THE MARCONI DEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 18, 21 June 1913, Page 5

THE MARCONI DEAL.

. FURTHER DEBATE. By Cable—Press Association—Copyright. Received 20, 9.5 pjn. London, June 20. In the House of Commons Mr. Asquitb declared that an enormous amount of time and trouble would have been saved if Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Rufus Isaacs had told the House the whole story in October, but there had been no failure to observe the rules,of honesty and public duty. ' •Mr. Balfour said that the charges of personal corruption were absurd, and had been entirely disproved, but the House had not been treated with anything like frankness. He suggested that' Mr. Cave's motion, combinedywith Mr. Buckmaster's. should >e carried unanimously. BUCKMASTER'S AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN. A SATISFACTORY ENDING. : Received 20, 10.10 p.i».' London, June 20. In the House of Commons Mr. Buckmaster's amendment was withdrawn; in favor of Mr. Adkins's, which was carried hy 346 to 268, declaring that the House ■ accepts the two Ministers' expression of regret at the purchases of American Marconis, and that the fact that this w&s not mentioned in the October debat.e, , . and ' acquit them •of action otherwise than in good faith, but reprobates the •wholly false charges of corruption brought against Ministers. SOME VIGOROUS SPEECHES. \ Received 21, 12.10 ajn. London, June 20. After denouncing the scandalous statements of a section of the press, Mr. As- \ quith gladly acknowledged that the great organs of the press, particularly thoge representing the Unionists, bad behaved throughout the Marconi enquiry with dignity, moderation and restraint. , Mr. Asquith next enumerated clear rules of guidance for Ministers and public servants in all pecuniary matters. He interposed a glowing personal appreciation of Lord Murray of Elibank, and reviewed the facts. At present he did not think he or anyone had ever heard of franker or manlier utterances than those of Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr. Lloyd George. They had suffered for an error of judgment, and the penalty was almost, if not quite, as heavy as any such error had ever incurred. Their honor, both private- and public, was absolutely unstained. It would be unworthy to pass a censorious motion on the two Ministers. Mr. Balfour strongly criticised theijyo Ministers'for their reticence and for-al-lowing facts to come out piecemeal. There was no question of honor or dishonesty, but surely the question was the very gravest indiscretion Mr. Lloyd George had pleaded that he had scarcely time to attend to his private affairs ■and manage his own investments, but buyers speculating in stock were not in , the way to obtain leisure. He contended that the two Ministers should have frankly expressed sorrow a t an honest blunder. Finally, he argued that Unless the House recorded regret at what Ijad, occurred, it would be a disaster to public life. He appealed to the Premier to find some formula more consistent with the credit of the House than the amendment, and likely to maintain the purity of the public service. , t Mr. l ßonar Law opposed Mr. Adkins's amendment, but offered to accept the following:—"The House having heard Sir Rufus Isaacs' and Mr. Lloyd George"s statements, acquits them (here follows the last part of Mr. Adkins's amendment), but regrets their transactions in American Marconis, and their want of frankness in their communications to the House." He disclaimed any vindictiveness, but the Ministers' explanations were inadequate. The Opposition complained that the two Ministers were doing things which, in their position, they ought not to have done, and lacking moral courage in withholding the facts from the House. They ought not to have touched American Marconis. The great public was sorry that enterprise arising out of the "Titanic disaster should have been utilised to fill the pockets of men floating a company. What do the men who boucrht the shares at about four pounds ami found them now worth less than Mr. Llovd George paid for them think when they find perhaps that Mr. Lloyd George made a profit out of their folly in dealing in ilie shares? (Opposition cheers and cries of dissent). Had Mr. Lloyd Gcor?e reflected upon the possibilities at the time the present debate would not have arisen. Sir E. Grey said that Mr. Bonar Lmv put the harshest construction on (lie transaction. The phrase "want of frankness" was capable of bemg construed as imputing a dishonorable motive. Tf ■ so construed it would entail the resignation of the two Ministers and the closing of their olitical career's. The House ought to pass no motion reffudable as a vote of censure. The two Ministers had made no use of official information. Their expressions of regret were ample and sufficient to cover the whole • cas<\ and oujjht to be accepted franklv tind openly without qualification (Ministerial cheers.).