MR. BALDWIN AND HIS HONORARY OFFICE.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I am appalled at your doctrine on page 745 of your issue of May 10th. No man has a right to accept the position of Patron or Vice-President of a distinguished or undistinguished trading company unless he give sufficient time to the post to make himself sure that his name is not being exploited. If the office be a purely honorary one with no work and no pay, what on earth is the use of the office? You ought to remember the infamous scandal of the Law Guarantee and Trust Society, where the Trustees for the Debenture Stock Holders of that company were advertised in stores catalogues and all through the Press as the Lord Chief Justice Of England and Mr. Justice Grantham. Well, what hap- pened? Poor solicitors' clerks and others attracted by the glamour of these names invested in the shares of the company thinking that the Chief Justice of England and the Senior Puisne Judge as Trustees for the company's debenture stock guaranteed the stability of the company. Neither of those Trustees resigned when it was known to any expert business man that the company must come down, as come down it did.
The searching inquiry that ought to have taken place was burked because of the scandals that would have been disclosed, but the fact was and is that the office of Chief Justice was prostituted by Lord Alverstone and that of Senior Puisne by Grantham J. by association with a company such as the Law Guarantee and Trust Society. Please recant your views as to the ethic of a distinguished public man taking any office, honorary or otherwise, in connexion with any trading company of any kind whatever unless he give due attention to his duties. I have no desire to hide myself under anonymity, and hope you will publish this letter.—
[We cannot accept our correspondent's main contention as relevant. It may be good as an abstract protest against honorary offices, though such protests leave us cold. Possibly it would be better to abolish these offices altogether, but this is a Utopian aspiration while men are what they are. They love to bestow honours and also to boast of honours done to them. A wise public man will, of course, be careful not to accept honorary posts which are meant to be decoy- ducks, but in the case in question there is no sort of ground for supposing that there was any sinister intent of this kind. There were no shares and no shareholders in the insurance society of which Mr. Baldwin became Vice-President, and we do not see how a body founded on mutual insurance can be called a trading company in the ordinary sense of the word. The -body which Mr. Hargraves pillories was on an entirely different footing. The alleged analogy may be used to create prejudice, but it is not argument. We must not be held to endorse in any way Mr. Hargraves's very harsh and unfair strictures on Lord A1verstone and Mr. Justice grantham.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
