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 in
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 fitly and
>rohsly with all eputed ma
e that belongs to e personal rep
_ .