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

DEC. 24.

AL REGIS'

he must have known that the insurance was void, if the goods
were not sold to Mrs. Farquhar, and upon her credit. I say,
my Lord, every circumstauce of the case demonstrates, that the
credit was given to her, for the reasons before pointed out.
Much, my Lord, very much was said, regarding the form of
the Indicthent. In that respect your Lordship was apprized by
Mr. Alley, that neither tnysetf, nor my Solicitor, were to blame:.
it was the concurrent opinion of my Counsel, in which I ac-
quiesced, and it was manfully and honourably stated by them,
that, " if they had erred, upon their heads be the sin."
Your Lordship considered the indictment for conspiracy op-
pressive, because the Defendants were thereby prevented frogs
profiting as they might in a separate charge for perjury, by
each other's evidence. But I will shew to your Lordship, out
of the mouths of these very Defendants, that they had abundant
evidence to prove the orders I have given; and yet, my Lord,
not ON Eof those, persons was called. I will refer your Lord-
ship to a letter published by Mrs. Clarke, in THEN A 11 ON AL
REGISTER, of the 16th of July last, and copied. from theoce
into all the Newspapers. In this letter Mrs. Clarke says.
" Colonel Wardle knew, that Mr. Wright's SER VA NTS. aq
" well as OTHERS, can prove every syllable that I have
• sworn." On the 2.3 d of the same mouth, Mr. Francis Wright,
published also, in TILE NATIONAL REGISTER, an appeal
to the Public, wherein he states, " That having recovere4
• from his accident, he went to Westhourne-place, on the 14th
" of December, and saw me there." He then proceeds thus :
" If Colonel Wardle has forgot our conversation on that day,
" I will endeavour to remind hi'n—l was assisting my W 014 -
" PEOPLE in the room where Mrs. Clarke was sitting. k utt
" know, said the Colonel, I have given your brother ORDERS
" to furnish this house for Mrs. Clarke, and I mean to pity 2.0 u
" HONOURABLY and HONESTLY." Non, my Lord, what
is become of the SERVANTS of Mr. Wright, who. could prove
every syllable of the case ? Where are those same
PEOPLE, who were present at the conversation between me
and Mr. Wright? Where is THE MAN who brought home the
mirror, and put me in a passion. Mrs. Clarke, your Lordship
knows swore, that his man was so much frightened, " that he
66 almost let the mirror fail from his hands." Such conduct,
my Lord, I should have supposed, would have made an impres-
sion upon him. Why, 1 ask, was HE not produced? But
before, my Lord, I close my observations upon this appeal of
Mr. Wright's. let me give your Lordship one other extract from
it, RS regards
the insurance. The passage is this:—" Much
" stress has been laid, and MANY OBSERVATIONS made, about
66 MY INSURING THE FURNITURE; it is DO uncommon case
" for the Upholsterer to receive orders to insure the furniture
" immediately after the house is furnished, because he is sup-
-44 posed to be hest acquainted with the amount of the value;
" bort WHEN THE POLICIES ARE MADE OUT IN THE NAME
" OF THE PARTY IT BELONGS TO WHICH WAS THE CASE
44
IN THIS INSTANCE, the Upholsterer is by no means
rested in so doing." The Policy for the Insurance of the
House and Furniture was taken out at the Westminster Fire
Office, on the Slst of March, 1509, and likewise ANulliEß FOR.
WEARING APPAREL, JEWELS, &C.
Now, my Lord, the House and Furniture were insured, and
the Po LICY MADE OUT. 111 Mrs. Fi,rqultar's name ; •and, unless
the House anti Furniture btforafed To it ER, how can it he said,
that the Policy ;vas mutie out in the name of the Party the Pro-
perly belonged to ?. The Jewels, Ste. were insured, and the
Policy made out, on the said 31st day of March, in the name
of Mrs. Clarke.—Really, inv Lord, this does appear to me to
he STUDIOUSLY done, by SHREWD. AND WELL-ADVISED
PERSONS."—DOCS 1101 our Lordship see the object?---Tae
Jewels were not suppli(:d by Mr. Wright. Mrs. Clarke, vs hen
Debtor to the Tradesmen supplying these and other articles,
and sued for the money, could plead her covet-tore. She was
ever prepared to defeat her creditors; for, upon what occasion,
from 1501. up to this time, did Mr. Wright refuse to hail her ?
He thereby, your Lordship, observed, incurred no risk, he.
cause she was a Pine c:mcrte ; and from the period at which
Mr. Stokes uKCA ME HER AT:•CRNEY, he certainly did not
run any risk ; for this defence was invariably set up, and her
t reditors as invariably defeated. But to shew your Lordship,
that Mr. Wright, pr:or to the adoption of this system, did en-
counter risk in becoming hail for her, I must beg to refer you,
to an action brought ai,ainst .Mrs. Clarke by Solomon de Young,
in is hick actions Mr. tiarnett was the Attorney of Mrs. Clarke,
and Mr. Wright justified as her bail, and w as afterwards fixed,
with the pay meat of the debts aud cots, iu consequence of Mrs.
Clarke out toeing surrendered.

1