§ * SIR JOHN COLOMBI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to that part of the official dispatch reporting that the fruits of victory could not be reaped for want of a battery of Royal Horse Artillery at Enslin; and whether, in view of the fact that the reduction of Royal Horse Artillery in 1887 was carried into effect against the opinion of the then Commander-in-Chief, he will now state the name of the individual or individuals responsible for that reduction, resulting at Enslin in the inability of a general to reap the fruits of victory gained at so much sacrifice of life.
§ * MR. WYNDHAMThe reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second, I have to say that the distribution of the three arms on the occasion referred to cannot fairly be ascribed to an administrative act of the year 1887.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMBWas anybody now at the War Office responsible for the reduction, or rather for the recommendation that the artillery be reduced?
§ * MR. WYNDHAMI do not see the relevancy of the question. The hon. and gallant Member asks if my attention has been drawn to a certain despatch. I answer "Yes." Then he asks who was responsible in 1887 for the lack of horse artillery at Enslin recently. I reply that you cannot ascribe the lack of artillery in South Africa to an administrative act in the year 1887.