HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
lic duty is cast upon a man, he is 
responsible by the common law pro- 
ceedings in respect of hisduty. Ia 
proof of these positions, the learned 
gentleman appealed to the authority 
of lord Mansfield, who, in the case 
of the king against Bembridge, ex- 
pressed himself to the following cf- 
fect : —‘¢ If a man accepts an office 
of trust and confidence, coucerning 
the public, especially when it ts at- 
tended with profit, he is amenable 
to the king for the faithful discharge 
of it, and the king can call upon 
him by way of indictment: And 
afterwards, ‘‘ where there is a 
breach of trust, a fraud, or impo- 
Sifion, which, as between subject 
and subject, would only be liable 
to an action, itis indictable in the 
ease of the crown.” 
In answer to the second charge 
and article of impeachment, Mr. 
Plumer and Mr. Adam contended, 
that it was no violation of the act 
of the 25th of George IIL. for the 
treasurer of the navy to draw from 
the bank of England, money in- 
trusted to him for navy services, 
-and to place the same in the hands 
of his private banker, or in any 
other place of deposit, which he 
_ thought safe and eligible, till it 
should be wanted for the purposes 
for which it was diawn, provided 
always it was drawn from the bank 
by drafts, specifying the heads of 
Service to which it was to be ap- 
plied, as prescribed by the act. 
In the course of this argument the 
Jearned counsel entered into a mi- 
nute examination of the act, from 
which, after making a distinction 
between, ‘the original and pri. 
mary place of deposit, and the sole, 
ultimate and coatinning deposit,” 
they concluded, that the act regu- 
Jated in what manner the money 
121 
wanted for navy Services should be 
issued from the exchequer, and paid 
into the bank, and prescribed the 
form to be used by the treasurer of 
the navy in drawing it from the 
bank; but, that with respect to 
its subsequent custedy, the act was 
totally silent, and contained no re- 
siriction whatever, which could 
prevent the-treasurer from placing 
it, till wanted, wherever he pleased, 
They also contended, that from the 
number and minuteness of the pay- 
ments made at the navy pay office, 
the business of that department 
could not go on, unless there was 
some other place of deposit for the 
public money intrusted to the trea- 
surer of the navy, besides the bank 
of England... 
This construction of theact of par- 
liament was treated with ridicule by 
the aitorney-general, ‘The act was a 
remedial law, intendedto take frem 
the treasurer of the navy the. cus- 
tody of the public money, and to 
deprive him of, the opportunity of 
having that custody, except only 
where it was inevitable. But, ad- 
mitting the exposition given of the 
act by the Jearned counsel, so ab- 
surdly was it contrived, that 
though it employed the utmost care 
and precaution in previding for the 
safe conveyance of the public mo. 
ney from the excheguer to the bank, 
the moment the money arrived at 
the bank, it was as much at the 
disposal of the treasurer, as if the 
act had never existed. He might 
draw it out without restraint or li- 
mitation, provided only. he put it 
into the form of his draft, ‘* for 
navy. services.”” The attorney-ge- 
neral contended on the other hand, 
that the act was violated, unless the 
money drawn from the bank was 
bona fide, drawn for immediate ap- 
plication 
