New-York tribune., 1901-03-16
WOLSELEY'S TAME REPLY,
NOTHING SENSATIONAL IN HIS ANSWER
TO LORD LANSDOWNE.

London, March 1.-THE House Of Lords was
unusually crowded to-day in anticipation of the
reply of Lord Wolseley, the former commander
in-chief. to the criticism of the former War Sec
retary, Lord Lansdowne now Secretary for For
eign Affairs. The galleries were full of peeresses
and others.
Lord Wolseley in his opening remarks said he
regretted being compelled to discuss a personal
matter. But he could not pass unchalienged the
severe comments of Lord Lansdowne or the
manner in which he had performed the duties
Of commander-in-chief. Lord Lansdowne's per-
sonalities were evidently premeditated. His in
diotments grave, and it almost seemed as
if the personal attack made in order to di-
vert attention from the question at issue and
throw upon the commander-in- chief blame for
the mistakes made by the government. Until
the recent debate he had never had reason 10
suppose that he did not possess the full conf
dence of Lord Lansdowne and the Cabinet
Early in 1900 circumstances occurred which left
him no alternative but to resign, which he did
If he did not possess the Cabinets confidence
that was opportunity which might have
legitimately been used to appoint another COM
mander- -in-chief
HIS ADVICE TO LANSDOWNE.
Lord Wolseley then proceeded to refute the
specific charges launched by Lord Lansdowne.
He said he had made every effort to improve
the auxiliary forces In February, 1896 he rec
commended that additional troops be sent to
South Africa, and also recommended strengthen
ing the Natal garrison and the defensive occu-
patton not Of the town of Ladysmith, but of the
Biggarsberg range, which was twenty-five miles
in advance of Ladysmith He had never con-
sidered Ladysmith and its surrounding hills to
be tenable
WOlSe1ey admitted in with
all the other authorities he had underestimated
the fighting power of the individual Boer Three
weeks before Mr.. Kriger's declaration Of war
he had urged Lord Lansdowne to send out an
army corps, cavalry division and five bat
talions for the lines of communication, in ad-
dition the ten thousand troops already in
South Africa. Such comparatively small num-
ber of troops employed early had often achieved
results which five times their number could not
produce later. The mobilization of this force at
that time would have produced a considerable
effect in South Africa. If the country was not
prepared at the outbreak of it was not be-
cause he had not urged the gradual and unos-
tentatious reinforcement of the forces
CALLS FOR THE OFFICIAL PAPERS.
Lord Wolseley, in conclusion, said:
have said little possible consistently
with any Justice TO myself The noble narnrIis
made strong personal statements which were
not supported | have made my reply, which is
also unsupported. / cannot, however leave the
matter thus. / feel am amply justified in NOV
ing that all the papers be laid on the table
am prepared to prove by official documents all
| have said.
Lord Lansdowne. in replying, said he thought
Lord Wolseley had hardly comprehended the
purport of his former speech when he said it
was not a personal attack himself After
thus breaking his windows Lord Woseley could
hardly expect that he lord Lansdowne) would
not retaliate on his conservatory.
Proceeding Lord Lansdowne questioned the
correctness of some of Lord Woseley's state
ments. He reminded the latter how, after the
Glencoe disaster. he had suggested that the Brit
ish should fall back behind the Tugela River. If
the suggestion had been given earlier it might
have saved one of the most untoward disasters
of the war. Lieutenant-General Sir William
Butler had written a private letter TO Lord
Wolseley, suggesting that forty thousand men
might be necessary for the campaign. Lord
Lansdowne did not wish excuse himself for
Understanding the enemy. But Lord Wolseley
should bear his full share. Lord Wolseley sug-
gested among other things, the occupation of
Delagoa Bay and an appeal TO the colonies
PUBLICITY NOT DESIRABLE.
Lord Salisbury said he thought it undesirable
that all the papers referring the debate should