§ Captain CLIVEasked (1) whether, in view of the fact that Colonel Morgan, C.B., D.S.O., is to place his whole time at the disposal of the War Office, he has been asked to give up the ten directorships now held by him; and (2) whether he is to be allowed to continue as managing director of the Army and Navy House Furnishing Company after he takes up his appointment at the War Office?
§ Colonel SEELYColonel Morgan will be required to give up all directorships which do not allow of his whole time being at the disposal of the War Office. I am informed that his directorship of the company named entails merely nominal duties, but should it be found in any way to interfere with the performance of his duties under the War Office he will be called upon to resign it.
§ Captain CLIVEWill the right hon. Gentleman explain what kind of directorship it is that entails only nominal duties, and is he aware that Colonel Morgan is described as both managing-director and secretary of the company named?
§ Colonel SEELYI have said if any appointment that this officer holds prevents his giving his full time to the War Office and the new duties imposed upon him he will be called upon to resign it.
§ Mr. MacNEILLIs it on account of his financial experience that he is appointed?
Sir HENRY DALZIELWill the right hon. Gentleman extend the same liberty of action to other Civil Servants that it is proposed to give to Colonel Morgan?
§ Colonel SEELYThis is a retired officer, and the rule has always been that they are entitled to hold directorships. I again repeat if it is inconsistent with his duties at the War Office he be asked to resign this or any other directorship.
§ Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYUnder what circumstances was this officer retired?
§ Captain CLIVEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) if he was aware that Colonel Morgan, C.B., D.S.O., whom he had lately appointed to a responsible post at the War Office, was the same 1820 officer who, as director of supplies at Pretoria during the war, sold oats at a low price to the farm of which he was manager, and thence resold them at a greatly enhanced price; and whether he would reconsider the appointment of this officer to superintend the management of soldiers' messing; and (2) if he was aware that the Royal Commission on War Stores in South Africa, presided over by Mr. Justice Farwell, reported that the conduct of Colonel Morgan, C.B., D.S.O., who had lately received an appointment at the War Office, in arranging for his brother's employment at a large salary, and also in respect of other matters, was open to grave comment; and, seeing that the Lord Chief Justice, in his judgment in Imperial Cold Storage Company v. The King, said that he could not altogether accept the story told by Colonel Morgan in his evidence, whether he would withhold his confirmation of the appointment until this House had had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on it?
§ Colonel SEELYThe Report of the Farwell Commission contained comments on Colonel Morgan's action in regard both to the sale to Eloff's Farm and the employment of his brother. The Army Council, after full review of the cases, decided to call upon him to retire. The consideration, however, which moved them to take this course was not suspicion as to the bona fides of Colonel Morgan, such as appears to be implied in the hon. and gallant Member's questions, but regard for the necessity of securing compliance with the Regulations the general spirit of which Colonel Morgan was held to have contravened. As regards the statement of the Lord Chief Justice, it would appear that it was Colonel Morgan's memory of what had passed that he considered was at fault. The selection of this officer for the new post has been made after full consideration of all the circumstances, and no good purpose would be served by delaying the appointment.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEIs the War Office still of the opinion expressed by the Financial Secretary that there is no other officer in the Service who is capable of filling this position?
§ Colonel SEELYThe Secretary of State considered that this officer was the best qualified of all persons whom he could find to fulfil this particular duty, and he accordingly selected him. So far as I have been able to ascertain, he is probably- the best qualified of any officer whom we could find for the purpose of this particular duty.
§ Mr. MORRELLWas this officer, in fact, responsible for a fraud on the public?
§ Colonel SEELYNo, I do not think that is so. I do not think it is fair to pursue this officer vindictively. He has suffered very much for an error of judgment, and I do not think it would be right now, in the interest of the public service, to vindictively pursue an officer who committed an error of judgment when he is found to be the most capable person to perform a particular service.
§ Colonel HICKMANIs it not a fact that when aspersions on this officer's character were published in "The Times" and other newspapers when he was on full pay, he took the first possible opportunity of bringing a libel action against "The Times," and won his case?
§ Colonel SEELYI believe that is the case. Colonel Morgan completely cleared his character in the courts of law.
§ Mr. CROOKSHas the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that a quartermaster only on suspicion was dismissed without a pension, and that no right of appeal and no chance to secure reinstatement into the Army is granted to a non-commissioned officer? Why should we not have sacked this man?
§ Colonel SEELYAs long as I hold my present post there shall be no distinction of persons in these matters. I have said, I believe, Colonel Morgan is the best officer for the post, that he cleared his character in the courts of law, and that it would be against the interests of the public service to pursue him with vindictive hate, and I cannot advise the Secretary of State to alter the decision he has come to.
§ Captain CLIVEIs it in consequence of the usefulness of Colonel Morgan in the case of the Imperial Cold Storage Co. v. the King that he was offered this new post?
§ Colonel SEELYNo; he was chosen because he was considered to be the best officer for the post.
§ Colonel HICKMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in the trial of an action brought by the Imperial Cold Storage Company, Limited, against the Crown, in the King's Bench Division, in the autumn of 1909, the then Attorney-General, Sir W. Robson, K.C., M.P., now Lord Robson, in his final speech drew attention to 1822 the fact that in his opinion the evidence in that case had absolutely disproved any slight aspersions against Colonel Morgan resulting from the Report of the War Stores Commission; if he will say whether this was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State by Sir W. Robson; and whether Colonel Morgan's appointment as messing adviser was due to the opinion that he had been somewhat harshly treated in addition to his special qualifications and ability?
§ Colonel SEELYAs regards the first two parts of the question, the reply is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question this officer was selected because of his exceptional qualifications for the post.