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

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 involved 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 waft,
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 get
bet testimony, yet if It bad appeared that sada sous Lad been