LORD ROBERTS IN THE WITNESS=BOX.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1079, 18 March 1911, Page 15

LORD ROBERTS IN THE WITNESS=BOX.

4 MILITARY LIBEL ACTION. WHY MR. EDMONDSON WAS PUNISHED. Field-Marshal Earl Roberts f?nv> evidence in tho hearing of Hie action by Mr. Robert Edmondson, ■ ex-srjuadron-sergeant-niajor ot the 35th Company Middlesex Imperial Yeomanry, against Mr. Leopold Stcnnett Amwy, claiming damages for libel, which.alleged cowardice on tho battlefield against the plaintiff. The words complained of were ill a letter written' to a Wolverhampton newspaper by Mr. Amery during his candidature in January, 1910, at East Wolverhampton, after he had been attacked by th 4 plaintiff in the same journal, and the passage stated. "Now for .Mr. Edmondson. On Juno 24' (1900) an engagement took place at Leuefontein, in tho Orange Free State. During the action a small party of Imperial Yeomanry'disgraced themselves by running away without drawing rein for nearly twenty miles. In consequence of this the sergeant-major in command of . P ar 4" ,y as removed from his position. J-his was Mr. Edmondson. The incident is mentioned in "'Tho Times" History of tho War,'-Vol. IV., p.-301 (of which Mr. Amery was general editor)." Plaintiff's Story. Tho plaintiff was examined by ?.Ir. Healy: After the surprise of the British force by the Boers at Lcliefontein the witness with his men took refuge in a kraal a mile and a half distant. Ho went to a farmhouse thirty or forty yards away and ordered the women to prepare foocl. A sentry was posted and three scouts were detailed to go out no further than a nulo and reconnoitre. ; ,Mr. Justice Phillimore: Had you been pursued up to this place? , The witness: Yes; the Boers had galloped after us until we readied the kraal. One of the scouts did not return. The party had food at the farmhouse in relays, then mounted and prepared to move. The" witness as .comniaiUler gave them instructions. Mr. Justice. .Phillimore: llow many men had you got together by this time? The ' witness said about ■ eighteen, including himself. AH were mounted and wera armed except one man, who-had lost his rifie. As >:oon as they left the kraal they were met by a heavy-volley from tho direction of 'Wiiiburg. He gave the order to gallop, and after covering .about two miles he ordered the troop to walk. After a quarter, of an .hour another volley came lrom the rear, and they galloped'out of range... In this way, alternately gallop-, ing aud walking, they reached a farm .some miles from the village of Ventersburg. Whenever they walked tho Boers came up and fired. ' Mr. Justice Phillimore: After you had left the first kraal, when you were met by fire, were the people who were firing in sight? The witness: They were. not. The}* must have been able to locate you while you could not locato them?— They had evidently got their horses under cover.'. While galloping after you, they would not have their horses., under cover?—l looked round several times and.taw several of them. I .A superior force to your o*n?—Yes. Mr. Jlealy: You were not in a position at any time to make a stand against them? • • , The witness: I was not. I thought it possible that if I dismounted my men they might bo captured. . It was a situation that demanded quick decision, and, rightly or wrongly, I thought the proper thing was to got iir touch-with some British fprcc and .report myself. To his Lordship, tho witness said that the distance from the scene of the action to Ventersburg Road Station was, lie "tlfb'fightv''6'('er 'twenty miles'.'''—' "~- Lord Roberts's examination by Mr. F. E:. Smith, was as follows:— The plaintiff has stated. ..that ho was degraded in rank because .of confidential reports by certain officers against whose military competence ho had reflected. Is that true?— Certainly not. "Misbehaved Before the Enemy." Why was ho degraded?— The incident never came before me officially dufing tho time I was in South Africa. The.first time I saw the papers was when I was Commander-in-Chief in this country. I then had before mo the opinion formed by tho general officer at Kroonstad who ordered the Court of Inquiry to assemble, General Ivnox. Tho papers wore endorsed by General Sir Leslie Itundle, who commanded the division in which Kroonstad is situated. Tho opinions of these two officer's were endorsed by Lord Kitchener, who was then Commander-in-Chief in South Africa. When the papers reached the War Office they were considered, as is the custom, 'by_ tho Ad-jutant-General, Sir Evelyn Wood, who expressed himself of the same opinion as the three officers I have named. I.wdnt through the whole case carefully, and 1 carte to tho conclusion that the plaintiff had misbehaved before the enemy. I directed that lie should bo reduced to the ranks. . Mr. Smith: Would you mind telling us in.what respect you formed tho viewthat he 'had' misbehaved before tho enemy ? Lord Roberts: By leaving tho field of bdttle. _ Did his explanation as to why he left the field of battle seem adequate or in'adequate ?—lnadequate. Cross-Examination. Mr. Healy, cross-examining: Did tho plaintiff on many, occasions press you, wlieii you hold the great command, for the reasons which led you to the decision you camo to?—He did. Until to-day have they ever been stated in public?—l decided it was not desirable to give any reasons. . ,'lhen I am right in saying that until ; to-day they - have never been stated, in public?— Not so far as I know. Thero is a minute in the War Office that the plaintiff has been reduced to the ranks for misbehaviour in tho face of-the enemy?—l am not going to .say what is in the War Ofiico papers. ''How did it 'come," asked Mr. Healy, "that a man who had so misbehaved himself was allowed to remain in tho British Army ?" ■ Lord Roberts: Reducing to tho ranks was the punishment which as Command-er-in-Chief I was able to give him at the time. Mr. Healy: Then I understand your view, was that' the Commander-in-Chief of tlio British Army has no alternative but to retain a coward in the ranks? Lord Roberts: I acted according to tho Army Act. Mr. Justice Phillimore: Could he or could he not have, been dismissed tho service without a court-martial? Lord Roberts: I dare say at the timo he could have been, but so many months had gono by since the thing occurred that, when it came before me I was of opinion it was sufficient to reduce him to the ranks. Jlr. Healy (to the witness): Then it conies to this—you could have dismissed him the. service, but as so much time had passed you thought it would lx> sufficient to reduco him ? Lord Roberts: Witnesses had disappeared, time had pnsscd, and I hat seemed to mo an exceedingly proper way to deal with it. "Ran Away." Mr. George Morley, ex-sergeant in I ho Guards, and now chief instructor at the University Gymnasium, Oxford, gave evidence. 110 was sergeant in tho same troop of Yeomanry as the plaintiff. The witness was going to join the main body of troops when tho plainliff. his superior officer, ordered him to turn round, and he had to obey. They met others who were returning lo the main body,' and the plaintiff ordered them also to go with him, which they did. He saw no reason. why I hey all should not have gone to the main body. When they reached Ventersburg Road Station the three senior non-commissioned officers— Edmondson, Sergeant Cairns, and himself —were nsked to givo evidence. Edmondson went in first, and told them .what Mr/ Healy (cross-examining): Edmondson told you what to say?— Yes. lie told you to tell lies?—Ilo must have donp. The storv of sendinu out three scouts is "poetry"?—lt's all lies. (Laughter.) j Your yiew is that Edmondson was a

coward iiml van away:—l begin to think so, 1 can assure yon, when we got past Yenterfburg, towards sundown. I had teen, him on one or two other occasions running away, Anil you took the coward's orders and ran away, too?—I did. Although to your knowledge there was no danger?— Yes. The witness admitted that during the inquiry ton years ago he did not charge Edmondson with cowardice. "Could Have Rejoined." Colonel Mildmay, M.I 1 ., giving evidence, said that after the alarm the men went over the kopjo in no formation and not in groups. That was absolutely necessary, because if they had formed up they would have attracted the Boer fire, which was then concentrated on the guns. As witness moved up the kopjo he had men of the 35th Company around him, as well as some of the AV-est Kents. They soon discovered that Edmondson was not there, because he was tho senior non-commis-sioned officer. Except Edmondson and his party lie did not think. any men were missies;. Ho saw no reason why if these men liad kept their heads they could not have rejoined the main body. Captain Frank Finch liogers, formerly lieutenant of the 35th Company, said the force had no casualties for an hour and a half after he missed Kdniondson. After the action he found Edmondson's horse quite sale. Sergeant G. Bullock, formerly in the Scots Greys, said lie served with the 35th Company at Leliefontein under Edinondson. The latter said to him, "Come out of this." . Witness remarked that the British guns "were firing and that that was where they should be. Edmondson replied, "No," and added either "Thev are cut up," or "They will bo cut up.'' Edmondson moved away with others. The witness and another man then returned to the guns. Journalist's Evidence. Mr. Basil Williams, examined, • stated that he was an author and journalist. Formerly he was a clerk in the llouso of Commons. lie served during tho war in South Africa as a gunner in the City Imperial Volunteer Battery. He was engaged on Volume IV, of " 'The Times' History of the Boer War," and wrote tho passages which reflected on the conduct of the Yeomanry in leaving tho battlefield and going to Ycntersburg. Did you know who their leader was?— I did; but I did not mention his name. Cross-examined by Mr. Healy. He sent a copy of the book for review to the "United Service ,Magazine." The book was reviewed in that journal, and the reviewer mentioned the plaintiff's name in connection with the incident at Leliefontein.' . The writer vindicated tho plaintiff from the suggestion in your.volume?—lie gave his' view. Witness admitted asking tho reviewer to' omit.the plaintiff's name. Ho prepared the history from staff diaries lent by the War Officc. Mr. Amery.... Mr. Leopold S. Amery, the defendant, examined, stated that he was the general editor of " 'The Times' History of the War." During the Wolverhampton election Edmondson's letter to the local papers was brought to his attention; it was nil over tho constituency at once, and his workers brought him news of the damage it was doing. In these circumstances he wrote the reply letter which is the subject to these proceedings. Mr. Mealy proceeded to road from Mr. Amcry's "History of the War" passages of strong criticism upon officers. The witness insisted it was fair criticism. Mr. Ilealv (reading): "When the circumstances "are dispassionately considered, it becomes' clear that there was really no conceivable reason why Bailor should have shown himself a general, and, if ho failed, tho blame must rest not with him- but .with tho .system which made hihi what he was, with a nation which confidently bade him undertake a task o{ overwhelming difficulty, for which he was fitted neither by experience, nor by training, nor by disposition." Did you ,-write that? • Tiro 1 WitHM'?—i • did;' ■"••X'-'i. You thought that was just to General Bulier?—l did.

Take this: "The man himself (General Bullcr). hopelessly bewildered, distracted, despondent, and at times even nnlisrved by tho terrible responsibility thrust upon him, is a figure which calls for sympathy and regret, not for reprobation." That was the general who relieved Ladysmith ?—That, I think, after years of study was my'conclusion, arid I submit ;a. fair conclusion as to General Buller's generalship. You were shocked at the plaintiff's book?—At what part? The Fighting Instinct. Mr. Justice Philliinore: We are really getting away from the matter. Mr. Healy: I will pass on- -There is another passage: "But tile environment .which made Bullcr what he was also made those Who served under him; his failings were also their failings." You said that ? The Witness: Yes. Mr. Healy: "The absence of anT real fighting instinct, the fear of bold, farreaching decisions, the dread of losses— these were defects which in varying degrees showed themselves in almost every senior officer who took the field during the war." Do you in that passage charge every senior officer with tho absence of any real fighting instinct? The Witness: In varying degrees, one or other of those qualities were, I con-1 Bidered, largely wanting. I still consider that is fair criticism. [A subsequent cablegram stated that tho jury returned a verdict for defendant.]