HC Deb 22 March 1900 vol 81 cc29-30
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what explanation, if any, has the War Office to offer for the interval that has elapsed of more than two months between the battle of Magersfontein on 10th and 11th December, and the writing of the official despatch describing that battle by Lord Methuen, which is dated 15th February; whether it is the practice that despatches describing engagements should be written by officers in command immediately after the engagements have been fought, when the leading incidents are fresh in the memory; was Lord Methuen requested to furnish his despatch with reference to the battle of Magersfontein by the military authorities at home both by cablegram and letter; how often were these requests made to Lord Methuen, and what are the dates on which they were made; and what were Lord Methuen's replies either by telegram or by letter thereto.

MR. WYNDHAM

I regret that I am unable to reply in detail to the hon. Member's questions. I may, however, point out that a despatch is a formal document submitted by the officer in command, from which subordinate reports should, as a rule, be excluded. Sir R. Buller originally sent home a communication from Lord Methuen which covered a number of such reports, dated 4th January. Lord Roberts was accordingly asked (6th February) to direct Lord Methuen to embody these in a formal despatch.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

Then am I to understand that the despatch dated 15th February is not the original despatch sent by Lord Methuen, but an amended despatch?

MR. WYNDHAM

The hon. Member is to understand that this is a despatch, and that the previous communications were not despatches.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

Well, but were these previous communications from Lord Methuen? I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. Am I not entitled to press this question?

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The Under Secretary has answered the question on the Paper fully, though not perhaps to the satisfaction of the hon. Member.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

No, Sir.