d down in front of Godfrey
Isaacs' own office bearing a placard announcing his "Ghastly
failures." Cecil Chesterton said later that he had not ordered this
to be done, but he refused to disclaim responsibility. The placard
was the last straw. Godfrey's solicitors wrote to Cecil saying that
Godfrey would prosecute unless Cecil promised to make no further
statement reflecting on his honour till both had given evidence
before the Parliamentary Committee. Cecil replied: "I am pleased to
hear that your client, Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, proposes to bring an
action against me." And in the _New Witness_ (February 27, 1913) he
wrote: "We are up against a very big thing. . . . You cannot have the
honour (and the fun) of attacking wealthy and powerfully entrenched
interests without the cost. We have counted the cost; we counted it
long ago. We think it good enough--much more than good enough."

The case came on at the Old Bailey on May 27. It is worth recalling
the exact position at this time. The Parliamentary Committee had
concluded its hearings three weeks earlier and was now preparing its
report. (Cecil Chesterton had not given evidence before it, for
though he had frequently demanded to be summoned, when at last the
summons came he excused himself on the plea of ill-health and the
further plea that he wished to reserve his evidence for his own
trial.) the _Matin_ case had been heard a couple of months earlier.
Everything that was ever to be known about ministerial dealings in
Marconis was by now known, except for Elibank's separate purchase on
behalf of the Party Funds, which was made public just at the end of
the trial.

Sir Edward Carson and F. E. Smith were again teamed, as in the
_Matin_ case. The charge was criminal libel. Cecil insisted on facing
the charge alone. His various contributors had joined in the attack
but Cecil would not give the names of the authors of unsigned
articles and took full responsibility as Editor. Carson's opening
speech for the Prosecution divided the six alleged libels under two
main heads: One set, said Carson, charged Godfrey Isaacs with being a
corrupt man who induced his corrupt brother to use his influence with
the corrupt Samuel to get a corrupt contract entered into. The
opening attack under this head has already been quoted. Later
attacks did not diminish in violence: "the swindle or rather
theft--impudent and barefaced as it is": "when Samuel was caught with
his hand in the till (or Isaa