The National Register. — London, England, 1809-12-24 00:00:00

"frik; PIATMLNAL tit,L7lll.l • UPI ILI also if, the streets leading to his . Excellency's house, in Mansfield 7 street, before twelve o'clock. About one o'clock, one of his Majesty's carriages, drawn by six horses, with the servants in their State liveries, pro ceeded from the Royal Mews to the residence of the Am bassador in llansticld•street. Two new carriages of his Excellency's, together with the carriage of Sir Stephen Cotterell, the Master of the Ceremonies, also attended. The carriages drew up with their horses' heads towards Cavendish-street. In a short time after, his Excellency came out of the house, carrying his credentials in a gold casket, upon a salver, covered with crimson velvet. His Excellency appeared highly pleased with the reception he met with from the crowd assembled about the door, who took off their hats, and gave him three cheers. M. Chester, the Deputy-Master of the Ceremonies, Sir Stephen Cotterel being indisposed, followed his Excellency into the coach, and took his seat on the left. Sir Gore Ousley, who is appointed interpreter to the Ambassador, took his seat with his back to the horses. His Excellency's carriage followed, with Mr. Morier, who went from England with Sir Harford Jones upon his roissiou to Persia, as an interpreter,rand returned with his Excellency to this country in the same capacity, and other attendants. In the third carriage were two pages, and his Excellency's Priest. The procession was led by the car, riage of Sir Stephen Cotterel. The streets were crowded to excess which they passed through ; and the Park was so much thronged, that it was with great difficulty the carriages could pass. • As a mark of respect and distinction, his Excellency was allowed to enter the Queen's Palace by the great doors in front, where no other person is allowed to enter but those (if the Royal Family, all others go in by the lodge. His Excellency entered about a quarter before two o'clock. He was accompanied to the State apartments by Mr. Ches• ter, Sir Gore Ousley, and Mr. Morier ; the other atten dants remained in the Great Hall. Soon after, his Ma jesty, being informed of the arrival of his Excellency, sig nified his Royal pleasure to receive him, when he was con dlicf,.e. by Mr. Chester, and introduced by the Marquis IV-tie:,ley, as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. His Exrcflency, after the usual ceremonies, delivered his cre dentiids to his Majesty. and was most graciously received. Alter his introduction, he remained in conversation with the Marquis Wellesley, who, together with Mr. Chester, Sir Gore Ousley, and - Mr. Morier, conducted his Excellency to his Majesty's carriage, about a quarter before three o'clock, and his Excellency returned to his house, where the crowd was extremely great. The populace gave his Excellency three cheers again, upon his leaving the car riage. 719 THE RIGHT HON. LORD ELLENBOROUGH. MY LORD, have read, with attention, the Charge delivered by your Lordship to the Jury, upon the trial which took place on Mon- Oay last. I observe yoar Lordship hi terms to have stated, that Vie evidence was contradictory, and therefore, that the Jury .10 11/flit to the probabilities of the ca-e. Your Lordship, assn force, pointed out the improbabilities of the case made on tly behalf; but did not state, and therefore, I presume, did not think, there was any improbability, inconsistency. or ma terial contradiction, hi the case of the Defendants. Differing, a. I do, in opinion most respectfully with your Lordship, beg leave, through the medium of this address, to point out w hat I conceive to he improbable in the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, and the Wrights ; and wherein, I conceive, they have materi ally contradicted each other. It is agreed, that the first time Isact; Mrs. Clarke was on the Itith of November, when she resided in a reads-furnished house, belonging to Mr. Francis Wright, in Bedford-place; • :Lott that the lea , e of the house in WeAbourne-p!ace eke cuted on t;ie 9th of iVovimber. I wish now to draw your Lord attentiou to what wits swuru to by Mr. Frauds Wright, 1J .r.. 1). X*. his brother, and Mrs Clarke; which, to avoid the possibility of misrepresentation, I have taken from the evidence upon the From this evidowe s it does appear, in my humble judgment, improbable that Mrs. Clarke, without a previous agreement, or understanding, should take the house in Westbourne-place, which was unfurnished, when, at that very time, she represents herself distressed, and without credit, even with Mr. Wright, who, from the year 1801, had furnished every house she had dwelt in (excepting only the establishment in Gloucester-place, supplied by Mr. Oakley);—had been bail for her—for Capt. Thompson, her brother—and for Mrs. Farquhar, her mother, in numerous actions brought against them. But that such agree ment, or understanding, did exist, 1 refer your Lordship to the evidence of Mr. Bull, Mrs. Mumford, and Mr. Cart, and I think, after an attentive perusal of their evidence, it , is impos sible to say that Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Wright did not understand each other. Mr. Wright, my Lord, had an interest in supply ing the furniture ; he derived from thence a pro fi t. Mrs. Clarke had an interest in receiving the furniture, and selecting a pay master for it. I believe, my Lord, this is no uncommon trans action. I say nothing of Mr. Daniel Wright. He was not proved to be a partner. He swears he was only an assistant at a stipulated salary : he had not, therefore, a direct interest in the trade ; but 1 refer your Lordship to the books of the Court in which you preside, wherein your Lordship will see, that he (Mr. Daniel Wright) has justified as bail for Mrs. Clarke, and described himself as carver, and gilder, and housekeeper. Your Lordship knows, that upon such occasions, he must have sworn himself to have been the housekeeper described, and worth double the sum he presented himself as bail for after payment of his debts. But, my Lord, let me proceed to point out other improba bilities in the Defendant's case. It is sworn that I went to Mr. Wright's, for the first time, on the Ist af December, n ith Mrs. Clarke, and presented myself as the person who was to be responsible for any furniture Mrs. Clarke might order, and that to an unlimited extent. I was introduced by Mrs. Clarke 64 as the Gentleman who was to furnish the house," and by my silence assented to that introc'.uction. Mrs, Clarke is positive that I heard what she said, and Mr. Daniel Wright is " pretty sure I must have heard it." Now, my Lord, does it fall VI ithia the verge of probability, that a tradesman should give credit to me, a person unknown to him, for a large amount, when he was only `• pretty sure" I must have heard what Mrs. Clarke swears was said by her in my hearing ? Do tradesmen usually so conduct themselves, or is it your Lordship's opinion, that because Mr. Wright would not supply the furniture " without an interview with me, that there might be no misunderstand ing," for so he swears in his answer, and 1 have given your Lordship the extract from it below, set, that when his brother did see me, he was satisfied there could be no misunderstanding, because I was silent, and he was PRETTY SURE" I must have heard what was said Mrs. Clarke, my lord, swore I was to furnish her house upon condition that she gave me every information in her power, and tosisted me in the investigation. But, is it probable, I. should, on the Ist of December, have entered into an absolute, unconditional engagement with Mr. Wright for the payment of furniture to an unlimited amount, when Mrs. Clarke might, at any moment, have withdrawn herself from me, and withheld giving- further information, or assisting in the investigation which e•I not take place till theist of February ? It was urged, by your Lordship, against me, that I had given Mrs. Clarke 100/. which your Lordship considered as a bonus for her testi mony. in this your Lordship acted under a misconception. The money so given was upon condition she took with her into the country her papers. It was her docunicnts I then wanted to possess, and not her testimony;? What, however, my Lord, if I had paid money to Mrs. Clarke for her testimony ? Was it paid to conceal a great public grievance, or to bring such grievance to tight And mark, my Lord, your own observation, that it was impro bable Mrs. Clarke should come forward to give evidence before the Hone, unless she did so under the expectation of pecu niary recompense; so that, according to your Lordship's doctrine, the truth must have remained unrevealed unless Mrs. Clarke was paid for the disclosure. _ _ 1 pr.,ceed natl., to another branch of the Defendant's evidence, which strike, me to he in)probable and contradictory. Mrs. Clarke, my Lord, swore, that the goods sent in upon hire were returned; whereas Alf. Daniel ‘Vright swore, that the goods sent in upon hire, were converted into goods sold, and put down 'I