MARCONIS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 38, 20 June 1913, Page 5

MARCONIS.

THE MINISTERS’ MISTAKE.

FllArs iv ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

I By Electric Telegraph—Copyright]

I omixed Tress Association. '

Ijondon, J une 18

The House of Commons was crowded when Mr Cave, Unionist member for Kingston, Surrey, gave a judicial analysis of the Marconi transaction. He said that he moved his ameudnecessary for the Opposition to state their views. There was no trace of personal corruption, but Sir Rufus Isaacs at one time made a profit of £SOOO and other Ministers £2200 out of Godfrey Isaacs’ confidcntal information. The reticence and concealment in October were unfair to the House.

The speech was quietly delivered, the only passage raising party cries being when enquiries were made whether Lord Murray of Elibanlc’s pur-

chase of American Marconis with party funds was for a rise or for investment. If for a rise, then it was asked if the Liberals would say how far they were satisfied that 'funds for promoting such objects as the disestablishment of the church should be derived from gambling on the Stock Exchange. If for investment, then the party’s financial interests were hound up L the success of the American Marconi Company. He contended that Ministers profiting by early information supplied by Mr Godfrey Isaacs broke the rule that no Minister should take advantage or favor from a man contracting with the Government. They broke another rule of public life by becoming interested in a company the profits of which depended on the confirmation of a contract.

Viscount Helmsley seconded the amendment.

Sir Rufus Isaacs hoped that no one would hesitate to accept his statement. He had never the faintest intention to deceive any member of the House. He emphasised that in the purchase of American shares, whatever might be said of its wisdom, there was no suggestion that he acted dishonestly or in bad faith. Discussing whether the transaction was discreet, he contended that it was absurd to suggest that Mr Godfrey Isaacs made an offer conferring a favor or an advantage. He added that although thinking ' the transactions were quite unobjectionable, if he had known all he knew now he would had acted perfectly openly.

Mr Lloyd George also denied that there was . any intention of concealment. He remarked that Sir Rufus Isaacs’ and his own decision was that a committee would afford the best opportunity of presenting the facts. It was a mistake, but a mistake in judgment, not in candor towards the House. Discussing whether the transaction was judicious or discreet, he admitted that it was neither, and he certainly would not go through it again. There was, however, a vast difference between an indiscretion which might he acknowledged and rebuked, and an indiscretion in private investments which warranted a solemn vote of censure. He was conscious that he had done nothing to bring a stain on the honor of a Minister of the Crown. “If you will,” he said, “I acted thoughtlessly, carelessly and ■mistakenly, hut' I’ acted innocently, openly and honestly. That is why 1 confidently place myself in the hands not merely of my political friends, but of members of all parts of the House.”

Lord Robert Cecil defended his report. He contended that the transactions were gambling transactions, jn which Ministers ought not to engage. He did not charge them with corruption, but with grave impropriety. He asked the House not to sanction a precedent by opening the doors to corruption in future. Mr W. Buckmaster moved an amendment declaring that the House accepts the Minister’s statement and repudiates the false charges, which had been proved to be wholly unfounded.

Mr Burt seconded this. Mr R. Essex defended the majority

report. Mr Samuel dealt trenchantly with anonymous critics and vindicated post office negotiations. The Hon. A. Lyttelton declared that the question was not a personal one, but one of what attitude the House should assume towards a great public question. He recalled an instance in 1854 of a Minister’s private secretary, whose later appointment as Governor of one of the Australian colonies was cancelled because he had speculated on the Stock Exchange. Although Sir Geo. Grey was then-Colonial Secretary, he did not believe that the speculation was based on official information. The debate was adjourned.

The Standard remarks that the Opposition's main point has hen laigely attained by avowals. Sir Rufus Isaacs’s manly tones impressed the House. He spoke with a good deal of emotion and with frequent dramatic gestures, especially when describing the spread of rumors and the hateful feeling of men pursuing him in the lobby and at street corners. “T could hear the pointing of a linger as I passed,” he exclaimed, his look being eloquently expressive of anguish caused by slander.

\[V Lloyd George’s specific admission j regarding the investments was equally frank. His closing personal appeal to the whole House was delivered with great eloquence, finelv phrased and highly charged with emotion. Previously the Liberals had v ai mly demonstrated at intervals for both speeches, and when Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr Lloyd George retired the Ministerialists, rising in a body, cheered again and again.

The Daily Mail, reviewing the debate, says it would not hare been surprised had Mr Cave’s resolution been withdrawn. It adds that the standard of public duty has been maintained, and the principle for which the debate was initiated has been fully vindicated. The Times says: “Neither Minister seems to understand how his conduct woud stroke a man. The public must not be blamed for their being splashed with mud. They must be commiserated with, but if they stepped easily into an avoidable puddle we say it was their fault. If they say that they did not know that it was a puddle, we say that they ought to have known better, but if they say, ‘After all, it was quite a clean puddle,’ we judge them to be deficient in a sense of cleanliness. Ministers, of course, had no corrupt intention, but the public look to facts and not to motives.”