If this in a proportionate degree, a depreciation | formation, reliance on the Bank is measured by the degree of popular credulity relative to agreed perfectly as to the bank restriction "being the ultimate cause of the evils at"tending the papercurrencies of these realms; "the manner of administering that law "alone remains as a subject of discussion." Then follows a general position, which I am not inclined to dispute; to wit; that "good laws may be rendered mischievous by "mal administration, and that by wise ad"ministration bad ones may be rendered "less mischievous than they otherwise would "be;" which position is supported by a reference to instances in the administration of the penal law. But, can this be made fairly to apply to the case before us? Can the Irish bank directors and the Irish government, or either of them, be truly said to be the administrators of the bank-restriction law? The bank-restriction law is merely prohibitory. It forbids the bank to pay their notes in specie. The bank directors are the party passive. They have no concern with the law but to obey it; and, unless I. T. can accuse them of disobeying it; that is of paying their notes in specie, he will find it very difficult indeed to fix upon them any share of the blame due to those from whose conduct the evils complained of have arisen." But," says he," it being admitted, that the depreciation arises from excessive issues, the question is confined to one single consideration, whether the directors were, or "were not, in fault in making those issues." True; but, there is a previous question to be settled; to wit; whether, in making these excessive issues, the bank directors promoted the interests of the bank proprietors, or whether they did not: if the latter, they were to blame for making the excessive issues; if the former, they certainly were not. I. T. gives such a description of the origin of the bank as clearly indicates a wish to make and to support a distinction between banks and other chartered companies; but, such a distinction is, I am afraid, purely sentimental." The bank was established with " a view to public convenience and advan"tage." What company is not? What charter is granted but from such motives, entertained or professed? No: bank companies are established upon exactly the same principles as other trading companies; their motto is "get money;" and the business of the directors is to get as much as they can for their constituents. It is for them to avail themselves of every circumstance that presents itself for this purpose. They have nothing to do with the interests of the public, any more than Perkins has with the health of those who purchase his Points. If by excessive issues they hasten the destruction of the paper, and thus, in shortening the probable duration of the trade, more than overbalance its present profits, then they injure their constituents; but they must also nuses. 66 injure themselves, and, in this respect at least, I think, I. T. might venture to trust them. After all however, I am not ready to admit that the bank company have profited, or can profit, from the great addition that has been made to the quantity of their paper, notwithstanding all that has been said about their high dividends and their bo A similar complaint has, by a very sensible writer, been made against the nglish bank directors, and a correspondent, in p. 193 of the present volume, discovered considerable anger because I did not seem to agree as to the justice of these complaints; but, to the objections which, in answer to that correspondent, were stated, in p. 216, &c. I have never yet seen an answer; and, till I do see an answer to them, I shall not regard the dividing of 7 per centum per annum with a bonus of 5 per centum as being any proof at all, that the trade of the banks has been benefited by the operation of the restriction law. The correspondent, to whose letter I have just referred, perceiving that there was no good ground of accusation against the bankdirectors as administrators of the restriction law, has charged them with being the real authors of that law, and seems to regard it as as quite sufficient to assert, that "it' was passed at their request." To say nothing about the contemptible light, in which this fact, if true, would place the ministry and the parliament, it is enough to state, that the ministers have, over and over again, denied the fact, and in terms more explicit than ever at the last renewal of the law. If the bank-directors are, then, exculpated, as I think they clearly are, what reason is there to impute blame, on this account, to the persons who are denominated the Irish Government? They "should," says I. T. "have watched the "effects of this dangerous law." The effects wanted no watching. They were visible enough to all the world; and, those persons could only share with every other man in the country in feeling them. "They "should have applied to the parliament or "to the bank-directors to prevent the ex"cessive issue of paper, which was the "proximate cause of the depreciation." Applied to the bank-directors! Why, has not Mr. Foster applied to those directors now? And, does I. T. believe, that an application of Lord Hardwicke would have been attended with better success? Yet, it is now suggested, that Lord Hardwicke might not only have thus prevented excessive issues of paper, but inight have kept those issues within the bounds of the bank capital, which the issues have now surpassed four fold! How comes it, then, that the issues of the English bank have not thus been restrained? Had Lord Hardwicke more influence and power in Ireland than the minister has in England? --But we must stop for a moment here, to inquire into the practicability of what the Irish government is so strongly censured for having neglected to accomplish. To shew, that the thing was practicable, I. T. has referred to the opinion of the attorney-general of Ireland, who, in a speech delivered at the time that the bank was first instituted, expressed his wish to compel the bank company to keep their issues within the limits of their capital. And, to strengthen this argument, which, indeed, is rather feeble, he has cited the instance of the American national bank, called the Bank of the United States, for a description of the regulations of which bank he refers us to a pamphlet of Mr. Dorrien Magens, published about seven or eight months ago. But, in referring to the bank law of the United States, I. T. has overlooked some most important provisions in that law, even as it has been described by Mr. Magens. It is true, that one provision is, that the issues of the American bank cannot exceed its capital; but then there are, in the law, other provisions, without which this provision would be an absurdity. "In America," says Mr. Magens, "the banks are limited "in the loans they are to make; and are precluded from advancing money to any government, even their own, without an "act of the legislature. The principal The principal bank, that of the United States, was "formed by a subscription of ten millions "of dollars, of which one third was to be "subscribed in gold or silver, and the rest "in government stock; and their loans or "issues of notes of every description, cannot "exceed that sum; the directors becoming "personally responsible when they do."The act of congress, on which Mr. Magens must found his statement, was passed February the 25th, 1791. He has made two slight mistakes. The subscriptions consisted of one fourth specie instead of one third; and the bank can lend the government of the United States £25,000 sterling, and either of the state governments £12,500 sterling without any special law authorizing such loan; but no greater sum can be lent or advanced without an express act of the legislature; and there can be no repetition of even these advances, till after an act has been obtained. Such, or pearly sneh, was the law of England 100, " till, in evil hour, the minister obtained from all this took place, Lord Hardwicke was the chief governor of the country. But, the historian will not, like my correspondent I. T. confine himself to the censuring of Lord Hardwicke. He will, surely say, that his lordship had nothing to do in establishing the sinking fund, in repealing the act of William and Mary, in procuring a law to protect the bank against the demands of its. creditors, or in any other of those measures by which the evils complained of were produced. He will, I hope, have no motive for evading the real merits of the question, for sliding over the cause and fixing the attention of his reader solely upon the effect; a hope in which I am greatly fortified by the reflection, that when he who writes the pages of future history shall take up the pen, Mr. Pitt will have neither titles nor emoluments to bestow. SIR JAMES CRAUFURD.The case of this gentleman having, from various causes, but particularly from a reflection on the effects which his escape may produce with regard to those English persons who were detained with him, and who are still detained in France, become a subject of considerable public if not political importance, it appears necessary to place it in a clear and fair point of view. With the more minute circumstances of Sir James Craufurd's arrest, as well as with the motives that led him to France and other particulars relative to his then situation there, I am altogether unacquainted; and, as to those explanations, which have, since his arrival in England, been published in the news papers, they seem to me to be calculated merely to apologize for the frailties of the husband and the father. This is not the ground whereon a gentleman and a servant of the king ought to stand before the world. Such a person must look strict justice in the face; and, if she acquit him not, he must be condemned. The article published in the French Official Gazette is as follows: Paris, 18 "Sept. 1804.-Sir James Craufurd, pri. soner on his parole at Valenciennes, having applied to the minister of war for "leave to pass two months at the Aix-la"Chapelle baths, and produced certificates "from several medical gentlemen, that the 66 use of the baths would be attended with "the greatest advantage to his health, the "minister yielded to his request, on the "condition of his leaving a written engage"ment, that he would return from the wa"ters to Valenciennes, at the expiration of "two months. On the 10th Messidor (June 29), Sir J. Craufard sent to the "minister of war this engagement, couched statement has not been, as far as I know, publicly contradicted, I must take it for granted, that it is, in all its parts, correct. Sir James Craufurd did, then, give his pa role, and did break that parole, by coming to England, where he now is, having no apparent intention of returning to France.→ From the facts thus nakedly stated, it would be naturally concluded, that he had been guilty of a breach of parole, in the usual sense of the phrase, than which breach nothing can be more dishonourable. But, in order to form a correct and just judgment upon the case, we must inquire into the cir cumstances, under which the parole was gi ven; for, those circumstances may materially alter the nature of the engagement; and, with regard to the effect which his escape may have bad upon the English prisoners in France, his feelings for those persons must be weighed against the feelings of a husband and a father.Considering Sir James's conduct as a question of public law, embrac ing his obligations towards the French and towards his own country, there would be great difficulty in coming to a decision, if the English government had not already settled the point. When the French seized on the English visitors to France, and made them prisoners, at the beginning of the war, the act was, in this country, condemned as contrary to the law of nations; as an act at once of violence and of treachery. The French maintained the contrary, and, it would be very difficult to settle the point with them, who may, if they please, go back six or seven centuries for precedents:The English government, however, persevered in its doctrine, and, accordingly, they refused to exchange the persons who had thus been made prisoners, alleging, as their reason for that refusal, that the arrest was a violation of every principle of public law. The fact of their not exchanging these persons was a pretty convincing mark of their opi nion; but, in the circular letter of Lord Hawkesbury to the foreign ministers resident in London, dated 30th of April, 1804*, solemn declaration on the subject is made in the name of his majesty. "Of all govern "ments, pretending to be civilized, that of See Register, Vol. V. p. 676. France has the least right to appeal to the law of nations. With what confidence 66 can they appeal to that law, who, from "the commencement of hostilities, have "been in the course of constantly violating "it? They promised their protection to "such of the subjects of England as were "resident in France, and might be desirous "of remaining there after the recall of his majesty's embassador. They revoked this promise without any previous notice, and condemned those very persons to be pri"soners of war, and still retain them as "such, in defiance of their own engage. "ments and the universal usage of all civi"lized nations." This at once clumsy and feeble style reflects little credit either on our taste or our talents; but, we understand it: it is plain enough: the writer declares, in his majesty's name, that the imprisonment of the English in France was at once an act of violence and of treachery. If the French government, even the civilization of which the hero of Amiens seems to dispute, did not act according to the law of nations; if they set all law and justice at defiance; if they were guided by nothing but their own inclination and power to do wrong, we cannot, as to this particular instance, regard them as any thing better than banditti.-Therefore, from a question of public law, the conduct of Sir James Craufurd becomes a question of morality; and we have only to decide, whether a man is, or is not, bound to keep a promise, which he has tendered to banditti for the purpose of escaping from their clutches? Let it be observed, that I by no means pretend (God forbid !) to decide between the French government and him who now disputes the fact of their being civilized, though he not long ago declared that they had asked pardon of God and man." I leave them to settle the matter between them; but, if his declaration, made in the king's name, be true, then I insist, that, as far as relates to the arrest of Sir James Craufurd, the French government must be regarded as banditti, especially by a person in the em ployment of the government, whose sentiments Lord Hawkesbury proclaimed to the world. This conclusion will not, I am sure, be denied; and, I should think, that there are very few persons, who, if seized by banditti, would scruple to tender them a promise of any sort, in order to get safe out of their power. Nothing is easier than to say, that, having once made a promise, you would abide by it, though made to a gang of foot-pads; but, saying and doing are two very different things; and, until I hear of some one who has acted upon such a principle, I must greatly doubt of the sincerity of similar declarations. The case of breaking a parole given to rebels has been cited, such breach having generally been condemned. But, the case is not in point. The rebel spares your life after you have endeavoured to take his; no matter whether justifiably or not. That is a question to be decided between those who rebel and those who claim their allegiance. It is a fact, that you are seeking the life of the rebel; yet he spares yours, and hence arises his claim to the performance of your parole. The robber has no such claim; and therefore the cases are not parallel.--But, if other persons were seized by banditti as well as yourself, and if your breaking your promise would render the confinement of those other per sons more severe, ought not that circumstance to have an influence upon your conduct? This is an entirely new question, and its decision must depend upon the nature, of the engagements or connections between the parties arrested. If you have made any promise to your fellow-prisoners not to break any parole that you may give to the banditti; or, if it be a joint-parole; or if the parole be obtained through the means of your fellowprisoners, and, or for their service, or ia their bebalf: in that case you contract an obligation with your fellow-prisoners; your parole is, in fact, given to them, and not to the banditti. How far Sir James Craufurd may have been pledged in this way, I know not; but, if in this way he was not pledged in any degree whatever, he is by no means answerable for any severities, which, in consequence of his escape, may have been, or may be, inflicted upon the persons who remain in France. In such case, his conduct, as far as relates to those persons, is a mere question of feeling, which no one but himself could possibly decide; but, as it ap pears, that he had a wife and young family in England, I think it would be very diffi cult to show, that the feeling which led him to England was not far preferable to that which would have detained him in France, especially at a time when the former was in daily expectation of being invaded by the latter. It will be much to be lamented, if the persons who remain in France should suffer on Sir James Craufurd's account; but, that consideration will not justify any one in blaming him for escaping. To sacrifice ourselves to the happiness of our fellowcreatures may be laudable enough; but, we have no right to blame others for not becoming sacrifices from such motives; and, in many cases, it may not only be foolish but highly criminal so to sacrifice ourselves. |