LETTERS TO Tli t EL) I TO R.
MR. MARKS AND THE UNIONIST PARTY.
(To THE EDITOR Or TEE .SZZOTATO...) Sin,—In thanking you most warmly for the encouragement you have given us in endeavouring to put an end to a national scandal, may I trespass upon your indulgence, and put before your readers a feature of the case which, owing to our attempt to remove this controversy from the area of party politics, bee hitherto escaped public notice ? I mean the responsibility of the Conservative Party outside Thanet for the present dis- creditable state of affairs. It is no longer necessary for me to discuss Mr. Marks's fitness for public life. A letter to the Speaker of November 24th, 1906, set out our objections to him. If that letter be true, his unfitness is demonstrated. Since its truth was challenged, Mr. Bull and I have published the oyidence upon which it was based. That evidence is con- clusive, and cannot be contradicted. Mr. Marks, it is true, has abused his position as a Member of the House of Commons to accuse us falsely, under the shelter of its privileges, of malicious lying; and he has further craved in aid of his allegations the support which he receives from the Conservative Party and associations affiliated to the Central Organisation. I have called the attention of Sir A. Acland-Hood to that fact; but he has not taken any public step in the matter. I wish to show you that it is by no means true to say that the electors of Thanet are solely responsible for the return of Mr. Marks to Parliament, or that be could ever have attained that position without the connivance of the Central Office and the studied reticence of Mr. Balfour.
In the early part of 1904 the existing Thanet Central Council applied to the Central Office for a list of candidates. After considerable pressure, a list of six names was sent down, with Mr. Marks's PUM0 at the head of the list. Of the other Ave, I think only one was willing to stand. Mr. Marks was refused adoption by seventeen votes to two. He immediately started an independent campaign, and relied upon the fact that his name had been placed at the head of the list sent by the Central Office as a proof that the objections to him were unreasonable, and prompted by personal spite. Naturally Su. fact weighed considerably with the electors; and soon it was known that his opponents had appealed in vain to the Central Office, and, of course, were not at that time in a position to set out in detail the evidence recently published. A candidate sent down from the Central Office, Mr. Michelle, accepted the invitation of the official association to contest the constituency; but Mr. Marks secured the support of Members of Parliament, who came down, without rebuke from the Central Office, to support a man who was opposing the then officially selected candidate. On March 6th, 1904,. Mr. Marks held his opening meeting, supported by Colonel the Hon. H. Duncombe, eic.M.P., Sir Joseph Lawrence, MP., and Sir Ernest Plower, M.P. The Hon. Claude Hay, M.P., in apologising for his absence, wrote :— "Since the recent announcement of his candidature for Thanet I have frequently heard from Members in the House how much they look forward to his return to Parliament, so that the Unionist Party may again enjoy the advantage of his great political knowledge and powers in debate." Sir Joseph Lawrence "paid a warm tribute to the ability of Mr. H. H. Marks, whom be said he had had the pleasure of knowing for a great many years. Mr. Marks was anxiously desirous to serve his country ; he was highly respected in the City of London Such men were difficult to get to-day. All- round good Parliamentarians were much too few." On March 25th Mr. Marks was naked either to bring a libel action or submit his claims to the leaders of the party. He declined, but set up his Committee of Inquiry. This Com- mittee consisted of five of his friends, who met in private to listen to his explanations and read the documents which he alone supplied. Their published finding shows that they only claimed as electors to have asked "Mr. Marks to meet us and answer such questions with regard to his career as we might deem fit, and the unanimous opinion arrived at was that in our opinion Mr. Marks was a fit person to be a Member of Parlia- ment." There was no decision as to the truth of any charges, but a conclusion arrived at which was largely influenced by the outside action to which I have just referred.
In June Mr. Marks was adopted as official candidate. On July 17th, 1905, he wrote with reference to the by-election in October :—" The Central Office, on being asked to send a list of candidates, put my name at the head of the list. It gave me its most active support, sent down six of its most trusted agents to help me in the contest, and procured me the services of several Members of Parliament." During the by-election he issued a list of Members of Parliament who had supported him. It was as follows :—The Earl of Kinnoull, Lord Rosmead. Viscount Monntmones, Sir F. Carne Reach,* Hon. Claude Hay,* Sir Joseph Lawrence, Sir Ernest Plower, Sir M. H. Bhownagree, Sir Thomas Dewar, . Sir Harry Samuel, Mr. (now Sir) W. J. Bull,* Major Jameson, Mr. J. Henniker Heaton,* and Mr. E. A. Goulding. Those marked * also supported him at the General Election, and subsequent to the General Election the Right Hon. A. Akers-Douglas came down to Ramsgate on his behalf to open a Conservative club. I need not refer to the struggle after the by-election. Mr. McCormick Goodhart was good enough to champion the cause of honesty in public, life in the Con- servative interest. He failed, and largely because the Central Office, having done the mischief, posed as Genies. And so we find Mr. Marks saying without contradiction on June 28th. 1905 In reply to the false suggestions that have been made, it will suffice for me to say that I enjoy the confidence of my political chiefs in Parliament, that I receive the whips of the party to which I belong, and that I have been an invited guest at my chief Mr. Balfour's house this Session."
Mr. Goodhart, it is true, received the valued support of Lord Robert Cecil, and, just before the election, of Lord Ridley. Mr. Marks thereupon claimed the personal support of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. That statesman, at all events, was not going to risk the pollution of public life by allowing his name to be used in support of Mr. Marks. The facts were brought before him, and he promptly wrote a letter in support of Mr. Goodhart. The effect of that letter was discounted by the fact that Mr. Marks immediately stated that the letter was
obtained by false pretences, and one of his chairmen stated that Mr. Goodhart had so obtained it. Proceedings were hurriedly taken and an interim injunction granted against Mr. Marks and his chairman, Mr. Mascall ; but the Court of Appeal absolved Mr. Marks, on the ground that he had not charged Mr. Goodhart by name with false pretences. Naturally many electors regarded the judgment as a vindica- tion of Mr. Marks. The sequel was interesting. Mr. Good- hart offered to let the matter drop as against Mr. Mascall. Messrs. Lewis and Lewis declined, and delivered a defence justifying the allegation. Shortly before the case was due for hearing the defence was withdrawn, a perpetual in- junction submitted to, and all the costs paid. It then became necessary for Mr. Marks to prove in some other way his support from the dominant wing of the Conservative Party. Mr. Austen Chamberlain was about to address a big meeting at Canterbury. Mr. Marks's name did not appear upon the bills; but his supporters freely stated that unless Mr. Marks was given a prominent place in associa- tion with Mr. Austen Chamberlain they would not help the meeting. This attitude had a marked effect upon Lord Hardinge and his fellow-Protectionists, and Mr. Marks was allowed to second the principal resolution. So the game goes on. A few weeks ago I read of the active part taken by Mr. Marks in the formation of the Kent branch of the National Union,—a Union, by the way, which upon various pleas delayed, and I believe still delays, the affiliation of any organisation which supported Mr. Goodhart.
Now, Sir, why is it that Members of Parliament ever supported Mr. Marks, or that, having done the mischief, they have not the courage to try to repair it P In part the answer may be found in an article published in 1904 by Mitchell's Newspaper Directory from the pen of Mr. E. E. Williams. He tells how, "in the end of March, 1903, he was directed by Mr. Marks to undertake a vigorous propaganda in the Financial News on behalf of Protection, and was requested to supplement that journalistic work by getting together an organisation formed for the same end." He got to work, and on May 14th assembled a number of gentlemen in a Committee-room of the House of Commons to establish "more active co-operation amongst the opponents of the ruinous fiscal system which has so long hampered our national industries." The meeting formed itself into the Protection League. The next day, Mr. 'Williams says, Mr. Chamberlain made his Birmingham speech advocating Colonial Preference. "This was the new situation which we had to consider at the first Committee-meeting of the Protection League, and we rose to it by altering the title of our League. Prejudice had gathered round the word Protection, so our Association became the Tariff League. At the next meeting our Committee changed our title again, and became the Imperial Tariff League. We moved into offices in Pall Mall" (These were, I believe, in the Financial News West End branch offices.) The writer goes on to say that personal differences arose, which were finally settled by the voluntary retirement of Mr. Marks, "the gentleman who was in reality the founder of and had been the most generous subscriber to the League. The Imperial Tariff League then handed over its membership, its effects, and its goodwill to a Committee of Members of Parliament, and so gave birth to the Tariff Reform League," which was inaugurated in the end of July. On May 27th Mr. Justice Bigham had described Mr. Marks as "a rogue and a scoundrel." Of course Mr. Chamberlain could not be asked to join an association founded by a man so described, but the puffs in the Financial News bad been freely given, and the generous subscriptions paid. I do not impugn Mr. Marks's genuine devotion to Protection. In a Protectionist House of Commons be would doubtless feel less lonely and find more scope for his talents; but still, he is not, I think, accustomed lightly to forego any advantage to which he may feel himself entitled. Can any one doubt, in view of what subsequently occurred, that because of his self- effacement Mr. Marks was helped to the seat in Thanet ? Protectionists knew Mr. Balfour's strange doctrine that every constituency must do as it pleases, and that the leader of the party has no responsibility for the actions of his followers. Mr. Marks, even though Sir Joseph Lawrence was ready to testify that he was highly respected in the City of London, could not be put forward sea pioneer of the new movement, but his friends could help to dump him down upon Thanet,
and, when the scandal became too great, to invoke the Balfourian formula of non-intervention and irresponsibility, and- piously to blame the ignorance of a degraded electorate.
Sir, I have spared no effort to secure within the ranks of the party a termination of the present scandal in Thanet; but I hold that, beyond any party question, it is my duty to fight without shrinking against those who are wilfully blind to the true facts of the case, and who, to serve their political needs of the moment, are not ashamed to compromise the honour of the House of Commons.—I am, Sir, &e., J. W. W. Wumarx.
[While publishing Mr. Weigall's letter, we must not be held to endorse his strictures on the Tariff Reform League. Though we are strongly opposed to that organisation, we are sure that its chiefs and the • vast majority of its members are as anxious as we are for the honour of our public life. At the same time, we are bound to say that no section of the Unionist Party, whether Tariff Reformers, Balfourites, or Free-traders, can read the facts set forth by Mr. Weigall as to the party's official action without a keen sense of shame. It should be the business of the Central Office to try to maintain as high a standard as possible among Unionist candidates. Instead, we find it taking action in exactly the opposite direction. Surely all sections of Unionists should unite in an effort to preserve the purity of the House of Commons, and clear our party from any taint of condonation of corruption.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
