SIR FREDERICK MAURICE AND THE GOVERNMENT. [To THE EDITOR OF
THE " SPECTATOR."]
Sia,—A propos of your continued criticism of the Government treatment of the Maurice publications, will you answer the follow- ing query? Is an officer, who has access to a secret verbatim report of what took place at a War COuncil meeting, justified in stating publicly that such verbatim report bears out any prior statements he himself may have made to the public?—I am, Sir,
[It depends upon the nature of the " prior statements." The Prime Minister ridiculed. Sir Frederick Maurice's claim to know- ledge about what happened at. Versailles on the ground that he was not present :when the extension of the line" discUssed. But Sir Frederick Maurice, though not actually in the room, was in the Conference building—he was present as much as a Member of Parliament is present in the House of Commons, though he may prefer to follow a debate in the lobbies—and by virtue of his position he had access to'- the papere. Unless Sir Frederick MauriCe be allowed to say as Much as this, it means thit nobody has any right of reply to the Government when attacked. Sir
Fiederick Efairice did not of course attempt to substantiate any military point from any secret document. His only assertions in the Daily Chronicle were that he was present, that the matter was certainly discussed, -and that be was not an ignorant person. The Prime Minister himself adMitted that the matter was dis- cussed. Why then the objection to Sir Frederick Maurice's way of proving that on this point he agrees with the Prime Minister? We fear there is only one answer. The exercise of the Censorship was political. Sir Frederick Maurice is required to retain the appearance of an ignorant person.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
