The Boer War Defended (1900)
Joseph Chamberlain

We are engaged in the greatest war of our generation. The cost of life and treasure has been tremendous. The whole question, then, of the policy of the war, of the continuance of the war, and of the results of the war--all that is the greatest question which this House has had to consider. And upon that there can be no neutral ground. [A member of the Opposition has] lad a great deal of stress on, and spoke with much feeling of, the misery which has been caused by this war--the loss of life and money, and so forth. But surely the hon. and learned Gentleman must know as well as everyone else that all that is absolutely irrelevant.  It is an appeal to sentiment which has nothing to do with the issue we are trying. Of course it may be an argument against all war.... It is irrelevant language. You must not judge the war by the loss of life and limb incurred, but by other considerations altogether. The greatest war of our times--a war in which thousands lost their lives where in this war only units have done so--the great Civil War in America, even Mr. [John] Bright defended as a just and righteous war. Yet the loss and suffering caused by it was infinite in comparison with that of the present war....

We were fully aware that if we did enter into this war it would be a great calamity, and, therefore, we had every reason to avoid it. Our contention... is that we could not avoid the war, that the war was inevitable as well as just, and that we have to take these consequences, terrible as they are, as a result of a war which we believe to be just....

[T]he policy of Her Majesty's Government is not a vindictive policy. Revenge does not enter into our minds, nor, as I believe, does it enter into the minds of any reasonable people in this country. What we want is prevention. We do not want rebellion to be made so easy and so profitable that if any difficulty at any future time recurs, the same men may again go out in arms against us. What do we propose in the case of the men who have behaved as I have described? We do not propose to submit them to the death penalty or to imprison them; we do not propose to even fine them, but we propose to disarm them politically for five years. This is the whole punishment. It was said we should disarm them as far as possible. Is it not illogical to say you are to take away the rifles which these people have used for certain purposes injurious to the British Empire, and that you are going to give them votes in order to do the same thing by other means?

The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, although I do not think he defined his position very clearly, as I understand is against the annexation of the two Republics. If so, will he bear this in mind, that in the first place he is opposing himself to the unanimous opinion of all the great self-governing colonies who have assisted us in this matter. That is one point on which through all their Governments they had officially communicated their opinion before we came to a decision. He is  going against the opinion of every loyal Englishmen and Dutchman in Natal and in the Cape Colony. He is going against the opinion, I believe, of nine out of ten of his own countrymen. It is true the hon. Baronet says the country has gone mad. Well, we know that frame of mind; there are a good number of people who hold that opinion, that all the rest of the world is mad, but then they are generally shut up. But, although hon. Gentlemen are perfectly at liberty to hold their opinion, and to press it upon the House, I do ask the Committee to consider what would be the result of adopting it. What would be the position then of these loyal colonists, whoso desires you would have rejected? Might you not then be accused of having "flouted" them? You would be doing that, and at the same time you would be doing worse than that, you would be discouraging all your loyal subjects in South Africa.... I do not conceal from myself the terrible divisions among families, among peoples, among races, among religions, which exist at the present time in South Africa. But it seems to me that those who know most of the country are of opinion that hitherto those divisions have been based upon a misunderstanding on the part of the Boers of the English character and the English power, and that now that that misunderstanding has been removed by the war the probability is that after a short time they will settle down to a condition of things in which certainly they will not have anything to complain of. We have publicly declared it to be our desire and intention to give to them at  the earliest possible moment self-government similar to that enjoyed by our own colonies. When hon. Members in this debate have spoken of disfranchisement and other punishments, and have said that, while the object of the war was to enfranchise the Uitlanders, the result of the war would be to disfranchise the Boers, they ignore the fact, which they know perfectly well, that while for a period, which I hope may be brief, it is absolutely necessary that the country should be governed with large military forces present in it, yet we regard that as only a temporary situation, and one which we hope will be altered at the earliest possible moment....

We remember what happened when the Transvaal was annexed on the last occasion; we remember how difficulties were created by military administration; we believe that there are difficulties essential to military administration, and that without in any way implying blame to the military authorities. But the military authorities are not trained for the purposes of civil administration, and certainly, in our opinion, at the very earliest moment civil administration must be set up, and a civil administration as opposed to a military administration is what we call Crown Colony government. But the fact that we establish such a government with a view to make the condition of the country as easy as possible, to make as few breaks as possible with the past, is not to be taken as an indication that the government will last for long, or indeed as any indication whatever on the subject. The  question of the length of such an administration must depend on many circumstances which we now cannot anticipate, but especially, of course, on the way in which the Boers take to the new government which we shall set up. I am advised by those who, as I say, are most intimate with the country that it is the most improbable thing in the world that anything like continuous guerilla warfare will be maintained, that it is not in the habits of the Boers at the present moment. ...

In sitting down I can only say that, although I recognise the enormous difficulties of the task which has been imposed upon us, I am hopeful, I am sanguine, that we shall bring it to a successful conclusion if we have the clear, the undoubted support of the nation behind us. If we could have had the warm authoritative support of the Opposition in this House, that is what I would have been best pleased to have had; if we could have shown that there was absolutely no party in this country on the question, I firmly believe, as I am standing here, that the war would have been brought to a conclusion before now. I believe, and I have some evidence to justify it, that the hops of reaction has prolonged the war, just as in the earlier stages of the war the Boers were encouraged to greater efforts by the hope of intervention. There may be no ground for accusing anybody, but there is ground for wishing, in the interest of this county, that, at all events, we shall have substantially a unanimous House behind us, and substantially a unanimous people behind us, in the difficulties we have still to face.

Source: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1900/jul/25/class-ii