may have been commuted without the tradition
surviving on the circuit. All however agree, that no man who ever sat on
the bench deserved the imputation of "obduracy" less than Baron Graham. I
should not have noticed the anecdote but for its _mythic_ accompaniments,
which I disposed of in "N. & Q.," Vol. v., p. 444.

In Vol. vi., p. 496., W. W. cites from Wade's _British History_:

"July 22, 1814. Admiral William B----y found guilty of forging letters
to defraud the revenue. He was sentenced to death, which was commuted
to banishment."

The case is reported in _The Sun_, July 25, 1814; and the subsequent facts
are in _The Times_, July 30, and August 16 and 20. It was tried before Mr.
Justice Dampier at the Winchester Summer Assizes. There were five bills
against the prisoner for forgery, and one for a fraud. That on which he was
convicted, was for defrauding the post-master of Gosport of 3l. 8s. 6d. He
took to the post-office a packet of 114 letters, which he said were "ship
letters," from the "Mary and Jane." He received the postage, and signed the
receipt "W. Johnstone." The letters were fictitious. The case was fully
proved, and he received sentence of death. He was respited for a fortnight,
and afterwards during the pleasure of the Prince Regent. He was struck off
the list of retired {574} rear-admirals. It was proved at the trial, that,
in 1809, he commanded "The Plantagenet;" but, _from the unsettled state of
his mind_, the command had been given up to the first lieutenant, and that
he was shortly after superseded. This, and the good character he received,
were probably held to excuse the pardon.

I now come to the great case of George III. and Mr. Fawcett. I much regret
that WHUNSIDE has not replied in your pages to my question (Vol. vii., p.
163.), as I could then have commented upon the facts, and his means of
knowing them, with more freedom. I have a private communication from him,
which is ample and candid. He objects to bring his name before the public,
and I have no right to press that point. He is not _quite_ certain as to
the convict's name, but can procure it for me. He would rather that it
should not be published, as it might give pain to a respectable family.
Appreciating the objection, and having no use for it except to publish, I
have declined to ask it of him.

The case occurred in 1802 or 1803, when WHUNSIDE was a pupil of Mr.
Fawcett. He says:

"Occasionally Mr. Fawcett used t