TOPICS OF THE DAY.

AN APPEAL TO THE CABINET.

"These are bad things to happen."—(Lord Haldane's Speech, December 10th, 1900.)

1N-0 more serious or more difficult situation has ever confronted the present Cabinet, or perhaps any Cabinet, than that which has arisen through the dealings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General in the American Marconi shares. If the Cabinet comes to a wrong decision and takes wrong action in this case, the deadliest injury may be done to our public life and to the higher interests of the nation. All depends upon the Cabinet. They have it in their power to take up the attitude which—if we except the Nation, whose article of last Saturday should make the journalist proud of his profession—the Liberal press is taking up : they may declare that in spite of the special circumstances there was nothing wrong or even objectionable in the Stock Exchange transactions of Ministers in American Marconi shares, nothing that injured the public interests, set a bad example, or was calculated to cause that growth of suspicion in the public mind which Ministers ought to avoid—nothing, in fact, for anyone to regret or to be in the very least ashamed of. The Cabinet, in other words, may use the compact party majority of which they have the command to endorse the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Attorney-General, and to set up for the future a precedent as to what may be done with a perfect sense of immunity from censure or criticism by Cabinet Ministers and members of a Government, and even by the Minister who has the financial interests of the country in his special keeping—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They may, by the use of the tremendous power which the party system and their great majority give them, tell the world that the rule of Caesar's wife, the rule for the avoidance of suspicion, does not apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney- General and other members of a Government, or that if it does apply it has no relevance in the present case, and that nothing was done to violate it by the Ministers engaged in Stock Exchange transactions over American Marconis.

The use of the party majority to establish this pre- cedent will not, of course, alter the facts, but it will and must alter the usage and the future standard of our public men. It will make a new rule for Ministerial conduct. It will make a lower standard for the men who rule us than is spontaneously established by thousands of men who hold positions of public and semi-public trust, as, for example, members of municipalities and County Coun- eils and members of our own profession. We know of instances in which editors, though under no legal com- pulsion, have avoided transactions in stocks and shares of a kind which might influence, or appear to influence, their criticism of public events and the advice which they desire to give to their countrymen as to the conduct and management of national affairs. We need not, however, dwell further upon the consequences which must arise if the Cabinet insists that no harm has been done, that everybody has behaved with a delicate sense of honour and discretion, and that there was not even any want of candour when the Ministers implicated did not let the House of Commons and the country know of their transactions in American Marconis till events brought about a disclosure. The Cabinet know the consequences which must come of refusing to express, or to allow the House of Commons to express, any disapproval of what has happened. And here we must note that we are not suggesting for a moment that the Cabinet should condemn their colleagues or fall into any of the exaggerated criticism that has been levelled against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General. No fair person would ask them to brand their two colleagues as being guilty of betraying public interests for money. All we ask, all we desire, is that they should not take up the attitude that no wrong has been done—nothing for which the slightest apology is required—and that no harm will come from the precedent which will be made by refusing to pass censure, however moderate, on these events.

We desire to appeal against the making of a precedent fraught with such incalculable evil to the Cabinet as a, whole ; but to three men in the Cabinet—Lord Haldane, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. John Burns—we must especially address ourselves. We do so because whatever we may imagine as to the feelings of others, we have knowledge

that these three men long ago had their special attention drawn to the principles which ought to govern the action of public men in these matters, and long ago not only made up their minds as to these principles but stated them in public. Lord Haldane, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. John. Burns played a chief part in supporting the action which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took in December 1900, when he proposed to the House of Commons a drastic resolution in regard to public men and their private financial commitments. The circum- stances of the particular case under discussion were, of course, not on all fours with the present case, but that does not matter, for Lord Haldane and his two colleagues, following Mr. Lloyd George, dealt with the mattei. in principle as well as in detail. We cannot, of course, in this particular appeal to the Cabinet, include the statement by Mr. Lloyd George, as he is involved. Besides we deal with his statements elsewhere. What we want to do now is to remind the three members of the Cabinet we have named of the principles they laid down in 1900, and to implore them not to ignore those principles now, but in the highest interests of their country to apply them not, of course, vindictively or harshly or pedantically, but to refuse to abandon them and to set up the precedent which, as we have said, must be set up if the Liberal Party is to take up the line that nothing whatever has been done of which anybody need be the least ashamed. Lord Haldane's wise and temperate speech began with a quota- tion from the Spectator which we have before given in these columns, and which we therefore need not give again. Here, however, are three quotations from his speech which show its spirit and the principles laid down—principles which we are asking him not to forget to-day :— " I feel that these things produce a sense of unrest and uneasi-

ness in the public mind. Remember how the man in the street looks upon the Government. He regards the Government as a national institution of which he is proud, and he looks upon it in the same light as he looks upon the judges of the land. Let us remember the case of other people besides those holding high office in the Government. If any judge of the land were to give judgment in a case in which he was interested to the extent to which the right hon. gentleman is interested in these matters, his judgment, not from any implication of personal motive, but on high grounds of public policy, would be void. That has occurred over and over again.

• • • • • • We are to-day face to face with things that have caused unrest

and uneasiness in the country, and, further, I say we have not got to the end of them. It is all very well for the right hon. e'evntle- man, but if these things are allowed to go further, and if the example he sets is followed by others, we shall open a floodgate which we will never be able to close.

• • I say that these things show a want of attention. What is the real interest of the public in the matter ? It is that the Ministry should, by their conduct, be free from all misconception or suspicion in the public mind."

From Mr. McKenna's speech, which as coming from a, younger member was not BO long or so important as that of Lord Haldane, we take the following. Mr. McKenna, it should be explained, was dealing with the very sound and drastic regulations which the Colonial Office laid down in regard to officials in Ceylon. He argued, and very properly argued, that principles Of action which are imposed on subordinates must also bind the chiefs.

"When the right hon. gentleman sanctioned the Minute forbidding officials in Ceylon to invest in land or other companies which might conflict with their public duties, he did not charge them with corruption or improper conduct. It was the duty of the Colonial Office to sec that they did not use their power improperly. Now it is the duty of tho House of Commons to exercise very similar control over Ministers of the Crown, and to say that they must not do anything which might interfere with their public duties."

Mr. John Burns's speech is specially important, for in spite of the interruptions to which he was exposed by a House anxious to get to a division, he laid down in forcible and vigorous terms the true principles and the considerations which should bind members, and pointed out also the evil effects of allowing suspicion to cloud the minds of the working classes in regard to their rulers and the trustees of the national interests. We need make no further comment.

"For the last six hours we have been discussing whether or not what is good for the Civil Service of the country shall or shall not be good for a Minister of the State. • . . What differentiates the British Parliament from any other parlia- ments in the opinion of hon. members opposite ? It is because it does not 'Panama' as the French Parliament has occa- sionally done. It does not do what 'Tammany' has done in America, and it has not yet been under the influence of the chosen people;* of capitalist rings, and other monopolists that are accustomed to reign in the representative institutions in other parts of the world. It is because you think this House is superior to many other parliaments that you have listened for eight hours to questions which must be discussed, and which the people of this country are demanding shall be settled on a permanent and just and fair basis. . . . I am not going to be diverted from my duty as a Member of Parliament by the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, dictated less by an appreciation of the facts than by a desire for political reasons to shield a colleague who has not shown the discretion in his high office which he should. . . . It is no good for Ministers in these days, when Manchester is dismiss- ing mayors, when Salford is dismissing councillors, and when London vestries are excluding men because they give one of their visiting cards to a sanitary inspector—for a man to come down to this House with a tear in his throat and, simply as an answer to charges of fact, talk about his integrity. . . . I want it (the British Empire) to go on well and cleanly and honourably, and it can only go on on these lines as long as you prevent Ministers from dabbling in companies.

• • A belief is growing up amongst the people of this country that Parliament is not so rigid in these personal matters as it ought to be, and that it is susceptible to outside financial influences. . . . We must apply the same standard of public con-

as the right hon, gentleman himself would apply to the London County Council when it suited his purpose. Supposing my brother had been supplying the Works Department with drain pipes or machinery, would not the Colonial Secretary deliver an eloquent homily about the inherent corruptibility of Labour members ? . . . I tell you that you will regret voting against this Amendment when our Civil Service takes this example and traffics in companies and commercial interests as they have a perfect right to do if you allow a Minister of State to do this. When corruption creeps in and when the evil example of the Colonial Secretary brings discredit to the State, dishonour to our country, and degradation to our Parliament, you will regret the day that you voted against this Amendment. . . . If the British Parliament is to remain unsullied and the great assembly we would all wish it to be, if it is to be the embodiment of honour and the centre to which all other countries can look for example, inspiration, and guidance, it can only do so by passing this Amendment, making everyone declare his interests and declare to the world all the shares he holds in public com- panies, and until they do that the common people will say that the House of Commons is not doing its duty, but is sheltering favourites, giving privileges to a few, opening the door to corrup- tion, swindling the taxpayer, and becoming a disgrace to the country of which I have tho honour of being a representative."

Before we leave the subject of this debate and of the principles laid down, we may, although he is not now a Cabinet Minister but an honoured judicial member of the House of Lords, quote the principles set forth by Lord then Mr. Robson. He, at any rate, is a man whose Liberalism and devotion to the best interests of the Liberal Party will not be challenged.

"Nobody, indeed, can put himself above suspicion, but you can avoid putting yourself in circumstances to which suspicion would naturally attach. That is the utmost, I think, that Caesar would have the right to ask of his wife ; it is the utmost we have the right to ask of any public official, high or low. But we have the right to ask that much. . . . A kind of gentle pressure might be exercised by one Minister upon his colleagues in order to influence contracts. Any suspicion which might arise would absolutely naver be proved in any way whatever, and it would have to remain matter of suspicion. Suspicion would be met on the one hand by the Minister in question with abusive epithets, and, on the other, with charges of corruption. The Minister would be believed by his friends, disbelieved by his enemies, and suspected by a large number of persons who belonged to neither category. That is not by any means a satisfactory position with regard to a public servant in a, country like this. It is in order to prevent that condition of things that this sensible rule of the Civil Service has been laid down. . . . The dilemma before the Government is this: either there has or there has not been an irregularity. If there has been they must take some action in regard to it. They must, if it be only by way of a definite expression of opinion, take care that this irregularity is not to be construed as a precedent, and is not to be enlarged into a principle. We are entitled to have either an explicit defence or an explicit disapproval."

• We are strongly opposed to every form of anti-Semitism, and hold that Mr. Burns should not have used these words. We cannot, however, " edit " the extracts which we make from the debate without running the risk of being Charged with garbling our quotations,

Once more, and in conclusion, we would ask not only the three Cabinet Ministers we have named, but all other members of the Cabinet who care for the honour of our public life, not to set a precedent by in effect declaring that these things are not "bad things to happen" and do not matter. We know and can understand fully the terribly trying position of the Cabinet. Many of them are no doubt bound by strong ties of affection to their two colleagues, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General. They also, no doubt, hate the notion (and we can understand their hatred) of appearing to desert friends under fire, even if the fire may to a certain extent be deserved. We can also well under- stand how disgusted they may be, and how much inclined to find excuses for doing nothing, at the gross exaggera- tion and therefore gross injustice of many of the charges that have been levelled against their colleagues. Yet, and here we are sure we shall not be speaking to deaf ears, their hearts will tell them that in a matter like this, when it is a question of establishing a precedent for the conduct of public affairs, they dare not consider such personal considerations as we have named. They dare not think of the unpleasantness of appearing to go back upon a colleague or of being ungenerous and unfeeling. They have got to think of the honour of England. That is the long and short of it all. If they refuse to set a bad precedent they will never regret it. If they allow the working of that terrible instrument, the compact party majority, to make a bad precedent, they know what must be the result. The three statesmen we have named, at any rate, will be acting against the light, for we know by their spoken words that they are well aware of the results of a low standard in these matters.