The motion was rejected by 344 to 264. The Nationalists were said to be rather disquieted at the tone of the Ministerial speeches.
The negotiations for a settlement were now privately resumed, and the hopes of their success had been strengthened by the smooth passage through the Upper House of the Army (Annual) Bill (April 27, 28). There had been frequent rumours that the extreme Unionist Peers would either throw it out or seek to insert a clause forbidding troops to be used to force Home Rule on Ulster--a course which would have so delayed the measure as gravely to imperil the discipline of the Army throughout the Empire; but the design, if it had ever been seriously contemplated, was abandoned, possibly because of the explosion of wrath occasioned by the belief that the Army was being used as a political instrument by the Unionists. But the Marquess of Lansdowne, at the annual meeting of the Primrose League at the Albert Hall (May 1), was not altogether encouraging. The first part of his speech was an elaborate attack on the Government. He detected signs of a "chastened spirit" among Ministers, but they were not sufficiently their own masters to make an effective proposal. He carefully defined the attitude of the Opposition, insisting that they maintained their objection to Home Rule and the temporary exclusion of Ulster, but they were ready to examine a federal solution provided that Ulster could find an honourable and acceptable place in it, and that it was consistent with the interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. And Mr. Balfour and Viscount Milner, at a meeting next day at Coventry, were pessimistic. Mr. Balfour spoke of the recognition by some Ministers of "the clean-cut separation of the North-East of Ireland from any scheme of Home Rule"; and "the clean cut" passed into a catchword.
One of the stock bases of attacks on Ministers, meanwhile, had been further undermined by the unanimous Report (issued April 30) of the Select Committee of the House of Lords which had investigated the charges against Lord Murray of Elibank (p. 32). The accusers, the proprietors of the _Morning Post_ and Mr. Leo Maxse of the _National Review_, had been required by the Committee to formulate their charges, and did so in print. No other charges were considered, though letters were received making allegations against Lord Murray which no one attempted to substantiate. The principal charge was substantially that in regard to his purchase of American Marconi shares at 2_l._ each from Sir Rufus Isaacs on April 17, 1912 (A.R., 1913, p. 72), he had acted in a way which in his position was dishonourable; in this and in his other purchases (for his own account in the open market on May 22, and for the Liberal party fund on April 18, 1912) the Committee found that he had acted without sufficient thought, but acquitted him of dishonourable conduct. The latter purchase was not, as was suggested, made from any one representing the English company. With his choice of trust investments the Committee had no concern. He ought, however, to have given his successor as Chief Whip full information as to his purchase of shares for the party fund, and to have had full information as to his dealings in American Marconis laid before the Commons Committee. Three other charges were wholly rejected: (1) that he used his position as Chief Whip to avoid discussion of the Marconi contract in Parliament; (2) that he bought railway stock for the party funds during the coal strike, knowing that a settlement was pending which would send it up; and (3) that he had given time to Mr. Fenner, the stockbroker, in order to avoid inconvenient disclosures. He had taken on himself a loss of 40,000_l._ He had admittedly committed errors, but had done nothing reflecting on his personal honour. But there ought to be an absolute rule prohibiting stock speculation to any person holding public office.