had been committed, on which Mrs. Rudd was apprehended. Mr. Leigh was asked if she ever charged the prisoner with any knowledge of the transaction till the justices were hearing evidence to prove her confession of the fact.' Mr. Leigh 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; yet the jury found him guilty.

After this copious account of the trial of Robert a very short abstract of that of the other brother may suffice, especially as that of Mrs. Rudd is to follow.

Daniel Perreau 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, who had been clerk to Mr. William Adair nine or ten years, proved the forgery; and Dr. Brooke proved the uttering of the forged bond.

By way of defence, the prisoner declared that Mrs. Rudd had given him the bond as a true one; that he believed it genuine, authentic, and valid; and protested, by all his hopes of happiness in this life and in a future, that he had never conceived an idea of any thing so base as the defrauding any man of his property. He added, 'I adjure the

Almighty so to assist me in my present dangerous situation, as I speak here before you.'

Mr. Daniel Perreau called several persons to prove the artifices which Mrs. Rudd had practised to deceive him. Many persons of fortune and credit appeared to his character, aud spoke of his conduct previous to the fatal event in terms of the highest approbation; but the jury brought in a verdict of guilty, and the unfortunate brothers received tence of death, but were not executed till January, 1776, because, though Mrs. Rudd had been admitted an evidence, yet the judges committed her as a principal, as will be seen more at large in the account of the subsequent trial.

sen

After conviction, the behaviour of the brothers was, in every respect, proper for their unhappy situ ation. 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 newspapers 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 this availed nothing.

On the day of execution the brothers were favored with a mouruing-coach, and it was thought that thirty thousand people attended. They were both dressed in mourning, and behaved with the most Christian resolution. When they quitted the coach, and got into the cart, they bowed respectfully to the sheriffs, who waved their hands as a final adieu.

After the customary devotions. they crossed their hands, joining the four together, and in this manner were launched into eternity. They had not hung 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 Per. reau 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. The coffins were covered with black cloth and nails, and a black plate on each, inscribed with their names, day of their death, and their ages (fortytwo, being twin brothers). They were carried in separate hearses, their friends attending in mourningcoaches. The crowd was so great that the company could with difficulty get into the church; but at length the ceremony was decently performed, and the mob dispersed.

.

A few reflectious naturally arise on this occasion. There was great guilt somewhere, but where it lay the public will determine. One would imagine that, if Robert Perreau had been guilty, he would not have returned to Drummond's, nor went to Adair's, after being suspected. Charity will suppose that he fell a victim to his friendship for his brother, and lost his life through. the telling of a lie; a strong arguinent for a strict adherence to truth in all we say.

A very ingenious writer on this subject says,Upon a dispassionate review of the above trial, is it not possible that the plausible promises of an artful impostor, aided by the vain hope of being made rich and great by her pretended connexions, may have operated on a credu lous, though otherwise sensible, mind; like as a gipsy's tale is frequently found to do on weak and unsuspecting women? If so, it will naturally account for the absurdity of the prisoner's pretending an acquaintance with Mr. William Adair, whom he had never seen, and was strictly enjoined not to see, aud for all the fallacious pretences that followed.'

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 im. portance.

On the 8th of December, 1775,

ence was had to the opinion of all the judges, that the matter might be finally settled, how far, under what circumstances, and in what manner, an accomplice received as a witness ought to be entitled to favour and mercy.'

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 informations she is no accomplice she exhibits a charge against Robert and Daniel Perreau, the first soliciting her to imitate the handwriting 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 indict. ments 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 was now proceeded on. -The principal evidences were, the wife of Robert Perreau, and Jolin Moody, a servant to Daniel. The first endeavored 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 of 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 thousaud 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 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. 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.'

She

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