Hell Let Loose!
georgemooreinteractive.org · https://georgemooreinteractive.org/hell-let-loose/
Hell Let Loose!
Undated broadsheet, Stop the War Committee (London), pages 1-4, 12,979 words
Editorial Note. This text is a full transcription of the 1900 broadsheet Hell Let Loose: How We Are Waging War in South Africa, published in London by the Stop-the-War Committee. The transcription is based on a photographic image of the original in the National Library of Ireland.
Original spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typographical conventions have been preserved. Obvious typographical or scanning errors have been silently corrected where the intended reading is clear. Proper names and place names have been verified against contemporary sources where necessary.
The document contains language characteristic of its period, including terms now regarded as offensive. Such language has been retained in its original form to preserve historical accuracy.
What is Now Being Done in South Africa
The Testimony Of British Soldiers At The Front
The Testimony of a British Officer.
No Restraint from Public Opinion.
A British Victim of the Practice.
The Responsibility of Lord Roberts
The Effect of His First Proclamation.
How the Oath of Neutrality Worked.
How a General Rewarded his Hostess.
Reprisals for Cutting Railways.
Gloating Over the Burning of Farms.
Lord Kitchener’s Proclamation.
The Order to Devastate the Country.
Making War on Women and Children.
Driven to Shame by Starvation.
Plain Answers to Straight Questions.
The Excuse about the White Flag.
The Excuse as to the Destruction of Railways.
What is Now Being Done in South Africa
The Testimony Of British Soldiers At The Front
The Electors of Great Britain by formal vote at the polls have made the South-African War their own. Every man who voted for any candidate of either party who approved of the War and declared in favour of its continuance thereby made himself personally responsible before God and his follow-men for the War and the way in which it is being conducted. It is no longer Milner’s War, or Chamberlain's War — it is our War. It is therefore high time that we looked a little into the way in which this War of ours is being waged.
It is often said that we are making War in a humane, Christian fashion. Lord Roberts's proclamations and promises are quoted as if they were in full force, and probably most of the electors who voted for the War imagined that our troops were conducting operations in South Africa like civilised Christian Englishmen. If it should appear from the direct evidence of the soldiers themselves that this is not the case, and that, on the contrary, our armies are deliberately violating laws of civilised War, which even the Turkish troops obeyed in their War with Greece, what then?
It is a question for the conscience of the English citizen, who is now fully responsible for the War and for the conduct of the War.
To have voted for the War, honourable civilised War according to international rules solemnly ratified by our own Government even when the War was in progress, that is one thing. But to support a War which is waged not upon foes in the field but upon their women and children in their defenceless homes, to approve of hostilities whose only victories are the burning of farms, and whose most conspicuous trophies are the wretched girls and matrons whom we have driven by the sharp scourge of famine to degradation worse than death, that is surely another matter.
Writing on September 30, Olive Schreiner says: —
" No man knows really what War is who is not brought face to face with it as we are, the battles on the battlefields, the wounded dying alone, choked with blood and dust, the vultures flying over for their feasts, these are not pleasant things, but the actual physical suffering and horror of the battlefield, including that of the horses, is as absolutely nothing compared to the awful moral effect of War. It turns men and women into brutes, it returns society to the savage and the wild animal stage. When one reads of the French Revolution, of women sitting to knit while the heads rolled off, one accepted it as a fact, because there was too much testimony to doubt it, but one did not realise it or understand how it could happen. Now I know. It is perfectly easy to understand. Being surrounded with continual bloodshed and slaughter kills the human soul, and leaves only the brute boast alive in all but rare and strong souls. If I had been told a year ago of all the horrors that have taken place in South Africa during the last six months under martial law, the burning of houses, the driving forth of women and children homeless into the veldt, the paying of spies by English gold to tempt men into plots and then shooting them, I would not have believed it. Now it is quite easy to understand. This is War! This sordid, mean, wild brute development is War, the thing we hear so often praised, and commended, and gloried in. I do not think it is fair to blame the English soldiers as something exceptionally brutal and mean. They are not so. It would be the same if any other army was concerned. It is simply War!''
And War, as General Sherman tersely declared, is Hell. But civilised nations have placed limits on that Inferno. Men no longer poison wells, use poisoned weapons, kill prisoners in cold blood, enslave captives, or hold cannibal feasts after battle. At the Hague Conference all the civilised Governments of the world, Great Britain being foremost in the Assembly, solemnly declared that, in the interests of humanity and of civilisation, it was necessary to define with precision and emphasis the Rules of War. With unanimity they first signed and then solemnly ratified the following declaration as to some of the limits which civilised Governments should observe whenever they appealed to the dread arbitrament of War: —
ARTICLE 1.—The high contracting parties will give to their armed land forces instructions in accordance with the "agreement concerning the laws and customs of land warfare, annexed to the present Convention.
SECTION II. — CHAPTER I. — HOSTILITIES.
ARTICLE 22. — The belligerents have not an unlimited right as regards the choice of the means of inflicting injury on the enemy.
ARTICLE 25. — It is forbidden to attack or bombard undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings.
ARTICLE 28. — It is forbidden to allow even a town or place taken by assault to be looted.
SECTION III . — MILITARY LAW ON THE ENEMY’S TERRITORY.
ARTICLE 41. — It is forbidden to force the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against their own country.
ARTICLE 45. — Any pressure on the population of occupied territory to take the oath to the hostile power, is prohibited.
ARTICLE 46. — Private property cannot be confiscated.
ARTICLE 47. — Looting is formally forbidden.
ARTICLE 50. — No collective penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be levied on populations by reason of individual incidents for which they could not be considered collectively responsible.
ARTICLE 56.—Property owned by communes, or by establishments devoted to religious purposes, charity or instruction, arts and sciences, even belonging to the State, shall be treated as private property.
Every seizure, destruction or intentional desecration of such establishments, historic monuments, or works of art and science, is forbidden, and ought to be punished.
The observance of these Rules in the opinion of our own Government, and in that of all the other Governments, including the great military Empires of Europe and the Asiatic Governments of Turkey, Persia, and China, was not only possible and practicable, but imperatively necessary, if War was not to degenerate to the mere savagery of wild beasts.
The charge which is now brought against the British Government is that in the conduct of its War of Conquest in South Africa, its officers and men have constantly violated, and are to this day continuously and systematically, violating the Rules quoted above. The letter below of “ A British Officer in the Field" quotes evidence which cannot be disputed, in the shape of the proclamations of our own Generals, which are in flagrant defiance of the Rules of War as defined and ratified by our own Government. The testimony of this Officer and of other soldiers and newspaper correspondents leaves, unfortunately, no room for doubt that in this campaign we are not waging honourable warfare, but are trampling underfoot the elementary rules of civilised War, and are doing deeds of rapine and of outrage which recall the conduct of the Huns of Attila, and of the Bashi-Bazouks of Abdul the Damned.
And for all this arson and robbery, for wholesale murder and outrage, achieved by the via dolorosa of deliberately-created famine, the Electors of Great Britain have now accepted the full and undivided responsibility. It is for them to say whether, with these facts before their eyes, they are still determined that this infernal work shall continue without protest, without inquiry, until the last Boer has been exiled or shot down, and the womanhood of their wives and daughters has been trampled into prostitution in our camps. They have only to turn a deaf ear to the despairing cry of their victims, to secure their extermination — not by the arts of legitimate War, but by the methods of the incendiary and the bandit. If, however, some spark of manhood, some faint ray of Christian sentiment should still linger amongst us, a cry for instant and searching inquiry will be raised in every newspaper, and be re-echoed from every pulpit and platform in the land. War, indeed, the nation voted for, but not for War upon women and children, in which the impotence of our arms is supplemented by the superior efficacy of the firebrand, and famine and lust are employed against the women to crush the spirit of the race whom our Generals are unable to subdue. For if these things, now but half brought to light, are permitted to continue without protest, or even without a challenge for immediate and searching investigation, we shall stand condemned as a nation, the Pharisaism of whose pretensions is only outdone by the atrocity of its crimes.
WILLIAM T. STEAD
How We Are Waging War
The Testimony of a British Officer.
[I have received the following letter from a well-known British author, who has several relatives serving in the Field in South Africa. He has communicated it to me with an assurance that the writer is an English officer of the Regular Army, of good standing, now in command in South Africa, in whose good faith he has implicit confidence. Although the precautions necessitated by the severity of the censorship prevent the publication of his name — which is in my possession — the facts to which this Officer bears testimony challenge immediate and searching investigation. — W. T. S.]
One of the greatest calamities of War, especially a prolonged War, is the moral degeneracy that sets in among the combatants; and I fear this is sometimes even more marked among the victors than among the vanquished, for, flushed with triumph, they believe they have a right to trample to any extent on a prostrate enemy. Years of civilisation and peace teach men to respect the lives and property of others, but a few months of War seem to scrape off the veneer of virtue and return them to their primitive savagery.
The Reversion to Savagery.
This certainly is the case with the English troops, for I can hardly believe that a year ago they would have sanctioned the line of conduct which is now being pursued in the conquered territories. General conventions, customs of civilised war, respect for women, tenderness to children, which were the common phrases in England, are treated as foolish cant, binding, of course, on their enemies always, but on themselves only when they do not impede their purposes. I do not speak of the rank and file of the soldiery, because little can be expected from them, but of those whose education and experience ought to have taught them better things.
No Restraint from Public Opinion.
I think, perhaps, one of the causes which has led to this recklessness is the isolation of the theatre of war, and the entire absence of any public opinion. The country is delivered over to the Army; no news is allowed to leak through the strict censorship, and foreigners are absolutely excluded. I confess that I have been continually astonished at the methods of dealing with the enemy advocated by officers. I was inclined for a time to put them down to irresponsible and foolish chatter, which the talkers themselves would not put into practice if they had the power, but as time wore on, one after another of these methods was adopted by the authorities and either silently applied or publicly proclaimed. And curiously enough, all this time there has been a general complaint that we are dealing too leniently with the Boers, and that the War is being prolonged by a perverse and misapplied generosity. In England, I believe, there is an idea that we are acting up to the highest standard of chivalry, and that our mercy requires to be tempered with justice to make it more applicable to the naturally vicious nature of the Boer.
The Conspiracy of Silence.
I think it is in the interest of humanity generally that we should look facts in the face, and not allow ourselves to be deceived by the narratives of special correspondents who. know full well how short would be their shrift in South Africa if they dared to paint, or even to sketch with the lightest touch, the darker scenes of the War. Few of them, indeed, know all that occurs, and if they did a false shame and a spurious patriotism would probably induce them to hide it. No man wishes to face the furious invective that has been poured on Mr. Burdett-Coutts; money and honour and influence in high places will be used for all they are worth to prove him a liar; and libel and persecution are all the rewards he can ever hope to receive.
But before proceeding further it will be advisable to state definitely some of the facts on which I base my statements; and in so doing I exclude isolated acts and crimes committed by irresponsible individuals, because these are inseparable from War, and are due to the passions and vices of humanity at a time when they are most excited and under least control.
Respect for Private Property.
One of the principal points which distinguish civilised from barbarous War is respect for the property and the persons of the non-combatant population. So much has this become a recognised custom, that when doubts were expressed as to the safety of Johannesburg and the mines, special representations were made to Mr. Kruger by the English Government, and he was informed that, any destruction of property being contrary to the rules of War, he would be held personally responsible for it. Again General Buller, addressing a memorandum to General Joubert, shortly after he took command in person, informed him that no damage would be done to Boer farmhouses, and appealed to him to respect English property in like manner. This was when a great portion of Natal and Cape Colony was in the hands of the Dutch, and an enormous amount of damage could have been done if they so desired.
The Burning of Houses.
As a matter of fact it turned out that Johannesburg and the mines, the property of their most virulent enemies, of the men who, according to Boer belief, had been the instigators of the War, remained safe in their hands; but no sooner were matters reversed, and the British troops began to enter the territories of the Free State and the Transvaal, than every house from which the inhabitants were absent were ruthlessly destroyed. Doors and window frames were first burnt; then the floors were pulled up, and the supporting beams taken down. so that the roofs fell in. A house costing seven or eight hundred pounds was often destroyed in an hour to cook the breakfasts for a battalion, so that the route of every detachment was marked by bare walls and ruined homesteads.
A British Victim of the Practice.
At Maribogo Pan, the first spot on Transvaal soil touched by one of our armies of invasion, stands a small group of houses, consisting of farm buildings and a store. The owner is an Englishman who, when the War broke out, risked everything for his country; he left his houses at the mercy of the Boers, and joined the defenders of Mafeking. During all these months his property was untouched, and when he returned he found it as he had left it. But a few days after he got home the advanced guard of the English army passed that way and wrecked everything in a day. He complained very bitterly that he had been spared by his enemies and ruined by his friends. This is no isolated case. I merely mention it as an example, and that I may not be accused of dealing with generalities only.
The Gutting of Churches.
But excess soon begets greater excess. From farmhouses to churches is certainly a long step; but these, too, after a time, furnished fuel for the flames. Here, too, lest I be accused of exaggeration, I give an example. North-east of Pretoria, near the Elands River and just where the road crosses a stream, stood a small Dutch chapel; in the month of July a column halted within a few hundred yards of it and bivouacked for the night. In a few hours doors, windows and pews were broken up and carried away to cook the dinners, without protest from any one; and if the army had not moved on next morning before daylight, the roof would have boiled the water for breakfast.
Loot.
When buildings were treated in this way, it is unnecessary to say that fowls, pigs, sheep, horses, cattle and carriages were eagerly swept up by the invading army; not requisitioned and taken by proper authority as required for the use of the army, but seized by any private soldier or trooper who happened to see them. The mounted men spent more time in searching the houses for fowls and eggs than in watching for the enemy; every general and every officers’ mess had their own special scouts, and loot, not the enemy, was the prime object of their search. I have even seen artillerymen leave their guns in the middle of an action to chase a couple of pigs that had, incautiously wandered that way from a neighbouring mission station; whether they preferred the sound of the guns to the singing of psalms I do not know, but they soon learnt that the soldier is a dangerous acquaintance. I confess I could not resist being amused at the chase; the ground was rough and covered with boulders, down fell one man and then another; one just reached the little pig as he struggled to escape; another kept on after the mother, but caught his foot in a rock at the last moment, and she escaped — cured, I expect, of her desire for War.
Why We Cannot Catch De Wet.
In England people are astonished at the mobility which enables De Wet to defy the efforts of all our generals; but they would cease to wonder, if, for instance, they could see the march of a column of the Imperial Light Horse, with its endless array of waggons and vehicles of all sorts, piled up with the contents of Boer houses: beds, chairs, tables, all things that can be moved are carried away, and not by this corps alone, but Canadians, New Zealanders, Yeomanry, all pursue the same game. Such proceedings are a sad commentary on the Peace Conference at the Hague, or the lamentations of the Uitlanders over Boer brutality.
The Responsibility of Lord Roberts
But these excesses are not to be wondered at when every principle of civilised War has been thrown to the winds by those responsible for the conduct of the campaign. I do not pretend that War can be made with buttons on the foils, but I do believe that the principles laid down in Lord Roberts’s proclamations have been unwise, ineffective, and cruel; and that they will leave bitter memories to perpetuate the hatred of races, and to breed up in years to come new generations whose only dream will be to reverse the results of this War. I do not believe that Lord Roberts, who is naturally gentle and human, is responsible in more than name; his time has been entirely taken up in directing the manoeuvres of his troops; he has naturally left in other hands the direction of these affairs.
The Effect of His First Proclamation.
One of the first proclamations issued after our armies had established themselves in a portion of the Free State announced that any fighting men willing to lay down their arms, and take an oath of neutrality, would be allowed to return to their farms. This seemed to many at first sight to be an eminently conciliatory measure and possibly, to a certain extent, it was meant as such. If, indeed, it had been applied to those parts of the Cape Colony which had been reconquered after rebellion against the British Government, it would undoubtedly have been an act of clemency and wisdom, worthy of all praise. But it was applied to the fighting men of an independent country, which was still unsubdued, and of which our armies occupied only a small part. In this case, so far from being an act of clemency, it was an attempt to seduce the soldiers of the enemy from their allegiance: it could therefore hardly be expected that the Boer government would do otherwise than repudiate such an arrangement, and treat the men, not as prisoners of War on parole, but as deserters. That is undoubtedly the course we should have pursued in like circumstances. How rarely we apply to an opponent the rules which govern our own conduct!
How the Oath of Neutrality Worked.
But it is only when we investigate the actual facts that we see how unreasonable were our pretensions, and what grievous hardship the attempt inflicted on those whom we pretended to benefit.
A Boer — perhaps a boy of nineteen, or an old worn-out man — seduced by our offers, deserts his own army and goes back to his farm; he is therefrom marched into a crowded court, guarded by soldiers. A book is put into his hand, and an oath of neutrality, of which he does not understand one half, hastily read over to him. All he really knows is that if he does not immediately comply, he will be deported to some country across the seas, a punishment of which he is in mortal terror: some are not sure that they will not be shot. Naturally he accepts the situation and does what he is told. He then returns to his farm and lives quietly for a while. But after a time the British troops march away and a Boer commando takes their place; he is informed that his oath is not a valid one, and that he must rejoin his own army. If he hesitates he is called a traitor and forced to obey orders. Remember, this is exactly what we should do in like case with our own soldiers, for we do not admit the right of soldiers to give their paroles except through a commissioned officer. A month later, the troops return and find only women and children in the house; a Kaffir informs the officer that the owner, after taking the oath, has been fighting again. By Lord Roberts’ proclamation he becomes liable to suffer death when caught, and meanwhile, on the bare word of the Kaffir, the stock and every moveable thing on the farm is ruthlessly swept away. and the women and children are left to starve. If by chance an old rifle is found on the premises, it is considered an additional crime. and in all probability the house is forthwith burnt. That depends somewhat on the temper of the men and the humanity, more or less, of the officer; if it happens to be a Colonial corps, the fate of the home is settled.
How a General Rewarded his Hostess.
There is a case in my mind at the present moment, the meanness of which makes it more degrading than the cruelty of others. Mrs. Wolmerans, the wife of a gentleman of independent means, living about fifteen miles from Pretoria, gave up a portion of her house to an English general and his staff who were encamped in the neighbourhood. A native confided to one of our waggon drivers that one of Mrs. Wolmerans' sons had been with a commando after having taken the oath; and also that there was a rifle and money buried in one of the rooms. After the family had gone to bed the general and staff officers proceeded to dig up the floor, and there found £14,000 in money and valuables. The next morning the boy was accused of having broken his promise; he admitted to having been to see his brother in Natal during the siege of Ladysmith, but denied that he had been fighting. However, the money was confiscated, and the lady has cause to regret her hospitality.
The fact is that we overreached ourselves in trying to be too clever, and attempted to bribe an enemy into submission before he was defeated, and to disarm him without the trouble of keeping him as a prisoner. We even denied him protection from the just indignation of his own people. When the policy failed — as fail it must — we revenged ourselves, not only on the man himself, but on his wife and his children.
Reprisals for Cutting Railways.
One of the most unjust of all the proclamations, and the one that has probably inflicted the greatest amount of suffering on innocent people, is that concerning the cutting of railways. It was to this effect: —
- The principal residents of the towns and district are to be held jointly and severally responsible for the amount of damage done in their district.
- Heavy fines are to be inflicted, and the receipts for all goods taken by the troops to be cancelled.
- The principal residents may be forced to travel on the trains.
- The houses and farms in the vicinity of the places where the damage is done are to be destroyed, and the residents in the neighborhood dealt with according to martial law.
Not Justified by Precedent.
It will doubtless be urged in defence of this proclamation that the Germans in Franco acted in a similar way, but this is very far from being the fact. The Germans did indeed inflict, or threaten to inflict, some of these punishments on persons who cut the railway lines used by them, but the country on each side was wholly in their possession, and no part of the French armies were maintained in the neighbourhood. Damage, therefore, could only be done secretly and at night by individual peasants living in the vicinity. The German army never dreamed of burning houses on account of their communications being cut by regiments or corps holding their own in the field, and over whom the residents could have no possible control. The rule as applied by the Germans is as necessary as the maintenance of law and order in the occupied country. But when applied to the case of a hostile army holding a position for weeks within a few miles of the railway. and marching under arms, often with artillery, to destroy the line, it becomes merely an excuse for savage revenge and wilful destruction of property.
Its Inherent Injustice.
During the month of August, the Boers were always under arms north of the railway from Pretoria to Middleburg, and no part of that country was under our control or permanently occupied by our troops; I do not think there was a single soldier stationed a mile north of the line. The Boer commandos, consisting sometimes of foreigners, often of men from remote districts, constantly advanced to their front, and breaking easily through our scattered forces, destroyed the railway. There was not the least reason to suspect any connivance on the part of the inhabitants; generally there was not a man in the district; at one time the women and children were thirty miles off in Pretoria by order of the Government. Indeed no such plea was put forward, but as soon as the Boers retired all the houses in the neighborhood were burnt, and their inhabitants rendered homeless; a cruel and cowardly revenge, as it appears to me. On August 7 two trains from Pretoria were attacked beyond Elands River by a party so strong that a company of infantry, a squadron of cavalry, two guns and a body of Yeomanry were required to keep them in check. When they retired four farms were burnt: on the same day Daniel Erasmus’s farm was burnt near Elands River Station. This is but an example of what is going on all over the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, or Colony, as it is now called.
Gloating Over the Burning of Farms.
I heard an officer of Yeomanry — an English gentleman! — say that he had had the satisfaction of burning twenty-two farms near Bronkhurst Spruit station. Two and a-half centuries ago Cromwell might have said that he had punished the enemies of the Lord, but even he would have regarded it as an unfortunate necessity, and would certainly not have gloated over the misery and wretchedness entailed by such acts.
Cruel and Cowardly Revenge.
General De Wet, with commandos of several thousand men, held large districts, probably a quarter of the whole area of the country, under his absolute control; these commandos were not merely marauding parties, but regularly organised armies with large numbers of cannon and hundreds of waggons. On various occasions he marched into districts held by us, captured garrisons of five or six hundred men each, and took possession of the railway. In most cases, he moved rapidly from a long distance, sometimes a hundred miles, before making his attack. How could it be maintained that families living in isolated farms, often without news of the War for weeks or months at a time, were responsible for these incursions? How could these poor families accomplish what Lord Roberts with 200,000 men, by a most elaborate and well-organised intelligence department, with hundreds of well-paid spies all over the country, so signally failed to effect? If they had attempted it they would have met with short shrift from their compatriots in arms. But the English generals found it easier to avenge defeat by burning houses than to capture De Wet. Not only are such actions cruel and unjust, but they are useless. Let us see what occurred on the Middleburg line. When it was first cut five farms were burnt; two or three days after a train was attacked near the same place and some men and horses shot. Thereupon several more farms were burnt. Again and again the line was torn up by armed parties marching from the Boer lines, which were only five or six miles off, till at last there were no more farmhouses to burn, and the Boers continued to cut the line with impunity, till our Army was brought up to defend it, and the enemy were finally driven from their positions.
The Result.
Meanwhile the owners have become reckless men, knowing that when the War ends, they and their families will be homeless and starving beggars, and that Peace will have for them greater terror than War. After all this destruction, the line has been cut daily in the month of September.
General De Wet, after his house had been burnt by the English, wrote to General Cronjé at Kroonstad: — “My house cost me £700 to build; its destruction will cost the English taxpayers two millions.” He has already more than verified his threat, and the lives of hundreds of English soldiers have been added to the account.
An Official Admission.
Lest my facts be doubted by those who are reluctant to believe that a civilised nation, and one which has always assumed an air of superior enlightenment and humanity towards all other nations of the world, has acted in this way, I quote an extract from The Bloemfontein Post, which is the official organ of the Government; and, indeed, the only newspaper allowed to be published in either State: —
Bloemfontein Post, Tuesday, August 28, 1900.
An Impudent Message From Oath Breakers Promptly Ignored: Farm Houses Burnt.
Krugersdorp, Tuesday (Reuter). Yesterday Commandant Van Zijl sent a white flag protesting against the burning of farms and the bringing of women and children here as against the usages or civilised warfare.
Van Zijl being one of the men who took the oath of neutrality, and all the farms burnt being those of men who, after being neutralised, have rejoined the commandos, no answer was sent to this impudent message, women who brought the flag being informed that General Barton declined to consider communications of this sort from an outlaw, a man who had broken his oath.
The farmhouse of a man or commando was burnt. The women and children were brought here for shelter and food, and are being well looked after.
It does not even appear that the owner of the last mentioned house was what is called an oath breaker; he seems to have been merely fighting for his country, while his wife and children remained at home; and for this great crime his house was burnt. Did General Barton consider what would happen to these women and children when he marched away from Krugersdorp, or when Peace is proclaimed?
The Boers not Barbarians.
It has been the excuse of English soldiers in Africa and Asia that the rules of War cannot be observed with barbarians; and that it is necessary to burn villages in order to impress the natives with respect for their conquerors. As these villages consist generally of a mere collection of huts which can be rebuilt in a few days, there is some justification for the plea. But against what class of people are we fighting in South Africa? I have this moment put down Blackwood’s Magazine for August, in which Captain Haldane describes his treatment while a prisoner of War: —
I have the most vivid and lasting recollection of the attention and kindness which this old Dutch farmer (Davel) lavished upon us. Throughout the journey to the Boer metropolis we met with nothing but the greatest consideration; for this old commander not only got us of the best he could — and at that time the Boer commissariat arrangements were in their infancy — but insisted on lending us some of his blankets, provided us with candles, and with his own hands brought us coffee on the following morning. He presented Churchill with a blanket, and we felt really sorry to leave his camp…. General Joubert’s nephew called at Davel’s tent and pressed on us the contents of their cigarette-cases.
A hundred instances might be given of such gentle treatment to prisoners, and the Boer kindness to wounded men is acknowledged by all who have fallen into their hands.
How We Return Evil for Good.
Alas! that such generosity has been so sadly misapplied; no sooner had the English troops begun to obtain an ascendancy than the houses of these very men were given over to the flames. Poor Davel’s house, like hundreds of others, is now, in all probability, a blackened ruin, and his wife and children outcasts in the world; so much for British gratitude and chivalry!
So it is that an army licensed to burn and plunder goes always from bad to worse; the most extreme interpretations are now put upon the oath of neutrality.
Lord Kitchener’s Proclamation.
The Chief of the Staff, Lord Kitchener, has issued orders that a father’s promise not to fight any more is to be held to include all his sons, whether they have ever surrendered or not: —
In order to ensure public security in the country, it is considered advisable that mobile columns should act in certain districts, with the object of putting down any open rebellion, of removing all houses and forage, and of collecting cattle and livestock belonging to all those who, after laying down their arms and taking the oath of neutrality, have again gone on commando, or whose sons may have gone on commando.
So that a poor old man who, wearied of fighting, has given up his arms and trusted to Lord Roberts’s proclamation that he will be allowed to remain in possession of his farm and stock, is now plundered of all he possessed on the plea that one of his sons is bravely fighting to the end.
The Order to Devastate the Country.
Yet wider and still wider the net is being extended so that no man or woman of Dutch blood can now hope for safety, however peaceful or “loyal” they may be: —
While giving protection to loyal inhabitants in his district the general officer commanding will see that the country is so denuded of forage and supplies that no means of subsistence is left for any commando attempting to make incursions.
It is of course impossible to reconcile the first and second clause of this order; the first is evidently meant as a cloak to cover the desolating meaning of the second.
The Order to Loot.
Again, to quote another of the many destructive orders issued on this subject to the troops: —
If occupants of farms are “disloyal,” or have fathers or sons still serving against us, the cattle and stock are to be seized without payment or receipts.
But the ruling powers of the Transvaal are not content with seizing the property of all the inhabitants of the country; the women and children might still keep themselves alive by buying provisions with money saved in former years.
Making War on Women and Children.
To prevent this an ingenious plan has been devised: the women and children who had been living in Pretoria since the beginning of the War while their relations were fighting have been ordered to leave; some were sent to join the Boer armies, and undergo, with them, all the hardships and exposure of a campaign; others were sent back to their farms, which mostly by this time were bare and desolate. Where the roofs were still on, the furniture had been swept away by Kaffirs or soldiers; they found neither tables nor chairs, nor even a bed to lie on; only the bare walls remained. It would have saddened the hardest heart to see, as I did, the arrival of one of these parties at a wayside station; mothers with children in their arms found themselves face to face for the first time with misery and starvation.
Driven to Shame by Starvation.
Some went to Kaffir huts to beg from their former servants; some came to the camps suppliants for food. When women live on the charity of a camp it is needless to describe to what depths of infamy necessity soon reduces them. Others of the better class, wives of rich farmers, had money, and left Pretoria, confident of living without serious privation till their husbands or fathers returned; but they had yet to count with the Military Governor of Pretoria, and yet another stroke of misfortune awaited them. An order was issued forbidding them to leave their farms without passes, and passes to Pretoria for food were strictly prohibited. Evidently it is intended to force the men to surrender by starving the women.
I write only what has come under my personal observation, and what cannot be denied by those who have an opportunity of knowing the facts. It is lamentable to think that a War, sanctioned by many Englishmen under the belief that it was being waged in the interests of justice, should be carried on in so inhuman a manner. That we should force the surrender of our enemies by starving their children and degrading their wives and daughters is surely a barbarity that no European nation, except the Turks, would be guilty of at the end of the nineteenth century of the Christian era.
The Worst Outrage of All.
Scenes such as these are painful enough to contemplate, but an even greater depth of sorrow lies below the surface, for which, though we may not have contemplated it, our policy is responsible. It must not be forgotten that the conditions of life in South Africa are very different from those in Europe. A few scattered white families live in the midst of a vast and barbarous negro population, kept within the bounds of semi-civilised conduct only by stern laws and constant watchfulness. In many of the districts occupied by our troops the former magistrates and police have been withdrawn, and no others have been appointed to take their places. Yet it is to the isolated farm houses in these districts, without a man to protect them, that the women and children have been driven from Pretoria. Their former black servants see in them the representatives of a defeated race, to whom neither obedience nor respect is due; there are no men to restrain or punish, and these wretched white women are subject to the passions and lusts of the natives. In this district two such crimes have been committed on the refugees; one woman’s hands were tied behind her back and she was left half dead from ill-treatment. Another escaped from the house during the night and fled till exhausted she lay without clothing, concealed in the bed of a stream. I am credibly informed that such scenes are taking place all over the country; complaints are met with a shrug of the shoulders, and an expression of opinion that the men should return to protect their own women.
I am not one of those who imagine that War will never produce any evils beyond wounds and death, but I am deeply convinced that ruthless destruction of property, and the deliberate exposure of women and children to horrors worse than those of the battle-field, will draw sooner or later the vengeance of God on the perpetrators. An Empire built on such deeds cannot last, and we may well tremble to think that an emissary may soon be selected from among the nations to devastate as in avenging angel the homes of England; to lay low our palaces and burn our houses; and camping among the ruins of our cities bring shame and misery on our wives and daughters. For “Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.”
AN OFFICER IN THE FIELD.
Confirmatory Evidence.—
Plain Answers to Straight Questions.
Q. Is there any confirmatory evidence of the statements made by this British officer?
A. Unfortunately, despite all efforts made to suppress evidence, by censorship and expulsion, there is only too much confirmation.
Soldiers’ Letters.
Q. From what source does that confirmation come?
A. Chiefly from the letters of officers and soldiers who are serving in the field. Their private letters escaped censorship, for the most part, but very few of them are now published in the newspapers.
Here is a soldier’s letter, dated Kroonstad, September 23: — ,
I have been on a thirty-four days' patrol, fired only eight shots all the time, present with 100 men burning farms and looting all stock; burnt twenty-eight farms. I wish I could have brought some of the stuff home we burnt in that trip.
Not much room for increase of severity there.
War Correspondence.
Q. What are the other sources of information?
A. The evidence of newspaper correspondents, but this for obvious reasons is very meagre. All newspaper telegrams from the seat of war have to pass the censorship of British officers, who often appear to think that their chief duty as censors is to prevent any intelligence reaching the British public. Correspondents who tell the truth frankly, find endless obstacles placed in their way.
Can Looting be Prevented ?
Q. But is it possible to conduct war upon humane principles?
A. War itself is essentially inhuman, but that War can be conducted upon much more humane principles than those on which it is being waged in the Transvaal there is abundant proof.
Q. What proof can you adduce?
A. The fact that at the earlier stages of the War, before our soldiers got out of hand and a free rein was given by Lord Kitchener and others to the marauding propensities of our troops, looting was severely punished in the army under the eye of Lord Roberts.
Q. What evidence is there of this?
A. To quote only one witness, Dr. Conan Doyle, in “The Great Boer War” (p.432-3):
It was on May 12 that Lord Roberts occupied Kroonstad, and he halted there for eight days before he resumed his advance…. The country through which he passed swarmed with herds and flocks, but, with as scrupulous a regard for the rights of property as Wellington showed in the South of France, no hungry soldier was allowed to take so much as a chicken as he passed. The punishment for looting was prompt and stern. It is true that farms were burned occasionally and the stock confiscated, but this was as a punishment for some particular offence and not part of a system. The limping Tommy looked askance at the fat geese which covered the dam by the roadside, but it was as much as his life was worth to allow his fingers to close round those tempting white necks. On foul water and bully beef he tramped through a land of plenty
If this could be done up to Kroonstad, under the eyes of Lord Roberts, there is no reason why the same principle could not be enforced when our troops entered the Transvaal. Instead of that, when the need for greater stringency was increased, a free rein seems to have been given to the troops.
Q. But has looting ever been suppressed in any wars?
A. Yes, in many. The severity with which Cromwell dealt with looters in his conquest of Scotland is one of the best-known instances, and the practice of pillage has been sternly discountenanced by all the best commanders in recent times. Even the Turks in their invasion of Greece in the last War were under much stricter discipline, and showed much more regard for the rules of War than the British troops have been showing of late in the Transvaal.
"Tommy Atkins at Work.”
Q. Is there any evidence to show that the British soldier to-day is given to looting?
A. About twelve months ago, at the beginning of the War, a Natal colonist, a brother of a country gentleman in Derby, sent home a letter describing the conduct of our troops in Natal, a letter which was subsequently published in The Daily Gazette, the great Tory organ of Birmingham. The sub-editor published the letter under the significant heading: “Tommy Atkins at Work. Vigorous Description.”
Now that we are getting a respectable crowd of Tommies here there will be some tall work, and up to now there has just been sufficient done to whet Tommy’s feeling for revenge. And you talk of butchers — you want to see Tommy on the war-path to realise what men are, and let him loose on any foe, God help him (the foe), for I never saw such demons. To see him at home and in peaceful times and see him at work you would not recognise him as the same man, if “man” you can call him. He fights like a very devil; drinks like a fish; thieves with the best; and swears lumpy and strong. The Boers will not hold a candle to him when he gets on their soil. I’m quite sure of this, and the Boers are bad enough, from what you will read in the home papers of their looting and damaging qualities; even our own people have had such a lesson of Tommy's qualities that they are anxiously waiting to see what he will do to a foe. He smashes and wrecks everything that he comes across, steals everything that he can lay his hands on, breaks into houses, and ransacks everything from floor to ceiling, eats up all and sundry — sheep, pigs, fowls, fruit, &c. Oh, he’s a beauty! During our confabs on them I stick up for him, on the lines that if you want some material to fight for you you must put up with the other side of the game. A fine gentleman would not do Tommy's work so thoroughly as a rough would, and does — if at all. However, we are all praying for the time when we shall see him move forward, and leave us as we were before he came.
Looting our own Colonists.
Q. Is there any more evidence of this kind?
A. Plenty. Mr. T. Ryder, of Tottington near Bury, received a letter from his son, Mr. W. Ryder, December 6, from Estcourt, Natal, in the course of which, speaking of our troops, he says: —
The soldiers, however, want some close watching, in a few instances the officers being as bad as the men. They coolly appropriate anything they see outside. This morning I caught a fatigue party removing all the packing cases, and my furniture, from an outhouse, by order of the Quartermaster of the Irish Fusiliers. We are robbed, and have our things borrowed!
Q. Was this not an isolated instance?
A. Alas! no. A lady in Colesberg, in the Cape Colony, thus describes how our troops lifted her goods: —
On Friday, March 2, the first body of troops appeared. Monday, after breakfast, eight men arrived. They forced the doors, and took whatever they wanted. Scotch cart, open cart, three saddles; all pillows, blankets, sheets, serviettes, all clothing, from Mr. J.’s down to baby’s, even her baptismal cloak, &c., J.'s wedding presents, family Bibles, telescope, microscope, all pictures on the wall smashed, mirrors, fine dressing-table, &c.
Q. But do you mean to say that our troops looted the houses of our fellow-subjects in our own Colony?
A. The fact is only too well attested. Earl de la Warr, correspondent for The Globe, writes after the Modder River fight: "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.” A Munster Fusilier, writing to his mother from Honey Nest, December 30, says: “We have a nice job on hand, going out to the farms for firewood, it doesn’t matter what it is. The other day we brought in two pianos, a sofa, and two dozen chairs, what you would get £150 for at home — and Billy Jones made short work of them to boil out dinner with. All the people have left their homes, and we can do what we like with them.” Another private, writing from Modder River, Honey Nest Kloof, January 1, says: "We have to go out every morning on what they call looting, robbing the farmers’ houses of all we can get in the line of firewood, breaking up chairs, tables, and even pianos. The farmers’ houses are splendidly furnished." A gunner at Modder, letter in The Evening News, January 15: “We went into the houses and got all manner of things, furniture, clothing, food, everything one could find in an English village.”
On Enemy’s Territory.
Q. Did their conduct improve when they were on enemy's territory?
A. As might have been expected, it became very much worse. What had been fitful in our colony became systematic in the Free State and the Transvaal. The looting was often carried out by the orders of our officers who superintended the operations.
How It Began.
Q. What was the first instance of this?
A. When Methuen’s cavalry on Jan. 9 raided the Free State and destroyed several farmhouses. The Times’ special correspondent said: —
The importance of the expedition lies wholly in the fact that in destroying houses and emptying a great farming region (described by another correspondent as thirty square miles), we have inflicted damage which the Boers appreciate more than the loss of many men in battle.
Dr. Conan Doyle says: —
Both the policy and the humanity of such a course appear to be open to question, and there was some cause for the remonstrance which President Kruger shortly after addressed to us on the subject (“The Great Boer War," p. 202).
Q. Did his remonstrance have any effect?
A. Not the least. The work of devastation was carried on without interruption along the line of march. Under Lord Roberts’s immediate eye looting was repressed. Everywhere else our troops appear to have burned and destroyed with a free hand. Writing to his father at Whaplode, Spalding, from Enslin Camp, January 10, Trooper G. Benton, of the 12th Lancers, says: —
We burn and blow up some beautiful homes that the Free Staters have left behind. You would hardly believe what furniture they have; some beautiful pianos, and all the lot go.
How It Was Kept Up.
Q. What other evidence is there of this?
A. Here is one piece of testimony by a newspaper man.
The special correspondent of The Manchester Guardian, after riding from Bloemfontein to Kimberley wrote: —
The way is a line of desolation, the farmhouses have not merely been sacked, they have been savagely destroyed. The mirrors have been smashed, the pianos wrecked, children’s toys and books wantonly destroyed. Even the buildings themselves have been burned and seriously damaged.
Writing from Colonel Mahon’s headquarters, Dry Harta Siding, May 8, the same correspondent says —
In ten miles we have burned no fewer than six farmhouses; the wife watched from her sick husband's bedside the burning of her home a hundred yards away. It seems as though a kind of domestic murder were being committed. I stood till late last night and saw the flames lick round each piece of the poor furniture — the chairs and tables, the baby’s cradle, the chest of drawers, containing a world of treasure, and when I saw the poor housewife’s face pressed against the window of the neighbouring house, my own heart burned with a sense of outrage. The effect on the Colonial troops who are gratifying their feelings of hatred and revenge is very bad. They swarm into the houses, looting and destroying, and filling the air with high-sounding cries of vengeance.
Q. Is there any testimony from soldiers?
A. Plenty. For instance, Private Stanley, of the N.S.W. contingent, writes to The Sydney Telegraph —
When within 800 yards of the farm we halted, and the infantry blazed a volley into the house; we broke open the place and went in. It was beautifully furnished and the officers got several things they could make use of. There was a lovely library — books of all descriptions, printed in Dutch and English. I secured a Bible, also a rifle, quite new. After getting all we wanted out of the home, our men put a charge under and blew it up. It seemed such a pity, it was a lovely house.
War or Burglary?
Q. But this is not War, it is burglary!
A. Whatever you call it, it is what our troops have been doing, in our name, with our authority, for months past in South Africa. Mr. Porter Smith, of the Bank of British Columbia, New Westminster, writes: —
We are camped with some of the Munster Fusiliers, doing most of the scouting. They make great hauls — watches, clothes, money and jewellery.
The Burning of Farms.
Q. Was the burning of farms exceptional?
A. It was part of the regular work of the Army. A signaller with Thorneycroft's Mounted Infantry, writing to Mr. Michael Dupare, says: —
We have plenty of work in the saddle from morning till night, what with patrolling the railway, and paying visits to farms and burning them. We had a bit of a surprise on the Sunday before Bank Holiday as at one o'clock in the morning we were ordered to saddle up and ride to a farm some miles away… finding the farmer, his wife, and children, in their beds. We burnt the farm, which was beautifully furnished, and boasted of a piano and other modern comforts.
Q. Have these things been witnessed by any newspaper correspondents?
A. By many. Some, like Mr. Stuart, of The Morning Post, gloat with delight in seeing “a beast of a rebel getting his deserts." Others, like Mr. E. W. Smith, were more human. Mr. Smith, writing in The Morning Leader of May 21, in a letter under date April 29, says: —
General French and General Pole-Carew at the head of the Guards and 18th Brigade are marching in, burning practically everything on the road. The brigade is followed by about 3,500 head of loot, cattle and sheep. Hundreds of tons of corn and forage have been destroyed. The troops engaged in the work are Roberts’s Horse, the Canadians and Australians. I hear to-day that General Rundle burnt his way up to Dewetsdorp. At one farm only women were left. Still rifles were found under the mattress. Orders were inexorable. The woman threw her arms round the officer's neck, and begged that the homestead might be spared. When the flames burst from the doomed place the poor woman threw herself on her knees, tore open her bodice, and bared her breasts, screaming, “Shoot me, shoot me! I’ve nothing more to live for, now that my husband is gone, and our farm is burnt, and our cattle taken!”
Q. Did the same rule prevail elsewhere?
A. Yes. Mrs. Bonsor, of Threshfield, publishes in a Huddersfield paper a letter from her husband, Private Fred. Bonsor, of the Imperial Yeomanry. He says:
Captain Lane Fox is a splendid man to follow. Of course, all farms and houses on our way are looted, burned down, and destroyed. It looks an awful shame, and the scenes are all along the sky-line, and shadows of women and kids running about trying to save something.
Q. What excuses are made for these atrocities?
A. So brutalizing is the effect of war that they are chiefly denounced because of their leniency! Thus wholesale violation of the rules of war is, however, excused by its apologists on three grounds: (1) that the farms burnt belong to men who have broken their oath of neutrality; (2) that they have sheltered and fed Boers on commando who have resisted capture, although a white flag was flying; (3) that they concealed weapons; and (4) that they stood within ten miles of a place where the railway-line had been interrupted by the enemy. But there are many instances where houses have been looted and burnt where none of those excuses apply. Looting, indeed, especially among the Colonials, seems to have become chronic and universal, and the general feeling of the rank and file was accurately expressed by the sergeant who wrote from Norval's Pont that he felt quite cheerful at the thought that he could go out anywhere and loot anything he liked.
The Excuse About the Oath.
Q. What is the excuse worth about the broken oath?
A. This has been dealt with by the English officer whose letter is given above. But it may be well, in consideration of his statement, to send the text of this official proclamation.
V. R.
(By the Grace of God.)
Public Notice
It is hereby notified for information, that unless the men at present on commando belonging to families in the town and district of Krugersdorp surrender themselves and hand in their arms to the Imperial Authorities by 20th July, the whole of their property will be confiscated and their families turned out destitute and homeless.
By Order,
G. H. M. Ritchie (Capt. K. Horse).
District Supt. Police.
Krugersdorp, 9th July, 1900.
This proclamation was afterwards cancelled, and the words “take the oath of neutrality,” and "the whole of their stock and supplies is liable to be confiscated," were substituted.
The Excuse about the White Flag.
Q. What is the worth of the excuse about shelling Boers on commando under the white flag?
A. Judge for yourself. A solitary farmhouse on the line of march flies the white flag. British soldiers on march halt and get milk and food. Next day a company of Boers come by and also get milk and bread. When eating they are surprised by the British. They refuse to surrender, and get away, leaving one or two dead behind. Then the house is solemnly burned for abuse of the white flag. For instance, a sergeant writes: —
Went out with some scouts to a farmhouse; they gave us hot coffee; said they had nothing more. Next day we were going to pay another visit; some Boers fired at us (several miles from the house); set fire to the house; there were two women in it, and so on.
Q. Is this the only way in which the white flag excuse is brought in?
A. No. A correspondent of The Morning Leader explained that
What actually happened again and again was, that women and non-combatants flew the white flag on a homestead, and that armed Boers carried on hostile operations on other parts of such farms, without any regard to the doings of those in the farmhouse, which might be miles off — a Boer farm being almost as large as an English parish. In such cases our troops thought fit to hold the women in the farmhouse responsible for deeds done, in no sort of collusion with them, and burned down the place by way of punishment. Where this was done it was the rule to refuse to let the victims save anything from the flames, and in one well-authenticated instance, a woman with a baby one day old was left homeless on the bare veldt, with only ruins around her.
Q. Did the Boers not generally abuse the white flag?
A. Dr. Conan Doyle gives that calumny its death-blow. In his book, speaking of the Boers, he says: —
They were rough in their ways and speech, but in spite of many calumnies and some few unpleasant truths, they might compare with most disciplined armies in their humanity and their desire to observe the usages of war.
To the members of the Pall Mall Club he said: —
The Boers had been the victims of a great deal of cheap slander in the Press. That the white flag was hoisted by the Boers as a cold-blooded device for luring our men into the open was an absolute calumny.
The Excuse as to the Destruction of Railways.
Q. What was the order made as to the burning of houses when the railway was broken?
A. The exact text does not seem to be accessible, but the Cape Town correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, telegraphs September 1: —
A proclamation, countersigned by Lord Roberts, has been issued at Bloemfontein, ordering the burning of upwards of thirty farms as a punishment for the destruction of the railway.
Even before this, on July 1, Sergeant S. Cameron, Cameron Highlanders, wrote from Rhenoster.
We are now burning every house belonging to the enemy near the place where the railway was blown up. We are feeding on De Wet’s sheep and cattle. I saw his house, which was a fine building, and we set fire to it.
Q. Was this the first evidence as to the adoption of this power?
A. No. On August 10, this telegram from Pretoria, dated August 9, appeared in The Standard: —
The Boers sniped a train at Bronkhurst yesterday, on the line from Pretoria to Middelburg. Two of its occupants were wounded. In accordance with Lord Roberts’ warning, all farms were fired within a radius of ten miles.
Conduct Worthy of Attila.
Q. How was this regarded by old soldiers at home?
A. With unfeigned horror. Mr. C. Williams, the veteran War Correspondent, whose close relations with the chiefs of the War Office are an open secret, has expressed himself in no measured tones on the atrocity of this order.
The Disarming of Women.
Q. Why was it so atrocious to burn down every house where a gun was discovered?
A. Because without a gun the women folk were at the mercy of the Kaffirs. Mr. Nevinson of The Daily Chronicle writes: —
In a farmhouse a woman who could speak English implored me for a revolver. Her husband was with the army, whether alive or dead she didn’t know. She was terrified at what the Kaffirs might do to herself and the children.
Q. ls this generally admitted to be the case?
A. It is the universal testimony. The dread of the Boer women of being left unarmed to the tender mercies of the English soldiers and to the Kaffirs led to scenes of horror only to be paralleled by the maddened flight of the Christian population in the Balkans before the advance of the Turkish troops. A correspondent of The Daily Mail thus describes the flight to the Vaal. —
’
Huge waggons, drawn by full spans of trek oxen, piled high with farmhouse furniture, where perched wistful-eyed women and children, with frightened, tear-stained faces; past deserted houses, with wide-open doors, and scattered belongings, past ambulances filled with groaning wounded. It was bitterly cold. The wind had a frost edge, and cut to the quick. Thinly-clad women clasped their shivering babes. Heartrending as was this enforced and hurried abandonment of homes, few hesitated to make the sacrifice. Anything was better than to fall into the hands of the hated English.
Outrages by Kaffirs.
Q. Is there any evidence as to the outrages by natives?
A. Very little. It is admitted that at the beginning of the War, British officers incited Linchwe and his blacks to make an attack upon the Boer laager, where they captured several Boer women, whose treatment was said to have been of the worst. But of specific cases of such outrages there can, in the nature of things, be no record. But the factors governing the problem, as stated by a British Officer, cannot be disputed. A white woman deprived of the weapon necessary for the defence of her person, is driven homeless, penniless, and starving into a Kaffir kraal. What other result can follow than the glutting of mingled lust and vengeance, the opportunity for which is directly due to the orders issued by British Generals for depriving women and children of the means necessary for their protection and for their sustenance.
Q. Was the danger to the women from the Kaffirs foreseen?
A. Clearly, and cases were recorded by our correspondents. Even in Pretoria a Kaffir has been convicted of assaulting a white woman. As soon as our army reached Bloemfontein The Times correspondent reported that measures had to be taken owing to assaults by Kaffirs on Dutch women left unprotected on their farms. Dr. Conan Doyle, describing the looting of houses by our soldiers, and the appearance of a Kaffir on the scene, says, “How do we know what these Kaffirs may do among lonely farms held by women and children.”
How the Women are Ruined.
Q. What is the difference between the Turkish treatment of women in Armenia and the British treatment of women in the Transvaal?
A. The difference is one of form rather than of essence. In both, War effected the ruin of the female population. The Turk in hot blood satisfied his passion by direct violence. In the English camp the same method is arrived at, unintentionally, by a distribution of parts, which renders it impossible to bring the crime home to any individual.
Q. And how is this done?
A. By using famine as the pander of lust. By the orders of the superior officer, the soldiers denude the country of all food, which, being interpreted, means that they take away all the subsistence possessed by the women who are living with their children in the farmhouses. That is the first stage.
Q. What is the second?
A. The second is to leave the women who are homeless and foodless upon the countryside until they are driven, like starving animals, to the camp to beg in mercy a morsel of bread to keep them from dying from starvation.
Q. And what is the third stage?
A. You have now several thousand single men, who are not “plaster saints," who have but scanty rations at the best, confronted with starving women who have nothing to give in return for bread except their persons. The inevitable result follows. Thus, by three simple steps, the profanation of womanhood and the ruin of matron and of maiden are accomplished as effectually in the British camp, although by a subtle roundabout method, as the same result is achieved in more direct fashion by the Bashi-Bazouks and the Circassians, who obey the orders of the Sultan.
Why No Protest?
Q. But we read very little of this in the Press.
A. For many obvious reasons. This subject is so painful that newspapers do not speak of it; it is so shameful that patriots feel it necessary to suppress all references to it, so that prudery and patriotism combine to stifle all reference to one of the most hideous blots upon the campaign of civilisation. But in the nature of things this result must follow. There is no dispute as to the fundamental factors. On one side, women deprived by administrative order of all food; on the other hand, a hundred thousand single men, not in barracks, but in camp, with rations at their disposal. Is it not obvious that there can be only one result?
Q. But have any correspondents referred to it?
A. One of the few references to this subject occurred in a letter in The Morning Leader, from "Scrutator," of Cape Town, who says: —
It is not merely the physical fire of the destroying enemy that is burning a hatred of England into the very soul of the Boer peoples. They are suffering a moral desolation they never knew before. Utter misery is reducing some of their women to sell themselves for bread; in Kimberley, I have just learned, one result of the War has been that many of the poorer Dutch girls, refused their former work by the pro-English citizens, have been driven into prostitution, the brothels being often kept by Malay women. The misery of some of the homeless women in the Orange State is driving them to prostitution. One traveller, with a high character for truthfulness, tells how a starving girl of twelve offered to sell herself to him the other day for a little food. Desperate mothers do the same to feed their famished children.
Q. Will there not be a great outcry against your calling attention to this?
A. No doubt, and indignant British matrons will swell the chorus of denunciation of those who venture to call attention to the most damning blot on our escutcheon. But the British matron may be asked what she would think of the character of her cook or housemaid if either of them were known to have been compelled to spend a single wintry night on Wimbledon-common or Hounslow-heath, without food or shelter, in the immediate vicinity of a military camp. It can hardly be expected that Tommy Atkins on the warpath in an enemy’s country would be more scrupulous about meddling with women who cross his path than he would be at home in his own country.
Not "Plaster Saints.”
Q. Are the British soldiers worse than those of other nations?
A. Not at all; but as Rudyard Kipling has reminded us with exceeding iteration, in peace time they are not "plaster saints," but single men in barracks "most remarkable like you.” When the single men in barracks are single men let loose in an enemy’s country, their resemblance to "plaster saints” is naturally reduced to a minimum.
Q. But are there any other cases on record in which British soldiers have laid violent hands upon the property and women of their enemies.
A. Alas! there is, unfortunately, only too painful a precedent. Dr. Sir W. H. Russell, the famous Times correspondent at the Crimea, visited the Transvaal in 1879, and drew up a report concerning the manner in which the British garrison in the Transvaal in a time of profound peace gave itself up to the plundering of property and the insulting of the Boer women, with a straightforward candour which evoked a storm of protest. Lord Wolseley endeavoured to smooth away the bad effects of Dr. Russell’s report by minimising the instances of outrage, but the memory of the treatment which they and their women had to endure from Tommy Atkins twenty years ago contributed much to the bitterness of the present struggle.
Lord Roberts’ Proclamation.
Q. Has much regard been shown by Lord Roberts to the Hague Rules of War?
A. So little that it may be gravely doubted whether he has ever read them. His attempt to enforce the oath of neutrality upon the inhabitants was condemned in Articles 44 and 45, yet he was so little aware of this that he actually plumed himself upon his leniency in thus violating the law.
Q. What were the words?
A. Here is the text of his proclamation: —
Whereas the leniency with which the burghers have been treated has not been appreciated, but has been used as a cloak for continued resistance, and whereas there are no means of distinguishing combatants from non-combatants, all oath-breakers will hereafter be punished either by death, fine or imprisonment. Further, all burghers living in districts occupied by the British troops, unless they surrender and subscribe to the neutrality oath prescribed by me to meet such cases, will be treated as prisoners of war, and will be transported. All buildings which are used for the purpose of harbouring Boer scouts will be razed to the ground.
Q. What is the excuse for this savagery?
A. That we are not fighting a regular army, but a whole nation. Therefore we may — nay, must — make war on women and children, punish the innocent for the guilty, and reduce by famine a brave people whom we cannot overcome with the sword.
Q. But is this severity not necessary to end the war?
A. It is just this severity which renders it impossible to end the war. If the Burghers had house or home to return to when they laid down their arms, there might be some hope they would submit. But as we have burned all they owned in the world, and made them desperate, homeless men, they now live only for vengeance and their country’s cause.
Summing Up.
Q. What, then, is the net result of this examination of evidence?
A. The confirmation of every statement made in the Letter of a British Officer. The facts are proved. Instead of the violation of the rules of War being denied, they are defended by the tyrant's plea — necessity. The same plea might be used to justify the torture of prisoners and the cold-blooded massacre of captives.
Q. Then why do we not resort to torture and massacre?
A. Because if we did the Boers could make reprisals. We break nearly every rule of War we agreed to observe, excepting those which we cannot break with impunity. The Boers cannot burn our farms and turn our women out to die of starvation or to buy bread by the sacrifice of their honour. Therefore we do those things to them and glory in it. But if we shot or hanged prisoners, they could do the same. Dread of reprisals is the only check left upon unrestrained devilry in War. Humanity is trodden underfoot. Magnanimity is a byword and reproach. Christianity has become merely the mask for murder. And all this in the year of our Lord 1900!
READER,
whoever you may be. What are you going to do to cleanse your hands of your brother's blood, of your sister’s shame?
Copies of this Broadsheet will be supplied for distribution at 2s. 6d. Per 1000. All who desire to arrest the carnival of arson, robbery, and outrage are requested to send their names and addresses to the Hon. Sec. “Stop the War” Committee, Clock House, Arundel Street, London, W.C.
Printed by W. Spraight & Sons, Fetter Lane, London, E.C. for the Stop-the-War Committee, Clock House, Arundel Street, London, W.C.
Source: Curated by George Moore Interactive LLC (georgemooreinteractive.org) — Shared for research, educational, and personal use.