lu both Houses of Parliament this week, questions have been
put as to the message sent by the Queen to Lord Chelmsford, on receiving news of the disaster of Isanlana. The Queen, it was ad- mitted, had expressed to Lord Chelmsford, through the Secretary for War, her "confidence in the Commander-in-Chief and her troops to maintain her name and honour!" On Monday, in reply to Lord Truro, Lord Beaconsfield repudiated the construction of this message, which " tortured " it, to use Lord Beaconsfield's own words, into a "formal expression of unlimited confidence in the Commander-in-Chief." In other words, it was only a message of sympathy, and of confidence in the courage and alacrity of the Army. So explained, of course, there is no harm in it ; but the word "confidence," which is apt to be technically 'understood, ought certainly not to have been used. " Con- fidence in the Commander-in-Chief" naturally suggests con- fidence in his capacity and skill,—which is just the point open to question. Such a message would be only too likely to mislead Lord Chelmsford, as well as to appear to anticipate the judgment of Parliament and of the Administration. You can hardly be said to have " confidence " in a Commander-in- Chief whom, on whatever ground, you may find it necessary to recall. And the question of the recall of Lord Chelmsford ought in no sense whatever to have been prejudged.
Previous page
