The press FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1918. The Case of General Maurice.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16262, 12 July 1918, Page 6

The press FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1918. The Case of General Maurice.

Fuller particulars received by the mail concerning General Maurice's charges of inveracity or inaccuracy against Mr Lloyd George and Mr Bonar Law show that the necessarily restricted cable reports did not do justice to the General. He took'three statements by these Ministers, it will be remembered, and said they were all incorrect. The first was that the extension of the British front was not dealt with by the Versailles Council; the second was Mr Lloyd George's implication that our fighting strength on March 2lst last Had not been diminished ; and the third ■was that in Mesopotamia and Egypt and Palestine there were only three whit© divisions. His reason for making these charges in a letter to tho newspapers was that the' statements referred to were known by a large number of soldiers to bo incorrect, and that this knowledge was breeding such a distrust of the Government as could only end in impairing the Army's moral. The Government said the charges would be submitted to two of the King's Judges, but Mr Asquith pressed for a Parliamentary Committee, and tho Prime Minister thereupon mado tho issue one of confidence in tho Government, and this secured a verdict in his favour. The Houso had nothing before it in tho way of evidence, except an ox part© statement by the Minister, and to this day no further enquiry has been made as to the actual facts. Tho Prime Minister's main defence consisted of saying that the statement as to the strength of the Western front was mado on the basis of General Maurice's own report, but General Maurice did not challenge the actual statement. Ho specifically challenged only the implication in the fllannor in which that statement was made. The Prime Minister further said that General Maurice was not present when the Versailles Council discussed an extension of the front, and could, therefore, know nothing about it. He also declared that the General was present in the House whon tho statement ho objected to was made, and that he said nothing about it until he wrote to the newspapers. This seemed conclusive, but General Maurice, in an article in the "Daily Chronicle," showed that he was prosent at the Council, and had to seo all the documents bearing on tho matter, that ho was not present in tho House on the occasion mentioned, and had not for a fortnight after paid attention to the

Prime Minister's speech, and, finally, that ha wrote to tho Press only after ho had mado private representations in vain. A climax to the episode was the censoring of a passage in the General's reply in the "Chronicle.' r This passage, it was explained hy tho Government, "referred to a secret " document." The "Chronicle" was then obliged to say that it was not so, but was merely a single sentence by Goneral Maurice to the effect that ho had seen all the documents —a statement ho was entitled to mako to establish his own truthfulness. It was generally agreed that this political uso of the censorship was grievously unjust.

Two important questions arose out of tho affair. The first concerned the duty of a soldier. Although it was suggested, and at first looked possible, that the General's letter was part of a conspiracy against the Prime Minister, it quickly becamo apparent that it was not, and that General Maurice, knowing that he would bo retired (and, as he bravely admitted, properly retired), deliberately sacrificed himself because he considered that by so doing he could render a service to the Army and the nation. The "Spectator," always sound and temperate and indifferent to anything but the national welfare, holds not only that Goneral Maurice's charges wero left unanswered, but that they seem to have been well bnsed, and were properly made. It grieves that tho charges were 'made in vain, and that the debate onded with the public still unaware of the fact that mistakes were mado by tho Government in defianco of the soldiers, without any ill consoquences to the politicians, but with serious results to the Army and the national cause. The question was this: If a General who knows tho facts sees tho Government wilfully misleading tho country, and bringing tho nation into danger, what is ho to do? To keep silent, tho "Spectator" maintains, would not be tho act of a bVave mtin and a man of honour. "If evor "tho time comes," it says, "when a "soldier feels that ho must make use "of his professional knowledge in tho " public interest, he must disregard all " forms in tho conviction that the crisis " transcends them."' Mr Bonar Law, it is to be remomberod, declared in April, 1914, at the time of tho Curragh incident, that thoro are occasions when a soldier's duty must become subservient to his duty as a citizen. There is another doctrine, which was laid down by the "Observer, ,T as follows: — " Only those [soldiers]! must be employed in whom the Government of " the day have confidenco, and who are " undoubtedly loyal in letter and spirit "to the Government of tho dny." One is not surprised that this suggestion shocked all those who believe that a soldier's allegiance is to'his King and ' country, and not to the: men on the Treasury benches. The adoption of th.o "Observer's" tulo would certainly • make impossible cases like that of General Maurice, and would make things very easy and pleasant for tho politicians, but we should not caro to see the nation's fortunes in time of war placed in the hands of Generals who would regard as their first duty unquestioning reverence for every, word, thought, or suggestion of tho Prime Minister and his colleagues.