The Fortnightly Review: No. CCCCLXIII, New Series [‎606v] (103/239)

72
THE MARQUIS OF LANSDOWNE.
abandoned. If Lord Lansdowne did not carry his full scheme of
army reform, it was because, an evolutionist and cautious, he
shrank from revolutionary changes.
At the outbreak of hostilities in South Africa the performances
of the War Department were regarded with envy and amaze
ment by German, French, and Russian military critics. But
they did not come up to the high standard fixed by Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman and his heterogeneous following. Party
considerations stifled the still small voice of Radical partriotism.
The Opposition made a determined effort to discredit the War
Minister, and make party capital out of the shortcomings of the
army system. How miserably it failed is a matter of history.
Some say it contributed not a little to the Unionist victory in the
autumn of 1900. The War Minister’s appointment to the
Foreign Office was Lord Salisbury’s rebuke to his critics, and the
nation accepted the appointment, having fullest confidence in Lord
Salisbury. Lord Lansdowne, however, carried with him to
Downing Street some of the odium which attached to the War
Office for which, under the existing conditions, he showed in his
speech in the House of Lords, in reply to Lord Wolseley, that the
Minister for War could be, at most, but technically responsible.
In the Foreign Office Lord Lansdowne has found his metier.
Before a year had elapsed the consensus of opinion pronounced him
to be a worthy successor to Salisbury, Disraeli, and Palmerston.
I he dispute that arose with the United States in respect of the
proposed Nicaragua or Panama Canal, was the first grave crisis
with which the new Foreign Secretary had to deal. By the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850, Great Britain and the United
States each agreed not to construct a canal across the Isthmus of
Panama without the consent of the other. In February 1900, a
convention, negotiated by Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote, was
signed, in virtue of which Great Britain consented to the con-
stinotion of the Panama Canal by the United States, the latter
undertaking to keep it open perpetually to the world’s commerce,
and to maintain its neutrality in time of war. No fortifications
were to be erected, but the United States were permitted to
police it for the maintenance of public order. The Senate
amended the convention, claiming on behalf of the United States
exclusive control of the waterway in time of war : they struck
out the article under which the foreign Powers were to guarantee
its neutrality, and they declared the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty,
which they greatly disliked, owing, it is said, to having been out
witted by it, to be superseded by the amended convention,
Lord Lansdowne without hesitation rejected the new convention,’
observing that the convention already agreed represented the