the
whole is the Company's, and he will account to them for it.

Now he has accompanied this account with another very curious one. For
when you come to look into the particulars of it, you will find there
are three bonds declared to be the Company's bonds, and which refer to
the former transactions, namely, the money for which he had taken the
bonds; but when you come to look at the numbers of them, you will find
that one of the three bonds which he had taken as his own disappears,
and another bond, of another date, and for a much larger sum, is
substituted in its place, of which he had never mentioned anything
whatever. So that, taking his first account, that two thirds is his own
money, then that it is all his own, in the third that it is all the
Company's money, by a fourth account, given in a paper describing the
three bonds, you will find that there is one lac which he does not
account for, but substitutes in its place a bond before taken as his
own. He sinks and suppresses one bond, he gives two bonds to the
Company, and to supply the want of the third, which he suppresses, he
brings forward a bond for another sum, of another date, which he had
never mentioned before. Here, then, you have four different accounts: if
any one of them is true, every one of the other three is totally false.
Such a system of cogging, such a system of fraud, such a system of
prevarication, such a system of falsehood, never was, I believe, before
exhibited in the world.

In the first place, why did he take bonds at all from the Company for
the money that was their own? I must be cautious how I charge a legal
crime. I will not charge it to be forgery, to take a bond from the
Company for money which was their own. He was employed to make out bonds
for the Company, to raise money on their credit. He pretends he lent
them a sum of money, which was not his to lend: but he gives their own
money to them as his own, and takes a security for it. I will not say
that it is a forgery, but I am sure it is an offence as grievous,
because it is as much a cheat as a forgery, with this addition to it,
that the person so cheating is in a trust; he violates that trust, and
in so doing he defrauds and falsifies the whole system of the Company's
accounts.

I have only to show what his own explanation of all these actions was,
because it supersedes all observation of mine. Hear what prevaricating
guilt says for the falsehood and delusion which had been us