The Sun.
London, England, 1809-12-18 00:00:00

tn upon hire, to the said Mary Aurae Clarke, had
been made in the name of Mrs. FarqUhar,the mother
Of the-said Mary Anne Clirke, as the said Mary
Anne Clarke was, at that time, apprehensive of being
arrested for debt, and many persons having been
Making inquiries at the shop of this defendant
(Francis Wright) at what place the said Mary Anne
Clarke lived, the said GoMplainant (Gwyllytu Lloyd F.
Wardle)' suggested, that the entries of the said goods
should be continued to be made in the same man-
ner, and the said articles,goods, and furniture) were
entered in the books of this defendant accordingly."
Now, my Lord, Airs. Clarke's evi,,le•nt object was
to elude the statbte of frauds, and thereby subjeCt
'me to the whole of Mr. Wright's demand. But,
my Lor !, not only is Mrs. Clarke's account contra-
dicted by the Wrights, but the statement of the two
brothers is at-var;ance ; for, if ,Francis Wright's state-
ment is taken for the truth, then all things hired, as
well as sold, were entered in the name ofMrS: Far-
quhar, and formed one cinnitined account.
I' observe your 'Lordship to have Stated, that, " as
to the little circumstances of taking- the houSe in
Bolles-street, and the transaCtiOnS with Curt, they
are but trifles in the sauce. The insurance is ano-
. ther circumstance. " But that,"'says your Lord-
ship,. " I consider as a mere irregularity of the par-
ties,who had made a foolish insurance,on which they'
could not have 'recovered.!' With very great sub-
.:
' mission to your Lordship, these circumstances do
'not appear, upon attentive consideration-, 10 be
-lain; I beg to put it thus to your LOrdship.—
You hair., my ;Lord, the fatt, that the house ts as
:taken by Mrs. Clarke in the name of her mother, Mts.
-Farenbal ; that tbelease was in the name of Nlrs:Far-
ilubar;.tiyatMts.farohat was the person debited in
Mr. W.'s-hooks ;. and that the-insurance was made in
her, Why,. tiny Lord, all.. this was. done the •
defendants do- not
,condeseend to.'inform, us 5 and
your Lordship even • appears at- a loss to guess at a
reason. Boil think, .any Lord, I canpoint- out very
substantial reasons why all .this is not to be consi--
dered as " trifling," and attributable to " mere irs
'regularity.' If, my, Lord, the lease had been grant-
ed to Mrs. Clarke, or any person in trust.- for tier,
without the concurrence of her husband, might not
that husband have taken possession of the,house ? If
the moods had been sold to Mrs. Clarke, . might not
that same husband have possessed himself of those
goods, or, might not his creditors havetaken them'
in execution ? If too, my Lprd, Mr. Wright had de-
bited Mrs. Clarke, might she not have pleaded her
coverture against tiiin ?
The Colonel then goes on to advert to an asser-
tion contained in a letter Published by Mrs. Clarke
in the newspapers, in,which she says, alluding to the
evidence she had given in behalf of Mr. Wright, that
Mr. Wright's servants„ as well as others, could
prove every syllable she
.had sworn; likewise to a
Similar assertion made by Mr. Wright, through the
same channel, that his workmen could prove the
conversation he had had with Col.- Wardle about the
furniture ; yet neither the servants nor the work-
people were called, nor even the man who was said
to. hare been so much frightened when he brought
the glass to•• Mrs. Clarke's house. The Address
then alludes to the important and dire& contradic-
tion given to Os testimony of Mr. Wright and Mrs.
Clarke, by Sir R. Phillips and Mr. Illingworth, bath
of whose credibility was unimpeached; but whose
evidence was passed' unnoticed in the summing up.
The • Colonel theu' concludes.—Your Lordship
seems at' a loss to guess what could indace Mrs.
Clarke fo make the discovery which she did, and
undergo for a lengthef time the examination of the
Rouse of Cotninons, unless she was led to hope for
a pecuniary ricatupence at my hands.
The ansvver,iny.Lotd, is not ol•diffieulty is it
not probable that Mrs. Clarke might loOk forward
to a public investigation, in B,eapS of inducing the
Duke of York,•to comply. with the claims. she had
Upon him; and. has not the result eviticedA not only
.
that such have been attended lb, but that
a far greater sum than was originally, deinatided by
Iqrs. Clarke, has been paid to lieii?-{alluaii)g to the
sum of iu,Gool, reported to have.been paid to Mrs.
C. beside an annuity settled
_upon her for life; for
the suppression of. tier paMphlet.)