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

sevareevy tree tibitilifebetttlang 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 Defendants petty, 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 shownrand again would
show, Mr. Wardle had not even the possibility of
interest iii it. Mr. Stokes had eresinterest in the
success of his clients, and io hie pwn fame and
reeetation, but the result of 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 were 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
giee 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,eee jtjSS 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
vibe 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 upiiintfb 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
eestimetty 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
.for 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
of it, 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 couteakeeit; This receipt, Mitt' id of mi. litating
.!seeect very strongly supported it.