The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-07 00:00:00

THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.

(From, the Times.)
The public ►ill have great cause to complain of
the Attorney-General if he allows the late directors
of the British Bank to ride off triumphantly upon
their own disclosures of their own frauds. Can•tlie

Law in its existing state touch these men ? We be-
dove it can. Enough appears upon the face of the

etaniina►ions recently iakea before the Bank.

ruptoy Coutt to justify the conc:usion that an in-
dictment for conspiracy to defraud certain persons

can be so framed as to touch at least some of the
directors of the Royal British Bank. That the

point is encumbered with legal technicalities .we
are well aware, but they are not of such a cha-
racter as to present insuperable difficulties to the
skill of a practised criminal lawyer. Sir Richaid.
Bethell has not yet moved in the matter, but he
should be made aware that the public look to him,

as the highest executive law officer of the Crown,
for protection against the recurrence of similar
offences against public morality and the security
of commerce. Many and important as are the
avocations of the Queen's Attorney-General, no
more imperative duty rests upon himb than to
ascertain if these directors, or any of them, can be
made arnenat.le to the penalties of the law. Sir
Richard B,thel, although we believe he has not
himself practised as a criminal lawyer, can easily
command the assistance of other gentlemen who
have devoted their attention more particularly to
the prosecution of criminals. Let the two or three
best criminal lawyers in the country be fairly
charged with the duty of ascertaining if such an
indictment as the one named can be framed with
reasonable expectation of prosecuting it to a success-
ful issue. If this can be done, the matter should
doneustliae
. If the law
be followed up without delay ; if not, at least Sir
ye
Richard Bethell will have the satsfaction of feel-
in;in his powe.r
to
break down in his hands, that is no fault f
he
e h as
criminalsdo e all that
justice.
i bring that it
his ; but, as long as there remains a hope of visit-
ing these offenders with the punishment due to
their crimes, do not let the matter be cast aside as
one not even deserving of
investigation.
It would be impos-*bl in
e, the brief space to
which these remarks must be confined, to go in de-
I tail through the various considerations which have
led us to the conclusion that an indictment for con-

spiracy to defraudtertain persons can be framed
and sustained against at least as many of the direc-
tors, inclusive of the deputy-chairman, as were
connected with the late transactions of the Bank.
It may well be—we hope we are wrong—but it
may well be that the wholesale embezzlement, in
point of fact, by which the earlier transactions of
the directors were characterised does not amount
to embezzlement in point of law. Let the efil
however, in all its details be submitt, d to the
judgment of two or V.ree of our most skilful crimi-
nal lawyers. It will be for them to consider whom
they can leach, and who may go free—not because
they are less criminal than their fellows, but be•
cause the law of England, which has slain men by
the score for stealing small sums, is unable to reach
more notorious criminals, who have swindled those
who trusted them out of enormous sums of money.
Let the case of each man—Esdaile, Stapleton,
bt to
guilty bi
Cameron,.Pellatt, Humphry Brown, and the rest
e made
ell will
of them—be carefully gone through, and at least
!et
ing them to justice. Sir
Richard
of a gross dereliction
of a moatsolemn duty
eo
Bret t bh
it he allow this case to slip
through merely on account of a popular prejudice
that nothing can be done in it. If it is so, it is a dis-
grace to our laws ; but there is abundant ground
for seeing if tte law is really so impotent. The ne-
cessary investigation is not a very costly process,
and, as it will be transacted in private, no harm.
will be done in case of failure.