Lords Sitting of 1 February 1900

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN.
  Petition of Thomas Charles Agar Robartes, Viscount Clifden, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
  EARL OF MEXBOROUGH.
  Petition of John Horatio, Earl of Mexborough, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (YEOMANRY).
  Yeomanry Training Return, 1899.
  ACCIDENTS TO RAILWAY SERVANTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the causes of the accidents, fatal and non-fatal, to servants of railway companies and of truck owners. Part 2. Minutes of evidence and appendices.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  I. (Proceedings.) Return for month of November 1899.
  II. (Judicial Rents.) Return for the month of June, 1899.

  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Return for the quarter ended 31st December, 1899.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st December, 1899.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 31st December, 1899.

  TRADE REPORTS (1900).
  Annual Series, No. 2377. China (Hangchow).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  I. Orders in Council, dated 7th October, 1899—

  1. "The East African Order in Council, 1899."

  2. "The Somaliland Order in Council, 1899."

  3. Order in Council for the discontinuance, as regards all such matters and cases as come within the jurisdiction of the Japanese Courts, of the operation of the Orders in Council regulating Her Majesty's Consular jurisdiction in Japan as from 4th August, 1899.

  II. Orders in Council, dated 27th December, 1899—

  1. "The Lagos Protectorate Order in Council, 1899."

  2. "The Northern Nigeria Order in Council, 1899."

  3. "The Southern Nigeria Order in Council, 1899."

  III. Order in Council, dated 11th January, 1900—
  "The Somali and Brunei (Repeal) Order in Council, 1900."

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  I. Order in Council, dated 7th October, 1899, approving certain pilotage byelaws, made by the Cork Harbour Commissioners.
  II. Orders in Council, dated 28th November, 1899—(1) extending the provisions of section 444 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (Load Line) to India; (2) approving certain byelaws made by the Swansea Harbour Trustees; (3) approving certain pilotage byelaws made by the Barry Pilotage Board.
  III. Orders in Council, dated 27th December, 1899—(1) approving certain pilotage byelaws made by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners; (2) applying certain pilotage byelaws made by the Corporation of Trinity House.

  LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
  Order in Council, dated 28th November, 1899, postponing the operation of the Land Transfer Order in Council of 18th July, 1898, in certain portions of the county of London.
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858.
  Order in Council, dated 28th November, 1899, approving a statement of new and revised appointments, alterations of salaries, and abolition of appointment in the establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
  Orders in Council—

  I. Giving effect to Rules of Court (Bankruptcy);

  II. Amending Order of 25th February, 1885, rearranging the circuits in Ireland;

  III. Giving effect to Rules of Court under the Local Government (Applications of Enactments) Order, 1898.

  WINTER ASSIZES (IRELAND).
  Four Orders in Council, dated 1st November, 1899, for holding winter assizes in Ireland.
  INEBRIATE RETREATS (RULES AS TO MANAGEMENT).
  Regulations and Orders made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the domestic management of the Buntingford House Retreat, Hertfordshire, licensed as a retreat under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1899.

  LIGHTHOUSES, &c. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS.)
  Reports to Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond and the Commissioners of Northern Light-
  236
  houses of their inspection of local lighthouses, buoys, and beacons.

  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  I. Annual Accounts of Exchequer Bills and other Government securities purchased.
  II. Return of the amount of notes issued more than forty years which have not been presented for payment, and which have been written off from the total amount of notes issued from the Issue Department of the Bank of England.

  CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
  Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland, for the year ended 31st March, 1899; together with the Account for the above period, and that from 26th July, 1869 (the date of the Irish Church Act) to 31st March, 1899.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  Fifth Annual Report by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies of the proceedings of the Registrars under the Building Societies Acts.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 21st November, 1899, granting a reduced retired allowance to Mr. Patrick Quinlivan, excise officer, Dublin Collection, in the service of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  DUCHY OF CORNWALL.
  Account of receipts and disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1899.
  GREEK LOAN.
  Annual Account for 1899.

  SARDINIAN LOAN.
  Annual Account for 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LORD SALISBURY AND THE TREASURY.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, on Tuesday evening I, in answer to the noble Earl, expressed some opinions as to the comparative position of ourselves and foreign countries for the purpose of carrying on war, and pointed out some matters in which I thought there was room for I amendment; and among others I mentioned the Treasury. What I said was that "by the exercise of the power of the purse it claims a voice in all decisions of administrative authority and policy," and that I thought "that much delay and many doubtful resolutions had been the result of the peculiar position which through many generations the Treasury has occupied." I was very careful to point out that I was not in the least degree intending any application of these views to the action of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would have been very unjust if I had, because my right hon. friend has been singularly careful and considerate in the exercise of the powers of the Treasury during the crisis of the last few months. I say here, and I said then, that the powers of the Treasury have been administered with the greatest judgment and the greatest consideration, and I exhorted the House not to imagine for a moment that I supported the idiotic attacks made on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sorry to say that in the other House of Parliament an impression was conveyed to the minds of some excellent gentlemen that I was censuring the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the manner in which he had administered his duties. I can only repeat what I said. "Idiotic" is a very strong word. I am afraid that if I used a stronger it would be thought to be uncivil. I can only say that I have expressed myself as clearly as I can, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer exercised his powers in the manner most conducive to the public welfare, and that he never refused anything which the War Office or the Admiralty thought necessary for the public service. But I have not risen merely for the purpose of saying that. I wish to point out that I spoke of the resolutions to which I objected as having
  238
  been the result of the peculiar position which during many generations the Treasury has occupied. I think it has gradually acquired a position in regard to the defensive Departments very different from that which the Finance Department occupies abroad, and on the whole I think that, for the purposes of national defence, that is not a satisfactory condition. But, as I say, I carefully prevented my remarks from applying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is now conveyed to me a letter from a most excellent public servant, Sir F. Mowatt, who seems to think that because I did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer I must have meant to blame him. Nothing was further from my mind. I was blaming a system which has been the result of causes which have lasted for a considerable time, and which affect no individuals whatever, and in speaking of "the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer," I include the action of those who are acting under him in his own office. The impression of Sir F. Mowatt is entirely unfounded, and although my personal acquaintance with his action is not very great, from everything I have heard, the public service does not contain a more admirable Minister of the public welfare than himself.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I very willingly recognise that the noble Marquess in the observations he made most strictly guarded himself against being supposed to make the smallest reflection on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was abundantly evident from the remarks he made to the House. With regard to the general question, which is a very large one, I concur so far with the noble Marquess. From the experience I have had I gather it is very often somewhat difficult in the smaller matters to obtain the consent of the Treasury, and sometimes I think from the feeling which is entertained by the other departments things which might judiciously be done are not pressed; but with regard to great matters of national welfare I would submit that the Treasury is by no means supreme. It is the Cabinet which is supreme. It is the Cabinet which is responsible. I never myself happened to be in charge of a large spending department; naturally I would

  239
  not be as a Member of this House; but I have heard a great deal from my colleagues, both in and out of the Cabinet, on the subject, and there have been, I believe, in most Governments from time to time considerable difference on points of that kind. But the Minister who is responsible for a department which requires a larger expenditure than usual for some great public object, who appeals to the Cabinet, and places his case strongly before the Cabinet, has a reasonable chance of carrying his point. But, in any case, a matter of that kind must come before the Cabinet, and if the Minister is of opinion that the subject is one of great importance it is his duty not to give way to the Treasury without having previously submitted it to the Cabinet, which is supreme. I must say that I have had some dealings with particular Chancellors of the Exchequer, and, while the Treasury is very difficult to deal with, if you have to deal merely through the officials of your department, who, however able, naturally have not the influence of the head of a department, I have found when I have discussed with more than one Chancellor of the Exchequer matters of importance they were discussed in a manner which generally ended in a way which I think was sufficient for the performance of the duties of the public service. I merely make these observations, for though I concur with the view as to the difficulty the departments have with the Treasury, I do not think the mechanism of government is such that if these great questions are submitted to the Cabinet they may not be dealt with satisfactorily, although the Treasury has the duty to place, and is bound to place in the strongest way before the Cabinet any objections which they may have to urge.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may explain, I think it is a mistake to assume that it is only large measures which produce large effects. I quite agree that questions of large measures go to the Cabinet, and if the Cabinet think the Treasury wrong the Treasury is overruled. Just as a wall is built of bricks, reforms—salutary reforms—are built up of a long succession of useful changes, but it is in those smaller changes which individually are small, but in the aggregate are large, that I think the exaggerated control of
  240
  the Treasury has done harm. I think it has had the effect of discouraging and impeding reform, and it has had besides the effect of taking away the freedom and diminishing the initiative of the respective departments. I do not wish to use language of exaggeration, but I think it is an evil, and I fear the great power which the Treasury has acquired in this country, in consequence, no doubt, of its great service in getting rid of corruption and extravagance, has been carried too far, and much of the immobility of the departments of which complaint is made is due to the existence of this undue control.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I know it is out of order for me to speak again, but I should like to make this admission, that I do think that in some cases where the matter is not apparently one of great and supreme importance there have been things omitted to be done which have subsequently had serious consequences. Such things I have known, and especially this, that discussion with the Treasury sometimes causes undue and dangerous delay; and I remember more than one case where things were allowed to tide over because of the long discussions until the moment for action was lost.

  MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM AND THE DEAN OF DURHAM.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DURHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, Whether his attention has been drawn to the utterances of Mr. Justice Grantham on the Bench with reference to a recent sermon of the Dean of Durham.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I apprehend that the question has been put to me because I am head of the Judicial Bench. The utterances of a gentleman like the Dean of Durham, I suppose, would be listened to with respect; but I cannot help saying that, if deans will take advantage of their pulpits to introduce violent political controversy where no one can answer them, and where those whose feelings may be deeply offended go for the purpose of worshipping God and

  241
  not for the purpose of listening to violent political controversy, I do not think it lies in their mouth to complain that others should take advantage elsewhere of the opportunity of protesting against such language and such observations as those to which my attention has been called. It would, perhaps, be a counsel of perfection if deans and judges kept themselves clear of political controversy. But that is not the question which the noble Lord asks at present. I have, by the courtesy of the noble Lord himself, been afforded an opportunity of reading the sermon in question; and speaking, I hope, with the calmness of one who had not been obliged to listen to it, I am bound to say that a more offensive, and, to my mind, a more mischievous oration has seldom been delivered from the pulpit. I do not propose to read the words of the whole of the sermon, but your Lordships will probably allow me to read one or two extracts. I think when it is remembered how, where, and when, these words were uttered one cannot be surprised that some people should be, at all events, deeply offended at the utterance. One very interesting passage is this—
  "It is about 330 years since such another war broke out."
  —I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the word "such."—
  "The greatest sea Power in the world, then the only real colonial empire in the world, the land whose soldiers were far above all in repute for hardness and bravery, the land of an inexhaustible supply of wealth, whose trade truly followed its flag—this Power set itself to trample down one of the free small States of Europe. The Church blessed the effort—the little State was independent, heretical, an offence in the nose of the Imperialism of that age. They thought little of such a small country, hardly a country at all; they were the haughty overlords over it; these were the unfortunate Beggars whose resistance could not stand more than a few months before the strongest Power in Europe (which had the men, the guns, and the money too). They treated their ragged enemies with contempt, their free life should go, the Imperial Power must prevail, and the Church again should control the erring people with the grim control of fire and sword. Need I carry on the parallel? It is writ full large for anyone who has grace to read it, in the pages of history."
  With reference to the parallel, I think that if there is one period of the world's history and one military expedition which
  242
  has been stamped by the reprobation of all civilised beings it is the great crime of the military expedition of the Duke of Alva in the Netherlands; and that is the parallel which the Dean of Durham thinks it right to mention. But the passage to which the learned Judge called attention was of a more modern character; and this sermon which was preached, as I understand, with the object of inculcating Christian charity and love towards one another, proceeds thus—
  "What, then, do we find around us? With what spirit do we send out our fighting men? The drunken revels which form the music-hall ideals of good-fellowship—the excitement of the gin palace and the London streets—as if the bottle was the best prelude for the battle; the cries to the poor lads to avenge this or that, the greedy newspapers spreading unfounded slanders against our opponents, the insistence by which prejudice and angry ignorance have persuaded us that the enemy was but a horde of savages, who would run away at once. The whole temper of our times is so utterly anti-Christian that it appals me when, from the quietude of this home, I look out upon it all, and note the intolerance with which men hate opinions opposed to the momentary enthusiasm."
  Now, my Lords, with reference to this language, I daresay it is true that in some of the enthusiastic demonstrations which took place in the London streets, the idea of fellowship, in some classes of life, was to offer drink; and I have seen it stated that in some instances some of those poor fellows, taking leave of their nearest and dearest, did take too much drink. It is very likely to be true; but I ask is this the language, is this the mode in which the enthusiastic loyalty and bravery of those who are going out to fight the battles of their couutry ought to be denounced by a Christian clergyman in a Christian church? And now, my Lords, I come to the Judge's offence. When I first saw the controversy in the newspapers I am bound to say that I thought an easy answer could be given, because I thought that if one gentleman misunderstood what another gentleman had said he would apologise by saying that he was sorry for the language he had used. But I have the language here printed by the authority of the Dean, and for the life of me I cannot understand the difference between what Mr. Justice Grantham referred to and the Dean's printed words. The suggestion therefore that the learned Judge was in error in taking a newspaper report as evidence appears to be extraordinary in face of the fact that the report

  243
  was perfectly accurate. Now I come to the more immediate question, whether my attention has been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Grantham. Yes. The noble Lord thinks that I have some control over the judges. I am not certain whether I might not ask my most rev. friend the Archbishop of York what he will do with the Dean. I have a strong suspicion that he has a greater control over the Dean than I have over the Judge. For the benefit of the people of this country it has long been a regular and ascertained rule, and established by statute, that the judges are perfectly independent of all control, except that an Address may be moved in the Houses of Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to take that course. I do not promise him much support; but that is the only constitutional course. Although I may say that the counsel of perfection is one which I would myself prefer, I do not at all wonder at Mr. Justice Grantham, who has taken a deep and most useful interest in the Volunteers, and has been able to assist them in their efforts to act for their country, being deeply grieved at reading what I think is a most unjust and improper observation, characterising our conduct in sending out men because two or three of their fellows, in bidding good-bye to their friends, had taken too much to drink on their way to the station. The Dean says he has not sacrificed his right of free speech as an Englishman. Neither has Mr. Justice Grantham. Mr. Justice Grantham is entitled to have his opinion. But there is this difference between them. The learned Judge addressed the grand jury, and the grand jury could, if it pleased, reply to him. In more than one instance a grand jury has replied to a judge with whom they did not agree. The Dean spoke where no one could reply, and, apart from any other question, I should have thought that that fact would induce a more modest reticence on the part of the Dean than he appears to have observed. The Judge is perfectly independent, and he exercised his rights as an Englishman in speaking as he did. As far as I myself am concerned, although I have no control over the Dean, I express my opinion as an Englishman that it was a great outrage to preach such a sermon in a church.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, may I, with the indulgence of the House,
  244
  say a word with regard to pulpit utterances, and relate an experience of my father when a member of Mr. Gladstone's Government? My father went to a church and heard the clergyman say, in the course of his sermon, that Mr. Gladstone's Government was "a wave of iniquity howling in the unutterable depths."

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.—SIR WILLIAM BUTLER'S DESPATCHES.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, the Notice standing in my name—"To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the experience gained during the South African campaign as to the armaments and the numerical strength of the enemy in the field has tended in any way to throw doubt either upon the accuracy or the completeness of the information obtained as to these matters by the Intelligence Department before the outbreak of hostilities; and whether it is proposed to lay before Parliament the despatches of Lieutenant General Sir William Butler while in command at the Cape; and to move for papers"—was put on the Paper before the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War on Tuesday; and as to the first part of the question I am perfectly satisfied with the statement he then made. At the same time, I hope the noble Marquess will not consider that I am unduly critical if I say just one word or two with regard to the delay which has occurred before the noble Marquess did what seems to me to be only a simple act of justice to the Intelligence Department. In putting this notice of motion on the Paper I acted absolutely on my own initiative. I did not consult any member of the Intelligence Department, and I do not appear in this House as the mouthpiece of any member of it. Owing to the silence of the noble Marquess and every other member of the Government on this subject for nearly three months, the public have been led to believe—and I think the very great majority of the public have believed—that the Intelligence Department has been scandalously inefficient. As long ago as 6th November the ball was set rolling with regard to the Intelligence Department. On that date no less a person than the noble Viscount the Commander-in-Chief is reported in

  245
  the newspapers to have made use of these words—
  "We"—presumably the Government—"found that the enemy were far more numerous and powerful than we had anticipated."
  Naturally, my Lords, these words were taken as an indication that the noble Viscount had no great confidence in the Intelligence Department, and the public distrust in that Department was intensified as, day by day, checks, reverses, and disasters were heard of, seeming to show more and more clearly how entirely the Government had been deceived with regard to the strength of the Boer forces. Not only did no member of the Government say one single word in exoneration of the Intelligence Department, but while the newspapers were full of these insinuations the Leader of the House of Commons went down to Manchester and made his "man-in-the-street" speech; and it was also reported in the newspapers, whether true or not, that Mr. Kruger had stated that he had entirely deceived our emissaries with regard to the importations of guns and ammunition. Parliament was not in session, truly, but to every one of Her Majesty's Ministers the platform and the press are open, and, if the noble Marquess did not wish to rush into print or to appear himself on a platform, the task of exonerating the Intelligence Department might easily have been delegated to one of his colleagues. I think the noble Marquess will agree with me that it is unfortunate he did not find time and opportunity at an earlier period to exonerate the Intelligence Department. It is clear that the principal colleague of the noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, was perfectly unaware that the Intelligence Department was not to blame, for the noble Marquess said on Tuesday last that it was very probable the Intelligence Department had not got a great deal of information because they had not a great deal of money.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think I used those words. I stated that getting information necessitated the use of a great deal of money.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I think the noble Marquess implied that he was not confident that the Intelligence Department had given to the Government that in-
  246
  formation which it was desirable the Government should have. As to the despatches of Sir William Butler, the question has been raised in the House of Commons, and I ask for the production of those despatches on the two grounds that were stated in that House by my right hon. friend Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman—first, on the ground that the public have a right to know what advice Sir William Butler had given to the Government; and, secondly, on the ground that Sir William Butler has a right to have his character cleared of the grave charges which have been made. I must confess that it does seem to me rather strange that these despatches have been so long withheld. I beg to move my motion.
  Moved—"That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty for the despatches of Lieutenant-General Sir William Butler while in command at the Cape."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I understand the noble Lord regards the few words which fell from me the other evening in reference to the Intelligence Branch as, upon the whole, a sufficient answer to his question. But he added that he was surprised to notice my tardiness in defending that department of the War Office. He told your Lordships that so long ago as November last, the Commander-in-Chief himself had, in effect, pleaded guilty on behalf of the Intelligence Branch.
  LORD MONKSWELL: No. What I said was that the Commander-in-Chief had used words which induced the public to suppose that the Intelligence Department had been scandalously inefficient.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I accept the noble Lord's correction. The words of the Commander-in-Chief were that we had found the Boers more numerous and powerful than we had anticipated. Those words were spoken, I believe, without very much preparation, and may not have been as carefully weighed as if they had formed part of an official statement. But the Commander-

  247
  in-Chief's meaning was perfectly clear. What he intended to convey to his hearers was that we had found opposed to us in the field a larger number of the enemy than we had anticipated; and that was, I think, a perfectly correct statement. I am under the impression that at this moment the Boers have placed every man in their country in the fighting line. In most of our forecasts we had anticipated that part of the Boer forces would be detailed to watch the frontier at other points. We believe that that has not been done, and that the enemy have put in the fighting line in Natal and on the western border of the Orange Free State, one may almost say every soldier that they possess. That was the meaning of the Commander-in-Chief. But then the noble Lord went on to suggest that it was my business, if I had noticed—as I presume he thinks I should have noticed—the attacks made upon the Intelligence Department, to exonerate that department in the press or on the platform. All I can say is that, if the head of a department, which, as the noble Lord knows himself, is somewhat hard worked even in ordinary times, were to take upon himself in a time like that through which we have been passing to reply to every attack in the press on himself or on his subordinates, he would not have much leisure left for the legitimate work of his office. With regard to the Intelligence Branch, I repeat what I said the other day, that although they make no pretence to infallibility, and although they are ready to admit that there may have been cases in which either men or munitions of war have found their way into the Transvaal without the knowledge of the department, yet, on the whole, their information has been carefully and accurately collected, and has been as sufficient as we could reasonably expect. Then I pass to the second question of the noble Lord. He asks me whether it is proposed to lay before Parliament the despatches of Lieutenant-General Sir William Butler while in command at the Cape. My Lords, we do not intend to present those despatches to Parliament. It is clear from what has been said by the noble Lord that he desires information as to the circumstances which led to Sir William Butler's resignation, and, I imagine, also as to the allegation that Sir
  248
  William Butler constantly supplied her Majesty's Government with advice and information as to the military strength of the Boers, which advice and information Her Majesty's Government are supposed to have neglected. Now, my Lords, as to the correspondence and despatches for which the noble Lord has moved, I am afraid they could not, with advantage, be presented to the public at the present time, but I am perfectly ready to tell the noble Lord that Sir William Butler's resignation was placed in my hands, and accepted by me, on the ground of divergence of opinion between himself and the High Commissioner—a divergence so great that Sir William Butler himself came to the conclusion that his presence in command in South Africa had become a source of embarrassment to the High Commissioner. That statement was made frankly to me by Sir William Butler, and it was upon that statement that I accepted his resignation. I also desire to add this, that in the Papers for which the noble Lord has moved, and which I am unable to present to the House, there is nothing whatever which has reference to any estimate which Sir William Butler may have formed of the strength of the Boer forces or of the strength of the forces which it was our duty to oppose to them.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Do I understand the noble Marquess to say that in all these despatches Sir William Butler expressed no opinion as to what measures ought to be taken for the safety of Natal and the conduct of the war, if war broke out?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There were despatches, no doubt, containing plans of defence for the colonies—plans of considerable minuteness—and for that very reason I object to presenting to Parliament Papers containing very confidential matter, and which, moreover, it is not usual to present to Parliament.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.
  House adjourned at Five of the clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.