Britain and the Boer Republics were referred to any impartial tribunal that might be agreed upon. "We are willing," said President Steyn, "to appear before any such tribunal and meet any charges that may be brought against us. If that tribunal should decide that we have been guilty of such crimes and misdemeanours as to justify the infliction

of the capital punishment, we bow without demur and accept the extinction of our nationality; but we refuse absolutely to recognise a sentence which has been passed by our executioner, who hopes to profit by our death." In the great dispute between the Briton and the Boer in South Africa the Briton is at once the accuser, the prosecutor, the hostile witness, the judge, and executioner. Against this mockery of justice the Boers are fighting, and will fight to the bitter end. Hence it is that the Boers present to the world the first example of a nationality which is deliberately choosing the risk of extermination rather than abandon its demand for a fair trial before an impartial tribunal.

Reichstag. In defending his policy, he stated that in the summer of 1899 the German Government had suggested to President Kruger that he might do well to invoke the mediation of the United States of America. At the time when that suggestion was made every one, both in Cape Town and in Pretoria, believed that the concessions

is one of the lies greedily swallowed by those whose evil conscience makes them clutch at any fallacy in order to conceal their guilt. Germany and Holland never offered the Boers arbitration, nor is there a vestige of evidence that any such offer was made at any time by any Power to the South African Republics. The only foundation for this silly fiction was a mistranslation of one word in Count von Bülow's speech before the

which President Kruger was reluctantly induced to make would suffice to settle the dispute amicably. It was just after the Bloemfontein Conference when, Mr. Chamberlain himself being witness, President Kruger was making concession after concession until at last, as we know, he had conceded nine-tenths of the English demand. Nothing could have been more fatuous than for President Kruger at that moment to have inflamed British jealousy and wrecked all hope of a peaceful settlement by invoking the intervention of a foreign Power. There is not a single Jingo

in Great Britain who would not have declared that any such appeal at that moment was damning evidence of his reluctance to make the needed concessions, and also of his determination to assert his independence as a Sovereign International State, thus to invoke foreign intervention in what they imagined was purely

affair.

a

British

President

Bülow's speech upon the mistranslation of which this misconception has arisen. I quote from the Times report :

"Count von Bülow here cited the documents already published by the Dutch Government in their Yellow-book showing that in accordance with the views of the German Government the Dutch Foreign Minister strongly advised Mr. Kruger to maintain a moderate attitude. In June, 1899, Mr. Kruger was advised by Germany through the Dutch Government to invite mediation, but Dr. Leyds informed the Dutch Minister in Paris that Mr. Kruger did not consider that the moment had yet come for applying for the mediation of America.' Some time afterwards

Mr. Kruger made the attempt to obtain arbitration, but 'feeling had become too heated,' and in August Mr. Kruger complained to the Dutch Government that arbitration could not be arranged." MAKING THE ISSUE CLEAR.

We have therefore the issue clearly posed before the world. The Boers are fighting to the death for arbitration. England is fighting stolidly against arbitration, and by their attitude in relation to this great question the particular disputants will be judged, are being judged to-day by the civilised world, and will be judged hereafter by history.

All this is clear enough to those who followed the matter closely, and took pains to inform themselves as to the fundamental facts of the situation. But it is necessary to bring home to the mind and conscience of the nations the facts which justify the appeal of the Boers to the Hague Conventions. The immediate objective of all friends of peace is to popularise the Hague Conventions. It would teach the millions of Europe and of America what the Hague Conference was, what it did, and why at this moment it has failed to avert this war.

The visit of Paul Kruger to Europe and his projected tour in America afford admirable opportunities for the necessary propaganda, which can be carried out with a fulness that would have been quite impossible a year ago.

The Hague Conference did not merely draw up a Convention of Arbitration. It spent much time in the elaboration of the Rules and Usages of War. President Kruger's appeal for arbitration is based not merely upon arbitration, but primarily, in the first instance, upon the convention relating to the laws of war. The statesmen who drew up in the series of articles the laws which should govern civilised as distinct from barbarous warfare, recognised that, notwithstanding all the efforts that might be made to avert war, it would still remain for some time the supreme tribunal. They therefore formulated and precisely defined the principles of international law governing civilised warfare. These principles

have been accepted by Great Britain and formally ratified by her Government within less than twelve months. President Kruger on his first landing at Marseilles declared in trumpet tones which rang through the world that England was not waging war in accordance with civilised rules, but was fighting like a barbarous Power. This emphatic declaration excited great indignation on the part of those who had deluded themselves into the belief that a war of devastation, unparalleled in the whole of the Nineteenth Century, was being waged in the most civilised fashion by the humaneness of our generals. We now know better. The proclamations published by Lord Roberts and interpreted by Mr. Chamberlain show that, so far from carrying on this war in accordance with the rules and usages of civilised warfare, we were doing exactly the opposite. Upon this point it is necessary that there should be no mistake. The laws governing civilised warfare are to be found in the Articles 44 to 52 of the Hague Convention for the

Rules of War, but every one of these eight rules has been cynically set aside by Lord Roberts :

1. EXACTION OF THE OATH. ARTICLE XLV.—Any pressure on the population of occupied territory to take the oath to the hostile Power is prohibited.

In March, 1900, when Lord Roberts occupied Bloemfontein, he issued a proclamation declaring that the burghers, with certain exceptions, "who are willing to lay down their arms at once and to bind themselves by an oath to abstain from further participation in the war, will be given passes to allow them to return to their homes, and will not be made prisoners of war, nor will their property be taken from them.”

These terms imply that if the burghers did not take the oath to the British Government, binding themselves to abstain from giving any assistance whatever to the Governments of the Republics, they would have their property taken from them. This proclamation, therefore, was a threat that the private property of burghers in the field might be confiscated, unless they deserted their own army and took the oath to the hostile Power.

Lord Roberts supplemented this proclamation of March by another proclamation on August 14th, which says nothing concerning the confiscation of property, but which threatens the burghers with transportation if they refuse to take the oath. The exact text of the proclamation is :

"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."

2. COMPELLING THE POPULATION TO TAKE PART IN
MILITARY OPERATIONS.

ARTICLE XLIV.—Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country is prohibited.

66

In

This, which is sternly prohibited by the Rules of War, is authorised by the proclamations of Lord Roberts. In the proclamation of May 31st he threatens with confiscation and destruction of property all those "who have not done their utmost to prevent" any attack upon property by the Boers. the proclamation of August 14th, Lord Roberts warned the burghers to acquaint Her Majesty's forces with the presence of the enemy upon their farms. Otherwise they would be regarded as aiding and abetting the enemy.' This compulsion upon the inhabitants to act as British spies and to report to the Intelligence Department of the invading army was followed up by a much more serious infraction of this Rule in the proclamation of October 24th, which requires all burghers to do scouting duty every night in the vicinity of their farms, in order to prevent sniping. Failure to comply with this order subjects the farmer (1) to a fine of £200, and (2) to the burning of

his farm.

3. THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY. ARTICLE XLVI.-Family honours and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be respected.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

ARTICLE XLVII.-Pillage is formally prohibited.

ARTICLE LII.-Neither requisitions in kind nor services can be demanded from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their country.

These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.

The contributions in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged. The evidence as to the violations of these Rules may be grouped under the following heads :-

Proclamations already noticed under the heading of the Exaction of the Oath prove that private property was confiscated by order of the British authorities as a method of compelling the burghers to take the oath of neutrality. But in a war in which

every full-grown male is legally enrolled as a member of the national army, and is compelled to take his place in the commandoes, these proclamations amount to a declaration that all private property is confiscated unless the soldiers desert their colours. Lord Roberts on October 3rd issued a proclamation in which he formally proclaims this policy of pillage. In the proclamation published in the Official Gazette Lord Roberts says:-"The stock and supplies of those on commando are to be taken without any receipt being given."

Article 52 of the Hague Convention declares that "No requisitions in kind shall be demanded without being paid for, or, if this is impossible, their receipt shall be acknowledged.' That this was done is proved by the letter of the Deputy Adjutant-General to Lord Roberts, who, writing to Colonel Victor Milward, M. P., says that " sheep, horses, cattle, and carriages were requisitioned by proper authority; payment was only withheld when the owner was still in arms against us which is an official admission that whenever the burgher remained true to his flag his property was confiscated, his farm was pillaged, in utter disregard of Articles 46, 48, and 52. Mr. Chamberlain admitted (Speech in House of Commons, December 6th) that cattle were taken without payment or receipt when the owners "were guilty of acts of war against us," in other words, obedience to the orders of their Government to serve in the army of national defence is treated as a crime justifying the confiscation of their private property by the invading army.

In October this policy of confiscation was applied more generally by Lord Kitchener, who in that month issued orders for the seizure of the standing crops of all burghers who were still in the field. The official instructions state :

"These crops become the property of Her Majesty's Government, and no purchase of produce will be allowed from the wives of men who are fighting."

On October 15th Lord Kitchener issued instructions to general officers as follows:

"All available men, waggons, and tack-gear within reach of your post are to be collected from farms, leaving none whatever for farming or other purposes. Patrols to search all farmhouses, and report the result."

4. THE INFLICTION OF GENERAL PENALTIES FOR
ACTS OF INDIVIDUALS.

ARTICLE I. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.

This, which is forbidden by Article 50 of the Hague Convention, is explicitly authorised by Lord Roberts in his proclamation of June 16th. The following official proclamation, No. 602, was issued by him at Bloemfontein :

"NOTICE.

"Whereas, by Proclamation, dated the 16th day of June, 1900, of Lord Roberts, Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief Her Majesty's Forces in South Africa, it was notified to, and the inhabitants and principal residents of the Orange River Colony and the South African Republic were warned, that whatever wanton damage to public property, such as Railways, Bridges, Culverts, Telegraph Wires, &c., took place, the houses of persons living in the neighbourhood would be burned, inasmuch as such destruction could not take place without their knowledge and connivance. Now, therefore, it is hereby notified for general information that the following sentences have been passed in connection with destruction of Property, Railways, &c., in the Orange River Colony, and have been approved by FieldMarshal Lord Roberts.

"Sentence. The following persons to have their farms burned." Then follow thirty-eight names, with several others unmentioned.

"Sentence. The following persons to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. per morgen of the area of their farms." Then follow sixty-three names and others not named, almost all in the first list being included in the second list. The fines must be about one-eighth of the whole freehold value of these farms.

Considering that the destruction was usually effected by the Boer commandoes, acting in accordance with the laws and

usages of war, and provided with artillery, it is obvious that the unarmed inhabitants within a range of five miles could not have prevented the destruction of the railway for which they were held responsible. This order was issued in June, when the regularly organised armies of the Boer Republics were still in the field. On September 2nd, in a letter to General Botha, Lord Roberts endeavoured to justify his order on the ground that there no longer any properly organised Boer armies in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. He says

were

"3. In order to put these views into practice, I have issued instructions that the Boer farmhouses near the spot where an effort has been made to destroy the railroad or to wreck the trains shall be burnt, and that from all farmhouses for a distance of ten miles around such a spot all provisions, cattle, etc., shall be removed."

In addition to this policy of devastation carried out in regions where property had been destroyed, other districts were marked out for denudation, in accordance with the following order issued by Lord Kitchener :

"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 horses and forage, and of collecting cattle and live stock 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."

We have, therefore, under the hand and seal of British commanding officers, proclamations laying down principles of action which constitute a reversion to the savage practices of the Seventeenth century. Against these, General Louis Botha, Commander-in-Chief of the Boer forces, has entered his solemn protest, in the letter addressed to Lord Roberts on September 6th. "It is already known to me that barbarous actions of this kind are committed by your troops under your command, not only alongside or near the railway, but also in places far removed from railways. Wherever your troops move not only are houses burned down or blown up with dynamite, but defenceless women and children are ejected, robbed of all food and cover, and all this without any just cause existing for such proceedings.

The civilised nations of the world are therefore face to face with a grave situation created by the deliberate and persistent violation of the recognised usages and rules of civilised warfare. If this reversion to barbarism is allowed to pass by without protest it will become an established precedent governing the conduct of troops in the field in future wars.

Should this result follow, we may expect to see that in the next European war the private property of every citizen who is summoned to the defence of his country will be confiscated, his house razed to the ground, and his women and children left without food or shelter in a country overrun by a hostile army. It will also be regarded as legitimate to menace with ruin or exile all those who refuse to take the oath to the invading Power; and it will further be considered in accordance with the usages of warfare to compel non-combatants to assist in the conquest of their own country by acting as spies for the invading force by using their utmost efforts to prevent the attacks on the property of the invader, and by undertaking scouting duty for the purpose of discovering and driving off the patrols of their own army. Finally, it will also be considered permissible for the commander of an invading army to burn down every house within five miles of any place in which a railway or telegraph wire has been cut by the army defending the territory against which he is operating. Such a principle would justify a second devastation of the Palatinate, and authorise atrocities the like of which have been happily unknown in Europe for a hundred years.

No more effective method of rousing popular passion can be imagined than the demonstration by authority of this reversion Great Britain has made, and no more effective method could be conceived of popularising the way opened by the Hague Conference to escaping resort to the barbarous practices of which Great Britain has been guilty.

At

AN INTERNATIONAL PROTEST AND APPEAL. This being the case, it is not to be wondered at that the International Union-an association formed for the express purpose of promoting Internationalism by explaining and defending the work of the Hague Conference-should have seized this opportunity. two meetings of the Committee held in Paris last month it was decided to take steps at once in order to secure signatures to the appeal which President Kruger is making to the Governments, and, after much consultation with other countries, they drew up the following appeal, which is to be made the basis of a great Crusade of Peace throughout Europe and America :—

THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE HAGUE CONVENTIONS. The Committee of the International Union have adopted the following Appeal and Protest which they submit for signature to all who love Justice and Peace.

To the Signatory Powers of the Hague Conventions of Arbitration and of the Rules and Usages of War.

We, the undersigned, recognising the value of the conclusions registered by the Powers at the Hague Conference, place on record our solemn protest against the violation of their provisions in the operations of the war now raging in South Africa.

I.

We accept the Laws and Usages of War drawn up at The Hague as formulating the usages which distinguish civilised from barbarous warfare, and although technically the South African Republics may be excluded from the Convention, the moral obligation to observe them is not affected thereby. :

We note with deep regret that the proclamations and official instructions issued by the British commanders in South Africa reveal a system of devastation and confiscation in direct violation of Articles 44 to 53 of the Convention.

And therefore, while recording our solemn protest against this reversion to the practices of barbarism, we appeal to the Powers to offer such prompt and friendly representations as may be necessary to restrain the operations of war in South Africa within the limits laid down in the name of humanity and civilisation.

II.

The Powers have declared their resolution to extend the empire of law and to fortify the sentiment of international justice by the foundation of a Court of Arbitration accessible to all (Preamble to the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes). They have further declared that it is important to consecrate by an international agreement the principles of equity and of right upon which rest the security of States and the well-being of the peoples. They have further declared in Article I that " they agree to employ their efforts to ensure the pacific settlement of international differences.”

We take note of it, and in order to second their efforts in this direction, we solemnly protest

(1) Against the destruction of the South African Republics, which have persistently demanded that the dispute should be submitted to arbitration.

(2) Against their annexation by Great Britain, which rendered war inevitable by its refusal to accept arbitration.

And we respectfully submit to them the following proposition: That negotiations be immediately entered upon in order to complete the Hague Convention by a clause stipulating that an appeal to arbitration made by any nation before war, shall confer upon that nation a juridical right to its independent existence, until its extinction has been decreed by an impartial tribunal.

Signed by

GREAT BRITAIN :

Alf. Russel Wallace.

Felix Moscheles, President of the International Arbitration and Peace Association.

Hodgson Pratt, Président d'Honneur of the International Arbitration and Peace Association.

Rev. Dr. Clifford.

W. M. Crook, ex-Editor of the Echo.

W. W. Massingham, ex-Editor of the Daily Chronicle. W. T. Stead, Editor of the Review of Reviews. UNITED STATES:

John Milholland. Moncure D. Conway.

FRANCE:

Frederic Passy, Membre de l'Institut, ex-Senator. L. Trarieux, Senator.

G. Moch.

Madame Pognon, President of the French League for the Rights of Women.

Mademoiselle Claire de Pratz.

BELGIUM:

H. Lafontaine, Senator.

HOLLAND:

Madame Wischkliewicz van Schilfgaarde.
SWITZERLAND:

Elie Ducommun, Secretary General of the Berne Peace
Bureau.

GERMANY:

Madame Selenka.

ITALY:

E. T. Moneta, President of the Lombard Union. Signor Lombroso.

RUSSIA:

Jean de Bloch, Conseiller d'Etat.
J. Novikoff.

It will be seen that this protest goes a step further than the Hague Convention, and formulates the next step that is to be taken towards the establishment of arbitration as the method of settling international disputes. It will be noticed from the terms of the second part of this Protest and appeal that the protest against the destruction of the Boer Republics is not based upon the assumption that they were in the right in this struggle, but solely upon the fact that they offered repeatedly to submit the dispute to arbitration before war broke out, and that their famous Ultimatum began thus :-"That all points of mutual difference shall be regulated by the friendly course of arbitration, or by whatever amicable way be agreed upon by this Government with Her Majesty's Government."

Neither is the protest against their annexation by England based upon the ground that England was in the wrong on the merits of the quarrel, but only because England forced on the war by refusing arbitration. From this follows logically the last clause, which asks the signatory Powers of the Hague Convention to supplement the existing instrument by a general agreement that no nation which appeals to arbitration shall have its independent existence extinguished as the result of war, until an impartial tribunal has decided that such a severe sentence is justified by the laws of justice and equity.

PUTTING A PREMIUM ON ARBITRATION.

It is obvious that if this principle were accepted, a great step would be taken towards the establishment of arbitration. It would put a premium upon the offer to submit such a dispute to arbitration by placing the State in a privileged juridical position, guaranteeing it against the loss of its national existence as the result of the war into which it had been forced in the cause of arbitration. It is a great thing, and the principle thus formulated will, I have no doubt, find an enthusiastic response throughout the civilised world. In England the Protest will not be so extensively signed as in other countries but even here it is confidently

On

expected that the true friends of arbitration will not refuse to embrace the opportunity of affirming their devotion to the principle merely because, for the moment, it involves censuring the policy of their own Government. the Continent the response is likely to be almost universal. Ministers and official personages, of course, cannot put their hand to such a document: but the leaders of thought and opinion, the representatives of the people, the intellectuals and the friends of peace in all countries will sign it with enthusiasm. The suffering conscience of the human race will acclaim with intense delight an opportunity for expressing the pent-up feelings of horror and indignation with which our South African war is regarded by those 1o have no national interest in its prosecution.

THE SCRUPLES OF PRESIDENT KRUGER.

The only question upon which there is still any uncertainty is whether President Kruger will place himself at the disposal of this international agitation. Those who do not know the old President of the South African Republic will no doubt think it absurd to suggest the possibility of any reluctance on his part to avail himself of so splendid an opportunity of pleading his cause before the peoples of the world. Those who do know him will understand how great is the difficulty of inducing him to take any step which seems to be an appeal to the peoples against the action or inaction of their Governments. Although for the last eighteen months he has figured before the world as a great Republican hero, President Kruger is, as he always was, an ingrained Conservative at heart. His instincts, his sympathies, his inclinations, are entirely on the side of the Governments, and he shrinks from placing himself at the head of a movement which might be regarded with displeasure by constituted authorities. It is a curious illustration of the misconception which prevails as to his character. While he is hanging back from taking a course by which he could shake both Europe and America from the centre to the circumference, his presence in Europe is regarded with dread by the German and Austrian Governments, because they regard him as the banner-bearer of Republicanism! They fear that he would rally round him all the democratic elements in Central Europe, and become a potent disturber of existing dynasties. Nothing could be further from President Kruger's thoughts than to take any such course. To quote his own words, he has seen too much of the troubles that come from raising strife between a people and their government for him to contemplate any such agitation without profound misgivings and dislike. Nevertheless the force of events will probably suffice to overcome the reluctance of the old President to embark upon a campaign of arbitration. Possibly his very reluctance may be potent to overcome the alarm which exists in influential quarters as to the

possible consequences of the action proposed by the International Union.

A CAMPAIGN FOR PEACE.

If once they were reassured on this point, they might still welcome an agitation the object of which was to strengthen the securities for peace. But in Germany and in Austria. the feeling on the subject of the Boer war is such that wise statesmen would probably welcome any movement which directed it into innocuous channels. At the great

meetings held at Munich and Hamburg, meetings greater than any which have been held in recent years in. Germany, for 7,000 Germans met at each city to pass resolutions of sympathy with the Boers, there was manifest a feeling which if left undirected might lead to serious trouble. If, on the other hand, a legitimateoutlet was afforded for the popular passion, that which might have been a danger to the peace of Europe would become a new security against war. It should be clearly understood that President Kruger has no desire to stir up war among the nations. He has seen too much of the horrors of war to wish to extend them to any other nation in the world. He is not in Europe to ask any Government to make war against England on his behalf. He is here to ask that the signatories of the Hague Conventions should take note of the fact that the principles embodied in this great international instrument have been and are at this moment being trampled under foot by one of the signatories of this instrument, and to urge that all Powers should unite in putting the utmost moral pressure possible short of war upon the international law-breaker. He accuses England of violating her own engagements and trampling under foot the solemn engagements into which she entered only two years ago.

A NEW IDEAL FOR THE NEW CENTURY. Here, then, is work for the new century. When this REVIEW was started, it had as its immediate objectivethe promotion of the sense of the unity of the Englishspeaking races. That work has been pretty effectually accomplished. It must now be succeeded by a wider ideal. The consciousness of race unity, which ten years ago appeared little more than an idle dream, has now become the accepted commonplace of the man in the

street.

"New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good. uncouth.

They must upwards still and onward who would keep abreast of truth."

And so it comes to pass that the organ which ten years ago led the van of the movement in favour of the recognition of the essential unity of all English-speaking men, now seeing that position well-nigh won, adopts as its new programme for the New Century the Realisation of the International Ideal throughout the World.

Of Brotherhood and Right."