HC Deb 31 May 1911 vol 26 cc1086-100
The PRIME MINISTER

moved: "That this House, at its rising on Friday next, do adjourn until Tuesday, 13th June."

Captain CLIVE

I take this opportunity of bringing before the House a case about which I more than once have asked questions, namely, the case of the appointment of Colonel Morgan.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

On a point of Order, I wish to ask you whether the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule has been moved.

The PRIME MINISTER

It is not moved.

4.0 P.M.

Captain CLIVE

I wish to bring before the House the case of Colonel Morgan, who has received a responsible post at the War Office. I may remind the House that he occupied various positions as an Army Service Corps officer during the South African War. His conduct was the subject of litigation on more than one occasion, and it was the subject of very adverse comment by the Committee presided over by Sir William Butler. I do not wish to dwell on the Report of that Committee, because that Committee was not thought to be of a sufficiently judicial character to justify action on its Report. As a result of the Report of that Committee, it was thought right to appoint a more judicial body to go into the charges brought by the Butler Committee against various officers. For that reason a Royal Commission, presided over by Mr. Justice Far well, was appointed in 1906. Whatever may have been thought of the previous Committee, there can be no question that the Farwell Commission was thoroughly well equipped for the work it had to undertake. It was presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court, and included amongst its members Field-Marshal Sir George White, who had been Colonel Morgan's chief during the siege of Ladysmith; Sir George Taubman-Goldie, Sir Francis Mowatt, and Mr. Samuel Morley. That Commission reported in 1906, and I must ask the indulgence of the House while I read certain passages from the Report with special reference to Colonel Morgan. My first extract will be recognised as being wholly in favour of Colonel Morgan. It is no part of my case to suggest that Colonel Morgan came away from the war a richer man than he went to it. As far as my private information goes, I believe that that is not the case. The Farwell Commission, though they made various adverse comments upon his conduct, exonerated Colonel Morgan in that particular. They state:— It is, perhaps, not surprising that Sir Wm. Butler and his colleagues in a report made by them as a Departmental Committee to the Secretary of State should have thought the circumstances connected with Col. Morgan and his brother and Meyer and the general conduct, of business in the Director of Supplies' office so suspicions, as to justify them in suggesting possible dishonesty on the part of the commissioned officers in charge. But no evidence of dishonesty was adduced before us. Therefore I think it right to make it clear to the House that I bring no charge of that sort against Colonel Morgan. There are, however, in this Report ample reasons for suggesting that Colonel Morgan cannot be considered qualified for reappointment under the War Office. I will take, first, a question which occupied the attention of the Commission a great deal, and upon which they took a lot of evidence—namely, the question of local contracts during the war. It was a question of what was to be done after the war was over, how the remaining troops were to be supplied, and how the remaining supplies in charge of the various departments of the Army were to he dealt with. Colonel Morgan committed himself strongly to the system, which came to be known as the system of local contracts, and he did so in spite of protest from home. The War Office and the Quarter Master-General at home were against the system, details of which I need not go into for the purposes of my argument:— The War Office had already given a reluctant approval to local contracts when Lord Kitchener returned home, but it is to he regretted that a question of such magnitude he was not invited to discuss the matter with responsible authorities…Meanwhile, however. General Lyttelton on July 1st, on Col. Morgan's advice, had telegraphed 'strongly recommending' the new system. The new system was adopted, and the Farwell Commission found that it was practically on the ground of the adoption of this system, on the recommendation of Colonel Morgan, that a loss to the country was incurred of anything between £750,000 and £1,250,000. That is an error of administration which should in itself make any Department hesitate to reappoint the officer responsible at this Or at any other time. But that is only an error of administration. There are at, least two much graver charges brought against Colonel Morgan in this report. The first is that known as the Meyer contract case, in connection with the giving of a contract for oats and hay to a firm known as Meyer, Limited. Again let me quote what is said in favour of Colonel Morgan:— We find no evidence to show that any fraudulent conspiracy between Colonel Morgan and Meyer and Frank Morgan ever existed. While dismissing this serious charge, we are constrained to say that Colonel Morgan's conduct in arranging for his brother's employment at a large salary, and in bringing him out to South Africa, is open to great comment. Colonel Morgan was Director of Supplies, and was well acquainted with the character and ways of South African contractors. He might have known that £1,200 a year was a large salary for a man of Meyer's means to grant. What happened was this. As soon as Meyer got a very large contract, Colonel Morgan telegraphed to his brother, who was in Egypt, telling him that he had a good post for him, the post being that of managing clerk to the contractor to whom he had just given this contract. He (Colonel Morgan) might have known that £1,200 a year was a large salary for a man of Meyer's means to grant. He must have known that even in South Africa such a sum was an excessive remuneration for a managing clerk of untried capabilities. Colonel Morgan may well have been conscious of his own integrity, and confident that he would not grant any undue advantage to Meyer by reason of his brother's employment, but he cannot have failed to realise that Meyer, at least, expected to benefit by the relationship of his managing clerk to the Director of Supplies. The dates suggest the truth. When Colonel Morgan was Director of Supplies, and local contracts were probable, Meyer was willing to give Colonel Morgan's brother employment at £1,200 a year, nominally as managing clerk, but in fact for the performance of services of a more mechanical kind. But as soon as Colonel Morgan was recalled and left the country, his brother's employment ceased by mutual arrangement, and F. C. Morgan received a hill for £300 at three months. F. C. Morgan did not, in fact, do any work for the firm of Meyer, Limited. The Company having only come into existence on September 30th, the day before the supply tenders were put in; and the letter of November 12th, purporting to show a formal resignation as from November 1st, is at variance with the truth, and was probably intended to conceal the previous employment by Meyer. The Commission's comment on that was:— We are of opinion that this arrangement with Meyer for the employment of F. C. Morgan was contrary to the spirit and letter of the King's Regulations. Although no evidence has been given to show that. any loss occurred therefrom, we find good gr und for believing that the very small number of tenderers at Pretoria and other stations is to be explained by the general knowledge that F. C. Morgan was in Meyer's employment, and the suspicion so easily engendered in the atmosphere of South Africa that no tender would have a fair chance against theirs. Some idea of the importance of limiting the number of tenders may be gained from the fact-that Meyer thought it worth while to pay Arthur May and Company, a substantial firm. 2½ per cent. on the value of all goods he might supply in consideration that they should abstain from tendering. We also have evidence that Meyer's success was regarded as certain, and not least by Meyer himself. In the absence of proof of corruption we can only attribute this general belief to the above-mentioned cause—the presence of F. C. Morgan as an employé of the partnership…In concluding this part of our inquiry we feel compelled to add that Colonel Morgan Can hardly complain if his conduct in these matters has given rise to grave suspicions. That I believe is what the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question the other day, described as a breach of the regulations. I would ask the House to agree that that is a very meagre description of such conduct. It seems to suggest that there was something purely technical about it, that it was unimportant, and that on that account it might easily be condoned. But it is far more serious than that. That when such an important Commission say:— Colonel Morgan can hardly complain that his conduct in these matters has given rise to grave suspicions. I contend that the matter must be more serious than a mere breach of the regulations. I must apologise for quoting at such length, but I wish to make as little comment as possible myself, and to leave the House to judge for themselves from the Report of the Commission whether this officer is worthy of re-employment. The other case is the oats case. That also I will give as far as possible in the words of the Commission:— Eloff's Farm is near Pretoria, and like many other farms bad been worked at the public expense during the war…After the declaration of peace this was discontinued by order, and Colonel Morgan at first proposed to utilise the farm for the supply of dairy and other produce to the Pretoria garrison, the Field Force canteen advancing £5,000 for the purpose. The War Office, however, objected, and Colonel Morgan then suggested that it should be conducted in the interests of the Garrison Sports Club, a private club, formed by members of the Army for their own benefit and carried on at their own expense. This suggestion was approved early in September, 1902, and Colonel Morgan became manager of the farm on 13th September. The farm went into various transactions, on the first of which they lost money. The money loss to the farm resulting from the failure of the potatoe crop was considerable, and sufficient to throw doubts on its ultimate solvency. Colonel Morgan was no more personally liable for losses incurred in the working of the farm than any other member of the Garrison Sports Club, but his reputation as an administrator was involved, and it would doubtless have been unpleasant for him to have to present to his fellow soldiers a balance-sheet showing a heavy deficit. Therefore he went into this still further speculation, which is known as the Oats Case. Colonel Morgan, in his capacity as Director of Supplies, sold to the farm, of which he was manager, oats at a low price, and the farm of which he was manager was enabled to re-sell them at a greatly enhanced price, and thereby to turn the deficit which was likely to accrue into a profit." Colonel Morgan describes the condition of these oats as very bud, and attributes the increased price of 8s. to the fact that they had been sorted and cleaned…But it nevertheless remains true that oats were sold at a low price by Colonel Morgan, as Director of Supplies, to the farm of which he was manager, and thence resold at a greatly enhanced price. Both the sales in question— One of which I have not gone into— appear to us to be of an objectionable character. Colonel Morgan, whose duty it was to protect the public interest by selling at the best price obtainable, sold to the farm of which he was manager, for the purpose and with the effect of making a profit for the farm by re-sale. Colonel Morgan's explanation is that the matter did not present itself to him in that light at the time, but he does not seek now to justify his conduct. These are, without any embellishments on my part, the facts as discovered by the Farwell Commission, and I think the House will he prepared to agree that they are perfectly sufficient to justify the action of Lord Haldane in 1906 in asking Colonel Morgan to resign his commission and in allowing him to retire on full pension. I think it will be agreed that Colonel Morgan was certainly generously treated at that time. I ask the House to agree that the facts are so grave and so serious that it cannot be for the good of the public service that Colonel Morgan should be reemployed in any capacity whatever.

May I go shortly into the various defences which the right hon. Gentleman representing the War Office has brought forward? I will take the last one first, because to that he seems to attach great importance. I refer to the letter from Lord Robson in favour of Colonel Morgan. There is one point about that letter which certainly requires explanation, but I do not know what the explanation is. The letter begins:— My dear Seely—. Lord Robson, I gather, was not the counsel for the defendant in the libel action successfully brought by Colonel Morgan. [An HON. MEMBER: "There was more than one libel action."] So far as I know, there was only one libel action successfully brought by Colonel Morgan, and that was against Mr. Walter in April, 1905.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)

There were others.

Mr. MORRELL

Were they heard in court?

Colonel SEELY

There was more than one. I do not want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to continue his remarks under a misapprehension. I am anxious that there should be the fullest discussion, but there was more than one action in which Lord Robson was concerned.

Captain CLIVE

I am, of course, open to correction, but I have searched, and I can only find one action successfully brought into court by Colonel Morgan, and that was the case Morgan versus Walter, the proprietor of" The Times," on April 8th, 1905, in which Lord Robson was not one of the counsel. The counsel then, as reported in "The Times," were Mr. (now Sir) Rufus Isaacs, the present Attorney-General, and Mr. Norman Craig for the plaintiff, and Mr. Eldon Bankes and Mr. E. Pollock for the defendant. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman answers he will tell us what case it was which Lord Robson refers to. The letter of Lord Robson, I contend, in no way replies to the charges that I have read out that were brought by the Farwell Commission. The main contention of it is that Colonel Morgan was a very capable and efficient officer. I have never attempted to deny that. It is a matter of common knowledge that Colonel Morgan is a most able organiser, and a very clever man. But that does not in any way reply to these charges as to his personal conduct during the war, which I have gone into from the Farwell Commission. I cannot find the action to which Lord Robson refers, but it is part of his contention in the letter that he can dispose of the charges in consequence of having acted against Colonel Morgan. The other case is a well-known one, where Lord Robson and Colonel Morgan found themselves on the same side. That is the case of the Imperial Cold Storage Company against the King, on a Petition of right, 1909. By that action the Imperial Cold Storage Company claimed £250,000 for breach of contract on the part of the War Office during the war. And I shall put it to the right hon. Gentleman on the information that I have—which, of course, I cannot verify without access to official documents—but what I am informed is this—that during the prolonged negotiations which preceded this case the War Office at one time thought so badly of their case that they offered a large sum of money to the Imperial Cold Storage Company not to bring it into Court, and the Imperial Cold Storage Company thought so well of their case that they refused.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will interrupt me again if I am under a misapprehension, but my contention is that what turned the tables was simply and solely the obtaining of Colonel Morgan as a willing witness for the Crown. Of course he could have been subpoenaed as a witness. But the whole case turned on the way in which he gave his evidence. I suggest, and I think the House will agree, that it is difficult to find another reason for the extraordinary conduct, the extraordinary forgiveness of the War Office which tempts them to overlook the grave charges which have been proved by the Farwell Commission. I suggest that the reason why they have done what they have done is the result of some bargain by which they were able to obtain the service of Colonel Morgan as a willing witness in the important action to which I have referred. Perhaps in that connection I may be allowed to read from the speech of Mr. Scrutton, counsel for the Imperial Cold Storage Company. He said:— He was not going to accuse anyone of deliberately telling an untruth, but he submitted that Colonel Morgan had given his evidence, not as a witness, but as an advocate. There was a certain class of clever witness who tried to think what counsel was trying to get at when a question was put to him, thought as quickly as possible how to give an answer which would destroy the effect that he thought counsel was trying to produce. I should like the House to consider what inducement there could be for Colonel Morgan to give this evidence, which was strongly commented upon by the counsel for the other side. Colonel Morgan had recently been dismissed from the War Office, on whose behalf he was now a witness. I suggest that he could only have given his evidence, that that evidence could only be obtained in the form it was by a promise, and that the War Office are now endeavouring to fulfil the promise to reappoint Colonel Morgan to a post, and so are taking a step which will reinstate him in public opinion.

The next line of defence, which has more than once been advanced, is that Colonel Morgan cleared his character by the action which he successfully brought against "The Times." On that I have two points to raise. One is that the action brought against "The Times" was prior to the report of the Farwell Commission, and that therefore it could not be said in any way to clear him from the accusations which I have just read. Secondly, I suggest to the House that £250, which is the amount of damages he obtained for this libel, is not a very large sum at which to put a man's honour in a case of this sort.

In these days, the tendency is to give very heavy damages for proved libel of this sort, and £250 damages must be looked upon as a very small matter, and taken in conjunction with the fact that the jury retired for over two and a-half hours, seems to me to suggest that the jury were doubtful as to whether he had wholly absolved himself from the charges that "The Times" was said to have brought against him.

The right hon. Gentleman has more than once, in answer to questions, contended that Colonel Morgan is the best man. As regards sheer ability I do not deny it. But I suggest it is an insult to every member of the Army Service Corps, who is possibly as well qualified for this particular appointment, to suggest that Colonel Morgan, with this stain upon his character, is a better man for the job than they. There are serving officers, officers still in the profession, and Colonel Morgan has retired—was invited to retire on account of his conduct. Again, Colonel Morgan is to be appointed at the salary of £300 a year for this post, which I suppose is a post on the general staff; this post of messing adviser for the whole Army. This seems to me to be rather a sordid arrangement. It seems to me that the War Office are presuming on Colonel Morgan's anxiety to clear his character to offer him a wholly inadequate salary, or to get the job done on the cheap. Then comes the question, which has not yet been settled, as to how many of the directorships that Colonel Morgan now holds he is to be allowed to retain. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated more than once that Colonel Morgan is to give his whole time to the service of the War Office. In one of the companies of which he is a director he is described as "secretary and managing director." The "secretary and managing director" would be, I should have thought, one who would give pretty well his whole time to the work.

Colonel SEELY

This is not a controversial point. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what company he now refers to?

Captain CLIVE

The Army and Navy House Furnishing Company. I have only access to the public records of these companies. I think, in answer to questions, the right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that Colonel Morgan might be allowed to retain one or two particular directorships The right hon. Gentleman also contends that the House or public opinion would not surely wish the War Office to be vindictive in this matter. But surely, too, this is a wholly new theory as regards officers, even though you admit that they are only asked to retire for a breach of the regulations. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many other officers there are who have been retired or asked to retire for a breach of the regulations who have been treated vindictively, and have not been offered further appointments? I doubt if he can give me a single instance, over a certain number of years, of a man who has been brought back again after having been asked to retire. There are a good many other officers who were retired at the same moment as Colonel Morgan, and as far as I can see, in looking through the report, they were found to be no more culpable than Colonel Morgan himself. There was Major Walton, Captain Forsyth-Grant, and Captain Limond, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is going to be vindictive in the case of these officers, or whether he will find new appointments for them?

The whole case reflects no credit on the War Office. Certainly is an insult to those officers who have been passed over in favour of this retired officer. In conclusion, I would like just to put it to the hon. Gentleman opposite that in years past Colonel Morgan was part of the stock-in-trade of the Liberal party in their attacks on us for mismanagement, during the South African war. I should like to ask those who have not so far protested against this appointment what their view is, and what their reason is for the change which must have come over their opinions that they do not offer any protest against his wholly improper appointment? I must apologise for having taken up so much of the time of the House, for I know that there are other matters which hon. Members wish to discuss, but I contend that it is very ridiculous to say that this appointment is inspired by any sort of high-minded forgiveness such as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. It is, to my mind, the War Office side of a bargain, an unworthy bargain, and one that no public office ought to have made. I hope the protest from all parts of the House may be strong enough to render it impossible for the War Office to carry out the appointment.

Mr. PIRIE

I did not know the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite was going to bring this matter forward and make it the subject of Debate to-day, otherwise I should have taken more time to prepare myself upon the subject, because it is one in which I have taken an interest, as the House knows, and on which I have put questions before now. Now that the matter has been brought before the House, and since we have unmistakable evidence that it excites great interest, I desire to say a few words as one who served the Army, and as one who hopes to take a more fair and generous view of the case than some other hon. Members have taken. I really welcome the action of the Government in the ease of Colonel Morgan, because, to my mind, it is an indication to some extent on the part of the War Office that they desire to follow the attitude which the Navy take up when dealing with officers found guilty of some error of judgment. I consider the practice in the Navy of trying officers by court-martial for breaches of discipline or other offences is an excellent one, and one that could not be too often followed in the Army. What is it that occurs in the case of an officer tried by court-martial in the Navy and found guilty and sentenced for some neglect of duty? They are not prevented for the rest of their lives from obtaining Admiralty appointments. Because a man is guilty of one or more errors of judgment is he to be condemned for ever, and is all his previous service to be wiped out? I think such a course would be very wrong, and I welcome the action of the War Office in reinstating Colonel Morgan, because it shows they are starting upon new lines.

I am not here simply to defend Colonel Morgan. I merely say he was liable to be tried by court-martial if there was a real case against him, but he was not tried by court-martial. I look upon this as something above the party point of view, it is really a question of justice; there is no worse court for trying either naval or military questions or trying whether an officer is guilty or not guilty of some charge than the House of Commons. Every time in the past when questions affecting the conduct or character of naval or military officers came before this House they resulted in wrong being clone to the individual concerned, because the House of Commons is the least capable tribunal to judge. [Laughter.] The proper tribunal to judge the conduct of such a man, let me tell the hon. Member who sneers from the Back Benches, is a court-martial.

In this action of the Government in the appointment of Colonel Morgan I see a step in the right direction. I think it is quite unfair to try a man twice over for the same offence. Colonel Morgan brought libel actions and defended his honour, and I think the Government are perfectly right in reinstating him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite did not read the whole of the late Attorney-General's letter. There are two sentences I think well worth recalling, and it must be remembered this letter was written by Lord Robson when he was Attorney-General. He says:— It then became perfectly clear to me that instead of there being relations between Colonel Morgan and the contractors of a kind inconsistent with his duty, lie 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 interests against the contractors And again he says the evidence fully disposed of the allegation that Colonel Morgan was ever under the influence of the contractors. He goes on to say:— His conduct showed a bias in the opposite direction.

Captain CLIVE

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this letter of Lord Robson is to be taken as superseding the evidence I read?

Mr. PIRIE

I do not say anything about superseding. I say it is equally important with the evidence given, and I say the result of the libel action is more important than the evidence which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I think the House will admit that nothing could be more far-fetched than the reasons which the hon. and gallant Gentleman brought forward for impeaching the action of the War Office. A man tried once and acquitted ought not to be tried again by the House of Commons, the worst tribunal for such a purpose in the country.

Colonel HICKMAN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened this Debate said he desired to make a protest against this appointment, but I would like to make my protest against hunting an officer down and not giving him the chance of making his living. Here we have a very distinguished officer, who did great service to the State, and in proof of what he did he was rewarded by several decorations, which shows, at all events, that the authorities at the head of the War Office were distinctly aware of the distinguished services of this officer. It is quite true he fell under a cloud, but this officer, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wax showed most distinctly, cleared his character by the only method which was in his power, by taking libel actions against newspapers and by winning his actions. I think he might safely have been left to the officials of the War Office, who know more about this matter, and who are more conversant with the details than any of us can be. There is no use for us setting ourselves up as judges. We do not know the actual facts of the case, and we have not by us all the literature on the subject. The Under-Secretary of State has these things, and he, with the Noble Viscount at the head of the War Office, are the proper persons to judge what should be done in the case of this officer. There is no doubt in my mind, at any rate, that so far as the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State are concerned they think this officer is the best man for the job, and I think that ought to be sufficient for the House of Commons.

Mr. MORRELL

There has been imported into this Debate an idea, and the terms have been used that we are inspired by personal vindictiveness in what is called hunting this officer down and not allowing him to earn his living. A more unfair way of dealing with this case I can hardly imagine. I have never known Colonel Morgan, I have had no sort of relationship, direct or indirect, with him. I never saw him in my life, 'but I have taken the trouble to read the evidence of Sir William Butler's Committee, and still more the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Cold Storage, and I desire most emphatically to join in the protest made upon the other side of the House against this recent appointment. I am sorry to say I think my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War occupies a rather unfortunate position in this matter. He was not at the War Office at the time the appointment was made, and he is not in any way responsible for the appointment.

Colonel SEELY

I am absolutely responsible now.

Mr. MORRELL

Yes, but you were not at the time.

Colonel SEELY

I am absolutely responsible now.

Mr. MORRELL

If my memory serves me right the right hon. Gentleman at the time of this appointment was one of the politicians here who was most eloquent in denouncing jobbery and corruption. I do not, want to review these matters at this moment, but that I want to keep the main land of this question before the House. Here is a new appointment, a very important administrative post involving the control of large expenditure, and one would have thought that the War Office would have gone out of its way to pick up a man who was above suspicion, and whose record had the approval of every man. What are we to say about Colonel Morgan? He was condemned unhesitatingly by the Committee over which Sir William Butler presided. That was regarded as unsatisfactory so a Royal Commission to whitewash him was appointed, presided over by Mr. Justice Farwell. That Commission did not very effectively exonerate Colonel Morgan. On the contrary, it stated there was a total preventable loss to the home tax-payer during the twenty-two months after the end of the Boer War of something like from three-quarters to one and a quarter millions sterling, and that for that total preventable loss Colonel Morgan was largely at all events responsible.

Then we have the fact of Colonel Morgan being referred to by the Lord Chief Justice of England as a man whose story could not be accepted in a court of law. That was in the trial of the Cold Storage Company v. the King, and finally we have the fact that on October 16th, 1906, he was called upon by Lord Haldane to retire from the Army altogether. Now what is the defence that is made of this appointment? The defence made over and over again until one is almost tired of it is that Colonel Morgan cleared himself in a court of law. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War did not hesitate even yesterday after I had exposed the misleading nature of that defence to repeat it. First, I thought it was unintentional, but when one hears the right hon. Gentleman again repeat this old story about clearing his character in a court of law I begin to think it was not unintentional. What are the facts? Colonel Morgan brought a libel action against "The Times" as a result of something published in "The Times" from evidence produced from South Africa on 8th April, 1905, before the publication of the first Report of the Committee presided over by Sir William Butler. Colonel Morgan got £250 damages, and Lord Robson was so impressed by the difficulty of shaking the man in cross-examination that he wrote him a testimonial showing what an able man he was. My right hon. Friend dissents from that, but is it not a fact? Was not Lord Robson cross-examining him on that occasion? I was told yesterday he was counsel against Colonel Morgan. At any rate, the fact remains that the libel action which Colonel Morgan brought and which went against "The Times" was on 8th April, 1905.

He brought another against the "Daily News," but I do not think that came into court; but as a result the "Daily News" paid £250 damages, and there were some other actions also for the publication of the same statement. On 7th June, 1905, came the publication of the Report of Sir William Butler's Commission, which imputed dishonesty to Colonel Morgan and others. After that the "Daily News" published other statements, and a leading article, commenting on the late Mr. Arnold-Forster and incidentally upon Colonel Morgan and these transactions, of which Colonel Morgan was accused. Colonel Morgan's solicitors wrote a letter to the "Daily News." They said:— Our attention has been called to your leading article headed 'The Case of Mr. Arnold Forster.' On behalf of our client, Colonel Morgan, we desire to point out that the article is grossly libellous. They went on to say— We are instructed by our clients to commence proceedings fur libel against you. These we shall commence without further notice. Those are Colonel Morgan's solicitors writing to the "Daily News" with reference to the publication of Sir William Butler's report. The "Daily News" published that letter in full, with a large two-column heading above it, and stating they would be glad to receive a writ for libel at any time, and from that day to this no action has been brought against the "Daily News," and yet we are told that Colonel Morgan has cleared his character in a court of law in regard to the charges made against him without proper evidence before the report of this Committee was published. Since the report was published, every sort of charge of corruption and mismanagement has been made against Colonel Morgan, not only in public papers but upon public platforms, and not an action of any sort has been brought by Colonel Morgan to clear his character. I think it is time that all this talk about clearing his character in a court of law was done away with. We are told that Colonel Morgan is the only man who is fit for this post. An hon Member has said that we ought to consider the honour of the Army, and that we are not entitled to criticise any appointment in this House. I do not think any one who has criticised the appointment of Colonel Morgan has said anything so derogatory to the British Army as has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends. When you have a new and important post created for the first time, and you say that you cannot find a better man to fill it than a man against whose character, rightly or wrongly, so many charges have been made, I say we have a right to criticise the appointment. We ought to have had a man appointed who is above suspicion for a new post of this sort, and nobody can say that of Colonel Morgan. I believe this appointment will do great damage to public confidence in the appointments of the Liberal Government, and I think it is a great blow at the integrity of the public service. I sincerely trust that even now the War Office may be induced to reconsider their position in this matter.