404. A brief Account of the Trial of CHARLES DUNCOMBE, esq. before the Lord Chief Justice Holt, at the King's Bench Bar in Westminster-hall, upon an Information for false indorsing *of Exchequer Bills, and paying them into the Exchequer, as if they had been first paid into the Excise Office upon that Branch of the Revenue: 11 WILLIAM III. A. D. 1699.* [Now first printed from a MS. in the Possession of the Earl of Radnor, who has obligingly imparted it for this Collection, A. D. 1812.]

June 17, 1699.

Richard Poston, Matthew Fern, Robert Hedin,
James Cole.

bited the Information, which being read,
The Jury being sworn, Mr. Attorney exhi-

Mr. Montague, counsel for the king, opened
to the effect following:

THE Court waited a long time for D'Acosta the Jew, the king's evidence, upon which my Lord Chief Justice reproved the king's counsel, and asked them if they had ordered it so on purpose; to which Mr. Attorney replied, that it D'Acosta promised to be here. One of the de- The Record now read, is an Information fendant's counsel said it was the Jews' Sabbath; brought by Mr. Attorney against Charles Dunthat the Jews would not fight on the Sabbath, combe, esq. for a high misdemeanor in the exebut rather be cut in pieces, and that the king's cution of his office as cashier of the excise. It counsel might have dispensed with the attend-shews that the lords of the exchequer had diance of the defendant's counsel. Mr. Attorney answered, that D'Acosta promised to be there, and made no objection as to the Sabbath, but he supposed the defendant's counsel had put him in mind of it.

Mr. D'Acosta being come, the Jury was sworn as follows: Warwick Lake, esq.; Leonard Hammond, esq.; Richard Bever, esq.; Thomas Blackmore, William Fenn, Francis Heath, Francis Peters, Michael Shepherd,

rected bills to be issued out, and that Mr. Duncombe being cashier of the excise had received 20,000l. and more of the king's money upon that branch of the revenue, and according to his duty ought to have paid it in specie for his majesty's use as the commissioners directed. On the 5th day of May, the commissioners of the excise ordered him to pay 10,000l.; notwithstanding which, he, intending to defraud the king and to lessen the credit of the exche

Upon a ful

"Another sort of offenders were this ses- compounded to accuse the rest. sion animadverted upon by the commons, but proof of the matter, Duncombe and Knight, had the good fortune to escape with impunity. who were members of the house of commons, The exchequer bills were at this time of very were first expelled the house, and committed great use in the nation, by supplying the prisoners to the Tower; Burton sent to Newscarcity of money, during the re-coining of the gate, and bills ordered to be brought in to silver species. Now because there was an punish them. The bill against Mr. Duncombe, interest of 77. 12s. per ann. allowed upon the whereby a fine of near half his estate, which second issuing of these bills out of the exche- was computed at 400,000l. was set upon him, quer, after they had been paid in, on any of quickly passed the house of commons, notwiththe king's taxes, whereas at their first issuing standing the opposition that was made to it, out of the exchequer they bore no interest, this particularly by sir Thomas Trevor the attorencouraged several of the king's officers, both ney-general. But, being sent up to the house in the exchequer, the custoins, and the excise, of lords, and the house being equally divided, to contrive together to get great sums of money the duke of Leeds gave his casting vote for reby false indorsements on these exchequer bills, jecting the bill. But, Mr. Duncombe being before they had circulated about, and been set at liberty by the order of the house of lords, brought into any branch of the king's revenue. without the consent of the commons, the latter The most considerable persons, who had carried resented it to that degree, that they caused him on this unwarrantable practice, were Mr. to be remanded to the Tower of London, where Charles Duncombe, receiver- general of the ex- he continued till the end of the session. The cise; Mr. John Knight, treasurer of the cus- bills against Knight and Burton had the same toms; Mr. Bartholomew Burton, who had a fate; and so all the noise this sort of forplace in the excise-office; and Mr. Reginald gery had made, in town and country, was Marriott, one of the deputy tellers of the ex-hushed on a sudden, and no more heard of it." chequer; which last, to procure his pardon, Tindal.

quer bills, did on the 8th of May pay in 7,8601. “ an Aid to his majesty by a land tax, payable principal money in exchequer bills, falsely in-❝ for one year, we are authorised to issue bills dorsed, for money that he ought to have paid into" of the exchequer not exceeding 1,500,000%, the exchequer in specie, he knowing that those " and to issue the same in such proportion as we bills had never passed the revenue of the excise."shall think fit. And whereas, by an act last Mr. Attorney (sir Thomas Trevor) argued “parliament, and by the king's proclamation, next to the effect following, viz. That Mr. Dun- " when the receivers of the revenue pay those combe had received into his hands as cashier" bills into the revenue, they are to have tallies of the excise the sum of 20,0004. and more of "struck, and their bills are to be cancelled, as the king's money, which had been paid in for "more fully therein appears. These are in the revenue of the excise in old money, sent" pursuance of the authority granted unto us afterwards to the Tower to be re-coined, and" by the said act, &c. for issuing, receiving came back again in milled money to Mr. Dun-" back, and cancelling the said bills, and folcombe the cashier. This money being in his "lowing the orders to be observed, to require hands, he was to have paid in according to the "you if you cause indented bills to be issued direction of the commissioners of excise. They" for such sum or sums, as any three of us or ordered 20,000l. to be paid for several uses," the lord high treasurer for the time being and part of it being 10,000l. and more to be" shall direct, and that you see the same numpaid into the exchequer by their order of the 5th "bered and marked with the portcullis, alof May for that purpose. But Mr. Duncombe "lowing interest of 5 per cent. and that you intending to make an unlawful gain to himself, "keep an exact and true account of the same, and to prejudice the king, did not pay in milled " and deliver the same to the tellers of the exmoney according to their order, but purchased" chequer, taking their receipts and keeping to the value of 7,860/. in exchequer bills upon "an exact account in the nature of a controll, a great discount for it; at that time exchequer" and charge the tellers with the money so by bills issued for such and such sums were dis-" you delivered, and keep a true account of all counted at 51. per cent. so that be saved 5 per "bills they receive from you; and that the cent.; this came to 4001, more or less, that he “said tellers be required to observe these pargained by this bargain. But those exchequer "ticular directions, and such further rules as bills he could not pay into the exchequer with- "we shall find necessary; and that we may out being indorsed, to shew that those bills had "have the better information how the same are been really paid into the excise upon that" complied with, you are every Friday to exabranch of the revenue; for, by the act of par- "mine the accounts of the tellers distinctly, liament, they were to be paid into the exche-" and to keep their receipts and cancelled bills quer as money that had formerly been paid on the revenue, and the persons were to write their names upon them as they paid them; whereupon Mr. Duncombe prevails with Mr. D'Acosta to set his own name and other feigned names, some of them of persons not in being, others the names of persons that were not privy to it; and Mr. Duncombe knowing that they were falsely indorsed, paid them into the exchequer in part of 10,000l., though he knew they were not paid in to the excise. It was a misdemeanor in his office and a deceit to the king, for him who was entrusted to pay the king's sel. It were proper before you come to make Sir Tho. Powis, one of the defendant's counmoney to buy exchequer bills by which he this objection, that you should lay it in the ingains so much per cent. and pays them into the exchequer at so much damage and loss to the formation, that the commissioners caused mo. king: this we shall prove by our witnesses. ney bills to be issued out, to be paid into the Mr. Serjeant Durnel spoke next, and insist-exchequer; they are first to prove that, but ing a little upon the information, called for the they have not yet proved it, for this is only a king's evidence. general instruction that they should issue bills when commanded.

The first was Mr. Clayton, with the order of the lords of the treasury.

Mr. Darnel. Mr. Clayton, give an account of what you know of exchequer bills issued by the lords of the treasury.

Mr. Clayton. This is the order of the lords of the treasury, which was read as follows: "April 26, 1697. Stephen Cox, Charles Mon

tague, John Smith, Thomas Littleton. "To sir Robert Howard, auditor of the "exchequer."

"Whereas by act of parliament for granting

"separate from the other accounts in the ex"chequer, and this shall be your warrant."

mission of the excise to appoint Mr Duncombe
Serj. Darnel. We shall next prove the com-
their cashier. Show the commission.

commission ?
L. C. J. How do you prove it to be a true

the Six Clerks office.
Mr. Attorney. It is a true copy examined is

Then the Commission was read.

Then an Order of the Treasury was read, dated 27th April, 1697, signed, Fox, Smith, Littleton; directed to sir Robert Howard, importing, "That for enlarging the capital stock of "the Bank of England, there should be issued "out to the lord Ranelaugh upon an unsatis“fied order in his name, 332,6481. for payment "of his majesty's forces, and contingent "charges to be applied, to pay money due for "quartering of soldiers betwixt 1694 and "1696, 200,000l.; to clear quarters and sub. "sistence in England, 77,6487. for the service

"in Flanders 55,4007.; and that they should "take care that this should be duly paid, and "charge themselves with it."

Mr. Attorney. Call Mr. Clayton. Mr. Clayton, were the bills issued according to this order?-Clayton. Yes.

Sir Tho. Powis. Upon what account were they issued?

Clayton. On the 1,500,000l. act; for we did not make out any bills upon the second act till three months after.

produced that they are to make bills according to their order.

Mr. Attorney. Though there be a general clause in the act, yet there is another proviso about contracts for exchange.

L. C. J. At this rate, gentlemen, there is not one exchequer bill in England good; you will destroy all exchequer bills. Go on with your evidence.

Mr. Attorney. Call Noel. Mr. Noel, did you know Mr. Duncombe when he was cashier of the excise ?-Noel. Yes.

Mr. Attorney. Call Rumney. Mr. Rumney, What do you know of Mr. Duncombe's receiving milled money?

money?

Sir Tho. Powis. If this be sufficient proof, it Is strange; it recites the Capitation act, and a 2d act for deficiencies, and making good the stock of the Bank. The order recites directions for exchequer bills to pass in all payments, Rumney. On the 4th and 5th May, 1697, he except the 3s. Aid, so that there are no exche-received 20,135l. 5s. 34d. recoined from old quer bills made according to the act; for their order is subsequent to both. The first orders exchequer bills to go in all payments, so after both are passed, here are exchequer bills that ought to be made to pass in all payments, and not to pass in all payments, so that there is no exchequer bill agreeable to the intention of the 2d act.

L. C. J.The first hath an exception. The second says, all exchequer bills shall pass in all payments whatsoever. The first and second having both passed, they ought to have made their bills payable accordingly.

Mr. Attorney. Their order is only upon the issue of the first act, that the exchequer bills shall be current in all payments but the three shillings aid.

Mr. Attorney. How did he receive it? Rumney. He received it from Mr. Fouquier, accountant to the excise.

Mr. Attorney. How do you know he received it?

Rumney. I went to Mr. Duncombe's office; I helped to carry it, part on one day and part on another.

Mr. Attorney. What do you know of money paid to Mr. Duncombe, Mr. Fouquier?

Fouquier. On the 27th February, 1696, he had 357 ounces 8 dwts. hammered money; On the 5th of March, 358 ounces hammered money repaid to his clerk: On the 4th of May, produce of the money so brought in on the 27th February -; on the 3d day of March, then there was paid him on the 4th and 5th

One of the Defendant's Counsel said, You

Sir Barth. Shower. It is before any proclamation, p. 384. "Be it further enacted, that exchequer bills be taken not only by receivers, but by all collectors of the Land tax and sup-speak by your book. Did you see it carrried in? ply," &c. Observe this order of theirs recites both acts, therefore they ought to have framed their exchequer bills to be current in all payments, and not with an exception.

L. C. J. The exchequer bills are made according to one. Will you make two sorts? First, the one act says, they shall pass in all payments except the 3s. aid, and the other act says, exchequer bills shall be current in all payments whatever; they have authority in one act to make exchequer bills current in all payments except the 3s. aid, and in another to make them current in all payments whatsoever.

Mr. Attorney. It is another act that makes them current in all payments: so that you are mistaken, sir Bartholomew.

Fouquier. I always received it and paid it thus to his clerk.

Mr. Attorney. Mr. Blessington, produce the order of the commissioners for the payment of the money into the exchequer.

Blessington. There is the order of the Commissioners to pay the money into the exchequer.

Then it was read, dated May 5th, 1697.

Mr. Attorney. Notwithstanding this order, he bought those exchequer bills, caused them to be indorsed, and paid them into the exchequer in part of the 10,000l. Mr. D'Acosta, give an account to my lord and the jury what number of exchequer bills you sold to Mr. Duncombe, for what, and when?

Sir Barth. Shower. It is to make exchequer bills general when there is a clause in one act D'Acosta. I did, upon the desire of the lords that they shall be current in all payments ex- of the treasury, furnish bills for his majesty's cept the 3s. aid, and then by another act in the service in Flanders the 19th March 1697; I was same session they are made current in all pay-to be repaid in exchequer bills when they came ments; then, what authority had they to make out. The exchequer bills were according exchequer bills with an exception, when the ly delivered to me on the 9th of May 1697, and act authorizes them to make them payable in wanting money at that time, I contracted with general. Mr. Duncombe to sell him 83 exchequer bills, amounting, with interest, to the sum of 7,8941. 9s. 6d. deducting 5 per cent. which came to 3941. 4s. 6d. The remainder Mr. Duncombe paid me on the 12th of May.

Serj. Darnel. If the fact were so as sir Bartholomew alledges, it will not conclude that there can be no exception.

Mr. Munday. It appears by the evidence

Sir B. Shower. You say you discounted Mr. Attorney. Did not you scruple the put-them to him at 5 per cent.; Was that less or ting your name to them at first? more than the lords of the treasury allowed you?