NO CORRUPTION ?
Any man in his senses who followed the inquiry closely might have expected it to result in some stern action on the part of the Government. The persistent rumours in London . that the report had been before the Cabinet several times were not without their significance. But the lamentable showing of the Minister of Agriculture, Sir Thomas Dugdale, in the . House of Commons on Tuesday has made it certain that the Crichel Down case will not be tucked away quietly into . obscurity. There is to be a debate, it is true, but meanwhile Sir Thomas has decided that no action need be taken against the officials concerned. Because Sir Andrew says in his report that " there was no trace in this case of anything in the nature of bribery, corruption or personal dishonesty," the Minister thinks it right to assume that the inquiry achieved his main purpose. The Minister is too disingenuous by half. Sir Andrew is saying that there was no evidence of corruption as the law understands it, and it is natural that in his report he should wish to make this clear. But no one ever supposed, either before or during the inquiry, that that particular kind of mal- practice was in question. There are other forms of corruption, however, and one is the misuse of power by public servants. The public may well think that the report gives more than enough evidence of this kind of corruption—and it is a kind which can spread all the more widely for being less crudely in conflict with the law than mere bribery.
Previous page
