“Admirably said,” answered Crauford, who thought it nevertheless one of the most foolish observations he had ever heard, “admirably said! and yet my heart does grieve bitterly for the trials and distresses it surveys. One must make excuses for poor human frailty; and one is often placed in such circumstances as to render it scarcely possible without the grace of God” (here Crauford lifted up his eyes) “not to be urged, as it were, into the reasonings and actions of the world.”
Not exactly comprehending this observation, and not very closely attending to it, Glendower merely bowed, as in assent, and Crauford continued,--
“I remember a remarkable instance of this truth. One of my partner’s clerks had, through misfortune or imprudence, fallen into the greatest distress. His wife, his children (he had a numerous family), were on the literal and absolute verge of starvation. Another clerk, taking advantage of these circumstances, communicated to the distressed man a plan for defrauding his employer. The poor fellow yielded to the temptation, and was at last discovered. I spoke to him myself, for I was interested in his fate, and had always esteemed him. ‘What,’ said I, ‘was your motive for this fraud?’ ‘My duty!’ answered the man, fervently; ‘my duty! Was I to suffer my wife, my children, to starve before my face, when I could save them at a little personal risk? No: my duty forbade it!’ and in truth, Glendower, there was something very plausible in this manner of putting the question.”
“You might, in answering it,” said Glendower, “have put the point in a manner equally plausible and more true: was he to commit a great crime against the millions connected by social order, for the sake of serving a single family, and that his own?”
“Quite right,” answered Crauford: “that was just the point of view in which I did put it; but the man, who was something of a reasoner, replied, ‘Public law is instituted for public happiness. Now if mine and my children’s happiness is infinitely and immeasurably more served by this comparatively petty fraud than my employer’s is advanced by my abstaining from, or injured by my committing it, why, the origin of law itself allows me to do it.’ What say you to that, Glendower? It is something in your Utilitarian, or, as you term it, Epicurean [See the article on Mr. Moore’s “Epicurean” in the “Westminster Review.” Though the strictures on that work are harsh and unjust, yet the part relating to the real philosophy of Epicurus is one of the most masterly things in criticism.] principle; is it not?” and Crauford, shading his eyes, as if from the light, watched narrowly Glendower’s countenance, while he concealed his own.