Treatment of Wounded

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 8407, 5 January 1899, Page 4

Treatment of Wounded

Dervishes. * The acclamations which greeted the Sirdar on his return to England did nob quite drown the small voice of criticism. Like every otherprominent man, Lord Kitchener has his detractors, and these settled down \ipon statements made by one or two war correspondents as to his methods of warfare, with the object of showing that he not only permitted the slaughter of ■wounded Dervishes on the field of Onidurman, or Khartoum, as the battle is ollicially called, hut that companies were actually detached from various En 'lish, Egyptian, and Soudanese regiments for this very purpose. A paper called " Concord " printed six questions, by which these things were practically charged against Lord Kitchener by inference. There certainly appeared some ground for the belief that wounded Arabs were deliberately killed during the recent campaign. The correspondents of the Standard and Manchester Guardian both stated that this did take place ; the speei.il artist of the Graphic had a picture entitled "The Dark Side of Campaigning in the Soudan: Despatching Wounded Dervishes," in which were shown a file of Egyptian soldiers headed by an English officer, with uplifted revolver, while in the foreground three other Egyptian soldiers were making an end of four prostrate Dervishes. One of the correspondents, who lost his life in the Soudan, in writing ou this painful subject, asserted that ths black troops who were sent ahead to secure a safe passage for the advance of the army across the battlelield shot so recklessly that at least four British soldiers were wounded by shots meant for wounded Dervishes. The charge against the Sirdar's character as a British olficer was so serious that the Daily News despatched an experienced war correspondent, Air H. S. Pearse, to interview him. Lord Kitchener dee'ared that no flanking parties were told off at Omdurman to search the ground for possible lurking enemies, and no companies of any troops were detached iron) their mainbodies for any purpose whatever. It w T as unfortunately true that wounded Arabs were left to die on the field in thousands, but unless the English and Egyptian surgeons had left their own men to look after the enemy this could not have been avoided. Yet, \here are now in the military hospitals at Omdurman between six and seven thousand Dervishes who are being carefully treated. It iB quite possible that straggling groups of soldiers on the field may have had to fire at wounded Dervishes who attacked them, but that would only be d&ne in self-defence. MrPearae himself denies most strongly the assertion of a writer in the Saturday Review to the effect that in the campaign of 1885 "parties of English soldiers, commanded by Eng'ish officers, used to go out to kill the wounded. One private prodded the helpless body between the shoulders with his bayonet. If there waa no movement the party went on ; if the Dervish proved alive and squirmed, auother private instantly blew his brains out. There are dozens of men like the writer of this article who knew that these things happened — because we were there and saw them." Air Pearse, as one who saw everything of importance in that campaign, absolutely contradicts this shocking statement. The truth, so far as we can make out, seems to he that the correspondents have inistakea solitary instances of the shooting in self-defence of wounded men, for incidents in an organised system. Even these instances would not have occurred were it not for the Dervish's inveterate hate of his conqueror, a feeling so iutense that he has been known to stab with his last dying effort the man who was offering him water to relieve hia deatli agony. •