WAR NOTES FROM LONDON

New Zealand Mail, 21 February 1901, Page 60

WAR NOTES FROM LONDON

MR BRYN' ROBERTS .AND THE • .AUSTRALIANS. ' (“Sydney Telegraph.” Special.) .. LONDON., s>&cembe-r 22.During tli© course of the debate iu the Hons©' of Commons last Saturday evening Air ; Biryn. Roberts —one of the inuoh-diminishe'd'" bandi of pro-Boers-; in Parliament—in' referring:; to .the dissatisfaction existing among the Imperial Yeomanry .fat ■ the; front' owing to the, length, of "time Rhey ' liad been kept on active service, made the startling assertion. that an." Australian corps had for the same reason thrown down their rifles- and refused. to’ tdaroli; that the corps whs then re-organised, ahd men who desired, to go home allowed 1 to do so. Tie ha’d the grace to add : “If this' incident is true, it was a. gross breach, of discipline, and the omeers who condoned it ought to- he cashiered at once/ Mr Roherds, like most of. his- pro-Boer followers, is very prone to pick up interesting “tit-bits.” of hearsay news of •this kind, and put them, forward as gospel truths. . For them -any stick is good -enough to beat the Government with, • and they;, cheerfully -insult- any part of the army in order to- throw blame on .tothe Secretary for War or Air Chamberlain. Air Roberts called the Cd.V.’s “carpet-soldiers*, ’’ and 1 , hot content with this, tried to make- out that an Australian -corps' had mutiuesrecL Air Brodrick defended the C.l.V.’s, but, strange to say, didn’t make any comment on the member for Oarmaryonshire’s • statement - regarding, the Australians. This fact hah led .pro-Boers to believe.. that .'there was ; some truth in Mr Roberts’ allegatiaix.; but I think the ta-le can" be' dismissed ih- .these words, •which can only be expressed in cold print thus: “A lie.” ' Mr Roberts’ remarks pro-voiced.. Air Brodrick to that ’ it wag “'almost criminal for a member to', attempt to drive the wedge of dls-content between different ’'Sections of the .' troops” ; and he denounced those who* “went looking about and picking up scraps of information, without any authority”,in such a. pursuit; and said also that conduct like this laid the' member .o-pe-p. to “the censure' of the House, "a-ndi the reprobation of every ..man in this country.” This put Mr Bryn Roberts into, a mighty passion. He j tumped- up several times to; complain, and when Unionists were not cheering the War Secretary they were howling at the Welshman. The Speaker quite- early in the hubbub told the member for Carnarvonshire that, having used 1 strong expressions himself, be. -must not resent them if they, came from the other’ side-. But he was unable to see the force of this remark, and fenally was directed to “keep himself under control-” ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT FOUNDATION. Though Mr Brodrick did- not give the lie to. Air. Roberts's story 'ament the “mutinous Australians” in the House, he took good. care to- do- so- in a muck more , effectual manner. He cabled to Lord Kitchener, and gave his lordship’s reply to the . Press with, other war cables, and of necessity -everybody who reads thepapers saw on . Wednesday last the hero of Khartoum’s reply. “The report you allude to regarding the Australian troops is absolutely without foundation.” Thu® the li© was effectually nailed to the counter. - r v- . Mr Bryn Roberts apparently got- his information from a letter published by

the “Morning- Leader,”. purporting'*to be from a . young man with the Imperial Yeomanry. His story was to the effect, that the Australians demanded to be seat home according to the terms of their engagement. The demand being refused, they refused t-o inarch. The authorities thereupon ordered the guns to be turned- on them, but the contingent picked up their own guns and said, “Now, turn you’ — r — guns upon us.” And then the authorities gave way. The “Leader”’ (which some, people call pro-Boer”) calls Lord Kitchener’s cable a “particular and not a general denial,” and argues- that- the “Leader” story was true, but should have been applied to South Africans. General Brabant’s name being mentioned in connection therewith, the “Leader” apparently thinks it is made quite clear that the statement' referred to South A.friesu volunteers. , 3 “I a-m under the impression that General Brabant' has at times been, somewhat closely identified with -other than. South African, volunteers, and. therefore me" mention of his name would certainly not show at once that “Australian” should read “South African,” . However, Air Bryn. Roberts said “Australian,” and Lord Kitchener’s “particular” denial i& what- I wanted to see in print. There have been, too many “general” denials and “general” statements in this, .wax, and it as essential that in matters, affecting the conduct of our colonial volunteers, scribes, whether amateur or professional, should be particularly particular. -