120 
sisting of a loan of 4,000/. advanc- 
ed by Trotter to lord Melville, was 
supplied from the fund entrusted to 
Trotter for’ the payment of cx- 
chequer fees, and that in the 
bond giyen by lord Melville for 
that sum, there was no engagement 
to pay interest for the same. it 
was also proved, that on Septem- 
ber 4th, 1792, the sum of 8,000/. 
was drawn by ‘l'rotter from the 
bank, on pretence of navy services ; 
out of which thesum of 4,0571. 10s. 
was employed the same day in the 
purchase of 2,000/. East India stock 
for the use and benefit of lord Mel- 
ville, according to his express de- 
sire and request: and that no interest 
was charged to lord Melville for 
the purchase money of the said 
Fast India stock, though the divi. 
dends were carried to his credit, and 
the stock itself ultimately disposed 
of for his benefitin May 1800. 
Lastly, it was proved, that in 
May 1800, when lord Melville 
quitted the navy pay-office, he was 
under the necessity of raising the 
sum of 50,000/. or thereabouts, to 
make good that part of the def- 
ciency in his act of parhament ac- 
count at the bank, which arose 
from public meney applicd to his 
own profit and advantage : and it 
further appeared in evidence, that 
the sum total of public money ad- 
vanced by Trotter to lord Melville, 
and enjoyed without interest by lord 
Melville, amounted on the’31st De- 
cem ber, 
1791 to 19,9832. 
1792 — 26, 476 
1793 -- 37,025 
1794 — 28,758 
1795 — 3053316 © 
1796 -- 75,413 
1797 _ 58,640 
1798 54,140"? 
~ R799 =~ 54,140 - 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806, 
In answer to the first of these 
charges, comprehending the first and 
tenth articles of impeachment, it 
was contended by Mr. Plumer, 
counsel for the defendant, that in- 
dependant of the act of 25 Geo. 3, 
which was posterior to the commis- 
sion of thesupposed offences charg. 
ed in these articles, and independant 
of the warrant, the treasurer of the 
navy was not restrained, either by 
common or statute law, or by the 
nature of his official duty or trust, 
from making a temporary use of 
the public money intrusted to him, 
before it was wanted for the public 
service ; provided it was at all times 
ready, when called for, to answer 
the purposes for which it was des- 
tined. With respect to the warrant, 
the learned council admitted, that it 
precluded the treasurer of the na- 
vy from making profit of the pub- 
lic money in his hands; but he 
argued, that the breach of this 
engagement, had it been committed 
by Jord Melville, (which he denied), 
did not amount to a public crime or 
offence, and though it might subject 
him to civil consequences, could 
net be the foundation of a pops 
charge against him, 
‘This ‘doctrine was impugned, in 
avery able reply on the partof the 
managers, by the attorney-general, 
who contended that a breach of 
duty, which, between individuals, ~ 
created nothing but a civil remedy, 
was in a public accountant an in- 
dictable offence. ‘The duty of every 
officer appointed by the king, was 
a public duty, which the law would 
vindicate by criminal proceedings. 
‘The warrant prescribed a course of 
public duty to the defendant, which . 
if he infringed, he was liable to 
have an-indictment or information 
filed against him by the law officers 
of the crown. The moment a pub- 
lic 
