Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page









C.-B. AND THE BOERS. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman made another contribution to the war controversy at Darlington on Saturday evening, but unfortunately he cannot be congratulated either upon his method or his matter. He complained grievously that Mr. Chamberlain had made political capital out of the war, but he seemingly overlooks the obvious fact that it was he himself, the leader of the Opposi- tion, who began by attacking his own fellow- countrymen in the conduct of the war. If there had been no attacks of that description, it would not have been possible for Mr. Chamberlain or any other Minister to make political capital out of the war. If all the Opposition had followed the patriotic lead of the Liberal Imperialists, the Govern- ment could never have made political capital out of the South African struggle, because there is no difference of opinion on the broad lines of policy affecting the South African question between these two classes of states- men. Sir Henry once more repudiates having attributed misconduct to the British soldier and he explains that his notorious phrase,' Methods of barbarism applies not to our men in the held but to the Government that sent them there. It is difficult to see how this explanation betters matters, for it is equally insulting to the nation. The whole pro- ceedings," he says, were cruel, and officers and men whose military duties compelled them to give orders for and execute these acts loathed the acts they had to carry om." This assertion is made in Sir Henry's characteristically reckless style, without a particle of evidence in corroboration. It is either a wretched generalism or a disgraceful slander upon his fellow-countrymen. It is a generalism to say that this war, like all war* is cruel," and that officers and men in thei r calmer moments probably loathe the acts which their duty compels them to perform The Duke of Wellington is reputed to have shed tears on the blood-stained field of Waterloo, when the casualty lists were being compiled after the historic fight. The Duke at that moment would very likely have assented to the proposition that war is "cruel," but his relenting mood after the battle cannot be used as an argument for saying that he and his men loathed the acts which they were obliged to execute War is a ghastly, hideous business at any time and in any country, but if there ever was a campaign conducted on humanitarian lines in the history of the world, it has been this one, so far as the British side is con- cerned. In every other war the belligerents have been expected to look after the pro- tection and the welfare of their womenkind and their children. The Boers left their women and little ones to shift for themselves, until the British in a fit of unprecedented philallthrophy established Concentration Camps, where the defenceless ones were housed and supplied with the necessaries and the luxuries of life, on a far more liberal scale than the British soldiers who were sent out to do the lighting. And yet all the return the Government get for this unexampled clemency is to be taunted with methods of when the barbarity has been wholly on the side of the enemy, who have stooped to acts of treachery that would almost put the savage to the blush. Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman, after his wild, uncorroborated assertion respecting the conduct of the war, coolly turns round and demands that Jl r. Chamberlain should prove his statement that the members of the Opposition have encouraged the Boers. It is scarcely llecesary I y for the Colonial Secretary, at this time of day, to trouble with a reply. The proof has appeared in public print time after time. It