Can we wonder that a kindly War Minister hesitated to
print this despatch. You have only to substitute the name of General Buller for that of General Warren in the first portion of the passage we have quoted to produce the verdict that must be passed by all impartial critics on Sir Redvers Buller. Out of his own mouth comes his condemnation of the inert commander. Taking the documents as a whole, they confirm the im- pression formed from those previously published,—namely, that Spion Kop was a fiasco, and that some of the blame must be laid on Sir Charles Warren, but still more on Sir Beavers Buller, who was in supreme command, and yet who did not insist upon the plan being carried through, but, instead, seemed content to occupy the position of- an anxious and indignant spectator who saw things go wrong but could not take upon himself to put them right. There is, of course, nothing personally discredit. able to General Buller in this, but it cannot but affect our judgment as to his generalship. The Government, we must add, are absolutely cleared of any bad faith in their handling of the documents. When they asked that the despatch should be rewritten it is clear that they did so in order to " save the face of Sir Redvers Buller, not to protect themselves. They had nothing to gain by withholding the papers..
Previous page
