THAT PETTICOAT CAMPAIGN.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIX, Issue 11, 14 March 1901, Page 19

THAT PETTICOAT CAMPAIGN.

An esteemed corespondent from Canterbury writes to us protesting as a Catholic Englishman against the comments that appeared in our last issue on the statement made in the British House of Commons by Mr. W. St. John Brodrick (Secretary of State for War) to the effect that the Boer women detained in British camps, whose husbands were in commando, were on reduced rations, but that the other women were on full rations. He asks us to Btate (1) in what

' reduced rati"n« ' fnneisfc ; (2) our authority • for interpreting Mr. St. John Brodrick'a statement by Buoh unmeasured terms as " systematic, deliberate, and unnecewary starvation." ' (3") The writer of our ' Topic ' ' also insinuates,' saya our correspondent, ' that the soldiers seduce the Boer women : this is perhaps a more odious charge than the accusation of starvation, but I think the majority of your readers will prefer to believe Lord Roberta's publio statement that hie soldiers have at all times conducted themselves as chivalrous gentlemen towards the wives and daughters of the enemy. Only a few days ago I read in the Ghristchurch Preu a letter from a Boer woman which contained a most emphatic denial of the charge of disrespect towards the unprotected women of the country. The writer even went out of her way to pay a tribute to the kindness and chivalry of the soldiers.'

To our esteemed correspondent's remarks we make the following general reply : The whole question at issue is partly a matter of fact, partly a matter of inference, Admitting the truth of the facts aB stated by Mr. Brodrick, the remainder of our remarks on the subject were matters of legitimate inference. But the truth of the facts has not been questioned, nor has any flaw in the deductions from them been pointed out by our Canterbury friend. And now for a more detailed reply :—: — 1. ' Reduced rations 'is an elastic term. It may mean anything from Buch a ' docking ' of provisions as would cause only moderate disoomf ort down to a pittance that would scaroely sustain the life of a medium-sizt d rat. 2. London papers some time ago stated that the Boer women detained in British camps, whose husbands were on commando, were subjected to serious privations in the matter of food, and that the object of this treatment waa to compel the fighting burghers to surrender with a view to ending the distress of their women-folk. Mr. Brodrick's cabled statement in the House of Commons was an admission of the gravamen of this charge, (a) It shows that Boer women whose husbands are in the field are, of express purpose, discriminated against, and that, too, by way of military penalty, (b) Short rations as a military punishment is no trifling penalty, even when it is inflicted upon friends. It may be made a very terrible thing when, as in the case before u<», it is inflicted for the purpose of puninhing or breaking the spirit of a foe. Long-drawn wars between people of different race and religion have never been favorable to hunune methods. And common-sense forbids the supposition that officers who. on so wholesale a scale, compelled Boer women whose relatives were net on commando to witness the burning of their homes and the plunder or destruction of their property, are likely to be more squeamish in the infliction of a farther penalty on Boer women whose husbands are in the fighting line. At its best, the punishment of short rations is intended, and is sure, to cause some degree of distress. Otherwise it would defeat its own purpose. And, according to definitions given in the Bixth volume of the JUnayclopiediC Dictionary, 'to distress with hunger' is to inflict ' starvation.' If our Canterbury friend maintains that the punisl - ment of short rations was not intendf d to cause any kind of dißtreas to the Boer women, and as a matter of fact did Dot cause any such distress, the burden of proof rests upon him. And if he has any fact to advance in point we shall be glad to give it due publication

We described the starvation inflicted on the Boer women as 'systematic, deliberate, and unnecessary.' (rt) By Mr. Brodrick's admission it is systematic — that ip, ' proceeding or working according to a system or method.' (/•) In view of the same high official's public statement, nobody will, we think, maintain that the infliction of this hunger-penalty on the Boer women was an indeliberate act— one of mere forgetfulness or of irresponsible terror or blind impulse. (/) The Boer women in British camps, whose relatives are on commando, are treated with less consideration than is usually extended to fighting-men held as prisoners of war. Unless under temp miry and special difficulties affecting the commissariat, these, according to the recognised practice, are nowadays accorded full rations. In other words, the Boer women referred to are treated with more harshness than it is usual to extend to male enemies taken prisoners of war. But Leoni Levi, in his International Law (seconded , p. 280), says that 'in actual practice ' ' women and children, the old and the sick, physicians and surgeons, who do not take arms, are not enemies.' We have followed this wretched South African campaign pretty closely, but we are not acquainted with any circumstance connected with it which could make it really 1 necetsary ' that. British military chiefs, with sufficient stores at hand, thould single out the captive wives and daughters of the enemy — and them alone — for a process of starvation . Hence we have referred to the crnel policy as not being alone ' systematic ' and ' deliberate,' but also " unnecessary.' If our correspondent is aware of any grounds of fact that would make euch a harsh measure really necessary in South Africa, we shall be willing to give it publication.

(3). In our ' Topic ' of March 7, we said : ' Briefly and in plain terms, those hapless Boer females (in British camps) whose huebands, brothers, or sons are out on commando are practically placed between the alternatives of slow starvation or selling themselves to degradation and infamy.' This is, on the face of it, quite a different

statement from that which is attributed to us by our correspondent If the hunger-policy is carried out — and we are entitled to assume that it is — the officials charged with its administration could not provide any open and decent alternative to thedreadful one to which we have alluded above. To do h» would be to defeat both the penalty and its object. The British army may be the most virtuous on earth. True, Mulhall'n Dictionary of Stati\tie* (lust edition, p. 204) does not quite bear this out as regards the regular army. But that iB 'neither here nor there' Every per-on who h acquninted with the atmosphere and circumstances of military cainji-i— Brinnli ot fojvifTi t\r\(\ whether in ppifo or in wnr — 4 (iph not nepd to he reminded of the utter cruelty of mincing helpless females by systematic hunger in «neh nnrrTinding 1 * Sn ]nm' •<•» the hnnppr-ppnalty is really enforced, the alternatives we have mentioned are, as we have said, ' practically ' the only ones before them. The remarks of Lord Roberts and of the problematical Boer lady — who was evidently not one of those whose houses were burned or whose husbands were on commando — simply do not touch the particular question discussed here nor the phase of military life to which we have made reference. It is the part of a Catholic paper to stand for humanity and for peace — though not for ■ peace at any price.' And we should have failed in a public duty if we had omittid, either through fear or favor, from entering our solemn protest against the barbarities that have disgraced the campaigns of supposedly civilised troops in South Africa, China, and the Philippine Islands.