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
Mansfield7street, 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 evidowes 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 profit. 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