The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-30 00:00:00

CONIMERCIAL FRAUDS.

THE Attorney-General has produced his pro-
mised scheme for the punishment of com-
mercial frauds. Sir RICHARD BETHELL, as
everybody knows, has attained high eminence
in the practice of his profession ; and he
is ambitious of acquiring the additional dis-
tinction of a law reformer. Now, it cannot
be said that for :the latter vocation he has
hitherto shown any degree of aptitude. To
improve the system of legal education has
long been a favourite crotchet of Sir RICHARD
BETHELL'S ; and he has probably deluded
himself, and even a portion of the public,
into the belief that the distribution of a few
paltry prizes among the students of the Inns
of Court will be the means of raising up
a class of philosophic jurists to refine and
elevate the character of his profession. To
reform the Ecclesiastical Courts, by trans-
ferring their entire jurisdiction to the Court
of Chancery, was another of Sir RICHARD'S
projects ; but the Bill which he officially
introduced for the purpose fell stillborn
from his bands. It was pronounced
impracticable alike by his opponents and
his colleagues. He ought long before this
time to have brought forward a measure for
establishing public prosecutors in England
in accordance with the recommendation of
the Committee which sat last session, and
with the distinct pledge of the Government
upon the subject. As a legislator, therefore,
Sir RICHARD BETHELL has yet his reputation
to win ; and even his friends must allow that
his latest attempt gives but feeble promise
of future excellence in this department. We
have no hesitation indeed in saying that
should the measure pass in its present shape
it will not only not protect the public, but it will
inevitably expose them to evils of a far more
serious kind than those of which they now so
loudly complain.
Sir RICHARD BETHELL proposes tin the first
section of his Bill to render trustees of every
description criminally responsible for their acts.
Who on earth, we ask, would ever under these
circumstances consent to become a trustee ?
Everybody now knows, either from observation
or sad experience, the thankless nature of that
office. Everybody knows that the law, even as
at present administered, sternly refuses to a
trustee the smallest remuneration for his
trouble and responsibility, while it rendeis
him liable to his last shilling for any lo,s
incurred through his instrumentality. Who,
we ask, will be bold enough to undertake the
office when to these hard conditions we

524

superadd the risk of a criminal prosecution,
and a sentence of seven years' penal servitude?
If the Attorney-General had proposed an
alteration of the law, allowing trustees to be
remunerated for their risk and trouble, parties
might, perhaps, be induced to incur the addi-
tional danger for the sake of the additional
recompense. But he does nothing of the kind;
and should his Bill become law, every man
who accepts the office of trustee must know
that he can not only gain nothing for his pains,
but that he runs the risk of losing his fortune,
his character, and even his personal liberty,
in the execution of his onerous duties.
No sane man can, under these circumstances,
be expected to accept the office. Even the
ties of blood, however near, would not induce
any person of ordinary prudence to run such
risks. The bare possibility of a criminal pro-
secution to be incurred, it might be without
blame upon his part, would justify a flat re-
fusal in any case. What, then, would be the
inevitable result? Simply to throw the entire
trust property of the nation into Chancery.
That this is a consummation devoutly to be
desired is probably the deliberate opinion of
Sir RICHARD BETHELL. He is a great Chancery
lawyer, and he not unnaturally seeks to extend
the jurisdiction of the court to which he owes
his fame and fortune. But, however pleasing
may be the prospect of an infinite increase of
business to equity lawyers, the result must
prove the reverse of beneficial to the nation.
Better far, we say, that fraudulent trustees
should go unpunished, than that the entire
trust property of the country should be placed
at the disposal of the Court of Chancery. We
know the evils of the existing system, but
who can estimate those of the projected
remedy ?

The second section of the Attorney-Gene-
ral's Bill—which, by the way, only re-enacts in
more comprehensive terms the provisions of
an existing statute (7th aul Nth George IV.,
cap. 29)—is unobjectionable. It provides that
bankers, merchants, brokers, attorneys, or
agents who may convert to their own use pro-
perty intrusted to their charge shall be guilty
of a misdemeanour. As to the expediency of
this provision there can be little doubt. But,
if we are not much mistaken, Sir RICHARD
BETHELL will find some difficulty in obtaining
the assent of the House of Commons to this
proposed mode of dealing with public compa-
nies He is evidently determined that no
future British Bank shall plunder the share
holders with impunity, and with this view he
has inserted a series of provisions of the most
stringent character expressly pointing at direc-
tors, secretaries, and managers of every kind.
He provides that any such person who shall
take for his own use any of the property of the
company shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
It will be a like offence to alter, destroy, or to
falsify any of the company's books, or even to
be privy to any such act. It will be a like
offence to circulate, or to be a party to the
circulation of any false statement as to the
circumstances of the company, w ith the in-
tention of deceiving either the shareholders
or the public. Such are the various modes by
which the Attorney• General proposes to reach
the directors of bubble companies.
That the law is at present defective as re-
gards such delinquents is notorious; but care
must be taken that in the present temper of
the public mind we do not go to the opposite
extreme If we make the law too stringent,
we shall certainly deter the better class of
men from having anything to do with public
companies; and that this would be a serious
misfortune no one can dispute. We aro in-
clined to think that if sonic plan could be
devised which would give to the shareholders
of public companies a more efficient control
over their management than they exercise at
present, it would prove a bett.er preventive of
fraud than any increased stringency of the
law. There appears to be something radically
wrong in the constitution of these bodies.
Experience has demonstrated that there is no
sufficient check upon directors and officials.
Captain GALTON, of the Board of Trade, in his
interesting report upon American railways,
tells us that thty manage these things better
in the United Stai es. Tile shareholders of
public con panics in that country have a more
direct control over theix management than

THE PRESS.

with us, and with very different results. Sir
RICHARD BETHELL'S scheme does not touch the
root of the evil. It is a hasty anti onesided
measure—a rough and ready attempt to deal
with a question which demands for its solution
those profound legislative qualities in which
her Majesty's Attorney-General is notoriously
deft cieLt.

IRISH AFFAIRS.
(From our own Correspondent.)

DUBLIN, May 28, 1857.
THE subject which has occupied a most prominent
place in Irish politics for some weeks has now gone to
its rest. The successor of Mr. Horsman has been
appointed. A strange variety of incongruous rumours
has been served up by the Dublin journals during
the protracted period of suspense. But the reign of
surmise in this matter of the Chief Secretary for
Ireland is now terminated, and we have fact to deal
with, vice fancy deceased. It is, of course, known to
you that Mr. Horsman's retirement was not occa-
sioned by any differences with Lord Palmerston, as
was stated, in connection with the Irish elections.
There is no doubt that before the dissolution he had
resolved to resign an office which was distasteful to
him. He found his lore in Church abuses did not
assist him as a legislator for Ireland, and that its
members almost universally did not accord to him
the confidence and sympathy he desired. There is
no question that his bearing was uncouth, and his
tone arrogant to those it was his duty, no less than
his interest, to have conciliated. It is to be hoped
that in his next berth he will be more comfortable
himself, and make others so also. He has con-
trived to do a good turn for his own kith and kin
before evacuating the principalities, Sir J. Ramsden,
his brother-in-law, representing the family in the
Administration.

As for Mr. Henry Herbert, M.P. for Kerry, and
Lord of Muckross, opinions, as usual, are divided,
but by no means equally. Before noticing his qua-
lifications personally for his new sphere of duty, it
may not be inopportune if I glance at his political
antecedents, for they are not to be disregarded in
such a case. The old-fashioned idea that the good
things and sweet at a Minister's disposal were
reserved for those who have served him longest and
most faithfu ly has not been recognised in this ap-
pointment. Mr. Herbert three Sears since sat on
the front row of the Conservative benches. He
generally acted with the Opposition during Lord
John Russell's tenure of office, and was never thought
a Whig until, doubtless better informed than the
r •st of tho world, Lord Palmerston made him Lord
Lieutenant of Kerry. Since that period he has cer-
ta•nly vindicated the penetration of the Premier by
being a most regular, docile, and devoted supporter.
Of course Mr. Herbert could not have done other-
wise. The man who had the sagacity to select him
for so high an office as the Lord Lieutenancy of
Kerry must be a superlative Minister, and entitled to
his absolute confidence. I don't find fault, there-
fore, with him on this account, for gratitude for
favours conferred, even though it makes a man's
coat appear reversed, is not an unarniable trait in
human charact2r. I think it a pity that he should
have won his spurs on the side he has now espoused
so soon. Thiu promotion of recent converts gives a
stimulus to political apostacy, and serves to make it
seem that " honesty is not the best policy."

So far as anyone has had any opportunity of form-
ing an opinion on the subject, Ur. Herbert does not
appear in any intellectual way capacitated for his
post. He is doubtless very inferior in this respect
to his predecessor, and certainly will not bear com-
parison with such men as Sir W. Somerville and
Lord Naas. He is considered, too, by some persons
a very bad man of business, and is totally devoid of
all official experience. He is likely, however, to
suit " poor Lord Carlisle," who would not like a
masculine mind brought in contact with his own, for,
under the circumstances, that would be indelicate.
There is no question that Mr. Herbert is a gentle-
man, and his manners are said to be popular.
The debate on the Ministers' Money Bill has been
read here with lively satisfaction, though the division
Has hostile to the Church. It is thought that the
equity of the case was most admirably set forth in
the speeches of Mr. Napier and Mr. Whiteside. The
Irish Protestants believe that this is the first of a
series of onslaughts upon the revenues of their
Church, which are to be expected at the hands of
the Record's religious Premier. The principle
endorsed by the House of Commons, but which it is
to be earnestly hoped the peers will not sanction, is
fatal to the rights of property, and amounts to posi.
tive confiscation. Lord Palmerston may rely on it
that his day of reckoning for this act of spoliation
Will come at no remote period.