MUSINGS WITHOUT METHOD. THE REPORTS OF THE MARCONI COMMITTEE—A BUCKET OF WHITEWASH -MR FALCONER'S EXCESS OF ZEAL-MINISTERS ON THEIR TRIALGEORGE WYNDHAM-SOLDIER AND STATESMAN-THE INFLUENCES OF HIS LIFE-HIS SUCCESS IN THE FIELD OF LETTERS. THE reports presented to Parliament by the Select Committee appointed to investigate the agreement made between the Marconi Company and the Government will, we hope, have a far-reaching and lasting effect. In the first place, they will not encourage the performance, in the future, of similar farces. The Committee had not sat many days before it was evident that in the eyes of certain members, at least, its purpose was not to inquire but to burke inquiry. Much of the information obtained emerged by accident, or was dragged out, like teeth, from unwilling jaws. The master-stroke of Lord Murray, the hero of Bogota, was bequeathed, when that nobleman left these shores, as a deliberate legacy of concealment, to be kept secret until the whole business was "cleaned up." And secret it would have been kept, had it not been for the unforeseen bankruptcy of a stockbroker. It is not by such methods as this that a public inquiry should be conducted, and the whole system of Parliamentary investigation has obviously lost the respect and consideration of the country. In the second place, the report of the majority is frankly and openly the work of partisans. There is no section of the Coalition which did not bring its pot of white paint into the general stock. Messrs Booth and Falconer, the whitewashers - in - chief, were ably supported by the representatives of Ireland and the "Independent" Labour party-sturdy henchmen all, warranted to do and say precisely what was expected of them. Moreover, the whitewashers-in-chief had the advantage of private information, secretly conveyed, which enabled them to direct the investigation into what they deemed a proper channel. Mr Falconer left his patrons no loophole of escape. In the face of his report they could not, if they would, wear a white sheet or compose a dignified regret. They are wise and prudent men, we are told, who did what all their Radical supporters expected of them, and well may they murmur, "Save us from our friends." However, the path of justice and prudence was not followed by the Coalition, and the unfortunate Ministers still stand covered from head to foot in a thick and glutinous compound of snowy whiteness, from which not even the greatest ingenuity will avail to free them. Had the saner counsels of Sir Albert Spicer prevailed, a manifest indiscretion could not have been condoned before a critical electorate, and Mr Lloyd George and Sir Rufus Isaacs will find it hard to justify · themselves in the country, because they have been told by too flattering partisans that their conduct needs no explanation. A verdict of perfect innocence may be as difficult to overcome as a verdict of guilt. And Sir Albert Spicer, who atoned for a certain weakness displayed in the chair by a modest and moderate report, left them a way out. "Nevertheless," said he, in his clear and solitary statement, "in view of all the circumstances detailed in their report, Sir Rufus Isaacs would, in the judgment of your Committee, have been well advised if, when invited by Mr Harry Isaacs to acquire these rights, he had adhered to the resolution formed by him when Mr Godfrey Isaacs made a similar proposal, and had nothing to do with it.'" Not a crushing judgment, truly, yet sufficient for repentance. Equally kind and equally just was Sir Albert Spicer's second reproof. "If," said he, "on the occasion of the debate in the House of Commons on the 11th of October 1912, it had occurred to the Ministers whose conduct had been impugned to make statement of the facts as disclosed in the action against 'Le Matin,' such a statement would, in the judgment of your Committee, and as subsequent events have proved, have tended to avert much misunderstanding and to lessen in considerable measure the labours of your Committee." Even this gentle hint seemed too brutal for the thick-andthin champions of Radical perfection, and we must take it, a on the word of Mr Falconer and his Coalition, that Mr. L. George and Sir Rufus Isaacs acted in their own best interests and the best interests of the Government when they declined to make a simple, elucidatory statement. It is a pretty situation, which proves how far on the road of fanaticism a blind partisanship may carry its hapless dupes. The worst is, that no sooner had the zeal of Mr Falconer brushed aside the saner report of Sir Albert Spicer than the spirit of compromise died a natural death. Lord Robert Cecil's report was the inevitable and logical result of Mr Falconer's. It has long been a tradition of English politics to steer a middle course, even to trim the sails of the ship of State, if there be a dangerous shoal upon either side. Sir Albert Spicer's statement did not contain the whole truth. It might have been permitted to pass, with modifications, had not the zealots blundered. But the one effect which the conduct of Mr Falconer and the Coalition ensured was the frank publication of the unpleasant truth. To say that Lord Robert Cecil's admirable report goes one jot beyond the facts of the case would be absurd. Had the Radical members of the Committee approached their task in another spirit, some sort of compromise might have been possible. As things have come about, Mr L. George and Sir Rufus Isaacs must hear and see published to the world the whole unpalatable truth. Lord Robert Cecil and his friends, then, spoke out with a necessary and commendable candour. Their report is a series of statements wholly damaging to the reputations of the Ministers impugned. They found that the fact, upon which Sir Rufus Isaacs dwelt with so much satisfaction, that he dealt with Mr Harry Isaacs instead of with Mr Godfrey Isaacs, made no difference whatever. Even if there had been no connection between the English and American Marconi Companies, the impropriety of Ministers would, in their view, be no whit diminished. But they held that the two companies were indissolubly linked together, that "as far as any long-distance communication is concerned, the Marconi system was in effect a single system." That is clear enough, and, better still, Lord Robert Cecil stated with excellent clarity the general principle which should guide and control Ministers of the Crown in the conduct of their busi ness. "The acceptance by a public servant," he says, "of a favour of any kind from a Government contractor, involves so grave and obvious a danger, that if the AttorneyGeneral's action is to be condoned by Parliament, we feel that a wide door will be open to corruption in future." Here, indeed, is the whole pith and moment of the matter. The fate of this or that Minister is not of the least importance. We may as easily find another Chancellor of the Exchequer as we may find another Attorney-General. We guard the good name of the House of Commons, not for ourselves merely, but for our children's children. And if we permit the smallest indiscretion, or the slightest lack of candour on the part of responsible Ministers, there is an end once and for always of Parliamentary government. Nor was the need of a fine scruple and a high standard ever more sternly imperious. than to-day. In the last few years we have seen the democracy firmly established in our midst. And with democracy has come democracy's baneself-seeking and the suspicion of greed. In the old days there was a class eager to serve the country without a thought of self or gain. Our statesmen thought only of the duty which they owed to the State, not of the profit or advantage they might extract from its performance. To day all is changed. Politics has become a trade like another. Entrance into the House of Commons means four hundred a-year at once, and the hope of something better to come. The service of the country is set upon a money basis, and if the four hundred a-year be not enough, the temptation grows ever stronger to turn the position of membership to good account. For these reasons, then, that we live under a democracy, which throughout history has been inclined to corruption, and that the duty of Government is being shifted to a class ill-prepared by education or tradition to discharge that duty, it behoves us us to scan the conduct of Ministers with a clearer eye, and to judge it by the highest possible standard of honour and propriety. As the report of the Marconi Committee was a partisan report, so the debate in the House of Commons was, as far as the Radicals were concerned, a partisan debate. A second time an opportunity was lost to make a complete amend, to express a public regret, and to bring to an end once and for always this wretched Marconi business. The terms of Mr Cave's resolution were as moderate as the tone in which that resolution was moved. He told the twice-told tale with conspicuous fairness and lucidity. no But the Radicals would have none of his resolution. It asked the House to express regret, and apparently Radical, except Mr L. George and Sir Rufus Isaacs, is permitted to regret anything, and that only in their own words and for their own reasons. Moreover, Mr Cave gently reproached certain of his Majesty's Ministers with "a want of frankness," and the friends of those Ministers desire it to be known that they are still perfectly frank, even when they keep silence. The defence of Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr L. George was not more wisely designed than the rejection of Mr Cave's resolution. The Attorney-General's speech was too good to carry conviction. It was a speech for the defence, composed in an impersonal spirit. In such terms might Sir Rufus have defended a perfect stranger, the first-comer among his clients. His attempt at an apology failed completely. An apology must be free and open, or it is no apology at all. The apology of Sir Rufus was hypothetical and conditional. "I say now," he declared, "that if I had had all the facts present to my mind at the time I entered into these transactions, if I had known then all that I know now, if all had been disclosed to me which subsequent events have revealed, if I had realised that men could be so suspicious of any action of mine, if I had thought that such misrepresentations could possibly exist, I state quite plainly that I would not have entered into this transaction." Of course he would not. No man willingly puts his head in a noose. But to confess, as Sir Rufus Isaacs confesses, that he would not have followed a certain course of action had he foreseen the difficulties in which that course involved him, is not repentance but worldly wisdom. Nor was it by the happiest stroke that Sir Rufus Isaacs, who was on his defence, should have used the kind of peroration that he did. "This House," said he magniloquently, "may lay down rules, but in the end it is not rules, but the high principle and the public honour of our public men, to whatever party they may belong, which are the best safeguards for the purity of our public life." Was there nowhere a sense of humour to greet this solemn pronouncement with an outburst of ironical laughter? Mr L. George did not acquit himself of his difficult task even with Sir Rufus Isaacs' show of success. He protested a trifle too much. He allowed his love of rhetoric to darken his judgment. He, too, apologised after a fashion, not liberally and unreservedly, but with the same prudence as inspired Sir Rufus. Had he known what was to happen, he would have been more careful. "I am not going to qualify any statement," said he, "I will make as to whether it was 'judicious' or wise,' or 'discreet.' I say that, looking at all the circumstances, it was not. I do not want to palter about words. I do not care which of the three words is used. I accept any of them. It was not. I would certainly not have gone through it again." The sentence italicised is the real pith of the speech. Like Sir Rufus Isaacs, Mr L. George has been profoundly disturbed by adverse criticism. "He would certainly not go through it again." But there is a vast difference between acknowledging a transgression, and regretting the inconvenience which that transgression has brought with it, and if it pleases Mr L. George, he may reflect proudly that he has apologised for nothing. The House followed the course sketched out for it by Mr Falconer and the two Ministers. It preferred congratulation to regret. And Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr L. George are not merely "acquitted of acting otherwise than in good faith," but the Irish majority has declared that it "reprobates the charges of corruption brought against Ministers." The dignified attempt made by Mr Balfour to rise above the tyranny of party, and to put upon the record of the House an expression of regret, was rejected by the partisans. But there are some victories which are infinitely worse than defeats, and this victory of the Radical Government is ill - omened indeed. Mr Asquith has proved a generous loyalty to his colleagues. He has proved no loyalty at at all to England. Henceforth many things may be done with credit, almost with glory, which yesterday were regarded as indefensible. Our Ministers, without hindrance or reproach, may accept a tip from the brother of a man with whom they are making a contract. They may, when it suits them, assume that two sister companies, sharing directors and capital, have nothing whatever to do with one another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may in future, without incurring any blame whatever, "indulge in what is undoubtedly speculation," to quote Mr Balfour's words, "in a most speculative stock, a stock which his own broker pointed out was of a peculiarly speculative kind.” And the privileges of our Ministers do not end here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may join the Attorney-General in what is called a "flutter," and be all the more highly respected for it. He may beguile the scanty leisure given him by his high office to buy and sell speculative stock, and plead in excuse that he had not time to manage |