NEWS ITEMS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3676, 28 February 1899, Page 3

NEWS ITEMS.

“ Killing the Wounded.” Mr Bennet Burleigh, the war correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph,” dealt, an January 7, at length, in the columns of that paper, with the charges against tlje troops at Orndurman, made m an article in the “ Contemporary,” by Mr E. N. Bennett. Mr Burleigh referred at the outset to the “ astonishing charges, in their nature atrocious, against the troops and the general commanding them,” Than these allegations of Mr Bennett, bo said, there could be nothing more uhtruc. His whole narrative conveyed an utterly false impression of what actually took place at Orndurman, and was besides erroneous in'its references to other occasions. Mr Burleigh continued: “The statement of killing the wounded at Tel-el-Kebir and in other campaigns, as it stands, is a colossal untruth. Nothing in oven the smallest degree .justifying such an assertion ever took place at Tel-el-Kebir.” Referring to charjges of looting, Mr Burleigh said that there was very little, if any, in the true sense of tho, term—that is, robbery with violence.; “Tho assertion by Mr Bennet that orders had been given to kill the wounded is absolutely the first I have heard of such a thing. it sounds incredible, and I honestly believe it to be cruelly untrue. Perhaps as good an answer to this rnarolo accusation is that there wwo DODO, and later 11,000, wounded Dervish prisoners being cared for by tho two Army Medical staffs, British and Egyptian, in Orndurman.” Another baseless accusation, Mr Burleigh said, is that tho 21st Lancers took property from the natives without payment. 'General Lyttelton, who was one of General.Gatacre’s Brigadier-generals in the Soudan campaign, stated in an interview that there was nothing to warrant the charge of indiscriminate slaugh ci. Ho saw nothing ddilb beyopd wl'iat. ya. absolutely necessary in view of the un known treachery of wounded -Deryishers. Ouo wounded Dervish, who had simulate:! death, deliberately fired at General Lyttelton’s aide-de-camp., t . the publication Of Mr Burleigh’s Srticle’, the Sifilar; sept the, following telegram fiom Om lunni.i to Mr Burleigh:-—“Self and o'Seers lhanj: yon for not allowing disgraceful | .tel--to pass.”' „ ■■■• Mr Bennett, in La reply to Mr I r,rleigli’s' criticisms, said :—“ No one could have said more ; ,clearly and definitely than myself that the killing of a wounded Der - vish was perfectly justifiable if -ho was dangerous. This statement applies, of '■ course, ■ not only to what; I say hbou f Omdurman, but to the (destruction <?; wounded men, which, whatever Mr Burleigh may did undoubtedly take place during tnoearlier {joudan campaigns. If (luring those earlier campaigns it wrs really tho ca- that all the woundel Arab-; who-were killed were a menace to bur men, I have no more to say. What Ido protest against is the slaughter at Omdir. man of men who were unarmed and manifestly helpless. 1 am hot alone in ’this. The correspondent of'the “Manchester Guardian, ’ who was universally liked and rosepeted amongst the pressmen (vide Mr Stephens’ ‘ With Kitcnene. to Khartoum’), declared from; the evidence of his own eyes, that ‘ the wholesale slaughter carried out by the blacks was indefensible.’ Mr Williams, of the “ Daily Chronicle,” who is as old a campaigner!', as Mr Burleigh himself, states that the' killing of the wounded ‘ waS excessive, and ought to have been chocked.’ An officer whose attention was called to a certain incident oh Sept. 2 exclaimed, ’ Well, if that is not murder, what is?’ I never'did ‘ assort that orders had been given to kill tho wounded.’ It is- most unfair to saddle your .opponent with a staternmont he never made and then proceed to criticise it. What I did imoly .was that a rumour was abroad that the Sirdar wished the wounded to be killed

by/ tho advancing battalions, but I evp'rossiy said that I did not know whothc • this was trim or not. That, in view of the ' oconroncc-s on the battle-field f there was some justification for mentioning thimxmour will appear also from the follow ing passage which occurs in a printed letter, written on Sopt. 17 by Lieut. Fison. of the ftth Fusiliers, and published in the “ Sheffield Telegraph ”; —‘ Previous t■„ tho advance the Sirdar had issued orderi that all wounded Dondshers passed ovc had to bo bayoneted.’ I repeat, emphal • ieally, that after tho surrender at Omclxxr man lootirig was carried on by the Angm ■ Egyptian. forces.” Colonel . Frank Tvliodos, speaking a 1 Sleaford on the Soudan campaign, said that having, been wounded he w'da no present of Lor the battle of Omdurman. s was unable to refute tho charges brouglr by aMr Bennett,; but the incliscrirainalc slaughter of Dervish wounded mover had taken; place before, and ho did not btliovo it bad taken place this time. 01 course, the; suggestion tnab the Sirdar sanctioned the slaughter 01 wounded was too ridiculous to contradict. He saw everything in tho Atbara fight, and was able'to deny that there had been wair on slaughter of wounded there. Wounded Dorvisitors were killed there, but end, because they, lying in trenches, continued to cut; thrust, or shoot at, our soldiers,, who charged'oyer them. The lecturci's warm defence ,of British soldier’s v/fif loudly applauded by an enthusiastic gathering,..;,; "’he Rome correspondent of the “ D:d,. News” says that independent and valuable testimony ns to the baselessness r,i the charges against the ~.rdnr and thy Anglo-Egyptiau troops at Omdurman is, given in the''report of iuajor Caldera-iv Italian military attache, now aide- J<>camp to King Humbert, who followed the ' campaign against the Dervishers. In hi--deseription of the battle and the subsc,' quont occupation of Omdurman he bad words of praise for the restraint exercised by the’Anglo-Egyptians notwitbstand ng the.heat of victory and continuouapro ;<> cation from; the enemy. He also minulel-. described the [arrangements made B" headquarters before, during, and after th', battle for the \protection of non-com tmtants, and the safety of the xvoundei; , where possible,.j