Lord Robert Cecil's amendment had been put so late by the Speaker's selection as practically to preclude debate on it, and he had a further opportunity for discussing it; but the subject had been ventilated in the House of Lords by Lord Murray of Elibank's personal statement (Feb. 17), and by the debate on the motion originally put down by Lord Ampthill for a Select Committee to inquire into certain charges and allegations made in the Press against Lord Murray (Feb. 19). Lord Murray read his statement composedly amid signs of acute interest, in the chilling silence characteristic of the Upper House. The facts, he said, were fully known, and he could only confirm the statements made before the Commons Committee (A.R., 1913, pp. 80, 136). It ought to have occurred to him that his action was open to criticism, but his error was one of judgment, not of intention. His purchase for the party funds was an error of judgment, and he had taken over the shares for himself at the price he had paid for them, thereby incurring a heavy loss. His private transactions and those with the party funds were alike free from dishonour. He considered, on reflection, that his course of action had not been wise or correct, and he deeply regretted it; among the deepest of his regrets would be the thought that his action should have caused embarrassment to his party, but a fair judgment would hold that there was nothing in his mistakes to reflect in any degree on the honour and integrity of public life. He had tendered his resignation of his office in February, 1912, before he had ever heard of Marconis, and had only continued in office till the end of the session at the Prime Minister's urgent request. The further consideration of Lord Ampthill's motion was postponed till February 19, when it was moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne, who said that Lord Murray's statement contained nothing to deter the Opposition leaders from carrying put their intention of moving for a Committee. His apology was the best of the Ministerial apologies; at any rate he did not compare himself to St. Sebastian (A.R., 1913, p. 154), but certain questions regarding his action as Chief Whip required further investigation. The Marquess of Crewe did not object, though he thought the Committee was demanded neither by the dignity of the House nor by the needs of the public service. The Committee was not appointed till March 9; it reported on April 30 (_post_, Chap. III.).