LORD LANSDOWNE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 21, 25 January 1930, Page 9 (Supplement)

LORD LANSDOWNE.

PEACE LETTER RECALLED. GAMBLE OF 1918. BEGETTER OP THE "ENTENTE.'* (B3rE.L.C.W.) "A Whig by family, a Conservative by force of circumstance, a man of much charm, a master of the two* languages of diplomacy, and the descendant of one author of the first entente—the illustrious TalleyrandV-liOrd Lansdowne had the best qualifications in the world for merging the foreign policy of a Conservative in that of a Liberal. Government and bridging the gulf that separates the temperament of the' French from that oi the English." Mn Algernon Cecil thus described Lord Lansdowne,, who will, however,, remain most notable in history as the author, of a peace letter which he made public in 1917. A biography in one volume of Lord Lansdowne (Macmillan's): by Lord Newton, issued little more than two years after his death, does not give to the historian much that is new about the career of this great peer, who died an octogenarian, but it does make absolutely clear that he was the begetter of the entente cordiale, and not King Edward VII. There appears in* this' biography a letter written by Lord Balfour, in which he criticises Holland Rose, whom he regards as a sound historian, for attributing the policy of the entente to King Edward. Lord Balfour characterises thia as a piece of gossip current at King Edward's death and adds, "Now, so far as I remember, during the years which you and I were j his Ministers,' 1 he writes to Lord Lansdowne, "he never made an important suggestion of any sort on large questions of policy. I wish you would cudgel your own memory and tell me whether in this opinion I am right. If I am, I think I shall write privately to Rose and tell him the facts, leaving him to make or not to the requisite correction in subsequent editions, as he pleases. Ido not, of course, wish to have anything in the nature of a public controversy, but I think it only fair to let a man know who is trying to tell the truth what the truth ;is." As Mr. Cecil holds, "By the time 'King Edward had ascended the throne the power to initiate or obstruct a foreign policy had passed irrevocably beyond the reach of the Crown." The Peace Letter. I To the present generation, this biography has only one engrossing part-— that which 'refers to the peace letter. "It has been widely assumed that this letter," says Lord Newton, "which aroused more controversy than almost any individual opinion during recent years, was the result of a hurried decision brought about by a temporary loss of nerve. It is true that Lord Lansdowne's letter came as a complete ouiprise to his friends and family, and the first intimation of his action was. the appearance of the letter in the Press} but, in. view of the memorandum of 1916, it is quite evident that the peace letter was not an act of sudden impulse, but represented a reasoned conclusion which had been formed a year earlier. The memorandum of 1916 and letter of 1917 are practically identical,, the only real distinction between them being that the former was a confidential document. Why Lord Lansdowne never made any subsequent reference to the memorandum is difficult to understand, for, had he done so, his position would obviously have been much stronger. It ia true that the memorandum was a confidential Cabinet docu-> raent, but. he might, nevertheless, have asked permission to publish it. Whether permission would have been accorded is perhaps doubtful, but there is nothing in his private papers to show that he oyer contemplated sueh a step; and the fact remains that, presumably, owing to his scrupulous respect for Cabinet tradition, he never.made any allusion to it either » in speech or in writing. Nor does his correspondence show that he previously consulted any of his former colleagues, except to the extent of sounding Mr. Balfour as to the expediency of a peace debate in Parliament." Lord Balfour was not very oncoming about the proposed debate, and, indeed, deprecated ventilation in Parliament. But Lord Lansdowne then determined that his letter should see light in the Press, and first approached the '.'Times," then "suffering," as Lord Newton puts it, "under Lord Northcliffe," but the editor, Mr. Geoffrey Dawson, was against publication at that moment, on the ground that it would suggest to the Allies, just assembled for the Paris Conference, a' weakness in the strongest partner; that it. would be utilised by the Germans as a. tribute to their new conquests in Italy and to their; negotiations with the Bolsheviks, and that it would discredit Lord Lansdowne himself, more particularly in view of the weight which his name carried abroad. Mr. Dawson was under the impression —incorrect as it turned out—that Lord" Lansdowne would defer publication. But the latter then approached Lord' Burnham. Lord Burnham, who was disposed to think that the Foreign Office was not decisively opposed to some of the proposals, agreed to publish and the letter consequently appeared in the •'Daily Telegraph" on November 29. The letter had a thoroughly bad Press, especially in the Northcliffe journals, but the" more weighty Liberal Press, and even the "Saturday Review," Were friendly. The reception in the foreign Press was equally mixed, while America hardly noticed it in the excitement of entry into the war. Lord Newton declares that "it looked for a short time at the beginning of 1918 as though the ■ possibilities of such a peace as Lord Landsdowne had urged were hot altogether hopeless." and a definite movement was inaugurated in this country to forward it. Lord Lansdowne's second letter to the "Daily Telegraph" received world-wide publicity and support from both sides, in different countries, in the "Berliner TagebJafct" and in "L'Humanite" in France, for instance: "■'■' ' , Allied Ignorance. Lord Newton gives as bis view of the position: "One of the most curious facts in connection with the later stages of the war is that the Allies were completely ignorant of the real situation in Germany; for shortly before,her collapse Allied politicians and generals were talking airily of fighting for another year or two, and the late Sir Henry Wilson and Colonel Repirigton in their diaries, in common with other writers, expressed the opinion in 1918 that no responsible authorities, considered that there any hope of finishing it until the sum-

mer of 1919. Mi-. Wihston Churchill, for instance, in his latest Book, "The World Crisis,' remarks t 'They (the Allies) had no reason at the end of 1917, nor during the greater part of 1918, to count upon a German collapse in the west.- -Even in September, it was prudent to expect a German retreat to the Meuse or the Khine> and every nerve was strained fn preparation for a vast campaign in 1919. J It must be admitted that the sudden and unexpected collapse of Germany in November,, 1918, ostensibly justified the advocates of the knock-out blow; but at the moment when the Landsdowne letter appeared, neither 1 the r Allied naval nor the military authorities t could give any sort of guarantee of vic- . tory. The war had, in fact, assumed the 1 appearance of a gigantic gamble} in the > course of which hundreds of thousands . of men were being slaughtered, and every I European belligerent. State was drifting rapidly into.' bankruptcy,, if not into : revolution as well. The choice really ■ lay between this terrific gamble and a , negotiated peace.'* Political Career. For the rest,, Lord. Lansdowne- as his biographer shows, played an important part—not always a leading part-r-in English, political life from. 1868 when at the age of 23 he became a Junior. Lord of .the Treasury. His work in. the Dominions as Viceroy in Canada and India was sound but not sensational. As a Foreign Secretary his career' is perhaps comparable to that, of Lord Grey's> for certainly the obvious sincerity of his character was an important factor in winning the confidence of both the French and the Russians, a fact which made it possible for him to secure the co-operation of bath these European countries in the excursions and alarms of the perturbed last quarter of the nineteenth century. The part played by Lord Larwdowne in nineteenth century politics was naturally coloured py his position as! a great Irish landlord and it is in that field that his normally Liberal leanings were not in evidence. In the long struggle which the Liberal party had 'from 1906 on, to pass measures through the Lords and in particular over that of Home Rule, it was Lord Lansdowne who led the Tories. In his leadership in the Lords he perpetrated his worst' blunder when he led the "back woodsmen" to vote against the finance budget, and thus ; precipitated the constitutional crisis, and < in the long run brought into being the ; Parliament Act by means of which a j non-Tory government is now enabled to ] circumvent Conservative obstruction. The Parliament; Act reduced the House ! of Lords technically to tbe position of i one of the weakest second chambers in ] the world—a paradoxical conclusion to i the career of a great peer. On the personal side, this biography is notable for the long series of letters which Lord Lansdowne wrote to his mother, to whom he was devoted.