DESCRIPTION OF THE DEBATE.

Colonist, Volume LV, Issue 13754, 20 June 1913, Page 5

DESCRIPTION OF THE DEBATE.

THE MINISTERS' APPEAL.

OVATION BY THE LIBERALS,

THE DEBATE ADJOURNED.

(Received Juno 19, 11.25 p.m.) London, Juno 19

Mr Cave's speech was quietly delivered. The only passage raising party cries was when he.inquired whether Lord Murray of Elibank's purchase of American Marconi shares with tho party funds was for a riso or Jtn investment. If for a rise, then ho asked, the Liberals to say how far they wcro satisfied that the funds for promoting such objects as the disestablishment of tho Church should be derived from gambling on the Stock Exchange? If the purchase was for an investment then tho party's financial interests wero bound up in the success of the American Marconi Company.

Mr Cave contended that the Ministors, in profiting from early information supplied by Mr Godfrey Isaacs, br.oko the rulo that no Minister should tako any advantage or favour from any man contracting with tlie Government. They broke another rule of public life by becoming interested in a company, the profits of which depended upon the confirmation of tho contract.

Sir Rufus Isaacs said he hoped none would hesitate to accept his statement that he never had the faintest intention to deceive any member of tho House. He emphasised tho point that in the purchase of tho American shares, whatever might bo said of its wisdom, there was no suggestion that he acted dishonestly; or in bad faith. Discussing the question whether, tho transaction was discreet, ho contended that it was absurd to suggest that Mr Godfrey Isaacs made him an offer conferring any favour or advantage. Sir Rufus added that although thinking the transactions quite unobjectionable, if he had known all ho knew now he would not have entered into them. Ho had acted perfectly openly.

" Mr Lloyd George also denied any intention of concealment, and remarked that Sir Rufus Isaacs' and his decision was that the Committee would afford the best opportunity of presenting tho facts. That was a mistake, but it was a mistako in judgment, not in candour towards the House.

Discussing the question whether the transaction was judicious or discreet, Mr Lloyd George admitted that it was neither, and he certainly would not go through it again. There was, however, a vast difference between indiscretion which might be acknowledged and rebuked, and indiscretion in private investments "which warranted a solemn vote of censuro. He was conscious ( he had done nothing to bring a stain on his honour as a Minister of the Crown.

"If you will," ho continued, "I .acted thoughtlessly and mistakenly, but I acted innocently, openly, and honestly. That is why I confidently place myself in the hands not merely of my political friends, but, of members of nil parts of the Houso."

Lord Robert Oocil defended his report, and contended that the transactions were gambling transactions in which Ministers ought not to engago. Ho did not charge them with corruption, but with impropriety. He asked the House not to sanction a precedent opening the doors to corruption in the .future.. . : . . ■;.■'.■ ■ •: V- ■. ■' ■• ' ■■' ■ . Mr. Stanley Buckmaster moved an amendment declaring "That the'Houso accepts, the ■.•Ministers' statements;, and repudiates falso charges which hava proved wholly xiiifounded." : Mr Burt seconded the amendment.

GABLE NEWS.

[Press A^sooiation-^Jlopymqht.]

Mr. R. W. Essex defonded the majority report.

Mr. Herbert, Samuel, Postmaster General, dealt trenchantly with anonymous critics, and vindicated the Potst .Office negotiations.

Mr. Lyttelton declared that tho question was not a personal ono, but of what attitude the House should assume towards & great public .question. He recalled an instance in 1854, of a Ministers private secretary whose later appointment as Governor of one of the Australian colonies was cancelled because he had speculated on tho Stock Exchange, although the thon Colonial Secretary did not bolievo tho speculation was based on official information. The debate was adjourned.