HL Deb 15 May 1905 vol 146 cc247-53
THE EARL OF WEMYSS

rose to move, "That the Duke of Wellington's letter to Sir John Burgoyne in 1847 on our defenceless state be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper." He said: My Lords, I do not wish to raise on this Motion the general question of our defences. I hope to raise that question on another Motion, of which I have given notice, and which is in the following terms— To move to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, it would be a danger to the Realm, and limit the power of the Navy as an offensive force in war, to trust to it alone for home defence, and, inasmuch as it is admitted that the Navy cannot guarantee us against so-called hostile 'raids,' it is the more needful that our land defences should at all times be such that no nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores. I desire the publication of the Duke of Wellington's letter because I think it is a letter of considerable importance, for it deals with the safety of our hearths and homes—the most vital question that could be brought before us. There are extracts from the letter in The Times this morning, and I will not trouble your Lordships by reading it. I think that if the Duke of Wellington were now alive he would probably be a member of the new Defence Committee, and, if he were the Prime Minister would not, I am sure, have made the speech that he delivered on Thursday last. My only object is that your Lordships should see this letter, which a great many people have never read. Full knowledge is wanted on this in the interests of the nation, it is on this vital question of home defence; and it is desirable to publish all the information on both sides of the question that can be obtained. What the Government will do with regard to this Motion I do not know. They may or may not refuse it. I hope they will not. I appeal to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Government in your Lordships' House to accept it. This is not a War Office question; it is an Imperial question. The War Office has no more to do with it than any other Department. It is a national question; and, in the interests of the nation, I hope my request will be acceded to.

Moved, "That the Duke of Wellington's letter to Sir John Burgoyne in 1847 on our defenceless state be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE)

My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl, in answering this Question, that I wish he had been provided with a foeman worthy of his steel. I will, however, do my best to reply to the simple Question he has put to me. I say at once that I hope the noble Earl will not press his Motion. This letter cannot be characterised as a public document; it is a private letter.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

I want it to be a public document.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

That is what I object to, unless the noble Earl has the Duke of Wellington's consent.

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Where am I to go for it? This document has already been published a great many times. The earliest reference to it that I have been able to find is in a newspaper called the Morning Chronicle, in which this letter appeared on January 4th, 1848. A very full précis is also published in Sir Herbert Maxwell's "Life of the Duke of Wellington," in the second volume, page 361. That book, I have ascertained, is in the library of your Lordships' House. The letter was also published in Colonel Wrottesley's "Life of Sir John Burgoyne," in the first volume, page 444, and Colonel Wrottesley states there that it had frequently appeared in print. Therefore, the letter is available to everyone who wants to read it in studying this question. I think the letter is a good deal better known than the noble Earl seems to suppose. I have had occasion several times during the last few weeks to mention the letter to officers with whom I have the privilege of being associated at the War Office, and they all seem perfectly familiar with it. It was a letter which was not approved of by everybody when it was originally published. There were some speeches of Mr. Cobden which were very bitter in their comments upon it, showing considerable disagreement with the views put forward. Moreover, the letter can scarcely be considered to be up to date. It is, as I have said, at the disposal of anyone who desires to study this question, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served in printing and circulating it as a Parliamentary Paper. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Motion.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

My Lords, I beg leave to second the advice given to my noble friend by the noble Lord who has just spoken, but on, perhaps, a different ground. My recollection is that this letter of the illustrious Duke was written without any intention of its being published, and that it was published, if I may say so, surreptitiously, greatly to the annoyance of the illustrious writer. In these circumstances, unless some great public good is to be gained by publishing it, I do not think His Majesty's Government would be acting quite rightly if they were to give, as it were, an official stamp, not only to the letter, but also to the manner in which the letter was first published. I think it would be much better that this House should not mix itself up with the publication of the letter in question, and that it should be allowed to remain where it is, available to everybody who cares to read it, but without the official stamp of His Majesty's Government.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, what my noble friend the noble Duke has just said is rather counter to the view of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, for he has told us that everybody knows all about this letter. But to know it you must buy a Morning Chronicle of January 4, 1848, and get a number of books referred to by the noble Earl. I want the public to have this letter without that trouble, and I think my noble friend is a little over-delicate about the Government's sanctioning the publication of a letter which was not intended to be published. I suspect there is something behind this, and that the Government do not wish the noble Duke's argument to be put in your Lordships' hands. That is my belief; I may be wrong. I shall not, however, trouble your Lordships to divide, for I have the remedy in my own hands. I am quite prepared to say that I shall print this letter myself, and send it to every Member of your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament and to the Press. I hope your Lordships will read the letter, and I also commend to your attention, in relation to the subject of Imperial defence and Mr. Balfour's speech, the article in The Times of to-day by a military officer and the able leader and important correspondent in the Morning Post. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary has alluded to the Duke of Wellington's letter as being out of date, but that cannot be so long as the shore of England remain unchanged. The Duke of Wellington said he had made a careful study of the subject, and that from the North Foreland to Portsmouth there was not a spot on the coast where infantry might not land, and there were several small harbours where cavalry, artillery, and stores could be landed. Therefore, to make this letter out of date you must prove that the shores of the South of England have changed. Be that as it may, I have served my purpose in calling your Lordships' attention to this preparatory to the Motion which I shall bring forward later. I think the motto, Audi alteram partem, is one which it would be well for the Government to adopt in regard to this subject.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, I only wish to point out that there is really no difference between the argument used by the noble Lord who represents the War Office and the argument which was put with so much authority by the noble Duke on the Back Bench. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War pointed out that the letter was a private letter, and upon that ground he objected to a publication which would give to it the appearance and character of an official Parliamentary Paper. That was also the argument of the noble Duke, and this view is supported by an extract from a subsequent letter, published in The Times of to-day, in which the Duke of Wellington described the letter which we are now discussing as a "confidential letter from the Commander-in-Chief." We feel, therefore, that we have no right to convert that confidential letter into a Parliamentary document. The noble Earl who moved the Motion now before the House twitted my noble friend behind me upon his description of the letter as "out of date," and replied that the shores of England had remained unchanged since the letter was written. I have myself some doubt on that point, for certain parts of the coast alter very rapidly indeed. But, be that as it may, surely the noble Earl must admit that the means of offence and defence have considerably altered since the time of Wellington, and if it were possible to recall the illustrious Duke to life and give him a place on the Defence Committee it might well be supposed that he would give serious study to the modifications which the art of war had undergone since he had taken part in the application of its principles to the defence of this country. I am afraid we must adhere to our resolve and leave the noble Earl to fall back on his own method for making the letter known.

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS

I hope my doing so will not be considered in any way a breach of confidence.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My Lords, I merely rise to quote what the view of the Duke of Wellington himself was with regard to the publication of this letter. As the noble Earl the Undersecretary of State for War stated, the letter was published on January 4th, 1848, and on the 30th of the same month the illustrious Duke, in a letter written to Lady Shelley, took exception to the publication, and expressed his views on the subject very strongly. If I may, I will quote a portion of his letter, and I think it will show conclusively that the illustrious Duke would neither have desired that this subject should be raised in your Lordships' House, nor that his letter should be published. The Duke wrote— My opinion is, and has been, that the subject would be considered with advantage by the Government alone in the first instance. The rules of procedure so require. It is quite certain that the House of Lords, of which I am a member, is the place where it would be of the least advantage to suggest the discussion of such a subject. It is well known that in the last session of Parliament a discussion did take place in the House of Lords on the state of the defences of the country. Lord Ellen-borough spoke, others spoke; I did not say one word. I object to a movement of the kind on the part of any but servants of the Crown, and I declared I would not move in it. I think that is strong evidence of what the wishes of the Duke of Wellington would be if he were here, and I venture to quote it in support of what has been said on behalf of His Majesty' Government.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I cannot refrain from expressing surprise that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War has quoted Mr. Cobden in order to bolster up his argument. I confess that is the last authority I should have expected to hear quoted from the Front Bench, for of all prophets he was, I imagined, regarded by noble Lords on that bench as being the most discredited. But I should like to remind the House, and my noble friend in particular, that one of Mr. Cobden's prophecies was that, if we were involved in a European war, the country would be obliged to resort to the principle of universal service. I think that is a prophecy more likely to be fulfilled than others made by that statesman.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I did not quote Mr. Cobden to buttress up my argument. I quoted Mr. Cobden's having made a speech as evidence of a certain feeling in a certain section of opinion in the country, which is a very different thing.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.