MAURICE’S LETTER.

Taihape Daily Times, 16 May 1918, Page 4

MAURICE’S LETTER.

ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION OF CHARGES. LONDON, May 15. General Maurice has accepted the position of military correspondent to thke Daily Chronicle. In his iirst article he says: I only did my duly, not as a disgruntled soldier who n... been turned one his job. I was about to take important employment in France. I can say without vanity I had a premising career before me. I left a service 1 -T love/ And therefore made a very real bcfdflirce—l hope m-. in vain. Tdo ' iibr iiitend to indulge in recriminations and “aiiy*criticisms win be constructive. T appealed to Parliament to inquire into my statements. My appeal'failed. My case has not ■ been heard. I paid the penalty for a breach of discipline, which X deeply regret. I felt bound to commit it. There is nothing more to be said. Newspaper controversy upon the facts of my letter are obviously impossible. • I am prepared to substantiate their ■correctness before a tribunal appointed by Parliament. I feel that an explanation is necessary regarding two of Mr, Lloyd George’s comments. Firstly, regarding my presence at Versailles when takihg Over the line was discussed. I accompanied the British representatives and attended the fir. meeting of the Supreme War Council. During the susbequent meetings I was in the corridor outside the Council chamber. During the interval between the meetings I was engaged in work in connection with questions under examination. Therefore, my statement that I was at Versailles was justified. The second point is that Mr. Lloyd George made his speech on April 5. The report that I was at the House of Commons on that day is incorrect. It was that day the enemy’s attack in Flanders began. Between the 9th and the 20th, when I handed over my duties to successor, I was much occupied with my duties, and was part of the time in France. I had not leisure for more than a glance at Mr. Lloyd George’s speech/ I departed from the War Office on leave on the 20th. Then, for the first time, I read the full rep..c of Mr. Lloyd George’s speech. While on leave I learned of Mr. Bonar j Law’s answers to questions on the j 23rd April. I returned to London on the 29th, and saw the Hansard report | of Mr. Bonar Law’s speech. Then, j and not till then, I formed a definite opinion on Mr. Bonar Law’s replies and Mr. Lloyd George’s statements. Taken together, they put upon soldiers responsibility which, according to my judgment, ought to be borne by Ministers. It appeared to me a matter of urgency to correct that impression. I wrote on the 30th to my late chief. General Wilson, pointing out the incorrectness of these statements and awaited a reply till May 6. I could wait no longer, because I had been warned to expect orders to go to France on the 10th, and did not wish to make such charges on the eve cf leaving the country. General Maurice concludes by denying the suggestions of collusion with ether soldiers, or with opponents of the Government, in Parliament or the Press. “I acted,” he says, “entirely alone. Nothing was further from my mind than to serve any partisan political purpose.” .’■■■■•