But, though these unfortunate men were thus found guilty, and the usual sentence accordingly pas sed upon them, they were not mentioned in any report to his majesty till the month of December following, for those reasons, probably, which we have ventured to assign in our Chronicle.

In the mean time, Mrs. Rudd, though she had not been called upon as king's evidence, at either of the foregoing trials, bestirred herself to obtain the advantages of one. For this purpose on Monday, the 3d of July, she brought herself from Newgate, by habeas corpus, before the Court of King's Bench, Westminster; when Mr. Davenport spoke as her counsel, and Mr. Wallace replied for the Crown. Mr. Justice Aston recited what passed at the Old Bai ley, and Lord Mansfield gave his opinion of the matter as it then appeared. Mrs. Rudd herself said a few words on the occasion. After an hour had been spent in argument, she was remanded till next morning, when she was again brought up to the Court of King's Bench, Westminster, where Mr. Davenport, her counsel, produced an affidavit sworn to by Sir John Fielding, Sampson Wright and William Addington, Esqrs. This affidavit, which was read by the proper officer, stated the circumstance of their admitting her an evidence for the Crown against the Perreaus, as an accomplice. Mr. Davenport renewed his arguments in order to induce the Court to admit her to bail. He was replied to by Mr. Wallace, Mr. Lucas, and Mr. Howarth, who all denied the authority of the Magistrates to of fer her protection, and rested their

client's case on the illegality of the proceeding. Lord Mansfield then, in a very accurate and eloquent manner, delivered the opinion of the Court, entering into a definition of the different modes of admission of felons to give evidence against their accomplices as war, ranted by law, in the three instances of approvers, king's evidences agreeable to the statutes of King William and Queen Anne, and persons to whom a pardon had been promised either by proclamation, or advertisement in the Gazette, with the King's sign ma, nual. His Lordship very clearly pointed out the distinction in each mode; and, after having as clearly proved that the prisoner fell under neither of the three descriptions, he mentioned that in some cases there arose circumstances, which rendered accomplices, even though illegally admitted evidences, objects deserving mercy; and these chiefly were a regular decent behaviour, and an invariable relation of the whole truth; which did not, he said, appear to be the case in the present instance; the Court there fore remanded her to Newgate.

In consequence of this determination, she was next brought to the bar of the Old Bailey to take her trial, but had it put off by an affidavit of her own, and another of her attorney's, that she had not as yet been able to procure a material witness in her behalf, though she had taken all the necessary steps for that purpose.

She was again brought to the same bar, for the same purpose, on Saturday, September the 16th; but her counsel insisting, that, as she had been already admitted an evidence for the king, it would be

an

an unprecedented thing to detain her for trial, and the Judges differing in opinion on the point of law, she was remanded back to prison, till the opinion of all the Judges could be had on so important a question. At length, the Judges having sat on her case, she was for the third and last time brought to the bar of the Old Bailey, on Tuesday, the 7th of December. The avidity of the public to hear her trial was such, that the galleries were crouded soon after day light. A little before nine o'clock, the Lord Mayor, Judges and Aldermen being as sembled, the prisoner was called to the bar, and the business was opened by Mr. Justice Aston's acquainting the prisoner with the opinion of the Judges respecting her case, which he did in an eles gant speech, explaining the reasons on which that opinion was founded, which, in brief, were her not having disclosed the whole of what she knew respecting the forgeries. She was then indicted for forging

"

bond of 5,3001. (penalty 10,000 1.) as from William Adair, Esq. to Robert Perreau, with an intent to defraud Sir Thomas Frankland, Messrs. Drummond, and Mr. Adair. She said, " that as the Judges opinion was in her disfavour she chearfully submitted to her trial, and pleaded Not guilty. She was a second time indicted for a forgery for 6000 1. third for 3,1001. and a fourth, for 7,5001. A chair was ordered, that she might sit when she thought proper. A counsel now explained the nature of the indictment, expatiated on her pretended friendship with Mr. Adair, and her skill in different hand-writings. Mrs.

3

66

Robert Perreau being called as an evidence, a counsel asked her, if Mrs. Rudd should be convicted, whether she did not think it would lead to an acquittal of her husband? She replied, that she hoped her husband's innocence would fully appear." The counsel insisted upon a positive answer to his question, when she said, "she hoped it would tend to acquit him." He then objected to her being admitted an evidence, as she was interested in the event. The next counsel insisted upon her inadmissibility, for the plain reason that an evidence should "not be subjected to any temptation to falsify." Mr. Lucas, on the other side, argued, that it would be impossible to con vict any offender, if persons who had an advantage in such conviction were denied to give evidence, and mentioned the cases of accomplices who saved their lives, and persons robbed, who recovered their property, by the conviction of the offender. Judge Aston said, Robert Perreau was not convicted of publishing the bond in question, but for uttering another: and he saw no objection to the competency of Mrs. Perreau's evidence. Mr. Baron Burland concurred in opinion, observing that her interest in the conviction of the prisoner, though it could not destroy the competency, yet might possibly lessen the credit of her testimony with the Jury:

Mrs. Perreau swore, that on the 24th of December, 1774, she saw Mrs. Rudd deliver a bond for 63001. payable to Robert Perreau, and signed William Adair, and that Mrs. Rudd said she would be obliged to him to procure 40001. on it from Sir Thomas Frankland. [P] 3

In the evening R. Perrean brought her something less than 40001. and paid her in drafts. That the next day the parties, and some friends from Wales, dined at Mr. Robert Perreau's, when the above bond was the subject of conversation between the brothers Perreau and the prisoner. The counsel, in cross-examining her, were so extremely abrupt, that she burst into tears, and was near fainting. A lady gave her a smelling bottle, and some water being handed, she recovered. The counsel apologized, and she was asked how she could remember the particulars of the bond (for she owned she had never seen one before) at such a distance of time? She said it was owing to a good memory.

on

Sir Thomas Frankland swore, that Robert Perreau came to his house, and borrowed 4000l. that bond, paying out of it near 101. for interest due on a bond of 50001 and that he lent the money on the credit of the said Perreau. Sir Thomas being asked if he had any property of Mrs. Rudd's, said all he had was by bill of sale from the Perreaus. Were there any jewels? Yes; and he Believed the poor jeweller was never paid for them. "And yet, (said the counsel) you would keep those very jewels the poor man was never paid for ?" Sir Thomas said, the jewels were sold. Did he believe Mrs. Rudd used to wear them? He did not know if she had any holes in her ears for ear rings. Were there any women's cloaths? Yes. Did he think Mr. Perreau wore them? He did not know, he might go in masquerade, Had Mrs. Rudd claimed the effects? She had claimed every

thing that was Daniel Perreau's; but the right of the property was yet to be determined in a court of law. He owned having given as order on his banker to pay Robert Perreau 5000l. Had Sir Thomas heard of a Jane Williams, a Mrs. Pendilow, a Mrs. Groseby, &c. and had he reason to think Mrs. Rudd had represented any, or all of them? He did not know but she might.

Mr. Ogilby proved that the hand-writing to the bond was not Mr. Adair's; another gentlemen proved the same; and David Cassadey proved Mrs. Kudd's great anxiety for Robert Perreau's return from Sir Thomas Frankland, who was asked if he knew any thing of Perreau's dealing in the stocks? He said not. Mr. Batson, banker, proved that Mr. Alexander, of the Union Coffee-house, Cornhill, received three notes of 10001. one of 8501, one of 501. and one of 40!. with nine shillings in silver, for Sir Thomas Frankland's drafi; and Mr. Alexander acknowledged the having received it for Daniel Perrean.

Elias Isaac proved Daniel Perreau's paying 4000l. at Bidulph and Cox's, on the 26th of December, at which time he had near 600l. in their hands.

John Moody (late servant to Mrs. Rudd) said he knew her feigned, though not her common hand, that she used to give him letters of her own writing, for him to deliver, as coming from Mr. Adair; that she wrote with crow quill and other pens, that he had seen her direct these letters, which he had delivered five or six times. Had he disclosed this transaction to Daniel Perreau?

No. Had he visited him? Yes, in Bridewell, having been sent for by him; and Mr. Perroau bade him go to his house, to meet his attorney.

Christian Hart (formerly servant to the prisoner) deposed, that she went to Mrs. Rudd in Newgate, who wrote down a set of instructions for her to swear to, to save her life; and promised her 100l. or 2001. or even ten times that sum for her trouble; that Mrs. Rudd told her what a bond was, that she might acquaint the jury. These instructions being read, tended to criminate the Perreaus, and urged a connection and scheme between Mrs. Perreau and Sir Thomas Frankland, in order to take away, Mrs. Rudd's life. Mrs. Hart had wrote her name on the paper of instructions, and writing it again in court, the hands appeared to agrec. She was asked if she knew Counsellor Bailey she said, no.

Sarah Dickenson said Mrs. Rudd could write more hands than one, and she believed the papers her writing. John Hart said that he went to Newgate, and found his wife in conversation with Mrs. Rudd. The papers were produced, and sworn to by him; and Alexander Allen gave this Hart the character of an honest man. The forged bond

that she had never appeared there as a prisoner, had she not come as a witness; and (turning to the jury) added, "I have no reliance but on you; you are honest men, and I am safe in your hands."

Mr. Bailey (Mrs. Rudd's original counsel) swore that he remembered to have seen Mrs. Hart with her in Newgate; that he understood Mrs. Hart dictated every line Mrs. Rudd wrote; that he kept a copy of the scheme, but thought it too wild and romantic to be paid any regard to. That the next day he shewed that copy to Mr. Davenport, and, in a word, contradicted almost every thing that Christian Hart had sworn. Yet Mr. Bailey went to Hart's house in the evening, saw the husband, and talked with him on the subject of those papers.-Isabella Wright saw Mrs. Hart in Mrs. Rudd's room, but could not remember when, or how often; but she seemed rather to confirm Mr. Bailey's evidence.

Several persons were now called to Mrs. Rudd's character, the first of whom, Mrs. Nightingale, had known her eight years; said she had 16,000l. fortune, 79001. of which had been paid into the hands of a near relation of this evidence, but that Mrs. Perreau was in distressed circumstances when her husband left her.-Francis Carbery had known the prisoner some time, but knew not of any fortune she had. The Judge now proceeded to sum up the evidence, and the jury (after being out about half an hour) brought in a verdict of Not Guilty.

There were the loudest applauses on this acquital almost ever known in a court of justice. And she appeared confounded with joy at her discharge.

The trial lasted from nine in the [P] 4 morning,