After shilly-shallying from May to September the Government began its preparations, and the Boers as soon as they were ready began the war.  Of the conduct of the war the readers of The London Letter have had an account week by week, as to the truth of which they can judge for themselves, for the facts are there by which it can be tested.  The attempt has been made to refrain from any criticism which could hurt the feelings of the generals, who are doing their duty to the best of their power in most trying circumstances.  But is it not plain that the British Army has been hampered by a lack of sound strategy and of sound tactics such as indicate prolonged previous neglect of these branches of study and training?  Who is responsible to the Nation for the training of the Army?  The Government and the Government alone.  If any military officer has not done his work effectively—­if, for example, the Commander-in-Chief has not taught his generals rightly or not selected them properly—­who is responsible to Parliament for that?  Not the officer, even if he be the Commander-in-Chief, for the Commander-in-Chief is the servant of the Cabinet and responsible to the Cabinet, which if it were dissatisfied with him ought to have dismissed him.  Authority over the Army is in the hands of the Secretary of State for War as the delegate of the Cabinet.  Lord Lansdowne has held his post only since 1895, and cannot be held responsible for the training of the older generals; but before him came Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman who for some years had charge of the preparation of the Army for war as the delegate of the late Cabinet.  For the state of the Army, for the strategical and tactical training which has resulted in so many failures, the politicians of both front benches, who in turn have neglected these vital matters, are responsible.

Here we are, then, in the middle of the war, without a Government, but with a body of men who fill the place of a Government while admitting themselves incompetent to do the work entrusted to them and for which they are paid.  The war so far has consisted of a succession of repulses, which at any moment may culminate in disaster.  Sir Redvers Buller has twice led his Army to defeat and is about to lead it a third time—­to what?  Possibly to victory; we all hope that it may be to victory.  But possibly to a third defeat which would mean not merely the loss of the force at Ladysmith; it would mean that Sir Redvers Buller’s Army in its turn would need succour, and that the plan, so much favoured by the strategists of the Army, of a march through the Free State would be hampered.  For the final and decisive defeat of Sir Redvers Buller would be followed by the long-deferred general rising of the Cape Dutch, and probably enough by the action of one or more of the European Powers. The Times of to-day announces that a foreign Government has ordered a large supply of steam coal from the Welsh collieries.  That can mean but one thing, that some foreign Power is getting its Navy ready for action.