TOPIC:

Hi everyone, my name's Pete and I'm currently undertaking a Masters dissertation regarding the British ‘Railway War’ in South Africa, 1899-1902. I was just doing some research online as to how the British protected the railway lines during the war and I found a quote by an attorney in Pretoria stating that if he were captured he would be 'made a Prisoner of War, may be taken from my home and compelled to personally accompany Railway Trains - and in addition therto will have to pay a heavy fine as well as compensation for the damage caused'. I find this point really interesting, as I've not been able to find evidence of civilians being forced to 'accompany' trains (presumably to prevent the Boers from blowing them up?) or having to foot the bill of damage done to the railway in their locality. I was just wondering if anybody else had heard about this, and could direct me to (or possesses) any sources that might give further details relating to this surely highly controversial issue.

I have not heard of anything along these lines and would be surprised to see any corroborating evidence.

Regards
David

It seems very improbable. How would the Boers in the field know who was on the trains? In the guerilla phase of the war the Boer commandos were widely scattered and I suspect that the small groups of train-wreckers were even more independent in their operations.

This is a very interesting discovery and I hope that more about it emerges.

Regards
Brett

I think I may have found further proof of this, taken from a proclamation by General Roberts on June 19 1900

'Clause 3: As a further precautionary measure, the Director of Military Railways has been authorised to order that one or more of the residents, who will be selected by him from each district, shall from time to time personally accompany the trains while travelling through their district'

and its subsequent cancellation on July 27 1900

' do hereby declare, proclaim, and make known that the third section of the said Proclamation...is repealed'

Nevertheless, the issue was still being discussed in September 1901, so it may have been occurring in the interim period!

Interesting. Have you found any evidence that the policy was used during its brief life?