§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, How it was that the British Resident at Pretoria had not reported the facts mentioned in the newspaper "De Volksstem," Pretoria, 2nd December 1882, of the great destruction of Kaffirs in a cave by dynamite during an attack on the Chief Mapoch towards the end of November last This Chief Mapoch had rendered important service to Lord Wolseley in his campaign against Secocoeni. A letter published in the Volksstem, dated Middleburg, November 27, stated that it was supposed that as many as 50 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 had 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 not help thinking that it was unfortunate that the noble Earl had recently said that he saw little difference be- 1715 tween the use of gunpowder and dynamite in military operations. 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 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 Pelissier never recovered from his act of destroying men, women, 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 were legitimate in warfare; for though the Brussels Conference on the laws of war had not succeeded in its objects, some of which would have been to the advantage of the great and the disadvantage of small States, yet a general consensus had been established against using explosive bullets or poisoning wells. If the use of dynamite were to be tolerated in warfare, especially for 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 Nihilist 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 Boers 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 the 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 if dynamite be issued to the Army, it be only used for legitimate purposes, and not as recently used by the Boers.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had not thought that the very obvious and harmless remark which he had made 1716 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 previous utterances, for they required no explanation, 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 in their operations against Mapoch. 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 carried on he did not see that the use of dynamite was necessarily more objectionable than the use of gunpowder. He still was of that opinion. Mining, he presumed, was an ordinary operation of war; and it was impossible to draw any moral distinction between explosions produced by dynamite and by gunpowder. He spoke, however, only of the legitimate operations of war, and in answer to a Question in which not one word was said of the massacre of women and children and non-combatants. The remark had simply been evoked by the fact that the Question put by his noble Friend on the occasion to which he referred seemed to assume that the use of dynamite in war was not permissible. With respect to the allegation now made by his noble Friend on the authority of a Dutch paper, he could only say that he had again searched through the Papers at the Colonial Office in order to see whether he had been strictly accurate in saying that they had no record of any such transactions as those referred to, and he found that they had no such record. But, as the matter had been alluded to in both Houses of Parliament, he had telegraphed to the Cape inquiring whether anything was known on the subject by the authorities there; and until some information was received that could be relied upon, he thought it would be well that their Lordships should suspend their judgment as to the truth of the allegation. He had only to add that it was not in his power to issue instructions to British officers as to the use of dynamite in warfare; but he was confident that British officers would never conduct their operations so as to inflict unnecessary suffering.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he was not going to interpose in this inquiry as to the justifiable use of explosives; but, having gone through the very un- 1717 pleasant reading of Papers relating to the Transvaal, he desired to give Notice that he should draw attention to them at an early date.