§ Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War who was first responsible for bringing Colonel Morgan's supposed claims to the notice of the Government; what inquiries were made by the Government into Colonel Morgan's record; 886 and whether, in view of the ignorance which has been shown of certain material facts now disclosed in regard to libel actions brought and threatened by that officer, the Government will cause further and full inquiries to be made before the appointment is confirmed?
§ Colonel SEELYI have already fully explained to the House the grounds for the attitude of the Army Council towards Colonel Morgan, and I do not consider that the points now raised by my hon. Friend can in any way affect that attitude. The confirmation of the appointment now depends on the decision of Colonel Morgan as to the retention by him of certain of the directorates which he holds.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODHow many of the directorships is he to be allowed to hold?
§ Colonel SEELYI made a statement on that point the other day. I think I said there would be only two he could hold if he took this appointment.
§ Mr. MORRELLIs the hon. Gentleman aware that Colonel Morgan went out to South Africa a poor man and came back a rich man, and that at the same time there were extensive frauds for which he was responsible—technically responsible? Do the Government still refuse to reopen these very grave scandals?
§ Colonel SEELYNo, Sir; I am not aware of the facts alleged by my hon. Friend, nor do I think it fair to the officer to make a statement of that kind, which I myself believe, from the evidence put before me, to be wholly devoid of foundation. I shall ask the permission of the House to read a statement by the late Attorney-General, in the course of the next few moments. I think it is really going far beyond what is fair to make a statement of that kind without a shadow of foundation. In fact, I believe the contrary to be the case.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEAre there not three Colonel Morgans in the Army? To which is this reference made?
§ Colonel SEELYThere may be several officers of that name, but I think hon. Members are very well aware against whom this is directed.
§ Sir HARRY VERNEYasked what communication the Under-Secretary has received from Lord Robson wth reference to the proposed appointment of Colonel Morgan to the post of messing adviser?
§ Colonel SEELYPerhaps it would be only right that I should read the letter from Lord Robson. A great deal has been said about Colonel Morgan, and perhaps it is only fair that something should be said on the other side. The letter which I have received from Lord Robson is as follows:—
§ "24th May, 1911.
§ "My dear Seely,—I acted as counsel for the defendants in the libel action successfully brought by Colonel Morgan, and became familiar with the charges made against him then and in the subsequent inquiry. Afterwards, as Attorney-General, I acted in the litigation between the Government and the contractors, which was concluded in November, 1909. The hearing of the latter case lasted nearly a month, and I had to read the immense mass of correspondence and to study in minute detail the transactions between Colonel Morgan and the contractors over a long period of time. It then became perfectly clear to me that instead of there being relations between him and them of a kind inconsistent with his duty, he was always a most vigilant, unsparing, and so far certainly as the latter years of the war were concerned, a highly effective guardian of the public interest against the contractors.
§ "The daily correspondence between all the various parties, then, I believe, for the first time fully disclosed, completely disposed of the suggestion that he was ever unduly influenced in favour of the contractors. His conduct showed a bias in the opposite direction.
§ "Under these circumstances I felt it my duty to lay my views before the Secretary of State for War.
§ "I have never met Colonel Morgan, except in Court or consultation, and my representations to the War Secretary were made on my own initiative, and in bare justice to a soldier on whose reputation there may still be some shadow that is not deserved.
§ "Yours sincerely,
§ "(Sgd.) ROBSON"
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I ask whether the letter of Lord Robson is to outweigh the evidence given before the Royal Commission and the Report of that body?
§ Colonel SEELYI think my hon. Friend will see from part of the letter I have read that he went into the matter very fully, and part of the documents on which he relied in forming this opinion—and after all his opinion is of weight, he being then Attorney-General—were for the first time then fully disclosed. He was counsel opposed to Colonel Morgan, and it was when he was opposed to Colonel Morgan that he formed this opinion.
§ Lord BALCARRESasked a question which was inaudible in the gallery.
§ Colonel SEELYIt was when he was opposed to him in the first case that he formed this opinion, and all the subsequent proceedings have induced him to hold the very strong view which I read to the House of the unjust accusations made against this officer.
§ Mr. MORRELLThese libel actions were brought by Colonel Morgan before the Royal Commission made its Report.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI would just point out that the question on the Paper has been fully answered. The question is about a letter received from Lord Robson, and if the hon. Member has any other question, he had better put it down.