GIFTS WERE NOT BRIBES !—BOARD OF TRADE TRIBUNAL

Grey River Argus, 20 December 1948, Page 3

GIFTS WERE NOT BRIBES !—BOARD OF TRADE TRIBUNAL

LONDON, Dec. 16. Mr Edmund Davies, K.C. to-day m'ade his closing speech on behalf of Harry Sherman, the Football Fools chief at the tribunal inquirements allegations of corruption against Board of Trade officials.. He described John Belcher, formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as “a man who has lost his integrity through association with an unscrupulous rogue.” He also spoke of “the depth to which Belcher had sunk,” because of his association with Sidney Stanley, the alien who had been the central figure in the 23-day-old inquiry. He said Belcher had told other Government officials of allegations of corruption against, them and himself, yet he had actually laughed it off. “A corruption of moral standards at least has been quite clearly established,” added Mr Davies. Stanley was a complete liar. His allegation that Sherman habitually carried £20,000 or £30,000 in £li notes was outrageous. Holding up a letter from someone in Chester, Mr Davies said that the writer had taken the trouble to weigh £30,000 in £1 notes and the weight was 671 b Counsel for the other witnesses before the tribunal also addressed it. LONDON, Dec. 17 Mr Ronw Moelwyn Hughes. K.C., addressing Mr Justice Lynskey at the Board of Trade tribunal on behalf of Mr George Gibson, a director of the Bank of England, described Sidney Stanley as “a siren of a man,” who fascinated hard-headed business men and politicians. Stanley’s counsel (Mr H. V. LloydJones), said there had been a full orchestra of calumny and dispraise against Stanley, “starting with the vindictive bass of Price, and ending with the egregious double-cross of Dr Hugh Dalton. The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross) must have whad his inspiration in his old memories of melodrama at the Lyceum.” Mr^Lloyd-Jones denied that Stanley hack ever paid a penny piece to Mr Belcher, or had ever told Mr

Sherman that he had paid Mr Belcher money. “Stanley would not be so grotesquely foolish as to put not only himself but his friend Belcher completely in the hands of Belcher’s enemy,” Mr Lloyd-Jones said. Stanley might have bestowed on Mr Belcher too many obvious marks of his friendship, but. they were nothing more than marks of friendship. They were in no sense intended to influence Mr Belcher. Mr Aitken Watson, K.C., for Mr Belcher, said that Mr Belcher received gifts and hospitality incompatible with one of His Majesty’s Ministers, and on that indiscretion a career of great promise had crashed, but acceptance of gifts was one thing, the receiving of them corruptly was quite another thing. “I want to out Belcher before this tribunal as an honest man, however indiscreet,” he said. .