§ MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Woodbridge)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the Government, having refused to publish further despatches relating to the Natal campaign, have now thought it right to lay upon the Table the previously unpublished despatches relating to Spion Kop; and whether he will state what specific purpose is served by publishing the despatch circulated on 17th April entitled the Spion Kop Despatch.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the publication of the Spion Kop despatches, the Government will withdraw their prohibition to Sir Redvers Buller to publish the communications which passed between him and Sir George White by heliograph and otherwise during the seige of Ladysmith.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK.) Surrey, GuildfordThe Spion Kop despatches were published in full because the omissions in them had become the subject of controversy in the course of which Sir Redvers Buller, who had been in chief command, expressed a hope—
That if any further publication is intended, my words may be published as written and without manipulation, and that the opportunity will be taken to correct in this respect previous publication.The Government do not feel it incumbent on them, in consequence of the publication, to publish further Papers 800 relating to the operations in Natal prior to the relief of Ladysmith. The hon. Member for South Donegal has, so far as they are aware, no title to represent Sir Redvers Buller in the matter. Nor have they received any demand from Sir Redvers Buller for the publication of any telegram, nor will they permit any telegrams to be published except by His Majesty's Government.
§ MR. MALCOLMMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the case that the publication of these despatches has given far more gratification to the enemes than to the friends of this country.
§ MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER (Cumberland, Eskdale)May I ask whether it is in accordance with military procedure that an officer should be secretly criticised without his knowledge, and that those adverse criticisms should be made public without any opportunity being offered to him to refute them?
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That is a matter of argument.
§ MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N)In the event of Sir Charles Warren making an application in the same way as Sir Redvers Buller has done—
§ * MR. SPEAKERThat does not arise out of the Question. The hon. Member must put a Question on the Paper.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI wish to put one Question to the right hon. Gentleman. Has Sir Redvers Buller asked permission to publish the heliograph communication from himself to Sir George White in reference to Ladysmith?
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLOh! Yes, Sir. My Question on the Paper refers to it.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must give notice of any further Question
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state on what grounds were the portions of the Spion Kop despatches published in the Gazette of 17th April, 1900, without lacunæ or asterisks to show that passages had been eliminated, and without any indication that the documents were placed before the public in fragments and not in their entirety; and whether, in future, the War Office, when issuing despatches in an incomplete form, will see that blanks are left for the passages which have been suppressed.
§ MR. BRODRICKIt is never usual when portions of despatches are not published to indicate the eliminated passages by asterisks. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the eliminated despatch of Lord Roberts paragraph 3 is paragraph 4 in the real despatch? Is this right, having regard to the good faith between the public and the War Office?
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!