MR. BRODRICK AND LORD LANSDOWNE.

Thames Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 9830, 31 December 1900, Page 4

MR. BRODRICK AND LORD LANSDOWNE.

The, old €cnservatism-c\ntuiepotism that is typified in the Marquis of Salisbury and his family satellites (Mr. Balfour, Lo«l etc.) generally,has its public expression through the mouthpiece of the Times. Therefore it is not surprising that the Times should be mighty uneasy over the temerity of Mr. Brodrick, the new Secretary for War, in reopening the Colvile incident. Briefly" put, the fact* are substantially these: • The Marquies of Lansdowne at the War Office was a glaring failure, both as re.

gards his selection of generals, and hi« failure to remove out of harm's way those blundering ones with aristocratic connections. Lord Methuen is perhaps the most conspiouous example of Lord Lansdowne's double shortcoming. It is said that in the appointment of Lords Roberts and Kitchener to the South African command, Lord Salisbury had sufficient courage to go outside-the authority of Lords Lans. downe and Wolseley, leaving them to learn the interesting fact from the newspapers. At any rate, Lord Roberts took over the South African command, and' Sir Redvers Bullers waa. reduced to the Natal leader, ship, and it was about the time of the transfer taking place that Lord Methuen's blunder at Magersfontein occurred. One account ~stat<;s that, tne chief command being thus in the transition stage between the two of them, neither Buller nor Roberts considered himself the" person to -write the damning despatch aboutl Magera fqntein; another story says that the despatch was actually written, and has ever since been carefully shielded, in the 7 War' 1 Office pigeon holes, from ihe light of

day. The fact at all events remains that Lord Lansdowne did not remove Lord Methuen. Then arose the Colvile incident. Major General Sir H. E. Colvile was blamed in connection with the re- " grettable surrender of the Irish Yeomanry near Lindley, and was ordered' Home. When he arrived in London, Lords Lansdowne and Wolseley and the other, War Office wiseacres held an inquiry, and reinstated Colvile,in command of the infantry at Gibraltar (whither had been sent Sir Geo. White, whose operations in Natal had been criticised by Duller, who in turn had been criticised by Roberts). So far so good.' But even Lord Salisbury could •' not push Lord Lansdowne's War Office affairs'in, the. face of'the country, and at tha elections it was generally understood • that someone else must take the War Office in the reconstructed C^bineb. The r- result'is tbat'Mr. Brodrick now'"holds the ■ reins, while Lord Wolseley has been sue ceeded by Lord Roberts ',rs Commander in Chief; and Sir Evelyn Wood, acting tern.' porarily till Lord Roberts 1 arival, has asked Major General Colvile to resign, which • Colvile'"-sheltering ' himself behind the Lansdowne exoneration, refuses to do, but is now returning 'to England. Hence the Times arises to "suggest the seriousness -.'of- Mr. Brodrick's action in over riding tfie decision of the >-M»rqois of

■War, unless fresh evidence has- been obtained justifying such a step." Serious the development certainly is—! especially for Lord Lansdowne; but Mr. Brodrick is deserving of credit in making • in the interests of justice, even if he haa to stand against the most influential faction in his own party. It is bad enough fe> have the War Office failure •reinstated jn, the reconstructed Cabinet] in th« important Department of Foreign' -Affairs, without allowing the evil effects! of his preceding term of office to remain.] If a miscarriage of justice has occurred,' it is good that the new departmental headi i should right the matter, fresh evidence or. ' not—that is, if the War Office is to rise; above the level of the Dreyfus tribunals, i from whom even new and convincing evidence could not wring an impartial dccL, sion. The nepotism displayed in the Cabinet reconstruction by the. Salisbury family, emboldened perhaps by the overwhelming majority, has disgusted manyj supporters; it is well that there are two elements in the Conservative-Unionist: party, and that the Cabinet is a coalition ojne—otherwise the dishonest sheltering; policy would have full play. Much as Mr Chamberlain is reviled, the Chamberlain leaven has probably/ besides imparting to it its motive power, saved the Cabinet from itself. It ia to be hoped that Secretary Brodrick will stick to his guns in this Colvile incident, and that backstairs influence in high' life will receive a nat,ty blow.