardship to which
the accused were subjected, deprived as they were
by this process, of the possibility of producing oral
testimony. It was true that such a course was lite-
rally legal, but it was a most grievous abuse of a le-
gal power. :n stating these as his opinions on the
present method of indicting persons for a conspi-
racy, he wished to be understood as applying that
idoctrine only to cases where the accused can be pro-
secuted in another manner. Much stress deserved to
I he laid upon the first sum of money given by Colonel
Wardle to Mrs. Clarke. His ].earned Advocate
Ihad complained of imputations that had been been
cast upon his Client's conduct, and how his mo-
tives in giving this sum of 1001. had been the sub-
ject of misrepresentation. In a case like the present,
. where evidence was contrasted with• evidence, and
' : contradiction opposed to contradiction, it became the
Jury to weigh well the probabilities. In that view
1 they would consider the cause of Mr. Wardle'. cue-
i nection, with Mrs. Clarke. What were his objego•
through her instrumentally, and what were the is-
dueements of that woman to lend herself to his

able la

1 ' ' the reason of that
that in Few's ha:
) debt from which!
1 coveTture.
The A.T TO RN E'
4 . of Colonel Ward
Wardle's tempo
. .
liv lonel Wai Ile he:
nl);ect. of havin
t IT. Stokes. Isk
. i place,/to considl
their evidence • 1
i cullectiun—Mt. 4
i.l
, . .
if'
• ,
____