Thomas Clarkson - WHAT WAS ONCE MINE:
1822
It was becoming all too clear now that Thomas'
possessions were being
slowly gathered up by his creditors. The year of 1822 was to signal the
beginning of the downslide in his financial affairs.
The year had hardly begun before Thomas was back in
the courts to face
the suit of Joseph Ward. Ward had appealed to the Governor's Court
against Thomas, claiming a debt of £50 damages which he had
incurred whilst trying to recover possession of a property he'd
purchased from Thomas Prentice.(28) This was in fact the very same 50
acres that Thomas Clarkson had bought from Prentice in 1816.(29)
"Gazumping" was a very common practise, even in the
days of our
colonial beginnings, and under the Old System of land settlement,
double dealing thrived. This was the case here.
As mentioned before, Prentice had sold his grant to
Thomas Clarkson on
17 September 1816,(30) in fact Thomas was a witness to the surveying of
the land and was later to state that Prentice had told the surveyor to
"consider the land Clarkson's" It was acquired as a lease under a 5
year term and the indent was duly registered.(31) After these 5 years
were expired Thomas would no doubt have been planning to buy the
portion outright as he had done with other allotments. But this was not
to be, for on July 1819 Prentice sold the land to Joseph Ward for
£25 and it is this negotiation that appears in notation on the
original deed of grant.(32) Ward received the deeds on 20 November
1819, thus making him a bona fide owner.(33)
Thomas Clarkson refused to budge off the land so
Ward resorted to court
action to get his way.(34) This only incensed Thomas more. How dare
Ward offer challenge to the land --"never having
expended one shilling on it" when Thomas himself had
cleared and fenced the grant at great personal expense.(35) Thomas felt
he was "being got at".
Thomas directed a memorial (letter) to Governor
Brisbane on 22 February
1822 and in this he set out his humble reasons for considering his
entitlement to the grant was the more valid. If indeed it must revert
back to the Crown (as in actual fact it should, since the Alienation
clause had been violated by both parties) then he should be more
entitled to possession because of his efforts to improve the land. The
loss of this land, he pointed out, would he to the ruin of himself and
his very large family. The only reason he'd been interested in
purchasing the land was it's close proximity to the house he had built
on adjoining portion: a house which had cost him upwards of £1500
Thomas' lengthy and very emotional letter must have
fallen on dear ears
for although the grant was later included in Clarkson' s mortgage to
Cooper dated August 1822 we noted on the Primary Application, consulted
by us during our investigations the land was officially recognised as
being sold from Prentice to Ward. A notation on the
original grant states "Ward and Clarkson in ejectment 1822". This
appears to be the only indication that Clarkson was to lose the land in
spite of his protests. Ward then released the land to Daniel Cooper in
1826 thereby indicating Ward gained possession of the grant in the
end.(37)
Perhaps the fact that Ward was a Police Constable in
the Airds district
may have added weight to his claim.(38)
Back in Sydney, Thomas applied to have his licence
to brew and vend
beer renewed on 13 February 1822.(39)
To
the worshipful bench of Magistrates of Sydney assembled.
The Respectful Memorial of Thomas
Clarkson most
respectfully Represents:
That your
Memorialist hath for a number of years conducted the business
of Publican and Baker in this town and bath uniformly adhered to the
regulations made and provided.
That your
Memorialist, having a numerous family to support has caused
to be erected at considerable expense and on an extensive scale an
establishment in order to Brew beer and which from his knowledge of the
Business he Pledges himself to produce of a very superior quality
provided your Worships will, taking into consideration his protected
residence in this colony and the general tenure of his conduct be
pleased to extend to him the indulgence of a licence to Brew and Vend
Beer by retail, which if liberally bestowed, it shall be the duty of
your Memorialist to afford general satisfaction.
And your memorialist as in duty will
ever pray..
Hunter Street
13 February 1822.
Link to Image of this letter
Catherine and Thomas were to refer frequently to
their "numerous" and "very heavy family" in letters written to the
various
Government Officials of the day.
A muster taken in 1822 lists the family as
follows;(40)
Thomas,
freed by servitude, arrived On Alexander, 14 years licensed
Brewer, Sydney.
Catherine,
came
free, colonial sentence 5 years, wife of
Thomas.
Sarah,
17 years
Thomas,
11 years
Mountford,
8 years
Ann,
5 years
Mary,
4 years Children of
above.
Catherine junior is listed with her husband, Thomas
Rowley and their
children at Liverpool, but a John Clarkson does not appear at all.
The Clarksons of Hunter Street applied for the help
of 2 convicts
during 1822. Dennis Connelly who arrived on the "Tyne", and Richard
Holden who was still in their employ in 1828, were assigned on the 2
September and 1 October respectively.(41)
This was 1822, this was the year that was
highlighted by financial
troubles of a more lasting nature than earlier years had perceived.
On 22 January, John Hickey of Sydney was sued by
Thomas to recover
£10 owing on goods sold and delivered to him by Clarkson. Hickey
confessed and asked for 21 days to Pay.(42)
In May, Thomas Dillon was ordered to make good a
£10 debt owed to
Clarkson. Since Dillon declared he was unable to provide the payment,
his goods and chattels were to be sold. Unless he could otherwise find
the means to settle the debt his 50 acre farm, 4 miles below the lower
Branch of the Hawkesbury would be sold by the Sheriff (43)
By the following November however, Dillon was in
turn suing Clarkson to
recover £8 owed to him.(44)
Page last updated - 7 July
2006