BRIBERY AND PUBLIC DUTY.
WITH the reopening of the legal year the dirty trail of the Hooley case becomes once more conspicuous, and the public appetite for scandal is again being fed by the publication of stories of jobbery and bribery, which tend to throw a strong search-light upon certain aspects of modern finance. The case before the London Bankruptcy Court is still proceeding, and we have only the statements made by Mr. Hooley himself, which may prove, on the examination of other witnesses, to be in some respects partial and misleading. We de not, therefore, propose to deal with the evidence before the Court, suggestive as it is of a low and vulgar standard of morals which it is painful to contemplate. The judgment of the Queen's Bench Division as regards Mr. Rucker is, however, res adjv,diectia, and we may refer to it as emphasising the nature of this whole sordid case. Though Mr. Justice Wright did not allow the motion to commit Mr. Rucker in the terms in which it was made, he did allow it as alleging endeavour by bribery to induce Hooley to suppress evidence which it was his duty to give; and, consequently, Rucker was fined £200 and costs. The incident is significant, as adding to the various other details of these scandalous transactions distinct attempt at bribing a witness to impede the work of justice. Turn which way we will, the case reeks with moral garbage. But while we shall not comment on the details of the Hooley bankruptcy as revealed by the bankrupt, we think that case presents a favourable opportunity for Insisting on a deeper moral feeling in relation to bribery and corruption generally. Perhaps the most remarkable and important fact of our time has been the absolutely sudden development of chances to obtain enormous wealth. There were huge fortunes in the ancient world, perhaps as huge as in the modern, if we are to accept as true the stories of the expenditures of many of the Roman patricians, and the building and loanmongering specu- lations of prominent men in Rome. But the chances were few as compared with our own time, when it is almost literally true that beggars are suddenly raised from dunghills to sit among Princes. Unfor- tunately, the multiplied chances to be very rich have not only turned men's heads, but they have weakened their morals. In other words, the growth of the power and influence of enormous capital has proved too much for the rather feeble morality of the mass of men. It is a com- mon place that few men can bear power, and that it is only the exceptional man who can wield it. It must be assumed that, after the gratification of personal pleasure is effected —and the margin for that purpose is comparatively narrow, as compared with the days when a great Roman banquet could run up into tens of thousands—the chief desire which moves the big capitalist is the acquisition of power. Power is to-day most easily acquired through the acquisition of great wealth, and as the opening up of the globe renders that acquisition more easy to the energetic and not too scrupulous man than it ever was before in human history, it follows that the race for wealth is the great factor of our time. But not only are the wealth-bunters as a class somewhat under the moral average, the public also, bewildered by this sudden growth of new methods and a new social power, are trying rather to grasp at a share of the spoils than to apply moral principles to the problem of wealth- production. The growth of social morality has not kept pace with the growth of wealth. Hence the deplorably low tone of the general public with regard to the great speculators who rise from time to time to a "bad eminence" in the world of finance.
We need, not new moral principles—for there are none— but the extension to new departments of life, of principles universally admitted, however often ignored in practice. Men must learn that life in all its many phases exists for moral ends, aud can only be served by sound and healthy character. As between private individuals this law is very widely obeyed, but when we come to politics and business it often fails of application. Take the world over, and what an impure aspect political life suggests! We now and again catch a glimpse of this in other countries, but how many political transactions are buried in secrecy which, if revealed, would stamp the agents with mercenary motives ? Even in England, in spite of all that legislation has done—and we gladly admit that in this country it has done much—we doubt if, among large classes of the electorate, bribery is looked Upon with the severe moral reprobation which one would like to see. Thousands of people always want to "make something" out of an election, and busy touts are ever ready to blackmail candidates in some interest or other, giving it to be understood that support will be dependent on prompt subscriptions. The revelations made last year by Mr. Ascroft, Member for Oldham, were in- structive as to the low view of public life and the moral in- difference to bribery shown by the inhabitants of a great industrial centre. A vote is still widely regarded, not as a civic trust, but as a purchasable commodity. We are by no means sure that either Parliament or the Judges of the laud take that strong view of the ethics of bribery Which we should like to see universal. There is not generally the strong reprobation of an infamous action Which a, perfectly healthy public morality would call forth. While actual money gifts to voters are very rare, and While expenditure is not permitted by law on the great scale of former years, nevertheless the constant cheques forwarded to local bodies by Members and candidates on the one hand, and the directorships of companies assumed b9 Members who are not specially noted for business gifts on the other hand, appear to show a laxity of view regarding absolute financial honour which at times fills one with a certain misgiving as to the future. We do not, however, wish to conclude with the sugges- tion that matters are worse than they used to be,—a. suggestion which would, of course, be absurd in view of the history of a century ago, or of the great era of railway expansion, when the power of money became a very palpable fact in English life. There is another reason besides the moral one for the present attitude of a large section of the public towards the new wealth. The truth is that the public does not yet understand the complica- tions of modern business as we see it in the form of huge aggregations of capital. The average man is absolutely puzzled by the methods of the company-promoter, who is able to conceal so much, to gloss over the really vital factors, to make such a parade of the concern he has to sell through the aid of the modern expert. We all want to invest our savings somewhere, and we do not know enough of the pitfalls of modern industrial undertakings to be able to grapple successfully with the clever people in the City, whose business aim is not to provide us with what we want, but to make their own profits out of the transaction secure and immediate. Caveat emptor is more than ever the motto of the business world, but unfortunately the extreme complexity of finance as applied to industry does not afford to most of us the means to track the seller in his tortuous course. People still assume, in spite of all warnings, that " business" is a simple transaction between individuals, as it was of old. But to-day " business " is a complicated game which the inexperienced man must play with a combination of "old hands" who, know every move, and it is increasingly difficult to play it with success. That difficulty is increased by our joint-stock limited liability laws, which are the least safe for the investor of any in the civilised world. That this should be the case must, we fear, be held to prove the strong hold which the capitalist has secured over Parliament, and which therefore confirms our view as to the moral laxity of many of our public men. We need not only a far higher conception of the claims of public morality, but also far more genuine protection, though that protection will be secured, not so much by any direct means (you cannot make a wise man out of a fool) as by far more stringent dealing with the promoter. Indirect bribery, in short, must be punished more severely, and greater publicity and more detailed facts must be insisted on with respect to the formation of companies. In a word, we must stamp bribery with the black mark of social reprobation, and we must secure as full publicity as possible in the complex affairs of modern industrial enterprise.
Previous page
