The Dominion SATURDAY,JUNE 21, 1913. THE OBLIGATIONS OF MINISTERS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1782, 21 June 1913, Page 4

The Dominion SATURDAY,JUNE 21, 1913. THE OBLIGATIONS OF MINISTERS.

No more important issue affecting the obligations of Ministers of the Grown has been raised in rcccnt times than that which has arisen as the result of tho dealings of certain members of tho British Cabinet and the ex-Chief Whip of the Liberal Party, in American Marconi shares. Wo have reviewed tho facts of the matter oh previous occasions, and so need not go into them in any detail now. It is sufficient to state that at a time when the British Marconi Company was negotiating with the Government to secure confirmation of a wireless telegraphy contract it had entered into with the British Postal authorities, Sib Rufus Isaacs (At-torney-General) and Mh. LloydGeorge (Chancellor of the Exchequer) bought American Marconi Company Bnares, in which the British Marconi Company was a large holder. The managing director oi the British-Company was Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, brother of Sir Rufus Isaacs, and it was from him, through Mr. Harry Isaacs, another brother, that the shares were purchased. A few days after the purchase tho Ministers named stood to make a substantial profit had they_ sold their shares, which had risen in value in the meantime, and, indeed, they did sell a portion of their holding at a good profit. Tho circumstance of the contract, added to the fact that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs was a brother of one of the Cabinet Ministers, no doubt gave birth to the unpleasant rumours circulated. The shares have since dropped in value, and today Sir Rueus Isaacs and Mr. Lloyd-George probably could not realiso without suffering a loss. It may be stated at once that no responsible person, so far as we know, has suggested that the action of the Ministers. concerned could bo classed as corrupt. It has not been openly suggested that the fact that the British Marconi Company was in contractural relations with the Government had any bearing whatever on the action of the Ministers: that is to say, it has not been suggested that they wore enabled to purchase American Marconi shares at any advantage over tho general public because they happened to be members of a Government with which the British Marconi Company _ was anxious to secure the completion of a contract already agreed to except as to certain details. But it was suggested that the Ministers had acted with a lack of delicacy and discretion, and that the circumstances surrounding their dealings in American Marconi shares were such as to lay them open to suspicion prejudicial to the high office which for the time being tuey had tho honour to fill.

We need not recapitulate here the dangers underlying any course of action on tho part of public men which is calculated to shako confidence in the integrity of those holding high office under the State. We have already on a previous occasion discussed this phase of the matter, and, indeed, it is too plain to need emphasis, that once the peoplo lose confidence in the of honour set by public men in their official capacity, then respect for authority is threatened, and a heavy blow is struck at the foundations of stable government. It' will _ have been noted in connection with tKe_ Marconi Inquiry that the majority of tho Parliamentary Committee of Investigation brought "down a report exonerating the Ministers from all blame for their dealings in American Marconi shares._ A minority report held them guilty of indiscretion ; and now the matter iB being discussed in Parliament. Tho reports of the proceedings of the Committee of Inquiry made it evident that the finding of the Committee would be on party lines, and the Government having a majority on the Committee, Ministers were, as stated, fully exonerated. It is significant, however,, that despite the I finding of the Committee, the Ministers concerned, while disclaiming all suggestion of impropriety, now admit indiscretion. This is the more remarkable, because throughout the whole of the proceedings they had indignantly repudiated .the idea that they had even been indiscreet. The attitude of the public, we must assume, has since caused the Ministers to modify thoir viwe. Sin Rm's Isaacs, for at the end o{

at the close of a lengthy examination as to the interpretation which might have been placed on his actions, answered as under to a question by Lord Robert Cecil :

Lord It. Cecil: Do yon not think really you were putting yourself in a position in. which under conccivablo circumstances your interest would liavo been in conflict with your duty?— Not in tlio remotest ile'Tee, and all tho considerations and alf the views, which you have put very fairly to me, do not alter my opinion m the slightest degree. Never iu any circumstances should I have been, in regard to this company, in any position which would havo brought mo into conlliet with my duties. Mr. Lloyd-George, who was examined before the Committee about tho same time, was equally emphatic : I consider, he said, it was not merely constitutional and in accordance with precedent, but perfectly proper—the mI vestment I then mode. ... I therefore considered, and I still consider, that I had a perfect right to purchase theso I shares, and that the transaction was perfectly clean and straightforward.

Nothing would then shake their opinion in this respecfj. Now, Sir Rufus Isaacs says, in face of a motion of censure moved in the House of Commons, that, "although he thought that the transactions were quite unobjectionable, he would not, had he known all that he now knew, have entered into them. _ Mr. Lloyd-George goes even further. He admits indiscretion, and adds that, while he felt conscious that he had done nothing to bring stain upon his honour as a Minister of tho Grown, he had, "if you will, acted thoughtlessly, carelessly, mistakenly, but innocently, openly, and honestly." Seeing that the whole point of the matter in dispute has been that the Ministers, however innocent, had acted with indiscretion, and laid themselves open to a suspicion derogatory to their high office, the admissions now made go a long way towards justifying those members and that section of the British press which made such determined protest. The effect cannot fail to be beneficial. It is true that the Ministers concerned have only acknowledged thenerror under tremendous pressure, but the people have had demonstrated to them that there is still in Parliament a powerful section determined to insist on the highest stand-' ard of honour and integrity on the part of Ministers of the Crown. The standard set in tho past has been that a Minister shall not only be abovo corruption, but that the obligation rests on him to give no ground even for suspicion of corruption. It says much for British politics that men of all shades of political opinion oonccde that that is the only safe standard to set for the guidance of their leaders, a,nd for the maintenance of the _ high prestige of British statesmanship.