§ 4. Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked if any representation on behalf of Germany has been made to the Foreign Office with reference to Lord Roberts's speech on the 22nd October?
§ Sir E. GREYNo representation has been made to us on behalf of Germany, and I should very much deprecate any suggestion that either Government should make official representations to the other about unwise or provocative speeches made in either Germany or Great Britain by persons who are no; in a position to control the policy of their respective Governments.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLHaving regard to the fact that Earl Roberts was Ambassador Extraordinary to tho Court of Berlin to announce the death of the late King and tho accession of the present one, and that the very highest distinction of the German Empire, the Order of the Black Eagle was conferred on him, should not some representation be made to the German Empire that his speech is not in accordance with—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman has just said that it is undesirable.
§ 20. Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary for War if his attention has been called to a speech delivered by Lord Roberts on 22nd October, in which he said that it is the present policy of Germany to attack this country as soon as her preparations are complete; and whether, in view of the friction such language creates between this country and Germany, he will take steps to prevent a representative of the British Army using such language concerning a friendly Power?
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether ha is aware that on 16th May, 1889, attention was directed by means of a question in the House, to remarks of a political character made by Viscount Wolseley in a speech delivered at Oxford in his private and not in his official capacity, and that Mr. Edward Stanhope, who was then Secretary for War in the Unionist Administration, stated that he was unable to defend Lord Wolseley's language and had so informed him; and whether a similar course has been or will be taken on this 213 occasion in regard to the speech of Lord Roberts respecting a power on terms of amity with this country?
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEOn a point of Order. Am I right in saying that questions of which private notice has been given are usually asked at the end of questions on the Paper?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is supposed to arise out of the question on the Paper.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)I have not received the question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Swift MacNeill).
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLI sent a special messenger.
§ Colonel SEELYI spend a great deal of my time at the War Office—out of the House.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLI sent it to the War Office.
§ Colonel SEELYI cannot verify the. accuracy or inaccuracy of the hon. Gentleman's statement. I do not think I can usefully add anything to the statement that has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Roberts, who made these remarks, is still a high official of the British Army—a Field Marshal—and does he think those remarks are consistent, having regard to the Wolseley precedent?
§ Mr. PIRIEDoes the right hon. Gentleman acquiesce in acknowledging that such speeches are subversive of discipline, and set the worst example possible to the Army, and will he bring to the notice of the Field Marshal the stricture passed by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the answer he has just given.
§ Colonel SEELYAs I have just said, I do not think I can usefully add anything to the statement of my right hon. Friend, and I have no doubt whatever that the answer he has given will receive the fullest publicity, and will be read by all concerned.
§ Mr. PIRIEIs it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty as Minister to take 214 official notice of this gross breach of discipline, and will he, as Minister, bring it to the notice of Lord Roberts?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is only asking the same question, to which a reply has already been given.