to a peaceful settlement accompanied by guarantees for the establishment of order in Cuba. "But," he added, "they first took steps to ascertain that the presentation of such a note, as well as its terms, would be acceptable to the President. Her Majesty's Government declined to associate themselves with other subsequent proposals which seemed to them open to objection as having the appearance of putting pressure on the Government of the United States, and offering an opinion as to their attitude. I am not able to lay on the table any papers on this subject."

Complete and very cordial unanimity marked the adoption of a resolution moved by Mr. Balfour and seconded by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, thanking Mr. Archibald Milman, who was retiring through failing health from the post of Clerk of the House of Commons, for the long and much-valued assistance which he had rendered to the House and its Members. It was a melancholy circumstance that Mr. Milman, who on his retirement was raised to the Knight Commandership of the Bath, did not survive more than three weeks the announcement of the termination of what the resolution fitly termed "his forty-five years' devoted service" to the House.

The House proceeded (Jan. 20) to the consideration of an amendment to the Address, on which much ingenuity had been bestowed with a view to securing for it the support of all sections of, at any rate, the British Opposition. It proposed to represent to the King "that this House, while prepared to support all proper measures for the effective prosecution of the war in South Africa, is of opinion that the course pursued by your Majesty's Ministers and their attitude with regard to a settlement have not conduced to the early termination of the war and the establishment of a durable peace." The moving of this amendment was entrusted to Mr. Cawley (Prestwich, Lancs), who had hitherto taken very little, if any, part in Parliamentary debate. He explained that the difference of opinion between the supporters of the amendment and the Government was as to the means which should be taken to bring about peace, and he condemned the Government in that connection for having sanctioned farm burning, for having allowed Boer women in some cases to be put on half rations; and also, above all, with reference to the barbarous policy of compelling the relatives and friends of rebels condemned to death to witness the executions. The amendment was seconded by Mr. M'Kenna (Monmouth, N.), who described Lord Rosebery's policy, expounded at Chesterfield, of ending the war by regular terms of peace as the antithesis of the policy which he attributed to the Government, of insisting on unconditional surrender. On the other side Major Seely (Isle of Wight), who had served eighteen months in South Africa, affirmed that during that period he had seen "no severity in any way comparable with what might reasonably have been expected," and expressed

his conviction that the concentration of women and children in camps was absolutely necessary to protect them from a largely hostile black population. As to peace, the Boers, he argued, were too brave an enemy to be in any way cajoled into submission. Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean, Gloucester) blamed the Government for having done things which made it impossible for them to treat with the enemy without incurring some humiliation, and laid stress on the want of vigour with which they had carried on the war and on the constant tardiness of their preparations. Sir Howard Vincent (Sheffield, Central), who also had been in South Africa, dwelt on the importance of producing by their debates on the minds of the Boers the impression of unanimous determination here. Mr. Trevelyan (Elland, W. R., Yorks) complained of the "unreasonable optimism" which had led the Government, as he maintained, into inadequacy of preparation both for military operations and for the requirements of the concentration camps. He condemned the proclamation of August 7, 1901, which threatened with banishment any Boer leaders found in arms after September 15, as a useless threat which had delayed peace.

Mr. Chamberlain then delivered an important and elaborate speech, the main effect of which was to declare the very close identity between the South African policy of the Government and that set forth by Lord Rosebery and the Liberal Imperialists. In vindicating the establishment and general management of the concentration camps, he pointed out that it was clear from a despatch from Lord Kitchener in a recently issued Blue-book that the formation of the camps was forced upon him by the insistence of General Botha on his right to force every burgher to join him, and "if they did not do so to confiscate their property and leave their families on the veldt." This explanation, Mr. Chamberlain observed, must have come as a revelation to many Members. With a humanity unprecedented in the history of war we had accepted responsibility for women and children for whom General Botha would do nothing. It had been the general practice of belligerents to refuse to relieve enemies of the pressure exercised upon them by the presence of women and children. If we had followed that practice and had refused to take care of the women and children he believed the war would have been over long ago. As to the mortality in the camps, which he deplored, there had been gross and disgraceful exaggerations in Radical publications. In computing the mortality due to the war the normal amount of mortality must be deducted. The slow progress in numbers of the Boer population could only be due to the great mortality among the children in normal times. It was, of course, the duty of the Government to find a remedy for the mortality in the camps if any could be found. The chief cause of the loss of life was the epidemic of measles, and another cause was the ignorance of the Boers of remedial measures. To the detriment

of our own troops every effort had been made to bring sufficient supplies to the camps, and, with the sole exception of Miss Hobhouse, every visitor to the camps had recognised the care and humanity of those in charge. General Viljoen himself had spoken in terms of high approval of what was done. Neither the War Department nor the Colonial Department had been remiss in this matter, and he was glad to say that a very considerable diminution in the mortality had now been brought about.

Coming to the question of the final settlement, Mr. Chamberlain showed from Boer documents that the burghers had always laid stress on their determination to fight until they obtained their independence. Referring to Lord Rosebery's statement that he would not be deaf to overtures from any responsible authority and to the similar statements by Mr. Asquith and Sir E. Grey, he observed that the difference between those politicians and the Government was imperceptible. He agreed with Lord Rosebery upon this point, but he did not agree with him when he said that the Boers should be granted at any time the terms offered to them by Lord Kitchener. Surely it would be a dangerous precedent to set to allow the Boers to suppose that, when they had refused certain terms, they could obtain similar terms whenever they chose. That would be bad policy, for it would encourage them to continue the struggle, and we had incurred heavy losses in life and treasure since the Boers refused Lord Kitchener's terms. The terms which would be granted remained the same as far as their spirit was concerned, but their details were open to modification. Then we had a right to say to persons claiming to represent the Boers, "What are your credentials?" The Government must first know that the representatives had a right to speak for the combatants in the field. But were there any representatives having such authority? Mr. Kruger and his entourage had lost the confidence of the Boers in the field, as was natural; and he questioned whether Mr. Steyn, or Mr. Schalk Burger, or Delarey, or De Wet could speak for all the different commandos. But supposing any one was found who was entitled to speak for all the Boers in the field, the terms must be such as to ensure a lasting peace.

Mr. Chamberlain challenged Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman to produce any proof in support of his charge that it was the intention of the Government to exterminate the Boers. He doubted whether any member of the Government had made use of the expression "unconditional surrender "; but in any case unconditional surrender did not in these days mean extermination. Those among the Opposition who laid stress, as Mr. M'Kenna had done, on the precedent of the Canadian rebellion and Lord Durham's action forgot that his policy actually was one of unconditional surrender. Lord Durham refused amnesty to the ringleaders. Twenty-five were executed and 158 leaders

were banished or transported. Everything which the Government had done could be justified by this precedent and by the example set by the North in the American Civil War. In South Africa there would not be any general confiscation of property, and the people had been promised equal justice and privileges. We were certainly more lenient than the United States. He did not believe in the permanent alienation of the Boers. Among the reasons adducible for his opinion he referred to the formation of the Burgher Corps of Scouts-now numbering 2,000-and to the fact that a large body of the Boer prisoners in Bermuda were willing to take the oath of neutrality. In Ceylon many prisoners had even been willing to join our army and to fight under the British flag. We all desired a solid peace-a peace that should not be broken-and in order that this might be secured the beaten nation must recognise its defeat. In the circumstances no humiliation would be involved in that. The Government were not animated by any vindictive feeling and would not be deaf to reasonable overtures of peace from responsible authorities. But they were not willing to take any action which might be construed as weakness or vacillation, and therefore they refused to withdraw the proclamation of August 7, 1901. Under this proclamation leaders who were likely in the future to intrigue in Africa against the Government would be deprived of the opportunity of doing so. With regard to the question of amnesty, he pointed out that a universal amnesty had not been advocated by Lord Rosebery or any other Liberal Imperialist; but stated that the largest possible measure of amnesty would be granted. The Colonial Secretary concluded, amid loud cheers, with the declaration that the Government intended to retain the confidence and support of the country and the Empire, and that the claim of the Colonies to be heard with regard to the final settlement would certainly be allowed in spite of the protests of a small section of the Opposition.

66

Mr. Labouchere agreed with a taunt of Mr. Chamberlain's that he and those who with him had taken part in the notorious Queen's Hall pro-Boer meeting could not vote for an amendment pledging them to "support all proper measures for the effective prosecution of the war." It was now a war of conquest carried on in a barbarous manner." This point of view was put in an amendment to the Opposition amendment -denouncing the "systematic devastation of the two South African Republics and the conduct of the concentration camps as "barbarous❞—which was moved in a violent speech by Mr. Dillon (Mayo, E.). The Opposition Whips told against this proposal and it was defeated by 283 votes to 64-majority 219. Thereafter the support of the original amendment was resumed by Mr. Bryce (Aberdeen, S.), who censured the Government for having neglected political considerations in their conduct of the war, and for not having suggested terms to the moderate

elements in the Boer army after its first serious reverses. The annexation proclamation issued by Lord Roberts he described as indefensible and as most unfortunate in its effects, and he also dwelt on the impolicy of some subsequent proclamations, as well as of farm burning. The result of the Government's mistaken methods was the spread of disaffection in Cape Colony. He believed, in spite of the expressed claim of the Boer leaders to independence, that, if negotiations were opened, they would be quite willing to abate their demand. In the interests of future peace he urged the Government to grant generous terms.

Before the resumption of the debate, on January 21, Mr. Chamberlain informed Mr. Buxton (Poplar, Tower Hamlets) that no sentence of banishment had been promulgated against Boer leaders captured since September 15, 1901, when the proclamation issued on August 7 came into force. For the present the captured persons, numbering 105, who came within the provisions of the proclamation, were being detained like ordinary prisoners of war.

Mr. Churchill (Oldham) opposed Mr. Cawley's amendment, but in a very detached speech, in which he complained that the Government had not provided for a continuous supply of efficient troops, questioned whether Lord Kitchener had sufficient troops at the present time, and dwelt on the desirability of preparing reinforcements of 30,000 men. As between settlement by compromise and settlement by force he preferred the former, but the latter would be necessary if the Boers would not give up their continued aspirations for independence.

A long speech which followed from Sir W. Harcourt (Monmouthshire, W.) was chiefly remarkable for the strenuous effort it embodied to establish the existence of material differences between the position of the Government as expounded in Mr. Chamberlain's speech and also in recent utterances of Lord Milner's and that of Lord Rosebery. Thus he deplored the determination of the Colonial Secretary not to withdraw, as Lord Rosebery would do, the proclamation issued in August requiring the Boer leaders to surrender by September 15, 1901. The right hon. gentleman's reason for his attitude was that the withdrawal of the proclamation would be a sign of weakness, in fact he was afraid of being thought afraid. A wise statesmanship would encourage the Boers to make overtures; but the Government had discouraged them from doing so by issuing this proclamation. The leaders, if banished, would become martyrs, as Lord Rosebery had said, and they would be received with enthusiasm by foreign nations in Europe. Discussing the question of the terms of settlement, Sir W. Harcourt questioned whether the Boers were likely to make overtures unless some information was given as to the terms that would be granted. Everybody had hoped that the terms offered in March were still open to the Boers for acceptance; but on Monday they had