MAURICE'S BOMBSHELL

Auckland Star, Volume XLIX, Issue 110, 9 May 1918, Page 5

MAURICE'S BOMBSHELL

THE COMMONS PERTURBED, DISCIPLINE FOB THE WRITER NEWSPAPER COMMENT. LONDON, May S. In the House of Commons Mr. Asquith drew attention to General Maurice's letter, and asked what etepri the Government proposed to take to enable the House to examine the allegations. Mr. Bonar Law replied that it raised two questions, first, military discipline and second, the security of Ministerial statements. Tile Army Council wat .dealing with the fust. As regards the second question, although obviously the Government could not be carried on ii inquiry into the conduct of Ministers were considered necessary whenever they were challenged by a servant of the Government who had ocupied a position jof highest confidence, this matter affected the honour of the Ministers, and it was proposed to ask two judges to act on a court of honour to inquire into the alleged mis-statements of the Ministers concerned. Mr. R. C. Lambert suggested that as the question affected tlie House of Commons the Government should substitute for the two judges three distinguished members of the Houee of Commons or a select Committee of the House of Commons. Mr Bonar Law replied that the Government was of opinion that the suggested court was the best method of doing what they considered necessary to satisfy the House. In order to examine the question most secret documents must be examined. It would lie obviously very difficult, and quite unsuitable to appoint ] a Select Committee. Mr. Asquith asked: Is it proposed to introduce a bill enabling the two judges to take evidence on oath? Mr. Bonar Law replied: That is not thought necessary. He was sure that everyone involved would be glad to place his information at the disposal of the judges. If the judges were not given anything which they wanted, they would certainly inform the Government. Mr. Bonar Law suggested that perhaps: Mr. Asquith would think it better to have the discussion after the report of the judges. Cries of " No."' Mr. Pringle asked: Will disciplinary measures against General Maurice be suspended pending the finding of tye Court? Mr. Bonar Law replied: No. Even if every statement were true, discipline in the army would be impossible if such letters were permitted to be published. Answering a further question, Mr. Ronar Law said: Does Mr. Asquith think the Government ought not to proceed with setting up a court until after discussion in the House of Commons? Mr. Aequith replied: Certainly. Mr. Asquith gave notice that he would move for a Select Committee of th< Hourp instead of two judges to make the inquiry. The motion will be debated on Thursday. — (Renter.) It is understood that the Government regards Mr. Asquith'a motion for a Select Committee nf the House of Commons tc inquire into the allegations made In Major-General F. B. Maurice as motior of censure. —t A. and 5.7.. (.able.) A DEMAND FOR THE TRUTH. The "Daily Chronicle" -ays editori ally:—"It is impossible to overstate the gravity of General Maurice"? letter. At Director of Military Operations he hahad unsurpassed first hand knowledge ol the facts and figures relating to the forces in the field. He writes that certain recent statements by Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law are not true. The statements in question were not casual, but elaborate and deliberate ones concerning most vital matters, including the circumstances under which the British took over an extra piece of the front south of St. Quentin, where the disaster of March'2l occurred. General Maurice's step is a very serious one for himself. He is obviously acting from a high sense of duty. The Ministers stand charged by a responsible official witness with misleading Parliament and the nation. The alleged misstatements look worse because they had the effect of diverting blame from the Ministcie to The soldiers they en >loyed. Moreover, there is a grave question of policy. If the War Cabinet left Sir Douglas Haig. when the German menace was piling itself up against him month after month, with fewer troops than in 1017. the country would not view the Cabinet's responsibility leniently. If two Ministers have, as well they may. a good and conclusive answer, let them make it without delay." The "Daily News" and "Morning Post" also publish the letter. The "'Morning Post"' says:—"General Sir Hubert Gough—late commander of the Fifth Army—has been made Mr. Lloyd George's scapegoat. The Prime Minister and Mr. Bonar Law made a series of statements well calculated to shield the Prime Minister at the soldier's expense. We have already pointed out these statements are out of all accord with credibility. It is impossible to believe that Sir William Robertson and Sir Douglas Haig approved of the extension of the line with diminishing forces in the face nf the growing enemy. As General (lough is unable to defend himself the politicians are able to indulge to the Full their fine tlUant for shifting the blnme. FortunHtely General Maurice felt impelled to hear witness for the deFence. Parliament hns a right tn the truth, and the army has a right to justice.' , A CAUSATORY STATEMENT. In connection with the letter it is pointed out that in the House of Commons on April 23 Mr. R. C. Lambert ifiked if the Government could explain the failure of the Fifth Army, and ivhe.ther the taking over nf that portion nf the line was contrary to the judgment of Sir William Robertson and Sir Douglas Haig. Mr. Bonar Law said there was not the smallest justification for the suggestion that that portion of the line was taken over contrary to their judgment. When Mr. Lambert reiterated his question Mr. Bonar Law said the arrangement was :i military arrangement between the British and French military authorities. Colonel C. R. Burn asked whether Sir Douglas Hnig did not protest against taking the extra line from the French owing to the few divisions at his disposal. Mr. Bonar Law replied:—"To the best of my knowledge there is not the smallest truth in the suggestion. Naturally there have been differences' of opinion regarding the extended line taken over, but the matter has been left to the military authorities. This particular matter' was not dealt with at all by the Versailles War Council." The "Westminster Gazette"' says: — " General Maurice has challenged the relations of the Government and the army.

Mr. Lloyd George implied that the army was totally responsible for the reverse, and the Government blameless. It is imperative that full justice be done to the army. The reticence displayed in many recent Government explanations has created widespread uneasiness." THE LIE DIRECT. The " Standard" aa.ya: — " General Maurice has created a grave, precedent. It would be fatal to Government responsibilities if every distinguished soldier disagreeing with* the Cabinet assumed tne role of a public prosecutor. The Premier ought to answer the charges before the only tribunal, Parliament." The '•' Star" declares that General Maurice's disclosures demand an immediate secret inquiry by an independent and impartial tribunal. The letter is tue talk of the lobbies. It is regarded as giving the lie direct to Air. Lloyd George's etatements. General j Maurice retired from his position at the War Office a fortnight ago under circumstances veiled in mystery. It ib understood Sir Henry Wilson, the new Chief of Staff, suggested the change. Sir William Robertson brought General Maurice from France in 1915 with MajorGeneral E. D. Whigham, who has returned to his command in France. They have been amongst the leaders in the fight between the old military clique and Mr. Lloyd George. They were closely identified with Sir Douglas Haig, Sir ur;ii;o.v> TJnliorfcnn anA Sir Unhurt

\\ llllillll ilUUtl LBUilj iXllKl. tJIL JUUUCIU Hough. Tlie " Standard " points out that ,Mf. Lloyd George's public statements conserning the army'e strength always tallied with General Maurice's figures. It is no question of the numbers of Sir Douglas Haig's army at the time of the attack, but of the Premier misleading the House of Commons. Colonel Ivor Phillips has given notice of a question whether the Government will appoint two civilians, of whom one shall be a judge, to inquire into the Fifth Army'e withdrawal. Mr. R. C. Lambert is asking whether the Fifth Army had 14 divisions against 40 German divisions, reinforced by eiglit to ten more German divisions, and whether the person responsible for compelling the forces to face 6Uch overwhelming odds, resulting in a reverse, is still employed.—(United Service.) GOVERNMENT'S RESIGNATION WILL FOLLOW PASSING OF ASQTJITH'S MOTION. RELATIVE STRENGTHS OF THE FORCES. (Received 8.45 a.m.) LONDON, May 8. General M-aurice's letter has resulted ir n Parliamentary situation full of danger The Government has intimated that ii Mr. Asquith's resolution be carried ii wili immediately tender its resignation It is understood that Mr. Lloyd Georgi on Thursday will make a full statemen regarding the larger issues involved ii General Maurice's charges, including de tails of the British forces on the Westen front in 1017 and the beginning of 1918 with the relative strengths of the Britisl and German armies and artillery durin the present enemy offensive. The "Daily Express" says that Genera

Maurices apparent contradiction of Mr. Bon.ir Law regarding the Versailles Council and extension of the British line is really no contradiction. The two statements refer to different ihinpe. Mr. Lloyd Ocorpe's statements refrarding the number of white troops in the East and the strength of Haig-'s forces on the eve of the offensive were based solely on information supplied by the proper militarr authorities.— (A. and X.Z.)