On Thursday, after the privilege question had been got rid
of, the House indulged in a war debate. Sir William Harcourt made ' many criticisms in regard to the war, especially questioning our right to deprive the Boers after Septem her 15th of the rights of belligerents. Re objected, not only to the banishment, but also to charging the Boers in the field for the maintenance of their families. The proclamation would only exasperate our enemies. Mr. Chamberlain, in reply, stated that the rumour that Lord Kitchener was coming home was false, denied that the new proclamation was brutal and unfair or would be futile, and made some com- parisons as to what was done by Germany in Alsace and Lorraine, by the Americans in the Civil War, and by them also in the Philippines which were very much to the point, and, in our view, settle the question that we are acting against international usage. On the contrary, we do not go as far as foreign nations have done, and would certainly do again, in like circumstances. After Mr. Asquith had denied that the proclamation was contrary to international law, and had insisted on the need of administering the liquor laws with vigilance, Mr. Balfour in a most able and wise speech assured the House that the Government would carry on the war with vigour, but would not act vindictively when it was over. Incidentally, we are glad to note that he defended the new Yeomanry from the criticisms preferred against them by Mr. Asquith. We believe with Mr. Balfour that in another month or two, and when they have "found them- selves," people will speak as enthusiastically of the new as of the old Yeomanry.
Previous page
