xt. When it was quite clear that Parliament would not
allow this, Herbert Samuel insisted on making a general statement on
the contract. He too knew of the Ministers' dealings in American
Marconis, but did not mention them. There was no debate or division.
The question of ratification or rejection was postponed till the
House should meet again in October.
[* The argument he put to Major Archer-Shee, M.P. was that the
stations were urgently needed for Imperial defence.]
On August 8, Cecil Chesterton's paper the _New Witness_ launched its
first attack on the whole deal (though without reference to
Ministerial gambling in Marconis) under the headline "The Marconi
Scandal":
Isaacs' brother is Chairman of the Marconi Company. It has
therefore been secretly arranged between Isaacs and Samuel that the
British people shall give the Marconi Company a very large sum of
money through the agency of the said Samuel, and for the benefit of
the said Isaacs. Incidentally, the monopoly that is about to be
granted to Isaacs No. 2, through the ardent charity of Isaacs No. 1
and his colleague the Postmaster-General, is a monopoly involving
antiquated methods, the refusal of competing tenders far cheaper and
far more efficient, and the saddling of this country with corruptly
purchased goods, which happen to be inferior goods.
The article went on to say that these "swindles" were apt to occur in
any country, but that England alone lacked the will to punish them:
"it is the lack of even a minimum standard of honour urging even
honest men to protest against such villainy that has brought us where
we are."
In September L. J. Maxse's _National Review_ had a criticism of the
contract by Major Archer-Shee, M.P., with editorial comment as well.
In the same month the _Morning Post_ and the _Spectator_ pressed for
further enquiry. The October number of the _National Review_
contained a searching criticism of the whole business and called
special attention to the Stock Exchange gamble in American Marconis.
A few days later--on October 11--the re-assembled House of Commons
held the promised debate. In the light of what we know, it is
fascinating to read how nobody told a lie exactly and the truth was
concealed all the same. Here is Sir Rufus Isaacs. He begins by
formulating the rumours against Mr. Herbert Samuel and Mr. Lloyd
George and himself. But he is careful to formulate them in such a way
that he can tr
|