Thomas Clarkson - Out of the
Frying Pan into the Fire
Of all the emancipists holding land in 1820, Thomas
Clarkson was recognised as having the second largest holding. His
tenure of 2,150 acres was surpassed only by the 19,000 acres of Samuel
Terry.(1)
Of his other properties, although some had narrowly
missed being lost
in the many mortgages of the previous years, it would appear that at
the beginning of 1820, most of Thomas' property remained intact, and
were still in Thomas' ownership.
IF ONLY he'd been able to consolidate his empire and
completely clear
his debts, perhaps at this point he would have been able to establish
an enviable array of property, the development of which would have
boosted him to the ranks of the other ex-convicts whose names were
remembered - such as Simeon Lord and Mary Reiby, But Thomas continued
to borrow and buy.
Underwood
v Clarkson 6 May 1020
I will cause to be put up and sold by
Public auction op the premises in
Hunter Street, Sydney on Friday next the 12th instant, at the hour of
Twelve noon, by virtue of a writ of Fieri Facias issued from the
Supreme Court, all that valuable Dwelling house, with the outbuildings
and Appurtenances, now in the occupation and the property of the
Defendant together with sundry articles of Household furniture and
effects, also his property, unless the execution thereon be previously
superseded.(2)
Underwood was trying to recover a debt of £501
and for this
Thomas mortgaged his own home in Hunter St/Elizabeth St.(3)
These premises were not sold and were included
attain in other
mortgages. In fact they were destined to become the only property the
Clarkson's were able to retain from all of this, indicating that
somehow Thomas was coping by being able to keep one step ahead of
foreclosures. How long could it last?
On 9 December 1819, Thomas had borrowed £100
from Robert Cooper
to be repaid on request.(4) Now, on 18 March 1820, Robert Cooper was
complaining that in spite of the fact that Thomas had been repeatedly
asked to settle the debt no payment had been made. A verdict was given
for the plaintiff to whom Thomas offered up a Warrant of Attorney…
.. to
secure payment to the within named Robert Cooper of the sum of
fifty pounds--- besides the cost of suit --- but execution to be stayed
for three months from the date thereof.(5)
Another promise?
In March 1820, Thomas was back before the courts to
answer the suit of
Solomon Levey. As well as being in arrears to Levey for £200 for
the purchase of various goods and merchandise, Thomas found himself
caught at the end of the chain of an unpaid promissory note. This note
had really done the rounds. It had been offered up and re-endorsed and
handed onto the next holder a number of times before payment was
finally required and called for. It happened like this…
Robert Lathrope Murray (with whom Thomas had dealt
previously) had
"made his certain note in writing commonly called a Promissory note" on
28 May 1819 and promised to pay Thomas £200 within 9 months.(6)
Before the payment was due Thomas used the note "then and there
redelivered the said note so endorsed" to Solomon Levey.(7) In turn
Levey endorsed the note with his hand and passed it on to Robert
Campbell the younger, who again, endorsed it and used it to pay John
Lawrie. The final link in the chain became Robert Cooper, who accepted
the once again endorsed note from Lawrie.
All this within the 9 months time period on the
first issue of the
note. When the payment became due on 2 March 1820, the note was
presented to it's original drawer, Robert Murray, who absolutely
refused to pay as Thomas Clarkson was in debt to him at that time, so
the buck passed to Thomas as the next in line. According to Levey's
affidavit, Thomas promised to oblige, and since he was also in debt to
Levey for a further £200, he found himself at the mercy of the
courts.
Once again Thomas lost out and was required to
produce the sum of
£400 plus costs.(8)
On 22 March 1820, Thomas Clarkson, miller, engaged
James Norton as his
attorney and gave him his warrant to…
receive
a declaration for me in an action of debt for the sum of
£5000 at the suit of Robert Cooper and Solomon Levey and
thereupon to confess the action and suffer judgement... (9)
A judgement passed on this action on 20 October 1820
gave Cooper and
Levey the right to recover their debt from Clarkson's property by 15
August 1821, unless payment was forthcoming.(10)
The very same day (i.e.: 22 March 1820) Thomas
effected a mortgage with
the above mentioned parties for £3,338/6/8 plus interest at the
rate of 8 per cent per annum and due for settlement on 22 March 1821.
This was witnessed by James Norton and James Foster.(11)
This mortgage contained the entire Bunburry Curran
and Minto lands at
Campbelltown, plus:
No 53
Phillip Street {a capital brick house built by Clarkson)
No 13 Phillips
Street (brick house lately erected by
Clarkson)
No 12 Phillip Street
No 54 Phillip Street
No 19 Phillip Street
No 46 George Street on the
Brickfields Hill (from Mary Lewis)
No 1 Bent Street
The dwelling at the corner of Hunter
and Elizabeth Streets (at present
under mortgage to Jas. Underwood.)
A windmill grinding corn, in the
joint interests of Thomas and Richard
Palmer.
"And also that newly erected
watermill with the land and premises
adjoining, situate on the Botany Bay Stream and known by the name of
the Macquarie Paper Mill".
The new year must have been upon Thomas before he
realised it and it
was obvious that the mortgage was still outstanding. On 14 April 1821
the Sydney Gazette notified the inhabitants of an impending auction.(12)
Cooper
and Levey v Clarkson.
To be sold by Public Auction at the
Market Place, Sydney, on Friday the
l8th day of May next, at the hour of eleven in the forenoon precisely,
by virtue of a writ of Fieri Facias issued forth from the Supreme Court.
This was to list all Thomas' rural properties at
Bunburry Curran plus
Lamb's Farm on the Hawkesbury. No's 53, 54, 13, 12, and 19 Phillip St,
and No's 71, 72. and 73 Pitt St, No 46 George St. No 1 Bent St. A
Hunter St premises (we believe this may be No 4) and the Windmill at
Surrey Hills.
The sale was postponed "by the mutual Approbation
and consent of the
Parties"(13) until Friday the 8 June, when Solomon Levey became the
owner of No's 72 and 73 Pitt Street.
On 25 October 1821 Levey sold these premises to
James Chisolm, in trust
for Susannah Tindale.(14)
On Saturday 9 June 1821, the following notice was
issued in the Sydney Gazette.
"The
property sold yesterday not
being sufficient to cover the amount of the Decree and costs in this
cause a further sale will take place on Friday the nd instant".(15)
Offered up for sale this time were
the
two roomy well built premises No 54 Phillip St and No 4 Hunter St
occupied by the defendant, the new stone built windmill on Surrey Hills
and a number of horned cattle said to be of good quality.(16)
From this Solomon Levey purchased No 54 and on 16
November 1821 he sold
it to Ezekial Wood.(17)
23 June 1821. --
Sydney Gazette.
Notice -- I will cause to be set up and sold to the highest bidder on
Friday next, the 29th instant, that valuable premises in Phillip St No
53, Part of the property of the Defendant, at the risk of the late
purchaser thereof, Mr John Lawrie, who has refused to ratify the
Purchase made by him thereof at Public auction.(18)
At the same time all the rural properties of Thomas
Clarkson were once
again advertised, including Lamb's Farm and the interest in Whitton's
farm. Interestingly, the farms of Phelps, Shakley, Whittaker and
Prentice were all described as being occupied by them whereas the
others were listed as grants with original owners named. These
properties all survived to see another day.(19)
According to Bigge's report on Emancipist holdings
on the Hawkesbury in
1820, John Everett and John Watson were tenants on farms held by
Clarkson -- perhaps Lamb's Farm.(20)
Obviously by the 10 August 1821, Thomas did not have
sufficient funds to pay off the mortgage to Cooper and Levey and so to
give himself another 12 months respite he approached Daniel Cooper to
give him a further mortgage on his holdings.(21) (It would be totally
unfair to state that Thomas was not attempting to pay back the debts as
the little evidence we can find on these accounts show he was truly
doing just that.)
For the sum of £1,850 Thomas further mortgaged
his Rural
properties (and the list appears to encompass every one of them), and
also the Inn at the corner of Hunter and Elizabeth Streets and the
stone Windmill at Surrey Hills. The debt was subject to interest at 8
per cent and was due to be paid 10 August 1822 when on settlement of
the stated amount Thomas would redeem his estate.(22)
Page last updated - 7 July
2006