THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR.
WE say deliberately and without fear of contra- diction that there never was a war conducted with so much humanity as that now being waged in South Africa. The conduct of both officers and men has been beyond all praise, as it is also beyond all prece- dent, not merely in action in the field, but as regards behaviour towards the women of the enemy. Though a thousand watchful observers have turned their eyes on the Orange Colony and the Transvaal, ready to seize on the smallest example of wrongdoing and to bring it to light, not a single well-authenticated case of (storage by our soldiers on women has as yet been produced. The deep hatred of the Boer, the malice of the foreign observer, and the frenzied sentimentality of the Peale party here have each and all been unable to show that the war has been disgraced by those acts of devilish barbarity which have almost always accompanied war before. In truth, what the war has been remarkable for has been, not its savagery, but its good conduct. While there have been no properly authenticated stories of evil, there have been number- less true accounts of the kindliness and humanity of our troops. Take the incident of Corporal Dad's behaviour to the prisoners under his charge described in
Tnursday's Daily The Corporal in the course of his duty had a party of Boers, men and women, under his charge. He was escorting them from Bethlehem to Harrismith. When he left them his prisoners gave him a written testimonial extolling "the careful and patient attention" shown during the journey by him and his men, Other examples of kindliness are perpetually being re- -0
p rted—s o me are mentioned in a letter in our columns to-day—for even the sense of weariness caused by the pro- longation of the war does not seem to have spoiled the fine temper of our men. But though the conduct of this war is thus a matter for the most legitimate pride and congratulation, and though our officers and men have set an example to the whole world, one might imagine from the debate on the farm burning which took place this week in Parliament that our troops had behaved like devils rather than men, and that elle nation had been covered by disgrace owing to the behaviour of its soldiers. From the tone of Mr. John Dillon's speech any one ignorant of the facts would think that Lord Kitchener was a kind of Alva, and that he found in his troops instruments willing and eager for the execution of his infernal policy.
We are not sure whether it can ever be worth while to treat seriously allegations made by Mr. Dillon in debate. Still, We may mention twO points shortly. Mr Dillon and his supporters are terribly shocked because we do not treat the wives and families of men who are in arms against us quite as well as we treat those whose husbands have laid down their arms, and so are, in fact, co. operating with us in the work of putting an end to the war. Mr. Dillon apparently considers that this is contrary to the usages of civilised war. -Can he produce any case in which a general in the field allowed the men fighting against him to.send their women and children to him for safe keeping, and then gave them, we will not say half rations, but any rations at all? We are glad that Lord Kitchener did supply the half rations, but he would, according to the rules of war, have been justified in re- fusing any help to the families of men on commando. We do not want our officers to imitate General Sheridan's action and declare that they will leave the women and children of the enemy nothing but their eyes to weep with, but to speak of him as a cruel tyrant because he prevented them from starving by giving them half rations is a gross absurdity. If it could be shown that owing to their only having half instead of whole rations women and children haddied of stervetioii, there would be something in his plea. But that has not been shown, though it has been stated that during the earlier part of the war the women. who were supplied with full rations sent 'half their supplies to the men who were fighting against us. The other point which We desire to notice is M.r.Dillon's reference to thecharge that Lord Kitchener issued instructions to his soldiers to take no prisoners. The evidence, said Mr. Dillon, was sufficient to demand invest.gation. "The charge had been made in an anonymous letter." Mr. Dillon's belief in the sanctity of an anonymous letter is delightful. One of his country- men is said to have declared, with a feeling of awe, that a certain communication received by him was "the most anonymous letter he had ever seen," and apparently Mr. Delon has a similar reverence for the letter in regard to Lord Kitchener. It is so absolutely anonymous that it must be true. The letters from two or three privates who do sign their names to whom Mr. Dillon also alludes leave nil quite as cold as the anonymous letter. Privates in the field are by no meanadisi [whiled to make theflesh of their relatives at home creep, and to do so they are quite willing to use any camp rumour that comes handy. There are quidnuncs in the ranks as in the clubs, and when one of them says: 'You keep your eye on Kitchener, my boy. I knew him in Egypt, and there won't be many priatuers taken now, I can tell you,' one.may be pretty sure that this sage piece of information will be used to enliven a home letter. Again, the soldier, especially if he be an Irishman, often finds it quite impossible to resist the temptation of pulling the leg of the civilian who is curious about the bloody deeds ot war. There was an excellent story going about Pre- toria lately of a civilian who wished to obtain a "stream of facts " in regard to the treatment accorded by us to the Boer prisoners. Accordingly he tried to obtain some first. hand information from an Irish soldier who formed part Of a prison guard. He began by asking how many prisoners there were in the part cular camp. The gallant Irishman was of course equal to the occasion. He at once assured the inquirer that there were twenty less than the day before, and for this reason. A squad of twenty hed on the previous day been taken down to bathe and had there and then been to a man bayoneted in the water in order "to teach 'em a lesson." No, the soldier bad not actually been there, but one of his friends had, and the inquirer might be sure it was perfectly true. We are waiting for a question to be asked in Parliament as to this new example of Kitchener's iron hand. It would farm a. fine subject for a rhetorical question by Mr. Lloyd. George or Mr. Bryn Roberts. A telling comparison might be made between Lord Kitchener and Herod, who had his brother-in-law drowned while bathing.— But Herod at least retrained from mangling his victims with the bey onet.
Mr. Brodrick's answer in regard to the allegations against Lord littcherier and our soldiers was all that could be desired. It showed clearly the indignation that every fair-minded man must feel at these false and wanton charges. Mr. Brodrick met theu3 in the way they ought to be met,—by the perfectly true boast that instead of having anything to be ashamed IA, "we have a. right to be proud of the humanity of our officers." We have only one more Word to say. in regard to this question of whether the war has been barbarously or humanely conducted. The Liberal chiefs did not, of course, give Mr. Dillon any active support or encouragement, but we cannot help wish- ing that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in his capacity of leader of the Opposition, had spoken out plainly and denounced the tactics of those who were blackening by their veiled charges, their inferences, and their innuendos the character of our officers and soldiers. Surely he might have spared a word or two of denunciation for such a speech as that of Mr. Dillon. There is a fine story of Sheil hearing in the course of a debate in the House of Commons that certain opprobrious reflections had been made in the House of Lords in regard to Irish- men. Sheil sprang to his feet with the exclamation: "Did Arthur Wellesley bear that ?" and went on to ask how the Duke could have endured to hear such things said of his countrymen, and of the men who had fought under him in the Peninsula. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman is not the Duke of Wellington, but he has been Secretary of State for War, and he is the reprea.ntative of the Liberal party. One may then fairly ask.—How is it possible that the leader of the Liberals could have heard Mr. DilInn's subtle and surreptitious attempt to poison the good name of the British Army without rising in indignant protest, and defending the officers and men of the national force, over which he once held the final and supreme control ? The leader of the Opposition cannot, we know, be always dissenting from the views of his allies, but here, at least, was an occasion when party tactics should have given way to higher considerations.
Previous page
