LORD MONKS WELLhad the following notice on the Paper: "To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Secretary of State is correctly reported to have said on Monday, March 17, The circumstances in which he (Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman) left the War Office in 1895, the position in 686 which he left the country, not merely in regard to small arms ammunition, which did come out, but the efficiency of the artillery, which did not come out, were such that, if complications had ensued in South Africa—["Hear, hear" from Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman]. The right hon. Gentleman cheers ironically, but twice the amount of ammunition he left was soon running short in South Africa; and the whole of the artillery he left was such that, if we had depended on his supply, we must have cleared out of South Africa after the first three months; '† and if it is the fact that in October, 1894, contracts had been entered into with private firms for a supply of cordite, and that no other contract with private firms for land purposes was found necessary till February, 1899; and to ask on what facts the statement as to an insufficient supply of artillery and ammunition is based; and to move for Papers."
* THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDEWNE)My Lords, before the noble Lord begins his remarks, I wish to say a few words on a point of order. We do not bind ourselves in this House by very stringent rules of procedure, but I am bound to say that the notice which the noble Lord has placed upon the Paper seems to me to be of a most extraordinary and irregular character. I understand the situation to be this—that there took place some days ago a discussion on military questions in the other House of Parliament, that during that discussion the Leader of the Opposition made some complaint to the Secretary of State for War, and that the Secretary of State for War thereupon retorted and made certain statements. There the matter, so far as the other House is concerned, ended, although I understand that the Leader of the Opposition had, and may vet have, opportunities of returning to the charge. The noble Lord now intervenes with an attempt to change the venue, and to extend to this House a discussion which took place in the other House. That, to say the least of it, is a very unusual proceeding. The noble Lord asks us to
†For the Hansard Report, see page 227 of this Volume.687
§ confirm the accuracy of a statement made by the Secretary of State for War and to supply him with the facts upon which that statement was based. I therefore, in the first place, object to the Motion as being in an irregular and inconvenient shape. But, my Lords, that is not all. This notice was put on the Paper yesterday. I saw it, and I believe my noble friend behind me (Lord Raglan) saw it for the first time this morning. The question raised is one of very great importance, and if "it is to be debated we ought obviously to be given an opportunity of referring to the Papers and documents. The matter is one which personally concerns me not a little, because I happened to he Secretary of State for War when the late Government left office, and I certainly should like to have a sufficient opportunity of seeing from Papers which are in my possession what the position of the artillery and of the reserves of small arms ammunition was at the time I took office and at the time I relinquished office. As I saw this notice for the first time at nine o'clock this morning, and as I have been busily occupied since that moment, it must be obvious to the House that I could not have had the opportunity which I should have desired for that purpose. In these circumstances, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he would do well, in the first place, to present his Motion to your Lordships in a more regular and usual shape, and in the second place, to do so after an amount of notice at least sufficient to enable us to make ourselves masters of the case.
LORD MONKSWELLOf course it is quite impossible after the appeal of the noble Marquess for me to proceed with my Motion today; but I thought that as the Secretary of State for war had made definite charges against Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, it would only take a few minutes to get together the evidence on which the right hon. Gentleman relied to substantiate those charges. I shall, however, be quite willing to put off my Motion until the noble Marquess has had the opportunity of making such research as he may think desirable. At the same time, I cannot see why the terms of the 688 Motion should be altered, unless the noble Marquess states that it is out of order to refer to a debate which took, place in the House of Commons.
LORD MONKSWELLThen I am prepared to alter the form of my Motion. I myself heard the Secretary for War's statement in the House of Commons, and therefore it appears to me that I am quite within my right in suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman made a certain statement, irrespective of the newspaper report. But that will be a matter for further consideration. For the present, I accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess to postpone my question.
THE EARL OF NORTH BROOKMy Lords, I, too deprecate notices similar to that on the Paper. I think it is an extraordinary proceeding to ask for an explanation in your Lordship's House of a statement alleged to have been made in the other House. Surely, it is for Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman in the House of Commons to raise the subject, when an explanation could be given by the Secretary of State. The present certainly seems to be an irregular proceeding.
LORD TWEED MOUTHWhile I think we must all agree that the form of the Motion is not strictly in order, I do not think it fair to take exception to the action of my noble friend, who has only erred a little in point of form. As the noble Marquess himself frankly admitted, he was the Minister responsible for the administration of the War Office at the time to which the Question refers, and, therefore, I do not think that, on reflection, noble Lords opposite will feel that my noble friend has exceeded what was a proper action in bringing this question forward in this House. He has expressed his desire to comply with the forms of the House, and to give the noble Lord opposite as much time as he requires to search the records, and I think that he is entitled to your Lordships' indulgence.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Lord's Question is principally a demand to know whether the Secretary for War had been correctly reported in what he said the other night in the House of Commons. Just conceive what would be the result if in each House we asked whether the newspaper reports of the proceedings in the other House were correct and made them the subject of discussion. It would not be at all convenient that the debates in one House should be immediately referred to and form the subject of debate in the other House. After all, something else has taken place in the other House, but there is no reason why that should not be made just as much a subject of discussion as the question of cordite. I do not know that we could induce anybody in this House to carry on the debates with the vigour which Mr. Dillon has shown, but everybody will feel that it is not a convenient course to depart from the very wholesome rule that obtains in this matter with regard to debates in the other House.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONIt is rather remarkable that the noble Marquess, in objecting to debates in the other House being referred to, himself alluded in the course of his observations to a discussion in the House of Commons in which Mr. Dillon took part. I do not regard the Motion as strictly in order, but the subject is a proper one for discussion, and my noble friend has undertaken to amend the form of his notice on a future occasion.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHI think the whole point of the question is contained in the last half-dozen lines. The preceding part of the notice is merely the preamble.
§ [The subject then dropped.]