ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Exchequer moved an amendment to provide that the 5 per cent. to be deducted from the teachers' salaries should be paid as from June 1 instead of July 1 as decided by the Select Committee. Mr. Fisher moved an amendment providing that the contribution of a teacher should not exceed the amount (if any) by which his salary exceeded four-fifths of the full salary which the Board would be prepared, in his case, to recognise for the purposes of grant. These amendments were both carried and the Bill was passed, and received the royal assent on August 4.

On the motion for the third reading of the Finance Bill on July 14, Mr. Asquith raised the question of Allied indebtedness, and declared that it was essential to the general economic development, both of Europe and the rest of the world, that the question should be put on a stable and equitable foundation. Whatever settlement was made care should be taken, both in the interests of debtor and creditor, that the mode of liquidation was consistent with the easiest possible development of industry and the interchange of wealth.

In reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the amount of the debt to the United States as 938,000,000l., which was less than when the £ sterling was worth 3.20 dollars. After referring to the reduction of the Floating Debt and Internal Debt, he said these figures were of very great significance as showing the increasing financial stability of the country. The request recently made by the United States that the Government should consider funding the amount of the debt, and placing it on a stable and equitable foundation, would be completely met. He said that there was no question at all about the attitude of this country. No one had any doubts as to the complete and absolute necessity of our fulfilling our debts to the very utmost. Sir Robert Horne was optimistic also as to the possibility of reducing expenditure during the coming year. He intimated that the Cabinet had appointed two committees, one presided over by himself, to deal with civil expenditure, and the other, presided over by the Colonial Minister, to deal with the fighting services, and it was his anticipation that they would be able to effect economies, not merely in next year's estimates, but in actual expenditure. Sketch estimates were being submitted much earlier in the present year in order that those committees might be able to guide and advise departments. In conclusion he declared that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he looked forward to the future with much less apprehension and anxiety than was the case a year ago. There was no reason, he said, for looking on the present situation with any kind of despair.

During the middle of the month much interest was taken in the question of the principles followed in nominations for Honours, and debates took place in both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Commons the subject was introduced by Mr.

Godfrey Locker-Lampson, who suggested that public suspicion and disquietude had been aroused which could only be allayed by a proper inquiry. A small committee appointed by the Prime Minister, he said, would not be sufficient to restore public confidence, and he regarded such restoration as essential. He insisted that there must be a properly constituted body to recommend the best way of dealing with this question in future. He moved that a Select Committee of seven members of the House of Commons be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Lords to consider the present methods of submitting names of persons for Honours for the consideration of His Majesty, and to report what changes (if any) were desirable, in order to secure that such Honours should only be given as a reward for public service.

The motion was seconded by Sir Samuel Hoare, who alleged that unknown and apparently undeserving persons seemed to be included in the Honours list in increasing numbers; that for no apparent reason individuals were constantly advanced from one dignity to another, and from one grade in the peerage to a higher grade, and that the resolutions of the House of Lords had been flouted by the Government. While disclaiming any intention to bring about the end of party Honours, he maintained that party service should not receive an exaggerated reward, and that no kind of reward should be given simply and only for money payment.

The Prime Minister then defined the position of the Government. He pointed to the exceptional circumstances of recent years as justifying the increase of Honours. He was not prepared to say that no mistakes had been made, but he claimed that the percentage of mistakes was as low as in any previous period. He doubted whether there was a genuine desire to investigate the question of Honours, or whether it was a mere pretext for attacking the administration. Political Honours were only a comparatively small percentage of Honours. He denied that contribution to funds was a chief element or decisive consideration. He said that no Prime Minister knew, when names were submitted to him, who had contributed to political funds. He wished to throw upon the House the responsibility of deciding whether the system of awarding party Honours should be abandoned, but he warned members to reflect gravely what would happen. In particular he warned the Labour Party against the danger which awaited them when they assumed office, for he contended that a nation politically organised was twice as safe as one which was not. He did not believe that there was any disagreement in the House as to the impropriety of trafficking in Honours, and he had no desire to defend it. If the House of Commons wished for reassurance then the Government were in favour of re-examining the methods of submitting names, but the responsibility of the chief Minister must remain. He then undertook to appoint a Royal Commission to consider

and advise upon the procedure to be adopted in future to assist the Prime Minister in making recommendations to His Majesty.

Mr. Asquith agreed with Mr. Lloyd George that contributions towards party funds should not be a disqualification. He went even farther, and declared that it was the duty of those people who took politics seriously, and had adequate resources, to contribute to the limit of their power to party funds. He welcomed the inquiry promised by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Clynes interpreted the Prime Minister's speech as meaning that the stability of this country depended upon secretly-secured sums of money from men of large means. If the party system had to depend on the traffic which had been impugned, then, he said, the party system had better go. The granting of Honours in perpetuity could not be defended. Mr. Ronald McNeill referred to the case of Lord Waring, who, he said, was Managing Director of a large business which went into bankruptcy in 1910. There had been a reconstruction, and if his information was correct a very large figure was put down in the balance sheet as assets representing the value of stock. He expressed the opinion that that stock must have been very much over-valued, since the debenture holders holding 100,000,000l. in debentures were obliged, in the reconstruction, to take 75 per cent. of their holding in preference shares in the new concern, and these preference shares of 17. now stood at the value of 10s. a share. Subsequently, when the war came on and Lord Waring, who was the head of the business, made a very considerable fortune in constructing and turning out equipment for aeroplanes on Government contracts, no part of that fortune went to paying the shareholders or making up the deficiency for the debenture holders in the concern of which he was the head and the Managing Director. For what reason, Mr. McNeill asked, was this particular business man singled out at this time for this very high honour? Mr. McNeill then turned to the case of Sir Archibald Williamson, who had now become Lord Forres. He said that this gentleman was head of a large and important firm of merchants doing business in South America. He alleged that during the war the laxity of the firm in relation to trading with the enemy was notorious. It became so notorious that a statement was drawn up in the Foreign Office containing twenty-four different heads of accusations against the firm. The statement, he added, had been confirmed by the Consul-General in Chile. He also alleged that this firm sold fuel oil to certain German nitrate factories in 1915-16 at the very time when out there our Minister and Consuls were devoting all their energies to strangling as far as possible the German nitrate trade. He wanted to ask the Government whether or not, when these transactions were going on during the war, the Law Officers of the Crown were ever consulted as to whether this member of the House was or

F

was not liable to prosecution for breach of the regulations for trading with the enemy. He asked whether it was not strange that this gentleman was subsequently given office in the Government and singled out for Honours.

The accusations of Mr. McNeill were not allowed long to remain unanswered. On the day following the debate in the House of Commons a similar debate took place in the House of Lords, when the Lord Chancellor disclosed the fact that four years previously a peerage had been offered to Lord Forres, and that thirteen years previously he had been offered the chairmanship of the Port of London Authority with a seat in the House of Lords. The charge which had been made was one which could not be misunderstood. It was pointless to object that Lord Forres was trading with the enemy unless it was meant that he traded with the enemy in circumstances which were improper and discreditable, making him a traitor to this country. If it were a fact that at every stage in the transaction he invited counsel from those very people in the Government who had to decide those delicate matters, and received guidance and advice. under which he acted, then he had been cruelly wronged on a charge of the kind made.

Lord Forres himself said that his firm were pioneers in the oil fuel business on the west coast of South America. At the outbreak of war they had numerous contracts for the supply of fuel oil for nitrate works and railways. Among these were two with important German companies. These had been made in Chile and were expressly declared to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chilean courts. In 1915 his firm approached the Government, informing them fully of the position, pointing out at the same time that quite a large section of the trading community in Chile were Germans or half-Germans, and that in a neutral country the firm would have to implement their contracts. They asked for approval for their continuing to deliver oil to these German nitrate companies, and pointed out that if they did not do so they would be subject to claims for damages, and they were informed in reply that no objection would be taken. At a later date a system of licences was introduced, and the firm received official authority to transact the business of supplying oil. At a still later date the attitude of the Government changed, and further delivery of oil to the Germans was stopped by his firm on instructions from the British Government. Throughout no step had been taken without the cognisance of the British Government. He then described the lawsuit which was entered against his firm in consequence of the stoppage of deliveries. Lord Forres concluded by saying that he was entitled to complain of the reckless nature of charges which reflected not only upon him and upon his partners but upon the good name of British commerce generally.

In the House of Commons on the same day Sir Robert

Balfour made a statement on similar lines, and Mr. McNeill reiterated his statement that an indictment of the proceedings of the firm was prepared in the Foreign Office, was sent to South America for confirmation, was confirmed, and sent back to this country, and he further threw suspicion on the bona fides of the legal proceedings which had taken place in Chile.

Lord Waring replied to Mr. McNeill on the following day on taking his seat for the first time in the House of Lords. He called upon Mr. McNeill to repeat the statements he had made in the House of Commons in an unprivileged place so that he might at once take legal proceedings against him. Lord Waring gave an unqualified denial to the statements of Mr. McNeill. He said that the profits made in constructing equipment for aeroplanes had not come to him but to the shareholders of Messrs. Waring & Gillow.

If

On July 21 Mr. Ronald McNeill made another statement in the House of Commons on this subject. He apologised to Lord Forres for the statements he had already made during the debate on the question of the granting of Honours, but refused to withdraw anything he had said in regard to Lord Waring. He declared that he could not subscribe to the doctrine that a member of the House of Commons who conceived it to be his duty, when exposing abuses, to mention the names of individuals was under any obligation to waive Parliamentary privilege, and invite litigation to test the accuracy of his statements. such a course were regarded as an honourable obligation there would be an end of that complete freedom of criticism in Parliament which it was essential in the public interest to protect and maintain. Mr. McNeill, on the other hand, recognised that it would be an abuse of Parliamentary privilege if a member were to make reckless charges in that House against other people. He was bound to exercise the utmost caution and satisfy himself to the best of his judgment that any charges he might feel it his duty to make were based on cogent and trustworthy evidence.

The House of Lords was occupied during a considerable part of July in discussing resolutions for the reform of the House, which were brought forward by Lord Crawford on behalf of the Government, as a basis on which a Bill should be founded. These resolutions were as follows:

1. That the House should be composed, in addition to peers of the blood royal, law lords, and lords spiritual, of members elected either directly or indirectly from the outside; of hereditary peers elected by their order, and of members nominated by the Crown, the numbers in each case being determined by

statute.

2. That, with the exception of Peers of the Blood Royal, and the Law Lords, every other member of the reconstituted and reduced House of Lords should hold his seat for a term of

« 前へ次へ »