"Mr.Davitt, in a letter from Kroonstad to the Dublin _Freeman's Journal_, declares that the Boers were not at all dismayed by the death of General Joubert, which they agreed was in no sense a misfortune.

He was too merciful in his notions of warfare.

Ladysmith could easily have been taken on more than one occasion had Joubert not vetoed the proposed assaults."[18] The second correspondent relates that General Joubert overruled the desire of the burghers to assault Ladysmith, saying "at a War Council that the city was not worth to the Boers the lives of 500 burghers." If Joubert really said that, he ought unquestionably to {p.198} have been at once relieved from command; but as the incident is preceded by the statement that "the burghers were confident of their ability to take it in a hand-to-hand fight, _notwithstanding that the English outnumbered them more than two to one_,"[19] the source of the correspondent's information is open to some question.
[Footnote 18: London _Times_, June 25, 1900.] [Footnote 19: _Harper's Monthly Magazine_, July, 1900, p.

174.] To make war without running risks--not mere risk of personal danger, but of military failure--has been declared impossible by the highest authority.

Yet such a temperament, betrayed in politics, being constitutional, will enter into all actions of life, and one is not surprised to read that "this characteristic of caution was the chief mark of Joubert's conduct in the field as a military commander.