THE FARM-BURNING
In the official correspondence which is published between the Boer and
British leaders in South Africa may very clearly be traced the way in
which this practice came to assume proportions which shocked public
opinion. It must be admitted that the results have not justified it, and
that, putting all moral questions apart, a burned-out family is the last
which is likely to settle down, as we hope that the Boers may eventually
settle down, as contented British citizens. On the other hand, when a
nation adopts guerilla tactics it deliberately courts those sufferings
to the whole country which such tactics invariably entail. They have
been the same in all wars and at all times. The army which is stung by
guerillas, strikes round it furiously and occasionally indiscriminately.
An army which is continually sniped and harassed becomes embittered, and
a General feels called upon to take those harsher measures which
precedent and experience suggest. That such measures have not been
pushed to an extreme by the British authorities is shown by the fact
that the captured guerilla has been made a prisoner of war--unlike his
prototype, the _franc-tireur_. The general question of guerillas may be
discussed later. At present we will confine our attention to the burning
of farms.
The first protest from the Boer side is dated February 3, 1900. In it
the two Presidents accuse the British troops 'of burning and blowing up
with dynamite the farmhouses, and of the devastation of farms.' The
document also includes an accusation of having used armed natives
against the Boers.
Lord Roberts replied upon February 5 to the effect that stringent
instructions had been given to the British troops to respect private
property. 'All wanton destruction or injury to peaceful inhabitants is
contrary to British practice and tradition, and will, if necessary, be
rigorously repressed by me.' He added that it was an untrue statement
that natives had ever been encouraged by British officers to commit
depredations. The charge, which has been the subject of many effective
cartoons upon the Continent, is as absurd as most of the other works of
the same artists. Why should the State which refused the aid of its own
highly trained Indian army of 150,000 men, avail itself of that of
savages? Lord Roberts denied the assertion with befitting warmth, and it
is not again repeated in the course of the despatches.
Lord Roberts in this document was not content with denying the Boer
allegations, but carried the war into the enemy's country:
'I regret to say that it is the Republican forces which have in some
cases been guilty of carrying on the war in a manner not in accordance
with civilised usage. I refer especially to the expulsion of loyal
subjects of Her Majesty from their homes in the invaded districts of
this Colony, because they refused to be commandeered by the invader. It
is barbarous to attempt to force men to take sides against their own
Sovereign and country by threats of spoliation and expulsion. Men,
women, and children have had to leave their homes owing to such
compulsion, and many of those who were formerly in comfortable
circumstances are now being maintained by charity.'
He adds: 'I beg to call your Honours' attention to the wanton
destruction of property by the Boer forces in Natal. They not only have
helped themselves freely to the cattle and other property of farmers
without payment, but they have utterly wrecked the contents of many
farmhouses. As an instance I would specify Mr. Theodore Wood's farm
"Longwood" near Springfield. I point out how very different is the
conduct of the British troops. It is reported to me from Modder River
that farms within the actual area of the British Camp have never even
been entered, the occupants are unmolested, and their houses, gardens,
and crops remain absolutely untouched.'
On March 26 Lord Roberts's Proclamation spoke with no uncertain voice
upon the subject of private property. It says:
'The following Proclamation, issued by me in the name of Her Majesty's
Government on the 26th March, begins: Notice is hereby given that all
persons who within the territories of the South African Republic or
Orange Free State shall authorise or be guilty of the wanton destruction
or damage or the counselling, aiding, or assisting in the wanton
destruction or damage of public or private property, such destruction or
damage not being justified by the usages and customs of civilised
warfare, will be held responsible in their persons and property for all
such wanton destruction and damage.'
This was during the period of the halt at Bloemfontein. I can well
remember that then and for long afterwards the consideration which was
shown upon this point seemed to those who were at the spot to be
exaggerated and absurd. I can remember that when we applied for leave to
use the deserted villas to put our sick soldiers into--the hospitals
being full--we were told that it could only be done by private treaty
with the owners, who were at that time on commando against us. I
remember also suggesting that the corrugated-iron fencing round the
cricket field should be used for making huts, and being told that it was
impossible, as it was private property.
The same extreme respect for personal property was shown during Lord
Roberts's advance. The country through which he passed swarmed with
herds and flocks, but, with as scrupulous a regard for the rights of
property as Wellington showed in the south of France, no hungry soldier
was allowed to take so much as a chicken. The punishment for looting was
prompt and stern. It is true that farms were burned occasionally and the
stock confiscated, but this was as a punishment for some particular
offence and not part of a system. The limping Tommy looked askance at
the fat geese which covered the dam by the roadside, but it was as much
as his life was worth to allow his fingers to close round those tempting
white necks. On foul water and bully beef he tramped through a land of
plenty.
A most striking example of British discipline and forbearance was
furnished at this period, while the war could still be called regular
upon the Boer side, by Rundle's Division, christened the 'Hungry Eighth'
by the Army. This Division had the misfortune to be stationed for
several months some distance from the railway line, and in consequence
had great difficulty in getting supplies. They were on half-rations for
a considerable period, and the men were so reduced in strength that
their military efficiency was much impaired. Yet they lived in a land of
plenty--a land of large farms well stocked with every sort of food. Why
it was impossible to get this food for the men I do not know, but I do
know that the prices for bread, eggs, milk, and other such things were
kept very high by the wives of the farmers who were away upon commando;
and that the hungry soldiers were quite unable to buy, and were not
permitted to take, the nourishment which was essential.
On May 19, while Lord Roberts's force was advancing on Pretoria, De Wet
sent in a despatch to complain of the destruction of two farms, Paarde
Kraal and Leeuw Kop. Lord Roberts replied that these two farms were
destroyed because, while a white flag was flying from the houses, the
troops were fired upon from the farmsteads. 'I have had two farms near
Kroonstad,' he adds, 'destroyed for similar reasons, and shall continue
to punish all such cases of treachery by the destruction of the farms
where they occur.' Here is a definite declaration of policy, quite
distinct from wanton destruction, and it is difficult to see how any
General could take any other steps, with justice to his own men. These
farms, and all which are included in this category, were justly and
properly destroyed--the families being removed without violence to a
place of safety.
The next representations from the Boer Commander were more definite in
their nature.
'Complaints are repeatedly reaching me,' he writes, 'that private
dwellings are plundered, and in some cases totally destroyed, and all
provisions taken from women and children, so that they are compelled to
wander about without food or covering. To quote several instances: It
has just been brought to my notice by way of sworn affidavit that the
house of Field-Cornet S. Buys on the farm, Leeuwspruit district,
Middelburg, was set on fire and destroyed on 20th June last. His wife,
who was at home, was given five minutes' time to remove her bedding and
clothing, and even what she took out was again taken from her. Her food,
sugar, &c., was all taken, so that for herself and her children she had
neither covering nor food for the following night. She was asked for the
key of the safe, and after it was given up by her she was threatened
with a sword, and money was demanded. All the money that was in the
house was taken away, all the papers in the safe were torn up, and
everything at the homestead that could not be taken away was destroyed.
The house of Field-Cornet Buys's son was also destroyed, the doors and
windows broken, &c.
'It has also been reported to me that my own buildings, on the farm
Varkenspruit, district Standerton, as well as the house of Field-Cornet
Badenhorst, on the adjoining farm, have been totally destroyed, and such
of the stock as was not removed was shot dead on the farm.
'Further, there is the sworn declaration of Mrs. Hendrik Badenhorst,
which speaks for itself.
'I cannot believe that such godless barbarities take place with Your
Excellency's consent, and thus I deem it my solemn duty to protest most
strongly against such destruction and vindictiveness as being entirely
contrary to civilised warfare.'
The greater part of these alleged outrages had occurred on General
Buller's side of the Transvaal, so the matter was referred to him. He
acknowledged that he had ordered six farmhouses to be destroyed:
'The following circumstances induced me to give the order. On entering
the Transvaal I caused the attached Proclamation (A) to be widely
distributed along my line of route. We marched from Volksrust to
Standerton practically unopposed. Shortly after our arrival at
Standerton our telegraph line was cut on several nights following, and
attempts were made to damage the military line by placing dynamite
cartridges with detonators attached upon it. These attempts were all
made on or in close vicinity to the estates above named. A watch was
kept and it was found that the attempts were made not by any formed
force of the enemy, but by a few scattered banditti who were given
shelter during the night in the houses I afterwards had destroyed, and
who thence, when they could, tried to murder our patrols, and sallied
out at night to damage the line. It was further ascertained that these
men came and usually returned through Varkenspruit. I directed that
copies of Proclamation (A) should be personally left at each house, and
the inmates of each should be warned that these depredations could not
be permitted, and that if people living under our protection allowed
these sort of men to resort to their houses without informing us, they
must take the consequences, and their houses would be destroyed. This
warning had some effect for a day or two, but on 1st and 2nd of July the
nuisance recommenced, and on the 7th July, having acquired full proof
that the houses were being regularly used as shelters for men who were
hostile to us, and who were not under any proper command, in fact, who
were only acting as banditti, I had the houses destroyed.
'The women and children occupying the farms were removed elsewhere with
as little inconvenience to themselves as we could arrange.'
Here again it is impossible to doubt that the British commanders were
well within their rights. It is true that Article XXIII. of The Hague
Conventions makes it illegal to destroy the enemy's property, but it
adds: 'Unless such destruction be imperatively demanded by the
necessities of war.' Now nothing can be more imperative in war than the
preservation of the communications of the army. A previous clause of the
same Article makes it illegal to 'kill or wound treacherously
individuals belonging to the hostile army.' It is incontestable that to
take the cover of a farmhouse which flies the white flag in order to
make attacks is to 'kill or wound treacherously,' and so on a double
count the action of the British becomes legal, and even inevitable. Lord
Roberts's message to De Wet upon August 3, 1900, restates both his
intentions and his reasons for it:
'Latterly, many of my soldiers have been shot from farmhouses over which
the white flag has been flying, the railway and telegraph lines have
been cut, and trains wrecked. I have therefore found it necessary, after
warning your Honour, to take such steps as are sanctioned by the customs
of war to put an end to these and similar acts, and have burned down the
farmhouses at or near which such deeds have been perpetrated. This I
shall continue to do whenever I consider the occasion demands it.
'The remedy lies in your Honour's own hands. The destruction of property
is most distasteful to me, and I shall be greatly pleased when your
Honour's co-operation in the matter renders it no longer necessary.'
This raises the question of the legality of the burning of farmhouses in
the vicinity of the place where the railway is cut. The question
presented itself forcibly to my mind when I saw with my own eyes the
tall plumes of smoke rising from six farmhouses, De Wet's among them, in
the neighbourhood of Roodeval. There is no doubt whatever that in the
war of 1870--the classic type of modern war--the villages and
populations near the scene of a cut railway were severely punished. But
The Hague Conventions had not then been signed. On the one hand, it may
be urged that it is impossible without such disciplinary measures to
preserve a line of 1,000 miles running all the way through a hostile or
semi-hostile country. Also that it is 'imperatively demanded by the
necessities of war.' On the other hand, there is Article L., which says,
'No general penalty can be inflicted on the population on account of the
acts of individuals, for which it cannot be regarded as collectively
responsible.' An argument might be advanced for either side, but what
will actually determine is the strongest argument of all--that of
self-preservation. An army situated as the British Army was, and
dependent for its supplies upon its communications, _must_ keep them
open even if it strains the Conventions in doing so. As a matter of
fact, farm-burning had no effect in checking the railway-cutting, and
had a considerable effect in embittering the population. Yet a General
who was cut off from his base thirty times in a month was bound to leave
the argument of legality to the jurists, and to adopt the means which
seemed most likely to stop the nuisance. The punishment fell with cruel
injustice upon some individuals. Others may have been among the actual
raiders.
On September 2 Lord Roberts communicated his intentions to General
Botha:
'SIR,--I have the honour to address your Honour regarding the operations
of those comparatively small bands of armed Boers who conceal themselves
on farms in the neighbourhood of our lines of communication and thence
endeavour to damage the railway, thus endangering the lives of
passengers travelling by train who may or may not be combatants.
'2. My reason for again referring to this subject is that, except in the
districts occupied by the Army under the personal command of your
Honour, there is now no formed body of Boer troops in the Transvaal or
Orange River Colony, and that the war is degenerating into operations
carried on by irregular and irresponsible guerillas. This would be so
ruinous to the country and so deplorable from every point of view, that
I feel bound to do everything in my power to prevent it.
'3. The orders I have at present issued, to give effect to these views,
are that the farm nearest the scene of any attempt to injure the line or
wreck a train is to be burnt, and that all farms within a radius of 10
miles are to be completely cleared of all their stock, supplies, &c.'
Granting that the penalty is legal at all, it must be allowed that it is
put in a minimum form, since only one farm in each case is to be
destroyed; and the further clearing of stock is undoubtedly justified,
since it would tend to cripple the mobility of Boer raiders approaching
the line. Yet one farm for each attack becomes a formidable total when
the attacks are on an average of one per day.
We have treated two causes for which farms were burned: (1) For being
used as cover for snipers; (2) as a punishment for the cutting of
railways. A third cause now comes to the front. A large number of
burghers had taken the oath of neutrality and had been allowed to return
to their farms by the British. These men were persuaded or terrorised by
the fighting commandos into breaking their parole and abandoning those
farms on which they had sworn to remain. The farmhouses were their bail,
and Lord Roberts decreed that it was forfeited. On August 23 he
announced his decision to General Botha:
'Your Honour represents that well-disposed families living on their
farms have been driven from their houses, and that their property has
been taken away or destroyed. This no doubt is true, but not in the
sense which your letter would imply. Burghers who are well-disposed
towards the British Government, and anxious to submit to my authority,
have had their property seized by the Boer commandos, and have been
threatened with death if they refused to take up arms against the
British forces. Your Honour's contention that a solemn oath of
neutrality which the burghers have voluntarily taken in order to remain
in unmolested occupation of their farms is null and void, because you
have not consented to it, is hardly open to discussion. I shall punish
those who violate their oath and confiscate their property, no burgher
having been forced to take the oath against his will.'
It is quite certain that the Boer Government committed a very clear
breach of the Conventions of The Hague in compelling, or even in
permitting, these men to rejoin the ranks. 'In such cases,' says Article
X., 'their own Government shall not require of, nor accept from, them
any service incompatible with the parole given.' This is clear as
regards the Government. But in the case of the men it is different.
Their promise was in a sense conditional upon effective protection from
our troops. We had no right to place a man in so terrible a position
that he had to choose between breaking his parole and death at the hands
of his own countrymen. If we were not sure that we could protect them,
we could have retained them in guarded camps, as we eventually did. If
we chose to turn them loose upon the wide veldt, then it was our fault
more than theirs that they were forced into the ranks of the enemy. To
their credit be it said that even under such pressure many of them were
true to their oath.
But if their guilt is indeed no greater than our own, then how are we
justified in burning down their houses? It seems to me that these cases
are very different from those in the other two categories, and that the
question of compensation to these men should be at least considered. I
take it that the numerous cases where 'on commando' is marked against a
burned farm on the official list, means that he had returned to commando
after giving his parole. The destruction of his house under those
circumstances is, in the peculiar conditions of the case, a harsh
measure, but if 'on commando' means simply that the man was away doing
his duty to his country, without any question of parole, then our
conscience can never permit that man to go without compensation.
We can trace in this account of the communications between the leaders
the growth of those harsher measures which have been so generally
deplored in this country. So long as the war was regular it is certain
that nothing could be more regular than the British conduct. When,
however, the war became irregular upon the part of the Boers, and their
army dissolved into small bands which harried the lines of
communications, the small posts, and the convoys, there was a
corresponding change upon the part of the troops. Towards the end of the
year 1900 that change was pushed to considerable lengths. Certain
districts which had been Boer centres, where they habitually collected
time after time, were devastated and destroyed. Such districts were
those of Kroonstad, Heilbron, Ventersburg, and Winburg. In these four
districts about one hundred and seventy houses were destroyed. The
village of Bothaville, which was a depot of the enemy, was also
destroyed. It consisted of forty-three houses. In the Transvaal the
number of houses actually destroyed for strategic purposes seems to have
been very much smaller. In the official returns only about twelve houses
are so mentioned. Altogether the houses which have been burned for
reasons which are open to dispute, including those of the men upon
commando, do not appear to exceed two hundred and fifty.
It must be confessed that the case of these houses is entirely different
from the others which have been destroyed, because they were used for
active warlike operations. Of the 630 buildings which we know to have
been destroyed, more than half have been used by snipers, or in some
other direct fashion have brought themselves within the laws of warfare.
But it cannot be said that these others have done so. The cost of the
average farmhouse is a mere trifle. A hundred pounds would build a small
one, and 300_l._ a large. If we take the intermediate figure, then the
expenditure of 50,000_l._ would compensate for those cases where
military policy and international law may have been at variance with
each other. The burning of houses ceased in the year 1900, and, save in
very special instances, where there was an overwhelming military
necessity, it has not been resorted to since. In the sweeping of the
country carried out by French in the Eastern Transvaal and by Blood to
the north of the Delagoa Railway, no buildings appear to have been
destroyed, although it was a military necessity to clear the farms of
every sort of supply in order to hamper the movements of the commandos.
The destruction of the crops and herds of the Boers, distasteful as such
work must be, is exactly analogous to the destruction by them of our
supply trains on which the Army depended for their food. Guerilla
warfare cannot enjoy all its own advantages and feel none of its own
defects. It is a two-edged weapon, and the responsibility for the
consequences rests upon the combatant who first employs it.