The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, MAY 7, 1902. PEACE PROPOSALS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 409, 7 May 1902, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, MAY 7, 1902. PEACE PROPOSALS.

Next week we should hear something more definite about the prospects of an

enduring peace iji South. Africa. It is expected tliat the Boer leaders will be in a position next week to state what they intend to do in the way of response to the liberal offer made by the British. The cablegrams were rather hopeful in tone, but we notice that the leading English papers to hand by the last mail do not adopt a very cheerful tone about the matter. They have in mind the experience of the past, and therefore have not a great deal of faith in the Boer leaders. In an article on the subject the London Times says : “ It is just a year ago since they met an offer we made them of most liberal terms by a series of inadmissible demands ; and, soon after these were re-

jected, as they must have known from the first that' they would lie rejected, their principal leaders affirmed With emphasis tliat no peace would be made and no peace conditions accepted by which their independence and national existence, or the interests of their colonial brothers, should be the price paid, and that the war. should be vigorously prosecuted by taking all measures necessary for the maintenance of independence and interests. These were the views of Mr Schalk Burger and Mr Steyn and of the members of their several 1 governments,’ as well as of De Wet, Louis Botha, and De la Rey in July, 1-S.olThe Times considers, if these are the views of the Boer leaders still, the titular head of the Transvaal might have spared himself the trouble of travelling to meet bis colleague of the late Free State, unless, indeed, his real object be to utilise the conference he has asked for in the name of peace

in order to give and receive military

information from iiis allies. It is, of course, possible tliat the arguments in favor of peace which weighed with the Transvaal ‘ Government " in May, 1001 and which were embodied in Mr Reitz’s despatch of that month to Mr Steyn, may have once more convinced them it is inexpedient to prolong the struggle, for all of those arguments have become very much stronger in the interval. Mr Steyn then refused absolutely to listen to them, and to judge by the result, he had no difficulty in dissuading the Transvaal Boers from acting upon them. It is much to be feared tliat he may lye as determined and as successful a counsellor for evil in 1902, as lie was in 1901.' It true that lie has had a lesson since,' which ought to teach any mind open to considerations of reason and of humanity, that resistance is criminal felly. Continuing, the Times states that “ whether vanity or fanaticism be bis guiding motive, the past history and tiie published utterances of Mr Steyn do not encourage us to hope that he is capable of taking lessons of the kind to heart T t is only too probable that lie may induce Mr Schalk Burger and the Transvaalers to mock us once more with illusory offers, which- we must reject alike in honor and in selfdefence, and that, when we have rejected them, he may pervade his brother * Presidents ' to continue hostilities Which can have but one end.’’ The nation's leading journal then discusses the position the British must adopt. The Times says that the attitude of this country with regard io tbs wain

issues involved has never varied It has never been better ■or more faithfully described than Mr Chamberlain described it in his recent speech in the City. Those issues, as he declared, are broad and vital. They are the establishment of our authority beyond challenge or question in South Africa, and the maintenance of the unity of the Empire. We cannot dream of sacrificing them either to tlie desire which pervades the whole race, from the King himself downwards, that the great solemnity of the Coronation should not be celebrated in a time of war, or to our natural wish to have our hands free to penorm whatever duties may fall to our lot in other parts of the world. We are not, as Mr Chamberlain said, prepared to patch up “ a sort of peace ” after all the sacrifices in blood and in treasure we have made. We cannot and we wdl not “ throw away in negotiation what we have gained in arms." There is no shadow of revenge in our feelings towards the Boers. If they surrender to-day we shall be glad, in' Mr Chamberlain’s words, to weicome them as our friends to-morrow. But the nation, which has piescrved its calm, strong judgment to '.lie admiration of mankind throughout the struggle, will

not now towards the close of that struggle suffer its sc iability to run away with its sense. The people will see that the peace shall be an abiding peace, and for that reason they must, out of a just regard for their own future security and in justice to the loyalists, British and Dutch, who have nobly kept faith to ti eir allegiance, deprive the irreconcilable enemies of

the English name of the* possibility of being able ever again to imperil the Empire, and they must steadfastly refuse to put traitors on the same footing as good citizens. To act otherwise, as Mr Chamnerlain said, would be to disappoint the just expectations of the nation, to lose the confidence of our colonial kinsfolk, to betray those who have trusted us, and to invite the

contempt of our foreign rivals. We are all agreed that no set ere punishment need be exacted after tiie peace in the case of the rank and file of the rebels. That is only common sense. But common sense also teaches us. that we cannot allow even the rank and hie to go scot free. Those of them who have votes must at least be disenfranchised,

as Sir George Goldie remarks, and some appreciable punishment must be inflicted on the others. We cannot

afford to arm with the ballot the hands which have rnsed the rifle against us. To give these men the full political rights of citizenship

would be at once gtossly imprudent and grqpsjy unjust. The Government absolutely refused to give complete amnesty to rebels a year ago, and the reasons, why they refused are at least as strong now as they were then.