GRAVE CHARGES

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16207, 9 May 1918, Page 7

GRAVE CHARGES

MEMBERS OF WAR CABINET ASSAILED.

NO ACTIONS ON WEST FRONT.

4th YEAR—2Blst DAY.

GRAVE CHARGES.

BRITISH MINISTERS

ASSAILED.

ALLEGED MISLEADING STATEMENTS.

(By Cable. —Pv€B3 Association. —Copyright J (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON. May 7. Major-General Maurice, late Director of Military Operations, in a letter to the ''.Daily Chronicle," sayH that stweral recent Ministerial answers in the House of Commons contain misstatements ana give totally , misleading impressions or what has occurred. firstly, he fcays, Mr Bonar Law, on April 23rd, said tho extension of tho British front in Prance was not dj-{M with by the Versailles Council. "This is untrue. I was at Versailles «'hen tho Supreme War Council decided tho matter. "Mr Lloyd George, on April Jth, said: —'Notwithstanding the heavy casualties of 1017, the Army in France was considerably stronger on January Ist, 1918, than in January, 1917/ That implies that Sir Douglas Haig's fighting strength on the eve of tho great battle on March 21st was not diminished. This is not correct. "Mr Lloyd George said that there wnis only one white infantry division in .Mesopotamia and Egypt, and three white divisions in Palestine. Tins is not correct."

Major-Genera I Maurice adds: — "This lotter is not the result of a military conspiracy. I am as_ sincere a Democrat as the Prime Minister, and the last thing I desire is to see tho Government in tho hands of tho soldiers. My reason for taking this grave step in writing this letter is that the statements quoted nro known to a largo number of soldiers to be incorrcct, and this knowlcdgo is brooding such disgust with the Government as can only end in impairing the splendid moral of our troops, when everything should he dono to raise it.

"I therefore " decided, fully realising the consequences to myself* that my duty as a citizen overrides luy duty as a teoldier, and to ask you to publish the letter in the hope that Parliament may order an investigation of those statements."

The letter has created a sensation

Tho "Daily Chronicle" suid "Morning Post" support Major-Genoral Maurice's demand for a Parliamentary enquiry.

DEBATE IN THE COMMONS,

(Keufor'a Telegrams.) (Received May Bth, 9.20 p.m.)

LONDON, May 7

In the House of Commons Mr Asquitli drew attention to Major-General Maurice's letter, and asked what steps the Government proposed to take to enable the House to examine the allegations.

Mr Bonar Law replied that the letter raised two questions, firstly: military discipline, and secondly the accuracy of Ministerial statements. The Army Council was dealing with the first. As regards tho second question, although, obviously, the Government could not be carried on if an enquiry into the conduct of Ministers were considered necessary whenever they were challenged by a servant of the Governmnt who had occupied a position of tho highest confidence this matter affected the honour of Ministers, and it was proposed to ask two Judges to act on a Court of Honour and enquire into the alleged missstawments of the Ministers concerned. Mr Lambert suggested that as the question affected the House of Commons the Government should substitute for two Judges three distinguished members of the House of Commons or a Select Committee of the Commons. Mr Bonar Law replied that the Government was of the opinion that the suggested Court was tho best method of doing what they considered necessary to satisfy the House that they had unwittingly made misleading statements. In order to examine the question most secret documents must be examined, and obviously it would be very difficult and 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 riot thought to be necessary. He was sure that everyone involved would be glad to place his information at the disposal of the Judges. If the Judges wern not given anything they wanted thuy would certainly inform the Government.

Mr Bonar Law suggested that perhaps Mr Asquith -would think it better to have the discussion after tlie report of the Judges. (Cries of "No.") Mr Pringle asked: Will disciplinary measures against General Maurice be suspended pending tho finding of the 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 Bonar Law said: Does Mr Asquith think that the Government ought not to proceed with the setting up of the Court until after the discussion in the House of Commons ?

Ms Asquith replied: Certainly. Mr Asquith gave notice that he would move for a Select Committee of the Commons, instead of two Judges, to report on tho affair.

The motion will be debated on Thursday.

A VOTE OF CENSURE

(Australian and N".Z. Cable Association.) (Received May 9th, 1.15 a.m.) LONDON, May S. It is understood that tho Government regards Mr Asquith's motion as a vote of censure.

(United Sorvico.) (Received May Bth, 11.40 p.m.)

LONDON, May 7

AX EARLIER DEBATE,

(Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) (Received May Bth, 8.5 p.m.)

NEWSPAPER COMMENT.

(United Service.) (Roeeived May Bth, 8.5 p.m.) LONDON, May 7, The "Westminster Gazette" says;

LONDON, May 7. The "Daiiv Chronicle" says editorially:— ''It is impossible to overstate the gravity of Major-General Maurice's letter. As Director of Military Operations he had unsurpassed hnst iiand knowledgo of tho facts and figures relating to tho forces in tho field. Ho writes that certain recent statements by Mr Lloyd Georgia and Mr Bonar Law are untrue. Tho statements in question aro not casual, but are 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 21st occurred. MajorGeneral Maurice's step was a very serious one for himself. Obviously he was acting from a high sense of duty. Tho 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 the blame from the Ministers to the soldiers they employed. Moreover, ■ there are grave questions of policy. If the War Cabinet left Sir Douglas Haig when the German menace was piling itself uo _ against him, month after month, with fewer troops than in T917, the country would not view the Cabinet's responsibility leniontly. If the two Ministers <have, as well they may, a good and conclusive answer, let them make it without delay."

Major-General Maurice's letter is tho* tallc of the lobbies. It is regarded as giving the lie direct to Mr Lloyd George's statements.

Major-General Maurice retired from his position nt tho War Office a fortnight ago under circumstances which arc veiled in mystery. It is understood that Sir Henry Wilson suggested the change.

Sir William Robertson brought MajorGeneral Maurice from France in 1915, with Major-General Sir R. D. Whigham, who returned to his command in France. They had been amongst tho leaders in the fight between the old military cliquo and Mr Lloyd George. Tlioy were closely identified with Sir Douglas Haig, Sir William Robertson, and General Gough.

The "Evening Standard" points out that Mr Lloyd George's public statements concerning the Amy's strength always tallied with Major-General Maurice's private statements, showing that Mr Lloyd George based his speeches on Major-General Maurice's figures. It is no question of the members of Haig's army at the time of the attack, but of the Prime Minister misleading the Commons.

Mr Ivor Phillips has given notice of a question whether the Government will appoint two civilians, one of whom to be a Judge, to enquire into the oth Army's withdrawal.

Mr Lambert is asking whether the otii Army had 14 against 40 German divisions, reinforced by eight to ten more German divisions, and whether the person responsible for compelling the forces to face such overwhelming odds, resulting in a reverse, is still employed.

LONDON, May 7. l'n connexion with Major-General Maurice's lotter, it is pointed out that in tho Houso of Commons on April 23rd, Mr Lambert asked if tho Government oould explain tho failure of the otli Army, and whether tho taking over of that portion of tho lino was contrary to the judgment of Sir William Robertson and Sir Douglas Haig. M r Bonar Law said that there was not the smallest justification for the suggestion that the portion of the lino held by the sth Army was taken over contrary to Sir William Robertson's and Sir Douglas Haig's judgment.

When Mr Lambert reiterated his question, Mr Bonar Law said that tho arrangement -was a military arrangement tatween tho British and the French military authorities.

Colonel Bum asked whether Sir Douglas Haig did not protest against taking over tho 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 tnith in tho suggestion. Naturally thoro have been differences of opinion regarding tho extent of the lino taken over, but the matter lias been left to the military authorities. This particular matter was not dealt with at all by tho Versailles War Council.

"Major-Goneral Maurice has challenged tho relations of tho Government and the Army. Mr Lloyd -George implied that the Army was totally responsible for the reverse and tho Government blameless. It is imperative that full justice should be done to the Army. The reticence displayod in many of tho recent Government explanations has created widespread uneasiness.''

Tho "Evening Standard" says:— "Major-General Maurice has created a grave presedent. It would bo fatal to Government responsibility if overy distinguished soldier who disagreed with Cabinet assumed the ' role of public prosecutor. The Prime Minister ought to answer the charges before tho only tribunal —Parliament."

The "Star' declares that General Maurice's disclosures demand an immediate secret inquiry by an independent, impartial tribunal.

The "Daily News" and tho ' Morning Post" also publish tho letter. The "Morning Post" says: — 'General Gough has been made Mr Lloyd George's scapegoat. The Prime Minister and Mr Iloiiar Law made a series of statements, well calculated to shield the Premier at tho soldiers' expense. We have already pointed out that these statements are out of all accord with credibility. It is impossible to b?licve that Sir William Robertson and c?ir Douglas Haig approved of the extension of the line in the north, with diminishing forces and in the face of a growing enemy. As General Gough is unable to defend himself, the politicians are able to indulge to the full their line talent for shifting the blame. Fortunately, Major-General Maurice felt impelled to hear witness for the defence. Parliament lias a right, to the truth, and the Army has a right to-justico."