MARCONI DEAL

Grey River Argus, 21 June 1913, Page 3

MARCONI DEAL

STATEMENT BY PREMIER. WANT OF FRANKNESS ADMITTED. ; (By Electric Telegraph— Copyright). (Per Press Association). (Rod. 9.5. p.m.) • . . LONDON, June 20. In the "House of Commons the Hon. Mr. Asqudih declared that . an enor-j mous amount of time and trouble'; would be" saved if the Hon. D. Lloyd George and Sir Rufus Isaacs had told? the House the whole story an October, but there had been no falure to observe the rules of honesty and public duty. ' Mr A. J. Balfour said that the charges of personal conniption were absurd and entirely disproved,, but the House had not been treated with any-, thing like-frankness. He' suggested that Mr G. Cave's mo•tion be combined with S. 0. Buck-master's-when it would be carried unanimously. (Red. 12. t0 a.m. After denouncing the scandalous statements of a section of the prsss, Mr Asquith gladly acknowledged that the great organs of press, particularly those representing the unionists behaved throughout the Marconi question with dignity, moderation and jestraint. Mr Asquith next enumerated clearirules for the guidance of Ministers amd public servants in all pecuniary matters. He interposed glowing personal appreciation of the Master of Elibank and reviewed the facts. He did not think that he or anyone had ever heard a franker oa: manlier utterance than Sir Rufus Isaacs or the Hon. D. Lloyd George's. They had suffered for an error of judgment, and the penalty was almost, if not quite as heavy as amy such eirror ever incurred. Theix honor both private and public was absolutely unstained. It would be unworthy of the House to pass a censorious motion on the two members. Mr Balfour strongly criticised the two Ministers' retcence in allowing the facts to come out piecemeal. There was no question of honor or his.honesty: but surely the question was one of ths very gravest indiscretion. Mr Lloyd George had pleaded that he had scarcely time to" attend to his pnvate affairsand manage one of his investments, but the buying of speculative stock was not the way to obiaim leisure. He contended that the two Ministers should frankly haxe expressed sorrow for an honest blunder. ' Finally he argued that unless the House recorded regret for whac had occurred it would be a disaster to public life. He appealed to the P.remier to find some formula more fcotasistent with the credit of the House than the amendm-emt^. and likely to mainxaan the purity of the public service. (Red. 1. a.m.) Mr Bonar Law opposed Sir W. R. Adkins's amendment, but offered to accept the following: "The House having heard Sir Rufus Isaacs and Hon. D Lloyd George's statements acquits them."" (Here follows the last part of Sir W. R. Adkins's motion) : ""Bust s regrets their transactions in Amercan Marconis and want of frankness in their communication to the House." I He disclaimed vindicativeness, but the Ministers' explanations were inadequate. The opposition complained that the two Ministers weare doing things which, in their position, ought not to be done, and they were lacking moral courage in withholdingj:he facts fxom the House. They ought not to have touched American Marconis. The great public sorrow arising from the Titanic disaster was utilised to fill the pockets of men by floating a company. What were they to do with men who bought shares at about £4 and found them now worth less_ than the Hon. D. Lloyd George paid for them ? What will they think when they find that perhaps the Hon. D.- Lloyd George made a profit out of their lolly in dealing with shares ? Opposition cheers and cries of dissent. Had the Hon. D. Lloyd George re-' fleeted upon the possibilities at the time the present debate would not have arisen. Sir Edward Grey said that Mr Bonar Law had put a harsh construction on the transaction. The pharse want frankness was capable of being constirued as imputing a dishonourable motive. If so construed it would entadl the resignation of the two Ministers, closing their political careers. The House ought to pass' no motion regardable as a vote of censure on the two Ministers. They made no us : e of official information and their pxpress'ons of ire^ret were ample and sufficient to cover the whole case, and ought to be accerred frankly ?md openly without qualification. (Ministerial, cheers). , In the Housn of Commons Mr. Buck master's amend men.t was withdrawn in favour of Sir William Adkins's . which was carried by 346 to 268. declaring that the House accepts the two Ministers' expression of regret for the nurchases of American Marconis, and that the fact was not mentioned in October. The debate acquits them of actng otherwise than in good fairh and reprobates the wholly false charges of corruption brought against the Ministers'. .