A VICTORIAN STATESMAN
The Life of lietuy lloward Molyneux -...Herbert, Fourth Earl of Carnarvon, 1831-1890. By Sir Arthur Hardinge. Edited by Elisabeth Countess_ of Carnarvon. 3 vols.-
77
(H. Milford. 63s. net.) -
THE Colonial Secretary who piloted the Bill of 1867 giving the Dominion of Canada its legal existence well deserves to be remembered with gratitude. The ample memoir of the fourth Earl of Carnarvon prepared by.„ his widow and Sir Arthur Hardinge shows that the North America Act was no isolaGrachievement, and that Long .pefore. Mr. Chamberlain dige'Ofiffed I1ie**1. gre for himself: his 'predecessor in office was taking-' a -kiebInteiest in theaffairs of the self-governing colonies' and aiiViOg to promote -their littler" development. Lord Carnarvon lidcfpiepareirhirnself tar Political life by taking a Firsehi Greats at Oxford and in foreign' tours extending as far as Moinl,'whichNvis then fat: lx cod the ken of the ordinary tra del' He tOOk'his. ;eat'. in the House of Lords in 1854, and four- years later heaine..pncierAeeretary for the Colonies in the short-lived DerWAiniStry." He returned to : the department as Secretary in Lord Derby's second Ministry of 1866, resigning next year rather than support Disraeli's Reform Bill.
In Disraeli's second Ministry of 1874 Lord ,,Carnarvon was once more Colonial Secretary, and remained in office through four critical years Until he again found himself in disagreement with his leader. His experience of colonial administration was thus exceptional, and the full account of his work which is given by the authors will be .distinetly.valuable,to students of the history of the Empire overseas. He was Much criticized: at the time for his proposal to federate the Provinces and States of South Africa, on the lines of the Dominion of Canada to which he had stood sponsor ten years before. Yet it is now obvious that Lord Carnarvon was right in the main. He had sanctioned the annexation of the Transvaal .to save the bank- rupt little Republic from destruction by the Zulu hordes. He had made a friend of President Brand of the Orange Free State: He could 'count Ori Natal and he had reason to hope that the Cape Government would be sympathetic to the idea of a union. His Bill of 1877 was permissive only ; it contained, as he said, " the ,framework of a future Confederation," but did not impose it Yet it might, with the exercise Of a moderate amount of .gOod will and statesmanship in South Africa, have spared that country years of turmoil and bloodshed. . The authors show very clearly that Lord Carnarvon's admirable project was ruined by the short-sighted and over-ambitious policy of Molteno; the Cape Premier, He limited to annex the other cOhinie§-and the Free State to Cape Colony, and he could not and would not envisage unioii in any other shape. As there was no cable to Cape Town in those days, despatches took weeks to arrive, and Lord Carnarvon was never able to correct the local misinterpretations of his. policy until the mischief was done. Thus a great opportunity wm losE. and
South African union was postponed for a generation. But , - we can admire the statesman who saw what South Africa
'needed and tried vainly to make her -See. it too..
a, •
Lord Carnarvon's resignation in the early days of 1878 over the Eastern question is another controversial matter which is discussed very fairly and fully in. these volty; es. Here again it is now apparent that he wai right, and Disraeli wrong. Disraeli was ready to make war .on Russia in behalf of Turkey, whereas Lord Carnarvon, who had seen: What. Turkish misrule meant in Asia Minor, strongly disapproved of expending British blood and treasure once again, as in the. Crimea, to prop, up the barbarous tyranny of the Porte. Lord Carnar- Von'i Own aecOuni Of the interminable Cabinet debates of the
77
winter of 1877-78 shows that most of the Ministers were very reluctant to adopt a militant policy. But Disraeli had the full support of Queen Victoria, who was violently anti-Russian, and addressed communications to the Cabinet" urging us very strongly to stand by the principle 'which we had declared that any advance on Constantinople would free us from neutrality,' and appealing to our ' traditions ' and the policy of centuries.'" Party loyalty and Court influence kept the Cabinet together. But Lord Carnarvon, as a plain, honest man, resigned whenthe Fleet was sent to the Dardanelles, and he was followed a few weeks later by Lord Derby. The moral effect of these resignations was to cool Disraeli's Turco- philism and prepare the way for the diplomatic bargaining which brought peace—with or without honour—at Berlin. Lord Carnarvon's action in this crisis was entirely character- istic of him. In politics as in private life he was faithful to the best traditions of his class. His good sense and calm judgment are well shown too in the letters in which, as Lord Lieutenant, he described for the Queen the situation in Ireland just forty years ago, and noted as "the greatest cause of . apprehension" the extreme poverty of the West. It is often said that Lord Carnarvon was no match for Parnell, who had an interview with the Viceroy, promised that it should be confidential, and then published what purported to be an account of their conversation. But it does not appear that Lord Carnarvon was trying to outmanoeuvre the Nationalist leader. He himself was in favour of giving Ireland " a certain amount of self-government," and for that reason he did not join Lord Salisbury's Cabinet in 1886. In that matter, as in others, Lord Carnarvon was more advanced than most men of his party, and his biography is unusually interesting because it makes one speculate as to what might have been if this statesman with the cross-bench mind had had his way.
Previous page
