- Comments (0) Change font
If columns/tables do not appear straight, change font
To John Tweddell Esqr. Farnacres 27th. July 1776 Sir We were acquainted by Mr Peters on his return from the Sessions at Hexham that Fenwick Martin was discharged there and that he was desired by you to name it to our consideration that in your Opinion a Satisfaction should be made to Fenwick Martin. That somebody Cutt Langley Mill Bellows we know; we cannot expect that any one would inform against himself; and that no one but a Vile Fellow could be an accomplice; therefore we should naturally expect that the information must come from a Vile Fellow; and yet tho’ from such a one it might nevertheless be true; and it was particularly lucky for Fenwick Martin, that he could so clearly prove an alibi; from so respectable a Master; or he might have been under great Difficulties, tho’ innocent. Now Sir as nothing has been done by or against Fenwick Martin, but according to regular Course of Law on supposition of his having realy been the atrocious person that destroyed the Bellows of Langley Mill; and the very day that we had reason to believe otherwise from your intimation we sent a special Messenger to Morpeth, to have his confinement made as easy as possible ‘till Mr Peters returned from London who had transacted this Business; and as soon after Mr Peters returned as possible he was admitted to Bail, and Mr Peters went over to Morpeth on purpose on that Business; so that there has been no durance Exercised that could properly be avoided and Fenwick Martin may in reality impute the Hardships he has suffered to his ill fortune in having such acquaintance and connections as his Accuser Ridley. However as it is your opinion, and we are sensible that the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital do not desire that any Man should directly or indirectly suffer hardship on their account; it is probable that (having already been acquainted with the circumstances of this case) on further application they may think proper to make Fenwick Martin some allowance for his loss of time: but prior to that it seems it would be well if we knew what would satisfy him; otherwise were we to make a voluntary offer, wherewith he was not satisfied instead of putting an end to it might only be the Cause of litigation. We should therefore take it as a favour if you would suggest your opinion to us, as to the Quantum and when that is known we shall have a proper Ground, to apply to the Directors of Greenwich Hospital. We are Sir yours NW Junr. J.S.