618 
the receiver-general of the land-tax. 
The learned counsel then alluded 
to the case of lord Holland, who 
was a great public defaulter, and re- 
marked, that when an inquiry was 
instituted in the house of commons, 
in the case of Powell and Bain- 
bridge, Mr. Fox, and others equally 
eminent for wisdom, asserted, that 
if a public accountant was held re. 
sponsible, it was a matter of indif- 
ference to the public what private 
use he made of the public money, 
provided the public service was not 
injured, and he was ready to pay 
up his balances when called upon. 
The great earl of Chatham, he said, 
was also of that opinion. Mr. 
Grenville, he said, when paymaster, 
desired two months to settle his ac- 
counts—he would ask, why require 
two hours, if the use of the public 
eer, had been held to be unlaw- 
fal? The fact was, that it was not 
then considered to be so ; nor was it 
im point of fact illegal, and he meant 
to go the length of contending, 
that the aet passed in 1786 made 
no alteration in the old law; and 
therefore the applying the first 
10,000/. before and after the pass. 
ing of that aét, was precisely the 
same thing. Still he did not mean to 
assert that the application of the 
public money to private purposes 
was not a violation of the warrant ; 
and if any loss had accrued, the de- 
fendant would have been liable to a 
civilsuit. No such loss had taken 
place. The noble defendant had 
paid every shilling of his balances in 
due tourse; and yet he was now 
called upon to answer criminally for 
making use of money entrusted to 
his diseretion by the state. ‘The 
learned counsel then touched upon 
the 10,0002. which his lordship re- 
fused to say how it was applied; 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806. 
and called upon their lordships to 
say whether a man, by the humatie 
principles of British justice, had 
ever been deemed criminal for his 
silence, It was possible the noble 
defendant might have used it for other 
than naval purposes, but that did 
not prove that he had used it cor- 
ruptly. ‘The noble defendant was 
aware of the obloquy that might be 
attached to the concealment he still 
persisted in; but,he would be con- 
tent to endure the odium of their 
lordships, and the unjust suspicions 
which such conduct might give rise 
to, rather than violate the obliga- 
tions he owed to public duty and 
private honour. Had not the late 
chancellor of the exchequer felt 
himself at liberty to divulge the 
40,000/. advanced to Boyd, Ben- 
field, and co. the noble defendant 
would never have disclosed the ap- 
plication. An indemnity had passed 
for that advance—then why not 
give the noble defendant credit for 
having applied the 10,000/. in an 
equally meritorious way? He then — 
commented at length on the testi« 
mony submitted on the part of the 
prosecution, and censured the ma- 
wagers for the way in which they 
had endeavoured to obtain evidence 
against the noble defendant. They 
had not contented themselves, he 
said, with diving into the private ac- 
counts of individuals at bankers, 
but had climbed into the attic of a 
poor widow woman with a view to 
gain evidence. They hadinaman- 
ner stript the noble defendant like 
an insolvent debtor, and exposed 
every circumstance of his life for 
half a century past. One of the 
managers too had acted in the triple 
character of a prosecutor, a witness, 
and a carrier of abox; and the re- 
sult of all was, that such evidence 
had 
