THE CABINET AND THE MARCONI CASE.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—As an Independent in politics I have tried to keep my mind unbiassed in regard to this Marconi case until all the facts and arguments are known. As an old lover of the Spectator—for some twenty-five years my Spectator has been my weekly enjoyment—I am surprised that you should not see the fallacy that runs through the whole of your argument in your articles of Saturday last. You accuse the Attorney- General of conduct inconsistent with discretion, and having proved—to the satisfaction of many perhaps—your charge,
you go on to argue for the punishment of the accused, not on the basis of an indiscretion but of a failure in a point of honour of which you do not allege them to have been guilty. Surely it is possible to hold that the accused committed an error of judgment in deciding that though they could not deal in British Marconis, they were justified in buying shares in the American Marconi Company, and also that that error of judgment is not one calling for severe censure or punishment Surely no one except an extreme partisan could say that such an error of judgment deserved to be punished by political and, professional ruin. Yet that is what you really maintain. If Sir Rufus Isaacs is not fit to be a member of the Cabinet, be can hardly be considered fit for an appointment on the Bench. If Ministers are driven to condone a lower standard from this case, surely the cause will be the action of those who drive them to this course by demanding a punishment out of all proportion to the indiscretion. The charges of corruption and dishonour have been disproved, but you demand that the accused should be punished as if the charge of dishonour had been proved.—I am, Sir, &c., A POLITICAL INDEPENDENT.
[We shall not restate our arguments, but leave it to our readers to say whether the above letter is a fair and sufficient statement of our view of the case and of the consequences of the action deliberately taken by the two Ministers and declared by them and by their defenders to be wholly justi- fiable. We would advise "A Political Independent" to read the speech made by Mr. Lloyd George in the Debate in December 1900—a speech in which the principles which should guide Ministers are laid down.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
