The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-04 00:00:00

EVENING SUN

9raetime ago he entrusted a bag of papers to Mr. Mar-
rtar, and he was anxious that they should be restored,
tamedt along with the other papers.-And that bag con-
_ ppers of which you have, and could have had, no
Vlowledge, but from his information ? Certainly ; no
Knowledge in the world.
organ here interrupted the proceedings. He
fd to make a statement in explanation of something
of him in the prisoner's statement.
There is had better - not interrupt now.
-Lae i
re sno imputation on your character. At all events,
70u will be heard by and bye.
arThe Prisoner—l never made any charge against Mr.
-aol•gan.
;,Yr. Morgan—It is said, " Mr. Morganknew all about
I am anxious to explain all my connection with—
Wanrastcrox—l must beg it to be clearly un
.der -
"A`o a that I make no charge—that I throw out no =-
Potation of any kind against Mr. Morgan. I am not so
Instructed.
Alderman WILSON—You will have an opportunity
Presenti
1/
4r. Morgan. At present we will go on.
.
limner sworn and examined by Mr. WAD-
-I)WillhaT6 ire you a broker, Mr. Marriner ?
at b,ness are you -engaged in? lam secretary to
bris"uo og- speculation.—How long bare you. knownk the
ykaa,_
while
*She About two years and a half.—Did you no.w,
was in the employment of Mr. Solar!.
i:dre I believe Mr. Solari is dead? Yes.—When
e Was
?On the 18th October last year.—During Solari's
e,e as Mr. Rapallo in the habit of bringing you Ex-
tou (pier bills? Yos, he was.—Has he continued to do
of '1,111,2? Ye=:—For what purpose? • For the purpose
or --"ung money to pay the differences on Stock,
to take 'kip Stock.—Do you mean that he
taeaged them with you for money? Not with
14,4 eth,eY were brought to me that I might
11,1 tam
.or money.—Has he brought you a great
b‘.._ tuber within the last year ? Yes ?—Has he brought
1721 Y at a time ? Yes. ; so many as eighty odd at one
ii::•—lyor•wbat amount were the bills? For 1,000/. each.
ah,2wuole eighty were for 1,000/. each ? Yes.—Tell us
mg that was? I cannot do so without referring to
rateooks.—You have books in which you kept an acon-
ite, tteTant of all bills you received from the prisoner?
141.1,4111 are new in the hands of Mr. Mania.
teas; 7oliix—What is that you are looking at? Wit-
time or extract from the books.—Was it made at the
ago.
si the transaction ? No ; it was made a few days
Pot itnce this matter has turned up ? Yes.—Then
was ~,46ide. You must refer to nothing that
Will f
done at the time of the transaction.
soul,' (to Mr. Waddington) confine your evidence to
and one
ietransaction, it will be much more convenient
Air. ,regular.
regular.
„WAnnixoToN—My Learned Friend knows as
ones Ft any one does that in such a case as the present
the 'll impossible for ine"to do so; he knows that it is
that reill'°rM rule to inquire.into any, or all transactions,
(14tittlay make out one case. I shall show that he fre-
kest Y, !repeatedly, uttered forged Exchequer bills. I
ltrgiae Into the i'vhole ease if I see fit.
141'
K I do not:watit you to be embarrassed in
era youY, but let me fullasunderstand you right. What
low about to q Into?
4131 D
Witt INoTorr—l will now confine myself to the 80.
"a—There were 84.
Examinationi resumed.—Then Mr. Marriner, of those
tewhich he gave you 6b. that occasion, did
ttreakfterwards pledge them iii the hands of Mr. De
Ye u atu I handed some of "them over to him.—Do
of Lb elot the whole of them ? •-No.—Tell us what part
othf,thee;ns
and when. On the 30Th of March I gave 36
into the hands-of Mr :,De Burckam.—Were
NlYetart of the 84? Ye's.—Wlrat was the date you re-
fit from the prjsoner? :The 30th March.—Oh,
bil~wae ".
On the same clay as you received the 84
s/mr°l4 the prisoner ? Yes .—And on that day you
/OUb-Z them over to Dc Burckam ? 36 of them.—And
Jab, toe numbers of them there in that book ? Yes,
he afterwards, in June, bring you more?
Ott .t o°‘,lll June, it was in October.—Do you mean in the
frt eal4.ther ?—Yes. On Oct. 13th be brought me the bills
Ye -'4" to 6,413 consecutively..—Was that all he
*ba Yen on the 13th October? Yes ; ten bills.—For
to k "lount ? 1,000/. each.— Did you hand them over
hoekr de Burckam ?—I cannot say unless I refer to the
think I did. Refer to „your book and see.
I sill' IY° Will now go on with the case as to these ten.
tote 4) that before the Court, arid I think the /Aegis-
be satisfied.
Nnrt j'°oKlN—That will be the:, better course. Mr.
titer, are those books in your own handwriting ?
e3' are extracts made by Mr. Mayo, De Burckam's
Mr.aul,l_d myself, since the transaction took place.
Z(4l hur.li.lN—Then_you must not refer to them at all.
title 7,,aY turn to any thing—any entry made at the
-vv..‘041 transaction took place.
Ott thietnns—, This is the original entry, made by myself
October.
et4,Ye.?lr. WADDINGTON—That was on the day you re-
-8413", from Rappalle the Exchequier bills from 6,404 to
th Yes.—And .all for 1,0001. each? Yes.—Will
Batu°ok show whether you handed them over to De
4 ~,e,
04 "eill or not? Yes.—Did you give them to him for
urpose of raising money upon them, or for some
Vl'Lleular Stock
,transaction ? Yes.--For the use of
'PPallo? Yes.
til-tlr Alderman ,WnsoN—Didri understand you to say
tot.'ir• RaPPallO" brought these bills to you from time
time for the purpose o fraising money ?
44r- BODKIN—H has not said anything of that kind
"4, Sir e
Ty„ • Alderman WILSON—I, understood him to say so.
Ira: let me inquire. The prisoner brought you bills
e tune to time ? Yes.
%p:els-examined by Mr. BODKIN—What became of
keora.t.ell bills' you don't know ? No, I cannot say, but
3en t'llg to Mr. De Burckam's books—Never mind that,
",ilow nothing of it of your own knowledge ? No.
to Alderman Wthsosi—Did you give those ten bills
for l',l)e._Burckam ? To, the best of my belief I did.—
te4otrt, purpose ? Wis' it for the purpose of being
dated, or as a deposit to raise money ? It was as a
Ainrity
r. E.
onz.mr—l am sure the worthy Magistrate will
Ptov tie, but I think that is assuming more to be
has actually been.
kilted Merman WILSON—I don't assume anything. I
„„Alra that question because I understood him to say
4trve those bills to lir. De Burckam; if I had not un-
kri that I should not hare asked him the question.
Nsliditsnbglii (to-the witness)—Did you not say that
kr net know what onhad done with the bills?—l did.
4- • Virkt,
said
- —INGTON—He that he remembered that
, limn ten bills.
test- lVitoess7-4 do not wish to attempt to evade the
.on.
•ar.
'to (3131(IN—I did not say you did. I don't wish to
• Air auch a thing
Yri• • Alde •
'ght b rMan WrLsorr—l put the question that there
11°)r_ misunderstanding. •
t:owled„6-1!-IINT—Are you prepared to swear, of your own
tZahs4',-.1,P0 whom you gave those ten bills.? I have
tie
ref,re memory with respect to those bills, except
ite time Ire to my books.—Did you know Mr. Solari at
hellexe ir• Rapallo was in his employment ?
? at the latter part of his life he was in bad
it4ekaßeat was.—ln consequence of that did the ma-
"bid of his concerns devolve upon the prisoner ? Yes.
'kith "°,tt know Mr Solari to be the agent of Mr.
/4.1111 °' the . *
tt" Exchequer-office ? Not at all.—What
he so r H. e was, described, as a merchant,
tr 'ether' th otered into Stock Exchange speculations?
aot that 6f °B° speculations were upon his own account
butother individuals, you don't know ?I do
bs °,l EL,Yeell was in the habit of receiving Exchrueor.
*elf Sots ?°'-'ot of stock speculations during the. f
d ati",1121,. Yes.—Sometimes from Mr. Solari him-
yoc4-43 time? Yes.—And since Mr. Solari's
CtPl,l/11°? 'awl,' been in the habit of reeeiving them from
dit-4C. gat --4°.--There is nothing unusual I believe
b• Ib e thirws is there? It is not unusual in the
111 s? elieve
t'(;) raise money upon Exchequer
Zrt? i'eertaini„
not.—lt is every day's practice is it
nosaet• ----There appeared nothing suspicious in this
11 to
tt mmaitari L yon? Certainly not.
t. 0), Mr. WADDINGTON—Have the number
.14ee stax("hequer bills that you have received increased
I,,,''ares death? They have.—Did you ever have
don't be a
th. , quantity as 84,0001. worth from Solari?
~xehetnil I ever had.—Now, with respect to these ten
))14,:clIter bills, as I understand you, you know that
Itte /lave ten bills to 1)e Burckam, but you do not know
lie ber?—Yes.
-•"ittn Mayo examined by Mr. WADDINGTON-I be-
be Y5ll are the clerk of Mr. De Burckam? I am.—ls
foreigner or an Englishman? An Englishman.
kqe,t is ?Is he stock-broker? He is.
14101,,1% ilonLien—ls he an admitted !broker ? I don't
the *----Was Mr. Marriner in the habit of pledging Ex-
hat ?t bills with Mr. De Burckam during the last.
k a,.; •
o
the Lr 'Le was —Have you any entry in your books t
her ? -Atttions in Exchequer bills on the 13th of Octo-
Yes.
is."Thx..ix—ls that entry in your own hand writing
rWA
sum-DpixoToN—How many did he pledge ?—Ten
Itr red from 6,404 to 6,413.
car th 1/"ltit.T D ou recollect whether yeu saw any
e hill °
,4•4 e ~„ s • I don't know.—All you know is that you
04 tio-•,ll,te!itry, but from what cause you made that entry
Know ? Just so.
14:or. De Burckam sworn, and examined by Mr. WAD-
I/IN:I.". --You are, I believe, Mr. De Burckam, a
'jou 41,11? the City of London ? I am.—How long have
sNikr,-V1 on your business ? Four years.
(), lderraan WILSON—Are you a sworn broker ?
Vdertrtaill n °t•----Ilave you been admitted by the Court of
11sinos ? No, I have not. I have carried en my
kr. Vor four years,
ve H and my father did it before me.
ADDINGTort—a you, during the last two or
Ir, -‘,Years, been in the habit of making advances to
A er on Exchequer bills ? Yes.—Do ou know
Ir. m. ? I know him by sight. I have seen him with
toper 4rrieer.---Do • member, on the 13th of Oc-
-4h 1,1„
-51_ you re
•arriner having pledged Exchequer bills.
3'44 ? I cannot tell ;if he did, the transaction is
'elite °°ks, and I will swear to them.—Look at this
?11 your clerk' hand-writing, was it made at the
.„," believe it was.
1414,?'-')l3xtx--Are you the party that directed it to be
.„,/Sir. AV", I am not.
kr, I,43MINGTON—Did you give ten Exchequer bills
Air Ti'aule?—l did
kt civ"t)rtoLtu—w
lapton. here do you live, Mr. de Burckam?--
laul'ale....-A•jusCrinan WILSON—Where is your counting
Aqr a Cushion.court, Broad-street.
ills
Last`l',l4,.l3l3lstorox—Did you give several Exchequer
'Last lion`:, Pemberton ? I did, I gave him 16.—Whe
\Shari,suaY week I gave him 16.
ILethert Pemberton sworn—Examined by Mr.
bi'fr °T°N---You have received several Exchequer
hira,
a°:), the last witness ? I have.—l received 16 from
`lueed th I !low produce them. (The witness here pro-
e bills.)
.4147.11 il"Lta—What are you, Mr. Pemberton ? I
140'Per, e Ftivate Scerecary of the Chancellor of the Ex-

Mr. WADDINGTON—Did you receive the bills now
produced from Mr. Burckam ?—I did.
Mr. Burckam recalled.
Mr. WADDINGTON—From whom or where did you
receive those bills? I don't know:of my own knowledge.—
Had you any from Mr. Marriner? I believe all the bills
I gave to Mr. Pemberton I received from Mr. Marriner.
—What did you'do with the pther bills? All the other
bills I disposed of in a different manner.—Among the
bills handed by you to Mr. Pemberton, were the bills
numbered 6,404 to 6,4132—Yes.
Mr. WADDINGTON—As Mr. Bodkin has requested for
convenience that we should confine ourselves to some
particular case, I may as well state now that we are
now about to confine ourselves to the ten bills now pro-
duced by Mr. Mariner.
Mr. BODKIN—Is there anything in these bills which
will enable you to speak of them except the cumbers ?
—Nothing except the numbers.
Mr. BODKIN—You said that the bills had sometimes
passed through five or six hands ? —Yes, through several
hands. My books will show that.
Mr. WADDINGTON—It appears from the entries that
all these bills are June bills. Let Mr. Marriner be re-
called.
Mr. Mariner recalled.
Mr. WADDINGTON—What is the date and the month
appearing upon the bills pledged by you with M. De
Burckam 2—The 16th June, 1841.
Mr. WADDINGTON—It appears that it was in the month
of June from M. de Burkam's books, and their dates, and
their numbers are all in June.
Mr. BODKIN declined to ask the witness any more
questions.
Mr. Dudley Montague Perceval called in and ex-
amined by Mr. WADDINGTON.
Are you the Assistant-Comptroller of the Exche-
quer? I am, at present.—How long have you held that
office?:l was appointedon the 6th of January last.—
The Comptroller-General is Lord Monteagle ? Yes.—
Is it part of your duty, under the Act of Parliatnent, to
sign Lord Monteagle's name to Exchequer bills? It is.—
Did you sign the issue of Exchequer bills in June last?
A great proportion of them I did. Not the whole of
them. I signed three-fifths of the whole, perhaps.—
Explain the system of marking Exchequer bills, particu-
larly that portion of the process relating to the counter-
foils. I have already heard an explanation of much of
the process, which I need not repeat—that the bills are
engraved in duplicate—that one side constitutes the
counterfoil, and the other is issued as a genuine bill. I
suppose I need not repeat what I have heard described
relating to the scroll ?
Mr. BODKIN—We understand that it is exactly like a
banker's cheque, in faot ?—The witness then proceeded
to state that the scroll was cut down the middle.
Mr. WADDINGTON—The number of the counterfoil
and of the genuine bill ought to correspond. The wit-
ness—The counterfoil is first numbered by one clerk,
and the Exchequer bills are subsequently numbered by
another to prevent mistakes.—Whose duty is it to num-
ber the genuine bills? I believe any one of the clerks
can do so. lam not sure. I think Mr. Blake, the junior
clerk, commonly numbers the counterfoils, and Mr.
Smith in general the bills.—What office did Mr. Smith
hold ? He was senior clerk in the Exchequer Bill
issuing office.—Have you compared the ten bills
now produced, purporting to be Exchequer bills, with
the counterfoils, and do. they respectively correspond
with those numbers And what I compared
was the r everyesult ? one of them
Not
yesterdy evening.—
one of them tallied with the counterfoil.
Alderman WILSON—Have you got the counterfoils

here ?
Mr. WADDINGTON—IN 0, we have not,. He could not
bring them here without bringing the Treasury books.
They can be brought if it is desired.
Mr. _BODKIN did not think it necessary.
Examination resumed by Mr. WADDINGTON—Did
some of them vary as to the scroll as well as not fittiug
the counterfoil ? I will explain. Here is a series of,
fours bills 6,404, 6,405,. 6,406,, and 6,407. There are
three bills in a page. Now, I know from a private mark
at once in what part of the page the counterfoil ought to
come. This bill, 6407, ought to be the bottom bill of the page.
It will be easy for any gentleman by making the calcula-
tion from 6,000 to 6,407, to satisfy himself of this fact.
6,404 ought properly to be the second bill in the page of
the series, and this hill ought consequently to correspond
with the second bill in that page. —(The wit-
ness here looked over the bills, and seemed
to hesitate a little, saying, " No, I am not quite sure ;"
and then resumed.) This bill, 6,404, is the top bill of
a page. Now, any one may ascertain that the top bill
ought to be 6,403 ; consequently it does not only not
correspond with the counterfoil, but it is not the bill.
Alderman WiLsoN—lt does not correspond with the
part that ought to be opposite to it.
Mr. WADDINGTON—Nor do the counterfoils corre-
spond.—Do the numbers correspond ? No, they do not.
—Have you the genuine bills with you here ? I have
not.—Who has them, then ? Mr. Pemberton.
Mr. Pemberton recalled, and examined by Mr. WAD-
DINGTON—Mr. Pemberton, do you produce the Exchequer
bills numbered from 6,405 to 6,411 consecutively W
? I do.
Mr. Perceval's examination resumed by
Mr. AD-
DINGTON.-Have you examined these bills produced by
Mr. Pemberton with the counterfoils? These six I have.
—Do they exactly correspond ? They do.—Are they
signed by you ? They are signed by me.—Every one of
them ? Every one of them, with Lord Monteagle's name.—
They are the same numbers and dates as the counterfoils
They are-6,405, 6,406, 6,407, 6,408, 6,409, at.d 6,410.
These are genuine.—They are signed by you, you say?
Yes, they are signed by me with the name of
Lord Monteagle. Look at the counterfoil bills.
What do you say to the signature of these ?
I do not entertain the shadow of a doubt
that not one of these signatures is my hand-writing.—
Can you speak to all ten? I can speak with confidence.
Although a near imitation, it is not my hand-writing.
—lt is not Lord Monteagle's ? Certainly not ;it is very

different.
Mr. BODKIN requested to look at the genuine bills and
the forgeries, which were handed to him, after a request
on the part of the prosecution, that he would take care
to keep them separate, which he promised to do,
observing—" I suppose if they got mixed you would
not be able to separate the genuine from the forged ?
Mr. Waddington. Oh! yes! but we should have to com-
pare them again with the counterfoils.
Mr. BODKIN having returned the bills proceeded to
cross-examine the witness.—You say. you have only
1841
been
in office since Jauuary, 1841? Only since January, .
—Does Lord Monteagle attend much at the office ?
Constantly, when in town. Does he sign bills him-
self ?—Yes, great numbers. They are, I suppose, placed
before him by a clerk for that purpose?—Just so. By
Mr. Smith ?—Not by him only Are you aware
whether Exchequer bills have been signed in any other
manner than what you have stated ?—From 1834 to the
6th January, 1840, they have been signed either by Sir
John Newport or Lord Monteagle, during the respec-
tive periods they were in office, or Mr. Arthur Eden,
who held the office of Assistant-Comptroller of the Ex-
chequer up to the period when he was obliged
to leave office on account of ill health. You are not
aware that any other person had authority from Lord
Monteagle to sign his name to these bills ? Cer-
tainly not.—No other person could do so according
to Act of Parliament.—You have had a good many be-
fore you lately ? A considerable number.—Have you
seen any which do not correspond with the counter-
foil to which is attached a genuine signaturo ?
I have not seen any which did not corre-
spond with the counterfoils as to the signature,
of which I had no doubt. I nave had several bills sub-
mitted to me, and I never saw one on which I could lay my
finger and say at once the signature to this is genuine, the
counterpart to which did not correspond. At the begin-
ning of the inquiry I was not sufficiently acquainted
with the forged signature to state without • hesi-
tation that it was a forgery, but in every
case in which I had any hesitation as to the
signature, I was afterwards told that the bill
and the counterfoil did not correspond. In answer to
questions from Alderman Wilson and others, the
witness said that, in June, the Supply bills
were furnished in books of 5001. each, and that he had
signad two books of 1,000 bills at the same time. Seve-
ral questions were put to the witness, with a
view of eliciting whether any of the bills which did
not correspond with the counterfoil, had genuine signa-
tures attached to them. It was evident from the wit-
ness's answers that he did not understand the ques-
tion, and at last, after stating that it was part
of Smith's duty to place the books before him
for signature, the witness, in reply to an ob-
servation of Mr. Bodkin, that it was understood
that some of the bills had been issued in duplicate,
and that he wished to ascertain what was
the fact as regarded that point, was his object in putting
the questions he had. The witness replied, that as far
as his judgment went he had not the slightest reason for
believing that the signature could be genuine to any
of the bills which did not correspond with the coun-
terfoils ?—Alderman WILSON—Have you seen any bills
which did not correspond with the counterfeits, the sig-
natures to which you had any reason to think genuine ?
Certainly not.
Mr. BODKIN—As far as your invettigation has gone,
all the bills which do not correspond with the counter-
foil or forgeries. So far as my investiation has gone,
and I believe them to be forgeriegs, not because
they :do not :correspond with the counterfeit, but
because the signature is not my own.—
I cornyared:3B of these bills to-day, and 18 yesterday,
and of every "one ,which did not correspond with the
counterfoil, there is not one concering the signature, to
which I should hesitate t think it was a forgery.
Alderman WILSON.--I there is evidence enough
to show that there has been a forgery of Exchequer bills,
but is it not now time to show that Bapallo had a know-
?admit that a forgery of Ex-
ledf
ientrotptxhieNy just sere-forgedl
the guilty knowledge to Mr. 1 apa o
chequer bills has been made outl ; have you traced
Mr. WADDINGTON—You must be aware of this prin-
ciple of law, that in all preliminary investigatioi. s the
uttering of forged Exchequer bills or other documents
is alone sufficient to cast upon
them
the party the onus of prov-
ing that he came honestly by .
Mr. WADDINGTON—Your Worships are far .o.to
Mr. BODKIN would beg to dispute that princtiplecoofnlyawr.
usatntetriwngithof qfouregsteidonbsilolsf tolfiisexsoerhtanngote,toe
rities, or coin, or receiving stolen goods, was
suggested
to warrant a committal, and that it never was
)auknet erl f that
e thec u -
that it should be proved that the party lied the guilty
sufficientels
knowledge—that bras to be inferred fromhe circum-
stances of the case. It will be for a Jury to infer from
the fact of a person uttering such an enormous
quantity of Exchequer bills, and I can make the case in
this respect much stronger hereafter, by showing that a
much larger quantity was forged,—l say, that the fact
of a person uttering so large a quantity of forged billsm,
coupled with his statement that he received them fro
Smith—taking this statement, coupled with the fact that
forged bills to a large amount was uttered by him, I
think there Ample evidence not only for the present

purpose but evidence upon which a Jury would not
hesitate to infer that he had a guilty knowledge. Ob-
serve, he admits in his statement that he knew they were
not the property of the person from whom he received
them, and he gives no explanation of how he could have
supposed that'a person in the situation of Smith could
have the power of supplying him to this enormous
amount. He knew that Smith was not a man of property;
he knew they were not his bills, and will any
one suppose that another party would authorise Smith to
apply this amount of Exchequer bills] to stock specula-
tions ? From the whole of the statements it is clear that
the party must have had a guilty knowledge of the na-
ture of the transaction.
Mr. Alderman Wiesox—lf you had charged any per-
son with stealing these bills, you might have some
ground for supposing that Rapallo was the receiver of
stolen property. But what evidence is there here
that he knew they were forged ?
Mr. WADDINGTON—That would be inferred from all
the circumstances of the case.
Mr. Alderman WILSON thought the case of a party re-
ceiving stolen goods, and of a party having Exchequer
bills in his possession knowing them to be stolen, as
being very different.
Mr. WADDINGTON—What I say is, that in the ab-
sence of direct evidence on the subject, the guilty know-
ledge of the party must be inferred from the circum-
stances of the case: Of course, if a person admitted that
he had forged Exchequer bills in his possession—
Mr. Aldermanb WILSON—No, no ; he did not say that.
Mr. WADDINGTON—He admits that he had these bills
from Smith, and it is now proved that they are forged.
Therefore, you are to say from all the circumstances of
the case, whether Rapallo knew them to be forged; but
if you stop this inquiry into a most enormous and
gigantic fraud, by requiring direct proof of his guilty
knowledge, the ends of justice will not be met.
Mr. Alderman PIRIE—It would go a great way in
inferring a guilty knowledge, if I found that he received
bills from the Government office and made no regular
entry in his booke.
Mr. WADDINGTON—That will be all very well when
the case comes before a Jury.
Mr. Alderman PIRIE-1t strikes me, however, that
it would be a very important point to establish now.
Mr. WADDINGTON—There is one thing that I must
remind you, that you are not pronouncing definitively
upon the guilt or innocence of the party, and really I
think that you can hardly have paid sufficient attention
to the statements of this man.
Mr. Alderman PIRIE—I beg your pardon. I have
read it over very carefully and attentively.
Mr. WADDINGTON—I must say that that statement ap-,
pears to me to be pregnant with suspicion, and that the
party who received them must have been, not only a
party to the fraud, but that he knew they were fraudu-
lently obtained. How could he suppose that Smith
would have been all this time supplying him with genuine
Exchequer bills? Surely when you find him dealing
with those bills to so enormous an amount—
Mr. BODKIN—It strikes me that whatever may be
supposed on that point we have nothing to do with the
principle. The party seeking to deprive one of the
Queens subjects of his personal liberty will not make
that a case of suspicion that the transactions were of an
extensive nature. The case should be looked at as if it
were simply between two individuals. My Learned
Friend, I admit, has not thrown any unfair diffi-
culties in the way of the inquiry. I admit he
has given reasonable evidence, from which it may
be inferred that the documents were forged ; but
there has been nothing stated to show that Rapallo
had any more, knowledge of their being forged than
either of the two witnesses from the Treasury, who did
precisely what Rapallo - would do himself. I call upon
you to read the statement of Mr. Rapallo. I can well
imagine how a man in the consciousness of rectitude,
thinking fit to present hiMsClf 'voluntarily at the Home-
office, and subjecting himself- to the rigid cross-examina-
tion of the' acute and able legal authorities there, might
haveheen betrayed into sotne statements or admissions`
which the ingenuity of my Learned Friend opposite
might construe as prejudicial to him. My Learned
Friend dwells on the fact that Rapallo said he did not
believe them to be the property of Smith ; but you must
be aware that these large transactions were matter of
public notoriety in the City, and the general impres-
sion among commercial men was, that they originated
with parties at the West end who knew their
agents in the City were conducting these speculations,
and Smith might have been supposed to be the party re-
presenting them. In the same way Rapallo was the
agent of Smith in the City ; taking up the business as
it had been formerly carried on by Solari. Now, looking
at the nature of the evidence that has been given, I
ask you to lay your finger upon a tittle of evidence from
which you can infer that Rapallo had any guilty know-
ledge of these bills being forgeries. Now, my Learned
Friend relies on the evidence as being sufficient not only
to commit him, but even to convict him; but I take
leave with great humility and submission to his superior
knowledge, to doubt whether a jury, even from the Trea-
sury or Exchequer-office itself; would be able to
pronounce such a verdict. If that were so, no man
could be safe who engaged in commercial specu-
lations of this nature. I submit that there is no
proof of knowledge on the part of Rapallo
of these bills being forged. And, Sir, I cannot help
asking you, an 4 I trust I am not making any observa-
tions unbecoinieg the situation in which I stand here, to
look with a good deal of jealousy at the case raised
against this particular person. The bills have gone
through a great number of hands, and there is
no doubt that they generally came from the Ex-
chequer-office itself ; and a very serious question
will be raised on the part of the innocent holders as to
whether they will be able to recover the amount from
the Government or not. Mr. Rapallo is the only link
by which they will be able to prove their claim upon
the Government, and that they had, in point of
fact, proceeeded from the Government office. You will
look therefore with proper caution and suspicion on this
attempt, because, if it be successful, it will go far to relieve
the Government from the responsibility which
may attach to it for the payment of these Ex-
chequer bills. Under those circumstances, I appre-
hend that you will be of opinion that this is
a case in which you would not be justified in depriving a
man of his personal liberty, more especially when I
advert to the fact that this statement of, my client's,
on which the strongest suggestion of criminality
is founded, was made twelve days ago, during the
whole of which time Mr. Rapallo has been at
liberty. In that period his counting-house has been ran-
sacked; his books have been taken from him; and those
which were not discovered, he himself voluntarily
surrendered. He has been himself on the spot, and has
'expressed the utmost willingness to come forward at any
time. After all this I think it would really be too much
to consign a person to prison who has evinced such
readiness to afford every information in his power.
In answer to Alderman Wiesorr, it was stated that
the Government officers had Mr. Rapallo's books, and it
was suggested that they should be examined, in order to
ascertain whether there was any entry of these bills in
the regular course.
Mr. WADDINGTON submitted that that would not
alter the nature of the case in any respect. The fact
of his receiving these bills from a clerk in the Treasury,
without making any inquiry into their authenticity, was
a proof that he knew the transaction to be fraudulent,
and if these entries were regularly made in his books
that would be merely a cloak to conceal the real
nature of the transaction. He said he did not consider
that it was his business to ask whether it was
a regular thing or not. He has frequently
in similar transactions taken the bills and
asked no questions. But was it possible to suppose
that he would receive at one time 120,0001., and at
another time upwards of 80,0001. of these bills, suppos-
ing them to have been legitimately come by? He hoped
the Magistrates of that great commercial city would be
of opinion that enough of evidence had been tendered to
put the case in a train of investigation. If it was thought
that Rapallo should be admitted to bail, he had no objec-
tion, but that was a point which he lett to the discretion
of the Magistrates.
Mr. Alderman WILSON thought that the fact of these
bills being regularly entered in the books of the pri-
soner would be a strong proof that he did not think they
had been fraudulently obtained.
Mr. WADDINGTON complained of the aspersions that
had been cast by his Learned Friend on the motives of
the Government, who, he said, were anxious to do every-
thing consistently with jestice as regarded the holders of
these bills.
Mr. BODKIN explained.
Mr. Alerman WILSON said fault had been found
by. tha Learned Counsel, and he thought great
injustice had also been done to the Magistrates
of the City of London, in supposing that
there was any wish on their part to impede the course
of justice. It was, however, the duty of the Magistrates
to see that the liberty of the subject was not taken
away unless there appeared to them good and sufficient
grounds for such a step. Putting Rappallo out of the
question for a moment, it appeared to him that any
merchant might have received these bills from Mr.
Smith, as a person connected with the Troasury, with-
out suspecting that they were forged or counterfeit. He
did not see how they could entertain any suspicion of

the sort.
Mr. WADDINGTON admitted that such was the case.
Mri BODKIN—I submit, Sir, that my client be allowed
his liberty upon bail. He went forward voluntarily—
he has attended to his business ever since he made his
statement, and will again come forward whenever it is
thought necessary. My Learned Friend certainly mis-
understood me, when he says I threw out reflections
against the Government. I meant no such thing.
Of course, it will be their duty
i to insti-
tute a most strict and searching investigation
into the whole of these transactions. What he meant to
say was that these bills had passed through se-
veral hands. They had passed through the hands
of Marriner and of De Burchem, yet they are
treated as respectable men, and are brought forward as
witnesses for the Crown. I look with jealousy to any
selection of witnesses.
Mr. Alderman WILSON—WeII, produce the day-book,
and satisfy me that these ten bills received by Mr. Rap-
pallo, on the 13th October, were regularly entered in a
mercantile manner, and it will have much and conside-
rable impression upon my mind.
Mr. WADDINGTON—Supposing such were to be the
case, Sir, still in my mind it would not make the slightest
difference. Parties engaged in such a transaction might
keep a good mercantile record of the bills, and yet have
a guilty knowledge. That guilty knowledge I have
proved, for no man in his senses could fancy for one mo-
ment that a clerk in the Exchequer could find bills to such
an amount laying about the office ; nor could he for a
moment suppose they could be purloined to such an
amount. It is such, an absurdity, no: man could believe
it. It could not suggest itself to any reasonable mind; the
only other inference there is that the bills were not
genuine, and that was en inference which 'must have
forced itself upon the mind of the prisoner or any other
person dealing with bills to with an amount, and with a
.n of no substance,