The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, DECEMBER 2, 1901. MILITARY MATTERS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 277, 2 December 1901, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, DECEMBER 2, 1901. MILITARY MATTERS.

The Buller controversy still rages in England. Both sides would have it appear that they could disclose a great deal if they only cared to speak out. By to-day’s cables it will bo observed that Sir Redvers Buller states that ho maintains reticence on the ground of discipline. On the other' hand the Standard warns Sir Redvers that he must try and restrain his backers—who would probably not be restrained by any words from Sir Redvers Buller. But the London journal goes on to make somo very strong assertions to the discredit of the retired General. A correspondent writing from London on October lStli, states :—“ Controversy still runs high as to Sir Redvers Buller’s remarkable speech. Although the heavy w r eight of public opinion goes strongly against him there are, of course, many people who, studiously ignoring the fact that he is condemned purely on the strength of his own statements, declare that he is

being ‘ victimised ’ by a ‘ clique ’ who want to hound him out of the service, and so forth. It seems impossible to make these sapient persons understand that whereas Buller was sent out to protect the interests of the Empire he insteacL— after a defeat which ho attributes to ‘ rank bad luck,’ but which other people explain quite differently —proposed to Sir George i White a course which would have dealt the Empire and its interests the heaviest blow that either could possibly kavo sustained, and that he did so without the smallest warrant. Lord Roberts’ comments alone make this clear. Buller wanted to abandon Ladysmith ; Lord_ Roberts insisted on his effecting the relief. Again Buller gave as his reasons for his unworthy suggestion to White one which proved a baseless fear—that horse-sickness would occur, and another which when tested proved to be merely that he ‘ thought ’ —and thought quite wrongly—he had heard that White had not enough stores to hold out. No; I fear that Buffer must be judged on his own statements and admissions, and if so it is no ■wonder he had ‘rank bad luck,’ or that the Empire had it also while he was in command.” Whatever opinions generally may be in regard to Buffer's generalship, there will only be one opinion as to the foolishness of the message in regard to the surrender ■ of Ladysmith. As to the outcry that ]

has been raised against Lord Salisbury, the correspondent pays a special tribute to that statesman. Even in the present crisis (writes the correspondent) unprejudicedthinkers frankly recognise that Lord Salisbury’s part has been the only really satisfactory one. It is true that he is blamed for inaction and for leaving things too much to his coileaguos. But even a Prime Minister cannot be everywhere or do everything. He must practise devolution very largely in any case, and this is particularly, necessary when, as in the nreseut .instance, the Premier is the supreme specialist and expert in foreign affairs. It is in this respect that Lord Salisbury’s unseen work has been so enormously valuable. The I niGrs fact that at such a difficult- and dangerous crisis in the affairs of the nation, when Britain’c- hands have been to so largo an extent tied by the South African trouble, not one single foreign nation, in spite of all the alleged prevalence of unfriendly feeling, has so far made the slightest

attempt to prorit by our embarrassment or to presume on our supposed impotence, speaks volumes for the wisdom and skiff and prudence and tact of Lord Salisbury's relations with all foreign countries and their Governments. If for this alone, England and her colonies owe Lord Salisbury a debt of boundless gratitude. Let j

—>i e only imagine for one moment 3 ’ -ve been our position] i ■ France i what would m*. | and that of the colonies -—_ and Russia raised the Egyptian ques- j tion at such a crisis, or had Russia | interfered in Afghanistan on the Ameer’s death, or even had Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal thrown |

in their lot with the Boers —no imprnlmh'f contingency for various reasons —and then the vast benefit which

even in our present troubles we have enjoyed through possessing at least a "freehand"’ in dealing with South Africa, must at once be realised.