Referring to your telegram of 26th May. No promises have been made or asked for. The Boers are no doubt aware that legislation is required to give effect to banishment, and feel that we would not introduce such legislation if Article 3 of proposed agreement is accepted. This is obvious, and it follows that if surrender comes off banishment will be tacitly dropped. I was in favour of banishment proclamation, and was prepared to go even further, as I thought, and I still think, that resistance of Boers had ceased to be legitimate at that stage, and that it was our duty to impose special penalties upon those responsible for adoption of guerilla methods by which the country was being ruined and by which alone the struggle could be kept up at all. So far from regretting the proclamation I believe it has had great effect in increasing the number of surrenders, and in inducing the Boers still in the field to desist from further fighting. That has certainly been Kitchener's opinion, as he has always pressed and given the greatest publicity to the lists of banished leaders. But it would be a mistake if the Boers now give in in a body and live as British subjects to continue a prescription which would only keep up bitter feelings and tend to prevent the country from settling down. Kitchener agrees entirely. FROM LORD MILNER TO MR. CHAMBERLAIN. (Sent 7.55 P.M. Received Colonial Office 7.45 P.M., _27th May 1902_.) My telegram of to-day, No. 1. I made it clear, I hope, that what I said applied only to banishment, not to sale of farms. Smuts did allude to this point in committee, though not to banishment, but I gave him an emphatic negative, and the subject was then dropped. THE FIRST DRAFT AGREEMENT. FROM LORD MILNER TO MR. CHAMBERLAIN. (Despatched 11.10 P.M., _May 28_. Received Colonial Office 5.5 A.M., _May 29, 1902_.)