A SOLDIER'S HONOUR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15098, 22 March 1911, Page 4

A SOLDIER'S HONOUR.

ALLEGED COWARDICE.

(Fbcu Odii Own Coehespoxdent.) LONDON, February 3.

Mr L. S. Amery, who will he well reni(«nber«d by the delegates attending the Imperial Press C'onfeience in l£Od, is the defendant in an important action in the law court?. Mr Amery edited The Times " History of the South African War," has been on the literary staff of The Times, and hae three times 6tocd as a Conservative candidate— iv&ca at Woiverhampton and once at Bow and Bromley. Tho action is brought by ex-Sergeant-major Bobort Edmondson, of Hammersmith, who contends that Mr Amery has accused him of cowardice during an engagement in the South African War. Mr Edmondson was formerly in the Lancers, but retired, 'and then gave up a good civil appointment to volunteer' for tho war.

In the " History of the War" this particular incident was referred to, but- no names mentioned, though Mt Edmondson regarded it as an attack upon him. During the WolverhamptoD election of January, 1910, Mr Edmondson wrote letters to the local press attacking Mr Amery, who replied :—

Now for Mr Edmondson. On Jnne 24, 1900, an engagement took place at Lilliefontein, in the Orange Free State. During the action a email party of yeomanry disgraced themselves by running away, without drawing rein for nearly twenty miles. In consequence of this the sergeantmajor in command of the party was re-

moved from his position. This was Mr

Edmondson. By these words, Mr Edmondson contended, Mr Amery imputed that he had shown cowardice in the of the enemy, and had rendered himself liable to degradation, death, or other punishment. Mr Amery's defence was , that the statement was true.

Mr Tim Healy, the brilliant Irish K.C., said it was a meet serious libel. "The party which Mr Edmondson, as non-dom-missioned officer, was in charge of, originally consisted of Eeveral hundred men, but by wounds, death, and sicklies they had been cut down to something like half their strength. General GrenfeU'e crders were to make a march and cut off and capture a Boer laager which was somewhere in the hills. The essence 'of the march was secrecy and speed. General Grenfell had under him on the march 7CO nien and two guns. They'arrived in proximity to the Boer laager, and in the fighting Mr Edmondson and a small party were isolated. The party took shelter in a farmhouse, but were compelled to retire, and after making two more stands reached Ventereburg, a British post 20 miles away. If they had surrendered or been captured, wliat would their officers have thought, and what would have been the view of the people in this country? " Mr Edmondson was foolish 'enough to complain of Uie disposition -of the officer in command on the night of the'surprise— not Colonel Mildmay. What he said was reduced to writing and signed. On that report Colonel Sitwell, who was in charge at Venterebarg, was ordered to place the whole of the party under arrest. The matter was eventually referred to London, and Lord Roberts ordered Mr Edmondson to be stripped of the stripes he had gallantly borne for nine years, and reduced to the ranks. If Mr Edmondson had played the part of a coward, neither the British Army nor any other army was the place for him; his portion was six feet of earth in South Africa. I ask the jury to conclude that Lord Roberts did not find him guilty of cowardice. Mr Edmondson determined to bring the matter to a head, and he faid : ' I refuse to obey orders unices I am tried.' The Government, instead of punishing him, gave him a pass and eent him/Home. They wanted no inquiry."

Mr Edmondson gave evidence supporting his counsel's statement. Plaintiff was cross-examined by Mr F. E. Smith, K.C., who read a letter from Lord Roberts to Mr Amery. It began: "My dear Amery," and the first part of it expre/sed regret that Mr Amery was being troubled by "misleading statements" made by ex-Squadron-sergeant-major Edmondoon, Lord Roberts defended Mr Amery'e comments, in hie history on Spion Kop, and his letter ended thus,: Unless I am mistaken, ex-Squadron-cergeant-major Edmondson is tho man who, at the head of asmall party of yeomanry, arrived at Ventersburg on the •25th June, 1900, with a story that they were the sole survivors of a force which had been cut up near Senekal, tho truth being that, with the exception of the ex-sergeant-majpr and his companions, _;. the force had fought well and held its own. Edmondson was placed undel arrest, cent to England, and his services dispensed, with. —Believe me, yours siineercJy, Roberts. Mr Edmondson stated, during his examination by Mr Healey, that when ho and his party retired before the superior Boer force they took refuge in a kraal and afterwards made their way to Ventea'Sburg, where he made a statement to the officer in command and signed it. Mr Healy asked for this statement to be produced.

Sir Edward Ward, of the War Office, went into the witness box and stated that it was not considered in tlie public interest that this document ci , any others referring to the case should be produced. Mr I. E. Smith also cross-examined tho plaintiff with reference to certain statements made in his book entitled " Is a Soldier's Life worth Living?" 'One'passage read : — When Lord Roberts was in South Africa his wife and two daughters paid him a visit, and when they went -up country, from Capetown to Pretoria, all the traffic , was stopped, and they travelled in a special eakon carriage. Who paid for it? Why, the working class of this country. Whom do you suppose paid? Lord Roberts? The arrangements aleo right along hundreds of miles of rail were on an elaborate scale. Guards of honour here, and guards of honour there. A special time-table of rea-green, with gold lettering, was issued to the many station officials Tight along the line. What was Tommy's wife doing, you ask? Probably etarving in England." In a letter which,Edmondson had sent to Sir F. Maurice, editor of the official history of the , war, he asked for his construction to be placed on the Lilliefontein incident, and said if this w-ore not done he would retaliate. He wrote :— Revelations will not be difficult for me. I have served fifteen years in, the army and seen a variety of disgraceful things. . . I shall publish them in a book. I shall give names and full particulars, if I am driven lo retaliation, of tho most scandalous facts I can recall to memory—there are manyj and some of them very disgraceful. I am ii- man who has been gravely injured, and I mean to ret myself right with the public,

Mr Edmondoon told the court that lio was "snffering under a great grievance" when he wrote the letter.

Mr Smith cross-examined Mr Edmondson in detail about the fight at Lilliefontein, and suggested that tho party of Boers before whom he and his men retired numbered nine, according to Hie story of a man who fell into their hands. Plaintaff, however, etuck to his estimate of a much superior force of Boere.

The case has been continued throughout the, week.

The evidemc for the plaintiff came to an end with that given by Dr A. Hurtiey, of Malvcm. who wirwd* in the Middlesex Yeomanry, ;wm] took part in Edmonds&n's retreat to Veiiloreburg. Dr Hartley was one of five brother!! who served in the war, and hfl ohtn.ir.ttl the medal. He said th'it liUlmoiirlnon behaved as a soldier, and in a cool :oid proper. , manner.' Although ii !i:« not, been stated in court yet. it i:- inviorslood that amn-.-g Captain Mi'.ikny'i fwiK was a. party of New ZeaJniK'crs.

A<kliv.|in!i' fk }»ry, Mr F, E. Smith (kec.rihoi) Mr jlilmanAauo'ti h'.icr to gir Y, Main-ice, cJit'jr of Uiu ciHsvji histwy «f tiifl war, m a bW,bna:'inj» letter, -W'. hi y&t& aUactog Mr Aawry darir.-j* tiie

election as " grossly provocative, unfair, and unscrupulous.' , "As to what occurred at Lillicfonlein, there is not a won! of truth in the whole of the story Edmondson has told as to what took place on the exposed-ground between the Boer position and the British kopje. "Edmondson was , one of tins first to got over the hill for shelter. Hβ did not, stay to collect stragglers. For .from taking part in the gallant recistanco that the force made, he was found many milts away, and he invented the story of tho troops being out' of sight. Hβ was seen renaming by an officer of Brabant's Horse, and there was no conceivable justification for it." Mr Smith stated that Sadd was sent to tell the party to join the main force. He spoke to some of them, and was returning, when he was captured by a party of nine Boers. That was the party which Edmcndam said numbered 200. . If Edmondson hod marched back to the main force he could have broken up this Boer party. Nearly all the men, except JSdmontteon's party, rejoined the main force. Edmondson told the men who joined him that the force had been cut up, and he infected them with his own despair. In conclusion, Mr Smith eaid that EdmondsDii's story was mere fabrication. Lord Roberts, who is now in his 79th year, fated the cross-examination of Mr flealy with grim determination, and resolutely declined to answer questions which he considered trenched on the privilege of the War-Office as a Government department. He slated that the reason Edmondson was reduced to the ranks was that he misbehaved himself by leaving the field of battle. He stated that it, was untrue, as Edmondson alleged that he was degraded on the secret reports of officers on whoso competence he had reflected. " The question never cam© before -me officially," he said, " during the time I was in South Africa. The first time I saw the papers, was when I was Com-mander-in-chief in this country. I then had before me the opinion formedby the general commanding at Kropnstad—who ordered the court of inquiry—General William Knox. General Enox's opinion was eiidcVsod by Sir Leslie Bundle, who commanded the division in. which Kroonstad was situated. These two officers' opinions were endorsed by' Lord Kitchener, who was then Commander-in-chief in South Africa. When the papers reached the War Office they were considered, a,s is the custom, by the adjutant-general, Sir Evelyn Weed, who expressed himself as of the same opinion as the three officers I have mentisned. I then went through t!:e whole case myself carefully, and I came to tho conclusion that the plaintiff had misbehaved himself before the enemy, and I directed he. should bo reduced to tho ranks." Mr Justice Phillimoro asked the reason why Edmondson was reduced, and Lord Roberts replied: "Misbehaving by leaving the field of battle." Edmondson's explanation, he said, was inadequate. Ho formed the opinion that Edmondson's statement to Colonel Sitwell, when he reached Ventersburg. was a misstatement. He thought that there would not have been sufficient risk in Edmondson's party attempting to rejoin the main body to justify them in net doiing so. Sergeant Morley, Chief Instructor at Oxford University Gymnasium, tcokpart in the ride to Ventersburg, having met Edmondson, who ordered him to fall in.. He expressed the opinion at the time that Edmondson was a coward, and he declared that on previous occasions ■ ho had seen Edmondson running away. Colonel Mildmay, M.P., and other officers and men of the 35th Company Middlesex Imperial yeomanry, gave their account of the surprise attack by the Boers in the early morning of June 24, 1990.

Sergeant G. Bullock, formerly of tho Scots Greys, said that when the order came to go to the hills he proceeded there, and found Sergeant Morley, whose horse had bolted. He got one "for him, and returned with it, when Edmondson came up and said, " Come on." "Where to?" he asked, and Edmondeon replied, " Out of this." He remarked that the British guns were firing, and that that was where they should be. Edmondson replied, "No," and added either "They are cut up" or "They will be cut up." Ho then saw Edmondson go further on and move away with others. He and another man then returned to the guns-, Colonel Mildmay, who was captain of the company at the time, said there was no reason why Edmondson should not have joined the main force.

Mr Amery stated that, although not tho actual writer of the passage in The Times History of the War referring to Mr Edmondson, he took, responsibility for it as general editor. He passed through Venteisbnrg Road about the time of the Lillicfontein incident, being then, on the staff of The Times, and oollecting materials for his history. During the Wolverhampton election he was told of the damage which was being done to his candidiatui'd by the Jfclttcr Edmondson wrote, and he then wrote the reply which was tho subject of the action.

"So that, after all, you scored" Mr Healy suggested, referring to the letter from Lord. Roberts, which Mr Amery circulated. '"' You , took it pretty heavily out of Mr Edmondeon?".

" No," said Mr Amory, " I don't believe even with Lord Roberta's letter I altogether counteracted the effect of Mr Edmondson's unfair attack on me." Ho added that Mr Edmonton accused him oi having " damnably libelled " the avmy. You will admit that you had spoken rather severely of some of them in your book?—My history was written in. the spirit of criticism, and I believe impartial criticism.

Mr Healy read extracts from The Times History, and suggested that Mr Amery had written much severer comments on, the army than the plaintiff had in his book. Mr Amery replied that his book was a perfectly honest book. Mr Healy (quoting): "The deadening influence of the British Army and makebelieve manoeuvres with the- absence of all that corresponds to the scientific study of war." You wrote.that?—Yes, I consider that manoeuvres before the war were make-believe. Counsel α-ead extracts in which General Buller was described ae " baffled, bewildered, and at times unnerved by the responsibility tkruct upon him." Mr Amery: That, many years oJ study, was my conclusion of General Buller. Mr Healy: Did you charge almost ©very' senior office- with the absence of the figthiiig instinct?—l considered that it was absent.

Having attacked general officers, it would not trouble you to attack a bct-gcant-nwjor. Did you re fa- to any intellectual trend on the p;irt of the officers of the army?—l did comment etrongly upon it.

VERDICT FOR MR AMERY. Fobrua-.y 30.

After a. tiia.l lasting eight d n ys, tho tuition ended in a verdict being given for the defendant.

In summing npj tho Judge said that the defendant had Ho satisfy tho jury th'.t what he said was true in substance and in fact. If, ho failed l:e had.;to pay damages. The jury must judge the matte entirely on the evidence zs to whelliev the pliiintiff was gailty of cowardice or not. The defendant had takon upon hitnee'f the burdsn of proving that during tho engagement a sma'l party of Yeomanry under Edmondson's ommand disgrac d itself by running away withuit drawing rein for more than 20 mi'es. ■ After an absence of over an hour the jury came into mini, but they had not agreed upon a. verdict.

Th« Judge: A tomnniniciition has raicbcd me that you want the rowswper containing the alleged libel—you want to know exactly what the libel is?—Tho Foreman : Yes.

The Judge then read the whole of Mr A'licry's letter, laying emphasis npsn the fallowing pueage :—" A small paity of Yeomanry disgraced themselves by running away without drawing rein for nearly 20 miles, in consequence of which the snrß-:anl-majn.r in command \va.s removo.l lromhiepa<;t." The Judfp added :" Ycu luive been som-s tune. away. I.s thoro any otlwr point on which I can help you?" A Juror : lias the word " oawarcl " b«en u.«cd of the plaintiff by Mr Amery?

The Judge : No, he has used the worde j; tovo road, and no dtfty*- Th«y may

wean coward, but you mutt div.w your own cDiK'lusion irom then. The judge then ags.in'read the words,, adding that. cometiin«i when a, jury did net agree it wiifi not a bad thing to tit down and read through the evidence.

The jm-y again retired, but later i-e----t;nnsd again, into court alter an absico of. over an hour without having agreed upon it verdict.

Ths Judge said that if they would allow him it was possible ho might cssist thim to come ts a conclusion, and he then addressed the jury on come of the facts of the caeo.

Again the jury corsu'Ud. Amd .without leaving the box returned ;■, verdict for the defendant.

Mr Hoaly: I respectfully a-k your Lordship to e?k the jirry whether they find the words complained of were true or not.

The Judge: I shall do no ouch thing. 1 have ta!d them several times that the defendant had to enbst.'.ntiate and pvo\o what he had p!e:ided. He then gave judgment for the defendxint, with costs.