TOPICS OF THE DAY.
DELICACY AND DISCRETION.
TN dealing with the allegations against members of the Government as regards the Marconi Contract and the employment of Samuel, Montagu and Co. by the India Office, we have strongly repudiated the slightest suggestion of corruption. We have urged, however, the need for the utmost delicacy and discretion in our public men when treating matters apt to create in the public mind any suspicion of malpractice. Much to our disap- pointment and also our surprise, we have received practic- ally no support in the Liberal Press or amongst prominent Liberal statesmen in regard to the general principles which we have laid down. Yet, curiously enough, there was a time when Liberal newspapers and Liberal statesmen were eager to support the Spectator in this work. When some twelve years ago we stated exactly similar principles, they vied with each other in applauding what they were then kind enough to call our public spirit. The only difference was that the statesmen subject to our criticism at that time were Unionists and not Liberals. In the year 1900, in a debate in the House of Commons when the Liberals were in Opposition and the action of Unionist Ministers was being called in question, Lord Haldane, then Mr. Haldane, used the following words :- • ' The right hon. gentleman seems to me to misapprehend altogether the position of the attack—if he likes to call it so— made on him by hundreds and thousands of reasonable people in various parts of the country who have no dislike to him. The right hon. gentleman seems to think that this matter can be disposed of by being reduced to a personal attack. I would reply in the language of the Spectator, which the other day in a leading article on this very topic, said:—
'But, in spite of these high qualities, he would be very much better for a little more discretion and more prudence, and a little more ability to see that the world cannot be run on the dilemma : " Either I am trustworthy or I am not. If I am worthy of trust, then it is shameful and malignant not to trust me all in all." He forgets that we must think of other people besides himself, and of other generations besides the present.'
As far as I ant concerned, my case is just the case which has been put by the ' Spectator' newspaper. I feel that these things produce a sense of unrest and uneasiness in the public mind. Remember how the man in the street looks upon the Government. He regards the Government as a national institution of which he is proud, and he looks upon it in the same light as he looks upon the judges of the land. Let us remember the case of other people besides those holding high office in the Government. If any judge of the land were to give judgment in a case in which he was interested to the extent to which the right hon. gentleman is interested in these matters, his judgment, not from any implication of personal motive, but on high grounds of public policy, would be void."
While quoting this admirable piece of political philosophy we must ask a plain question. Why do we not hear similar words now from Liberal leaders ? In this matter Lord Haldane did not stand alone. The debate in which his speech occurred (December 10th, 1900) took place on an amendment to the Address moved by Mr. Lloyd George. The amendment was in the following terms :— " And we humbly beg to represent to your Majesty that Ministers of the Crown and members of either House of Parliament holding subordinate office in any public department ought to have no interest direct or indirect in any firm or company competing for contracts with the Crown, unless, the nature and extent of such interest being first declared, your Majesty shall have sanctioned the countenance thereof and, when necessary, shall have directed such precautions to be taken as may effectually prevent any suspicion of influence or favouritism in the allocation of such contracts."
We cannot find space to summarize the whole of Mr. Lloyd George's speech, but we may make one or two short extracts from it. After stating what he called "the rule of Caesar's wife " and other rules derived therefrom to prevent the growth of suspicion in regard to Ministers, Mr. Lloyd George went on :- " When once these rules are broken by any person in high position it leads to the complete demoralization of the whole Civil Service. It is setting a dangerous precedent."
Again, speaking of such rules, he declared :- " These rules are laid down not altogether to prevent corruption or to hit corruption, but to prevent circumstances that might justify corruption in others."
As to the suggestion that the atmosphere of suspicion a..s really created by those who brought the matter to the attention of the House, and by their inquiries and investigations outside, Mr. Lloyd George laid down the true principle in bold words :— " I say that not merely have we a right to bring these facts before the House, but it is the duty of some member to do it. They invite explanation, nay, they demand it. It is not that charges of corruption are brought against any Minister of the Crown, for that is not insinuated, but I do say, to use a phrase uttered by the right hon. gentleman, it is not treasonable, but it is improper.'" Finally, in his peroration Mr. Lloyd George declared that the Government had given " legitimate grounds for uneasiness and, above all, they have established precedents which, if they are followed, would lead to something infinitely worse than anything 1 have spoken of to-day."
Leaving out the long and ably reasoned speech by Mr. Robson, and a strong speech in support of the amendment by Mr. McKenna, we may return for a moment to Lord Haldane's speech, which contains some admirable obiter dicta, as for example, " I do not for a moment attribute any sinister motive to the right hon. gentleman or to anyone connected with him, but these are bad things to happen." Again :- " What is the real interest of the public in the matter ? It is that the Ministry should, by their conduct, be free from all mis- conception or suspicion in the public mind. I accept implicitly the assurance of the right honourable gentleman that no motive of a sinister kind entered his mind. But I feel certain—and those who think as I do will agree—that I would be wanting in a sense of duty if I did not in this House have the courage to put the facts in the course of this debate."
After Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had spoken strongly, Mr. John Burns wound up the debate for the Opposition in a very characteristic speech. " It is no good," said Mr. Bums, " for a man to come down to this House with a tear in his throat" and talk about his integrity. Again, said Mr. Burns, " supposing my brother had been supplying the Works Department (of the County Council) with drain pipes or machinery, would not the Colonial Secretary deliver an eloquent homily about the inherent corruptibility of Labour Members ? " Turning to the Government he went on : " I tell you that you will regret voting against this amendment when our Civil Service takes this example." If they would not pass the amendment he warned the House of Commons that " the common people " would say that the House was not doing its duty, but " sheltering favourites, giving privileges to a few, opening the door to corruption, swindling the taxpayer, and becom- ing a disgrace to the country of which I have the honour of being a representative."
Those who declare that the cases of the Marconi Con- tract, and the telegram of Sir Rufus Isaacs to his brother, the chairman of the Marconi Company, and the giving of a contract to the family firm of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for India are transactions which in no sort of way come under our caveat in regard to delicacy and discretion in public affairs, will no doubt ask us why we have said nothing about the part taken in the debate by Mr. Balfour, the Unionist leader. They will, that is, urge the to vogue argument. Our answer is that our withers are entirely unwrung by such a counter-attack. Let those who attempt to use it look at the files of the Spectator for 1900 and they will find, as we have said above, that we took then exactly the line that we are taking now. But apart from this, we repudiate the monstrous suggestion that it is any excuse for the Liberals that the Unionist leaders did not show a higher appreciation of the true public interest than they did twelve years ago. We are sure, however, that no self-respecting man will really care to shelter himself behind such a to pope.
What we have to do on the present occasion is to ask Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Haldane, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Burns whether they still maintain the soundness of the general principles which they laid down in 1900. If they do not repudiate those principles, and do not say they have changed their minds in regard to them, then we would ask them—they will not, we are sure, take refuge in silence in a matter of such vital public interest—to apply those principles to the present case. To say that the cases are not comparable is not an admissible plea. Remember, we do not ask them for a moment to condemn their colleagues as having been guilty of anything approaching malpractices. All we ask is that they should clear and purify the political atmosphere by having the courage to say that in the particular cases affairs have not been conducted with the delicacy and discretion with which they ought to have been conducted, and that they regret the lapse and mean to make every amends in their power. They can do this by refusing to make use of ingenious sophistries and subtle distinctions, which, of course, can really deceive no one, to show that their principles, though they applied in 1900, do not apply now. In a word, if they will only make a public acknowledg- ment of error instead of doing what they are now doing by silence or by words, i.e. blindly defending what has taken place as in no sense open to criticism, they will have struck a noble blow in the public interest and have immensely raised the tone of our political life. After the creation of such a precedent, future Ministers would find it essential to take special care wherever there was a possibility of arousing suspicion, lest they should be obliged to per- form that most disagreeable of duties to the politician, admitting that one has been in the wrong. Our voice, we admit, is a weak one, and can no doubt easily be ignored. Owing to the to quoque argument, our Unionist contem- poraries will probably find it difficult to support us in this matter or to give our remarks any publicity. If, then, the statesmen we have named care to ignore what we have said, they will not suffer much inconvenience. The whole thing will soon be forgotten. As honourable men, how- ever, we are convinced that they will not really feel happy if they adopt such a course. They will know in their hearts that they have not acted up to the highest standard by openly or implicitly declaring that in the cases now interesting the public no want of discretion and no want of delicacy has been displayed by members of the Government.
We turn from the politicians to our contemporaries in the Liberal Press. We must ask them also whether they repudiate the general principles which they laid down on Tuesday, December 11th, 1900, in writing of the debate in the Commons from which we have quoted, or whether they still maintain them ? If they do still maintain those general principles, why, in spite of our repeated appeals, have they refused to re-state them and apply them to the cases before the country ? Here, surely, we shall not be told that the principles do not apply because they are Liberals and not Unionists who are being criticized ! To take an example, the Daily News of December 11th, 1900, used these words :— " Public men may be as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, and yet not escape suspicion. They cannot put themselves above suspicion (except by divesting themselves entirely of all their worldly goods). But what they can do is, as Mr. Robson said, to avoid putting themselves into a position to which suspicion might naturally, reasonably, or rightly attach. This can be done, and this much should be required."
Is this still the view of the Daily News? The Daily Chronicle of December 11th, 1900, wrote in a similar strain, while the Westminster Gazette of the same date dealt most ably with the necessity of maintaining a high standard in public life :— " If the standard is allowed to be relaxed among the great and eminent, it will be difficult or impossible to maintain it among mayors and aldermen and humbler people who do the work of government throughout the country. . . . There is no remedy except to bring public opinion to bear, so that public men and their relatives may exercise greater caution. Everybody was of course defiant in last night's debate, and we might conclude from it that everyone of them holds himself free to do anything. Yet the effect will, we are sure, be salutary, for it is not pleasant even to invite discussion on a subject of this kind."
Owing to the lapse of time we have not been able to obtain sight of the leading article which we feel certain must have been written on the debate by the Manchester Guardian, but we desire to draw the particular attention of that ably conducted and high-minded newspaper to the whole matter. We would specifically ask its editor to reprint that leading article and let its readers judge how far the principles there laid down apply at the present juncture.
Previous page
