venport, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Wilfon, and Mr. Baldwin. After the nature of the information, and the whole of the cafe, had been opened to the jury, a variety of witneffes were called, to eftablish the feveral facts on which the charge was refted.

The examination of Mr. Bembridge, on oath, before the commiffioners of public accounts, was exhibited, in order to prove, that he had fworn the duty of his office to confiit in examining and ftating the accounts of paymafters-general, as well ex-paymafters as thofe in office.

Mr. Hughes, and another gentleman from the office of the auditor of the impreft, were fworn, to establish the custom of paffing the accounts of paymasters-general, as well thofe in office as expaymafters. They gave the court a detail of the circumftances attending the paffing of Lord Holland's accounts, mentioning when the accounts began to be paffed, and at what time they were fent from the pay-office to the auditor's office, as well as that it was customary upon any doubt arifing in that office, on the examination of the accounts, to refer queries of all fuch doubts to the accountant of the pay-office for anfwers, folutions, and explanations: they stated, that two errors had been discovered after what was called the final balance was pencilled to the bottom of the accounts, and that the accounts were fent to the pay-office, to have thofe errors rectified. That it was then understood the books were to go from the auditor's office to the lords commiffioners of the treasury, and that the books came back from the pay-office to the office of the auditor of the impreft, where they lay eight or nine days before it was difcovered; that above the two items, which had been erroneously omitted, as above mentioned, entries had been made of other items to the amount of 48,759l. 10s. This discovery was ftated to have been made in and about October 1782, and the items were proved to confift of monies chargeable to Lord Holland's accounts between the years 1757 and 1765.

A warrant for the payment of certain fums for fees on paffing the accounts of Lord Holland was produced, and it was proved that Mr. Bembridge had claimed and received 2600l. of thofe fums as his due for ftating and examining the faid accounts.

Mr. Rose, of the treasury, proved the exami. nation of Mr. Bembridge before the lords of the treafury; when the board, on receiving intimation from Lord Sondes, the auditor of the impreft, that a difcovery had been made of the entry of the items amounting to 48,709l. 10s. under the circumftances before stated, thought it neceffary to call Mr. Bembridge and the late Mr. Powell before them. It appeared, that Mr. Bembridge then avowed, that he had not recently discovered that the 48,709l. 10s. had been omitted in the former accounts of Lord Holland, but that he was perfectly apprized of the omiffion all the time.

After the witneffes in support of the information had been all examined and cross-examined, Mr. Bearcroft rofe, as counsel for Mr. Bembridge, and made a long addrefs to the jury in his

favour. Mr. Bearcroft admitted the facts charged, but denied that his client had been guilty of any crime described by the law of England as it now ftood; and challenged his learned friend to cite him a fingle cafe that tended in the smallest degree to fix legal imputation of criminality upon fuch conduct as that he was ready to admit had been purfued by Mr. Bembridge. He contended, that though the accounts of the ex-paymafters had cuftomarily been examined and stated by the accountant of the pay-offices, yet it was no part of that officer's duty fo to examine and late them, and therefore not being a part of his duty, he was not obnoxious to legal imputation of criminality for having neglected to tate them accurately, and confequently not liable to legal punishment. He faid, the cafe had been greatly mifconceived by the public, that clamour had prevailed unjustly against his client and the late Mr. Powell, that their names had been bandid about in every common newspaper, and that miírepresentation and ignorance had attempted to fix a stigma where none was merited. He defcribed the lat Mr. Powel as the friend, the benefactor, and the patron of Mr. Bembridge; a id, after stating, that if there was any criminality at all in the metter, it was imputable to Mr. Powell, and Mr. Powell only; he asked, if any man would fay, that Mr, Bembridge ought, or was bound to have turned fpy and informer against his friend and patron Mr. Powell? He faid, it was by no means confonant to the genius and liberal fpirit of this country, to have it's public offices filled with fpies and informers; and if the prefent profecution was admitted to be juftifiable, the plain inference was, that every clerk in a public office was bound in duty to turn fpy and informer. If Mr. Powell had been living, he declared, he verily believed the jury would have heard nothing of a profecution against Mr. Bembridge, and he dwelt for fome time on the affertion; that if a facrifice was neceffary to be made to the public for the neglect of entering the money ftated in due time, the public had already had their victim in the death of Mr. Powell. He directed feveral of his arguments against the late miniftry, to whom he imputed much blame for their arbitrary proceedings with respect to Mr. Bembridge, and charged his learned brother with having that day flood forward their panegyr'st. He stated that the whole of the balance due from the executors of Lord Holland, was in the very fame fituation in which it had ver ftood, and affured the jury that it was as entire and as well fecured to the public as any property in the kingdora. He laid confiderable trefs on the affertion, that the accounts of Lord Holland formerly paffed and examined, were not actually final accounts, but merely pencilled balances up to the time they were delivered into the office of the aucitor of the impreft. After a variety o. other arguments, he closed his addrefs with informing the jury, that he meant to call feveral witneffes of undoubted credit and refpectability, to the fact, that to ftate and examine the ex-paymafters was no part of the duty of the accountant of the pay-office, and to eftabl sh K2

beyond

beyond the poffibility of doubt the character of Mr. Bembridge, as a faithful, diligent, and able officer.

The first witness called on the part of the defence was Mr. Bangham, who faid he had been in the pay-office upwards of thirty years, and gave an account of the duties of the accountant, which he defcribed as most important and confi derable. Mr. Bangham declared, he did not conceive it to be the duty of the accountant to examine and state the accounts of ex-paymafters. He affigned his reasons for entertaining this opi nion, and stated the cafe of an ex-paymaster's accounts having been examined and paffed by other perfons, than the accountant, in his memory.

Mr. Craufurd confirmed Mr. Bangham's teftimony, in regard to the known and acknowledged duty of an accountant, and alfo delivered a fimiliar opinion relative to it's not being the accountant's duty to examine and pass the accounts of ex-paymafters. But, on a cross-examination, Mr. Craufurd acknowledged, that his opinion was a matter of belief ftrongly impreffed on his mind, rather than an opinion founded on facts which had fallen within his own knowledge.

Both thefe gentlemen gave Mr. Bembridge the character of a man of ftrict integrity and great ability.

1

Mr. Lamb depofed, that on the recommendation of Mr. Sawyer he had been the perfon employed to examine and ftate the accounts of the late Lord Chatham, after he went out of the office of pay-mafter general, and that no perfon whatever, but himself, had any fhare in the bufinefs. Mr. Lamb was at the time of his examining and stating the late Lord Chatham's acCounts, an army agent.

Lord North, Lord Sidney, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Burke, Mr. Cafwell, and Mr. Champion, (who had all been paymasters-general, or deputy paymafters) were feverally fworn, and each gave Mr. Bembridge the highest character as a most honest, active, and able officer. Mr. Burke expatiated for fome time on Mr. Bembridge's great merit; and faid, it was owing to that officer's integrity, diligence, and ability, that his reform of the payoffice had been carried into effect, and that he had been enabled to do the public the service he trusted he had done them.

All the evidence called on the part of the defence being at length gone through, the Solicitor General rofe, and made his reply to Mr. Bearcroft; and, at the fame time, offered a few obfervations to the jury, upon the whole of the cafe, as it had come out in the course of the trial. Mr. Solicitor faid, his learned friend had ftated. him to be the panegyrift of the late miniftry, than which nothing could have been farther from his thoughts. He had contented himself with declaring, that in haye directed their attention to the reforms of the exchequer, they had acted in a laudable manner. This, he obferved, was barely doing them justice; and more, he was fure, they did not defire at his hands, as they by no means expected, nor would they thank him for, any applaufe he could bestow upon their condu. After this remark, he proceeded to ftate,

that his learned friend had admitted the whole of the charge, but contented himself with endeavouring to prove, not that it partook not of cri minality in a civil or moral light, but what (if he could have established it) would have ferved his turn as well, namely, that the conduct of Mr. Bembridge had no legal criminality imputable to it. Upon this part of his fubject, his learned friend had been ftrenuous and urgent. He had declared, that as the law of England now ftood the conduct of his client had not been legally criminal, and he had defired him to produce a precedent from any book whatever that would, thew fuch conduct had at any time been fo confidered. Certainly he was not, he faid, prepared to quote a cafe from any book, ftating that an accountant of the pay-office had been tried, convicted, and punished, for the fort of conduct in question; nor did he believe any fuch cafe. could be found. But this he was ready to fhew, that in almost every book, from those written in the earliest times, down to Mr. Juftice Blackftone's Commentaries, (the laft of the books containing the elements of the Englif law) his learned friend would find that mal-feafance, misfeafance, and non-feafance, were offences indictable, and punishable as other indictable offences were. If his learned friend food in any: need of a cafe to exemplify this, let him recollect the cafe of a late chief magistrate of London, who had been recently convicted of non-feafance, of not having been fo active and diligent, as he might have been, and as he ought to have been, in quelling the riots in June. 1780. There was no doubt, he faid, but every man in a public office was refponfible to the public for his official conduct, and punishable for offences of omiffion, as well as commiffion, if the public were liable to be injured by either Mr. Bembridge was a public officer, as much fo as the noble earl who then fat upon the Bench. It had been proved, from his own teftimony on oath, that he knew it to be his duty to examine and pafs the accounts of ex-paymafters as well as of paymafters in office. It had been proved that he had received 2600l. for examining and paffing the accounts of the late Lord Holland, the very accounts in question. It had been proved that he himself made no fcruple to avow before the Lords Commiffioners of the Treasury, that he knew the 48,709l. 10s. had been omitted in the former accounts of Lord Holland, and omitted for eighteen or nineteen years together; and, against his own evidence, it had been attempted to be established on the part of the defence, that it was not the duty of the accountant to examine and state the accounts of the ex-paymasters; but, on a cross-examination, it had come out, that this was matter of belief, and in fact nothing at all. His learned friend had in one part of his argument afked, if Mr. Bembridge ought to have turned fpy and informer; and had defcribed Mr.: Powell as his patron and benefactor. He begged the jury to attend to this his learned friend had fet up as a ferious defence of a perfon in office's having connived at a criminal concealment of the public money on the part of one of his affociates, that he was not bound to betray his

patron

t

patron and his benefactor. Was fuch a defence to be liftened to for a moment? or were they to adopt the reafoning, that one officer of the public, confeffedly apprized of another officer's concealing the public money, was not criminal in con. niving at fuch concealinent? If fuch arguments prevailed, where would the mischief end? Not with Mr. Bembridge; there would not be an office in the kingdom, were fuch practices would not obtain, to the manifeft and material injury of the public. Mr. Solicitor dwelt upon this for fome time; and at length took notice of what Mr. Bearcroft had faid of the arbitrary conduct of the late ministry, relative to Mr. Bembridge. This, Mr. Lee declared to be a charge thrown where it ought not to reft. The late miniftry were out of the queftion; they were long paft, and forgotten; they had exifted years before the flood. [A loud laugh.] If there was any fault, the fault was his. Whether the inftitution of the fuit, the conduct of the caufe, or any thing else deserved blame, to him that blame was due, and not to the late ministry. He expreffed his aftonishment at what Mr. Bearcroft had afferted relative to the late Mr. Powell, whom he had ntroduced with fo much pathos; but whofe name, for reafons fufficiently obvious, he (Mr. Lee) had forborne to mention. His learned friend had said, had Mr. Powell been living, the name of Mr. Bembridge would not have been heard of as a defendant. Good God! where did his learned friend pick up this? had he forgot that the profecutions against Mr. Powell and Mr. Bembridge had gone hand in hand together; that their names had on all occafions been coupled, and no mention made of the one without an equal mention of the other? Undoubtedly, had Mr. Powell been living, Mr. Bembridge would nevertheless have been profecuted. Mr. Solicitor declared, he would not fay any thing upon the character of Mr. Bembridge; he verily believed he merited the high character that had been given him by the two noble lords, and the other very refpectable witneffes, who had fpoken to that point. The charge ftated in the information went not to Mr. Bembridge's former character; if, therefore, he could derive any good from his good character, he would not attempt to diminish it. Mr. Solicitor added a few other remarks, and faid he left the whole to the judgment of the jury,.

Lord Mansfield informed the jury, that the whole of the cafe refolved itself into two propofitions; on their being fatisfied of the truth of which, depended entirely the verdict they were to give. The first propofition was, that it was the duty of the accountant of the pay-office to examine and ftate the accounts of ex-paymafters, as well as paymafters in office. The fecond propofition was, that the defendant being bound in duty to examine and pass the accounts of the late Lord Holland, had wilfully, corruptly, and fraudulently, connived at the concealment of the 48,7091. 10s. and a fraction, as ftated in the information. Thefe, his lordship faid, were the facts for the jury to pronounce upon, and upon which they neceffarily muft ground their verdict, but they must be fatisfied in the truth of both the propofitions before they could pro

nounce the defendant guilty; that was, they muft, not only be fatisfied that it was the duty of the accountant to examine and país ex-pay mafters accounts, but that Mr. Bembridge in the cafe in queftion, had connived at the concealment wilfully, corruptly, and fraudulently. His lordhip after this stated the principal evidence that had been given on the part of the profecution, and the evidence that had been fet up to controvert it. He particularly mentioned Mr. Bembridge's examination before the commiffioners of accounts, in which he had himself ftated that it was his duty to examine ex-paymasters accounts, and alfo the warrant, from whence it appeared that Mr. Bembridge had received two thousand fix hundred pounds for duty of this kind. He next men tioned the evidence of Mr. Pangham, Mr. Craufurd, and Mr. Marsh, which went in favour of Mr. Bembridge. After having with great accuracy and great candour reminded the jury of the leading parts of the whole of the evidence, his lordfhip faid, he had no difficulty in declaring, that as to the point of law, he had not the fmalleft particle of a doubt but that any perfon holding a public office under the king's letters patent, or derivatively from fuch authority, was amenable to the law for every part of his conduct, and obnoxious to punishment in cafe he was convicted of not having faithfully discharged his duty. In the prefent cafe, however, the facts were what the jury were to pronounce upon; and if they were fatisfied that Mr. Bembridge had acted with a finifter view, or to answer any finifter purpofe, they must give a verdict for the crown if they were not so satisfied, they must acquit the defendant.

The jury went out of court, but returned in lefs than a quarter of an hour, finding the defendant-GUILTY.

Mr. Scott, Mr. Erfkine, and Mr. Adam, were of counfel for the defendant, befides Mr. Bearcroft.

19. Came on in the Court of King's Bench, before Earl Mansfield and a fpecial jury, the indictment against Christopher Atkinton, Efq. late cornfactor to his Majefty's Victualling Board, and member of parliament for Heydon, in Yorkshire, for wilful and corrupt perjury.

The indictment contained nine counts, each upon a specific charge.

The facts ftated on the part of the prosecution were, that the defendant, Chriftopher Atkinson, Efq. had made a contract with the commiffioners of his Majefty's navy, for the purpose of fupplying a certain quantity of corn; the condition of which agreement was, that Mr. Atkinfon fhould have commiffion upon the faid quantity of corn, as a compenfation for his trouble in purchafing the fame, but fhould not charge any profit upon the price paid by him to the cornholders, or be entitled to any profit whatsoever, except the faid commiffion.

That the corn being delivered by Mr. Atkinfon, he gave in his accounts, fpecifying the names of the perfons from whom he had purchafed, the prices paid by him to each perfon refpectively, and charging his commiffion thereon, which faid accounts were refpectively delivered in upon the oath of the said Atkinson.

That

That, in each of the accounts ftated in the indictment, Mr. Atkinfon had charged the commiffioners of his Majefty's navy with an advanced price, beyond what he had paid to the cornfellers, with an intent to defraud; and, having done fo, was thereby guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury.

To each of the nine counts Mr. Atkinson pleaded Not Guilty.

In fupport of thefe facts, Mr. Bennet and feveral other witneffes were called; the amount of whofe evidence was this, that Mr. Atkinson had charged, in the accounts delivered by him to the commiffioners of the navy of coin purchafed for their use, prices exceeding what he had paid. On the part of the defendant nothing material was produced.

Earl Mansfield, in his charge to the jury, stated the agreement made between the defendant and the commiffioners; and obferved, that the only point for their confideration was, whether the defendant had charged higher prices than he paid: if they thought he had, they must find him guilty; if not, they must acquit him.

After a trial, which lafted feven hours, the jury withdrew for a few minutes, and returned their verdict-GUILTY.

Sentence, as ufual in fuch cafes, was postponed till the enfuing term, Mr. Atkinson giving bail for his appearance.

22. About twelve o'clock arrived at the Eaft India Houfe, two of the feamen belonging to the Grofvenor East Indiaman, who came in a Danish hip from the Cape to Portsmouth. They were immediately ordered before the Committee of Correfpondence. The information they bring contains an account of almost unheard-of hardfhips, of which the following are fome of the particulars. That the ship was loft on the 12th of Auguft 1782; that fifteen of the seamen were drowned; that the captain, his officers, paffengers, with their fervants, and feamen, got on fhore on the Caffre coaft; that they determined to keep in a body, and endeavour to reach fome Dutch fettlement, or the Cape; that the feamen were often attacked by the Caffres with fhowers of ftones, and fometimes with lances, one of which killed Mr. C. Newman, a paffenger; that feveral of the feamen died for want; that the Caffres drove them as if they were a flock of heep; and when attacked by the feamen with ftones, in return for those thrown, they defended themfelves with targets, and appeared very cowardly; that they did not take away any of the ladies, but that the whole of them were treated without distinction very ill; that they were every night obliged to light fires to keep off the wild beafts, which were very numerous, and had deftroyed fome of their party; that several had been miffed, and fome had died before they left them; that they only knew of fix men, including themselves, being fate, four of whom accompanied them to a Dutch fettlement, where they were imprifoned. Thefe men escaping, got on board the Dane, which failed the 14th of March, and reached the Cape on Christmas-eve. They do not imagine any of the party can live, as they were all near expiring; they had been

with them five weeks from the lofs. During the latter time they had met with part of a whale, which they eat; that fome of the party had been obliged to eat their shoes. On the whole, the defcription is shocking. The men were in a hurry in relating these particulars; it may yet be hoped that fome others furvive.

The paffengers were-Mrs. James, Mrs. Logie, Mr. and Mrs. Hofier, Mr. Wiliams, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Newman.

A Court of aldermen was held at Guildhall. The Recorder and Common Serjeant made a report on the long pending caufe referred to their confideration refpecting the Jews, whether they can legally claim the freedom of this city, and exercife the rights and franchises of freemen. Their opinion is, that Jews publicly baptized, and conforming to the laws of this country, after renouncing their errors, may be entitled to the privileges of the citizens of London. The Court took into their ferious deliberation the defect of the laws relative to watermen,who have for a series of years abufed the public with impunity, owing to the tedious process of those laws, and the infufficiency of punishment when put into execution. It was agreed to apply next feffion of Parliament for their amendment.

Mr. Dornford refumed his attack upon the publisher of a certain work, for obicenity in the prints. He remarked, that obferving the Chamberlain to be in his feat, he took the opportunity of reviving the subject; and, in the courfe of his fpeech, gave a fide-blow which called up that gentleman.

Mr. Wilkes faid, that he had the misfortune to differ in a very effential degree with the worthy commoner, who feemed to fanguine to fupprefs indecent publications in the work alluded

to.

That gentleman, in his zeal for religion, had a ftrange kind of weakness to one fort of obfcenity, whilft another with which it was natural to fuppofe he was, from his religious habits, better acquainted, had entirely escaped him. What effect the obnoxious prints had upon the paffions of the worthy commoner, he could only guess from his motion to profecute the publisher: for his own part, he obferved, he had, from mere motives of curiofity, fince the matter was formerly stated, reviewed the prints, and bis paffions were not disturbed. He would tell the worthy commoner where prints more indecent were published, under the veil of religious protection. In a certain publication of the Bible, Joseph and Potiphar's wife, Susannah and the Elders, David and Bathsheba, and our First Parents, were drawn in fituations which were certainly not confonant to the purposes of religion and virtue. For thofe, and other reafons, the alderman faid, he would not be inftrumental in profecuting the publisher, who had reason to thank the worthy commoner for re-publishing his work. Mr. Dornford faid a few words in reply, and his motion was rejected,

The Committee appointed long ago to enquire into the place of Water-Bailiff, made a report, which was agreed to by the Court, by which the office is to be bestowed, and not fold.

23. This day was tried at Guildhall, before

Lord

Lord Chief Baron Skynner, an action brought by Mr. Sutherland, against the Honourable James Murray, late Governor of Minorca, for fufpending him from his office of Judge Advocate of the Vice-Admiralty Court, in the above inland.-Mr. Peckham, Mr. Rous, and Mr. Wood, were counsel for the plaintiff.

On opening the caufe, the leading counsel expatiated on the hardships Mr. Sutherland had fuffered, in confequence of his fufpenfion by Governor Murray, in the strongest manner. It was afferted, that he had been difplaced without any cause whatever; and that, fuppofing Governor Murray had fufficient difcretionary powers lodged in him to warrant the difmiffion of Mr. Sutherland from the office he held, yet the exercife of them in the cafe in queftion was improper and unjustifiable. But, as it was denied that any fuch authority was vefted in him, his conduct must appear the more culpable; therefore, feeing that the fteps taken by Governor Murray in this bufinefs were illegal, it was but reafonable that Mr. Sutherland fhould be reftored all the emoluments of his office, from the time of his fufpenfion until the Island of Minorca was furrendered to the enemy; and that he fhould receive also such other damages as the jury fhould think his fufferings merited.

Sir Thomas Davenport, affifted by Mr, Newnham and Mr. Erfkine, as counfel for the defendant, juftified Governor Murray; explaining in the cleareft manner to the court the motives which induced the governor to fufpend Mr. Sutherland, which were briefly as follows. Various complaints had reached the ears of Governor Murray against a Mr. Pons, who was deputy register in the Vice-Admiralty Court (where Mr. Sutherland prefided;) his mifconduct, in having large concerns in privateers; in buying fhares of failors prizes; in divulging the sentences of the court before the time of publication, contrary to an exprefs act of parliament; and in committing a variety of other misdemeanours, which rendered him a very improper perfon for the employment he was in.

Witneffes having been examined in fupport of the above, the judge fummed up the evidence; in doing which, he observed, that however upright the motives were which actuated Governor Murray to fufpend Mr. Sutherland from his office, he was not, in his opinion, warranted to do fo in point of law, for where the crown appoints, none but the crown can remove.

The jury then withdrew; and, after fome time fpent in deliberation, returned with a verdict in favour of Mr. Sutherland, awarding him 5000l. damages.

26. This morning came on, at the Seffions Houfe in the Old Bailey, before Mr. Juftice Buller, the trial of Mr. William Wynne Ryland, for a forgery on the Honourable United Eaft India Company. The indictment confifted of several counts, but amounted in effect to this, that the prifoner forged, or uttered knowing to be forged, a bill purporting to be drawn by the Company's fervants in India, and accepted in London, with intent to defraud the faid Company, or the bankers to whom it was presented,

of the fum of 210l. ftated to be drawn for as above.

The indictment being shortly opened by the junior counsel; Mr. Rous, in a very candid and clear manner, reprefented the nature of the cafe, and of the evidence he fhould call in fupport of the profecution. He concluded by humanely requesting the jury not to be guided by any thing he faid against the prifoner, but to decide upon his life or death purely from the teftimony of the witneffes, and their own judgment of their depofitions.

To prevent unneceffary trouble, we state to our readers, that the main hinges of the trial turned on pointing out a diftinction between two bills, the one falfe, and the other true, appa rently the fame as each other, and both traced to the poffeffion and utterance of the prifoners we shall therefore firft follow Mr. Juftice Buller in tracing the progrefs of the falfe bill.

On the 4th of November 1782, Mr. Ryland applied to the houfe of Meffrs. Ranfom and Co. for a fum of money, leaving as a fecurity his note and five India bills. Here they remained till fome reports unfavourable to the prifoner occafioned the partners to make enquiry at the India House relative to the validity of their fecurity, which ended in a difcovery of the forged bill ftated in the indictment.

This was the short account of the progrefs of the forged note given in evidence: that of the true bill was as follows.

Mr. Archibald Campbell had a bill for 210l. remitted him from Madras, which was accepted at the India Houfe; he got it discounted, and neceffarily indorfed it, but declared that it was the only bill for that sum which he did indorfe; he could not, however, decide upon which note his own hand-writing was. Mr. George Munro received the bill of Campbell, and he knew it when compared with the other by a finking in the ink, which he remembered when he firft wrote upon it. He would have owned the bad bill if brought alone. The good one was occafionally in his own poffeffion, and that of his banker, backwards and forwards, from March to May. John Cruickshank received the bill of Munro, but could not tell which it was; he delivered the fame bill to John Goddard, who on the 16th of May 1782, gave it to Mr. Ryland for a valuable and fair confideration.

Richard Holt, who accepted bills in the ab fence of the fecretary, related the rule of acceptance at the India Houfe; faid he had accepted but one bill, but could not afcertain which it

was.

Richard Holman, a clerk at the fame place, made fome diftinction between the bills, one being more in the manner of his writing, and bearing the marks of fewing, which marked thofe bills of the fame clafs he had fewed.

Mr. William Nightingale depofed, that on the 19th of September 1782, Mr. Ryland brought three bills to their houfe, of which that laft alJuded to was one, by his initials and marks he knew it to be the fame. Three thousand pounds were advanced on these notes.

Mr. James Whatman, paper-maker, gave a leng