Mr. Chamberlain in dealing with the question of peace pointed
out that if and when the Boers made overtures to us, as Lord Rosebery suggested, it would be necessary to ask whether those who had made the overtures were responsible persons. It was useless to negotiate with any one who had not power over the combatants in the field. The information of the Government showed that Mr. Kruger and his entourage in Holland had lost the confidence of their fellow-citizens in South Africa, "and that they no longer possessed any authority to speak for them." It was even doubtful if the perambulating Governments of Mr. Steyn and Mr. Schalk Burger had any authority. Again', it could not be said that any one of the generals in the field could commit the others, Mr. Reitz, too, had said, " If we, the leaders, surrendered, the
• rank-and-file would refuse to follow." At the same time, the Government would not stand upon a punctilio, provided they could find solid ground for negotiation. To say that a demand for unconditional surrender was a policy of extermination was absurd. Lord Durham in Canada and the Americans in their Civil War had demanded unconditional surrender, but they had not exterminated. As to the question of treating the rebels, no one had been shot for treason, but only for murder and other military offences. Contrast the policy of the Americans, who confiscated the property of rebels wholesale, and who for many. years withheld represen- tative government, and when it was regranted gave the vote to the former slaves of the rebels. We had adopted no policy of general confiscation, and did not propose to adopt it.
Previous page
