MARCONI SHARES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1782, 21 June 1913, Page 5

MARCONI SHARES.

THE DEBATE IN THE COMMONS. A RESOLUTION. MINISTERIAL REGRETS ACCEPTED. By, STtlesrarh—Press Association—Copyrifffcl (Bee. June 21, 0.10 a.m.) London, June 20. Speaking in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) declared that an enormous amSunt of timo and trouble would- have been saved if Mr. Lloyd-George and Sir Rufus Isaacs had told tho House the whole story in October last. But, he insisted, there had been no failure on their part to observe the rules of honesty and of public duty.

After denouncing the scandalous statements which had appeared in a seotion of the press, Mr. Asquith gladly acknowledged that the great organs of the press, and particularly those representing the Unionists, had behaved throughout the Marconi question with dignity, moderation, and restraint.. Mr. Asquith next enumerated the dear rules laid down for the guidance of Ministers and public servants in all pecuniary matters, and interposed a glowing personal appreciation of Lord Elibank. He did not think thar he (the speaker), or anyone else, had erftr 'heard a franker or manlier -utterance than that of Sir Eufus Isaacs or of Mr. Lloyd-George. They had suffered for an error of judgment, and the penalty was almost, if not quite, as heavy as any such error had ever inourred to anyone. Their honour, both private and public,-was absolutely unstained. It would be unworthy of the House, to pass a censorious motion upon these two members. Mr. A. J. Balfour said that the charges of personal corruption wore, of course, absurd, and had been entirely disproved, but the House had not been treated with anything like the frankness which was duo to it. Ho suggested that Mr. Cave's motion, combined with Mr. Buokmaster's amondment, would be carried unanimously.

Mr. Balfour strongly criticised the two Ministers' reticence in allowing tho facts to come out piecemeal. It was no question of honour or dishonesty, but it was surely a question of the very gravest indiscretion. Mr. Lloyd-George had pleaded that ,he had scarcely time to attend to his private affairs and manage his own investments. Buying speculative stock, however, was not the way to obtain leisure, He contended that tho two Ministers should frankly have expressed sorrow for an honest blnnder. Finally, he argued, unless tho House recorded its regret at what'had occurred, it would be a disaster to our public life. Ho appealed to the Premier to find some formula more consistent with the credit of the House than the amendment which had been proposed, an<J which would be more likely to maintain the purity of tho public service. ■

Mr. Buckmaster subsequently withdrew his amendment in favour of an amendment by Sir W. R. D. Adkins (which was carried by 346-to 268) declaring: "That this House aooepts the two Ministers' expression of regret im connection with the purchases of Ameri"'can 'Marconis,' ajid the fact that these ware not mentioned in the October debate, acquits them of acting otherwise than in good faith, and reprobates the wholly false charges of . corruption brought against Ministers," Mr. Bonar Law (the Unionist Leader) opposed the Adkins amendment, but offered to accept the following:"That this House, having heard the statements of Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr. Lloyd-George, acquits them (here followß the last part of Mr. Adkins's amendment), but regrets their transactions in American Marconis, and their want of frankness in their communications to the House."

. He disclaimed any spirit of vindictiveness, but Ministers' explanations had been inadequate. The Opposition had complained that two Ministers were doing things which in their position ought not to be done, and were lacking in moral courage in withholding the foots from the House. They ought not to have touched American Marconis. The great public sorrow arising out of -the Titanic disaster had been utilised to fill tho pockets of men floating the company. "What," ho asked, "do men who bought shares at about £i, and found them now worth less than Mr. Lloyd-George paid for them, think when they find that perhaps Mr. Lloyd-George made a profit out of their folly in dealing with' these shares. (Opposition cheers and cries of dissent.) Had Mr. Lloyd-Georgo reflected upon the possibilities at that time, the present debate would not have arisen, ( Sir Edward Grey siiid that Mr. Bonar Law had put a harsh construction upon the transaction. The phrase, "a want of frankness," was capable of being construed as imputing dishonourable motives, and, if so construed, would entail tho resignation' of the two Ministers and the closing of their political careers. Tho House ought to pass no motion which would be regarded as a vote of censure. The two Ministers made no use of official information. Their expressions of regret were amply sufficient to cover the whole case, and ought to bo accepted frankly, openly, and without qualification. (Ministerial cheers.)

The motion and amendment referred to by Mr. Balfour were as follow:— By Mr. Cave (Unionist).—"That this House regrets tho transactions of certain Ministers ini regard to American Marconi shares, and the want of frankness displayed by Ministers in their communications on the subject to thig House." By Mr. Buckmaster (Liberal).—"That this House accepts tho statements of the Ministers, ajid repudiates the false charges, which havo proved wholly unfounded"