ESTABLISHED 1868. The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1913. THE MARCONI COMMITTEE'S VERDICT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVII, Issue 142, 18 June 1913, Page 4

ESTABLISHED 1868. The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1913. THE MARCONI COMMITTEE'S VERDICT.

The opinion of the Daily Mail, a strong Unionist organ, that "a tribunal of political factions was no proper court to deal with the honor of public men," will be the opinion of all who know anything of the way in which Parliamentary special committees are constituted and proceed, not only in Great Britain, but in, New Zealand, and wherever the party system is in force. It is, of course, ethically quite .wrong that one set of men should make up their minds to bring in a certain verdict, regardless of the evidence adduced before them, and that a second set of men should equally decide to give an exactly opposite decision;; but it is nevertheless notorious that, - m in ordinary Parliamentary life, mis is;exactly,what happens. The Marconi inquiry has resulted in a majority verdict of "not guilty," and a minority verdict of "not guilty of actual corruption, but guilty of grave indiscretion followed by mischief-producing prevarication." The Asquith-Lloyd George Government had a ''majority on the committee, and this majority has practically whitewashed Mr Lloyd George, Sir Rufus Isaacs, and Lord Murray of Elibank. The minority report, signed by Lord Robert Cecil, one of the ablest and most bitter enemies the present British Government has to cope with, agrees with the majority report insofar as exonerating Ministers from .'charges of corruption 2 but it severely censures the two Ministers and the ex-Chief Whip for "grave impropriety in making purchases upon advice not available to the public and thereby placing themselves in a position where private . interest might have conflicted with public duty." It seems to us, as it will, we think, seem to all who have, read the cablegrams .relating to the inquiry with any 'special.dare, that the minority report is, in all the circumstances, singularly mild and moderate. , Even the chairman of the Committee, Sir Albert Spioer, a not too brilliant politician, but a gentleman whose position as a commercial man of impeccable respectability was probably borne in mind when he was appointed, is forced to say that had the Ministers concerned been more frank and open in furnishing information at an earlier stage, "much misunderstanding would have been averted." It is satisfactory to know that after a very searching inquiry Ministers have been clearly and' completely absolved of any corruption ; but, well-wishers as we are to Mr Lloyd George arid the present British Government, we must confess our belief that they have actedl with the gravest indiscretion, that they have prevaricated and shuffled, thereby making matters much worse than they, otherwise would have been, and, finally, that they have most foolishly and unnecessarily exposed themselves and the great political party to which they belong to the danger of being accused of mean and paltry moneygrubbing:. The accusation may be quite untrue; but in twlitics to be accused of a fault—and for the accusation to get a good, start of even the most complete and detailed disproof— is often attended by results just as disastrous as those which would have followed upon a full corroboration of the charge^ We notice that each side accuses the other of "creatine: an atmosphere of poisonous t>artisanshir>." Very much the same thing was said by both sides in this country at the time the Hine Charges Committee reported1, and not a few much earlier precedents could: be quoted from New Zealand political histor^. As a matter of fact there must always be partisanship when an offender, or alleged offender, is tried by a Parliamentary, committee. Ar inquiry before a isingie Supreme Court judge would be much more satisfy ctorv. in most cases at least. From this Marconi shares case Ministers may h^ve enwra;ed with their personal honor untarnished; but wfl fear very mil oh th^t the after-fifffvct-s of the inquiry will be most prejudicial to the Liberal party. The mor.nl of the whole case stands out plainly Tt is that Ministers of the Crown should carefully avoid

"investments" in any securities likely to be affected, directly or indirectly, by Government contracts and State interests generally. Also, in this particular instance, Mr Lloyd George ought to have learned what may be a very useful lesson in his future political career, namely, that although it may be desirable to have a gentleman of the name of Isaacs in a Ministry of which he is a member, it is not always wise to have Stock Exchange transactions with that gentleman's relations. But on this point the Liberal Minister has, we expect, already heard more than enough from his fellow-Ministers and the leaders, both in the House and in the country, of th© party to which he belongs.