« ZurückWeiter »
1820. I gave the manuscript to Messrs. Longman and Co., but I don't know whether the book was printed from this manuscript. I have never compared the manuscript with the printed book. Mr. Buckingham introduced me to Mr. Burkhardt, at Cairo, and to colonel Misset, at Alexandria. He appeared to be on intimate terms with them. He introduced me to the one in November, and to the other in December, 1815. Inconsequence of his introduction I received civilities from those gentlemen. When Mr. Murray returned me the manuscripts, he gave me up a number of drawings, perhaps be- -tween twenty and thirty, certainly sufficient to make vignettes for each chapter. I think I have seen Mr. Buckingham take sketches of head-lands, when we were travelling together near the Red Sea, but I can't speak positively to that fact.
Mr. Arrowsmith—I am a chartengraver; I have compared the drawing of the Ruins of Geraza in the published book with the drawing (Mr. Buckingham's) now produced, and they correspond. I have compared the smaller one (the copy of Mr. Bankes's) with the one in the books, and they differ materially in the bearings. In one place they differ as much as seven points. There are eighteen places in the whole map. I measured thirty or forty bearings, and I found that in eight out of ten of them, there was a difference between the drawing in the book and the smaller map. There is also a difference in the shape of the figures and of the buildings. There are in the drawing in the book two rows of pillars which are not to be found in the smaller map. There are many other variations.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Gurney addressed the jury for the defendant. Mr. Bankes, he stated, was a gentleman of great acquirements, who, instead of wasting his youth in dissipation, had devoted it to the advancement of literature and science. Whilst he was thus employed, he had the misfortune to fall in with the plaintiff, who was at that time, in plain English, nothing more than a messenger for a company of merchants, who had given him a sum of money for conveying their despatches; but which he intrusted to the hands of a stranger, leaving the despatches to shift for themselves. When the plaintiff wrote the letter in question, he was considerably irritated, and it was natural that he should, when he saw that he was, by a person under obligations to him, about to be deprived of the fruits of years of toil and labour—years which he might have spent in all the enjoyments of his native land. He did not mean to say, that those feelings would justify the defendant in writing that which was not true; but he trusted that he should be able to show that every statement was perfectly true, and then, of course, damages would be out of the question.
The deposition of Mr. Biggs, of Bombay, stating, that the plaintiff had, upon the occasion in question, been employed to convey despatches over-land to India, and that he had sent them by another person, having been read, the French engravings having, in the margin, the plaintiff's manuscript instructions for the necessary alterations, as to costume, &c, were put in, and the marginal notes were read in evidence.
A. Da Costa, examined through an interpreter.—I was in the defendant's service during the time he was travelling in Syria. I was in his service for seven years; I entered his service in 1813; I was with him in Egypt and in Palestine; I first saw Mr. Buckingham at the convent in Jerusalem; the defendant was then on the Dead Sea; the plaintiff asked me if I would be good enough to deliver a letter to my master; he said that he came from Bethlehem, and that he had been in Egypt. He said, that he knew Sheik Ibrahim (Mr. Burkhardt), and colonel Missett, in Egypt. I delivered the letter to the defendant, who read it, and then tore it into pieces. At that time Mr. Bankes had an Arab with him, to make an application to the governor of the town, to release his son out of prison. The son was liberated, and I then went to bring another Arab to accompany us on our journey. The Arab's name was Mahomet Mehedi. Mahomet Mehedi was with Mr. Bankes before I saw Mr. Buckingham. The plaintiff afterwards made an application to Mr. Bankes for permission to accompany him to Djerask—The defendant refused, and said he did not wish to have any company. The plaintiff made application two or three days before Mr. Bankes gave any answer. After some time, permission was given to the plaintiff to accompany the defendant, upon the plaintiff's promise that he would go for pleasure, and not either write or make any drawings. I saw the party set out. The party consisted of Mahomet, who came from Egypt, Mahomet Mehedi, two Arabs, and Mr. Buckingham. The servant, Mahomet, carried a portfolio, a tin case
for drawing-paper, and compasses. All those articles belonged to Mr. Bankes. Mr. Buckingham had no portfolio. I kept Mr. Bankes's money in a bag, but Mr. Bankes took some in a girdle which he had about his body. Mr. Buckingham left his servant at Jerusalem. I paid the Arabs 250 piastres. I took the money out of the bag; Mr. Buckingham never put any money into the bag. On one day he asked me for the loan of ten dollars, but I said I could not give them without my master's orders. I afterwards gave him the money by my master's orders. I saw the plaintiff at Nazareth, writing a copy of my master's note-book. I recollect the defendant making the produced plan at Nazareth, after his return from Djerask. I afterwards saw the plaintiff tracing the plan at the window of the Convent.
Giovanni Benatti examined, through an interpreter.—I was in Syria, and went by the name of Mahomet; I acted as interpreter to the defendant, whom I accompanied to Djerask. I was with the defendant when he agreed with the Arabs to guide him to Djerask. Mahomet Mehedi, the Arab, who had accompanied Mr. Bankes from the Dead Sea, had a son in prison, in Jerusalem; and, to procure his release from prison, the defendant made the governor a present of a telescope, some silver, and pearls for a lady's necklace. I carried the defendant's portfolio to Djerask. The plaintiff had no paper; the day was raining, and Mr. Bankes was in a grotto, taking a drawingof Djerask; Ir. Bankes was speaking, and Mr. Buckingham was writing. The plaintiff did not make any drawing. During the journey there was no money paid, except a trifle which I gave as a present to the Arabs. I know the little book now produced; I saw Mr. Bankes writingin it. One day, at Nazareth, I saw the plaintiff, who was in the room, take a paper out of it, and copy a plan at the window. Mr. Charles Barry—I visited Djerask in 1818. I was accompanied by Messrs. Godfrey, Wise, and Bayley. I made a plan of the place by measurement. I was there two days. The plan now produced is my plan, and it is correct. I have seen the published plan of that place; it appears to be a copy of the original plan taken by the defendant. The defendant's plan is not correct, but is more correct than the plaintiff's, because it has not so many errors in it as the plaintiff's. In the plaintiff's and the defendant's plans the walls are waving in some places, but I say, that, as far as my observations went, the walls are angular. In the printed plan there is a military curtain in a part of the walls, but the place so marked is merely an angle of the wall. In the printed plan there are two towers marked on the right hand, but there are no such things in that angle. At the opposite corner of the city there are many towers, which are not in the printed plan. There are also two rows of pillars in the printed plan, but there are no such things in the city. The bearing of the theatre, and the drawing of it, which are in the printed plan, are not correct. The remains of a bath, stated in the printed plan, do not exist. That which is stated in the printed plan to be an aqueduct, is the remains of a bridge.—Many of those errors are common to both plans
Mr. Bankes's plan and Mr. Buckingham's. I am an architect by profession. The Hon. Capt. Irby.—I am an officer of the royal navy. In the year 1818, I accompanied capt. Mangles, R. N., and Mr. Bankes, to Djerask twice, and remained seven days there in all, and took a plan of the town by measurement. My plan agrees with Mr. Barry's plan. I mean that I only assisted Mr. Bankes in making the plan now produced. I did not make any plan. The plan which I have called my plan is the second plan taken by Mr. Bankes. I was travelling in Egypt, in the year 1817; and in Syria, in 1818. I travelled in Asia Minor afterwards. I heard of Mr. Buckingham, at Aleppo and Cairo; and that, instead of proceeding on his mission to India, he was travelling about the country. Capt. Mangles.—I was twice at the ruins of Djerask in the year 1818, and assisted Mr. Bankes and the last witness in taking a plan of the place. It is a correct plan. I knew Mr. Burkhardt, who went by the name of Sheik Ibrahim. I heard Sheik Ibrahim and Mr. Barker, the consul at Aleppo, speak of Mr. Buckingham. Mr. Brougham objected to any question being put as to what either of those persons said of the defendant. The Lord Chief Justice.—-Then I can't allow any to be put. In your plea, Mr. Gurney, you state that the plaintiff was notorious in those countries; but what one man says of another in one country, and what another person says of the same person in another country, are not sufficient evidence to sustain such a plea. Colonel Leake,—I am secretary
to the African Society, and have seen letters which are stated to be the letters of Sheik Ibrahim, but I did not know him, neither did I correspond with him. I was not the secretary of the society at the time; I have seen the Greek inscriptions in Mr. Buckingham's book, and there are errors which I should not expect from a person having a knowledge of Greek. There are errors in the Latin inscriptions. The word "Pyroeum" was inserted for the word "Pyrseus."
Mr. Beechy.—I was acquainted with the late Mr. Burkhardt; I know his hand-writing; the letters now produced are in his hand-writing.
Extracts of letters from Mr. Burkhardt, expressing a very un-i
favourable opinion of the plaintiff, were read.
The Lord Chief Justice having directed the attention of the jury to such parts of the justification as had been proved, observed, that the plaintiff was entitled to^heir verdict. The first letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff appeared to be in consequence of considerable irritation, but for the republication of it to Mr. Hobhouse, no such excuse could be offered. The jury would therefore find for the plaintiff such reasonable damages as would shew they had been guided by sober j udgment, and not by angry feelings.
The Jury, having retired for twenty-five minutes, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 4:001.
Copy of Correspondence between the Treasury and the Bank Directors, relative to an Alteration in the Exclusive Privileges of the Bank of Engl And. . . > , ; .. n
Copies of Communications between the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, relating to an alteration in the Exclusive privileges enjoyed by the Bank of England.
No. I. Fife House, Jan. 13. Gentlemen.—We have the honour of transmitting to you herewith a paper, containing our views upon the present state of the banking system of this country, with our suggestions thereupon, which we request you will lay before the court of directors of the Bank of England for their consideration. We have the honour to be, gentlemen, &c. (Signed) Liverpool.
Frederick John Robinson. The Governor and DeputyGovernor of the Bank of England.
The panic in the money-market having subsided, and the pecuniary transactions of the country having reverted to their accus
tomed course, it becomes important to lose no time in considering whether any measures can be adopted to prevent the recurrence in future, of such evils as we have recently experienced.
However much the recent distress may have been aggravated, in the judgment of some, by incidental circumstances and particular measures, there can be no doubt that the principal source of it is to be found in the rash spirit of speculation which has pervaded the country for some time, supported, fostered, and encouraged, by the country banks.
The remedy, therefore, for this evil, in future, must be found in an improvement in the circulation of country paper ; and the first measure which has suggested itself, to most of those who have considered the subject, is a recurrence to gold circulation throughout the country, as well as in the metropolis and its neighbourhood, by a repeal of the act which permits country banks to issue one and two pound notes until the year 1833; and by the immediate enactment of a prohibition of any such issues at the