TOPICS OF THE DAY.

THE RECKLESSNESS OF THE PEACE PARTY.

WE have said again and again during the war, and will say again in the strongest possible way, that per se there is nothing unpatriotic in a man, if he honestly thinks so declaring that the Boers are in the right in the present struggle and that we are in the wrong. If a man honestly and sincerely believes that his country is pursuing a cruel and unjust policy, and thereby doing a great moral wrong, it is im- possible for him not to make what protest he can. Given his views, it is the only patriotic course he can take. In the present case we may believe him to be foolish or misled, but a man is not guilty of want of patriotism because he tries to make his country do what he mistakenly thinks right.

No other position is possible in a free country where men think for themselves, and do not adopt their opinions ready-made as the result of an Imperial order. But though the man who takes the Boer side has a right to retain his own views, even when they run most counter to the immediate interests of his own country, a great respon- sibility attaches to him as regards his expression of them. Just as when a man attacks the actions of a member of his own family it is necessary for him to use great caution in regard to his actions and language, so when a man opposes his own country it behoves him to use the greatest care that he shall never employ unfair or provocative language, that he shall make no charge unless he has satisfied himself of its truth and justice, and that altogether his action shall never be irritating or inflammatory, but tend, on the contrary, to cool thinking and clear judgment. This is the temper which we ought to find, nay, which we have a right to expect, in men who take the responsibility of opposing their own country, and of incidentally giving support, encourage- ment, and so help, to the enemies of their native land,—for by the necessity of the case you cannot speak and write against your country's cause without giving such support and encouragement to the enemy. We do not say it can never be right to run the risk and take the responsibility of giving such incidental help, but we do say that it must be given with the most anxious endeavour as regards the spirit of truth and justice, and never light- heartedly, recklessly, and with an easy indifference as to the facts of the case.

Now can it be said that the Peace party have in the course of the campaign they have conducted taken the care which we have a right to expect of them ? We hold most distinctly that they have not, and that though they cannot be rightly condemned by any fair-minded man because of their opinions, but rather deserve praise for their independence and conscientiousness in maintain- ing and proclaiming an unpopular view without flinching, they must be condemned for their want of care in their way of stating their case against their countrymen, for their recklessness and intemperance of language, and for the general want of sobriety of tone and temper displayed by them. It is not by calling a general in the field who is doing his best, even if mistakenly, to serve his country in danger and difficulty," a brute "—Mr. Bryn Roberts, according to one report, actually stooped to the vulgarity of speaking of General " Brute " Hamilton —that the Peace party will make Englishmen admit that the Boers are in the right and we in the wrong. But we do not wish to recall any more of the intem- perate language used in the House of Commons or in the Press, for to do so can do no good and may do harm. We will merely ask our readers whether the language used by the admitted leaders of the Peace party—Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Mr. Bryn Roberts, to name three of them—can be described as just and temperate. But even if violent and provocative language were allowed to pass as used in the heat of the moment, what are we to say of the way in which charges of the most serious kind have been brought against our officers and men on evidence that will not bear in- vestigation? The speakers and writers of the Peace party on the platform and in the Press have urged that their countrymen in South Africa have been conducting the campaign with a savageness and brutality that deeerve to be condemned by all right-thinking men. The chief witness called to prove this was Lieutenant Morrison, a Canadian officer, and his evidence was regarded as so important that it was actually printed and circulated in leiflet form by the South African Conciliation Corn. mittee,—a body whose special raison d'être it is to supply authentic and truthful information in regard to the war. Yet now it appears that the Conciliation Committee did not at first print a true and complete version of Lieutenant Morrison's letter, but a version so garbled that the leaflet gave an entirely false impression of the officer's statement. Needless to say, the Conciliation Committee did not do the garbling, nor were they in any way cognisant that Lieutenant Morrison's letter had been garbled. We entirely exonerate them from any such accusation, as we must, of course, like- wise exonerate the Manchester Guardian and other news- papers which made use of the garbled version to support their contention that our troops were behaving with savagery. But though the Conciliation Committee and the Manchester Guardian can be entirely excused from any conscious bad faith, they cannot be exonerated from a negligence of the most deplorable kind. Lieutenant Morrison's original letter appeared in a Canadian newspaper called the Ottawa Citizen. But the Con- ciliation Committee did not reprint from that newspaper. but from a version that appeared in the Manchester Guardian, which, again, was taken from a version that appeared in the New York Sun. Possibly the Conciliation Committee may say that they thought they could not do wrong in adopting the version of a paper of such high standing as the Manchester Guardian, hut what then are we to say of the Manchester Guardian, which took its version from the New York Sun? The New York Sun is well known for its extreme anti-British sentiments, and American papers of its class are well known to "write up" a good deal of the matter that they print,—i.e., " im- prove " the things they profess to be quoting. Thus there was ample ground for treating the Sun version with caution. No doubt a newspaper cannot verify everything it quotes from other newspapers, and under ordinary circumstances the Manchester Guardian m ightwery properly have taken the risk. But we contend that they had no right to chance the New York Sun's version being correct when the quotation involved a most serious charge against British troops, and when it was priind facie unlikely to be untrue, since it in effect involved a contradiction of the statements deliberately made by men of such untarnished honour and fairness as Lord Roberts. Surely both the Manchester Guardian and the Conciliation Committee might be expected to have said : ' We will not publish charges against our countrymen on the faith of the New York Sun alone, but we will keep them back till we have obtained the paper from which the Sun professes to quote.' Unfortunately, the Manchester Guardian put its faith in the New York Sun rather than in British generals. Fortunately, however, the Daily Chronicle took the trouble to obtain the Ottawa Citizen, and then with a fairness and moderation which deserve the warmest commendation from all those who care for the good name of our soldiers, and desire to know the truth, set forth in parallel columns certain passages as they appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and in the Manchester Guardian and the leaflet of the Concilia- tion Committee. It then appeared that not only did Lieutenant Morrison not disapprove but actually approved of the policy inspiring the action of which he was a witness, but, further, that his testimony showed how extremely well our soldiers had behaved, and with what extraordinary humanity and kindness they carried out their painful orders. A very small quotation from the Daily Chronicle's parallel columns will make clear to what a doctored version of Lieutenant Morrison's letter the Manchester Guardian and the Conciliation Committee had lent themselves in their readiness to take the Boer side against their own countrymen without proper investiga- tion. Here is one extract showing the two versions :—

" It was the first touch of Kitchener's iron hand—a ter- rible thing to witness, and I don't know that I want to see another trip of the sort. It rather revolted the most of us."

"It was the first touch of Kitchener's iron hand. And we were the knuckles. It was a ter- rible thing to see, and I don't know that I want to see another trip of the sort, but we could net help approving the policy, though it rather revolted most of us to be the instruments. I ens the Artillery were esenspt 'remit"

"And so the work went on, the officers standing by, laugh-

ing at the fun their men were having. I went into a very pretty cottage standing in a rose garden on a side street. The C.M.R.s and the R.C.D.s were looting it, but really helping the woman out with her stuff more than sacking the place. The woman was quite a good-looking, ladylike person, and the house was almost luxuriously furnished. She was breathlessly busaing about, saving her valuables and superintending the salvage opera- tions. A big Dragoon would come up to her, and say in a sheepish sort of way, What you want next, lady ?' and she would tell them, and they would carry it out.

As I stood looking on she turned to me and said, 'Oh, how can you be so cruel ? ' I sym- pathised with her, arid explained it was an order, and had to be obeyed.

She was a good-looking female in distress, and had quite the dramatic style of an ill-used heroine. I certainly was sorry for her—we all were—until the house began to burn and a lot of concealed ammunition to explode and nearly killed some of our men."

Will it be believed in face of these extracts that the Daily News in its leader of Wednesday declares that the omissions "do not alter the sense of the narrative" ? We do not wish, however, to dwell any longer on the matter except to add that we think that the Manchester Guardian, while reprinting Lieutenant Morrison's letter in full, should have added some stronger expressions of regret for their share in this unfortunate transaction. We have said enough to prove our point that we had a right to expect a special prudence and exactness in men who take sides against their own country in I war, but that the Peace party, even at their best and worthiest, as in the Conciliation Committee—we have refrained from saying anything which would make the better members of the Peace party responsible for the excesses of the extreme Pro-Boers—have not, in fact, shown the care and solicitude that were imperatively demanded of them.

But the Conciliation Committee are, of course, not the only people to whom blame attaches ; the same reckless- ness, the same willingness to fasten on anything which is injurious to the cause of the British and to reject any- thing which tells against the Boers, is to be found in other quarters among the Peace party. Where could there be found a worse example of this criminal negli- gence in bringing charges which cannot be supported than that afforded by Sir Robert Reid? Last week we challenged Sir Robert Reid, now that he has publicly condemned general charges, to make good the general charge of being "very likely to be corrupt" which he brought against a part of the Unionist Press. Sir Robert Reid is, we venture to say, aware of our challenge, , but he has given no answer whatever. What is the reason for this silence ? A. very simple one. He cannot answer because he made the charge without any evidence at all. His charge was obviously a pure piece of vituperative verbiage. Of course, if he had had real grounds for thinking the Press that supported the war "very, likely to be corrupt" in part, it would have been his duty as a patriotic man to make the charge. But, as we see by his silence, he had no grounds, but branded a section of the newspaper Press of this country with the most damaging charge that could possibly be made against it out of mere recklessness and levity.

The only other possible hypothesis, and it is one which we should greatly dislike to entertain, is that Sir Robert Reid considers that accusations of corruption are very small and unimportant things,—matters which pass lightly from lip to lip without any one noticing them, and

Here is another :—

" And so the work went on, the officers standing by, laugh- ing at the costly fun the men were having.

As I stood looking, a woman, the owner of a very pretty cottage standing in a rose garden on a side street, which was being destroyed, turned to me and pathetically eve aimed, 'Oh, how can you be so cruel ? ' I sympathised with her, and ex- plained that it was an order, and had to be obeyed." therefore, even when made on evidence, are far too in- significant to be worth the worry of a newspaper corre- spondence. It is a hypothesis which, as we have just said, we shrink from ; but what else could we argue from his silence if we were to reject the notion that he spoke purely at random and without any ground for his charge ? We are aware, of course, that the Daily News has come to the help of Sir Robert Reid and defends him by a tie quo que against the Spectator, but we have not the least intention of being diverted from our demand on Sir Robert Reid by that controversial device. Even assuming that the tie quo quo of the Daily News was the most complete ever uttered, it does not in the least save Sir Robert Reid. It was Sir Robert Reid, not the Spectator, who protested against the wickedness of general charges. Since, then, Sir Robert Reid refuses to support his charge, we can only conclude that he is the most reckless of the Peace party, and responsible persons must in future remember that no weight or importance need be attached to his innuendos and accusations.