THE MARCONI CASE.
WE are not going to waste time or provoke our readers' patience by conventional declarations that the Ministers concerned in the action against Le Matin have by their statements and confessions in court cleared their characters from all charges of venality and pecuniary corruption. We never believed them guilty, or capable of, pecuniary corruption and venality, and we never charged them with such offences, and consequently have no occasion to rejoice in the proving of an innocence which required no proof. On the contrary, we always expressed our belief in their complete immunity from such sins. Therefore, as we have said, we are not going to waste time by patting them on the back for not having been shown to be base, dishonourable, and infamous men, utterly deaf to the voice of public duty. But while recognizing in them a guiltlessness which we have always sincerely believed in, we are not going, out of a kind of inverted chivalry, to declare that they have acted wisely and nobly and as they ought to have acted throughout these unfortunate transactions. On the contrary, we hold that what happened in Mr. Justice Darling's court is a complete and absolute vindication of the Spectator's attitude on the whole matter. In fact, as regards the allegations made by the Spectator against two members of the Government, we claim a verdict on the admissions made by Sir Rufus Isaacs on Wednesday in the suit against Le Matin. Let us recall to our readers' minds what the Spectator's allegations were. We stated them again and again, but the example of November 23rd, 1912, will serve as well as any to show the nature of our complaint :— " We will repeat once more that we have never charged, or intended to charge, any member of the Government or any of its servants directly or indirectly with corruption or any such offence in connexion with the Marconi contract. Indeed, we have been most scurrilously abused by the Eyewitness for our refusal to make such charges. It was there insinuated that we have been trying to shelter the Government. What we have dane is to assert that the Government have not in this matter acted with the delicacy, the discretion, and the carefulness of public interests with which they ought to have acted. Through this carelessness two things have happened. The Government have made, as far as we can judge from the evidence, a bad bargain with the Marconi Company—though we do not profess to speak from any expert knowledge, but rather from the admissions of the Government witnesses. Next, and this is by far the more important matter, the Government have, by their want of delicacy and discretion in handling the whole matter, allowed an atmosphere of suspicion and of poisonous, and as we believe quite untrue, innuendoes to be created which is most injurious to the public interest. This is our contention—a contention which it was, in our belief, a public duty to set forth. From it we shall not be driven by threats or by accusations that we are making attacks which we are not making, or by artful attempts to confound our reasonable protests with the unreason- able and scurrilous accusations which we repudiate and deplore."
With these allegations in mind, together with the evidence given by Sir Rufus Isaacs in the Matin case last Wednesday, will any impartial reader say that the Spectator was not justified in its criticism, and main- tain that the members of the Government concerned acted with the full delicacy and discretion with which men in their position ought to have acted ? Consider for a moment the transactions to which Sir Rufus Isaacs confessed in court on Wednesday. Though he declared (and, of course, we absolutely accept his word) that he had not dealt in the shares of the English Marconi Company, he stated that he had dealt in the shares of the American Marconi Company on a very large scale. He had bought 10,000 shares in this company, which, as far as we can calculate, involved a speculation running up to some £50,000. No doubt it may be said that what appears to a journalist as a very heavy speculative transac- tion was, in fact, a small matter to a man of Sir Rufus Isaacs' wealth. Still we are bound to say, on full con- sideration, that it was an investment, even for a man of Sir Rufus Isaacs' means, of large proportions, and not one that can be represented as in no sense abnormal or specula- tive, or as one which he would not be likely to keep in his memory. The Attorney - Gineral went on to describe how he had put two of his colleagues into the good thing which he had chanced upon in America. He explained, however, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Master of Elibank that the Government contract with the English Marconi Company could not in the least affect the shares in the American Company, and so induced Mr. Lloyd George and the Master of Elibank each to take a thousand of the American shares from him, apparently at X5 a share—again a not inconsiderable investment. The Master of Eliba.nk was at the time the chief Liberal Whip and one of the most important members of the Administration. Let us ask again whether this is a transaction consistent with that delicacy and discretion which should govern the action of members of the Government in such matters ? We admit to the full, of course, that there was no flavour of corruption or dishonesty in the trans- action. Again, we do not intend to argue the question of how far the finances of the English and American companies are intermixed. We will assume that the two companies could not be anything else but absolutely independent, and that the price of the shares in one company could never in any way affect the price of those in the other, and that the fact that three of the Directors of the English Company were also on the American Board, and that the English Company owned a large block of shares in the American Company does not constitute any community of interest. But even assuming all this, was the transaction in accordance with that high standard in public affairs which is admittedly most desirable ? Was it likely to avoid " the appearance of evil " ? Was it calculated to set the best possible example to all civil servants and minor men and to all future Ministers ? We are in no doubt about the answer which will be given by men of all political parties. We can read it plainly enough in the comments of Liberal papers like the Daily Chronicle and the Manchester Guardian. Most naturally they do their best not to desert a political friend under fire, but if we read between the lines we can see how uneasy they feel at the suggestion, that as long as Ministers, including even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are free from actual corruption, they can invest or speculate in stocks and shares exactly like members of the outside public, and that public considerations have nothing to do with limiting their private transactions on the Stock Exchange.
We must turn now to the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What makes the matter specially difficult for Mr. Lloyd George is the fact that those who defend him cannot use the suggestion that he was new to considerations of this kind and to the highest traditions of our public life, and that it would be pardonable if the idea of delicacy and discretion in its more exacting forms had never occurred to him. We know, as a matter of fact, that those considerations have been very specially before him, for it was he who was the chief exponent in Parliament of the principle of delicacy and discretion when Mr. Chamberlain and his sons and brother were so vehe- mently attacked in the House of Commons, and when the then Liberal Opposition brought up the whole question in Parliament Mr. Lloyd George was the 0 statesman who moved the motion in December 1900 condemning the action of Mr. Chamberlain. So high a view did Mr. Lloyd George then take of these matters that he actually wished to insist that not only Ministers of the Crown but—we quote the words of his motion—" members of either House of Parliament hold- ing subordinate office in any public department ought to have no interest, direct or indirect, in any firm or company competing for contracts with the Crown, unless the nature and extent of such interest being first declared, your Majesty shall have sanctioned the countenance thereof and, when necessary, shall have directed such precautions to be taken as may effectually prevent any suspicion of influence or favouritism in the allocation of such contracts." That in his mood of those days Mr. Lloyd George would have allowed no excuses about a company being an American company and having no connexion except that of a name with the English company dealing with the Government, is clear from the spirit of his speech. After stating what he called " the rule of Caesar's wife" and other rules derived there- from to prevent the growth of suspicion in regard to Ministers, Mr. Lloyd George went on : " When once these rules are broken by any person in high position it leads to the complete demoralization of the whole Civil %twice. It is setting a dangerous precedent.' Again, speaking of such rules, he declared that " these rules are laid down not altogether to prevent corruption or to hit corruption, but to prevent circumstances that might justify corruption in others." As to the suggestion that the atmosphere of suspicion was really created by those who brought the matter to the attention of the House, and by their inquiries and investigations outside, Mr. Lloyd George laid down the true principle in bold words :- "I say that not merely have we a right to bring these facts before the House, but it is the duty of some member to do it. They invite explanation, nay, they demand it. It is not that charges of corruption are brought against any Minister of the Crown, _for that is not insinuated, but I do say, to use a phrase uttered by the right hon. gentleman, 'it is not treasonable, but it is improper.'" Finally, in his peroration Mr. Lloyd George declared that the Government had given "legitimate grounds for uneasiness and, above all, they have established precedents which, if they are followed, would lead to something infinitely worse than anything I have spoken of to-day." We leave it to our readers to say how far Mr. Lloyd George acted on these principles when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, lie bought from a colleague £5,000 worth of shares in the American Marconi Company. Was he acting with that delicacy and discretion which he so properly de- scribed as essential ? Though there was no corruption, and though Sir Rufus Isaacs, as he pathetically pleaded, lost money on his speculation, as presumably his colleagues did. also, who can say that the Ministers in question acted as they should have acted ? We have referred to the allegations against Mr. Chamberlain. We can best illustrate the nature of Mr. Lloyd George's indiscretion by asking him what he would have said in 1900, i.e., when he was so much imbued with the principle of " Caesar's wife," if Mr. Chamberlain had first stated that he had never held any pecuniary interest direct or indirect in Kynoclis (his brother's company), but had Later confessed that his brother had brought out an "American synchs," and that he had invested £10,000 in that company because it had nothing in common with the English Company but the name ; and that he had induced Sir Michael Hicks Beach (the Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer) and the Unionist Chief Whip to share in the transaction.
We cannot, unfortunately, leave the matter as it stands- in regard to Sir Rufus Isaacs. Though we do not wish to be hard upon him in any way, and though we are convinced that there was no personal corruption, that is to say, that he did not betray the interests of the nation for money, we are bound to point out that his statement in the House of Commons in the Marconi debate last autumn was not as absolutely candid as it ought to have been, and as we do not doubt he now wishes it had been. During the debate on October 12th, 1912, the Attorney-General described how he sent a telegram to the Marconi banquet in America, a banquet which, if we are not mistaken, was held for the purpose of furthering the interests Of the American company in which Mr. Godfrey Isaacs was, and we believe still is, a director. We venture to say that when the question of this telegram to the American company was dwelt upon in Parliament, and when it was asserted by Major Archer Shee that " the sending of a public telegram to be read at a business banquet was a great mistake and a most injurious proceeding," and when the Attorney-General defended himself at very considerable length from this -charge, he showed a most unfortunate lack of frankness in not taking that oppor- tunity of stating what he told the Court on Wednesday, i.e., the story of his dealings in the American Marconi Company's shares. It is, of course, quite easy to see why. he shrank from doing so then. It would have made him look foolish, and would have given -rise to severe criticism. Nevertheless, it was clearly his duty to speak out. By not doing so be conveyed a general impression to the House that he had never had any transactions with any company, directly or indirectly, nearly or remotely, con- nected with the Marconi business, and that in fact he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew no more about Marconi shares of any sort or kind than babes unborn. At any rate, that was the impression made upon us, and we believe upon hundreds of ordinary, or, if Sir Rufus wills, simple-minded people. It was not right to create this particular atmosphere when the Attorney- General must have had in his mind his transaction. in the American Marconi shares. As a man of the world, of unrivalled experience in business, and of con- spicuous ability in commercial matters as well as in law, he must have known that, although his and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's holdings in the American Marconi Company could be explained, the fact of those transactions if dis- covered later would produce a very unfavourable impression upon the ordinary man—the man who does not easily distinguish between different types of companies, especially when they have common directors, deal in the same kind of business, and are officially described as " Associated Companies." Let us repeat that we do not say there was anything corrupt or criminal in this want of frankness. We quite well understand why Sir Rufus Isaacs practised the reticence and economy of statement to which we have alluded. We do say, however, that it was most un- fortunate, and constitutes a. very bad precedent. The next time that Ministers have to answer some accusation of this kind the public will, we fear, be inclined to believe that there is very likely something behind the official denial—just, they will say, as there was after all some- thing behind the apparently absolute disclaimer of Sir Rufus Isaacs. That will be an unfair way of looking at it, no doubt, but it will be inevitable. Even if we admit that in this case " the thing behind " was not in itself criminal, or dishonourable, or wicked, it was nevertheless the kind of thing which a man who felt strongly about the principle of delicacy and discretion in public affairs ought not to have concealed. Sir Rufus Isaacs, remember, spoke for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as himself. We must only say again that the whole business leaves a most unpleasant and disagreeable im- pression, and shows a carelessness in regard to the creation of suspicion which can only be described as deplorable.
Before we leave the subject we have another thing to say. We note that Liberal papers, which seem to have a monopoly of information about the actions of the Marconi Committee, have stated that the editor of the Spectator will be " compelled" to come before the Committee to sub- stantiate his monstrous charges against Ministers and to suffer the humiliation, and so on, which is his due. In regard to these statements we have only to say that the editor of this paper will be delighted, if called upon, to appear before the Committee. He cannot, however, bring any charges of corruption against Ministers, for the very good reason that he has never believed them or made them. But though he has no charges of this kind to bring, if the Committee is willing to hear him he will be very glad to answer any questions which are asked him as to his contentions in regard to the want of delicacy and discretion shown by the Ministers involved, and as to the importance of the principles of delicacy and discretion being maintained in all public affairs where pecuniary considerations are involved. And here, indeed, we may say that we hope most sincerely that the Mar- coni Committee, instead of futile attempts to hunt Mr. Maxse into the Clock Tower for doing what every honourable editor would have done—refusing to betray his correspondents—will steadily fix their minds upon the public interests involved. They may yet do a great public service if they will sift this whole matter to the bottom and will lay down for the future the principles upon which Ministers ought to act where considerations like those in the Marconi case are involved. We venture to say that if they do their work thoroughly and sincerely their report will not state that there is no sort of objection to Ministers having Stock Exchange transactions of the kind in which Sir Rufus Isaacs, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Master of Elibank engaged in April 1912. They will not, of course, describe such transactions as corrupt, but we are certain that they will feel compelled to describe them as highly undesirable.
We should be careful to point out, in conclusion, that nothing which we have said in criticism of the action of Sir Rufus Isaacs and of Mr. Lloyd George in the matter of the American shares applies to Mr. Samuel. He was not a party to the transactions in the American Marconi shares described by Sir Rufus Isaacs. In saying this, however, we must not be regarded as in any way apolo- gizing for or withdrawing anything we have said of Mr. Samuel, for the good and sufficient reason that we have never accused him of corrupt actions or motives, but have again and again refused to make or to endorse such charges. We congratulate him upon his good sense in not investing in the American Marconi shares, even though he could have obtained the assurance which the Attorney- General gave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Master of Elibank, that there was no reason why Ministers should not put their money in these shares— shares in a Company which, it was alleged, had nothing to do with the English Company except that it bore the same name, was called an " Associated Company," and that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs and two of his English col- leagues were on its board !
Previous page
