DESTRUCTION OP KAFFIRS BY DYNAMITE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 949, 22 May 1883, Page 2

DESTRUCTION OP KAFFIRS BY DYNAMITE.

In the House of Lords, on March 15th, Lord Stanley of Alderley asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies,’ how it was that he had received no re--1 port from the British Resident: at. Pretoria of the great destruction by the Boers of Kaffirs in a cave by the use of; dynamite during an • attack on th’fe chief Mapoch, although this fact had been published in the Boer newspaper Volksstem , of the 2nd of December, 1882. This chief Mapoch, had rendered important service to Lord Wolseley in his campaign against Secocoeni. A 1 letter published An the Volksstem, dated Middleburg, November 27, stated that it was supposed that as, many as fifty Kaffirs had been killed by the explosion of the dynamite, and the fact that women and children had been blown up in an attack on the chief Mapoch bad been stated in recent telegrams. The ? Volksstem stated that the Boer, commandant who .was. directing this barbarity had been shot ’ through the head whilst looking into the cave. He could nqt help thinking that it was ' unfortunate that- the '.noble 1 earl had recently said that he saw little difference between the use of gunpowder * add 'dynamite. No doubt the noble earl had not intended more than to express his just horror of war, but what had fallen from him would be misinterpreted. There was a legitimate use and l 'an-illegitimate use of gunpowder in war; and to have blown up a cave full of men, women, and children with gunpowder would have been as bad as to have done this with dynamite. The reputation of General Pellissier never recovered from his act of destroying men, woqqen, and children in a cave in Algeria by suffocating them with smoke. The use of dynamite ought not to have received what might be represented as encouragement, because it was not true that all means of destruction are legitimate in' warfare; for though the Brussels Conference on the laws of war had ndt succeeded in its objects, some of which would have been to the advantage of the great and the disadvantage df small States, yet a general consensus had been established against using explosive bullets or poisoniffg j wells. If the use of dynamite were to be tolerated in warfare, ; especially -fpr the indiscriminate destruction of women and children as well as of combatants, men’s minds would be still more perverted, and a greater number would be found ready to join in the plots of Nihilists and Fenian miscreants. As telegrams to the Cape cost as much as 9s a word, the noble earl’s recent speech would probably have been very much cut down and. reduced perhaps to a statement that he saw no harm in the Boets using dynamite. He therefore hoped that his noble friend, the Secretary of State for the colonies, would reconsider what he had said a few days ago, and prevent the mischief which might arise from its being supposed, most certainly quite erroneously, that he was indifferent to such horrible cruelty. This question had now assumed much greater importance since tke Prime Minister’s statement that dynamite had been used in warfare by British officers in South Africa; and care should be taken by Her Majesty’s Government that it dynamite be issued to the army, it be only used for legitimate purposes, and not as recently used by the Boers. The Earl of Derby replied he had not thought that the very obvious and harmless remark which he had made would have been open to so much misconstruction. He was not sorry that the noble lord had given him the opportunity, not of explaining his preI vious utterances, but of reminding their lordships as to what he had really said. He had been questioned as to the use of dynamite by the Boers against the Kaffirs. He had answered that he had no official knowledge as to such an occurrence, and had incidentally added that if military operations were to be parried on he did not see that £he usp of dynamite was necessarily worse than the use of gunpowder. He still was of that opinion. He did not see that it was possible to establish any distinction between an explosion produced by dynamite and an explosion caused by gunpowder. Not a word had been said in the question he had been asked on the occasion to which he referred as to any injury inflicted on non-combatants.

His remark, had simply been provoked, by the fact* that his noble friend seemed to think that dynamite should , not be used in military operations. A her what had been alleged by his noble friend h£ had again made inquiry in order to ascertain whether he was correct. He had,found that he was. As the matter had been mentioned in both Houses of Parliament he had sent a telegram to inquire as to the facts* of the case. TfKhad not yet received the reply to that telegram.