upon oath, before the commissioners of accounts, in which he expressly says, "that he, as accountant, carries on and makes up the accounts of the paymasters after they are out of office, as well as of those of the paymasters in office." They farther call Mr. Rose, as to his examination before the treasury, and there, upon a question being put to him, he says, "he knew that it was his duty to have discovered those items." Farther, they have produced a warrant for a deduction to be made by the executor of my Lord Holland, of the sum of £14,000 for expenses and fees attending the passing of those accounts of Lord Holland's, in which, the fees belonging to the defendant relative to those accounts, is £2,600, and to his clerk £500.

In contradiction to this, and to show that it is not the duty of the office, they have first cross-examined Mr. Hughes, who says, that in the case of Mr. Winnington, Mr. Ingram, who was his executor, passed the account and was permitted by Mr. Bangham, who did ask information from the accountant, but that Mr. Ingram, himself, and nobody else, passed the account of Mr. Winnington; but, afterwards, the accountant had the fees allowed upon passing those accounts. This comes out from the cross-examination of Mr. Hughes, for Mr. Hughes says, he personally knows of no such instance since that time; but they have called Mr. Bangham, who has been a clerk in the pay-office

thirty-three years, and he gives an account of the duty of the office, that makes it a very important office indeed, for you observe the long list and roll that he and Mr. Crawfurd gave of the duties of the Accountant-General, and at last he concluded with saying that, the whole business almost entirely lay upon him, for he keeps all the accounts, extraordinaries and ordinaries, abroad and at home; but as to this particular point, the duty of passing the ex-paymaster's account, he swears expressly, that in his opinion, it is his own option, whether he will or will not make up the accounts of the paymasters out of office; and he says, in my Lord Chatham's case, after the death of the accountant, who had begun to pass his account, that the rest of them were passed by Mr. Lamb, and not by the

accountant.

The next witness was Mr. Crawfurd, who speaks to the same effect, and enumerates all the other articles of the duty of the accountant; but as to the making up the ex-paymaster's account, he denies that it belongs to him, and that there was an instance, in the time of Lord Chatham, where it had been otherwise.

Thus stands the evidence, on both sides, with regard to this first proposition, the nature and importance of this office, relative to passing the ex-paymaster's accounts; if he has nothing to do with passing the accounts of the paymasters out

of office, then, to be sure, this information falls, because the basis of the information is, that it is the duty of his office. Supposing you to be of opinion, it is the duty of his office, then, the next consideration is, whether this is a wilful, fraudulent, and corrupt concealment. Lord Holland was appointed paymaster in the year 1757, and went out of office in the year 1765, but his accounts came down to the midsummer following; in 1772, the last, the final accounts were to be filed; what was given in then as a final account, he says, does not mean, that no items might not be added to it; at this time, there are in the books of the pay-office, some charges to Paris Taylor, which are not brought in; observations are sent from the auditor's office to the defendant; he is called upon, repeatedly, to give his answers and explanations upon these observations; he sees them, and he does not say a word with regard to any of these items.

At last they send to close the account; it is sent to the pay-office; in October or November he is called upon again, and then it is proved, by Mr. Wigglesworth, and by Mr. Hughes, that he tells them he has nothing more to say; the books go to the office to have two items, making up thirteen hundred odd pounds, inserted; the defendant tells them he has nothing more to do, but refers them to Mr. Powell; Mr. Powell was the accountant, and, to be sure, referring them to Mr. Powell was

saying I have nothing more to charge them with, I have no farther observations to make; they are referred to Mr. Powell, and then comes the account with a pencilled balance struck, to about sixty odd thousand pounds, and the two items that the books were sent to have inserted in them, are not inserted, but they are taken into the balance. After this pencilled balance is made out, notice is given that the treasury were to have the accounts sent to them, and this is at the end of January, or the beginning of February; the book being sent back for the sake of inserting those items into it, it is returned to the auditor's office, and it had been in the office, unobserved, for nine or ten days; at last, upon looking into it, they find, between the two items inserted and the last passed item, a number of items, amounting to £48,700 inserted as a charge upon Lord Holland. To fix this as voluntary upon the defendant, they use several facts and observations; the first is, that every one of the items appeared in the public books, excepting twenty thousand odd hundred pounds, all in small items; the long dependency of the account gave the defendant an opportunity to examine everything; but the strength of the charge here is, that the defendant being examined before the Lords of the treasury, owned, that for a long time before the account of the pencilled balance was sent back, which account did not contain any of those items,

that he know of them all. Now, with whatever view, whether in aid of Mr. Powell, or for any other improper purpose, if you are satisfied it was a fraudulent concealment, and to be sure, many purposes might be answered by the concealment -it lessens the balance demanded by the public -it could turn, in a variety of ways, for the benefit of the accountant; but to convict the defendant of a crime, it is necessary that you should be satisfied that it is wilfully and fraudulently done; in short, that he does not do that which it was his duty to do, in disclosing this. If, upon these two facts you are satisfied that the charge is made out, with regard to the law of the case, I have very little difficulty in saying what my opinion is; I have not a particle of doubt, that where a man has an office, created by the King's letters patent, immediately or derivatively, which is of important trust and consequence to the public, that for the violation of that office, he is as much indictable as any magistrate or officer that has been alluded to. It is an office the duty of which the public are interested in, and I have no manner of doubt, but upon principles, there is no want of any precedent of the same kind as this; I have no doubt a wilful violation of the duty of that office is indictable, but if it is not indictable, the objection appears upon the record, and judgment will be arrested. Therefore if you are satisfied in both of the points,