HC Deb 25 February 1901 vol 89 cc1145-66
* MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the speech which he delivered on Monday night, which was characterised by an almost ferocious bitterness, hurled across the floor of this House the epithet "Pro-Boer" as a term of reproach to hon. Members sitting on this side of the House. So far as I am concerned, and the other Members who sit on these benches, the Secretary for the Colonies is welcome to call us pro-Boers. [Ministerial cries of "So you are."] I am a pro-Boer, because during the last two years I have made a careful study of the history of these people. [Ministerial laughter.] I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite who laugh have taken the slightest interest in that history, and yet it is one of the most interesting that they could find. I am convinced from the study that they have been deeply wronged for many generations by the Government of England, that they are now fighting for freedom against enormous odds, and that they are two small States fighting for their national existence against the cruel and unprovoked aggression of an Empire which is too large already to be wholesome. We Irish Members, and the Irish people for whom we speak, deeply sympathise with these two small States, who are fighting the most glorious and gallant fight which modern history has any record of, and we think it is a magnificent thing in these modern days that there exist men who are willing to risk everything and lose all for an ideal, and for liberty. For these reasons we are not ashamed to be called pro-Boers.

The other night the Secretary of State for the Colonies threw a challenge across the floor of this House, and I am glad that, speaking for the Irish party on this occasion, I am able to say that there is a party in this House who are not afraid to bring this matter to an issue. The Amendment which I propose to submit to the judgment of this House affirms two propositions: (1) That the breaches of the usages of war by the British, which have been going on for many months in South Africa, should be immediately put a stop to; and (2) that steps should be taken immediately to put an end to this miserable and scandalous war. I will take up first of all the question of breach of the usages of war. Hon. Members of this House listened the other night to one of the most powerful indictments I ever heard made in this House from the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. In the course of his speech he brought forward abundant evidence of farm burning in South Africa, which showed distinctly two things, that the farms were burnt in many instances without justification—if the excuse which had been alleged could be called justification—and that this abominable practice had been carried out in the teeth of modern usages of war upon a large and widespread scale. I listened with interest to the reply which was made to that indictment by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. What was the course adopted by the Colonial Secretary? Why he gave the go-by absolutely to this indictment, and he said that this question of the breach of the usages of war and the burning of farms in South Africa was a matter for the War Office, and was not in his Department. But that was not the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on the 7th of December last, when he went into the matter fully, and made certain statements in reference to the burning of farms. Then he stated that he had telegraphed to Lord Kitchener for full details, and he promised us that he would soon be able to lay the full details before the House. I want to know why, on the present occasion, the Secretary for the Colonies has not one word to say in answer to that indictment, and why he now finds that it is a matter for the War Office when in December last he dealt fully with the case himself?

Before I pass from that particular point I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that when we come to the speech of the Secretary of State for War, he had practically nothing to say about the burning of farms, and those terrible facts which were announced to the House in the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs remain to this hour unanswered. I am glad that an opportunity has now been afforded me of reinforcing what has been said by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and I ask the Government for an answer to that indictment, which I think we are absolutely entitled to demand. What was the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies in December last? He justified the policy of the burning of farms on the ground that the war had entered upon a guerilla stage, and inasmuch as this atrocious policy of devastating the country and burning the farms of non-combatants has been justified from the beginning upon this one plea and this one plea alone—namely, that the war had passed into a guerilla stage—I feel bound to examine that point for a few moments. For my own part, even if it was true that the war had passed into the guerilla stage, I would not admit that that was any justification for the burning of farms and the turning out of women and children homeless upon the veldt without shelter. But is there any truth in this allegation? I deny it. And I say that when it was first alleged by Lord Roberts in the month of December last it was a grotesque and absurd misrepresentation. I will quote to the House a few of the statements upon which this popular impression of the war being a guerilla warfare was based. I will quote first of all an extract from a speech made by General Sir Redvers Buller on his return to England in the month of October last. He said— Nearly the whole of the people we know as Boers have either surrendered or are pri- soners, or are doing their best to surrender. The people left in the field are either mercenaries or bandits. Those men remaining in arms are endeavouring to gain profit by remaining in arms, and are not in any sense fighting for their country. If that statement were true, what has been the justification of the burning of Boer farms from that day to this? According to Sir Redvers Buller, nearly the whole Boer army were in English prisons or doing their best to surrender, and in order to punish these few banditti and mercenaries you have been devastating the country and burning the farms of the Boers. One of the earliest statements which was made in regard to this change which was supposed to have come over the character of the war was made by Lord Roberts himself, and I will ask once more: why was the correspondence between Lord Roberts and General Botha—which took place in the month of September last and which forms one of the most important documents in connection with this war—suppressed and withheld from the country, so that, but for the enterprise of the Manchester Guardian, we should never have seen at all? And yet this despatch was one of the most important that was issued by Lord Roberts. Writing on the 2nd September, 1900, to General Botha, Lord Roberts makes use of the following words— I feel that when the war has once entered on the stage of guerilla or irregular righting I shall be neglecting my duty, besides the national interests, if I continue to allow the families of those who fought and are still fighting against us to live in the towns which are guarded by our forces. This is no longer a question of commissariat, but rather a matter of policy in order to guard ourselves against the conveying of military information to our enemies. That is about the first we heard of the war having entered upon a guerilla stage. In that letter to General Botha Lord Roberts said that he could not allow the women and children to live in the British camps, and now the women have been seized upon and dragged into British camps. Here is the answer of General Botha, and all the information that has reached us since the writing of that letter through English sources proves that in this dispute General Botha told the truth and that Lord Roberts's statement was utterly inaccurate. He says— As regards your contention that, with the exception of the burgher forces under my command, no other Boer forces should be in existence, I most strongly deny this, since our armed forces are still disposed and directed in the same manner as in the beginning of the war, and in accordance with the country's laws… Commandos should he in the field everywhere, and it naturally follows that now, as during the war, what is incumbent upon us must be done by small forces. Moreover, we have been compelled to still further scatter our commandos in order to be able to check the looting patrols under your Excellency's chief command, who scour the country to carry off cattle and provisions from the different farms. As Botha said, he was compelled to scatter still further his commandos in order, if possible, that it should be used to capture these bands, which it did on many occasions. Let me reinforce my view of the case, and the view put forward by the generalissimo of the Boer forces, from a very important British source. We were given to suppose at a very early stage of these debates that Reuter's messages, censored though they were, were not to be quoted as an authority. We had, however, a high example to the contrary given by the Secretary of State for War, who, the other night, quoted without stating its source a very defamatory statement in this House on the authority of Reuter. I have here a very important Reuter message censored by the military censor, and sent three months after Lord Roberts's statement. It appeared in The Times on 24th December, and says— It appears to be a prevalent idea that the Boer forces in the Orange River Colony now fighting against us are a number of marauding bands wandering about without aim or object except that of doing as much harm as possible with the smallest possible risk to themselves. Nothing could be more wide of the mark. De Wet has every single commando under his supervision. All his patrols and columns march and counter-march at his order. The forces under his command have been reduced by his strength of will to a properly organised army moving at his word. That is the opinion of an English correspondent given three months after Lord Roberts's statement. Let me direct attention to a still more important piece of evidence. There appeared in The Times on the 15th January a letter from Bloemfontein, signed "A Camp Follower." It was printed in large type, and everyone who knows the methods of The Times knows that that is the way in which it conveys that its correspondent is a man of weight and high standing. He asks what has been the cause of the misfortunes. Nothing else [he replies], in my humble opinion, than the consequences of the absurd description which has now been applied to the war as guerilla warfare. I have been in the field taking part in the recent operations, but for the life of me I cannot see in what respects the Boers could be described as carrying on a guerilla warfare. De Wet has been marching up and down the country with a strong force of between 2,500 and 3,000 men. Three other forces commanded by Haasbrock, Hertzog, and Prinsloo were under his command and made demonstrations or actual attacks whenever De Wet deemed it necessary for the safety of his own force. That is the opinion of a man whom The Times considers to be a man of weight and authority. Now I come to Lord Kitchener's own opinion, which is the most important piece of evidence submitted to the House as to the consequences of this attempt to mislead public opinion by describing the present and late phases of the war as guerilla warfare. A document was published in The Times on the 20th February, which I deliberately assert from internal evidence was inspired by Lord Kitchener himself. It is stated to be from the correspondent of The Times at Pretoria, and is dated 21st January. I will leave it to hon. Gentlemen to say whether it does not contain plain proof of having been inspired by Lord Kitchener. Here is the description Lord Kitchener gives of his army as left to him by Lord Roberts— When Lord Kitchener took over the command, he and those generals who were associated with him had to face a condition of affairs closely resembling that which met Lord Roberts on his arrival in South Africa twelve months ago. In the natural course of events a certain amount of disorganisation had set in. Troops had become loosely distributed all over the two colonies. Brigades which should have been able to operate in conjunction had lost touch with each other. On our lines of communication there were points where bunches of horse, foot, and artillery had been collected, while other and equally-important points were inadequately guarded and open to sudden attack at any moment. Positions which might prove of considerable strategic value were totally unoccupied, and entire battalions had become isolated in other positions in such a manner as to be rendered practically useless. I say that that was Lord Kitchener's revenge for Paardeberg, and if this description is true then Lord Roberts, instead of being Commander-in-Chief, I ought to be degraded.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

May I ask if the hon. Member will state to the House if he knows of his own knowledge that that letter was inspired by Lord Kitchener?

* MR. DILLON

The letter was published as from The Times correspondent in Pretoria, and every hon. Member knows that no such account could leave Pretoria without Lord Kitchener's consent.

MR. PYM (Bedford)

May I ask the hon. Member if there is not an addendum to that account, which states that the condition of our troops in South Africa was the natural result of previous operations?

* MR. DILLON

That is perfectly true, and that only makes it more plain to me that the censor had his eye over it. The letter winds up by saying that nobody imagines that it was the fault of Lord Roberts; but will any military man get up in this House and say where British troops are exposed in positions helpless and isolated and perfectly open to attack, and where bunches of artillery and cavalry are collected in places where they are not required, that it is any justification to state that it was not the fault of the Commander-in-Chief? What is the Commander-in-Chief for? The whole I purpose of this article is to explain the ground on which Lord Kitchener had to take three months to remove the consequences of Lord Roberts's disorganisation before he could take the field. I do not wish to dwell longer on this point, but I think I have made out my case, and that is that the allegation of guerilla warfare which was put forward as a justification for the crimes and outrages against the usages of war, which have been perpetrated in the Transvaal, was a fictitious and absurd justification. There has been no guerilla warfare. There has been legitimate warfare, and the only element of guerilla warfare is that you are ten to one, and, being ashamed of not being able to conquer the Boers before now, you have invented the term in order to justify your extraordinary position.

Now let me come to the burning of farms. As I have already pointed out, the Secretary of State for the Colonies avoided the subject. We have not the statistics which were promised, and we have no particulars. In December last, however, the Secretary of State for the Colonies made two important statements. In the first place he stated that the burning of the Boer farms did not matter because they were like labourers' cottages in this country. I have been myself in a small house built by a farmer in Western America for two or three years. It did not cost as much to build as the house in which the right hon. Gentleman lives at Highbury. I think it cost only about £200, but so far as sentiment and the feeling of the inhabitants of that house were concerned, it would create a more bitter feeling if it were burned down than if the house of the right hon. Gentleman or the houses of hon. Gentlemen opposite were burned. But is there any truth in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? Only the other day the junior Member for Oldham described the Boers as half squire and half farmer. That is true. They are landowners, and are not like labourers in this country, and I think it is a brutal and unfortunate remark to talk about the comparative cheapness of labourers' cottages. All the evidence before us goes to show that the houses of the Boers, particularly in the Free States, were especially fine and well furnished. Did we not read in the descriptions, so harrowing to the feelings of many hon. Members, of pianos and pictures and comfortable furniture being burned? [A laugh.] An hon. Member opposite laughs, but it is true, and I do not think the subject one suitable for laughter. I do not think I ever read anything more painful—and I would like to believe it was also painful to many hon. Members opposite—than the detailed descriptions which filled the columns of the newspapers of furniture being dragged out of houses and burned before the eyes of unfortunate women and children. I have already quoted the testimony of the junior Member for Oldham. Here is a quotation from the Cape correspondent of the Manchester Guardian. [Several HON. MEMBERS laughed.] I have yet to learn that the Manchester Guardian is such a very contemptible newspaper. It is as respectable a newspaper as any in England. The Cape Town correspondent says— I can say from my own knowledge, as one brought up in a farming district in England, that the Boer farms are larger and better furnished than the average farmhouse in England. I have in my mind a place in the Rouxville district where, during the 1880 war, the Dutch settlers continued to the British settlers the free loan of the only church in the district —the Dutch church—a farmhouse with ten rooms, tennis court, terraced garden, orchard, imported pheasants, 500 head of horned cattle, and so forth. The farmer is of German descent. He and his children speak—or spoke — English at least as much as Dutch. To-day the place is a waste. A message was received from the farmer the other day—he is with De Wet: 'They will not take me alive. I hope to God that not even my hones will rest under the Union Jack.' I belong to a race which suffered somewhat similar treatment a hundred years ago, and I can assure you you are very much mistaken if you imagine that the memory of these things will die out. They will not die out, for the children of the Dutch and their children's children will remember them. The Secretary of State for the Colonies made another very remarkable statement, which I feel bound to examine somewhat critically. On the 7th December, when pressed upon this question of farm-burning, he said— We understood this proclamation [alluding to Lord Roberts's proclamation about farm burning] to mean that he would require evidence of some complicity on the part of the persons whose farm houses were destroyed. I am not saying that the words were exactly to that effect. I am saying that we understood, and we enquired the other day when the matter assumed greater importance, and we have a reply from Lord Kitchener, who has now taken the place of Lord Roberts, that we are perfectly right in the assumption. I venture to submit that that is an absolutely incorrect statement, and it is very important that we should be clear upon this matter. I am not going to charge any Member of this House with making a statement which he does not believe to be true. But what I say is that the right hon. Gentleman has been furnished with incorrect information on this matter. Now let me show how the House has been misled on this particular point. Let me draw attention to the language used by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who, when pressed the other night, said— Hon. Members had rather taken it that those farm-burnings were done without authority by irresponsible persons. [Cries of "No, no" and "Proclamation" from the Opposition.] If he remembered right, Lord Roberts, in his proclamation, did not say that when the railway was broken farms within ten miles should be burned, but that they should, be liable to be burned. [Laughter from Opposition benches.] For some time afterwards no farm was burned. After that farms were, by Lord Roberts's special orders, under certain conditions, burned. Now let us read Lord Boberts's proclamation. First the Secretary of State for the Colonies states that farm-burning was conditional on complicity being shown, whereas the Financial Secretary to the War Office declares that Lord Roberts did not use words to the effect that farms should be burnt. Proclamation No. 5 says— Whereas small bodies of raiders have recently been doing wanton damage in the Orange River Colony— [An HON. MEMBER: Wanton damage.] Perfectly proper acts of war. Will any hon. Member to-night deny that? Wanton damage means damage without an object, but the Boers were destroying the railway for the purpose of interfering with Lord Roberts's communications. But that is not the point I wish to call attention to. Listen to these words, as showing that the proclamation could not be misunderstood— and whereas such damage cannot be done without the knowledge and connivance of the neighbouring inhabitants, I hereby warn said inhabitants, and also civil residents, that whenever public property is destroyed or injured in the manner specified above, they will be held responsible, the houses in the vicinity of the place where the damage is done will be burned, and the civil residents will be made prisoners of war. Now I should like to know what the noble Lord has got to say to that. It is only two nights since he denied Lord Roberts used these words, and he based on that denial a defence of the policy of the Government, and the inference that the burning of farms was necessary.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,) Buteshire

As my noble friend is not here, may I state that what he said was that complicity had been proved by the nearness of the farms to the scene of the damage.

* MR. DILLON

I am glad to have that defence of the Government. In the first place, the noble Lord did not say that. What he said was, according to the official Report— If I remember right, Lord Roberts in his proclamation did not say that where the railway was broken farms within ten miles should be burned, but that they would be liable to be burned. I have proved that Lord Roberts said nothing of the kind, but that the farms "will be" burned, just as we stated in -course of debate in this House. The Lord Advocate now says that complicity must be proved. Nothing of the kind. The absolute proof of the falsity of that statement is shown by the words in the proclamation— And whereas such damage cannot be done without the knowledge and connivance of the neighbouring inhabitants. Where is the proof of connivance? I put it to the House of Commons, is that fair play? You first of all lay down in a proclamation that wherever damage is done, all the inhabitants in the neighbourhood must be held responsible; and then you come forward in the House of Commons and say, "No, we did not burn the farms unless the inhabitants were proved to be responsible." That is deceiving the House of Commons, and I am content to leave the matter there. I now come to the next proclamation, No. 6, dated 16th June, 1900, and it sets forth what has been stated in previous proclamations even more categorically— No. 1.—The principal residents of the towns and districts will be held responsible jointly and severally for the amount of damage done in their district, and all receipts for goods requisitioned on behalf of the military authorities will be cancelled, and no payment will be made in respect thereof. I say that is robbery, and a breach of the good faith of this country. There is no qualification in that proclamation. The man whose goods and chattels may have been requisitioned may have been a prisoner of war, and may have been deported, and yet because the railway was broken in the neighbourhood of his farm all receipts for goods taken perhaps months before are to be cancelled— The houses and farms [continues the proclamation] in the vicinity of the place where the damage is done will be destroyed and the residents of the district dealt with under martial law. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Some hon. Members cheer that, but my point is that that is not what the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated to the House of Commons, and not what the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated either. So much for these excuses and justifications put forward for the burning of farms. This is really a very serious matter. The burning of farms has been carried out on an enormous scale, and no attempt has been made by any speaker on behalf of the Government to justify it, nor have any details been given as to this policy. Although the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs submitted to the House a very horrible series of cases in connection with the burning of farms, and although the matter has been treated with contempt, yet I feel bound to bring forward further evidence to show two things— firstly, the wide extent of this devastation, and, secondly, the fact, which I maintain to be incontrovertible, that these farms were burned not because of any active treachery or hostility from the houses or their inhabitants, but for the purpose of devastating the country and making it uninhabitable. Some hon. Members opposite appear to admit that policy, but I appeal with confidence even to the public opinion of this country, but with more confidence to the public opinion of America and Europe, on the subject. Is that policy one on which the Government of this country is prepared to stand. Why, that was the policy which was pursued by Louis XIV. in the Palatinate, which has been execrated by mankind for two centuries. It was justified by the French generals of that day on the ground that it was necessary, in order to bring the war to a termination, to make the country uninhabitable to the enemy. I must give a few cases. The first witness I will call is the special correspondent of the Globe newspaper, not a very pro-Boer organ, certainly. Earl de la Warr, writing to the Globe newspaper from the Modder River, says— It is certainly worthy of remark that the Boers, who are not supposed to have any discipline at all, have in this part of the country (Cape Colony and Free State) apparently behaved with exemplary consideration for the rights of private property. It is not too much to say that there was more indiscriminate looting done after the Modder River fight in a few days by the British than was done by the Boers in the whole six weeks before the fight. Now I will take the evidence of a Melbourne newspaper. We are accustomed now to swallow everything that comes from the colonies—everything is gospel and ought to be believed. This is an interview which a correspondent had with Australian troopes who bad returned home. He writes— The men all speak in the utmost disgust of the heartrending work of burning farmhouses and turning women and children out to sleep on the open veldt. They say, however, that the British troops throughout treated the enemy with humanity and consideration— [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear !] Yes, but you must accept the whole of the statement— though, of course, there were some individual instances of horrible savagery and brutality. On the other hand they found the Boers very courageous and manly. Of all the men fighting on the side of the British the Australians give the palm to Strathcona's Horse, the Canadian regiment, for all-round 'toughness' and pitilessness. During the righting Stratheona's Horse, they allege, never gave quarter unless the presence of an officer compelled them to. Now I take the evidence of an Irish priest from Australia, who was attached to the New South Wales Company of Bushmen. His letter, which was signed with his name, was published in a Sydney paper. He writes— Then began the most diabolical work I have yet witnessed. Every home in the valley, probably twenty in all, was burned to the ground. Women and children stood in groups, the children rending the air with their cries. They were allowed to move their furniture before the match was put to the building. The women were admirable. Not a tear bedimmed their eyes. They stood there defiant, neatly dressed in black with snow white aprons and bonnets. It was only when I said a few sympathetic words to one woman that she melted into tears. 'You,' she said, 'do not approve of this?' 'I loathe it,' was my reply. 'I am,' she said, 'a British subject from the Protectorate. We rented this farm from an Englishman to whom it belongs. We have nothing in the world but these crops which your horses have destroyed and—God help us. Will you,' she said, 'try to save my house from the fire. I shall do so at once,' I answered, and I kept my promise, but my pleading was of no avail, I told the heroic woman that I had tried to save the house. 'Will you shake hands with me?' was her reply. I did so right heartily, and she called me aside to show me the relics of a new white apron. 'It was from this,' she said, 'I tore the bandages for one of your wounded men (Beaumont). I carried him in my arms from the field and bandaged his arm. He lay on my bed until the blankets were sodden in blood. And this,' she said,' is my reward.' Sergeant W. Payne, writing home to Trowbridge, says— We are purely ignorant in South Africa except what we do ourselves, and that is we are burning all the farms down within a radius of eight miles. Now I will take the evidence of two Irish soldiers to which I attach special importance, because the men give their names, are well known in their own neighbourhoods, and the letters were written to their relatives, and were obviously not intended for publication. The first is from the son of the Rev. W. Cripps Ledger, who was a corporal in the Irish Yeomanry. He says— We found most of the houses deserted by the men and only the women and children could be seen. On inquiry of those as to the whereabouts of the men, we are nearly always told that they have been killed in action or taken prisoners. This is in some cases true, but in most instances the men are out in the hills with their mausers watching us. Most of the houses were burned to the ground by us and the women and children taken along with the column. At other places only saddles, carts, wagons, etc., were destroyed, as was all forage and grain which we could not take or use. Sheep, cattle, and horses were all taken along too. I attach great importance to this letter, because it proves that these houses were burned down not because of acts of war committed from them, but as a part of a deliberate wholesale policy of devastating the country. Here is the other case. James Cook, who is now in the Constabulary in South Africa, writes home to his father, the clerk of the petty sessions at Newtown Butler—[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear !],—who is known to some of my hon. friends. He says— Most of my time was employed in burning Boer farmhouses and forage and commandeering cattle, sheep, etc., around Potchefstroom and Frederickstad. We live chiefly on mutton and poultry, and whatever we need in the way of vegetables, brown bread, etc., we got from the Boer women in exchange for meat. So you see I have been having a rare time of it. The most disagreeable part of our work was the turning of Boer families out of their homes. Policemen are well paid, and it is a fine chance for anyone to see a bit of South African life. When I consider the pay and the grub, I got to pity poor Tommy, who generally has the hard work to do for 1s. 3d. a day and bully beef and hard biscuits. I am rather inclined to pity poor Tommy, too, who only gets 1s. 3d. per day instead of 5s. I do not see how the Government are going to get over this evidence. I could go on for hours. This is a case to be made out by evidence, and if I did not give evidence it would be said that I was simply making wild statements. What I want to prove is, that the statements in connection with farm burning, given by the Government as a defence of what has been done, are not true statements and entirely misrepresent the facts. If I wanted final proof that, up to a very recent period at all events, farms were burned as part of a policy of wholesale devastation I need only turn to The Times of the 4th January, which contains a telegram from Pretoria giving an account of a meeting of burghers addressed by Lord Kitchener, when he made his proposals for peace, and at the-end of that telegram it is stated— Orders have been issued forbidding the burning of farms unless to punish the wrongful acts of the actual inhabitants. If that had been the policy all along, what need was there to issue these orders? Out of their own mouths they stand condemned. I have got details of other cases which I do not now propose to go into, but if this matter is debated again I shall be prepared to go through the whole of them. I will mention only one other case as an instance of the atrocities which have been perpetrated. A member of the Royal Scotch Fusiliers, describing the actions of General Barton, writes— We took over £6,000 worth of stuff from Botha's farm—cattle, grain, forage, wagons, etc. That is a sample of the way you treat a gallant enemy. A correspondent of the St. James's Gazette —and certainly no one will accuse the St. James's Gazette of being a pro-Boer organ—writes, under date 14th September, 1900— The general told me that he had received orders to 'sweep' the country and a view of his following soon made it obvious that he had not failed to carry out his orders. All farms on the line of inarch were cleared of horses, cattle, sheep, wagons, carts, etc., the forage being burnt and the owners bidden to join the ranks of the prisoners, of whom there were already a goodly number. In several cases I ventured humbly to point out that many of these men, in fact most of them, had been paroled and allowed to return to their farms and had received a protection certificate from the District Court. Some of them were Britishers who rather than take up arms against their country had sacrificed all and had taken refuge in Basutoland. My pleas were of no avail. All who had once been on commando, and in spite of having been paroled, were retaken prisoners. Britishers were allowed to go at liberty, but their livestock were taken and their stacks burnt. That appears to me to be an overwhelming case as showing that this policy of farm burning in the Transvaal was a policy, as indeed was admitted in some of the proclamations of the generals, of devastating the country in order to make it uninhabitable for the enemy. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] If that is admitted, then my whole case is admitted, but it is flying in the face of the usages of civilised warfare. You have no right to devastate a country and burn the roof trees over the heads of non-combatants in order to make the country uninhabitable. What would Europe have said if the German troops, when they advanced and took possession of Orleans, burned it down and laid the country waste between Orleans and Paris? All Europe would have cried shame on them. But because these countries are distant and you have your hand on the telegraph wires you dare to do in South Africa what you would not dare to do nearer home. What I am claiming here, and what those of us who are denounced as pro-Boers are claiming, is, that so far as the usages of war are concerned, these people, who after all are a Christian nation and a white race, shall have the same rights which the civilised nations of Europe have been accustomed to accord one another in their wars. I think I have converted even hon. Gentlemen opposite to my view as to the character of these operations, because when I pointed out that it was a policy of devastation in order to make the country uninhabitable several hon. Members cheered. Certainly it was the policy which was approved of by your generals. We have heard a great deal in these debates about the humanity of Lord Roberts. Lord Roberts is a countryman of mine, and a great many countrymen of mine have taken a prominent part in this war. I confess that when Lord Roberts went out to the Transvaal I said to several friends, "Now, at all events, we shall have this war decently conducted." I have been deeply disappointed, and I now perceive that in the judgment of Lord Roberts's character, which has been painfully forced upon me—because I had different ideas of Lord Roberts before the commencement of the war—I am in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham, who twenty years ago, in conjunction with several bishops and other dignitaries, denounced Lord Roberts for his atrocities in Afghanistan, and appealed to the Government to put a stop to the burnings and executions which were carried out in that campaign. That is a fact we cannot get over. Lord Roberts is still the same man, and, although I knew that the Colonial Secretary had changed his politics, I was not aware he had changed his ideas as to humanity and the usages of war; and when hon. Gentlemen get up and think they can stop this debate by appealing to the humanity of Lord Roberts they ought to remember that he was impeached by the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself. Memories are very short in this House. When the hon. Member for Westminster, who is a bitter political opponent of ours, stood up in this House to make a remarkably able appeal for the sick and wounded soldiers in the Transvaal, which I venture to say has made his name dear to the British soldier, how was he received? He was received with sneers and insults from the Treasury Bench, and he was told that the well-known humanity of Lord Roberts ought to be a sufficient answer to his charges, and that everyone knew that Lord Roberts would never tolerate any ill-treatment of his sick soldiers. The hon. Member for Westminster was not discouraged: he persisted in his charges, and his charges have laid the basis of a great reform. The hon. Member appealed on behalf of sick and wounded soldiers, and now when we, who are less popular, make an appeal that your enemy the Boers should be treated at least as human beings, we are met with exactly the same sneers, and the same statement that the humanity of Lord Roberts is so great that it is an insult, and outrageous, and absurd to challenge it in this House. When the other night attention was directed in this House by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to the infamous and outrageous proclamation of General Bruce Hamilton, the very same answer was returned. It was said that General Bruce Hamilton was one of the most humane officers in the British Army, and was incapable of committing an act of inhumanity. What had the right hon. Gentleman to admit to-night. He admitted that that proclamation was ignominiously withdrawn, that they drew the line at General Bruce Hamilton, and refused to allow his proclamation to be enforced. I mention these facts to show that it is no answer to us to talk about the humanity of officers. We bring forward facts supported by evidence, and we challenge the Government on them. We challenge the Government to say—and they will have to say before the matter is ended, because it will be brought up again and again— whether this country, in the face of Europe, is prepared to accept this policy of devastation without any act of treachery as regards individual houses, for the purpose of making the country uninhabitable, and whether the Government are prepared to defend that policy.

I now pass to the second point of my Amendment, and it is a point to which I attach even greater importance, because in the first place, it is a most unparalleled and unheard-of breach of the usages of war. I think it is most disgraceful and most cowardly, and it has not been dealt with in this House before. I refer to the seizing of women and children as prisoners and their forcible deportation into prison camps. What was my astonishment to hear the Secretary of State for War declare that in these prison camps, or, as he described them, refuge camps, at present existing in the Transvaal, Cape Colony, and Natal, the women and children are perfectly free, and could come and go of their own free will. I say that is a statement in the teeth of all the evidence that has come under my notice. All the information I have been able to collect leads me to the conviction that, as regards a great number of these women and children, they have been forcibly seized, and have been carried away, and are now prisoners of war wish to know what custom of any civilised country in modern times, or even in ancient times for that matter, are the Government going to appeal to to justify their treatment of women and children as prisoners of war? The right hon. Gentleman stated that they were perfectly free. Is he prepared to substantiate that statement? Is it true or not true that, in a camp at Port Elizabeth, women, who have been brought by force as prisoners of war, are surrounded by sentries, and that when they desire permission to see their friends—

MR. BRODRICK

The hon. Gentleman rather misunderstood what I stated this afternoon. I was asked about women and children living in laager in the conquered colonies, but I know that a certain number of women have been deported from the colonies for particular reasons.

* MR. DILLON

Is not that my case? What civilised Government ever deported women and children? Has it come to this, that the British Empire is afraid of women and children?

MR. BRODRICK

The women who wore deported are those who were found, or suspected of, giving information to the enemy.

* MR. DILLON

I ask again the name of the civilised nation that has ever deported women because they were suspected of giving information? Who were the enemy? Why, their own people. The Germans when they conquered Prance did not deport the women. A pretty pass you have brought the British Empire to. Now listen to this, Gentlemen of the British House of Commons. I ask the Secretary of State for War. Is it true that this oath or declaration has been tended to the women now huddled together in tents surrounded by mounted sentries in Port Elizabeth— I do hereby solemnly declare on oath that I will not take up arms against the Government of Great Britain"? I never thought to see the day when England would have sunk so low. I put it to hon. Members opposite, are they not ashamed? When this declaration is signed, the women are allowed to see their relatives. Was that the impression left on the House at question time? Did not hon. Members listening to the right hon. Gentleman imagine that these women and children were all free, and had come into the refuge camp for the purpose of protection? I have no objection to refuge camps when the women can come and go when they please, but what I denounce is taking away women and children from their homes, treating them as prisoners, surrounding them with guards, and not allowing them to leave the camp. Is that for the purpose of preventing them from starving? Is it to prevent them, from starving that you tender them the oath?

MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Devastation is a usage of civilised warfare. Wellington devastated the country around Torres Vedras.

* MR. DILLON

I think that is an unfortunate interruption. In the first place, Torres Vedras was in the early part of the last century, and the usages of warfare have changed since then. Secondly, when Wellington devastated the country before Torres Vedras he devastated it with the consent of the inhabitants he was defending. Will the hon. Member undertake to say if the sack of Badajoz, or of other towns in the; Peninsula, were to be repeated to-day that every civilised country in Europe and America would not cry shame on such deeds? But I have yet to learn that Wellington took women prisoners of war, or that he got the women to take an oath not to take up arms against him. But in order to show that this is not an old case, let me read what took place at Standerton only the other day. This is a telegram describing the operations of General French— The effects of General French's eastward movement are seen along the line of communication. The scene at Standerton is almost unique. Three convoys arrived the other day almost at the same time, and as far as the eye could reach was seen a never-ending line of ox wagons, while a hospital train with a red crossed carriage steamed slowly away, bearing its human freight south. The longest convoy comprised women and children, who are arriving in hundreds, and whose immediate resting-place is on the high ground above the Vaal towards the south east. Opposite them, at a distance, is a laager containing earlier arrivals, and further off a large number of neatly-arranged tents containing the first arrivals, with horses, cows, sheep, goats, and pigs innumerable, the stock of these unwilling emigrants from hoems which unhappily have been harbours of refuge to those Boers who, unmindful of the clemency offered by Lord Kitchener, elect to light a losing, not to say a suicidal, game of war to the bitter end. That, telegram, which is in the Daily Mail of the 21st February, shows beyond all question that at this moment General French is pursuing the same policy of devastation, and is carrying away women find children against their will, I shall await with curiosity to see what attempt the Secretary of State for War will make in defence of this extraordinary policy. I assert without fear of contradiction that this policy of shutting up women and children in prison camps is entirely without precedent in modern times, and that therefore the Government which indulges in it is disgracing and dragging in the mire the good name of this country. Now let me go a step further. Not only have women and children been shut up in these camps and treated as prisoners of war, but when the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made a charge the other day—which I am constrained to believe —that in this camp a notice was posted stating that those families whose husbands and brothers were still on commando would be put on half rations, and would only be restored to full rations when their relatives surrendered, I expected a most indignant denial from the right hon. Gentleman, but all he said was that the hon. Member was making this charge without an atom of evidence. The hon. Member had exactly the same evidence, namely, Renter's telegram, which the right hon. Gentleman had himself the other day when he made charges in connection with the Esau case.

MR. BRODRICK

I told the hon. Gentleman that I had other corroboration that the report was absolutely true.

* MR. DILLON

But the charges were made on the faith of a Renter message.

It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.