In the course of Wednesday's discussion Mr. Chamberlain was also
attacked by Mr. Lloyd-George because "the Report
of the War Office Contracts Committee showed that favouritism had been shown to a Birmingham firm." To this Mr. Chamberlain replied by declaring that the innuendo was, of course, that the Colonial Secretary was in some way or another connected with the matter. "Now, I wish to say," added Mr. Chamberlain, "that I have no interest, direct or indirect, in Kynoch's or in any other firm manufacturing war materials. I have never interfered directly, or indirectly, with the distribution of these contracts, and I have never spoken to any one in the War Office about them. The hon. gentleman has just stated what is public property,—namely, that my brother is chairman of the company to which he referred. That is perfectly true, but I have never discussed the matter with my brother. I have nothing whatever to do with his private concerns any more than he has anything to do with my public concerns, and it is a gross abuse to attack a public man through his relatives for whom he is not responsible." That is clearly a complete answer as far as Mr. Chamber- lain is concerned, but we cannot help regretting that Mr. Arthur Chamberlain should have cared to become chairman of a company which is necessarily in business relations with the Government. The Colonial Secretary cannot, of course, order his brother out of Kynoch's, and it is grossly unjust to talk as if he could, but it seems to us that it is not expecting too much of Mr. Arthur Chamberlain to say that while his brother is in the Cabinet he should refrain from taking an active part in any company which has large commercial dealings with the Government.
Previous page
