VII. Of Population. An Inquiry concerning the Power of Increase in the Numbers of Mankind, being an Answer to Mr. Malthus's Essay on that Subject. By William 1. Vox Stellarum, a Loyal Almanac for the Year of our Lord 1821. By Francis Moore, Physician and Phi- X. Viaggio da Tripoli di Barberia alle Frontiere dell' Egitto, fatto nel 1817, dal Dottore P. Della-Cella XI. Mémoires de l'Abbé Morellet, de l'Académie Française, sur le 18me Siècle, et sur la Révolution, précédés de 168 THE QUARTERLY REVIEW, OCTOBER, 1821. ART. I.-Voyages dans La Grande Bretagne, Entrepris relativement aux Services Publics de la Guerre, de la Marine, et des Points et Chaussées, en 1816-17-18-19, et 1820. Deuxième, Partie, Force Navale. Par Charles Dupin, Membre de l'Institut de France, &c. &c. Paris. 1821. MR. Dupin may be well assured, from the early notice we are disposed to take of his labours, that we have no mean opinion of his abilities. Of his principles we are not prepared to say quite so much; and, perhaps, it will be thought that we have no business with them. Nor should we indeed have troubled ourselves about his political opinions or connections, had he confined his observations to the avowed objects of his inquiryour public works and public institutions, civil, naval, and military: we should, in that case, have deemed it sufficient to applaud his accuracy, or to point out his errors; but when he proceeds to mix up political hostility in a work which professes to be purely didactic and descriptive; to assail the national character on grounds that are utterly false; and to hold us up to Europe and to the world, as totally destitute of humanity to a class of beings, of all others, the most entitled to it, namely. prisoners of war; we conceive that we have a right to inquire into his motives. Acquitting him, as we frankly do, of every feeling of hatred towards England, the only explanation we can suggest for his conduct, in this instance, is the desire of gratifying his associates, by the repetition of an accusation so calumnious; and it was with this view solely that, in a recent Article on the Military Establishments of this Country, (which, we are happy to find, has not been without its effect,) we noticed his connection with the Avocat Dupin and the herd of politicians who modestly assume to themselves the exclusive name of libéraux, as accounting for the embarrassment under which he evidently laboured in consequence of it. We repeat, however, (in justice to M. Dupin,) that, considering his education under the auspices of Buonaparte, in the new school of morality, and his near relationship to a notorious jacobin, he entertains fewer prejudices against England, than any other French_author that we have yet met with since the revolutionary war. In comVOL. XXVI. NO. 51.--Q. R. 1 paring, paring, or rather contrasting, the public works and institutions, Connected with the naval service of the two countries, he candidly admits that France is thrown to an immeasurable distance behind us; that our ships, in point of workmanship, equipment and establishment, and our officers and men, in point of discipline, treatment, knowledge of naval tactics, and every particular that can constitute an efficient marine, are infinitely superior to those of the French navy, and such, in fact, as could not fail to have ensured to us the victories which we obtained, whenever the two hostile fleets met and engaged. We observe, however, that in most of his comparisons the allusion is made to the marine impériale; to the navy as it was under Buonaparte; who, it is pretty broadly hinted, knew nothing about the matter on the present state of the French marine, M. Dupin touches with a gentle hand, recommending improvements founded on English practice, rather than censuring defects, the existence of which, however, he does not affect to conceal. Standing thus between the old school and the new, but evidently leaning to the side of the powers that be,' and fearful at the same time of offending both parties, we can readily conceive the moral restraint the painful embarrassment under which he writes, and the necessity he feels of having recourse to something like trimming; * Willing to wound and yet afraid to strike.' There is one subject, however, regarding England, as we have just hinted, on which his views are as distorted and illiberal as his pretended statement of facts is unfounded:-we speak of his accusations against the British nation for its inhumanity towards the French prisoners of war,-a subject apparently no less agreeable to his own taste than that of his friends otherwise he would not have thought it necessary to serve it up for the third time, with additional garnish and higher and higher seasoning on each successive occasion. Though our respect for M. Dupin might lead us to regret this pertinacity in misrepresentation, yet, as far as regards ourselves, we are not sorry for it on the present occasion, as he has thus afforded us an opportunity of showing the malignity of his insinuations, and (while we undeceive the abused ear of Europe) of refuting those of his assertions which are so scandalously destitute of truth. It is well known how little regard the French officers of high rank, prisoners of war in England, paid to their parole of honour; *Ictus piscator sapit. M. Dupin had the misfortune to exasperate the learned and liberal members of the Institute, by merely speaking the truth regarding the perfection to which works of art and manufactures were carried in Great Britain. and and that Buonaparte was more than suspected of encouraging the violation. Better sentiments, we trust, are returning under the old dynasty; as, instead of directly justifying the breach of parole, M. Dupin now affects to show that the English prisoners of war in France were as destitute of honour as the French prisoners of war in England, and that they, in fact, set the example. For this purpose, he produces a statement, which he pretends to have in his possession, and which he calls official, comprising two lists of all the prisoners of war, French and English, who, from the year 1803 to 1814 inclusive, are said to have broken their parole; the result of which is that, in 10,000 prisoners of all ranks, the number of évadés (such is the gentle terin) were as follows:French detained in England Evadés, although on parole English detained in France 32 110 "We shall make no observation,' says M. Dupin, on these numbers; they speak for themselves: they certainly do-but not much in favour of the authenticity of his list, which we have no scruple in terming a mere fabrication,-by whom, he best knows, This we shall prove from an authority to which M. Dupin will not venture to refuse due respect-the genuine official list of the Minister of Marine himself. The Transport Board of England, who had the care and custody of prisoners of war, having transmitted to that minister (M. Decrès) two lists of French officers who had broken their parole, (between the recommencement of the war and the month of August, 1811,) one of which contained the names of 270 officers who had escaped but been retaken, the other of 590 who had succeeded in effecting their escape; in all 860; there appeared shortly after, in the Moniteur of the 31st December, 1812, (which now lies before us,) an official statement, under the signature of Decrès, containing a counter list of the names of all the English prisoners, who were accused of having broken their parole, amounting, of all classes, to 355. Now taking the number of French prisoners detained in England at 70,000, and of English prisoners, and persons detained contrary to the usage of war among civilized nations, at 20,000, which numbers are sufficiently near the truth for our purpose, we shall have, according to these official lists, in every 10,000 prisoners, 123 French, and 178 English, (instead of 32 and 110,) who stand charged with the crime of a breach of parole. But as the numbers are of very little importance in comparison with the ranks of those who had violated their word of honour, let us see of what materials M. Decrès's list of Englishmen is composed. At the head of it we find, Sir James Craufurd, Agent Diplomatique, and Thomas Brook, Membre du Parlement, who are accused of having set the example example to the French. Then follow one colonel--two lieutenant-colonels-one major-nine captains (one of which only is of the navy)—ten lieutenants of the army, navy, and marinesmaking in all, twenty-three commissioned officers. There are fiftythree midshipmen, and the rest of the list is made up of 1er, 2me, 3me capitaines de commerce-lieutenans de commerce-gentilshommes---négocians--propriétaires-médecins'-with about forty who have no designation at all. These are evidently, and indeed we know the fact to be so, non-combatants, consisting of those who were detained (as we have said) contrary to the practice of civilized nations, and among whom were Sir James Crauford and Mr Brook. We know nothing of their cases but what appeared in the public papers; but we will fearlessly take upon us to say, that not one of the twenty-three commissioned officers above-mentioned was guilty of a breach of parole, but that every one of them escaped from a close and rigorous confinement in prison. Some few midshipmen, merely boys, did, we believe, take advantage of the mistaken encouragement of the people with whom they lived, and make their way to England: with respect to the rest of the list, they were persons from whom the French had no right whatever to exact parole. Now let us compare the alleged breach of parole of British commissioned officers with those of French officers, prisoners of war in England. From the recommencement of the war to the month of August, 1811, the numbers will stand as follows: The difference up to this time is pretty well marked, even supposing, what we confidently deny, that the English officers had been guilty of the charge brought against them; but in the three following years, the number of French officers who violated their parole was nearly doubled. The list of those unworthy persons who fled during the period we have mentioned, contains the names and rank of 406 officers, all of them combatants; and among them the following commissioned officers of the army and navy; the rest being captains, lieutenants, and midshipmen of privateers, and ensigns, surgeons, commissaires, &c. of the army. Generals |