however forced the bifhop into a correfpondence by letters, about his caufe, probably not without a view to the ufe which he afterwards made of them. In the year 1741 we find F. pushing his cause against the dean of Jersey, whom he arrested for the payment of four promiffory notes for 1000l. which the dean fwore were a forgery, upon which affidavit of the dean's, F's attorney gave up the caufe, and neither F. nor his agents, ever after this dared to revive it. Soon after this trial, the bifhop was alarmed with a report that F. had fhewn a note over his name for 8,800l. † Dr. Le Moine an acquaintance of F's who had seen the note, confirm'd this to his lordship. The note itself, together with the notes over the dean of Jersey, were foon after brought to the bishop by one Tyrel an old Frenchman, who defir'd the bishop to burn them, which he refused, but kept the notes for fome time, and then return'd them. In 1742 F. with his family fled to Ipfwich, where he chang'd his habit into that of a layman, went under the name of John Bequer, and advertised that he taught the French tongue. The bishop in 1743 and 1744 receiv'd some scurrilous letters from him, but gave him no answer, being unwilling to enter into any further correfpondence with him. In 1745 F. fhew'd about the bishop's note to many people at Ipfwich, of which Mr. Rant a counsellor there, inform'd the bishop. A conversation pass'd at that time between Rant and Fournier, wherein the latter contradicted himself (see pag. 95) over and over. The bishop, in the course of this affair, gives us an account of Fournier's amazing contradiction and falfhoods, in regard to the note. In Fournier's firft account, the note was given by the bishop for fo much money, as a compenfation for the injury done him by the bifhop, in regard to the appeal then, it was the overflowing of good-nature, and the effect oft ftrong liquors used by the bishop: then, the note was not de'fign'd The note here referr'd to, is this-"I promife to pay to Mr. "Bernard Fournier, Min. or his order, three months from date here"of, the fum of eight thoufand eight hundred pounds, for value received; as witnefs my hand this 4th day of September, 1740. "B. WINCHESTER.' In regard to this fhameful infinuation of Fournier's, the bishop defends himself with a fpirit and dignity becoming his truly noble and good character. I can, indeed, (fays the good old man) upon the most severe recol⚫lection, truly affirm-That, from the earlieft ftage of life to this hour, I never was once under the leaft diforder of this kind; not even by accident, or furprize from any defign of others;-That I never once, through my whole life, entertained myself, alone, in the low manner here pointed out; nor ever once, with a friend, in any private or hidden way;-That, in my general uniform course, thofe perfons who have been at table with me at one certain time of the day, have been witneffes to all my indulgencies of this kind; • and fign'd for the money, but for fecurity of a promise of preferment : then again, it was not by way of promife of preferment, but for the very fum of money fpecify'd. The five guineas given him by the bishop, at one time was a prefent; and at another, was affirm'd to be paid by the bishop as part of the fum due on the note. Thus did this honeft gentleman think proper to swear and forfwear backwards and forwards, just as he thought might be most convenient to him; till at length the bishop thought it high time to file a bill in chancery against him; which was done in June 1748, in which he was requir'd to give a full account of the note. Before Fournier put in his answer to the bill, he fent a letter to the bishop, deuring that if his lordship thought proper, the note might be deftroyed, and thus an end put to the whole affair. The bishop rejecting this offer, Fournier put in his anfwer, though not till May 1749. The note was now delivered into court, and pleadings heard on each fide concerning it. It appear'd, upon the whole, that several letters had pafs'd between the bishop and Fournier, more particularly fix, which were return'd to the bishop, three of them with, and the other three without the covers. On one of these covers, or franks, it is supposed Fournier wrote the abovementioned note over the bishop for 8,800%. that he scratched out the word free, over the bishop's name, and the hook after it (a conftant cuftom of the bishop in his franks.) This cou'd not be done but by a rafure, which muft leave a thin place where they ftood; accordingly there was in the note a thin place over the name, and another where the book used to be; the words of the direction were likewife erafed, and plain marks appear'd of the paper being pounced, or otherwife prepared to prevent the ink from finking into it. The note was writ upon a very small scrap of paper, four inches three quarters long, and two inches and a quarter wide; the mark of the fold of a letter mani and particularly, that, with relation to thefe deteftable fupports, which Fournier has wickedly invented for my old age; I thank God, it is fuch an old age as not only does not want them, but abhors the thought of them. Let me add, that I now fpeak thus, well knowing that, if what I fay be falfe, it may be eafily confuted by fome or other of thofe many, who have, at various times, lived under the fame roof with me; or of thofe numerous friends and acquaintance, with whofe vifits (at all hours never refufed) I have been favoured. Nor can any one, I think, be fo void of candour, as to imagine me to feek for any applaufe by what I have now faid. For, what praife can it be to a chriftian, and a preacher of the gofpel, that he is innotent of one crime, of which it is most infamous for him to be guilty?' The note brought to the bifhop, with this letter, by one Harding an attorney, was not, in the bishop's opinion, the fame as that which had been brought him by Tyrrel in 1741; this the bifhop proves by feveral particulars, fufficiently pointing out the differences between them, fee pag. 102 to pag. 113 of the pamphlet. His lordfhip is remarkably exact and circunftantial in this account, and makes it very clear, that in all probability, more notes than one had been writ over his name by the ingenious Mr. Fournier. 3 manifeftly fhewed itself in the note. F's guilt appear'd from all these marks of fraud and imposture; from the words of the note; from its being wrote by Fournier himself, and not by the bishop; from the abfurdity of the bishop's giving a note for such a sum to any man to the ruin of his family, without any * value receiv'd for it, as there specified. Accordingly in July 1752, a decree was pronounced, which was as follows: "That the note bearing date "the 4th of September 1740, fet up by the defendant Fournier, against the plaintiff the bishop of Winchester, appears to be, and is, "a grofs fraud and contrivance of the defendant Fournier ; and decree, "that the faid note be deposited in the hands of the register, fub ject to the further order of this court, and the defendant pay "unto the plaintiff his cofts of this fuit, to be taxed by the master, "and refer it to Mr. Spicer." The bishop concludes his pamphlet in the following fpirited manner: If ever, (Jays he) any money-note, fince that name was known in the world of bufinefs, went through fo many changes ⚫ of name and nature, as this has done, in the accounts given of it by the very perfon upon whom it was found; and, after fuch a series of variations, was ever thought to be a genuine and honeft ⚫ note; let this note be thought so. If the man who gave it twice under his hand, first to Mr. • Rant, and afterwards to Mr. Chevallier, That this note was defigned for the payment of the fum named in it; and afterwards fware, in a public court of justice, that this fame note was defigned only to be a fecurity for preferment, and confequently, • was not defigned for the payment of that fum; could be an ⚫ honeft poffeffor of this note; let Fournier be accounted fo. But, at the fame time, let truth and falfhood, integrity and knavery, fimplicity and fraud, be decreed to be the fame things; ⚫ or (which is all one) to have the fame marks so strong upon them, that they cannot be at all diftinguished from one another. And, when this is the cafe, let civil fociety fubfift, if it can.' Such are the principal circumstances of this extraordinary fact; by which it appears to us, that Fournier's intention was to have deferr'd * In 1728, a caufe fimilar to this of the bishop's was tried' at the Old Bailey; when one Hales was indicted for forging a note of hand for 6400l. on Thomas Gibfon, It proved on the trial, that the body of the note was wrote by Hales on the direction of a letter frank'd by Gibfon. At the bottom of the note were the words for myself and partners. The word for was originally free, but the two ees had been taken out, and the o crouded between the F and the r. The words myself and partners were added by the forger. The evidence obferv'd, at the fame time, that (as in this cafe of the bishop) the note appear'd folded like part of a letter, and that Mr. Gibfon wou'd never have wrote a note of that confequence, on fuch a ferap of paper. Hales was a little afterwards indicted for feveral other forgeries of the fame kind, was convicted, and stood twice in the pillory. 1 deferr❜d making any profitable ufe of the note till after the bishop's decease, when it might probably have been the caufe of much trouble and uneafinefs to his family. Fortunately for his lordship this worthy gentleman was imprudent enough to fhew the note about, during the bishop's life-time, which put it in his lordship's power to bring this whole scene of iniquity to light, and to prevent the ill confequences of it. The punishment, indeed, hitherto inflicted on Fournier, is, by no means, adequate to his guilt; the conviction has, however, had its effect, in expofing the chaFacter of the offender, and probably putting it out of his power to practise any fraud of the fame kind for the future. It may be fufficient, in regard to the letter to Mr. Chevallier (which we have pafs'd flightly over, as not fo material to the fact) to observe, that this gentleman had, in his lordship's opinion, been to blame in patronifing and protecting Fournier, even after receiving fufficient proofs of his guilt: this, however, is a point which the bishop touches with great delicacy and politeness, ac. knowledging that Mr. Chevallier was a man of unblemished character, and great integrity; which made him wonder the more at his behaviour in the cafe before us, and that Mr. Chevallier should give public encouragement and countenance to such a man. The bishop expreffes fome warmth on this occafion, and feems to think Mr. Chevallier, in fome measure, acceffary to the trouble and uneafinefs which Fournier had caufed him in the affair; but affures him, at the end of the letter, that he forgives him as fully and fincerely as it is his duty to do. We cannot conclude this article without obferving the remarkable exactness and perfpicuity, the order and accuracy, in which every circumftance is related; and that the performance, though even on fo unpromising a subject, carries with it the marks of that mafterly hand, fo vifible in every work of this illuftrious prelate : there is not the leaft fign of the weakness, peevishness, or imbecillity of old age in the whole; but throughout, the strongest teftimony of the viridis fenectus, so rare in all times, and more fo in our own. Qualis fuit cum tales fint relliquiæ! ART. IV. The history of Mifs Sally Sable, by the author of the memoris of a Scotch-family. In two volumes. 12mo. Pr. 6s. Noble. IR William Traffick, an honeft wealthy merchant, was mafter of a house a few miles from London; and near it dwelt Mr. Graham, a worthy but poor clergyman, who had taken care of the education of Sally Sable (fo called from her fine dark eyes) a foundling, taken up in the fields by a poor woman, belonging to a neighbouring alins-houfe, now dead; and for his trouble, Sir William, William, who was extremely charitable, made him a fmall allowance. Sally was extremely beautiful, nor had nature stinted her in mental accomplishments; the foon learned every thing useful that offered, became a proficient in French and Latin, and was perfect mistress of Horace. Being now upwards of 12 years old, the chanced, hurrying one day along the road, to fall down and fprain her ancle; he was taken up by two gentlemen paffing by in a coach, who not only relieved, but fet her down at Mr. Graham's door: one of them was Sir William's younger, and now only fon, who been disappointed in love, and having long fought relief in a general diffipation, from that moment meditated the ruin of our heroine, whofe beauty charmed him; nor was his nephew, Sir William's next heir, now about 17, proof against her perfections. The uncle was the first affailant; he found means to decoy her from her guardian's to a houfe of evil fame in London, where he at firft detained her under fpecious pretences, and afterwards by force, without being able to accomplish her deftruction. He was determined upon it one night at any rate, but was prevented by an account just then arriving of his father's death. In the confufion occafioned by this intelligence, the found means to escape, and threw herself under the care of a fober watchman, who conducted her home, to the great joy of the good parfon, who blessed God for her deliverance, and could fcarcely credit the villainy of his patron's fon. Being deprived of the ufual allowance by Sir William's death, he was obliged to permit Sally to enter the service of a religious motherly gentlewoman in the neighbourhood, whose family confifted of only herself, her daughter, an old man and a maid. One night the daughter discovered to Sally, that she and her fuppofed mother were no relations, that the one was a baud, the other a prostitute; at the fame time advifing her to get away in the middle of the night, while she would supply her place in bed with Mr. Traffick, who was to be that night privately introduced to debauch her; so that she had no alternative but infamy or flight': the latter the chofe, and her adviser took an opportunity of leaving Traffick before day-light in the morning, carrying off his watch and money; fo that the blame naturally fell on Sally, who was fuppofed a whore, thief, and hypocrite : in confequence of which imputations, the loft the favour of Mr. Graham, and the efteem of Mr. Traffick: however, time cleared up her character, the baud being found out and routed, and Mr. Traffick fet right as to her innocence. But this difcovery is not made till near the end of the fecond volume. Sally having escaped in the middle of the night with her bundle, miftook her away, and turning wrong, came to London, where, before he was aware, fhe was taken up as a vagabond, and carried to the watch-houfe, where he was extremely ill used by fome young drunken rakes, who would have carried her off, had |