EXPLANATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1781, 20 June 1913, Page 5

EXPLANATIONS.

AND REGRETS. MINISTERS AND "MARCONI'S.". THE RECKONING. TRANSACTIONS DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT. By Telegraph—Frc;ci Association-Copyright London, Juno 18. Tho House of Commons ivas crowded when Mr. G. C'avo (Unionist member for Surrey) moved the following official Opposition resolution in connection with tho Marconi debate:— "That this House regrets tho .transactions of certain Ministers in regard to American Marconi shares, and the want of "frankness displayed by Ministers in their communications on tho subject to this House." Mr. Cave made a quiet and judicial analysis of tlio transactions. Ho 6aid ho had moved the amendment with reluctance, but it was necessary that tho Opposition should frankly stato its views. There had bcen'no trace of personal corruption, but Sir Ruftis Isaacs had nt ono time mado a profit of X'sooo, and other Ministers .£2200, out of Mr. Godfrey Isaacs's confidential information. Tho reticence and concealment of Ministers in October last had been unfair to tho House.

Mr. C. W. Helmslcy (Unionist) seconded the amendment. Sir Rufus Isaacs (Attorney-General) and Mr. Lloyd-George (Chancellor of the Exchequer) then spoke. They wero greeted with sympathetic Ministerial cheers, and left the llou£o after their explanations, in accordance with precedent. Sir Rufus Isaacs admitted that his action during tho October debate was mistaken. 110 had then believed that the American transactions had no direct relovancy, and his mind was full of tho indignity of tho charges of corruption. Mr. Godfrey Isaaes's offer of shares had only been actuated by fraternal motives, but he (the speaker) now sincerely felt that it had been a mistake to purchase the shares. Any blame there was, rested on himself, not on the Chancellor.

Mr. Lloyd-Georgo said it would havo been infinitely better if tho whole of the facts had been placed boforo tho House in October last, but he and Sir Rufus Isaacs had decided that it would bo better to give the whole of the facts to the committee. He deeply grieved if tho House thought ho had been lacking in franknoss. Ho now saw that by tho purchase of tho 6hares they had lent themselves to misconstruction and misconception. THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. MINISTERS' ELOQUENT APPEALS. (Rec. Juno 19, 11.25 p.m.) London, Juno 19. Mr. Cave's speech was quietly; delivered, tho only passage raising party cries being when ho inquired whether Lord Elibank's purchase of American Marconis with the party funds was for a "rise/' or as an investment. . If for a "rise," then he asked Liberals to say. how far they wero satisfied that funds for promoting such objects as tho Disestablishment of tho Welsh Church should be derived from gambling on the Stock Exchange. If for investment, then tho party's financial interests wero bound up with tho success of tho American Marconi Company.

Mr. Cavo contended that Ministers, in profiting by early information supplied by Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, broke the rulo that no Minister should take any advantage or favour from any man contracting for tho Government.. Ministers, furthor, broke another rulo of public life in becoming interested in a company, tho profits of which depended upon the confirmation of a contract with tho Government. Sir Rufus Isaacs. Sir Eufus Isaacs hoped that • no one would hesitate to accept his statement. He never had the faintest intention to deceive any member of the House. He emphasised the point that in the purchase of tho American shares, whatever might be said as to its wisdom, there could be no suggestion that he had acted dishonestly, 'or in bad faith. Discussing tho question whether tho transaction had been a discreet one, ho contended that it was absurd to suggest t-hat Mr. Godfrey Isaacs had mado an offer conferring a favour or advantage, and added that although he thought that tho transactions were quite unobjectionable, ho would not, had ho known all that ho now knew, have entered into them. He had acted perfectly openly.

The Chancellor. Jlr. Lloyd-George also denied any intention of concealment, and remarked that Sir Rufus Isaacs's and his own decision was that the . Inquiry Committee • would afford tho best opportunity for presenting tho facts. That was a mistake, but it had been a mistako in judgment, not in candour, towards the' House. Discussing tho question whether the transaction was judicious or discreet, ho admitted that it was neither, and lie certainly would not go through it again. There was, howover, n vast difference between an indiscretion which might bo acknowledged and rebuked, and an indiscretion in private investments, which warranted a solemn vote of censure. Ho felt conscious that he had dono nothing to bring a stain upon his honour as an Minister of the Grown. "If you will," ho said, "I acted thoughtlessly, carelessly, mistakenly, but I ncted innocently, openly, and honestly, and that is why I confidently place myself in the hands not merely of my political friends, but of members of all parts of tho nouse.

Sir ftufus Tsaacs's manly tones impressed ilio TTotiso. Ho spoko with a (food deal of emotion and frequent dramatic gestures, espociully when dascribing tho spread "of rumours flint tho hateful fooling of men pursuing him into tho lobby, tho Blreot, und thi! f'onrts. "I could hear tho pointing of a finger ns I passed," ho exclaimed, his look eloquently exprcHfdve of tho anguish caused by tho slander. Mr.- Lloyd-George's specific admission regarding liis investments was equally frank, and his closing personal appeal to (hi! whole House was delivered with great ehi(|iiei!cc, finely phrased, und highly charged with emotion. Tlio /liberals warmly demonstrated at iutervfil.i during bath tho speeches, and when Sir llufus Isaacs and Mr. Lloyd(loorgo retired, the Ministerialists, rising in u body, cbeered again and again. Gambling Transactions. Lord Robert. Cecil defended the minority report of tho committee, and contended that tho transactions were gambling transaction;), in which Ministers ought, not to engage. He did not charge them with corruption, but; of grave impropriety. He asked the Hnuso not, to sanction the precedent of opening the doors to corruption in the future. Mr. S. 0. Buckmnster (Liberal) moved an amendment declaring that "this House accepts the statements of t tie Ministers, and repudiates tho false chnrge) which have - voved wholly unfouudeda"

Tlio Hight Hon. T. Burt (Liberal) seconded the amendment. Mr. I,'. \V. li.sex (Liberal) defended the majority report. Mr. Herbert. Samuel (I'ostniaster-Gen-eral) dealt, trenchantly with anonymous critics', and vindicated the negotiations of his Department in the matter of the Marconi contract. The night Hon. Alfred Lyllelton (Unionist) declared that tlio question was not n personal our. II was a <|uestiim as to what altitude the House should assume towards a great public question. In Sir George Grey's Time. Tie recalled an instance in ISM, of a Minister's private secretary whose later appointment as Governor of ono of tlio Australian colonies was cancelled because he. had speculated on the Slock Exchange, although Sir George Grey, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, did not believe that tlio speculation was based 011 official information. Tho debate was then adjourned. I PRESS COMMENTS. TIIE I'ARABLE OF THE PUDDLE. (Ree. Juno 20, 0.10 a.m.) London, Juno 19. The "Daily Mail," roviowing tho debate, remarks that it would not havo been surprised lmd Mr. Cave's resolution been withdrawn, and adds: "Tlio standard .of public duly lias been maintained, and tho principlo upon which tho debnto was initiated has boon fully vindicated."

"Tho Times" snys that "neither Minister seems to understand how his conduct may strike tho public. A man would not bo blamcil for being splashed with mud; he would bo commiserated. Jlul if ho stepped easily into an .avoidable puddle, wo sny 'it was his fault.' Jf he says ho did not know it was a puddle, we say, "lie ought to know better." l)ut, it' lie says that after all it was quite a clean puddle, then ivo judge him deficient in tho senso of cleanliness. Ministers, of course, had had no corrupt intention, but tho public looks at tho facts, not at tho motives."

Tho "Standard" remarks that the Opposition's main poiut has been largely attained by tho avowals of tho Ministers.