neighbourhood, and lived there till of late, when he set up his equipage. His father was a man of fair character, and moderate fortune, was an upper clerk in the South-sea house, and did business as a broker in Change-alley : his success in the latter enabled him to quit the former; and encouraged him to initiate his son, when yet a stripling, in the same business; to a considerable branch of which he introduced him; and dying about eight or nine years ago, left him a handsome property in the funds, by the interest of which, with his regular and fair transactions as a broker, he had an income of 12 or 1500l. a year. But instead of enjoying this with safety and prudence, he would venture for more, by sporting, gaming (as it is called) in the alley; so that he told me, his losses in the whole, by paying debts of honour, in that way, amounted to 60,000l. False honour indeed! added he; as it was for his employers as well as himself. He said, the commission of bankruptcy taken out against him, by his attorney, after he fled, was not by his order; and that he took not above the sum of 3 or 400l. abroad with him; that Mrs. R - not knowing his case, but in general that something was amiss, was hurried after him with the bulk of what he had left in bank-notes; that she got to the coast of Holland; but the hard frost, with the ice on that coast, setting in, obliged the captain to cut his cable and run, leaving his anchor; he was driven back to Harwich; from whence she returned to London, fearing and suspecting no ill consequence; but found herself quickly taken into custody, seized and examined; having notes to the value of 4700l. found, as it is said, concealed about her stays; this she was obliged to surrender, which with the produce of his effects sold, he apprehended would be applied to the account of the commission of bankruptcy.

Some proper questions were put to him, before he was admitted to the holy communion, concerning his preparation; first, as an humble penitent in general; and 2dly, as a criminal. The first being well known points, I need not repeat. The second was, whether he had it in his power to make any more restitution or satisfaction than he had yet done to the injured? To this he answered in the negative. Whether he had any accomplice? This he also denied, and received the blessed sacrament on the truth of these assertions.

By this and other numberless like instances, in most if not all cases of dying criminals, every reasonable and impartial person will see it is a real part of justice due to the public and the injured; it is a duty, an indispensable duty annexed to the office of Ordinary in whomsoever it is lodged, to persuade criminals to confess the several forgeries, robberies, thefts, burglaries, and other injuries done: On whom? when? where? and with what accomplices? without being exposed to be accused and abused by an obdurate criminal, as being impertinently curious and officious to collect materials only to fill up his account. That the public and the injured expect this most disagreable and irksome duty from him (of bringing notorious offenders to confess) appears from the several letters, messages, or requests, delivered to the Ordinary on this subject before each execution. Not to mention private directions and orders to the same purpose from his superiors in the court on several occasions. And what influence or check on such offenders can the Ordinary have, but the power of giving or refusing the holy sacrament to them, as they shew themselves penitent or impenitent? I need not call this a power vested in him, so much as a duty bound upon him by the rubricks, established by act of parliament firm and inviolable as our constitution; or what is equally, if not more sacred, the indispensable rules of rational religion, and good conscience.

One remark more concerning Mr. Rice, and I have done; that he never refused to converse with me in private, or seemed to be offended at any question I asked, or any instruction I gave him, but received all with gentle meekness, serious attention, and humble thankfulness; and I must add, was often greatly shocked at the contrary behaviour of his fellow-convict P. L. next to be spoken of.

Mr. Rice had also another clergyman, his former acquaintance, to visit him as oft as they chose, with my knowledge and approbation; with whom when I consulted on his case, not the least dispute or difference arose among us.

2. Paul Lewis< no role > was indicted for that he with a certain offensive weapon, called a pistol, which he had and held in his right hand, on John Cook< no role > wilfully and feloniously made an assault, with an intent the money of the said John to steal, against the form of the statute, &c. March 12 , to which he pleaded guilty.

This indictment was tried late in the evening; and by his pleading guilty, it was apprehended by the public, that he hoped to get off with transportation only; which was far from giving satisfaction, as there was a general resentment and indignation against him for the base perfidy and foul ingratitude he betrayed in the fact, for which next day he was a second time indicted, for being an illdesigned and disorderly person, of a wicked mind and disposition, not regarding the laws and statutes of this realm, nor pains or penalties that should fall thereon; that he on the 12th of March , with a pistol, value five shillings, loaded with gun-powder and a leaden bullet, which he had and held in his right hand, did wilfully, feloniously, unlawful