Hardy, 1797
Type: Gun Boat ; Armament 12
Launched : 1797 ; Disposal date or year : 1802
Notes:

Court of King's Bench, 19 June 1802. The King V Hewett. The defendant came into Court for the purpose of receiving judgment, Mr. Justice Grose addressed him, stating, that he now stood to receive the judgment of the Court, convicted on an information filed against him by the late Attorney General, for a very great misdemeanor, as it regarded the public and the revenue of the country ; by which it appeared that he had the command of a gun-brig, belonging to his Majesty, called the Hardy ; that he "acted" as Purser of such ship, [so presumably the commanding officer....usually a Lieutenant Ed. since the size of the vessel didn't warrant a purser.] and as such was in a place of trust and confidence with regard to the accounts of such vessel; that in that character he drew a Bill of Exchange on his Majesty's Commissioners for victualling the Navy, for a sum of money which was not due, and caused a person of the name of William Miller to commit a misdemeanor, by indorsing a receipt as voucher for that bill, purporting to be a bill for meat provided for that brig, when in truth the brig had not been provided with such quantity of meat, as stated by the defendant, nor at the price charged by him. In this charge against the defendant there was fraud and forgery. It was a fraud as against the public, whose servant the defendant was, who had a right not only to integrity in the defendant in his own employment, but also to protection from him against the frauds of others, when they were furnishing the brig with provisions. It was a forgery, as the voucher was false on which money was advanced. This offence was of great magnitude, and was important to the public to suppress it. It was to be lamented that this sort of breach of public trust had been committed often, and had been prevalent to a large degree. Many in higher employments than the defendant had thought it no crime to defraud the revenue, and seemed to think there could be no fault where no individual complained. The truth was, that almost every individual might complain, since he who committed a fraud upon the public, committed an offence against every one of the public who contributed to the public expenditure, among whom there were thousands poorer than the present defendant. Some men thought themselves honest so long as they could escape detection ; but the defendant should be assured, that he alone was honest who persevered in being so, even where he knew detection was impossible. The want of this principle was much to be lamented, and if men of higher station than the defendant were found to be actuated by the same motives, the Court must endeavour to stem the torrent of corruption, and by the exemplary punishment of some, try to deter others from comitting the like offences. The Court having taken all the circumstances of this case into consideration, did order and adjudge, that he be imprisoned in Newgate for two years, and that during that period he do stand in the pillory for one hour, between the hours of twelve at noon and two in the afternoon, in the public street near Charing Cross, opposite to the gates of the Admiralty.

4 Jan 1802 in Portsmouth harbour.

2 Apr 1802 has been ordered to be paid off at Portsmouth.

Circa 15 Dec 1803 the Leopard and Sulphur, bomb, surveyed the French Coast in the region of Boulogne, and were joined later by the Immortalite, Hardy, Leda, Fortunee, and Bloodhound. On the 17th they observed a convoy of 22 brigs &c., get into Boulogne from the Westward, and were close to cutting some of them off. They note that there about 100 gun boats in Boulogne, exclusive of brigs.