« ZurückWeiter »
Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke, when adduced against the Duke of York, and immediately afterwards, in Westminster Hall, gravely admitting and enforcing the evidence of the very same incredible witness against Colonel Wardle, the most charitable opinion that can be entertained of such contradiction is, that an Attorney General must have, at once, an official and a professional conscience, which are perfectly reconcileable, although as opposite as black and white.
As the lawyer says to Hudibras :
“But you may swear, at any rate,
Let us see what oaths were made against Colonel Wardle. Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke makes oath, that “ she was to give the Colonel every information in her power, to assist him in the investigation of the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York; in return for which, he was to furnish her house as part of the requital she was to have for her services."-But, before the Ilouse of Commons, she unequivocally declares (upon her honor!) that “she is actuated neither by malice, nor the hopes of gain ;-that she neitlier has received, nor expects to receive, any remiuneration for her testimony." How can we reconcile these two extremes, Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke, but in the words of Hudibras's epistle to Sidrophcl ?
that you have try'd that nothing's borne, With greater ease than public scorn; That all affronts do still give place To your impenetrable face, That makes your way through all affairs, As pigs through hedges creep with theirs;
Yet, as 'tis counterfeit, and brass,
Colonel Wardle, a gentleman of acknowledged honor, also denied that " he ever induced her to give her testimony by any promise of reward."--Now, it happens luckily for Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke, that, not having been examined on oath before the House of Commons, this self-contradiction is, in the eye of the law, only prevarication ; had it been otherwise, a jury would, in all probability, have deemed it perjury. -Yet (strange to say !) this witness, who was not worthy of credit in the House of Commons, when her veracity was unimpeached, was allowed to be a competent witness in Westminster Hall, when she was contradicting herself in the grossest manner, and in the very gist of the
action, the promise of reward by furnishing her house!
“ I would not give, quoth Hudibras,
Well-who comes next to make oath : Mr. Daniel Wright, brother to the plaintiff, Mr. Francis Wright !- When Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke was turned up (as the keeping phrase is) by her royal friend, she was indebted to Mr. Francis Wright between five and six hundred pounds; and, on her application to him to credit her for the furniture necessary for her house in Westbourne Place, he refuses, until she tells him she has a friend
in view, who, she believes, will be responsible for the payment. This friend was Colonel Wardle. It was impossible for him to have carried his point, without subjecting himself to the pecuniary demands of Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke, under the genteel term of loans; and to have refused attending the haughty dame on her shopping excursions, would have, in like manner, disappointed all his views. He, of course,
nods assent to an invitation from her to accompany her to see some furniture which she is about to purchase, and to approve her taste in the choice of the articles. This (as Col. Wardle alleges) is the sole ground of the responsibility charged upon him.--When they arrive in Rathbone Place, Mr. Francis Wright happens to be in his bed, luckily for him, (as he himself observes in his appeal to the public) or he should have lost the evidence of his brother, Mr. Daniel Wright.-Now,