26th uly.
Recent events in South Africa together with accusations of Boec massacres of wounded at Vlakfontein, have again drawn attention to the nature of the struggle now going on. We may at once say that, taking everything into consideration, we are of Mr. Arthur Balfour's opinion, that never before has any war been so humanely carried on, and that on both sides, Boer equally with Briton. It would have been altogether mira-culeus had there been no treachery, no cruelty, no unnecessary violence on either side. When men's blood is up, when their worst passions are aroused, when they are exposed by day to the sun and by night to the frost, when everything that is possible has been done to embitter their feelings, it is but reasonable to suppose that events occur that would not have occurred under more favourable circumstances. Doubtless both sides will feel at the end of the war that they have done that they should be sorry for. But evidences of kindly treatment by Boer of Briton, and by Briton of Boer, are all too numerous for any general accusation of intentional cruelty to lie against either. In a word, humanity as been the rule, inhumanity the exception.
How careful the British have been to allow every latitude to the Boer in his heroic defence, is seen when we contrast the system now observed in South Africa with that followed by other civilised states in fighting with each other. The Germans in 1871 were quite as much, though not so long, troubled with franc-tireurs as we have been with the roving bands under De Wet and Botha. What did they do? They issued a notice that no man should be recognised as a combatant unless he could satisfy the invaders that he was a French soldier who had been called out and borne on the lists of a corps organised in regular military fashion that the order came from a legal authority, and that it was addressed to him personally. 'They further required that all such men should wear a uniform distinguishable at rifle range. Failing this, men found with arms and fighting in plain clothes without government authority were made liable to ten years' imprisonment or, in serious cases, to execution. There has been nothing like this in South Africa.
It has been our policy in this matter, as shown both at the Brussels Conference and at the more recent one at the Hague, to support the view of the smaller States as against that of the larger. Article 10 of the Declaration of Brussels reads thus "The population of an unoccupied territory, which, on the approach of ously to resist the invading force, without having had time to organise itself, will be treated as belligerent, respects the laws and customs of war." To this, at the Hague Conference, the representative of Great Britain tried to have added this supplement:—* Nothing in this chapter shall be considered as tending to diminish or suppress the right which belongs to the population of an invaded country to patriotically oppose the most energetic resistance to their invaders by every legitimate means."
That we have carried out this principle to its extreme limits is allowed by every unbiassed critic of the present war. Doubtful indeed is it, whether the Boers would have met with the same consideration had their opponents been of some other nation. Ever since the war, in a military sense, was practically over, we have given to roving bands of desperate men all the privileges allowed to the organised armies that met us at the beginning. But the question is coming more and more to the front. How far should this complaisance extend? [f wandering bands in forties or fifties are to be recognised as belligerents, why not bands of four and five, from which it is but a step to recognition of the single assassin or bravo? Many people are beginning to think that the limit has already been reached, that while we are, as ever, ready to meet and recognise organised bands of reasonable warlike strength, there should be no recognition of disorganised bands of robbers and murderers. American opinion is to the point in this connection:—" Men or squads of men, who commit hostilities with-and portion of the organised Bottle out commission, without being part
army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with in-permitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers—such men or squads of men are not public enemies, and therefore if captured are not entitled to the privilege of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates."
This hits the nail exactly on the head. The Boer war has degenerated very largely, if not altogether, into such operations as the American writer outlines. There are men and squads of men roving restlessly about doing whatever damage is possible. However much we may sympathise with them, we cannot dignify their acts as war. They are not "part and portion of the organised hostile army," neither do they share "continuously in the war." On the other hand, they do return at times to selves of the character and appearance of soldiers." It is hard to see therefore what further claim they can have to recognition as combat ants.
We hope and believe that the alleged inhumanity at Viakfontein will be shown to be untrue, or at any rate largely exaggerated, The Geneva Conventions of 1864 and 1868 cannot be unknown to the Boers, and though, as we have said, instances both of treachery and cruelty have undoubtedly occurred, the exhibition of kindly feelings on the part of the Boers has been too general to admit of doubt upon the humanity which characterises them asa.whole. In all probability there will be a satisfactory clearing-up of what at present appears to be a very shocking occurrence.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.