The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 31, 1913. DELICACY AND DISCRETION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1711, 31 March 1913, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 31, 1913. DELICACY AND DISCRETION.

The latest cable messages concerning the connection of certain British Ministers with the .Marconi Company and its contract with the Government make it very clear that some members of the Cabinet were very indiscreet in dealing with Marconi shares. Whether their dealings were or were not qnaai-oorrupt is a question of which some of tnem have invited an investigation by prosecuting the editor ot The New Witness for criminal libel. Even those who will scout the suggestion that Mn. Samukl, Mk. Lloyd-Gkoiige, and Sir Riifus Isaacs . acted otherwise than as honourable men will deplore their indiscretion, and will hope that their vindication will be so complete and emphatic as to nullify the bad cffcct of that indiscretion upon the standard of morality in public life. Ono of to-day's cable messages gives some extracts from the evidence of Mr. Lloyd-George, in the course of which some reference is made to the case in 1000 when, the Unionists being in power, it was chargcd that the Chamberlains had improperly profited by a contract with the Government. Asked on Friday whether he still adhered to the principles lie had championed _ in 1900, Mr, LloydGeorge replied- in the affirmative, but characteristically threatened to shield himself to-day by raking up tho old trouble. It was Mr. LloydGeorge who moved an amendment to the Addrcss-in-Reply in 1900, in the following terms: And we humbly bog to represent to your Majesty that Ministers of the Crown''and members of either Ilouye of PnilianiiMil: holding subordinate office in any public Department ought to have no "interest-, direct or indirect, in t.n,v firm or com-pany-competing for contracts with the Crown, unless, the nature ami extent of such interest boing first declared, your

Majesty sliull have iimcit the c:>u 11lenatice tlierraf, anil, when iieei.-;:ir,v, .shall have directed Midi precautions tu Ijo token as may cli'L-ctuiilly prevent any .suspicion. «t' inltui'iKc or laviniiitism in tlu- allocation of sueli contracts*, In the course of his speech Mi:. LloYii-Geoßge stated what lie called "the rule of Caesar's wife" and other rules derived therefrom to prevent the growth of suspicion in regiu'd to Ministers, and said: "When once these rules are broken by any person in high position it leads to the complete demoralisation of the whole Civil It is setting a dangerous precedent." Amongst the other occupants of the front Opposition benehes at that time were several of Mr. Lloyd-George's present colleagues, and they all agreed, not only in the principle of the amendment, but in the principle that it is the duty of members to bring forward for discussion any facts giving rise even to unfair suspicion in the publie mind or in the mind of members of Parliament. •

In 11 recent article the Spectator, recalling that it had rebuked and attacked its friends in the Government in 1900, reprints some excellent passages from the Daily Xews and the Westminster Gazette. With a Unionist Government in office and on trial, it was very easy for these lladical journals to take a high tone. The News, for exanlple, said that public men could not put themselves above suspicion, but the public had a.right to demand that at any rate \they should avoid putting themselves into a position to which suspicion might naturally attach. The Gazette claimed that public opinion must be brought to bear on Ministers so that they and their relatives should exercise caution: "If the standard is allowed to be relaxed among the great and eminent, it will be difficult or impossible to maintain it among mayors and aldermen and humbler people who do the work of government throughout the country." To-day, however, when it is a case of Radical Ministers dabbling in the shares of a company-seeking a Government contract, the News and Gazette have nothing .but abuse for those who even suggest that there is anything to be explained ! It is a very remarkable thing that Mr. Lloyd-George, who was privately interested in Marconi's, should not have thought of applying to himself the principle which in 1000 he laid clown for others: the principle that no Minister should even indirectly have any sort of interest in a company seeking a Government contract. That the whole business is a most unfortunate one, and very likely to encourage a cynical and disillusioned public to believe that it is natural and inevitable that Ministers should abuse their power for personal ends or for the advantage' of their friends and relations. Therefore it is to be hoppd that the matter will be completely threshed out and the honour of Ministers completely vindicated. If the Ministers concerned were frankly,to admit that they had been careless arid indiscreet, they would greatly serve their own and the public interests but unfortunately Mn. 'LloydGeorge, with his counter-threats, appears to be seeking to intimidate his critics.