WAR OFFICE BLUNDERING.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7366, 18 January 1902, Page 2 (Supplement)

WAR OFFICE BLUNDERING.

The War Office seems determined to convert loyal and enthusiastic volunteers into disgusted malcontents. The nonpayment of the Imperial Yeomanry was a scandal so crying and led to such a faint response when the I.Y. were invited to serve again, that it should have been an effectual warning to the War Office authorities. But that they have not learnt their lesson yet, their scurvy (that is the only word for it) treatment of the Natal Volunteers shows. These volunteers were on sei*viee continuously for over 12 months, most of them assisting in the defence of Ladysmith. • Last Septembei-, when Botha's invasion seemed imminent, they turned out, many of them at great sacrifice, at six hours* notice. This is how they were rewarded. It was generally understood that the war gratuity of £5 to each private, and proportionately larger sums to those of higher rank, would be paid to the Natal Volunteers, as well as to the other troops. That there were good grounds for this understanding was clear fromthe fact that in the case of those who died in the service, the money was actually paid over. The disallowance of war gratuities to volunteers who served in Natal was disappointing, and seems an injustice to the Natalians, which calls for inquiry. But loyalists throughout the length and breadth of the Empire will abhor the petty and cruel meanness of the War Office, which actually calls on the families of deceased volunteers in poor circumstances to refund the sums already paid. The story is told in three brief letters. In the first the Chief Paymaster, NataJ, infoj-hid Mr J. Living-stone, solicitor, Durban, that the War Office has decided that the following suuiri paid to him on account 'of the war gratuity by the Master of the Supreme Court, Maritzburg, would not have been paid, and asks him to obtain the money and repay it as soon as possible: Pte. J. Waller, «£5; Sergt. W. J: York, £10; Dr. A. Excell, £5. Mr Livingstone very naturally replies "that the moneys have been "received and credited to the representatives of the different estates. The relatives of the deceasd volunteers are all in poor circumstances. There is no doubt that their deaths were caused by exposure at the front, and in one case, that is W. J. York, deceased was killed at the front. . .

. . 1 shall be pleased if you will let me have some reason for asking for a refund, so that I may explain the matter to the parties interested."

The answer is typical of War Office methods in its curtness: "The reason for refunding these amounts is" that the War Office have decided that war gratuities should not be paid to volunteers in Natal. Will you, therefore, please recover (the amounts in question."

There can be only one answer to the question with which the "Times" concludes its commentary on the case. "Is it not time that when such errors are made they should be repaired at the expense of those who committed them, and not at the expense of the good name and credit of the nation."

Contemporaneously with the exposure in. the "Times" of this miserable meanness, appears a letter from a British refugee in Natal, reiterating the complaint that while Boers and foreigners are allowed to return to the Transvaal, the British refugees are neglected. Are we saving South Africa from the Boers only to lose it to the alienated loyalists?