..^..1^^ ^-/'■, LI B RAR.Y OF THE U N IVERSITY or ILLINOIS TIV* THE LIBERAL LEADERS AND GENERAL ROBERTS. Towards the end of 1879 many sensational stories of allege 1 British atrocities in Afghanistan appeared in the Daily News and other Liberal papers. At Liberal meetings in all parts of the country these charges were at once taken up and repeated, General Roberts, but more especially the Home Grovernment, being held up to public obloquy as having committed and countenanced the worst of crimes. Following on these, in February last a memorial was presented to the late Prime Minister, signed hy> many influential Liberals, some of whom are now members of Her Majesty's Government, reiterating these charges, and demanding enquiry. As soon as General Eoberts could be communicated with, the Home Government asked for an explanation of the alleged severities, and as they might have expected, and did expect, received an indignant denial of the whole. Now that General Eoberts has returned to Eno-land, and is welcomed with all the distinction due to his Splen- did successes, it is thought not altogether inopportune to recall to recollection some of the slanderous state- ments made against him by Liberal statesmen, without enquiry as to their truth, or consideration for the feel- ings of a gallant British General and the soldiers under his conimand, but solely for the purpose of casting discredit on the Conservative Government, and so hastening their own return to power. It need only be added that no retractation or apology was ever publicly made, after the falsehood of the charges had been con- clusively proved. November, 1880. 2 SIR CHAELES DILKE, BART., M.P. In acknowledging a resolution passed at a meeting held in Chelsea, to protest against the execution of prisoners of war at Cabul, and forwarded to him by the Chairman, Sir Charles Dilke wrote as follows: — " 13th January, 1880. " My dear Sir, — I am amazed at the reported action of our authorities at Cabul in hanging Afghan private soldiers for fighting against us under the orders of their regimental officers at the battle of Char-Asiab, and if no one else does so I will call the attention of Parliament to the matter. A denial which appeared in the Renter's telegram of Saturday's paper is so worded as to seem to cover the whole ground, but I fear that it will be found that it does not apply to the executions of some 80 prisoners reported in the month of November. — Very truly yours, " CHARLES W. DILKE." "He feared that our proceedings at Cabul in November would demand enquiry, and he should certainly express his opinion in the House upon the hanging of Afghan private soldiers for having, by the orders of their regimental officers, fought against us at Char-Asiab." (Cheers.) — Extract from Speech, February 2, 1880. THE RiaHT HON. W. E. FORSTER, M.P. " We must have some defence and some explanation from the Grovernment- -for none has yet been made by any of the Ministers — of the manner in which they have carried on the war in Afghanistan. (Loud cheers.) This question demands an answer. (Hear, hear.) Why have prisoners of war been hanged ? (Cheers.) Why was one of the principal Mussulman priests hanged ? Is it true that villages have been burned because the villagers gave refuge to fugitive soldiers ? Now, it concerns not merely \ J the cause of humanity, but the good name of England, that there should be answers to these questions. (Hear hear, and cheers.) There has been no self-defence or explanation by any member of the Grovernment ; indeed, there has been hardly any attempt at defence by any of their supporters in the press. Some explanation was given, or attempted to be given, with regard to some 14 or 15 men who were hanged a few weeks ago — passing over the fact that 40 or 50 men had been hanged, about whom no explanation or defence had been given. (Hear, hear.) So far as we see at present, they were hanged not because they had broken the rules of war, but because they were rebels. Eebels to whom ? Not to the British Government ; but rebels to the man whom we are now treating as a traitor, and regarding whom those soldiers who are left, who were companions of these people, are now saying they will go on fighting us unless he is restored to power. (A laugh.) But supposing that they were rebels to this man, what right has our General or our Viceroy, or our Government, to make English officers the Ameer's hangmen ? (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Now, I dare say some of you remeniber when the Russians helped the Austrians to put down the Hungarians, many of us were indignant, and public opinion throughout Europe was indignant, but at any rate these Russians — bad though they may be — left the Austrians to do the hanging for themselves. (Hear, hear.) It may turn out after all that there is an answer to these charges. It may turn out that the facts have been misstated or exaggerated ; but if not — notwith- standing our sympathy with our troops — notwithstanding our admiration for the gallantry of Sir Frederick Roberts — that General cannot be acquitted from blame if he ordered these executions. (Hear, hear.) But let us be quite sure that he, after all, is the only person to blame or the most to blame. His position was a very difficult one — a most hard task to perform. No doubt the soldiers he had to lead and keep in order were naturally enraged at the atrocities that had been committed, and at the murder of our Envoy. But the Government at home and the Grovernment in India had no such excuse. This also may admit of explanation, but, so far as I can see at present, the Government had plenty of time to warn Sir Frederick Koberts that these men ought not to be treated as rebels. His despatch calling them rebels came here one day, and the execution was not for many days afterwards ; and more than that, so far as I can see the first batch of men were hanged, and news came to England of their being hanged in plenty of time to stop that large number of 40 being hanged afterwards." (Cheers.) — Extract from a Speech at Otley, Jan. 30, 1880. THE EIGHT. HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. " We have shivered the country into fragments ; we have hanged men ignominiously as rebels — how many has not yet been told — for no other crime than that of defending their country. We have burned villages and driven women and children out to starve in the cold and snows of winter." — Extract from a letter to Mr. W. Rathbone, Feb, 2, 1880, written for the purpose of influencing the pending election for Liverpool, which resulted in the triumphant return of the Conservative candidate. MEMOKIAL TO LORD BEACONSFIELD. The following memorial was forwarded to the late Prime Minister by Sir Arthur Hobhouse on behalf of the signatories : — " My Lord, — We have heard with surprise and grief the account of certain acts committed by the British authorities in Afghanistan, which we believe to be con- trary to the practices of civilized warfare, and certain to be followed by disaster and dishonour. In proclaiming that all who opposed the British forces would be treated as rebels, that those who had instigated the resistance would be punished without mercy, and in offering rewards for any person w^ho had fought against his troops, the Greneral in command took a course which cannot be justified either by public law or by the customs of civilized armies in the field. A national resistance to invasion cannot with justice be converted into mutiny and insurrection by a proclamation of the invaders ; much more so when the invaders have themselves destroyed such government and organization as previously existed in the country. We make no reference to any- thing that has been done during actual operations in the field, or to the execution of those who were fairly convicted of murder ; but we desire to point out how grave a thing it is that soldiers on a campaign should deliberately put their prisoners to death on political grounds, and on a technical charge of rebellion. It appears that the General in command, having obtained possession of Cabul and the territory round it, instituted a systematic search, not only for those who had been accomplices in the attack on the British Envoy, but for those who had taken an active part in the defence of their country. The accounts published under a strict military censorship inform us that in a series of public executions a considerable number of Afghans have been hung by the orders of British officers, with no military object, but as a measure of political vengeance. Against some of these, we are told, there was evidence that they had a share in the attack on the Envoy ; others, and among them a chief priest, were put to death on the general ground of having fought in the enemy's ranks, or having been prominent in the defence. These execu- tions took place at a time when there was no actual resistance in arms ; those executed were prisoners, either previously taken in fight, or arrested in their homes. In some cases at least, men were hung on the spot on the i6 sole evidence that their names were found on the lists of particular regiments. We are told that after the bloody combats of December, the Greneral, on retaking Cabul, returned to the system of hanging prisoners on political, as distinct from military, grounds. A pardon has now been proclaimed ; but this pardon rests on the principle that those who defend their country from invasion are committing a crime. And it reserves the leaders of that defence for special punishment. Such proceedings are in violation of the practices of civilized warfare. They treat the invasion of an independent nation as if it were the sanguinary repression of a domestic insurrection. They have inflamed the hostility of the Afghan people, and they must make it permanent. We ask Her Majesty's Grovernment to institute an enquiry into acts which affect the honour of the nation, of the army, and of the Sovereign." Among the signatories are the DuKE OF West- minster, the Bishops of Oxford and Exeter, Sir Arthur Hobhouse, K.C.S.I., Sir T. Fowell Buxton, Sir Charles E. Trevelyan, Mr. S. Morley, M.P., the Hon. andKev. W.H. Fremantle, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain M.P., Mr. Frederic Harrison, Sir John F. Clark, Mr. J. A. Froude, Mr. E. S. Beesly, Mr. Gr. Howard, M.P., Mr. John Morley, Mr. L. H. Courtney, M.P., Mr. Ashton W. Dilke, Mr. Frederick Pennington, M.P., and others. — Times, Feb. 3, 1880. EAEL GEANVILLE. " . . . A memorial has been presented to the Prime Minister, in calm and almost judicial language, denoun- cing certain acts committed by the British authorities in Afghanistan contrary to the laws of civilized warfare, and certain to be followed by disgrace and dishonour, and ask- ing for an enquiry." —Extract froyn Speech in the House of Lords, Feb, 5, 1880. THE ANSWER. GENEKAL SIR F. S. ROBERTS. "Cabul, Wednesday. "No one executed unless convicted of attack on Residency. No soldiers sliot for fighting against us. Full explanation submitted to Grovernment, which I am confident will be considered satisfactory." -Cop^/ of Telegram, Feb. 4, 1880. " With regard to the burning of Afghan bodies at the battle of Char-Asiab * * * * the act was committed in the rear of the troops engaged by two or three G-hoorkas * * * no blame* for the act in question can be attached to any officer of the force under my command. * * * Every consideration has been shown to the wounded and dead, inasmuch as they have been treated as if they were our own soldiers, and after Char-Asiab some of the wounded Afghans were taken into hospital and placed alongside of our own wounded men. * * * As to men being hanged for the simple fact of their having fought against us, such was not the case. * * * * As to prisoners taken in fight being shot, such is totally devoid of truth. (Cheers.) * * * Our rule from the first has been extraordinarily mild and lenient. No harsh measures of any kind have been adop- ted. * * * Since our arrival there had not been a single complaint against a European soldier. — Extracts from letter read by Lord Granbrook in the House of Lords, Feb, 13, 1880. 8 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD. " My answer to the Afghan memorial, imputing the most criminal and cruel conduct to the British soldiers engaged out there, was a request that the memorialists would furnish me with the documents on which they founded their allegations. (Hear, hear.) In no instance have I been supplied with any such docu- ments. There is not, in short, the slightest documentary evidence m support of this charge of cruelty. " One person accused of having acted with unnecessary cruelty is Sir F. Roberts. Now, I do not know Sir F. Roberts except hy his public conduct ; but no one can, I believe, deny his great skill and bravery as an officer, and as a rule you will not find that those who are brave are cruel. (Hear, hear.) I may add that I mentioned the subject to a person who has a very accurate know- ledge of Sir F. Roberts's character, and asked him what sort of a man he was, and whether he was a man who would be likely to act in his position with extreme harshness. The reply was, ' He is one of the most merciful men I ever met.' (Hear, hear.) Yet this is the manner in which an officer of great skill in his profession, and with a tremendous military responsibility resting upon his shoulders, is treated by some of his countrymen, without the slightest information to justify a single statement made by those who signed the Afghan memorial. (Hear, hear.) The Grovernment have, of course, taken steps to ascertain the truth in this matter ; but it is a very disagreeable thing to institute such en- quiries with regard to such a man as Sir F. Roberts. (Hear, hear.) In making the enquiry I, however, ex- pressed my disbelief in those allegations, and they will, I have no doubt before long, be stigmatized and for- gotten." (Hear, hear.) — Extracts from Speech in the House of Lords, Feb. 5, 1880. Vr^-m :^ :;:'%F'* M> £' •%w|^ w 9.: ^^^ !lf^ ^1 '■^^'^^.C'^ ^% O ^