Mohun guilty of the felony and murder whereof he stands indicted, or not guilty? L. Bernard. Not guilty, upon my honour. [The same question was asked severally of all the Lords, who in the same form delivered the same opinion.] [Then the Lord High Steward seated himself again in the chair, to take the number of the peers who had given their judgment.] L. H. S. My lords, 87 of your lordships are present, and you all are unanimously of opinion, That my lord Mohun is not guilty of the felony and murder whereof he stands indicted. Serj. at Arms. O Yes, O Yes, O Yes, my Lord High Steward of England, his grace, does straitly charge and command all manner of persons here present to keep silence, upon pain of imprisonment. Lord Mohun. My lords, I do not know which way to express my great thankfulness and acknowledgment of your lordships' great honour and justice to me; but I crave leave to assure your lordships, that I will endeavour to make it the business of the future part of my life, so to behave myself in my conversation in the world, as to avoid all things that may bring me under any such circumstances, as may expose me to the giving your lordships any trouble of this nature for the future.* [And then making his reverences to the lords, he went away from the bar.] Cl. of the Cr. Serjeant at Arms, make proclamation. Serj. at Arms. O Yes, O Yes, O Yes, All manner of persons here present, are commanded to keep silence, by my Lord High Steward of England, his grace, upon pain of imprison ment. L. H. S. My lords, the trial being at an end, there is nothing remains to be done here, but the determining the commission. Lords. Ay, ay. L. H. S. Sir Samuel Astry, let proclamation Cl. of the Cr. Serjeant at Arms, make pro-be made in order to the dissolving the commission of High Stewardship. clamation. Serj. at Arms. O Yes, O Yes, O Yes, chief governor of the Tower of London, bring forth the body of your prisoner Charles lord Mohun, whom you have committed to you, in order to be brought hither this day, upon pain and peril will fall thereon. Then he was brought forth to the bar, and the Lord High Steward addressed himself to him in this manner : L. H. S. My lord Mohun, you have been indicted for the murder of Mr. Richard Coote, upon which indictment your lordship has been arraigned, and upon your arraignment has pleaded not guilty, and for your trial you have put yourself upon your peers, my lords here present; and they have heard the evidence, and have considered of it, and delivered their judgment upon the whole matter; and I am to acquaint your lordship, they are all unanimously of opinion, that your lordship is not guilty of the felony and murder whereof you stand indicted; and therefore your lordship is discharged from your imprisonment, paying your fees. Cl. of the Cr. Serjeant at Arms, make clamation. pro Serj. at Arms. O Yes, O Yes, O Yes, My Lord High Steward of England, his grace, does straitly charge and command all manner of persons here present, and that have here attended, to depart hence in the peace of God, and of our sovereign lord the king; for his grace, the Lord High Steward of England, intends now to dissolve his commission. And then the White Staff being delivered to his grace, the Lord High Steward, he stood up, and holding it in both his hands, broke it in two; and then leaving the chair, came down to the Wool-pack, and said, Is it your lordships' plea sure to adjourn to the House of Lords ? Lords. Ay, ay. L. H. S. This House is adjourned to the House of Lords. And so they went back in the same order that they came into the court, and all the assembly broke up. * He was nevertheless killed in a duel by the Then the lord Mohun made bis reverence to duke of Hamilton, who also fell. See vol. 12, the Lords, and expressed himself thus: p. 950, note. 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. 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 D'Acosta promised to be here. One of the defendant's counsel said it was the Jews' Sabbath; that the Jews would not fight on the Sabbath, but rather be cut in pieces, and that the king's counsel might have dispensed with the attendance 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, * "Another sort of offenders were this session animadverted upon by the commons, but had the good fortune to escape with impunity. The exchequer bills were at this time of very great use in the nation, by supplying the scarcity of money, during the re-coining of the silver species. Now because there was an interest of 71. 12s. per ann. allowed upon the second issuing of these bills out of the exchequer, after they had been paid in, on any of the king's taxes, whereas at their first issuing out of the exchequer they bore ro interest, this encouraged several of the king's officers, both in the exchequer, the customs, and the excise, to contrive together to get great sums of money by false indorsements on these exchequer bills, before they had circulated about, and been brought into any branch of the king's revenue. The most considerable persons, who had carried on this unwarrantable practice, were Mr. Charles Duncombe, receiver- general of the excise; Mr. John Knight, treasurer of the customs; Mr. Bartholomew Burton, who had a place in the excise-office; and Mr. Reginald Marriott, one of the deputy tellers of the exchequer; which last, to procure his pardon, Richard Postou, 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 it to the effect following: The Record now read, is an Information brought by Mr. Attorney against Charles Duncombe, esq. for a high misdemeanor in the execution of his office as cashier of the excise. It shews that the lords of the exchequer had directed 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 compounded to accuse the rest. Upon a full proof of the matter, Duncombe and Knight, who were members of the house of commons, were first expelled the house, and committed prisoners to the Tower; Burton sent to Newgate, and bills ordered to be brought in to punish them. The bill against Mr. Duncombe, whereby a fine of near half his estate, which was computed at 400,000l. was set upon him, quickly passed the house of commons, notwith standing the opposition that was made to it, particularly by sir Thomas Trevor the attorney-general. But, being sent up to the house of lords, and the house being equally divided, the duke of Leeds gave his casting vote for rejecting the bill. But, Mr. Duncombe being set at liberty by the order of the house of lords, without the consent of the commons, the latter resented it to that degree, that they caused him to be remanded to the Tower of London, where he continued till the end of the session. bills against Knight and Burton had the same fate; and so all the noise this sort of forgery had made, in town and country, was hushed on a sudden, and no more heard of it." Tindal. The 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 1,500,000l., 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 20,000l. 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 57. per cent. so that he 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 "separate from the other accounts in the exthe revenue, and the persons were to write their" chequer, and this shall be your warrant.” 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 Sir Tho. Powis, one of the defendant's counsel. money to buy exchequer bills by which he this objection, that you should lay it in the inIt were proper before you come to make gains so much per cent. and pays them into the exchequer at so much damage and loss to the formation, that the commissioners caused moking this we shall prove by our witnesses. ney bills to be issued out, to be paid into the Mr. Serjeant Darnel 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 66 tague, John Smith, Thomas Littleton. "To sir Robert Howard, auditor of the “exchequer.” "Whereas by act of parliament for granting mission of the excise to appoint Mr. Duncombe commission ? the Six Clerks office. 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, 332,648/. 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. 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, except the 3s. Aid, so that there are no exchequer 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. 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 supply," &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. Sir Barth. Shower. It is to make exchequer bills general when there is a clause in one act that they shall be current in all payments except the 3s. aid, and then by another act in the same session they are made current in all payments; then, what authority had they to make exchequer bills with an exception, when the act authorizes them to make them payable in general. 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 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? Rumney. On the 4th and 5th May, 1697, he received 20,135l. 5s. 34d. recoined from old money? 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 speak by your book. Did you see it carrried in? 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? D'Acosta. I did, upon the desire of the lords of the treasury, furnish bills for his majesty's service in Flanders the 19th March 1697; I was to be repaid in exchequer bills when they came out. The exchequer bills were accordingly delivered to me on the 9th of May 1697, and wanting money at that time, I contracted with 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. Mr. Attorney. Who did you deliver them to, and from whom did you receive them? D'Acosta. I delivered them to alderman Duncombe. I received them from the lords of the treasury, on the 4th of May 1697. I brought them to him myself; he received them, and looked upon them; he told me I should set my hand to them, and I did so to several. Mr. Attorney. Why did you set your hand to them? D'Acosta. I thought it necessary for the currency of those bills, they being but come about a week before; but considering with myself at the same time, that it might be a reflection upon me to discount so many bills, I told Mr. Duncombe so then; he bid me put my own hand, or the name of any other person to them; so 1 put my own name to part of them, and to the rest, I set other names. Mr. Attorney. What names did you set? D'Acosta. Any names I could think on; the names of persons that dealt with me or others. Mr. Attorney. The discount at 5 per cent. you say amounted to 3941. 4s. 6d.; did you set your hand to those bills, when Mr. Duncombe was by?-D'Acosta. Yes. Mr. Attorney. How came it you did not write this indorsement ? D'Acosta. He desired me to do nothing, but to set my hand, without filling up any thing. Mr. Attorney. Did you write your name upon all of them? D'Acosta. I wrote my name upon several of them. Mr. Attorney. Whose names did you write upon the rest? D'Acosta. I do not remember any other names but that of my partner, and some others that dealt with me. Mr. Attorney. Look upon those bills; you know the numbers of those bills you sold. D'Acosta looked upon some of the bills and said, I think this is my hand; this is the name of John Romberg, one that I dealt with. Mr. Attorney. Did you write that indorsement? D'Acosta. No, I wrote nothing but the name upon it; there was a blank, I know not who wrote the rest. Mr. Attorney. When did you pay those exchequer bills? D'Acosta. On the 9th of May, 1697. Mr. Attorney. Did you write no indorsement upon them? D'Acosta. No, only my hand and a blank. Mr. Attorney. Did not you scruple the putting your name to them at first? D'Acosta. No, I made no scruple, because he told me there should be a name to them; but considering at last that it was a large parcel of bills, and that it would be a reflection upon me to discount so many bills, I told him of it, and he bid me write my name. Mr. Attorney. Did he desire you to write nothing else? D'Acosta. No, he desired nothing of filling up, or any day; I only set my own and some other names to them; for this thing that is wrote over the names, I know nothing of it; some other body hath writ it. Mr. Attorney. Did he give you no dircctions what names to write? D'Acosta. He gave me no directions, but said any name. Mr. Attorney. What was the reason you set down feigned persons, and feigned names? Sir T. Powis. You wrote your own name to many of the bills; tell the reason why you did not write it upon all? D'Acostu. Because I was afraid it might disoblige the lords of the treasury, to discount so many, and wrong my own credit; I moved it so to Mr. Duncombe, and he bid me set my name. Mr. Attorney. Was there any advantage at that time by setting names to the bills; did you discourse of any advantage by it; or do you know of any contrivance in the matter? was it for your own sake or Mr. Duncombe's that you wrote your name? D'Acosta. Mr. Duncombe desired me to set my name to them; I knew of no advantage by it; the bills that I had were the first that were issued, and the first that I had, I carried to Mr. Duncombe. Those bills were delivered to me on the 4th of May, and betwixt that time and the 12th that I signed them, I could not tell the manner of them. Mr. Duncombe desired me to set my name to them, and I thought it was necessary to do so, and accordingly put my name in blank to them. Sir T. Powis. When you put your own name upon so many, you were unwilling, it seems, to put your name to any more; was it for your own sake, or Mr. Duncombe's, that you scru pled it? D'Acosta. It was for my own sake. Sir T. Powis. Did he direct any body else's name to be set to the bills? D'Acosta. I brought those bills, as I have said, blank; I delivered them to him; he told me I must set my name to them; I signed several of them, and then considered the reflection it would be upon me, if I signed so many of them, as I said before, and moved it so to him, and he bid me set my name. Mr. Northey. Did you take it to be of any import, when you set your name to them? D'Acosta. I thought it to be no more but a kind of receipt, as the indorsing of bills is be twixt merchant and merchant. Sir B. Shower. You say you discounted them to him at 5 per cent.; Was that less or more than the lords of the treasury allowed you? D'Acosta. What the lords of the treasury allowed me was upon another point. I gave them my bills to be paid in Flanders; so that |