Early Criminal Trials. The whole party were indicted for murder. French, Docwra and Johnson were first tried and convicted of manslaughter. The evi dence in their cases tended to show, it is said [no report is available], that Captain French had dealt the fatal blow. The Earl of Warwick was next put on trial (13 State Trials, 939). His version of the affair was that the original quarrel was be tween Coote and French, and when the remainder of the party finally took sides he and Mohun were arrayed with Coote against the others; and the Earl protested that having fought on the side of the man who was killed and his three opponents having been convicted of killing him, he could not in justice be held. The difficulty was that these alleged facts rested upon the Earl's simple statement. Of course, as the law then stood, none of the participants—the only persons who knew the facts—were com petent witnesses. The Earl did, however, offer Captain French as a witness, on the theory that having been tried and allowed his clergy he was thereafter competent. It seems, however, that the burning in the hand, the usual accompaniment of the allow ance of clergy in the case of a common sub ject, had, in French's case, been waived. On the situation thus presented Chief Justice Treby, on behalf of the judges, held that French was not a competent witness. The evidence for the prosecution, however, showed many circumstances of suspicion against the Earl. Although he tried to make out that Coote had been his intimate friend the evidence showed that after the affair had terminated he went away, not with the dying Coote, but with French, whom he thereafter tried, moreover, to conceal. And after the encounter the Earl's sword was bloody up to the hilt. Ninety-three peers found Warwick guilty of manslaughter, whereupon he claimed his clergy and was discharged. On the following day Lord Mohun was placed on trial before Lord High Steward Sotners.who.as attorney-general, had prose cuted him on his former trial. The onlv
565
difference between his case and the others was that the evidence proved beyond ques tion that he had opposed the engagement from the outset. That fact secured his acquittal. In thanking the court he spoke the only words of penitence that he was ever heard to utter: "My lords, I do not know which way to express my thankfulness and acknowledg ment of your lordships' great honor and justice to me; but I crave leave to assure your lordships that I will endeavor to make it the business of the future part of my life so to behave myself in my conversation in the world as to avoid all things that may bring me under any such circumstances as may expose me to the giving your lordships any trouble of this nature in the future." It is this latter affair that Thackeray de scribes in the fourteenth chapter of "Henry Esmond." Thackeray had previously intro duced Lord Mohun in his story under the name "Harry" Mohun. The name is changed to correspond with Esmond's, so that Lady Castlewood's unguarded ex clamation of regard for "Harry" supplies a motive for Lord Castlewood's resolve to follow Mohun to London and there call him to account for a fancied wrong. Readers of this delightful story will remember how Lord Castlewood, Henry Esmond and Jack Westbury went together to the playhouse in Duke street in expectation of finding Mohun. They witnessed a performance of Wycherley's "Love in a Wood," with Mrs. Bracegirdle in the girl's part. Lord Mohun was present, in company with the Earl of Warwick and Captain Macartney. "My lord had a paper of oranges, which he ate and offered to the actresses, joking with them, and Mrs. Bracegirdle, when my Lord Mohun said something rude, turned on him and p.sked him what he did there, and whether he and his friends had come to stab any body else, as they did poor Will Mountford." When the play ended the two parties joined company, and the six gentlemen pro ceeded to the Greyhound Tavern in Charing
