THE GOVERNMENT AND MONEY.
[To THE EDITOR or THE "SPECTATOR."] Sin,—Many Liberals agree with the Spectator that the uneasy suspicions generated by the Marconi affair can only be dis- pelled by measures that will make the recurrence of such scandals impossible. There was a danger, after the debate in the House of Commons and the expressions of regret from the implicated Ministers, that the affair might have been too lightly dismissed. We have to thank Mr. Lloyd George for keeping public attention fixed on the serious questions arising from the affair. Whether he has refused to " let sleeping dogs lie " because he feels that his offence was inadequately punished, or because he has really persuaded himself that be is a hardly used martyr, is immaterial. The analogy between St. Sebastian, who died for the Christian faith, and the highly paid Chancellor of the Exchequer who is criticized for gambling is not very convincing to the ordinary mind. Whatever the Chancellor's motives, his determination not to let the odour of the Marconi affair escape from the public nostrils has served its purpose. With the truth or inaccuracy of his attacks on his Tory critics we have nothing to do. Certainly some of his charges have not been answered to the general satisfaction. What the Chancellor fails to realize is that the more truth there is in his justification (P) "I have but done as others have done," the less excuse there is for a Prime Minister and a House of Commons who let a culprit caught red-handed go scot free. That a sin against the public is prevalent is surely a strange argument in favour of the representatives of that public letting it pass unpunished. The more offenders there are, no matter who they are, the more drastically those detected should be dealt with. What Mr. Lloyd George wanted in 1900, that in regard to their financial transactions Ministers should be above suspicion, decent men of all political parties mean to insist on now. Since the etiquette in regard to these matters has been disregarded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, the Chief Whip, and perhaps by others, for the future we must have rules which cannot safely be broken. These rules might, as the Spectator suggests, be formulated by a small repre- sentative Royal Commission.
. So far I find myself in complete agreement with the writer of your article " Government and Money." But when I find him accepting Lord Selborne's argument that what is wrong for a Cabinet Minister is right for an Under-Secretary, the high purpose of the article is tainted by a disagreeable whiff of party spirit, and I feel bound to protest. Instances of Under-Secretaries who dominated their chiefs and their departments have not been unknown. Is it sound doctrine that the virtual ruler of a Government department may be a director of a company with which that department does business? How can a line be drawn between Under-Secre- taries with predominant influence and Under-Secretaries for whose actions their chiefs can be held really as well as technically responsible ? The only safeguard is that the restrictions on the chief should also be binding on the subordinate. Still more strongly must I protest against the apparent significance of the following passage, " Mr. Lloyd George does not believe that the charge against him is that he lost money in a Stock Exchange speculation. If anyone had been foolish enough to make such a charge, then possibly it 'might be relevant to say that other Cabinet Ministers . . ." That Mr. Lloyd George, Sir Rufus Isaacs, and Lord Murray should have gambled in the shares of a company closely connected with a company with which the Government was negotiating, was, of course an aggravation of their offence, a superfluity of naughtiness. But does the Spectator mean by the words quoted above that it is only because the Ministers gambled in Marconis that the public has a right to feel aggrieved, that it would be foolish to object to Mr. Lloyd George or other Ministers gambling in the shares of other companies ? If so, I gladly confess to being one of the large army of fools who object to such gambling. I am not a member of that well- intentioned body, "The Anti-Gambling League." By the by, what censure did it pass on the Chancellor's " flutter " in Marconis P If a Minister can reconcile it to his conscience and common sense to try and break the bank at Monte Carlo, he has as much or as little right to do it as any private individual. The fool will be punished according to his folly. But when a Minister plays on the Stock Exchange against the taxpapers to whom he owes his salary and his position, it is a more serious offence. Because he is a Minister it will pay many people with axes of their own to grind to give him excellent if not infallible tips. These tips will afford him, in many instances, an unfair advantage over the uninformed public taxpayers. Ministers are paid hand- some salaries. In addition, is there any reason why they should be given "six to four the best of it" when they gamble against the public on the Stock Exchange ? Many of us think that it is bad for Ministers and unfair to a con- siderable section of their paymasters. It is true that Mr. Lloyd George and other Ministers have not always gambled successfully. Exclusive information is not always accurate, and clever politicians may not always be discriminating in financial affairs. That gambling Ministers sometimes lose is good for them and good for the public. It does not get rid of the evil done, still more the evil that is thought, when it is noised abroad that the King's Ministers are out to increase their own fortunes and the Party funds by illegitimate means. Great allowances must be made. The money may be needed for admirable purposes. Men in prominent positions have many calls upon their purses. High as their salaries are, possibly, taking into consideration the immense fortunes first- class brains can now command in business, they are underpaid. If so, increase their salaries, but make a bard and fast rule that members of the Government must not gamble on the
Stock Exchange.—I am, Sir, &c., F. W. MAUDE. The Elms, New Romney, Kent.
[It is curious to find ourselves reproved by a Liberal for not being sufficiently hard upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We confess, on reconsideration, that there is a great deal to be said in support of the reproof.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
