Show THAT SPIONKOP DISPATCH Telegraphic Correspondence Thereon Sent to Parliament Last Night London May IThe I telegraphic correspondence cor-respondence relating to the Splonkop dispatch was Issued to Parliament Just before midnight Thursday Lord Lansdowne Lans-downe Secretary of State for War wired March 2Slh asking the advice of Lord Roberts about publishing tho dispatch saying We canot publish all the documents enclosed with your dispatch of February Febru-ary 13th and sugestlng certain dispatches dis-patches which In Lord Lansdowne opinion might be published Lord Lansdowne Lans-downe added But I would not feel Justified in thus editing the papers unless un-less you concur and you may perhaps think It well to refer to Duller I suggest sug-gest as an alternative that we should treat your dispatch of February 13th and all Its enclosures as confidential and that Duller should send through you a full narrative of the operations This you could forward to me with any observations you desire to make for publication Lord Roberts replied to Lord Lans downe In a dspatch dated Bloemfon leln March 21st that he had suggested suggest-ed to Sir Redvors Duller to prepare n full narrative but that Sir Redvers had answered as follows I do not at all like the Idea of rewriting re-writing a dispatch for publication I much prefer to leave It In the han soC s-oC the Common erInChlef Let him select for publication whatever he thinks r ror er To this Lord Roberts appended that he would not himself object to publication cation of n paper edited ns Lord Lansdowne Lans-downe had suggested but that It might perhaps be better ro orcrrulo Gen BullerB objection and adopt the alternative alter-native course suggested by Lord Lansdowne Lans-downe ire asked Lord Lansdowne to wire a reply This reply from Lord Lansdowne dated April 2nd said In view of Bullers objection I abandon the proposal pro-posal that the dispatch should be rewritten re-written and I propose to publish the I selection rHJth th described In my dispatch of Lord Roberts answered under date of April Cth 1 agree to my dispatch oC February 13th b lng published The correspondence also contains two dispatches referred in In Lord Lans downeH dispatch o March 2Slh The first IH from Lord Lansdowno to Gen Duller dated January SLIm representing represent-ing the impossibility of publishing his dispatches which contain views of time situation and forecasts of his intentions in-tentions and emphasizing the advisability I advisa-bility of sending dispatches descrlp Lye of the operations for presentation to Parliament The second Is f from Lord Wolseley to Lord Roberts dated February 6th and saying You will I feel sure agree Ing with me that Methucns dispatch regarding re-garding Magersfonteln could not be gardlnr published as sent There ore passages publohe In It Inappropriate to such documents and It also gtves Information of Inru portance to the enemy I he likes I will revise the dispatch but I prefer not to undertake this responsibility I suggest that you ahould ask him to cancel this dispatch and to write another an-other The correspondence docs not Indicate l Indi-cate whether Lord Methuen rewrote tho dispatch as suggested The Splon kop dispatch a published were exactly I ex-actly the selections suggested In Lord Lansdownes dispatch of March 28th |