There was a great debate on Friday week about the
old Bank of Bombay, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Bouverie, and others arguing that the Government, which held one-third of the shares of the Bank and appointed official Directors, was responsible for its failure, and Mr. Grant Duff retorting that it was not, as it had formally re- fused to give any guarantee. 4 The official-side of the question was affirmed by the House by a vote of 116 to 78, and we think rightly, as the Government was only liable in its capacity of share- holder, and met that liability. At the same time, it cannot be
that the body of the shareholders did trust to the Govern- ment to see that ordinary care was taken, that ordinary care was not taken, and that the India House never punished, but rather- rewarded the Governor who did not take it. We do not say that- Sir Bartle Frere was personally to blame, for he was obliged to- trust his official Directors ; but the Government he represented was as responsible as any private director would be who neglected his employer's affairs. Whether that responsibility involves a. pecuniary liability is another affair, to be settled in the Law Courts„ and not in Parliament.
Previous page
