When the bill was brought into the houfe of lords against Dr. Atterbury, bishop of Rochester, that learned prelate, who joined to the graces of ftile and elocution all the elegance of a juft delivery; among the many friends the bifhop's eloquence, politenefs, and ingenuity had procured him, was lord Bathurst. He spoke against the bill with great vehemence and propriety, obferving, "that if such extraordinary proceedings were countenanced, he faw nothing remaining for him and others to do, but to retire to their country-houses, and there, if poffible, quietly enjoy their eftates within their own families, fince the leaft correfpondence, or intercepted letter, might be made criminal." Then turning to the bishops, he said, he "could hardly account for the inveterate hatred and malice fome perfons bore the ingenious bishop of Rochester, unless it was, that they were infatuated like the wild Americans, who fondly believe they inherit not only the fpoils, but even the abilities of the man they deftroy." He was one of the lords who entered his protest against the bill.

His lordship was entirely averfe to continental connexions, and animadverted feverely upon the monarch whose thoughts were turned to foreign concerns and al-. liances which could never be useful; complaining of the immenfe fums lavished in fubfidies to needy and rapacious princes. He accufed the British ministry of a bafe defertion of the honour and intereft of their country in the Spanish convention; alledging that the Spaniards, inftead of granting a redress, had rather extorted a release for their former conduct, as the word fatisfaction had not been fo much as mentioned in all the treaty. His lordfhip moved to know, whether Spain had paid the fums ftipulated by this convention, when the time limited for the payment was expired. The duke of Newcattle answered in the negative, and could affign no reafon for the delay.

The directors of the charitable corporation, having embezzled 500,000l. of the proprietors capital, lord Bathurst declared, in the houfe of lords, his abhorrence of this moft iniquitous fcene of fraud, afferting, that not one fhilling of the money was ever applied to the proper fervice; but became the reward of avarice and venality.

His lordship concurred, with all his power, in the oppofition to Sir Robert Walpole, who now tottered on the brink

fworn of the privy-council, and made captain of the gentlemen pensioners, which poft he refigned in 1744. He was appointed treasurer to the prefent king, then prince of Wales, in 1757, and continued in the lift of privy counfellors at his acceffion to the thone; but, on account of his great age, he chofe to enjoy otium cum dignitate.

Lord Bathurst's integrity gained him the esteem even of his opponents; and his humanity and benevolence the affection of all that knew him more intimately. He added to his public virtues, all the good breeding, politenefs, and elegance of focial intercourfe. Dr. Freind, Congreve, Vanbrugh, Swift, Prior, Rowe, Addison, Pope, Arbuthnot, Gay, and moft men of genius in his own time, cultivated his friendship, and were proud of his correfpondence. In the latter part of his life he preferved his natural chearfulness and vivacity, always acceffible,, hofpitable, and beneficent. He lately delighted in rural amusements, and enjoyed, with a philofophical fatisfaction, the fhade of the lofty trees he had planted himself. His lordship was advanced to the dignity of earl in 1772, and lived to fee Henry, his eldest son, several years lord high chancellor of Great-Britain, and promoted to the peerage in 1771, by the title of baron Apfley. Earl Bathurit married Catherine, daughter of Sir Peter Apfley, by whom he had two other fons, and five daughters.

In Pope's epiftle to him on the use of riches, the poet thus addreffes his lordfhip:

"The fenfe to value riches, with the art T enjoy them, and the virtue to impart; To balance fortune by a just expence, Join with economy magnificence, With fplendor charity, with plenty health; [wealth!

O teach us, Bathurst, yet unfpoil'd by That secret rare, between th’extremes to

move,

Of mad good-nature, and of mean selflove."

To fum up the character of this amiable nobleman, we may conclude with Mr. Sterne's picture of his lordship in his letters to Eliza. (See our Magazine for March, p. 174.)

The following Anecdotes, which have not yet appeared in print, relative to Mrs. Rudd, may ferve to illuftrate her Cha racler, and amuse your Readers.

TER imaginary noble alliance has al

1truggles, having been forced to refign all his employments, lord Bathurit was

fhall, therefore, not enter upon to idle a

romance

1

romance. After she had eloped from her husband with lieutenant Rand fafely lodged this gentleman in the King's Bench for the fecurity of his creditors, fhe aimed at playing a higher game; and hearing that Salvadore was a fine fubject for a defigning woman, fhe waited upon him at Tooting, under the name of Smith, on fome fpecious commercial bufinefs, which had no foundation but in her imagination. Having once gained admittance to Mr. Salvadore, the foon discovered his weak fide, and played upon him so artfully, that in a fhort time the fqueezed from him near fifteen hundred pounds. Not contented with his cafh, fhe fixed her mind upon feveral pieces of his moft valuable furniture; and took a great fancy to fome of his moft coftly plate and curiofities. These she carefully packed up, and fent to town. Finding this gentle man fo finely calculated for her purpose, the often did him the honour of her vifits, in one of which fhe took with her, for conv.nience, a couple of carts, and brought away as much furniture as would equipa gen cel house, which the hired near Soho, and made an elegant appearIt should not be omitted that Mr. Salvadore's housekeeper not being willing to part with a fine chintz bed, Mrs. Rudd's maid, (who pretended to have her miftrefs's intereft greatly at heart) informed

ance.

pretty well enabled to account for the manner in which Mrs. Rudd procured the 13000l. fhe has so often mentioned, without affigning any reafon for her becoming in poffeffion of it. There is the greatest reafon to believe that fhe, at different times, was mistress of fuch a fum, and even more; and there is also as much grounds to believe that Daniel knew the method by which the gained it, and connived at her intrigues.

Succefs in thefe and other practices, no doubt intoxicated them; or else it is incredible that two men, of good underftanding, with an extenfive knowledge of the world, could be fo blind as to think the forgeries they uttered would not be detected; especially as they were fo very carelefs as not even to attempt an imitation of the hand of Mr. William Adair, but employed a woman to counterfeit it.

By what has been said, I do not mean to prejudice the world against the culprits; but when fuch very extraordinary and eccentric characters appear upon the theatre of life, the curiofity of mankind naturally leads us to make fome enquiry into their private life, and the fame cu riofity in your readers will, doubtless, be gratified by thefe anecdotes.

Proceedings at the Old-Bailey on the Cafe of Mrs. Rudd, September 16, 1775.

zure of it.

Here the made an acquaintance with the late Marquis of Granby, and feveral other noblemen, from whom the obtained very capital fums; nor did fhe decline thefe good acquaintance, even after her connexion with Mr. Daniel Perreau. In particular fhe kept up her correfpondence with Mr. Salvadore, whom the often vifited in town, and never returned to Daniel without a handfome prefent. Daniel was, by this time, completely in her fecrets, and having a good head (for more things than forgery) he turned his thoughts to make the most advantage of Mrs. Rudd's connexions. Mr. Salvadore was doatingly fond of her, and often wrote her letters. One of thefe Daniel intercepted, and went one morning to Mr. Salvadore, when he threatened him with a fuit for crim. con. (Mrs. Rudd, at this time, going by Perreau's name, and paffing for his wife) Mr. Salvadore was fo terrified at this menace, that he gave Daniel five hundred pounds to ftop all proceedings.

The reader will, by this time,

be

the morning Mrs. Rudd was brought to the bar of the Seffions-house, and fon after her council Mr. Davenport and Mr. Cowper oppofed her being put upon her trial, as he had been admitted an evidence for the crown. Their objections to proceeding on the trial were answered by Mr. Bearcroft, Mr. Lucas, and Mr. Howarth, the council against her. Both parties fpoke with great judgment and precifion; but we have not recapitulated their arguments in this place, as the principal parts of them are taken notice of in the following speeches made by the three judges who fat upon the bench on the above occafion.

Mr. Juftice Gould. As to what paffed in the court of King's-Bench on this fubject, it bears little, if any, relation to what is now properly and peculiarly under the cognizance of this court. The circumstances then attending the prisoner's confinement were very different to what is now the fubject of confideration. To the point of refting or deciding the propriety and legality of putting the prifoner on her trial, it is out of the question. The near approach of the feffions, or

any

any other circumstance of a fimilar nature, might have induced that court to refufe admitting the prifoner to bail; but it is not my bulinefs to inquire into the motives for remanding her. It is enough for me to lay down the law, with all poffible impartiality, and to the best of my skill.

The power this court is about to exercife is moft clearly founded in discretion, and not directly authorised by any provifion ftrictly, at leaft literally, legal: But that, however, does not take off from the competency of it; for it is only the juftices of jail-delivery that can properly have cognizance, whether this woman is, or is not, to be tried. This matter cannot be taken out of this court: It is here only, therefore, that the point can be judicially determined. I muft firft obferve, that the legislature have eftablished a very clofe correfpondence between the juftices or magiftrates, and the juftices of jail-delivery; and I think with exceeding good reafon; for, if juttices of the peace were not invested with several important pow. ers, the execution of criminal justice muft foon totally fail; but while I would willingly intruft them with every power that might proniife to promote the furtherance of justice, I should be forry to indulge them with a privilege which, from the very nature of it, would be fo liable to abufe, that of fubftituting verbal teftimony, inflead of written, which would moft undoubtedly happen, if we permitted any notice of what had paffed in Bow-ftreet, different or contradictory to the written evidence now before the court. It is only the latter that carries about it the ftamp of authority; and it is only that we are now obliged to take the leaft notice of. I fall only add, on this head, that the ftatutes made fince the revolution, for vefting the juftices with the power of promifing pardon to perfous convicting their accomplices, take notice in the preamble, that the law was paffed in affirmance of an ufage then exifting, and was meant to correct an abufe, which had gradually prevailed, that of its being in the power of one juftice to admit accomplices, and at other times getting a fecond juftice to lend his name, and fign it, though he was not prefent at the transaction he thus took upon him to approve of. Thofe ftatutes I have alluded to were firft enacted with a view likewife of ftrengthening the hands of the inferior magistracy, and arming them with powers suited and neceffary to the effectual difcharge of their office. The first act palfed was that of the 4th and 5th of October, 1775.

William and Mary, relative to robbers: This enables the juftices to admit accom plices, and to promife to pardon them on the condition of convicting two. By the 10th and 11th of William, this is extended to houfe- breaking and horfe- ftealing, and ftill further extended, by the 5th of Anne, to burglary, or the felonious breaking open a house in the day-time. The firit of those was found deficient, as it was confined to a certain fpecies of crimes; fo was the fecond, as it held out no encouragement; and even the laft is manifeftly wanting, though it extends to perfons as well in as out of prifon, as it annexes a moft extraordinary condition, that of convicting two or more, like the two preceding. Yet none of those acts anfwered the purposes they were intended to effectuate. It has been, therefore, the practice of almoft a century to permit juftices of the peace to admit perfons, guilty of capital offences, to convict their accomplices, under a promise of pardon, which has always been faithfully and punctually fulfilled.

It has been warmly urged in argument, that, fuppofing the prifoner to have told the truth on her examination before the juftices, yet, as her depofitions related only to the bond for 7,500l. fhe is ftill liable to be tried for any other offen e for which the might be indicted; but I believe that principle will never be admitted as law, confidering the conftant notorious ufage to the contrary. I perceive the gentlemen have laboured this point with all poffible ingenuity; and I perceive too they have failed to produce a single precedent in fupport of it. One of them (Mr. Bearcroft) has, it is true, quoted a cafe, but it does not reach the prefent; and, if it did, would be the ftrongeft argument to prove the foundnefs of the doctrines infifted on by the gentlemen on the other fide. I remember the cafe alluded to extremely well, as it was I who tried the criminal, and it was fhortly this: A perfon, who was admitted under the statute, was brought to convict his accomplices; what was the confequence?-He contradicted or reverfed on the trial every fyllable he had fworn, when he was admitted an evidence before the magiftrates. He thought, as he had faved himself, he would now fave his accomplices. The whole court, ftruck with the apparent profligacy and audacity of the fellow, cried out for juftice. He was accordingly put on his trial, and convicted. Even on that occafion, however flagrant the conduct of the culprit might be, he was put to answer no Hhhh

offence

offence which brought after it a more fevere puifhment than what he was liable to fuffer on the evidence arifing on his own teftimony in open court; for his contradicting himself was grofs perjury, for which he was liable to be indicted an transported, and the offence, for which he was actually tried, authorised no higher punishment.

The fame gentleman, who alluded to the above matter as a precedent in point, feemed to infift, with a confiderable deal of force, that, fuppofing the magiftrates to have the power contended for by a kind of difcretion fupported by analogy to the legal powers created by the ftatutes, yet thofe difcretionary powers should be exercifed in fomewhat a fimilar manner. I grant the rule to be a very juft one, but I fufpect he will find, that the argument will admit of a deduction exprefsly contrary to that he has drawn from it. He will find, that the very powers, created by the ftatutes, are exercifed in a manner very different from their strict legal import. For inftance, he will find that the three ftatutes of William and of Anne all require the conviction of two accomplices. He will find, that they are confined to certain particular fpecies of felony. What found then would it have in a court of justice, this time a day, to tell a perfon, after he had done all that was required of him, • You shall be now hanged, you have only convicted one accomplice, or you have been found guilty of ftealing at night, of robbing or of stealing in the day-time, according to the circumstances of the cafe?' This then will bring us to the clear found principle, whether the juftices have not a difcretionary power to admit, not founded on the ftatutes, but analogous to them; and that, even when they do act under the form of the ftatutes, they do not almoft always find themselves obliged to refort to that difcretionary power, in order to carry the ftatutes themselves into effectual execution, which, without this power, would be little more than waste paper.

On the whole, then, I muft repeat again, that the juftices of jail-delivery have always found it neceffary to recognize this difcretion as exercised by the magiftrates. It now forms a part of the criminal juftice of the nation; wifdom and experience has taught its great utility; I cannot, therefore, for my part, depart from it on the prefent occafion; and, fhould my brethren agree with me in opinion, I fhould confequently refufe to put the prisoner on her trial.

Mr. Juftice Aburf. Mrs. Rudd is now before this court, in order to answer to

an indictment on a charge of forgery, and, in my opinion, is very properly and legally called upon to make her defence. I am very forty to differ in opinion from my learned brother, whofe learning and abilities no man efteems more; but I cannot help returning the fame fentiments I did, when I joined with the rest of my brethren in the unanimous opinion of the court of King's Bench, that she was intitled to no benefit beyond the extent of her own discoveries. I know of no firic legal right fhe had at all to be admitted, much efs to be admitted in a manner and on conditions unknown to the parties before whom the appeared. She at the time of her examination was conjured to relate all the facts that came within her knowledge. She has not done this. In my opinion, therefore, if fhe has failed in the conditions annexed to the implied pardon, fhe has of course by that act forfeited any claim or title to it.

But fuppofing that the facts were otherwife, I cannot fee how this difcretionary power, exercised by the justices, can be fet up as a ftrict legal defence, nor how it can be pleaded in bar of an indictment on an offence created by an exprefs act of parliament. On the contrary, if justice be the thing to be fought, if the laws are meant to be fairly inforced and equitably executed, for the general benefit of the public, and the particular protection of the prifoner, I think the only best method to obtain thefe ends will be to put the prifoner on her trial.

She faid fhe knew nothing relative to any other forgery. It has fince come out, that she did-If fhe did not, fhe runs no rifque in being put on her trial; if he did, and concealed it, I can by no means think her intitled to the benefits fhe would have a right certainly to claim, on the ground of a full and fair disclosure of every thing she knew.

If my other learned brother should unite in opinion with me, the trial will of courfe come on; but I do not mean to hurry it. It is a matter of weighty and important confideration; as fuch, therefore, I should gladly, for my part, have the point of law referred to the opinion of the twelve judges, and Mrs. Rudd remanded back to prifon.

Mr. Baron Hotham. However affected my feelings may be, in a fituation which neceffarily obliges me to determine, whether the prifoner fhall, or fhall not, be put on her trial for her life; or whatever impreffion the arguments of my learned brother, who spoke first, and to whose opinion I am willing to pay all poffible

deference,

ор

deference, might have made on me; I am perfectly fatisfied in confcience, that Mrs. Rudd ought to be put on her trial. The point of law, in my opinion, neither refts the law of approvers, nor on the ftatutes. And farther, I cannot conceive, that an examination before the juftices is a full and perfect admiffion; on the contrary, as it is intirely on the confideration of a full and fair difclofure, which is only to be gathered at the trial of the accomplices, I fhall ever think that it is in the power of this court ultimately to refufe, if in the mean time any discovery fhould be made, in proof that the difcoverer against his or her accomplices had not made a fair difclofure of all they knew. They are bound in honour on both fides, or on neither: The engagement, whether difcretionary or by statute, is reciprocal. I am therefore clearly of opinion, that the prifoner cannot, with juftice, be now tried on the first indictment; but I have no conception, that the prifoner, going before a juftice of the peace to discover his accomplices, and finking one material fact, does not thereby preclude himself from all benefit or favour he might be otherwife intitled to. On the whole, however, for the fame reafon affigned by my learned brother who fpoke laft, I join in opinion, that the prifoner be remanded, in order that the reft of the judges may be confulted.

In confequence of this difagreement among the judges, the prifoner, after waiting near four hours in court, was remanded to Newgate, till the opinion of the whole bench fhall be known.

The Life of Mr. James Quin, the celebra

T

ted Alior.

of his father in the year 1710. Mr. Quin was undoubted heir to his eftate, but, through his youth, and inexperience of the Courts, a fuit of law hung fo long in Chancery, till he, unable to carry the cause farther, was obliged to drop it, for want of proper affiftance. This naturally induced him to begin seriously to think of availing himself of those talents which Nature had beftowed upon him, and to repair by his own merit the chicanery of the law, and the unjustifiable proceedings of his antagonists.

HIS diftinguifhed performer was born in King Street, Covent-Garden, the 24th of February, 1693, though numbers have afferted he owes his birth to Ireland. His ancestors were of an antient family in that kingdom: His grandfather, Alderman Mark Quin, was Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin in the year 1676, in the reign of King Charles the Second; the father of our Rofcius received a liberal education in Trinity-College, Dublin; from thence he went over to Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, to finish his ftudies, where he was called to the bar; but, at the death of his father (who left him a plentiful eftate) he returned with his fon, then an infant, to take poffeffion.

His good fenfe foon pointed out to him, that, as he had made but a very small progrefs in the ftudy of the law, fo he could not expect to reap the fruits of his prefent purfuit but at a very diftant period. These reafons foon induced him to quit that purfuit, and there appeared to him no where so fair a profpect as the stage. He had many requifites to form a good Actor; an expreffive countenance; a marking eye; a clear voice, full and melodious; an extenfive memory, founded upon a long application to our beft Claffic Authors: An enthufiaftic admiration of Shakespeare; a happy and articulate pronunciation and a majestic figure. He had for fome time affociated with most of the capital Actors of this period, and formed a very ftrict intimacy with Ryan. It was to the laft of these that he opened his mind with refpect to his coming upon the ftage, and Ryan introduced him to the Managers of the Theatre in SmockAlley, where he first appeared in a low Comedy character, viz. Abel in the Committee; and for a confiderable time gave would turn to that account, which he and no ftriking proofs that his natural talents

Mr. James Quin was educated under the care of Dr. Jones, of Dublin (a perfon eminent for learning) till the death

his friends at first believed. His caft of parts was for fome time very indifferent, and we find his name in the old editions of Richard the Third, and Hamlet, for the Lieutenant of the Tower and Rofencraus.

He left Dublin by the advice of old Chetwood the Prompter, and was engaged at Drury-Lane at a falary of 30%, per week, where an accident foon after happened that made him an object of confideration with the Public. The managers had an order from the Lord Chamberlain to revive the Play of Tamerlane for the 4th of November, 1716; which was got up with the utmost magnificence. The third night the late Mr. Mills (who performed Bajazet) was taken fuddenly ill, and, with much perfuafion, Mr Quin was prevailed upon to read the part, which was thought a great undertaking for a young Actor of his ftanding; b