GENERAL GODLEY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17089, 22 August 1917, Page 5

GENERAL GODLEY

MR PARR'S CRITICISM.

DEFENCE BY SIR JAS. ALLEN

(From Que Own Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON, August 21, On Friday, m the House of Representatives Mr Parr stated in plain terms some ot tho reasons why ho thought General godley ought not to remain in command of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. The Minister of Defence (Sir J. Allen) replied statements to-night. ( "Tho hon. member for Eden," he said, made what seemed to me an unjustificable attacic on General Godley. The hon. gentleman as far as I can mako out, has based his attack on no very good foundation except perhaps rumour and talk that lie has heard from soldiers and officers at tho front. I want to call his attention to tins fact, that unless he is quite sure of his ground, an attack of this kind should not havo been made, because it is subversive of discipline. The hon. gentleman made use of this expression:—' General Godley liad exercised great tact and diplomacy in dealing with his superiors.' The suggestion in that is that he had used his tact and diplomacy to gain honours and distinctions for himself. I think tho relerenoe to General Godley is at least ungenerous m view of the services he rendered to New Zealand, and i£ it means that no used tact to his superiors in order to gam advantage for himself it is more than ungenerous."

Mr Parr: Would you deny it? fair James Allen: I would deny it, and L dp deny it. Wo know of his tact here in dealing with local authorities, and, indeed, everybody ho met with, in the development of the Territorial scheme when he came hero first. I do not think these allusions are very honourable. Certainly, to my mind, they are not juet. The honourable gentleman said that General Godley owed tt. A r6c f"' titles and decorations to tho tact that he was commander of the New Zealand Army, but does he? The only honour that General Godlev has received that was recommended by the New Zealand government was the honour given him before he left these shores. He has never been recommended for any other honour by the Government or anybody eke in New Zealand, so far as I know. The honours that have come to him at the front have come to him by recommendation from his superior officers. The member for Eden has set himself up as a better judge whether general Godley had justly earned these honours, and as to his power to command an army or an army corps, than the higher authorities at the front and the War Office m England. With regard to theso honours, it is suggested—not by the hon. o-entle-man,—and I propose to reply to it. that the distribution of honours to the New Zealand Expeditionary Force has not been fair and equitable compared with the bestowal or honours on Australians and others I propose to put on record the honours gamed by the New Zealand Expeditionary itorce. Members will realise when the list is read that New Zealand has nothing to be ashamed of, and that, on the contrary, f W Zealand has something to be proud of, and that those who command our forces at the front have not neglected either officers or men. From the commencement of the war to August 18. 1917, the follow ing orders, decorations, and medals had been won by members of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force: —English decorations, 1063; French, 22; Russian, 7; Serbian, 28; Italian, s°; Montenegrin, 3;— total, 1598. Mr Parr: How many recommendations have been turned down? Sir James Allen: I am quite unable to say, but that is not the point. / Mr Parr: It is very much tho point. fcsir James Allen said that Mr Parr had heard his growl and grumble from 'the disappointed men, and not from the 1398 men who had received these decorations. New Zealand had received 1398 decorations, and the Commonwealth of Australia had received 3766. Members could make the comparison for themselves and judge whether we had had our share. The decorations gained in New Zealand were L 6 per cent.,: whereas for Australia the rate was 11 per cent.

Mr Parr: Then the official return is wrong.

on- J. Allen: The hon. gentleman says the official return is wrong. That is the only way he can get out of his difficulty. Mr Parr: No. I say your return is wrong. The official figures contradict you. Sir Jas. Allen went on to say that all the evidence was that General Godloy was a thorough soldier, a good tactician, a capable organiser, and careful for the welfare °f his men. The New Zealand Division under his command was second to none m the fighting line. ' Mr Parr: Thanks to RusselL Sir Jas. Allen: The honourable gentleman says "Thanks to RusselL" Air Parr: And the material. Sir Jas. Allen": I know it is owing to the material, but you cannot work good materiaL in Ji? fi shting shape without a good staff. General Godley may be unpopular— I don't know—but unpopularity is not always a sign that a man is not a good commander. Mr Parr had asserted that General Godley had his eyes specially upon those which expected favours" at his hands. Upon what basis did he make the charge? He ought to substantiate it or withdraw it, because it was a very serious charge to make. He said that General Godley possessed neither the regard nor tho respect of the men. How did he know? He had spoken to a few men, and heard them grumble. Perhaps they were disappointed. What did he know about the main body of the men? There were many thousands of them.

Mr Parr: Eleven thousand men are back here, and no one of them speaks well of him.

Sir James Allen: The hon. gentleman has not heard all the 11.000. He has only heard * f ew - Se says there is irreconcilable hostility or bitter di6liko on the part of all ranks towards General Godley. I have not heard of it. These charges made at a time like this ought to be substantiated or withdrawn. _ The hon. member has made a 'complaint that New Zealanders were not getting opportunities for learning staff work In actual fact there were two New Zealanders on the Army Corps staff, five on the Divisional Staff, 12 on Brigade Staffs on six on Miscellaneous Staff work—a total °L 2 5" ihen tllere weretteem * ee commanding officers, five technically employed on special duty, 11 regimentally employed and- on the New Zealand roll for return. Ako there had been New Zealand officers t. referred to the British army for staff wdr There were New Zealand officers doing staff work for the commonwealth forces. He would remind the hon. gentleman, however, that staff work required a great deal of training which could not be obtained by regimental work.

Mr Parr: How many New Zealanders are there on General Godley's staff? Sir James Allen said General Godley had a right to choose the best men available lor his staff work, and he would be very much at fault if he favoured New Zealand officers.

Mr Parr: No ono has accused him. Ihe Minister quoted an extract from a letter from General Birdwood in order to disprove the. assertions that General Godley was a coward, that he stuck to his dugout, that he had never visited his trenches and never went to the danger zone ' Mr Parr: That charge was never'made by me.

Sir J. Allen: I mention it because it was made generally. Mr Reed: It was never made generally brr James Allen: Oh, yes, it was made several times. He then read the extract m which General Birdwood wrote that he had had on several occasions to warn General Godley against unduly exposing himself to danger. He then read the other extract, which expressed the approval of General Birdwood of General Godley s work as a commander and administrator. Who was right-General JSirdwood or the member for Eden? Did the officer tell Mr Parr this in confidence? ?l S° he , had betrayed his confidence and if he did not betray confidence he still ought not to have made this kind of suggestion, which' was cruel, is wicked, and unworthy of a member of Parliament An Hon. Member: That is not a" fair thing to say.

The topeaker: I think the hon, member should not make that last statement Sir Jas. Allen: Well, Sir, I will 'withdraw "unworthy of a member of Parliament.

Mr Parr: I know what I said is true. Sir Jas. Allen referred last of all to General Godley's alleged lack of human qualities, saying that he did not believe that he deserved any such reproach. Possibly he had incurred it because ho was a disciplinarian, but discipline was essential in a force if it was to Split well. The Hon. R. H. Rhodes said he intended to say something in reply to Mr Parr's criticism of General Godley. In regard to Mr Parr's suggestion that certain matters might have to be inquired into by the Government, Mr Rhodes said the member for Eden should come out into the open and say exactly what it was that should bo inquired into. Vague charges of this kind wr.ru to lx< deprecated. He (Mr Rhodes) had been with General Godley in the trenches day by day. General Godley acted like atay other general, and was-just as

solicitous for the safety and comfort of*,' ins men as any other general. Ho was J beyond question a bravo man. and at times ™ *??? , 1S staff for his safety. ' Mr Rhodes said he was in a position to bear witness to General Godley's unconcern tor his own safety. He was twice shelled J out of ins headquarters at Gallipoli, and on ? one occasion his own messroom was blown Jun. He stood as much risk as any man.--Ihose who said General Godley was not a good soldier should ask his staff officers, who considered him a good soldier, t