THE MARCONI DEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 17, 20 June 1913, Page 5

THE MARCONI DEAL.

SIGNIFICANT "BEG PARDONS." MINISTERS ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR MISTAKE. By Cable—Press Association—Copyright. Received 19, 5.5 p.m. London, June 18. The House of Commons was crowded when Mr. Cave, Unionist member for Kingston, Surrey, gave a judicial analysis of the Marconi transaction. He said that he moved his amendment with reluctance, but it was necessary for the Opposition to state their views. There was no trace of personal corruption, but Sir Rufus Isaacs at one time made a profit of £SOOO and other Ministers £2200 out of Godfrey Isaacs' confidential information. The reticeuce and concealment in October were unfair to the House. Viscount Helmslcy seconded the amendment. Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr. Lloyd George followed, and were greeted with sympathetic Ministerial cheers. They left the House after explanations, in accordance with precedent. Sir Rufus Isaacs admitted that his action in the October debate had been mistaken, and he believed that the American transactions ( had no direct relevancy. His mind was full of the indignity of the charges of, corruption. Godfrey Isaacs's offer of shares was only actuated by fraternal motives. He now sincerely felt that it was a mistake to purchase the shares. Any blatte tasted with' himself, and not with the - Chancellor. Mr. Lloyd George said that it would • have been infinitely better if the whole facts had been placed "before the House in October, but he and Sir Rufus Isaacs had decided that it was better to give the whole facte to the Committee. He would be deeply grieved if the House thought that he was lacking in frankness. He now saw that the. purchases of the shares lent themselves to misconception and misconstructi.on. MAKING A CLEAN BREAST. ' . FRANK AVOWALS. A SENSATIONAL DEBATE. Received 19, 11.25 p.m. London. June 19. ■ In the House of Commons Mr. Cave's speech was quietly delivered, the only passage raising party cries being when, enquiries were made whether Lord Murray of Elibank's purchase of American Marconis with party funds was for a rise .or for investment. If for a rise,' theij it was asked if the Liberals would say how far they were satisfied that funds for promoting such objects as the disestablishment of the church should be derived from gambling on the Stock Exchange. If for investment, then the party's financial interests were bound , up in the success of the American Mar--1 coni Company. Mr. Cave contended that Ministers profiting by early information supplied by Air. Godfrey Isaacs broke the rule that no Minister should take advantage or favor from a man contracting with the Government. They broke another | rule of public life by becoming interested in a company the profits of which de-j pended on the confirmation of- a contract. ' Sir Rufus Isaacs hoped that no one would hesitate to accept his statement, j He had never the faintest intention to deceive any member of the House. He emphasised that in the purchase of J American shares, whatever might be said of its wisdom, there was no suggestion that he acted dishonestly or in'bad faith. Discussing whether the transaction was discreet, he contended that it was absurd to suggest that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs made an #fler conferring a favor or an advantage. He added that although thinking the transactions were quite unobjectionable. if he had known all he knew now he would not have entered into them. He had acted perfectly, openly. Mr. Lloyd George also denied that there was any intention of concealment., He remarked that Sir Rufus Isaacs' and j his owjj decision was that a committee would afford the best opportunity of presenting the facts. It was a mistake, but a mistake in judgment, not in candor to- j wards the House. Discussing whether | the transaction was judicious or discreet., he admitted that it was neither, and he certainly would pot go through it again. There was, however, a vast difference between an indiscretion which might be acknowledged and rebuked, and an indiscretion in private investments which warranted a solemn vote of censure. He was conscious that he had done nothing to bring a stain on the honor of a Minister of the Crown. "If you will," he s;iii!, "I acted thoughtlessly, carelessly anil mistakenly, but I acted innocently, openly and honestly. JThat is why 'I cnii!id".ntly place .myself in the hands not merely of my political friends but of members of all parts of the House." Sir Robert Cecil defended his report. : He contended that the transactions were 'gambling transactions, in which Ministers ought not to engage. He did not charge them with corruption, but with grave impropriety. He asked the House not to sanction a precedent by opening the doors to corruption in future. Mr. \V. Buckmaster moved an amendment declaring that the House accepts f he Ministers' statement and repudiates (lie false charges, which had been proved 'o be wholly unfounded. Mr. Hurt seconded this. Mr. 1!. Essex defended the majority report. Mr. Samuel dealt trenchantly with "nonyirious critics and vindicated post olliee negotiations. The Hon. A. Lyttclton declared that the question was not a personal one, but one' of what attitude the House should assume towards a great public question. He recalled an instance in 1854 of a Minister's private secretary, whose later appointment as Governor of one of the ' Australian colonies was cancelled because ! he had spccualted on the Stock Exchange. Although Sir Geo. Grey was, then Colonial Secretary, he did liot believe that the speculation was based on official information. I he debate was adjourncl. The Standard remark!, that the Op- 1 position's main point has; been largely ! attained by avowals. ° ' ] Sir linfiis Isaacs's manly tones impressed Ihe House. He spoke with a good deal of emotion and with frequent dramatic gestures, especially when describing the spread of rumors and the hateful feeling of men pursuing him in the lobby and at street corners. "I could hear the pointing of a finger as I passed," he exclaimed, his look being eloquently expressive of anguish caused by slander.

Mr Llovd George's specific admission regarding the investments was equally frank. Mis closing personal appeal to e whole House was delivered with sreat eloquence, finely phrased and highly charged with emotion.

lieviouslv the Liberals had warmly demonstrated at intervals for both speeches. and when Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr. Lloyd (ieori>'c retired the Minister,ill,sts - lls| "S i" a body, cheered a-ain and again.

The Daily Mail, reviewing the debate, says it would not have been surprised had Mr. Cave's resolution been withdiawn. It adds that the standard of public duty lias been maintained, and (lie principle for which the debate wa.s initiated has been fully vindicated. The Times sa.vs: ' "'Neither Minister v.'cms to understand how his conduct

•wOuld stroke a man. The public must'not be blamed for their being splashed with mud. They must be commiserated with, but if they stepped easily into an avoidable puddle we say it was their fault If they say that they did not know that it was a puddle, we say that they ought to have known better, but if tliey say. 'After all, it was quite a clean puddle,' we judge theln to be deficient in a sense of cleanliness. Ministers, of course, had no corrupt intention, but the public; look to facts and not to motives."