On Tuesday and Wednesday the House of Commons dis- cussed
the question whether Cabinet Ministers ought to be directors of companies. We have dealt with this matter elsewhere, and will only point out here an example of the in- conveniences that may arise when Cabinet Ministers do not resign their directorships. A great deal of discussion has been created by an article in the February National Review denouncing as contrary to public interest the proposed amalgamation by Act of Parliament of the South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways. The proposal is a very important one, and appears to run counter to that wholesome principle of competition upon which our railway policy has always been based. At any rate, it is a big question, and will very likely be raised in a form which will require the Cabinet to consider the matter on its merits. But Mr. Akers Douglas, a trusted, and rightly trusted, member of the Cabinet, is a director of the London. Chatham, and Dover Railway. Now, no one would dream of suggesting that the Cabinet Minister in question would ever in. tentionally use a public office to further his private interests, but at the same time who can deny that in the case named it would be most undesirable to have a London, Chatham, and Dover director in the Cabinet ? We insist that the extreme Radicals are grossly unfair when they talk about the upper classes using their power and influence for private gain, but in order to meet such charges satisfactorily we must avoid even the faintest appearance of suspicion.
Previous page
