SIDNEY STANLEY’S ACTIVITIES

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25713, 27 January 1949, Page 5

SIDNEY STANLEY’S ACTIVITIES

Under the heading of “The CRse of Mr Stanley,” the report of the Lynskey tribunal devotes the bulk of its space to what it describes as “some of Mr Stanley’s enterprises.” The report described Stanlev as “a man who will make any statement, whether true or untrue, if he thinks it to his advantage to do so.” After dealing with Stanley’s provision of accommodation at Margate for Mr John Belcher and Mrs Belcher and gifts to Mr Belcher, the report says that the tribunal is satisfied that Stanley endeavoured to persuade Mr Belcher to do what he could to secure the withdrawal of the prosecution against Sherman’s Pools, Ltd., for sending coupons to persons who had not paid for them. “Mr Belcher says that he came to his decision to withdraw the prosecution on the merits of the case and in a desire to do no injustice to Sherman’s Pools,” says the report. “In view of all the circumstances we cannot accept his evidence on this point. In our view his decision was the result of a suggestion or request by Stanley, and of a desire on Mr Belcher’s part to make some return for the benefactions he had received and to assist Stanley in his business negotiations with Sherman’s.

“It may be a coincidence, or it may be a case of cause and effect, but after a cheque for £7OOO had been given to Stanley, he and Harry Sherman, on the same day, visited Mr Belcher at the House of Commons with a view to inducing Mr Belcher to reconsider the paper allocation of Sherman s Pools. Ltd. It is quite clear that the decision not to prosecute was, in fact, made by Mr Belcher. If Mr Belcher had a clear conscience about the withdrawal of the prosecution and had acted solely iri what he describes as the interests of justice, his conduct after the accusation was made against him is inexplicable.” The report continues: “It does not follow from this attitude of Mr Belcher that he received any payment in money for the withdrawal of the prosecution, but it is suggested that he realised that what he had done on that occasion was wrong, and that he did not desire to have the matter immediately investigated. His letter to the Lord Chancellor also failed to disclose his intimate relations with Stanley and the gifts and hospitality that he had been receiving from him, and showed a marked lack of candour.” The tribunal said that there was no doubt that Stanley had offered Mr George Gibson the chairmanship of directors in a new company. J. Jones, Ltd., at a salary of £lO.OOO yearly, conditional upon the consent of the Capital Issue Committee being obtained to the public issue of shares in the new company. We are satisfied that Stanley made tit s offer with the object of securing "lr Gibson’s influence and help to obthat consent,” says the report. We feel that Mr Gibson must have

realised the object with which the offer was made. It is true that he declined it. but we think he did so because he preferred to accept the chairmanship of the North-western Electricity Board. “If Mr Gibson realised Stanley’s object he should have dissociated himself thereafter entirely from Stanley’s activities. Instead of this, he did what he was asked to do. and assisted in the efforts Stanley was making to secure the consent of the Capital Issue Committee.

“Mr Gibson saw and obtained information from his two co-directors at the Bank of England which he thought would assist Stanley, as well as seeing a responsible official at the Board of Trade. . “We much regret to have to find that Mr Gibson allowed himself to be influenced by Stanley’s offer, which he knew was made for an improper purpose. and that Mr Gibson continued to assist Stanley in the latter’s various enterprises in the hope of further material advantage to himself.” The report said that Stanley was able to give colour to his statements because Mr Belcher. Mr George Gibson, and Mr Charles Key had received him on apparently friendly terms, and it was not therefore surprising that rumours arose and that baseless allegations of payments of large sums of money were made. The tribunal comprised Mr Justice Lynskey (chairman), Mr Godfrey Russell Vick. K.C.. and Mr Gerald Ritchie Unjohn, K.C. It sat for 25 days and heard evidence from 58 witnesses. The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross) conducted the case for the Crown. , , . The tribunal’s report will be debated by Parliament.