and abusive language towards
prisoners-of-war. On the contrary they would converse with them in a
most genial and friendly spirit; so much so, that the onlooker could
scarcely distinguish between Boer and Briton, friend or foe. Now when
the Boers behaved thus towards their prisoners-of-war they only did
what they ought to have done. When a man is captured or wounded he is no
more an enemy in the literal sense of the word, and should not be
treated as such. Military precautions must necessarily be taken to
prevent the escape of prisoners, but, apart from that, men forced to
surrender should neither be regarded nor treated as criminals, but as an
honourable foe deserves. In making these remarks we do not infer that
our wounded were not well attended to by the enemy. In most cases we
believe they were. We shall not comment on the treatment extended to our
prisoners-of-war. In the latter stage of the war we believe there was
room for improvement, especially when natives were taken up in the
British ranks. These natives treated our men shamefully at times, and
went even so far as to commit the most brutal murders.

Not only did the burghers treat their prisoners-of-war well, but the
Boer officers under whose immediate control they were placed dealt, as a
rule, very kindly and leniently with them. Some of the more prominent
Boer officers, such as General De Wet and others, have been accused
occasionally of having ill-treated prisoners-of-war. Most of these
charges on examination proved groundless.

Mr. Erskine Childers, in a letter to the _Times_, expressed himself on
this matter as follows:--

"It is time that a word was spoken in opposition to the idea that
General C. De Wet is a man of brutal and dishonourable character.
Those who, like myself, have served in South Africa, fought against
him, and frequently met men who have been prisoners under him,
look, I believe, with shame and indignation on the attempts made to
advertise and magnify such incidents as the alleged flogging and
shooting of peace envoys, so as to blacken the character of a man
who, throughout the war, held a reputation with our troops in the
field of being not only a gallant soldier, but a humane and
honourable gentleman. We may deplore the desperate tenacity of his
resistance. Our duty is to overcome it by smashing him in the
field. We gain nothing but only lose our self-respect by slandering