bills, which the witnefs had mentioned that he had fewed toge ther; and finding that the holes were not made through the fame words as defcribed by him, but in different places in the bills, he handed over two of them to the witness to look at, defiring to know if one hole was not made through the word “ THE,' in one bill, and the other through the word " COMPANY?" The witnefs replied, that in one of the bills the hole was outfide the writing entirely." Then (fays Mr. Peckham, in a pointed manner,) you have changed the bill." On which juftice Buller, in fome heat, reprehended Mr. Peckham for uling fuch language to a witness, and declared he would not allow it. He, at the fame time, afked the witness whether the bills he held in his hands were not the fame he had received from Mr. Peckham? He answered, they were. Several ftudents from the gallery, at that very inftant, cried out to Mr. Peckham, that they were not the fame; and one gentleman in particular faid, that he was ready to fwear that he had changed them, and came down from the gallery, and was proceeding to where the witnefs flood, in order to prove what he had alledged; when the

affair ended.

Mr. Nightingale, a banker, proved that he advanced Mr. Ryland, on the 19th of September, 1782, 3000l. on three bills, one of which was the real one; he knows it from the initials of his name on it. He declared, on his cross-examination, that he had the highest opinion of Mr. Ryland, and would have lent him the 3000l. without any bill whatever.

Mr. Sutherland fwore, that he protested the real bill for nonpayment, and therefore knows it, as his initials " J. S." and N. P." are on it.

Mr. Waterman depofed, that he was a paper-manufacturer, and had been for twenty years: that the forged bill was of his manufacture. He then explained to the court his reasons for thinking fo. The moulds, he faid, in which the paper of the bill was made, were received by him in February, 1780, but were not made ufe of before the December following; they were then worked with; and the first paper he fent to London made by them, was the 27th of April, 1784; but he was convinced that the paper on which the bill was wrote, was not fent before the 3d of May, 1782; and the way by which he knew it was, that there were defects in it, which exactly agreed with thofe in the fheets of paper he now held in his hand, and which were manufactured by him at that period. That the blemishes in the paper he attributed to the injuries the mould had received from the great quantity of paper worked off by them. He faid, he never faw two thects of paper worked off by different

moulds

moulds fo like each other; but he could distinguish a difference between them.

Richard Freeman, the cobler, fwore that he lived at Stepney about the beginning of May laft; that a Mr. Laurens, about that time, took a room from him for a perfon in a declining ftate of health, an acquaintance of his, and that the prifoner came and lived in it under the name of Jackion; that his wife brought him from the prifoner one of his fhoes to get mended, in which he faw wrote the name of RYLAND; in confequence of which, he gave information at the public office in Bow-street, in order that he might be apprehended, as he imagined that he was the fame man who was advertised for having committed a forgery on the Eaft-India Company. His wife proved the bringing of the fhoes down ftairs from the prifoner to be mended.

Mr. Daly depofed, that he went to Stepney with the officers of Bow-street, to identify Ryland as foon as Freeman had lodged the information that he was there. That on his first coming into the room he did not fee the prifoner; but looking round it more narrowly, he perceived him on his knees in a corner of it, and heard a noife like a guggling in his throat, which was occafioned by his having cut it. He had a razor in his hand, with a bafon before him.-Here the evidence for the profecu tion closed.

Mr. Ryland was now called on for his defence; whereupon he handed over a writing, which contained it, to be read by the clerk. It was in fubftance, as well as form, a more clear and energetic compofition than any thing of the fort we ever remember to have heard in the fame place. He faid his fituation called on the jury not only for every exertion of their difcernment, but of their humanity alfo. He, a weak, a fingle individual, was now contending for his life and character, against the powerful profecution of the most powerful body in his Majefty's dominions. To the gentlemen who were at the head of the Eaft-India Company's affairs, he had much obligation for their numerous civilities.-Thefe gentlemen were incapable of directing any thing to his prejudice, which had not truth and honour for its foundation. But they were liable to be misled : and how far interefted men, to get a character for diligence in their fervice, had mifled them on the prefent occafion, he would leave it to the jury to determine, on a review of the general complexion of the evidence which had just then, with such admirable art, been fummoned up against him.-There are, however, three points, (continued he,) in which you, gentlemen of the jury, must be clearly fatisfied, before I can have the wretchednefs to fuffer either in my fame or my existence. In the first VOL. II. 32. place,

R

place, it must be fully proved that the bill in queftion is actually a forged one. In the next place, you must have indisputable evidence that I uttered that bill, knowing of the forgery. And laftly, you must be fatisfied that the bill now produced to you fa counterfeited, and fo paffed, is identically that bill which is pretended to have been forged and uttered by me. To all, or any of thefe points, I will venture to fay, no fatisfactory proofs have been adduced. But let us fuppofe, for a moment, that there are any circumstances which feem to bear against me. Shall not the circumstances in my favour be placed in the other scale? Gentlemen, let me be thus weighed, and I trust I shall not be found wanting in the balance. Actual forgery has not been attempted to be proved again ft me: the circumftances of the bills having been in my poffeffion, and paffed by me, is all that the evidence has laboured to bring home. But pray, gentlemen, might I not have this bill in my poffeffion, and have uttered it without either forging it, or knowing it to be forged? Is not it poffible, that in bufinefs I might have gotten this bill from a perfon whom I cannot now produce? If then this circumftance be poffible, it follows of courfe that I may be an innocent man, notwithstanding any evidence of my uttering the bill in queftion. It is indeed true, gentlemen, that this plea of mine, of receiving the bill from a perfon who cannot now be produced, may be used by the greatest criminal as well as the moft guiltlefs; but a humane jury will not, on that account, reject it a humane jury will patiently endeavour to difcriminate, and will feize with gladness on any folid circunftance, which can lead them to distinguish innocence from guilt.

Forgery, gentlemen, is the offspring of poverty and knavery; but thele cannot be imputed to me. My circumstances are not only good, but they are affluent. My flock in trade, is worth 10,000l. My bufinefs every year produced me zoool. My fhares in the Liverpool water-works are exceedingly great. My royal master, in that fpirit of munificence with which he patronizes the arts, gives me zool. annually. In fhort, without any exaggeration, I may fay my fortune is a princely one. It places me above the imputation of any attempt to gain money, by means that I fhould blufh for. With respect to my principles, let my conduct, when formerly I had the misfortune to be a bankrupt, fpeak for them. I then not only paid 20s. in the pound to my creditors, but had zol. lett for every 20s. I owed,, which was the comfort of my life, and I hope will now prove my protection, as I paid it when the law did not compel me to it. My creditors thought fo well of me on that occation, that they gave me my certificate in the most honourable manner. By

9 ..

this

this certificate, you all know, gentlemen, I was totally exonerated from all legal claim for the debts under my bankruptcy :-but I could not reft fatisfied in confcience with fuch an acquittal. The moment afterwards that I obtained the means, I difcharged every demand of my creditors to the last farthing; and there is not at this inftant a claim on me in the world for one pound, for which I could not pay down twenty, if there was any neceffity for fo doing.

I am now, gentlemen, to account for the manner in which I became poffeffed of the bill, for uttering which I am at prefent on my trial. I had been long acquainted with a gentleman of the name of Lidius, a man of confiderable property, as you may well conceive, when I tell you, that on his leaving this country he gave me a draft on the Treafury for 5000l. which I received, and applied to his ufe.-This Mr. Lidius introduced me to a Mr. Haggerstone; for whom, in the course of other money tranfactions, I difcounted the forged bill, if really it be forged. On the rumour of its being forged, fo far from my meditating a flight, that, on the contrary, I was continually bufied in the moft public place, in fearch of the man.-He was not to be found. Then, indeed, at the earneft prayers of a dearly beloved wife, and of my friends, I confented to fecrete myself, until farther enquiries fhould be made for the man, or until pro per advice should be had from thofe skilled in the law, refpecting that mode of proceeding which would be properest for me to adopt on the occafion. In my retreat I was detected, and, in a moment of phrenzy, committed the rafh action which has been tortured with fo much ingenuity into a proof of conscious guilt. Gentlemen, I was haunted by no fuch apprehenfion; but the horrors of a prifon were before me. The man whom I hoped to be able to produce, was not yet found; nor had I yet procured that advice from counfel, which might have fupported me under my ignorance of the laws. In this ftate of terror, anxiety, and doubt, I attempted a crime at which I now fhudder. Upon the whole, gentlemen, the laws permit circumftances to condemn. I trust the laws will alfo give to circumstances the efficacy of falvation. The fact of forgery has not been proved: the fact of uttering has; but there is no guilt in that, unless you are perfuaded I knew it to be forged. And this is a circumftance every action of my life bids me not to fear. Relying, therefore, perfectly relying on the teftimony of a well-fpent life, I chearfully fubmit my fate to the laws of my country, and the voice of my fellow citizens.

As foon as the court had heard the fpeech, Mr. Ryland's withefles, who were merchants, bankers, and others, of the first

character in the city of London, appeared to teftify as to his reputation and fortune, of both which they fpoke in the highest terms. Many of them knew him for twenty years past; and fome of them confidered him to be fo rich, and fo honeft a man, that they declared they would at any time have lent him thoufands, without either a bond or note. At length, there were fuch numbers ftill preffing forward to give evidence of the goodnefs of his principles, and the little temptation that such a man could have for the commiflion of fuch a crime as he was charged with, that both his counfel and the court thought it unneceffary for any more to appear. This point was firmly established.

Mr. Rous, who is a folicitor, proved that Mr. Ryland was connected with Mr. Lidius, and that he gave him an order for 5000l. He faid he did not know Mr. Haggerstone. He declared that he faw Mr. Ryland the evening after the report of the forgery; that he feemed to be uneafy, and told him that he hould lofe money by this bufinefs. He bore teftimony also to the excellence of his character, and faid that no man ever applied for a bill, who went away without payment.

Mr. juftice Buller then fummed up the evidence both for and against the profecution with great accuracy; after which, he obferved to the jury, that Mr. Ryland's defence deserved their moft ferious and particular confideration, as well on account of its manner, as its good fenfe: that the prifoner had very judicioufly laid down three grand points; without which being fully proved, it was impoffible he could be found guilty.

ft, Whether the bill in question was a forged one?

zdly, Whether the prifoner uttered the bill, knowing it to be a forged one?

3dly, Whether the bill now in court is the very identical one that the prifoner negotiated?

With regard to the first point, his lordship obferved, that if Omer's evidence was to be credited, there could be little doubt that the bill was a forged one; becaufe, from certain circumflances, he pofitively fwore to the real one, and confequently the other must be forged. Befides, the teflimony of Mr. Waterman in the strongest manner proved that one of the bills is forged, for he fwears that the paper on which one of them was wrote, was not fent to London before May, 1782, and had been just manufactured; then how was it poffible that fuch a bill could be a true one, as it is dated a year previous to that period.

The fecond point, refpecting the prifoner's knowledge of the bill's being a forged one, refts on this circumftance, that the bill was in his poffeffion, and that he paffed it; and therefore, if he did not forge it himself, it flands with him to fhew how he came

by