The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 13, 1858. 146 of them for the present one, with a full ex planation of the grounds on which Ilia budget is based. If the Company is to be allowed to borrow money in England to meet its expen diture in India, it is but due to do publi,4 here to see that they be furnished with slob complete and accurate data as. shall enable them to judge correctly of the value of the secuiity on which their money is, to'be lent. It would be fatal to the honour of Parlhmeht if it were to allow itself to be made a party to such a financial juggle in England as that of Lord DALHOUSIE at Calcutta, which was the cause, in the first instance, of reducing the Company's credit to its present low ebb. If people choose to lend it money, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to do so; but it is the duty of the Legislature to see that they be fairly acquainted with the nature of the security offered to them under its sanction, and not made the victims of a deception as they otherwise might be. While we consider Pailiament as bound to take these precautions against the public being deceived here as to the nature of the security proffered by the Company, there is another point on which we think it ought to be equally vigilant, and which regards the manner in which the proposed ten millions are to be raised. This the Bill simply deter mines shall be by debentures, leaving it to the Directors to fix the terms on which the money is to be borrowed, subject only to Mr. VERNON SMITH'S control. Now, however much this may be in accord ance with precedent, there are reasons against Parliament delegating such a discretion to the Directors, which we shall proceed to ex plain. In the first place, it must be remem• bered that the Company is no longer a com mercial body borrowing for its own purposes, responsible for the repayment of the money itself, and under every inducement therefore of self-interest to obtain the best terms it can. On the contrary, it now proposes to borrow as trustee for the nation—the money is a charge entirely on the revenues of India—and it can make no earthly difference to the Directors on what terms they borrow it; or if they have any interest either way, it is not on the side of economy, but the reverse. They are, in fact, so far in the position of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHECIJER when borrowing for the service of the Crown. We think, therefore, that in any case, supposing them to be allowed to act in the matter at all, their proceedings should be environed with the same safeguards against the possibility of abuse as his are—that the money should be borrowed by tender— and that tenders should be dealt with under the same circumstances of publicity and the same precautions against collusion as would be the case if the money, instead of being borrowed by the Company for the ser vice of the Crown in India, had to be bar rAved by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER for the service of the Crown in England. But, even with all these precautions which are deemed advisable both for the honour of public officers and for the protection of the public interests in this country, we think we can show sufficient reasons for taking the matter wholly out of the Directors' hands. For they are not precluded from their offices from being concerned in commerce as the CHANCELLOR cf the EXCHEQUER is ; on the eontrary, the greater part of them are engaged in business on their own account, as partners, or directors, or leading shareholders in private or joint-stock companies of various kinds. Two of them are eminent City bankers, and the extent to which they profit in that shape by their position as East India Directors may he gathered from the fact that they are the ankers to all the railway or other com panies. we believe without exception, that have been fortunate enough to obtain the East India Company's guarantee. Those who are concerned in other companies no doubt turn their position to profit, either directly or indirectly, in a similar manner, or at any rate are in a position to do so, without any one being the wiser if they please. We shall not detail the stories that have more than once come to our ears as to the in fluence which such private engagements are supposed to have had upon the public acts of the Directors, or the mode ill which their position as Directors has been made tiNub serve their private interests outside the Directorial Court. Those may or may not be true, but at any rate there is a great public principle at stake. It is clear that as bankers and tinders in money and Stocks on their own account, and at the same time borrowers on the pail of the public, they would occupy posi tionaaNch art wholly, incompatible. Their iiubliC ditties and private interests would be necessarily conflictino, and where this is the case it is needless to speculate as to which most usually gives way. The fact, therefore, of so large a number of the Directors being concerned in business on their own account ought to preclude them from being ap pointed to act as agents to the public iu negotiating a series of loans of such magni tude as this. There is not one of them con cerned, whether directly or indirectly, in the trade of money or public securities, on whose pockets the rate at which such a sum of money was to be borrowed in the market would not have a very considerable effect; and on this ground alone, setting aside all question of the abuse of influence or priority of information, they ought not to be selected for the duties imposed on them by the Bill. If they pos sessed any nice sense of honour, they would themselves be the first to object to being placed in a position so very dubious; but, in any case, the public ought to do so, and we hope, therefore, that the Bill will be amended in this respect before it be allowed to pass Nor, while we are upon this subject, do we think it would be amiss if Parliament were to order a return to be made to it of the several occupations, more particularly of a com mercial nature, pursued by the Directors of the East India Company. This would enable it to see how far these are compatible with their functions as trustees for the Crown of -the revenues of India, and as regulators of the monetary and other affairs of that vast empire. We certainly are of opinion ourselves that their being engaged in trade on their own account is contrary to the spirit of the Charter Renewal Act of 1833, if not to the letter ; and in practice we believe it to be as prejudicial to the best interests of the country, as it would be to allow oar great public functionaries here to be similarly occupied, or the Governor- General and his Councillors at Calcutta. THE VICEROYALTY OF IRELAND. WE are sorry to see that Mr. ROEBIIIIK has again given notice of moving to abolish the 'Viceroyalty of Ireland. On former occasions we have expressed our strong disapprobation of such a mischievous proposition, and we shall here renew our protest against taking away one of the great connecting links of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland. An overwhelmin,g case can be presented in favour of the retention of the Viceroyalty ; and we shall advert to some of the reasons which, we trust, will make all Conservatives unite against the proposal of the Member fur Sheffield. If the Viceroyalty he removed, it is impos. sible to deny that a grave precedent will be given by Parliament in favour of unsettling the entire arrangements made at the Union. Mr. Pirr and Lord CASTLEREAGIi provided that the Lord Lieutenancy should stand ; and if it were now removed, the sacredness of the Act of Union would be considerably invalidated, and those who wish to destroy the Church of Ireland would be provided with an excuse for urging further levelling propositions upon the consideration of Parliament. Such views, of course, can influence only Conservatives and that sound portion of the Liberal connec tion which is nut prepared to overthrow the Church in Ireland. A breach, however,'will certainly be made in the Act of Union if the Viceroyalty be taken away. Nor is it any answer to this argument to assert,as some have done, that the Viceroyalty is not a fundamental part of the Union, and that it comes within the operation of some clauses in that Act. We must remind those who use that plea that the Viceroyalty has had a presc►iption of just sixty years in its favour, and that the greatest statesmen have pronounced in favour of retain ing it. Even if it be legally competent for Parliament to deal with so ancient and YOH( quet important The Ibvious to any Party feel' high i n that necessary there arbiter at Dut control vig( majesty of force representa tive of hotiett ignty. it is true that in modern times, possibly with sinister views, the work. ing of the Viceroyalty has been made to act in a onesided way. But we must not reason against the uses of a department by its abuses, real or alleged. There are corrun tions in representative government, but we are not therefore to contend against free in stitutions ; there are evils attendant some times on journalism—we are not therefore to argue against a free press. The factious pur poses to which some holders of the Vice regal post in past days applied their high office should not blind us to the real advan tages of the Viceroyalty. The Duke of WELLINGTON had an un conquerable objection to the removal of the office, and, with his characteristic sagacity, offered a strong practical objection to the scheme of abolition. If, argued his Grace, the Lord Lieutenant were removed, the com mand of the troops at Dublin might devolve upon a demagogic Lord Mayor hunting for popularity; and the emergency anticipated by the Duke of WELLINGTON should not be lightly dismissed. Another statesman acquainted with Ireland, the late Lord MELBOURNE, earnestly advised the House of Lords to dis countenance the project of removing the Vice royalty. The Noble Viscount anticipated a great incursion of place-hunters to London, and a besieging of the Treasury with Irish applicants, and he thought that their cases and claims were better left to a local power in Ireland for adjudication. This argument is of considerable importance; for, most assuredly, if the Viceroyalty be removed, there is strong likelihood of a large Irish faction being formed in London, and feelings aimilar to those excited against the Scotch in the days of Wfutrs and CHURCHILL might be awakened. The case of Scotland does not apply in the discussion of this question. The aristocracy and the masses of the Scotch population have long since been fused together, and there is not that bisection of society in Scotland that unhappily exists in Ireland. On this point, also, we must remember that the rents of several large Irish proprietors are spent in London, and the presence of a Court at Dublin is a counterbalance of great value to the effects of absenteeism. The friendly union of opposite classes is decidedly promoted by the Queen having a personal representative at Dublin. And we hope that no one will be led away with any idle cant about " the pa geantry of the officer. Last year Mr. DISRAELI exposed the folly of such cant by reminding the House that a cry about " pageantry might be carried still further. Is there no parade and pomp in the procession of " Mr. Speaker" as he takes the chair, or in the escort of the Queen's Judges as they proceed to open her Majesty's Commission? Lastly, even if the measure of abolition was abstractedly right, all that is respectable and weighty in public opinion at Dublin is earnestly and emphatically opposed to it. Conservatives and Liberals, Protestants and Roman Catholics, gentry and traders, and the eminent professional classes in the Irish me tropolis, made an overwhelming demonstra tion against the change when it was proposed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL s Ministry. The Cabinet of that day had to withdraw it, and we can scarcely suppose that Parliament would allow Mr. ROEBUCK to wield a power refused to an entire Ministry. And the fact, as observed last year by Lord PALMERSTON, that nobody is prepared with a practical schema for putting anything in the place of the Lord LieuterancY ought to be enough to settle the question, as we do not anticipate that Parliament would ever consent to leave Ireland and its interests in the sole custody of a Lord Chancellor like Mr. BRADY, and the city of Dublin under the charge of a Lord Mayor like Mr. REYNOLDS. I erable an institution, still the it stion of polio) , remains. 'he utility of the Viceroyalty is ob one acquainted with, Ireland. ing and religious discoid run so t country that it is abtolutely 0 shoUld be Same nd arl )lin to decide fi tly and >rohsly with all eputed ma e that belongs to e personal rep _ . MINNIIII lIMMII 1