It is gratifying to note how the horrible charges of barbarity, brought by persons ignorant of the real state of affairs in South Africa at the time of the war, are disposed of by this one sentence from the mouth of General Botha, “One is only too thankful nowadays to know that our wives are under English protection.” We owe General De Wet some gratitude for his book, bitter as it is, since he makes evident that a main reason for the surrender of May 31 was to ensure the safety of the women who were not in the concentration camps, and whom they feared could not be placed in those positions of security. It is plain that if the Boers could have charged the British Government with the protection of those women they would have held out for some time longer. In discussing the question of the destruction done, we have only again to turn to General De Wet’s history to discover how necessary was the burning of certain farms which, worked by Kaffirs under the direction of the women, were provision bases of the Boers; and how imperative too was the shooting of horses, since, to quote the General himself, the Boer is only half a man without his horse. Indeed, though De Wet complains of the methods of the British in carrying on the war, his own narration of his exploits—the wrecking of trains, the destruction of railways, the burnings of the veldt, and the stripping of prisoners—offers the “best explanation yet published of the necessity for the measures of which he complains.”
To return to General Botha. In reply to Mr. Chamberlain he wrote from Horrex’s Hotel, Norfolk Street, Strand, on the 12th of November, stating:—
“... That there were some misunderstandings as to the reasons which led to the appeal to the world on behalf of their fellow-countrymen, which he wished to try to remove. In the first place, however, he sincerely shared Mr. Chamberlain’s desire to avoid controversy, the more so as there were some assurances in the Colonial Secretary’s recent speech—which he (General Botha) was privileged to hear—of a kind to gratify all who had the fortunes of his destitute fellow-countrymen at heart. He wished also to say that he and his colleagues welcomed Mr. Chamberlain’s decision to visit South Africa, and his determination to see the condition of their country with his own eyes, and form a first-hand judgment on its needs.”
Dealing then with the “misunderstandings” which he wished to remove, General Botha wrote:—
“We made no secret in accepting the Terms of Surrender that the compensation or assistance therein promised would be totally inadequate to enable the Burghers of the late Republics who remained in the field or were in the prisons and concentration camps to make a fair start in life again. On the contrary it was made clear by us that in the absence of further help from the British Government we would have at once to appeal to the charity of the civilised world for further help for the widows and orphans of our Burghers, and for those who had been rendered unfit for work by wounds or sickness during the war....
“It was only from your speech of November 5th that we learnt that the grant was intended entirely for all who are destitute, or who cannot make a fresh start in life without help. We always understood that the £3,000,000 were to be given in partial compensation for war losses, and that that was also understood by Lord Milner is clear from his despatch of June 11th (published in Blue Book, Cd. 1163, page 141), in which he expresses his intention of distributing it pro rata to those who can prove losses through the war.
“It therefore appeared to us that the free grant made no general provision for widows, orphans, and the destitute except in so far as they could prove war losses, and we distinctly gathered from your remarks that you could do no more for them. Under these circumstances we issued our appeal. We were, I need not say, highly gratified to learn from your recent speech that the Government would undertake a fuller responsibility for those needing their help, and particularly for the information that if more money than has been voted should be needed, the loan would be increased accordingly. We feel sure that it will ultimately be found that the £3,000,000 already assigned will by no means suffice to meet what is required as a free gift. Meanwhile, the needs of the sufferers are pressing, and we are glad to think that the sums which, through the generosity of the public, we have been able to collect, will to some extent minister to them without any delay, while they will also supplement what is being done by the Government.
“In regard to the loan, the provision lately made and the promise that the amount would be augmented if necessary came as a great relief after the months of waiting and suspense, when we were continually being told of those who, from lack of timely assistance, were compelled to part with their property to meet the urgent wants of themselves and their families. Some further and more detailed information as to the terms and conditions under which loans will be obtainable would be gratefully welcomed by the people interested.
“With regard to your reference to the free grant of three millions as something ‘without any precedent in the history of the world,’ I wish to say nothing that can excite or prolong controversy. You must only allow me to remark that the whole circumstances are unprecedented; that the gift of £3,000,000 was one of the conditions upon which the burghers laid down their arms; and that our view is, that having taken the assets of our Governments, you may fairly be expected to meet their liabilities, not in part, but in full.
“In regard to the large sums of money alleged by you to remain unexpended in Europe out of sums remitted by the Transvaal to Europe during the war, I can only assure you that I have no knowledge of any such remittances, and should be surprised to find that any were made. There is no sum of money belonging to the late Government known to me over which I have any authority whatever. I can only say that should any such sums exist I personally should be very glad to see them devoted to the objects mentioned.”
Passing to the subject of the concentration camps, General Botha said it was not his intention in the references he had made to them to suggest that they ought to be broken up before the people could be brought back to their farms. He proceeded:—
“We recognise that towards the close of the war improvements were introduced into them, in consequence of which the death-rate fell to an ordinary figure; but we do not know on what grounds you asserted that a death-rate of 21 per 1000 was lower than that which obtained before the war in normal conditions, and we are not prepared to agree that that was the case. My remark at Paris about the sufferings of the women and children had reference more particularly to those remaining outside the camps, who had their dwellings, with the furniture, food, and all that they contained, burnt or destroyed by British troops; their herds killed or removed, and themselves left destitute on the veldt. These were certainly sufferings, and they did carry great weight with us, among other reasons, in inducing us to surrender.”
While admitting that the Government was making great efforts to carry on the work of education in the camps, General Botha said he could not help sharing with his colleagues many objections to the large orphanages which had been referred to. He also wished to point out with reference to the pecuniary and other assistance given to the Boers in their misfortunes by “foreign” sympathisers, that in cash and in kind they totalled a value more than a hundredfold what Mr. Chamberlain had been led to suppose. On the subject of the desolation caused by the war, General Botha continued:—
“You are about to proceed to South Africa yourself, and if—as I have no reason to doubt will be the case—you get some of our own people to go over the country of the late Republics with you, you will be able to judge for yourself whether the description of the ruin and desolation as given by myself and others of us was—nay, I might almost say, if it could be—exaggerated.... If your allusion to ‘one or other of the belligerents’ is meant to suggest that the destruction of houses was practised by us you have been misinformed. My orders were definite that no houses should be destroyed; I know of only four cases where the orders were contravened, and in those instances every endeavour was made to trace the perpetrators, and where known they were promptly punished.”