After a considerable amount of wrangling as to the exact
effect of Mr. Brodrick's statement, when coupled with the Government's previous promises, during which Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Sir William Harcourt severely criti- cised Mr. Balfour, Mr. Asquith dropped a word or two of clari- flying common-sense into the muddy mixture produced by the general debate. We understand, he said, the Government to have made two promises. In the first place, whenever practic- able, they will bring the cases of persons who are prima fade responsible before a Court.liartial. Secondly, where there is no person pri-md fetcie responsible the case will form part of the general inquiry which is to take place at the close of the war. That seems to us a very reasonable and fair decision. It is a mistake to suppose that the public wants to gibbet individuals. What they want is to arrive at a clear understand- ing as to the incidence of responsibility in the various surrenders in order that such deplorable occurrences may be, if possible, avoided in future. The lessons of the war can only be understood and turned to profit in this light. Take the case of Nicholson's Nek. It is imperative that we should there know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A surrender like that at Lindley was far more explicable, for it approached that of a starved-out garrison. Nicholson's Nek appears to have been a case of surrender by blunder, and it is in order to avoid such blunders in the future that it is desirable that the whole transaction should be cleared up.
Previous page
