A. G HALES AND WINSTON CHURCHILL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1507, 17 January 1901, Page 57

A. G HALES AND WINSTON CHURCHILL.

"SMILER” STRIKES HOME. AN EFFECTIVE REPLY. At the. monthly dinner of the AngloAiriean Writers’ Club on. Tuesday (writes a London correspondent on November 3d), Major Burnham. Mr A. G. Hales and Lord Rosslyii were the guests of the evening. The chairman (Mr F. H. Hamilton) dwelt at length on the achievements in the Transvaal of these, three heroes. Burnham. of course, had a world-wide reputation as a scout before he went to South Africa, but Mr Hales was a simple West Australian who dabbled not in mines, neither cared for filthv lucre, but came to Africa with his gallant colonial comrades to- fight with sword and pen for the Old 'Country’s ca'use. "Mr Hales,” said the chairman •‘stepped almost at a bound into the front ranks ot wa-r correspondents. (Cheers.) Amid all the literature he (the chairman) read from day to day, some of Mr Hales’s extraordinarily vivid descriptions remained most- clearly impressed upon his memory, and: he was very glad to see that Mr Hales’s letters were about to assume a more permanent form. _ (Cheers.) Mr Hales hail the gift- or using the that stucks and he had other gifts perhaps, from, onei point of view, more valuable —the gifts oi seeing things whole and the courage to proclaim them. (Cheers.) Major Burnham would not make a speech, nor even vouchsafe some experiences. ■ Mr Hales, however, was web oil tne spot, and went tooth and nail for Winston Churchill and his allegations ansnt the- correspondents’ attacks on tne British officer. He began by repudiating We&tra-lia. The chairman had made a mistake, lie was not- a of the ‘■'coming colony, - ’ but a South Australian, and rather proud of the- fact. He regretted that Mr Winston Churchill was not present, because he hated hitting a .man behind his back. But at a recent banquet, Mr Churchill took the opportunity to “slate him.” Out _ in South Africa Mr Wiustoii Churchill had the reputation of a brave and gallant man, as behoved a member of the Marlborough family; but before he uttered remarks which would be reported all over the country, he should have made ■himself conversant with facts regarding a, man earning his- living in a manner ■ that he himself was proud to do. (“Hear, hear.”) Mr Churchill said that he (Mr Hales) had assailed the reputation of the British officer tor courage. Any man who sent such a lie as that broadcast through the: land ought to be ashamed of himself to the day he died. ("Hear, hear.”) He had seen the British officer too often on the) field of battle to question Ms courage. (Cheers.) No man living, continued Mr Llales, honoured the dauntless hearing of the British officer more than lie did. He had seen the British officer die on the fieid, and no one who had seen the British officer die on the field could question the British officer’s courage. (Cheers.) Thus, in scattering that statement broadcast through the land, Mr Winston Churchill did him a. wrong that he little expected to receive at the hand of any Englishman. When the news reached Australia that Great Britain was at war with the Transvaal and Free State, the impression obtained that she was likely also to be at war with one or more of the Great Powers. Thinking that the bayonets of half the world were at the breast of the Old Country he volunteered for active service as a private soldier but ho failed 'to convince the authorities that he was under twen-ty-five years of age. (Laughter.) Afterwards his old comrades of West Australia, came to him, and said they would form a. camel corps, and go with him if Parliament would consent, lie wired the offer to the Premier of the colony, explaining that they were all willing to go at their own expense, finding their own camels. The matter was brought before the colonial Parliament, but the War Office at Home—an institution of which he had not a very high opinion—interfered, saying that they did not want the camel corps. But, not to be beaten, when lie found he could not go as a fighting machine, he decided to go as a. correspondent. in which capacity he did his best to send home the truth. (Cheers.l As be had said, the allegation of Mr Winston Churchill that he had questioned the courage of the British officer was absolutely untrue. Y\ hat hehad done was to question the British officer’s

training for the high and terribly responsible position which he had to fill. (Hear, hear.) He blamed the system under which the British officer was brought up. That had been bis contention ail through, and, in twisting his statement, Mr Winston Churchill had shown the imagination for which his: family had ever been remarkable. (Daughter.) He had always gat as near to the fighting as possible, so that he could render the best service of which he was capable to those who paid him, and paid him well. His desire had been so to conduct himself that, when he returned to his colonial colleagues, they would be able to greet him with, "'Olc! mm. we are proud of you; fer you wrote the truth.” < Cheers’. WINSTON REPLIES. That Mr Hales’s remarks had struck home was apparent ot- Birmingham last night, when Mr Winston Churchill, who was lecturing there, did bus best- to parry the enemy’& end aught. He said he did not regret in the least that he toc-k it upon himself, to the best, of his ability, to trounce Mr Hales. He did not withdraw a. single word he said. Mr ■Hales made a speech a-t a. dinner of the Anglo-Arric&n Writers’ Club, over which he (Mr Ohm thill) v.v-.s av-ked to preside, but as he could not, the opposition was invited. Mr Hales said he bad no tidiness to accuse him oi abusing British officers’ courage, that he had never made any such statement. He added that anyone who told such a. iie as that ought to be ashamed of himself to the day he died. He. (Mr Church:!!) did not make the statement imputed to him, but if he had made it, it would not have been *■ lie, and lie should not have regretted it. What he did say was' that Mr Hales had made most scandalous statements against the fighting qualities and character of British officers, and that he- believed those statements were wholly false. Lord Dudley, who presided, referred to the •-'Daily News” correspondent as ‘‘a person named Hales, or Jale-s, or whatever he’s called,” an allusion which not unnaturally arc-used the ire of the leading Liberal journal. It said "Mr Churchill’s criticism, is, perhaps, not significant ci much, for, after all, he and Mr Hales rivals, and two of a trade seldom agree. But the puerile and ill-mannersd impertinence of Lord Dudley —with bis reference to ‘Mr Hales, or Jales, or whatever he might be’—is very significant. It shews that any fearless attempt to bring outside criticism to bear upon the present- constitution of the British army will be bitterly resented. Luckily, Mr Hale? can be trusted to staiad to- his guns.”