MOTHER COUNTRY.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 May 1918, Page 5

MOTHER COUNTRY.

A CRAVE CHARGE. j BY EX-DIRECTOR OF MILITARY OPERATIONS. , * T -LEGED MINISTERIAL MISSTATEMENTS. London, May 7. Major-General Maurice has written an astonishing letter to the Daily Chronicle, .accusing Messrs Lloyd George and Bonar Law of misleading statements in the House of Commons regarding the extension of the British front in France, and the number of white divisions in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and 'Palestine. Major-General Maurice, late Director of Military Operations, in a letter to the Daily Chronicle says that several recent Ministerial answers in the House of Commons containing mis-statements giving a totally misleading impression. "What occurred first was that the extension of the British front in France was not dealt with by the Versailles Council. This was untrue. I was at Versailles when the Supreme War Coun. cil decided the matter. "Mr. Lloyd George, on April 9, said that, notwithstanding the heavy casualties in 1917, the army in France was considerably stronger on January 1, 1918, than in January, 1917. That implies that Sir Dougias Haig's fighting strength on the eve of the great battle on March 21 was not diminished. This was not correct. "Mr. Lloyd George said that only one white infantry division was in Mesopotamia and Egypt and three white divisions in Palestine. This is not correct." General Maurice adds: "This letter is not the result of a military conspiracy. I am as sincere a democrat as the Prinie Minister. The last thing I desire to see is the Government in the hands of soldiers. My reason for taking the grave step of writing this letter is that the statements quoted are known to a large number of soldiers to he incorrect, and this knowledge is breeding such disgust with the Government as can only end in impairing the splendid morale of our troops when everything should be done to raise it. "I therefore have decided, with a full realisation of the consequences to nyrself, that my duty as a citizen overrides my duty as a soldier, and to ask you to publish my letter in the hope that Parliament may order an investigation of these statements."—Aus.-N.Z. Cable :\"^. The ' - has created a sensation. The ! ,:iicle and Morning Post support General Maurice's demand for a parliamentary inquiry. In the House of Commons Mr. Bonar Law announced that the Government was inviting two judges to investigate General Maurice's charges, and that the Army Council was dealing with the letter from a disciplinary standpoint.

PRESS COMMENTS. GRAVE QUESTIONS OP POLICY. SHIELDING MINISTERS AT SOLDIERS' EXPENSE. Received May 8, 5.5 p.m. London, May 7. The Daily Chronicle says, editorially, that it is impossible to overstate the gravity of General Maurice's letter, As director of military operations he had unsurpassed first-hand knowledge of 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 untrue. The statements in question are not casual, but elaborate and deliberate ones concerning most vital matters, including the circumstances under which the British took over an extra piece of front south of St. Quentin, where the disaster of March 21 occurred. General Maurice's step is a very serious one for himself, and 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 mis-statements look worse, because they had the effect of diverting the blame from 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 up against him month after month, with fewer troops than in 1917, the country would not view the Cabinet's responsibility leniently. If the two Ministers have 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 Gough 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 soldiers' expense. We have already pointed out at home that these statements were out of all accord with credibility. It is impossible to believe that General Robertson and Sir Douglas Haig approved the extension of the line with diminishing forces hi face of the growing enemy. As General Gough is unable to defend himself, politicians are able to indulge to the full in their fine talent for shifting the blame. Fortunately General Maurice felt impelled to bear witness for the defence. Parliament has a right to the truth, and the army has a right to justice.—Außt.-N.Z. Cable Assoc. London, May 7. In the House of Commons, Mr. Bonar Law said that the judges would be asked to report on Major-General Maurice's letter as quickly as possible, but the disciplinary proceedings would not wait the judges' finding.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Association.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN APRIL IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Received May 8, 8.45 pjn. London, May 7. In connection with General Maurice's letter, it is pointed out that in the House of Commons on April 23, Mr. G. Lambert asked if the Government could explain the failure of the Fifth Army, and whether n>« tokin- »»«* of that portion

of the line was contrary to the judgment of Sir W. Robertson and Sir Douglas Haig. Mr. Bonar Law said there was not the smallest justification for the suggestion that a portion of the line was taken over contrary to Sir W. Robertson's and Sir Douglas Haig's judgment. When Mr. Lambert reiterated the question, Mr. Bonar Law said tho arrangement was a military arrangement between the British and French military authorities. Colonel Burn asked whether Sir Douglas Haig did not protest against tho taking over of the extra lino from the French, owing to the few divisions at his disposal. Mr. Bonar Law replied: "To the best of my knowledge there is not tho smallest truth in the suggestion. Naturally, there have been diil'erences of opinion regarding the extent of (he line taken over, but the matter has been left to the military authorities. This particular matter was not dealt with at all by tho Versailles AVar Council."'—Proas Association.

TWO QUESTIONS RAISED. TO BE DEALT WITH BY SEPARATE TRIBUNALS. Received May 8, 8.45 p.m. London, May 7. In the House of Commons, Mr. Asquith drew attention to General Maurice's letter, and asked what steps the Government proposed to take to enable the House to examine the allegations. Mr. Bonar Law Tcplied that the letter raised two questions—firstly, military discipline; secondly, the security of Ministerial statement's. The Army Council was dealing with the first, and, as regards the second question, although the Government could not be carried on if an inquiry into the conduct of Ministers were considered necessary whenever they were challenged by a servant of the Government who occupied a position of the highest confidence, this matter affected the honor of Ministers, and it was proposed to ask two judges to act on a court of honor to inquire into the alleged mis-statements of Ministers.—Reuter Service.

DIVERGENT PRESS VIEWS. A SERIOUS PRECEDENT CREATED. Received May 8, 8.40 p.m. London, May 7. The Westminster Gazette savs that 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 he done to the army. The reticence displayed in many recent Government explanations has created widespread uneasiness. The Standard says that General has created a grave precedent. It would be fatal to Government responsibility if every distinguished soldier disagreeing with Cabinet assumed the rolo of public prosecutor. The Premier ought to answer the charges before the only tribunal—that of Parliament. The Star declares that General Maurice's disclosures demand immediate secret inquiry by an independent and impartial tribunal.—United Service. NEED FOR JUDGES.

SECRET DOCUMENTS TO BE EXAMINED. Received May 8, 9.25 pjn. London, May 7. Mr. G. '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 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 they had not willingly made misleading statements. In order to examine the question the most secret documents must be examined. Obviously it was 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 it was not thought necessary. He was sure everyone involved would be glad to place his information at the disposal of the judges. If the judges were not given anything 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. W. M. R. Pringle asked: Will' the disciplinary measures against General Maurice be suspended pending the finding of the court? Mr. Bonar Law: No. Even if every statement were true, the discipline of 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 the Government ought to proceed with the setting up of a court until after the discussion in the House of Commons? Mr. Asquith: Certainly. EXETER BY-ELECTION. Received May 8, 7.45 p.m. London, May 7. The Exeter by-election resulted in the return of Sir Robert Newman unopposed.

THE LIE DIRECT. GENERAL MAURICE RECENTLY RETIRED. NOTICES OF MOTION GIVEN. Received May 8, 10 p.in. London, May 7. General Maurice's letter is the talk of the lobbies. It is regarded as giving tlie lie direct to Mr. Lloyd George's statements. General Mam-ice retired from his position at the War Office a fortnight ago under circumstances of veiled mystery. It is understood that Sir H. H. Wilson suggested a change. General Robertson brought General Maurice from France 'in 1915 wit'i General Whigham, who later returned to his command in France. They had been amongst the leaders in the fight between the old military clique and MrLloyd George. They were closely identified with Sir Dougias Ha,ig and' General Robertson and General Gough. The Standard point* out that Mr. Lloyd George"s public statements ' concerning tho Army's strength always tallied with General Maurice's private statements, shewing that Mr. Lloyd George based his speeches on General Maurice's numbers of Sir Douglas Haig's army at the time of the attack. Mr. Ivor Phillips has given notice of a question whether the Government will appoint two civilians, whereof one is a Judge, to inquire into the Fifth Army's withdrawal. Mt. Lambert is asfrng whether the Fifth Army had fourteen against forty German divisions, reinforced by eight to ten mora German divisions, and whether the person responsible for compelling the forces to face such overwhelming'odds resulting in the revere* is still employed. London, May 7. In the House of Commons, Mr. Asmiith notified that ho would move for a Solent Committee from the House of Commons, instead of two Judges, on tfhe Maurice affair. Tho motion will be debated on Thursday. Received May 9, ].g a.m. London, May 8. It is understood the Government regardMr. Asquith's motion as a vote of censure.

THE CALL TO MEN. EMPIRE'S SUPREME TRIAL. London, April 17. ■Uie limes, m a leading article to-day, remarks that even before the West front offensive the Dominions were uiakin" re-doubled efforts, although they had afready seemed to have given the utmost possible assistance. Since the offensive was launched they have realised that the Empire had entered upon a supreme trial and test of endurance. They are sending more men, breathing into their war organisations a fresh inspiration to fight to tho end. . Referring to Australia's new recruiting campaign, The Times says: 'When conscription was defeated the second time we said it made no difference to Australia's devoted support of the British cause, but that it wa 3 merely a difference as to the best means. We believe this to be true, though it must be admitted that the refusal of certain labor organisation to join in the conference is a sign of weakness. Mr. Hughes' illness is also regrettable. His knowledge and enthusiasm would have been invaluable at the conference."