DIPLOMATIC AGENTS AND PRIVATE . COMMERCIAL INTERESTS.
DURING- the past few days some American news- papers have been stating that Sir Lionel Carden, the British Minister in Mexico, is interested, together with Lord Cowdray, in a land company which is " largely dependent on the Government of General Huerta," the provisional President of Mexico. We do not suppose that an inquiry would reveal anything more startling than the fact that Sir Lionel Carden's land interests in Mexico—which are admitted to exist—are bound to be affected like every other sort of property by the success or failure of General Huerta in his attempt to conquer the Constitutionalists and restore order. We are absolutely sure that Sir Lionel Carden would never have allowed his private interests to become so directly dependent upon General Huerta that it would be impossible for him to separate public policy from personal affairs when acting as the representative of Great Britain in his negotiations with General Huerta. In short, any question of corrup- tion may be set aside. We do not suppose that the American papers which virtually bring such a charge really believe in it. But we are bound to say that it is most unfortunate that circumstances should exist which give accusations of bad faith—bad faith due to divided interests—any colour of justification. Lord Cowdray has denied the statements made in America, without, however, displaying the least appreciation of the fact that the posses- sion of large commercial interests in Mexico by Sir Lionel Carden—commercial interests, moreover, which are inter- laced with those of Lord Cowdray—must inevitably cause people to wonder whether, unconsciously or remotely, his judgment on public affairs is deflected by his private con- cerns. Such a deflection would be possible, we need hardly say, even if General Huerta had never heard of Sir Lionel Carden's commercial investments. In order to avoid all misunderstanding as to what Sir Lionel Carden's land interests are, we may quote Lord Cowdmy's commentary on what has been said in the United States :— " This is another mare's-nest which the American papers are so ready to discover. The facts are that Sir Lionel Carden, who was in Mexico as Consul fifteen years ago, acquired a certain landed interest on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and some years ago—I do not know how many—he and other owners, to define their interests, formed a company to handle the land. My firm is interested in that company, and there are many others, including Sir Lionel. They own the land in fee simple. The Mexican Government has nothing in the world to do with it, nor is General Buena interested. nor any member of the Government. The estate, which is about forty thousand acres,consists of agricultural land awaiting develop- ment. My firm was interested after Sir Lionel Carden, and there were several others. We bad nothing to do with the formation of the company ; after it was formed we thought it was a good invest- ment, and we put some money in it. We had nothing to do with organising it. When Sir Lionel Carden was in Mexico as Consul he acquired several interests, and this land was one of them."
It is obvious that enormous public inconvenience may be the result of such charges as have been made in the United States, and we hold strongly that so far as is humanly possible the conditions which give rise to them should not be allowed to exist. It will be said : "Yon are giving counsels of perfection. Is an investment of many years ago to disqualify a man from serving his country in the place where his peculiar knowledge will be most valuable ? If this is your principle, men of ordinary means will not enter the public service at all, because every kind of investment will be forbidden to them." We reply that we are well aware that it is impossible to rule out all investments, and that when the strictest possible standard of conduct has been accepted there is still sure to be a margin of doubtful cases. But in respect of regular diplomatic agents it is certainly as feasible for the Foreign Office to have definite rules as it is for the Colonial Office and for the Indian Civil Service. No doubt an enormous number of Vine-Consuls are small local merchants or traders, and it would be quite impossible to require them, in return for a small stipend, to sell out all their investments in the countries to which they belong. But we are writing here not of the minor members of the Consular Service, who are not diplomatic agents at all, but of men in high and responsible positions of a semi-diplomatic character under the Foreign Office. Even in the case of these latter there will be difficulties, of course. But if it were a regular habit to declare to the Foreign Office the nature of any private interests which might deflect the judgment of the person to whom a new appointment is offered, most of the difficulties would dis- appear. Suppose that a diplomatist were asked to become Minister in the Argentine. He might say "I ought to tell you that practically the whole of my wife's marriage settlement is invested in Argentine companies. I am not disposed to sell these shares, and even if I desired to do so her trustees would probably object. If you consider that these investments would be likely in any way to affect my judgment in my duties as Minister, I must conclude that I ought to decline the post. In any case, I should wish that the existence of this investment may be borne in mind lest at any time events may arise which would render it an embarrassment to the performance of my duties." Again, there might well be a rigid rule that no diplomatic agent or full Consul should ever purchase land for com- mercial purposes in the country to which he was accredited, or purchase shares in local companies, or otherwise speculate within his own special area. The principle for men high in the Diplomatic Service ought to be the same as for Ministers of the Crown—" I will engage in no transactions, however innocent in themselves, which will give slanderous tongues a chance." It has been said that when Sir Edward Grey went to the Foreign Office he sold out any investments which he had in foreign Govern- ment stocks. If this was not absolutely necessary, it was a wise and patriotic act, and an admirable example. Lord Lansdowne, again, is known to have made a very heavy pecuniary sacrifice owing to his selling shares which he thought " undesirable" for a Secretary of State for War. As a matter of fact., there is much exaggeration of the hardships that would follow from very strict rules as to investments. The embarrassing investments in the case of any particular person would probably be found to be not more than ten per cent. of the total number of invest- ments available.
It is a strange fact that when a leader-writer, anxious for the maintenance of a high standard of public conduct, is attempting to frame words to explain his exact meaning, be finds himself driven back again and again to the admir- able statement of the case in the speech which Mr. Lloyd George made in the House of Commons on December 10th, 1900. When Unionists quote from this speech they are inevitably accused of malice. No doubt there must be an appearance of malice to the minds of those who think that there was no harm in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's American Marconi speculations. And yet, whether we appear malicious or not, we cannot help saying that no better definition of the code of honour for a public servant in a high position will anywhere be found than that in Mr. Lloyd George's speech. The speech is indeed the true gospel of the whole subject. We can never look at it without discovering some principle expressed in a manner that fits the latest problem in public honour with surprising aptness. Mr. Lloyd George said "I shall simply state the facts, and I shall state clearly the inferences I propose to draw from them, but corruption is not one of them. The right hon. gentleman went on to say that something more than that was necessary. It was not merely enough, in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman, that an officer of the State should be incorruptible, but he must have no association with companies, either past or present association, which would make him open to suspicion. That is the role which I mill the rule of Caesar's wife. I am simply stating the proposition of the right hon. gentleman himself. That is what he lays down, and I accept it fully. The second regulation the right hon. gentleman has laid down is for the conduct of his own officers in Ceylon. This is the rule- ' No officer shall be allowed to engage in commercial pursuits or purchase shares in any local land company, nor shall any officer make or continue an investment which may interest him privately in any private or public undertaking with which his public duty is connected. All officers shall confidentially consult the Govern- ment as regards any investment which may be reasonably open to doubt. The foregoing regulation applies to the holding of land by an officer in the name or names of members of an officer's family.' That is practically what is wanted in the amendment, and if her Majesty says that there is no objection, then the blame is not upon the Minister. But the second part of this regulation is a still more pertinent one. The foregoing regulation applies to the holding of land by an officer in the name or camas of an officer's family. May I suggest, then, that there is a necessary and inevit- able corollary of these two rates, and it is this, that unless these roles are observed by, and enforced against, officers of State in high places you cannot possibly enforce them against subordinate
official.? That is one of the principal points I propose to make. When once these rules are broken by any person in high position it leads to the complete demoralization of the whole Civil Service."
There Mr. Lloyd George might have had a prophetic vision of the facts which now make it possible for American newspapers to bring accusations of divided interest against Sir Lionel Carden. We do not blame Sir Lionel Carden. If he has observed the ordinary rules of the Foreign Office, it is his superiors who are to blame. If, however, there is a rule that all diplomatic agents should "con- fidentially consult" the Foreign Office as to investments that might be considered embarrassing, we may ask whether he did consult the Foreign Office. And if he did, what answer was returned ?
We scarcely hope to convince now the hypnotized followers of Mr. Lloyd George that what he said in 1900 was a matter of the most tremendous importance to the State. But we are certain of this, that they will gradually come to see that his falling away in his own practices from the noble ideal which he then expressed has had, and will have, most injurious effects upon public life. Nothing is more true in public life than that you have either a very high standard or a very low one. Once relax the highest standard and every sort of complaisance and plausible excuse increases insensibly but rapidly. There is no halting-place in the decline. Let us quote from Mr. Lloyd George again words that seem to have been pro- jected into the future to meet the case in Mexico :— " My second point is this—that although there is no charge or suggestion of corruption, still things have been done which would set up a precedent which could legitimately be used later on to justify corruption itself. Corruption is a question of intention and of motive, but the House of Commons, in framing regulations of this kind, cannot inquire into motives. You cannot say that because A has a small interest, infinitesimal ilia true, he is exactly the sort of man who would not do a thing corruptly. B has a large interest. His family have huge influence, but B is a high- minded man, and who shall profess that he is disinterested? You cannot say that. You are bound to examine the facts, and to judge upon them. These rules are laid down not altogether to prevent corruption or to hit corruption, but to prevent circum- stances that might justify corruption in others. They are rigidly, sternly enforced against the officials of the Civil Service. Suppos- ing one of these unfortunate Civil Service clerks in Ceylon had put money into a land speculation, or had had a hundred shares in the Colombo Commercial Company, which was building huts for the poor Boer prisoners, he would have invited, and would have received, the censure of the Government. Nobody, however, would have said that it was an attack upon his private character, but purely an attack, and a very just attack, upon him in his official capacity. Nobody would have suggested corruption. All that would have been said was that it was highly improper, and ought to be stopped."
When Ministers in high position, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the guardian of our national financial honour, have fallen away and escaped severe condemnation, it is impossible to appeal with much effect to men lower in the public service. The corrupt sugges- tion to the electors of Wick by a member of the Govern- ment is laughed away by Liberals. And then—to take another illustration—there is the reinstatement in his position of a Poet Office superintending engineer who had been reduced because he had bought shares in the British Marconi Company when the Marconi contract with the Government was in prospect. On what grounds has he been reinstated ? His punishment for buying an interest in a company on whose inventions he was called upon to advise the Poet Office—thus bringing his private affairs into direct conflict with his public duty—was not severe. Ultimately the reason, we suspect, is that Ministers were conscious that they were not in a position to assert the highest standard of conduct. Comparisons between the immunity of three "High Ministers " and the sufferings of a minor Civil servant bad become too invidious. We hope that the Foreign Office will not forget that investments such as those of Sir Lionel Carden might throw, in more unfortunate circumstances, the train of diplomacy right off the line. We can see no reason why the rules for the regular members of the Diplomatic and Consular Services should not approximate to those of the Colonial Office.
Previous page
