and steadily and not without
reflection. And the consequence was that he was put in the dock, and
very nearly put in the lock-up, for calling it what it is.

In collaboration with Mr. Belloc he had written "The Party System," in
which the plutocratic and corrupt nature of our present polity is set
forth. And when Mr. Belloc founded the _Eye-Witness_, as a bold and
independent organ of the same sort of criticism, he served as the
energetic second in command. He subsequently became editor of the
_Eye-Witness_, which was renamed as the _New Witness_. It was during the
latter period that the great test case of political corruption occurred;
pretty well known in England, and unfortunately much better known in
Europe, as the Marconi scandal. To narrate its alternate secrecies and
sensations would be impossible here; but one fashionable fallacy about
it may be exploded with advantage. An extraordinary notion still exists
that the _New Witness_ denounced Ministers for gambling on the Stock
Exchange. It might be improper for Ministers to gamble; but gambling was
certainly not a misdemeanor that would have hardened with any special
horror so hearty an Anti-Puritan as the man of whom I write. The Marconi
case did not raise the difficult ethics of gambling, but the perfectly
plain ethics of secret commissions. The charge against the Ministers was
that, while a government contract was being considered, they tried to
make money out of a secret tip, given them by the very government
contractor with whom their government was supposed to be bargaining.
This was what their accuser asserted; but this was not what they
attempted to answer by a prosecution. He was prosecuted, not for what
he had said of the government, but for some secondary things he had said
of the government contractor. The latter, Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, gained a
verdict for criminal libel; and the judge inflicted a fine of L100.
Readers may have chanced to note the subsequent incidents in the life of
Mr. Isaacs, but I am here only concerned with incidents in the life of a
more interesting person.

In any suggestion of his personality, indeed, the point does not lie in
what was done to him, but rather in what was not done. He was positively
assured, upon the very strongest and most converging legal authority,
that unless he offered certain excuses he would certainly go to prison
for several years. He did not offer those excuses; and I believe it
never occurred to him to do