The South African policy of Mr. Chamberlain, which culminated in war at the end of 1899, was the first great questior with which Campbell-Bannerman in his new capacity had actively to deal. His attitude was from the outset clear and firm it did not, however, succeed in winning the support of the whole party. On 17 June 1899, in a speech delivered at Ilford, before hostilities broke out, he declared that 'he could see nothing in what had occurred to justify either warlike action or military preparation.' With this view Lord Kimberley, the liberal leader in the House of Lords, associated himself (Hansard, 28 July). At the opening of the autumn session (17 Oct.), when the war had just begun, Campbell-Bannerman at once offered to facilitate the grant of supplies 'for the prosecution of the war.' But in speeches at Manchester (14 Nov.) and Birmingham (24 Nov.) he continued to criticise the conduct of the government before the war in mixing up negotiations with military preparations 'in such a manner as to prejudice greatly the chances of a peaceful solution.' After the grave reverses at Storrnberg (10 Dec.), Magersfontein (12 Dec.), and Colenso (15 Dec.), Campbell-Bannerman, speaking at Aberdeen (19 Dec.), deprecated 'doubt or despondency,' and urged the nation to brace itself 'more earnestly to the task before us.' At the same time he repeated that ' Mr. Chamberlain is mainly answerable for this war.' When the military situation improved next summer, he laid it down as England's first duty to aim 'after the security of the imperial power,' at 'the conciliation and the harmonious co-operation of the two European races in South Africa, and to restore as early as possible' to the conquered states the 'rights of self-government' (Glasgow, 7 Jan. 1900). From this aim he never swerved.
On 25 Sept. 1900 parliament was dissolved, and the country returned Lord Salisbury's government again to power with a majority of 132. The 'khaki' election, as it was called, was won on the plea that the war was finished, and that the government responsible for it should finish their task and be responsible for the settlement after the war. Yet the war dragged on for another twenty months. Throughout this period Campbell-Bannerman consistently advocated conciliatory and definite terms of peace. On 10 Dec. 1901 Lord Rosebery (at Chesterfield) expressed concurrence with him on this point, and Campbell-Bannerman thereupon invited Lord Rosebery anew to co-operate with his former colleagues ; but Lord Rosebery preferred an attitude of detachment, and Campbell-Bannerman thenceforth pursued his own line, even at the risk of prolonging existing party dissensions. On the methods which were adopted in the field during the later stages of the difficult warfare, Campbell-Bannerman declared his views without shrinking. On 6 Dec. 1900, in the House of Commons, he extolled the humanity and the generosity of the British soldier and the British officer, expressing his entire disbelief 'in the stories that have been told on both sides of discreditable, irregular, and cruel outrages.' Subsequently he urged (at Peckham, 7 Aug. 1901) the need of making 'even the stern necessities of war minister to conciliation,' and both denounced and promised to 'continue to denounce all this stupid policy of farm-burning, devastation, and the sweeping of women and children into camps.' To this promise he remained faithful, with the emphatic approval of one important section of liberal opinion, and with the no less emphatic disapproval of another important section.
On 31 May 1901, at a liberal meeting in Edinburgh, he had acknowledged the existence of differences in the opposition ranks about the war, but claimed that at any rate they were united, with a few insignificant exceptions, against 'the most unwise as well as the most unworthy policy of enforcing unconditional surrender upon those who were to be their loyal and contented subjects in the new colonies.' A fortnight later (14 June), at a National Reform Union banquet given to Harcourt and himself, tie used a phrase which obtained much currency and moved applause and resentment in almost equal measure. The government had lately described the war is 'not yet entirely terminated.' Campbell-Bannerman added the comment, 'A phrase often used is that war is war : but when one came to ask about it one was told that no war was going on that it was not war. When was a war not a war ? When it was carried on by methods of barbarism in South Africa.' Three days after (17 June) in the House of Commons to supported Mr. Lloyd George's motion for the adjournment of the house in order to call attention to the concentration camps in South Africa, and while he deprecated the imputation of cruelty, or even indifference, to officers or men,' he repeated his application to 'the whole system' of the term 'barbarous.' Renewed signs of
