6 APRIL 1861, Page 10

MESSRS. LAING AND ROEBUCK.

TIENIMORE Cooper, in one of his social navels, which are scarcely read in England, declares that gossip in America has superseded law. The accused is tried on charges based on gossip-, by a jury whose minds are full of gossip about the case, before a judge who dreads the gossip his decision will produce. In England we have not quite reached that point. Once in court, an aecused is pretty confident of justice, and the public willing enough to abide by the evidence produced. But there is a stage in the, pro- cess of accusation at which- gossip is as potent in. L• as in New York, and that is the period which elapses between the charge and the acply. Gossip is then independent alike of evidence and of the libel:law, and tries and.condemns the criminal with a celerity as fatal to justice as to kindly feeling. Within 4the last-month two rEoglish politicians of some note, the Indian. Finance Minister and the member for Sheffield, have been arraigned after this:fashion, tried, condemned, and socially executed while atill unheard. The case of Mr. Laing is unusually hard. The charges have been brought for- ward while he was absent from England, and must circulate for three months before his reply can be received. That reply again must be examined in England, leaving him for am months in India under the one accusation for -which in that country, there is no forgiveness. Already his open con- tempt for Mr. Wilson, and a certain weakness of character, have rendered him unpopular in Calcutta, and the arrival of the chargesmill destroy the small remainder of his influence. He will probably be baited into resignation, though it is still by no means certain that he has been guilty of anything beyond an error of judgment, strange in a. man of so mature an ex- perience, 'but widely different from corruption. The real -charge against Mr. Laing is one . of breach of trust. It is asserted that he was at once director and contractor of the Hamilton. and Toronto Railway, voting, as, director, moneys to Mr. Wythes, which, as Wythes' partner, he helped to pocket. The accusation As it stood is one which even the lax morality of the railway world has not yet learnt to con- done. 'The' directors of the West of Canada Railway, which absorbed the ',Hamilton and Toronto line, have, however, been included in the indictment, and in their defence they incidentally detail the transactions with which Mr. Laing was said to be mixed up. Their statement is frank enough. The Board were ,mest anxious to 'promote .the Hamilton and Toronto line, and their representatives in England applied to. Mr. Laing to aid them with his advice. He consented, and an application was made to Mr. Wythes to undertake the contract. Mr: Wythes.refused, unless the promoters showed their confidence in their own estimates by taking a share of his liabilities. Mr. Laing declined, but after much pressing consented to accept a third .share, an arrangement carefully' explained to the Canadian board. Mr. Laing, however, re- ceived no money, terminated his connexion with the .contract as speedily as he could, and did no act as a. director leading to the advantage of Mr. Wythes. He did sign the con- tract, but was misdescribed as director, being only trustee, and only trustee for the payment of deposits into the hands of the agents of the company. This defence is not of course proved, but it is just as much proved as the accusation. Until Mr. Laing's own statement is received, it •is difficult to understand how an arrangement, which rendered Mr. Laing liable for the third of 380,0001., _could have been only ,verbally made, or how he could sign a deed in which he was misdescribed. Nor, even if the defence is completely sustained, can Mr. Laing be acquitted of great negligence and indifference to opinion. Trustee- ship, under any limitation, is wholly incompatible with part- nership in a contract, however nominal. But the serious charge is rebutted on evidence just as good as that on which it was made, and our protest is against that judgment by gossip which anticipates or dispenses with all proof. It, is no concern of ours to defend Mr. Laing, whose proceedings an India promise very little, but it is of importance that the public confidence in public men should never be shaken 'without solid ground. The disposition to regard all offences as unimportant may be bad enough, but it is not worse than the growing tendency to believe in official want of honour.

• Mr. Roebuck is more fortunate than Mr. Laing, as his answer has been almost as prompt as the libel. But his case is even a stronger illustration of the readiness of the public to accuse. He was known to have been one of the sup- porters of the Galway Packet line, which also was known to have been promoted somewhat unscrupulously. He also, after that line had made some arrangements with the Austrian Government about their steamers, and he had himself visited Vienna, defended the Austrian retention of Venetia, a retention condemned by every other Liberal in Europe. The tide of gossip, which had set in strong after the packet affair, was now swollen by a rush of political feeling, and Mr. Roebuck was roundly accused of having sold himself There was not a trace of proof that he had done anything except argue openly for the Irish line, and against the unity of Italy. There was not a particle of evidence' of increased wealth or diminished-activity, or even of:ny personal interest in the-Galway Packet Company, but Mr. Roebuck had visited _Austria, Mr. Roebuck,was opposed to. Venetia, and consequently Mr. Roebuck was sold. The answer to all this, given to his constituents at Sheffield, is of course complete, and, moreover, proved by evidence other than his own assertion. -A parliamentary committee raked this Galway affair to the bottom, and proved not only that Mr. Roebuck had taken nothing for his services to the com- pany, but had refused the free shares other directors took. As for the sale to Austria, the consideration is non-existent. Mr. Roebuck brought home no contract either for a com- pany or himself. He had defended Austrian rule in Venetia simply because he believed the Austrians to be what he found them, pleasant people, with a great deal of liberty, and a constitution as free as that of England. . The speech, as faros it relates to Venetia, is not very creditable to Mr. Roebuck's acuteness, but want of political.-acumen is not exactly.a ground for accusations such as those he has re- pelled. It is just as well, moreover, that somebody should be found with the courage, or even the prejudice, to argue 'boldly on the unpopular side. Political thought runs a great deal-too much in grooves, and a man like Mr. Roebuck, who compels .his own party to reconsider the ground of their beliefs, is as invaluable as he is rare. We only hope Mr. Laing may be .as successful in crushing the gossip from which no length of service, or :spotlessness of character, seems at present to afford protection.