§ 54. Major ARCHER - SHEEasked whether Mr. J. E. Taylor, who has now been reinstated in the Post Office, will also have the difference in pay between that of the lower rank to which he was reduced and his present rank since the time of the reduction restored to him?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe answer is in the negative. The reduction in rank was the punishment for a definite offence, and 949 there is no intention of making good any loss which may have resulted from that punishment.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider this case; is it not a fact that Mr. Taylor never pretended that he had not made the investment, and did not receive a tip from ihe contractor, as was the case with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEWhat happened was this: On 15th December Mr. Taylor attended a committee in connection with wireless, the first committee he had ever attended of that sort. On 21st December he went into the market and had share dealings and bought shares in the English Marconi Company at about 58s. On some date early in March he sold those shares for 92s. 6d., clearly a most improper transaction. For that alone he was punished, and, in any judgment, ought to be punished.