Chapter XVII: Part 17

The following anecdote was related by Mr. Baron Garrow upon the trial of a prisoner, whose identity was questionable, on the Oxford Circuit. The learned judge was in the course of summing up the case to the jury, when he stated that a few years before, a prisoner was on his trial before him, upon a charge of highway robbery. His person was identified positively by the prosecutor, who even went so far as to say that he now wore the same clothes in which he had been attired on the occasion on which the robbery was committed; and the jury were on the point of being dismissed to the consideration of their verdict, when suddenly shouts were heard in the yard attached to the Court-house;--cries of "Make way--make way," were distinguished;--and a man on horseback, whose appearance denoted the rapidity with which he had ridden, rushed in among the people congregated to await the result of the trial, and, throwing himself from his horse, which was covered with foam, made his way with the greatest expedition to the entrance of the Court. The outcry which was raised had stopped the learned judge in his concluding observations, and before he could resume his address to the jury, the man, booted and spurred, and covered with mud, called upon him to "stop the case, for that he had ridden fifty miles to save the life of a fellow-creature--the prisoner at the bar." His lordship and the Court were astonished at the interruption, and called upon the stranger to explain his conduct. His answer was that he knew that the prisoner could not be guilty of the offence imputed to him; and he called upon the prosecutor of the indictment to say whether, after having seen _him_, he could still swear that the prisoner was the offender. The prosecutor again entered the witness-box, and surveyed the stranger from head to foot. He was dressed in a manner precisely similar to that in which the prisoner was attired--a green coat with brass buttons, drab breeches, and top-boots;--their countenances were so nearly alike in style, that from the transient view he had had of the robber, he was unable to distinguish which was the real thief. The Court were unwilling to suffer a person who was really innocent to be convicted, and proceeded to make inquiries of the stranger as to his reasons for interrupting the trial, and as to his knowledge of the circumstances of the robbery. Upon the former point, the only explanation which could be obtained from him was, that he was perfectly satisfied that the prisoner was innocent; upon the latter he declined to answer any queries, insinuating that, situated as he was, the Court would not compel him to criminate himself. The prisoner now reiterated the protestations of innocence which he had before made; and the prosecutor, being strictly examined by the Court, declared that he was so confused by the similarity which existed between the prisoner and the stranger, that he was unable to swear that the former was actually the thief; and that his impression now was, that the latter was the real offender. Under these circumstances, it was left to the jury to say, whether they could with safety declare the prisoner to be guilty; and a verdict of acquittal was in consequence returned, to the apparent satisfaction of the Court. It now became the duty of the judge to determine what further proceedings should be taken. A robbery, there was no doubt, had been committed, and its commission lay between the person who had just been acquitted and the stranger. The former must be presumed to be not guilty, because the jury had declared him to be so; and a bill of indictment was therefore directed to be preferred against the latter, who was taken into custody. The same evidence which had before been given was now repeated, and a true bill was returned. The trial came on in the course of the ensuing day, and a fresh jury being impanelled, the new prisoner was put upon his defence. It was a simple and plain one; "he was not guilty. The prosecutor had sworn positively to the person of the prisoner, who had been tried on the previous day, and could he now be permitted so to alter his testimony, as to procure the conviction of another? He had before declared that he could not distinguish the real offender, and what better opportunity had been since afforded him? Besides, his evidence now went only to his 'belief' as to the identity of the person charged: and surely if the jury had before acquitted a prisoner to whom he had sworn positively, they would not now convict, when his testimony was qualified." This reasoning was too much for the jury; the prisoner had made no confession of his own guilt, and he was declared not guilty. The sequel was soon discovered; the two men were brothers: the first prisoner was the guilty party, and the whole "scene" got up by the stranger was a mere fabrication, invented for the purpose of gulling the Court and jury. No proceedings could be taken against either party; for although the Court had been imposed upon, the imposition was backed by no perjury, and the two thieves--for so they turned out--escaped unpunished.

Another instance of remarkable imposition being practised upon the Court, occurred subsequently at York. The case of a person who was charged with an extensive robbery on the highway, had attracted considerable attention. The prisoner, when apprehended, was attired in the habit of a working man; but the prosecutor, whose evidence as to his identity was positive, swore that when the robbery was committed he was well dressed, and mounted. The trial came on at the York assizes, and the Court was crowded with persons. Upon the evening preceding the day on which the case was fixed for trial, a gentleman drove up to one of the principal inns of the city in a travelling chariot, and requested to be accommodated with a bed. A handsome supper was ordered, and the stranger retired to rest. In the morning breakfast was served, and the landlord was sent for. The gentleman said that he was unacquainted with the town, and found that he was a day too early for the business upon which he had come to York: and he therefore desired to know whether there were any amusements going on, with which he could entertain himself until dinner-time. The castle, the minster, and various other curiosities were alluded to, in which he appeared to take no interest; and the landlord at length mentioned that the assizes were on, and suggested that he might probably derive some entertainment from listening to the trials; and he stated that a remarkable case of highway robbery was fixed for trial on that morning, and had by that time probably commenced. Some curiosity on this point was expressed; and the landlord, conducting his guest to the Court-house, obtained for him a seat upon the bench, upon assuring the high sheriff of his being a person of great apparent respectability, which the landlord had good reason to believe, from his having seen him with a bundle of notes in his possession of no inconsiderable size, which he observed that he had placed in his trunk with his pocket-book on his quitting the inn. The case of highway robbery, as the landlord suggested, had already commenced; the prisoner appeared to be a poor man, and was standing at the bar, with his face buried in his handkerchief, apparently deeply affected by the situation in which he was placed, and almost unconscious of what was passing around him. The trial now approached its termination; the evidence for the prosecution was completed, and the learned judge called on the prisoner for his defence. He raised himself languidly from the place where he had been resting, and assured the jury that he was innocent, when, suddenly starting, he exclaimed passionately. "There, there, my lord, there is a gentleman seated on your lordship's bench who can prove that I am not guilty!" All eyes were turned to the person to whom the prisoner's finger, in support of his declaration, was pointed; and the stranger was found to be the object of the remark. He expressed great surprise at being thus called upon, and declared that he was at a loss to know how the prisoner could appeal to him, for that he had no immediate recollection that he had ever seen him before. The learned judge demanded that the prisoner should explain himself; and he then stated that on the very day named in the indictment, and by the witnesses, as that on which the robbery had been committed, he was at Dover, and had conveyed the gentleman's luggage in a wheelbarrow from the Ship Inn to the steam-packet, in which he was about to start for Calais. The gentleman, in answer to the questions put to him, said that he certainly had been at Dover about the time mentioned, and that he had lodged at the Ship Inn, and had gone from thence by steam to Calais. He remembered too that a man had carried his trunks as the prisoner had described; but that although he now had some distant recollection of the features of the man at the bar, he was unable to recognize him as the person he had employed; and he could not besides swear to the date of the transaction. The court inquired whether he was in the habit of making memoranda of his proceedings, and whether, by referring to any documents, he should be able to give any more decided information upon the subject? He answered, that being engaged in a large mercantile business it was certainly his custom to make notes in his pocket-book, but that the book was at his inn, locked in his trunk. The court said that in such a case it was desirable that the most minute inspection should take place, and desired that the gentleman should go for his book. The latter was unwilling to take this trouble, but would give his keys to the officer of the court, who might, in the presence of his landlord, open his trunk and bring the book to the court. Messengers were in consequence despatched, with directions to make further inquiries of the landlord as to the stranger; and in the meantime the prisoner proceeded to ask him questions, reminding him of certain occurrences which had taken place on the day in question on their way from the inn to the quay, and more especially that the packet was late in starting. To most of these the gentleman assented, and the pocket-book being now arrived he referred to it, and declared that the date mentioned was the very day on which he had quitted Dover as described; and from all the circumstances which the prisoner had detailed, he was decidedly of opinion that he was the person whom he had employed. The circumstances attending the arrival and sojourn of the stranger at the inn, as detailed by the landlord, who had come into court, were now whispered to the judge; and the gentleman having given his name, and stated himself to be connected with a most respectable banking firm in the city of London, the learned judge summed up the case, commenting upon the very remarkable coincidence which had occurred; and the jury, giving full credit to the testimony of the stranger, at once returned a verdict of not guilty in favour of the prisoner. This decision appeared to give perfect satisfaction to the court, and the prisoner was ordered to be immediately discharged. The stranger was complimented by the judge upon the essential service which he had been the means of rendering to a fellow creature, and left the court, declaring his happiness at his having been able to give such testimony. Within a fortnight afterwards, the late prisoner and his friend, the London merchant, were lodged in York Castle, charged with a most daring act of housebreaking, in which they had been concerned. The notes which the latter had sported at the inn were found to be drawn upon the "Bank of Fashion" instead of upon the "Bank of England;" and upon the prisoners being tried at the ensuing assizes, they were found guilty, and their lives were justly forfeited to the laws of their country.

JOHN RANN, _alias_ SIXTEEN STRINGED JACK.

EXECUTED FOR HIGHWAY ROBBERY.

The name of this criminal will be immediately recollected as one which has attained no small share of notoriety. He was born at a village a few miles from Bath, of poor parents; and during the greater part of his youth he obtained a living by pursuing the business of a costermonger. At the age of twelve years he was hired by a lady of distinction, whom he accompanied to London; and subsequently being employed in her stables, he obtained some knowledge of horses, and having served in the more humble capacity of post-boy at an inn, he was at length taken into the service of a gentleman of fortune, in Portman-square, as coachman. It was at this period that he dressed in the manner which gave rise to his appellation of Sixteen-stringed Jack, by wearing breeches with eight strings on each knee; but after having been employed by several noblemen he lost his character, and turned pickpocket, in company with three fellows named Jones, Clayton, and College, the latter of whom, a mere boy, obtained the name of Eight-stringed Jack.

The first appearance which our hero appears to have made at the bar of any Court of Justice was at the sessions held at the Old Bailey in April, 1774, when, with Clayton and one Shepherd, he was tried for robbing Mr. William Somers on the highway, and acquitted for want of evidence. They were again tried for robbing Mr. Langford, but acquitted for the same reason.

He was soon destined to be again in custody, however, and on the 30th of May following, he was charged with robbing John Devall, Esq. near the nine-mile stone on the Hounslow road, of his watch and money. It appeared that he had given the watch to a young woman with whom he lived, named Roche, who had delivered it to Catherine Smith, by whom it was offered in pledge to Mr. Hallam a pawnbroker, who, suspecting it was not honestly obtained, caused the parties to be taken into custody. Roche was now charged with receiving the watch, knowing it to have been stolen; and Smith, being sworn, deposed that on the day Mr. Devall was robbed, Roche told her that "she expected Rann to bring her some money in the evening;" that he accordingly came about ten at night, and having retired some time with Roche, she, on her return, owned that she had received a watch and five guineas from him, which he said he had taken from a gentleman on the highway; and that she, Smith, carried the watch to pawn to Mr. Hallam at the request of Roche. Upon this charge the prisoner Rann was again sent to Newgate; but on his trial in July 1774, he was acquitted. On his appearing at the bar, he was dressed in a manner above his style of life and his circumstances. He had a bundle of flowers in the breast of his coat almost as large as a broom; and his irons were tied up with a number of blue ribands.

Two or three days after this acquittal Rann engaged to sup with a girl at her lodgings in Bow Street; but not being punctual to his appointment, the woman went to bed, and her paramour being unable to obtain admittance by the door, proceeded to effect an entrance through the window; and had nearly accomplished his purpose, when a watchman interrupted him, and took him into custody. He was charged at Bow-street on the 27th of July with this alleged burglarious attempt; but the "young lady" appearing, declared the prisoner could have had no felonious intent, for that so far from her opposing his entry, had she been awake, she would instantly have admitted him; and besides that he was quite welcome to share everything that she possessed, even to her bed. Upon this declaration, the prisoner was dismissed, with a caution to adopt a less dangerous method of pursuing his amours.

After this it seems that the proceedings of our hero became pretty notorious, and he took no trouble either to conceal or disguise his person or his acts. He did not hesitate to proclaim himself as "Sixteen-stringed Jack, the famous highwayman," and to appear at public places attired in a peculiar manner so as to excite observation and attention. It does not appear that his attacks were marked by any great degree of atrocity; and the celebrity which he obtained was rather of his own seeking. A short time before he was convicted of the offence which cost him his life, he attended a public execution at Tyburn, and getting in the ring formed by the constables round the gallows, desired that he might be permitted to stand there, "for," said he, "perhaps it is very proper that I should be a spectator on this occasion."

On the 26th of September, 1774, he went with William Collier on the Uxbridge-road, with a view to commit robberies on the highway; and being apprehended on the Wednesday following, they were examined at the public office in Bow-street on the following charge. Dr. William Bell, chaplain to the Princess Amelia, deposed that between three and four o'clock in the afternoon of Monday, the 26th of September, as he was riding near Ealing, he observed two men of rather mean appearance, who rode past him; and that he remarked they had suspicious looks; yet neither at that time, nor for some little time afterwards, had he any idea of being robbed: that soon afterwards one of them, whom he believed to be Rann, crossed the head of his horse, and demanding his money, said, "Give it to me, and take no notice, or I'll blow your brains out." On this the doctor gave him one shilling and sixpence, which was all the silver he had, and a common watch in a tortoise-shell case.

It further appeared that, on the night of the robbery, Rann's companion Eleanor Roche, and her maid-servant, Christian Stewart, went to the shop of Mr. Cordy, a pawnbroker in Oxford-road, to pledge the watch, but that he stopped it, and found out its owner by applying to Mr. Grignon, its maker, in Russell-street, Covent-garden; and evidence was also adduced as to the identity of Rann, who was proved to have been seen at Acton within twenty minutes of the time of the robbery being committed. The prisoners were thereupon sent to Newgate to take their trials; and Roche and Stewart being also apprehended, were indicted as accessories after the fact.

The evidence given on the trial, was in substance the same as that which had been adduced at Bow-street; but some favourable circumstances appearing in behalf of Collier, he was recommended to mercy, and afterwards respited during the king's pleasure. Miss Roche was sentenced to be transported for fourteen years; her servant was acquitted; and Rann was left for execution.

When Rann was brought down to take his trial he was dressed in a new suit of pea-green clothes; his hat was bound round with silver strings; he wore a ruffled shirt, and his behaviour evinced the utmost unconcern. Upon hearing the verdict of the jury, which consigned him to death, he endeavoured to force a smile, but the attempt was a failure, and it was evident that the confidence which he had before exhibited, now forsook him. He had been so certain of acquittal, that he had ordered a supper to be provided on the occasion; but his anticipations of pleasure were quickly changed into the reality of sorrow. After conviction, his behaviour was for a time unfitted for the melancholy condition in which he was placed. On Sunday, the 23d of October, he had seven girls to dine with him, and with their mirth endeavoured to shake off the heaviness which beset him, but the warrant for his execution soon after arriving, he became more sensible of his awful situation, and began to prepare for the sad fate which awaited him. At his execution, he behaved with decent resignation, and surveyed the gallows with an eye of confidence. He was executed on the 30th of November, 1774; and having hung the usual time, his body was delivered over to his friends for interment.

ROBERT AND DANIEL PERREAU.

EXECUTED FOR FORGERY.

The circumstances of the cases of these prisoners are of a very remarkable description. It appears that the accused persons were twin brothers, and were so much alike that it was with difficulty that they were known apart. Robert Perreau carried on business in Golden-square as an apothecary, and was in great practice; while his brother lived in a style of considerable fashion, a Mrs. Margaret Caroline Rudd living with him as his wife.

At the sessions held at the Old Bailey in June 1775, Robert Perreau was indicted for forging a bond for the payment of 7,500_l._ in the name of William Adair, Esq (then a great government contractor), and also for feloniously uttering and publishing the said bond, knowing it to be forged, with intent to defraud Messrs. Robert and Henry Drummond, bankers.

From the evidence which was adduced at the trial, it appeared that on the 10th of March, 1775, the prisoner under trial, whose character up to that time had been considered unimpeachable, went to the house of Messrs. Drummond, and seeing Mr. Henry Drummond, one of the partners, said that he had been making a purchase of an estate in Norfolk or Suffolk, for which he was to give 12,000_l._, but that he had not sufficient cash to pay the whole purchase-money. That he had a bond, however, which Mr. Adair had given to his brother Daniel, for 7,500_l._, upon which he desired to raise a sum of 5000_l._, out of which he was willing to pay 1,400_l._, which he had already borrowed of the firm.

Mr. Drummond, on the production of the bond, had no sooner looked at the signature than he doubted its authenticity, and very politely asked the prisoner if he had seen Mr. Adair sign it. The latter said he had not, but that he had no doubt that it was authentic, from the nature of the connexion that subsisted between Mrs. Rudd, who was known to live with Daniel, and that gentleman; a suggestion having previously been thrown out that she was his natural daughter. Mr. Drummond, however, declined advancing any money without the sanction of his brother, and he desired Perreau to leave the bond, saying that it should either be returned on the next day, or the money produced. The prisoner made no scruple to obey this suggestion, and he retired, promising to call again the next day.

In the interim, Mr. Drummond examined the bond with greater attention; and Mr. Stephens, secretary of the Admiralty, happening to call, his opinion was demanded, when, comparing the signature to the bond with letters which he had lately received from Mr. Adair, he was firmly convinced that it was forged. When Perreau came on the following day, Mr. Drummond spoke more freely than he had done before, and told him that he imagined he had been imposed on; but begged, that to remove all doubt, he would go with him to Mr. Adair, and get that gentleman to acknowledge the validity of the bond, on which the money would be advanced. This was immediately acceded to; and on Mr. Adair seeing the document, he at once declared that the signature was a forgery. The prisoner smiled incredulously, and said that he jested; but Mr. Adair remarked that it was no jesting matter, and that it lay on him to clear up the affair. On this he went away, requesting to have the bond, in order to make the necessary inquiries--a request which was refused; and persons being employed to watch him, it was found that immediately on his arrival at his house, he and his brother and Mrs. Rudd got into a coach, carrying with them all the valuables which they could collect, with a design to make their escape. They were, however, stopped, and taken into custody, and being conveyed to Sir John Fielding's, at Bow-street, they there underwent an examination, and upon the evidence adduced, were committed to prison. Other charges were subsequently brought against them by Sir Thomas Frankland, from whom they had obtained two sums of 5000_l._ and 4000_l._ on similar forged bonds, as well as 4000_l._ which they had paid when the amount became due; and by Dr. Brooke, who alleged that they had obtained from him 1500_l._ in bonds of the Ayr bank, upon the security of a forged bond for 3100_l._; and Mrs. Rudd was then admitted as evidence for the Crown. Her deposition then was, that she was the daughter of a nobleman in Scotland; that, when young, she married an officer in the army named Rudd, against the consent of her friends; that her fortune was considerable; that on a disagreement with her husband, they resolved to part; that she made a reserve of money, jewels, and effects, to the amount of thirteen thousand pounds, all of which she gave to Daniel Perreau, whom she said she loved with the tenderness of a wife; that she had three children by him; that he had returned her kindness in every respect till lately, when, having been unfortunate in gaming in the alley, he had become uneasy, peevish, and much altered to her; that he cruelly constrained her to sign the bond now in question, by holding a knife to her throat, and swearing that he would murder her if she did not comply; that, being struck with remorse, she had acquainted Mr. Adair with what she had done; and that she was now willing to declare every transaction with which she was acquainted, whenever she should be called upon by law so to do.

Upon the cross-examination of Mr. Drummond, however, he swore that Mrs. Rudd on her being first apprehended, took the whole on herself, and acknowledged that she had forged the bonds; that she begged them "for God's sake to have mercy on an innocent man," and that she said no injury was intended to any person, and that all would be paid; and that she acknowledged delivering the bond to the prisoner. They then entertained an opinion that the prisoner was her dupe; and Mr. Robert Drummond having expressed a notion that she could not have forged a handwriting so dissimilar from that of a woman as Mr. Adair's, she immediately, in order to satisfy them of the truth of what she said, wrote the name "William Adair" on a paper exactly like the signature which appeared attached to the bond.

Mr. Watson, a money-scrivener, also deposed, that he had filled up the bonds at the desire of one of the brothers, and in pursuance of instructions received from him; but he hesitated to fix on either, on account of their great personal resemblance; and being pressed to make a positive declaration, he fixed on Daniel as his employer.

The case for the prosecution being concluded, the prisoner entered upon his defence. In a long and ingenious speech, which he addressed to the jury, he strove hard to prove that he was the victim of the artifices of Mrs. Rudd.

He said that she was constantly conversing about the influence she had over Mr. W. Adair; and that Mr. Adair had, by his interest with the king, obtained the promise of a baronetage for Daniel Perreau, and was about procuring him a seat in parliament. That Mr. Adair had promised to open a bank, and take the brothers Perreau into partnership with him. That the prisoner received many letters signed "William Adair," which he had no doubt came from that gentleman, in which were promises of giving them a considerable part of his fortune during his life; and that he was to allow Daniel Perreau two thousand four hundred pounds a year for his household expenses, and six hundred pounds a year for Mrs. Rudd's pin-money. That Mr. Daniel Perreau purchased a house in Harley-street for four thousand pounds, which money Mr. William Adair was to give them. That when Daniel Perreau was pressed by the person of whom he bought the house for the money, the prisoner understood that they applied to Mr. William Adair, and that his answer was, that he had lent the king seventy thousand pounds, and had purchased a house in Pall Mall at seven thousand pounds, in which to carry on the banking business, and therefore could not spare the four thousand pounds at that time.

He declared that all attempts at personal communication with Mr. Adair were strenuously opposed by Mrs. Rudd as being likely to destroy the effects of her exertions on his behalf, and contended that his conduct throughout the whole transaction with Mr. Drummond, showed that he was innocent of any guilty intention, and that he firmly believed that he was acting honestly and justly.

He then proceeded to call the following witnesses, whose evidence we shall give in the most concise manner:--

George Kinder deposed that Mrs. Perreau (the only name by which he knew Mrs, Rudd) told him "that she was a near relation of Mr. James Adair; that he looked upon her as his child, had promised to make her fortune, and with that view had recommended her to Mr. William Adair, a near relation and intimate friend of his, who had promised to set her husband and the prisoner up in the banking business." He also deposed that she said that Mr. Daniel Perreau was to be made a baronet, and described how she would act when she became a lady. The witness further deposed that Mrs. Rudd often pretended that Mr. William Adair had called to see her, but that he never had seen that gentleman on any visit.

John Moody, a livery-servant of Daniel Perreau, deposed that his mistress wrote two very different hands; in one of which she wrote letters to his master, as from Mr. William Adair, and in the other the ordinary business of the family. That the letters written in the name of William Adair were pretended to have been left in his master's absence; that his mistress ordered him to give them to his master, and pretend that Mr. Adair had been with his mistress for a longer or shorter time, as circumstances required. This witness likewise proved that the hand at the bottom of the bond and that of his mistress's fictitious writing were precisely the same; that she used different pens, ink, and paper, in writing her common and fictitious letters; and that she sometimes gave the witness half-a-crown when he had delivered a letter to her satisfaction. He said he had seen her go two or three times to Mr. J. Adair's, but never to William's; and that Mr. J. Adair once visited his mistress on her lying-in.

Susannah Perreau (the prisoner's sister) deposed to her having seen a note delivered to Daniel Perreau, by Mrs. Rudd, for nineteen thousand pounds, drawn as by William Adair, on Mr. Croft, the banker, in favour of Daniel Perreau.

Elizabeth Perkins swore that a week before the forgery was discovered, her mistress gave her a letter to bring back to her in a quarter of an hour, and say it was brought by Mr. Coverley, who had been servant to Daniel Perreau; that she gave her mistress this letter, and her master instantly broke the seal.

Daniel Perreau swore that the purport of this letter was "that Mr. Adair desired her to apply to his brother, the prisoner, to procure him five thousand pounds upon his (Adair's) bond, in the same manner as he had done before; that Mr. Adair was unwilling to have it appear that the money was raised for him, and therefore desired him to have the bond lodged with some confidential friend, who would not require an assignment of it; that his brother, on being made acquainted with his request, showed a vast deal of reluctancy, and said it was very unpleasant work; but undertook it with a view of obliging Mr. William Adair."

The counsel for the prosecution demanding "if he did not disclaim all knowledge of the affair before Mr. Adair," he said he denied ever having seen the bond before, nor had he a perfect knowledge of it till he saw it in the hands of Mr. Adair.

David Cassady, who assisted Mr. R. Perreau as an apothecary, deposed that he lived much within the profits of his profession, and that it was reported he was going into the banking business.

John Leigh, clerk to Sir John Fielding, swore to the prisoner's coming voluntarily to the office before his apprehension, and giving information that a forgery had been committed. Mr. Leigh was asked if Mrs. Rudd "ever charged the prisoner with any knowledge of the transaction till the justices were hearing evidence to prove her confession of the fact;" and he answered that he did not recollect that circumstance, but that on her first examination she did not accuse the prisoner.

Mr. Perreau now called several persons of rank to his character. Lady Lyttleton being asked if she thought him capable of such a crime, supposed she could have done it as soon herself. Sir John Moore, Sir John Chapman, General Rebow, Captain Ellis, Captain Burgoyne, and other gentlemen, spoke most highly to the character of the prisoner; but the jury found him guilty.

It will be unnecessary now to give anything more than a succinct account of the trial of Daniel Perreau, which immediately followed that of his brother. He was indicted for forging and counterfeiting a bond, in the name of William Adair, for three thousand three hundred pounds, to defraud the said William Adair, and for uttering the same knowing it to be forged, to defraud Thomas Brooke, doctor of physic. Mr. Scroope Ogilvie, clerk to Mr. William Adair, proved the forgery; and Dr. Brooke swore to the uttering of the bond.

The defence set up by the prisoner was, that Mrs. Rudd had given the bond to him as a true one; and he asserted, in the most solemn manner, that he had had no intention to defraud any man. Like his brother, he called several witnesses to show the artifices of which Mrs. Rudd had been guilty; and many persons proved the great respectability of his character.

The jury, however, returned a verdict of guilty, and both prisoners were sentenced to death; but the execution did not take place until January 1776, in consequence of the proceedings which were subsequently taken against Mrs. Rudd.

After conviction the behaviour of the brothers was, in every respect, proper for their unhappy situation. Great interest was made to obtain a pardon for them, particularly for Robert, in whose favour seventy-eight bankers and merchants of London signed a petition to the king: the news papers were filled with paragraphs, evidently written by disinterested persons, in favour of men whom they thought dupes to the designs of an artful woman: but all was of no avail.

On the day of execution the brothers were favoured with a mourning-coach, in which to be conveyed to the scaffold; and their conduct throughout was of the most exemplary description. After the customary devotions were concluded, they crossed hands, and joining the four together, in that manner were launched into eternity. They had not hanged more than half a minute when their hands dropped asunder, and they appeared to die without pain.

Each of them delivered a paper to the Ordinary of Newgate, which stated their innocence, and ascribed the blame of the whole transaction to the artifices of Mrs. Rudd; and, indeed, thousands of people gave credit to their assertions, and a great majority of the public thought Robert wholly innocent.

Daniel Perreau and Robert Perreau were executed at Tyburn on the 17th of January, 1776.

On the Sunday following, the bodies were carried from the house of Robert, in Golden-square, and, after the usual solemnities, deposited in the vault of St. Martin's church. A mob of thirty thousand persons attended the execution, and an equal number appeared at the funeral, but nothing occurred to disturb the solemnity of either scene.

MARGARET CAROLINE RUDD.

TRIED FOR FORGERY.

On the 16th of September, 1775, Mrs. Rudd was put to the bar at the Old Bailey, to be tried for forgery; but the counsel for the prisoner pleading that, as she had been already admitted an evidence for the crown, it was unprecedented to detain her for trial, and the judges differing in opinion on the point of law, she was remanded to prison till the opinion of the judges could be taken on a subject of so much importance.

On the 8th of December, 1775, she was arraigned on an indictment for feloniously forging a bond, purporting to be signed by William Adair, and for feloniously uttering and publishing the same.

Mr. Justice Aston now addressed the prisoner, informing her that eleven of the judges had met (the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas being indisposed), "and were unanimous in opinion, that in cases not within any statute, an accomplice, who fully discloses the joint guilt of himself and his companions, and is admitted by justices of the peace as a witness, and who appears to have acted a fair and ingenuous part in the disclosure of all the circumstances of the cases in which he has been concerned, ought not to be prosecuted for the offences so by him confessed, but cannot by law plead this in bar of any indictment, but merely as an equitable claim to mercy from the crown: and nine of the judges were of opinion that all the circumstances relative to this claim ought to be laid before the Court, to enable the judges to exercise their discretion whether the trial should proceed or not. With respect to the case before them, the same nine judges were of opinion that if the matter stood singly upon the two informations of the prisoner, compared with the indictments against her, she ought to have been tried upon all, or any of them, for from her information she is no accomplice. She exhibits a charge against Robert and Daniel Perreau, the first soliciting her to imitate the hand-writing of William Adair, the other forcing her to execute the forgery under the threat of death. Her two informations are contradictory: if she has suppressed the truth, she has no equitable claim to favour; and if she has told the truth, and the whole truth, she cannot be convicted. As to the indictments preferred against her by Sir Thomas Frankland, as her informations before the justices have no relation to his charges, she can claim no sort of advantage from these informations."

The trial then proceeded.--The principal evidences were the wife of Robert Perreau, and John Moody, a servant to Daniel. The first endeavoured to prove that the bond was published, the latter that it was forged. Sir Thomas Frankland proved that he had lent money on the bond. It was objected by the counsel for the prisoner, that Mrs. Perreau was an incompetent witness, as she would be interested in the event; but the Court overruled this objection.

Mrs. Perreau deposed that, on the 24th December, she saw Mrs. Rudd deliver a bond to her husband, which he laid on the table while he brushed his coat; that it was for five thousand three hundred pounds, payable to Robert Perreau, and signed "William Adair;" and that it was witnessed in the names of Arthur Jones and Thomas Start, or Hart. Mrs. Perreau, being asked when she again saw the bond, said that it was brought to her on the 8th of March (the day after her husband was convicted), when she selected it from other bonds delivered to him on the 24th of December. She made her mark on it, and deposed that when it was delivered to Mr. Perreau, Mrs. Rudd said, "Mr. Adair would be very much obliged to Mr. Perreau to try to raise upon that bond the sum of four thousand pounds of Sir Thomas Frankland."

Sergeant Davy cross-examined Mrs. Perreau. She acknowledged that till the 24th of December she had never seen a bond in her life; and that on her first sight of that in question she had no suspicion that anything was wrong.

John Moody, the servant to Daniel Perreau, who had been examined on the former trials, was called, and repeated the testimony which he had before given. The bond which in this case was alleged to have been uttered was that for 4000_l._, on which Sir Thomas Frankland had advanced money.

The prisoner, on being called on for her defence, in a short speech declared that she was innocent, and concluded by leaving her case in the hands of the jury, who almost immediately declared her not guilty.

As soon as the verdict was returned, she quitted the Court, and retired to the house of a friend at the west end of the town.

THE COUNTESS OF BRISTOL, OTHERWISE THE DUCHESS OF KINGSTON.

CONVICTED OF BIGAMY.

Few females have in their time attracted so large a portion of public attention as this celebrated lady. She was the daughter of Colonel Chudleigh, the descendant of an ancient family in the county of Devon; but her father dying while she was yet young, her mother was left possessed only of a small estate with which to bring her up, and to fit her for that grade of society in which from her birth she was entitled to move. Being possessed, however, of excellent qualities, she improved the connexion which she had among persons of fashion, with a view to the future success in life of her daughter. The latter, meanwhile, as she advanced in years, improved in beauty; and upon her attaining the age of eighteen was distinguished as well for the loveliness of her person as for the wit and brilliancy of her conversation. Her education had not been neglected; and, despite the small fortune possessed by her mother, no opportunity was lost by which her mind might be improved; and a means was about this time afforded for the display of her accomplishments. The father of George the Third held his court at Leicester-house; and Mr. Pulteney, who then blazed as a meteor on the opposition benches in the House of Commons, was honoured with the particular regard of His Royal Highness. Miss Chudleigh had been introduced to Mr. Pulteney; and he had admired her for the beauties of her mind and of her person; and, his sympathies being excited in her behalf, he obtained for her, at the age of eighteen, the appointment of maid of honour to the Princess of Wales. His efforts, however, did not stop at thus elevating her to a situation of the highest honour; but he also endeavoured to improve the cultivation of her understanding by instruction; and to him Miss Chudleigh read, and with him, when separated by distance, she corresponded.

The station to which Miss Chudleigh had been advanced, combined with her numerous personal attractions, produced her many admirers: some with titles, and others in the expectation of them. Among the former was the Duke of Hamilton, whom Miss Gunning had afterwards the good fortune to obtain for a consort. The duke was passionately attached to Miss Chudleigh; and pressed his suit with such ardour as to obtain a solemn engagement on her part, that on his return from a tour, for which he was preparing, she would become his wife. There were reasons why this event should not immediately take place; but that the engagement would be fulfilled at the specified time was considered by both parties as a moral certainty. A mutual pledge was given and accepted; the duke commenced his proposed tour; and the parting condition was, that he should write by every opportunity, and that Miss Chudleigh of course should answer his epistles. Thus the arrangement of Fortune seemed to have united a pair who possibly might have experienced much happiness, for between the duke and Miss Chudleigh there was a strong similarity of disposition; but Fate had not destined them for each other.

Miss Chudleigh had an aunt, whose name was Hanmer: at her house the Hon. Mr. Hervey, son of the Earl of Bristol, and a captain in the royal navy, was a visitor. To this gentleman Mrs. Hanmer became so exceedingly partial, that she favoured views which he entertained towards her niece, and engaged her efforts to effect, if possible, a matrimonial connexion. There were two difficulties which would have been insurmountable, had they not been opposed by the fertile genius of a female--Miss Chudleigh disliked Captain Hervey, and she was betrothed to the Duke of Hamilton.

No exertions which could possibly be made were spared to render this latter alliance nugatory; and the wits of this woman were exerted to the utmost to favour the object which she had in view. The letters of his grace were intercepted by Mrs. Hanmer; and his supposed silence giving offence to her niece, she worked so successfully on her pride as to induce her to abandon all thoughts of her lover, whose passion she had cherished with delight. A conduct the reverse of that imputed to the duke was observed by Captain Hervey: he was all that assiduity could dictate or attention perform. He had daily access to Miss Chudleigh; and each interview was artfully improved by the aunt to the promotion of her own views. The letters of his grace of Hamilton, which regularly arrived, were as regularly suppressed; until, piqued beyond endurance, Miss Chudleigh was prevailed on to accept the hand of Captain Hervey, and by a private marriage, to ensure the participation of his future honours and fortune. The ceremony was performed in a private chapel adjoining the country mansion of Mr. Merrill, at Lainston, near Winchester, in Hampshire.

On a review of life, the predominant evil experienced may be easily traced by every reflecting mind to some wilful error or injudicious mistake, operating as a determinate cause, and giving the colour to our fate. This was the case with Miss Chudleigh; and the hour at which she became united with Captain Hervey proved to her the origin of every subsequent unhappiness. The connubial rites were attended with unhappy consequences; and from the night following the day on which the marriage was solemnized, Miss Chudleigh resolved never to have any further connexion with her husband. To prevail on him not to claim her as his wife required all the art of which she was mistress; and the best dissuasive was the loss of her situation as maid of honour, should the marriage become publicly known. The circumstances of Captain Hervey were not in a flourishing condition, and were ill calculated to enable him to ride with a high hand over his wife; and the fear of the loss of the emoluments of her office operated most powerfully with him to induce him to obey the injunctions which she imposed upon him in this respect. His conduct even now, however, exhibited a strong desire to act with a degree of harshness most unusual so soon after the performance of the marriage ceremony; and the consequence was that any feelings of respect which his wife may have fancied she entertained for him were soon dispelled. Her own expression subsequently was that "her misery commenced with the arrival of Captain Hervey in England; and the greatest joy she experienced was on the intelligence of his departure." Her marriage being unknown to mere outward observers, Miss Chudleigh, or Mrs. Hervey, a maid in appearance--a wife in disguise--would have been supposed to be placed in a most enviable condition. The attractive centre of the circle in which she moved, the invigorating spirit of the life of the society formed around her, she was universally admired. Her royal mistress smiled upon her; the friendship of many was at her call; the admiration of none could be withheld from her: but amidst all her conquests and all her fancied happiness she wanted that peace of mind which was so necessary to support her against the conflicts which arose in her own breast. Nor was her own heart, that inward monitor, the only source of her trouble. Her husband, quieted for a time, grew obstreperous as he saw the jewel admired by all, which was, he felt, entitled only to his love; and feeling that he possessed the right to her entire consideration, he resolved to assert its power. In the mean time every art which she possessed had been put into operation to soothe him to continued silence; but her further endeavours being unsuccessful, she was compelled to grant his request, and to attend an interview which he appointed, at his own house, and to which he enforced obedience by threatening an instant and full disclosure in case of her non-compliance. The meeting was strictly private, all persons being sent from the house with the exception of a black servant; and on Mrs. Hervey's entrance to the apartment in which her husband was seated, his first care was to prevent all intrusion by locking the door. This meeting, like all others between her and her husband, was unfortunate in its effects: the fruit of it was the birth of a boy, whose existence it will be readily supposed she had much difficulty in concealing. Her removal to Brompton for a change of air became requisite during the term of her confinement; and she returned to Leicester-house, perfectly recovered from her indisposition; but the infant soon sinking in the arms of death, left only the tale of its existence to be related.

In the mean time, the sum of her unhappiness had been completed by the return of the Duke of Hamilton. His grace had no sooner arrived in England, than he hastened to pay his adoration at the feet of his idol, and to learn the cause of her silence, when his letters had been regularly despatched to her. An interview which took place soon set the character of Mrs. Hanmer in its true light; but while Miss Chudleigh was convinced of the imposition which had been practised upon her, she was unable to accept the proffered hand of her illustrious suitor, or to explain the reason for her apparently ungracious rejection of his addresses. The duke, flighty as he was in other respects, in his love for Miss Chudleigh had at least been sincere; and this strange conduct on the part of his betrothed, followed as it was by a request on her part that he would not again intrude his visits upon her, raised emotions in his mind which can hardly be described. The rejection of his grace was followed by that of several other persons of distinction; and the mother of Miss Chudleigh, who was quite unaware of her private marriage with Captain Hervey, could not conceal her regret and anger at the supposed folly of her daughter.

It was impossible that these circumstances could long remain concealed from the society in which Miss Chudleigh moved; and, in order to relieve herself from the embarrassments by which she was surrounded, she determined to travel on the Continent--trusting that time would eradicate the impression of her fickleness which she left behind her, and that change of scene would remove the pain which every day spent in the theatre of her former operations could not fail to sink deeper into her heart. Germany was the place selected by her for her travels; and she, in turn, visited the chief cities of its principalities. Possessed as she was of introductions of the highest class, she was gratified by obtaining the acquaintance of many crowned heads. Frederic of Prussia conversed and corresponded with her. In the Electress of Saxony she found a friend whose affection for her continued to the latest period of life. The electress was a woman of sense, honour, virtue, and religion; and her letters were replete with kindness. While her hand distributed presents to Miss Chudleigh out of the treasury of abundance, her heart was interested for her happiness. This she afterwards evinced during her prosecution; for at that time a letter from the electress contained the following passage:--"You have long experienced my love; my revenue, my protection, my everything, you may command. Come then, my dear life, to an asylum of peace. Quit a country where, if you are bequeathed a cloak, some pretender may start up, and ruin you by law to prove it not your property. Let me have you at Dresden."

On her return from the Continent Miss Chudleigh ran over the career of pleasure, enlivened the court circles, and each year became more ingratiated with the mistress whom she served. She was the leader of fashion, played whist with Lord Chesterfield, and revelled with Lady Harrington and Miss Ashe. She was a constant visitant at all public places, and in 1742 appeared at a masked ball in the character of Iphigenia.