The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke V1

S >> Stephen Gwynn >> The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke V1

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50

On April 21st 'Rosebery again promised me to introduce a Bill,' and the
Bill became law in 1884.

After his brother's death on March 12th Sir Charles Dilke, in his reply to
a very kind letter from the Prince of Wales in the name of himself and the
Princess, mentioned Lord Rosebery and the Scotch agitation. The Prince
wrote back:

"I quite agree. If Rosebery was not to be President of the Council, he
ought at least to be Privy Seal. It seems very hard, as he has every
claim, especially after the Midlothian election."

Several matters relating to the Queen and Royal Family appear at this time
in the Memoir. At the Cabinet of March 5th

'a letter from the Queen was read as to her strong wish to have an
Indian bodyguard, consisting of twenty noncommissioned officers of the
native cavalry. I did not say a word, and Chamberlain not much, but
all the others strongly attacked the scheme, which they ended by
rejecting. Lord Derby said that the Empress title had been forced on
the former Conservative Cabinet, of which he had been a member, in the
same way. It was pointed out that if India consented to pay the men,
and they only carried side-arms, they might be treated as pages or
servants, not soldiers, and need not be voted at all as "men" in the
Army Estimates.'

'A day or two later Villiers, our military attach. in Paris, reported
the existence of a military plot, said to have been got up by General
Billot, the Minister of War: the plan being that fifteen commanders of
corps were to turn out Grevy and put in the due d'Aumale. The story
was probably a lie.'

'On March 18th there was to have been a "forgiving party" at Windsor,
for Lord Derby was commanded as well as I. The Harcourts were to have
gone, but the Queen sent in the morning to say she had slipped down,
and must put off her Sunday dinner.'

'At this time peace was restored between Randolph Churchill and the
Royal Family. The reconciliation was marked by Lady Randolph attending
the Drawing-Room held on March 13th at the Queen's special wish.'

'At the Marlborough House dinner on May 27th, the Prince spoke to me
about the allowance for his sons as they came of age, and told me that
he thought the money might be given to him as head of the family. My
own view is very much the same, but I would give it all to the Crown,
and let the King for the time being distribute it so that we should
not deal with any other members of the family.'

'At Claremont I found, from the conversation of the Duke of Albany and
of his secretary, that if the Duke of Cambridge resigned speedily, as
then seemed probable, the Duke of Connaught had no chance of obtaining
the place; but it was hoped at Court that the Commander-in-Chief would
hold his position for five or six years, and then might be succeeded
by the Duke of Connaught.'

Later Sir Charles mentions the Duke of Albany's conversation with him as
to Canada, of which he wished to be Governor, but the Queen opposed the
project, and Lord Lansdowne was eventually sent out.

Returning to the Easter recess:

'The Government programme now began to be revised in the light of
men's declared intentions.'

'On Wednesday, March 21st, I crossed to Paris, and went to Toulon. I
must have been back in London on Thursday, March 29th, on which day I
had a long interview with Mr. Gladstone on things in general. He had
told Harcourt that he would hardly budge about the London police. His
last word was that they should be retained by the Home Office for a
period distinctly temporary, and to be named in the Bill. I gathered
from Mr. Gladstone's talk that all idea of retirement had gone out of
his mind.'

There was a Cabinet on April 7th, and 'London Government was again
postponed, but, owing to the fierce conflict between Harcourt and Mr.
Gladstone, was looked upon as dead.'

Mr. Gladstone, in his anger, told Sir Charles that "Harcourt, through
laziness, wanted to get out of the Government of London Bill." But the
truth was, says the Memoir, 'that he could think of nothing but the
dynamite conspiracy.' A Bill to meet this was being rushed through
Parliament, with an almost grotesque haste, that was as grotesquely
baffled in the end.

'On April 9th the Queen sat up half the night at Harcourt's wish in
order to be ready to sign the Explosives Bill at once, but Mr. Palmer
of the Crown Office (the gentleman who signs "Palmer" as though he
were a peer) could not be found; and the other man, Zwingler, was in
bed at Turnham Green, and to Harcourt's rage the thing could not be
done. On the 16th Harcourt told the Chancellor that in the discussion
of the Crown Office vote he should move the omission of the item for
his nephew's pay.' [Footnote: Mr. Ralph Charlton Palmer was Lord
Selborne's second cousin, and secretary to Lord Selborne in the Lord
Chancellor's Office. He was afterwards a Commissioner in Lunacy.]

The London Government Bill was not yet given up for lost. On April 11th
Sir Charles Dilke wrote to Mr. Gladstone to deprecate its withdrawal, and
the Prime Minister replied, agreeing that "withdrawal ... would be a
serious mischief, and a blow to the Government."

'On April 14th there was a Cabinet, at which Mr. Gladstone announced
that Harcourt had written to him refusing to go on with the Government
of London Bill after the second reading of the measure, and proposing
that I should conduct it through Committee.'

'At the Cabinet of this day (April 21st) Mr. Gladstone said that he
wanted the bearing of the Agricultural Holdings Bill on Scotland
explained to him. "I wish Argyll were here," said he. "I wish to God
he was," said Hartington, who had been fighting alone against the
Bill, deserted even by the Chancellor and by Lord Derby. Indeed, all
my lords were very Radical to-day except Hartington, who was simply
ferocious, being at bay. He told us that Lord Derby was a mere owner
of Liverpool ground rents, who knew nothing about land.'

'On Thursday, May 24th, there was a meeting at the Home Office of nine
members of the Cabinet as to the Government of London Bill, and I
wrote after it to Chamberlain: "Victory! Hartington alone dissenting,
everybody was for going on with everything, and sitting in the
autumn." And Chamberlain replied: "At last! But why the devil was it
not decided before?"'

At a full Cabinet a few days later 'the police difficulty finally slew the
London Bill.' This seemed to Sir Charles a very serious matter, and he
thought of resigning. Mr. Chamberlain, however, was against this, though
agreeing that he should resign in the autumn 'unless Mr. Gladstone would
promise to put franchise first next year.'

So it was left. But presently Mr. Chamberlain himself became the cause of
very grave dissensions. On June 13th, 1883, a great assembly was held at
Birmingham to celebrate the twenty-fifth year of Mr. Bright's membership
for the borough, and Mr. Chamberlain in speaking observed that
representatives of royalty were not present, neither were they missed.
[Footnote: On Monday, June 11th, 1883, there was a "monster procession and
fete constituting the popular prelude to the more serious business of the
Bright celebration at Birmingham" that week. On June 13th Mr. Chamberlain
said: "Twice in a short interval we have read how vast multitudes of human
beings have gathered together to acclaim and welcome the ruler of the
people. In Russia, in the ancient capital of that mighty Empire, the
descendant of a long line of ancient Princes, accompanied by a countless
host of soldiers, escorted by all the dignitaries of the State, and by the
representatives of foreign Powers, was received with every demonstration
of joy by the vast population which was gathered together to witness his
triumphal entry. I have been told that more than a million sterling of
public money was expended on these ceremonies and festivities.... Your
demonstration on Monday lacked nearly all the elements which constituted
the great pageant of the Russian Coronation. Pomp and circumstance were
wanting; no public money was expended; no military display accompanied Mr.
Bright. The brilliant uniforms, the crowds of high officials, the
representatives of Royalty, were absent, and nobody missed them; for yours
was essentially a demonstration of the people and by the people, in honour
of the man whom the people delighted to honour, and the hero of that
demonstration had no offices to bestow--no ribands, or rank, or Court
titles, to confer. He was only the plain citizen--one of ourselves...."
(the Times, June 14th, 1883).] He added that the country was in his
opinion more Radical than the majority of the House of Commons, but not
more Radical than the Government; that the country was in favour of
Disestablishment, and that three things were wanted: First, "a suffrage
from which no man who is not disqualified by crime or the recipient of
relief shall be excluded "; secondly, equal electoral districts; and,
thirdly, payment of members.

'On June 25th Mr. Gladstone had sent for me about a recent speech by
Chamberlain at Birmingham.

'The Queen had been angry at his "They toil not, neither do they
spin," but was still more angry about this recent speech, at which Mr.
Gladstone was also himself offended. [Footnote: "This speech is open
to exception from three points of view, I think--first in relation to
Bright, secondly in relation to the Cabinet, thirdly and most
especially in relation to the Crown, to which the speech did not
indicate the consciousness of his holding any special relation," wrote
Mr. Gladstone to Sir Henry Ponsonby (Morley's Life of Gladstone, vol.
iii., p. 112).] I pointed out that Hartington had committed his
colleagues on a practical question when he spoke as to Irish Local
Government last January, and Mr. Gladstone had committed them when he
talked on Ireland and on London government to Ribot and Clemenceau at
Cannes. Mr. Gladstone defended himself, but threw over Hartington, who
had "behaved worse than Chamberlain." I went to see Chamberlain about
it, and found him very stiff, but tried to get him to say something
about it at the Cobden Club, where he was to preside on Saturday, the
30th. On the next day he promised that he would do this, but when he
came to read me the words that he intended to use I came to the
conclusion that, although they would make his own position very clear,
they would only make matters worse as far as Mr. Gladstone and the
Queen were concerned.'

Dilke's mediation was ultimately successful, and 'on July 2nd Mr.
Gladstone, in a letter to Chamberlain, accepted his explanations with
regard to his speech.' In the House of Commons, charge of the Corrupt
Practices Bill had been entrusted to the President of the Local Government
Board--a very unusual arrangement--and it meant sitting late many nights,
once till 5.30 a.m., after which 'I had to get up as usual for my fencing
people.'

'On July 25th there was another Cabinet, before which I had
"circulated" to my colleagues my local government scheme. Many members
of the Cabinet objected to it as too complete, and on my communicating
their views to the draftsman, Sir Henry Thring, he wrote:

'"I believe that the great superiority of your plan of local
government over any other I have seen consists in its extent. I
believe that you will find that your scheme, though apparently far
more extreme than any scheme yet proposed, will practically not make a
greater alteration in existing arrangements than a far less
comprehensive scheme would make. It is, as far as I can judge,
impossible to make a partial plan for local government: such a plan
disturbs everything and settles nothing.... Your plan, when carried
into effect, will disturb most things, no doubt, but will at the same
time settle everything."'

At a Cabinet held in the recess on October 25th

'Mr. Gladstone made a speech about the next Session which virtually
meant franchise first, and the rest nowhere. After this I locked up my
now useless Local Government Bill, of which the principal draft had
been dated August 24th. One of its most important parts had been the
consolidation of rates and declaration of the liability of owners for
half the rates. It had then gone on to establish district councils,
and then the County Councils. There was, however, to be some slight
resuscitation of the Bill a little later.'

Two minor concerns which interested Sir Charles exceedingly were under
prolonged discussion this year. The first was the proposed purchase of the
Ashburnham and Stowe collections. Sir Charles 'voted all through against
the purchase of the Ashburnham manuscripts, being certain that we were
being imposed upon.' He noted

'the experts always want to buy, and always say that the thing is
invaluable and a chance which will never happen again. No one can care
for the National Gallery more than I do; I know the pictures very
well, for I go there almost every week.'

He thought, however, that some wholesale purchases for public collections
had been all but worthless, with perhaps one admirable thing in a mass of
rubbish.

Secondly, there arose in May a discussion over the Duke of Wellington's
statue, which Leighton and the Prince of Wales wanted to remove from Hyde
Park Corner, but which Sir Charles cherished as an old friend. It was one
of the matters on which he and Mr. Gladstone were united by a common
conservatism:

'The ridiculous question of the Duke of Wellington's statue had come
up again at the Cabinet of August 9th, and the numbers were taken
three times over by Mr. Gladstone, who was in favour of the old statue
and against all removals, in which view I steadily supported him, the
Cabinet being against us, and Mr. Gladstone constantly trying to get
his own way against the majority. It was the only subject upon which,
while I was a member of it, I ever knew the Cabinet take a show of
hands.'

In the last Cabinet of the Session they 'once more informally divided
about the Wellington statue'; and he recorded the fact that he 'still
hoped to save it.' Yet in the end he failed; and 'now,' he notes
pathetically, 'I should have to go to Aldershot to see it if I wished to
do so.'

CHAPTER XXXII

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL AFFAIRS
OCTOBER, 1882, TO DECEMBER, 1883

Sir Charles Dilke's transference to the Local Government Board scarcely
lessened his contact with the more important branches of the Foreign
Office work, while his entry into the Cabinet greatly increased the range
of his consultative authority.

The Triple Alliance was a fact, but only guessed as yet. It is not till
the middle of 1883 that Sir Charles writes:

'On June 4th, 1883, I heard the particulars of the alliance of the
Central Powers, signed at Vienna between Germany and Austria in
October, 1879, and ratified at Berlin on October 18th of that year, to
which Italy had afterwards adhered.' [Footnote: Sir Charles knew that
Prince Bismarck had tried first for an English alliance, and wrote on
August 17th, 1882, to Sir M. Grant Duff: "N. Rothschild told me that
the late Government had twice declined an offensive and defensive
alliance offered by Germany." See also _Life of Lord Granville_, vol.
ii., p. 211.]

An extension was contemplated which would have put France between two
fires. Later, in the autumn of 1883,

'a private letter from Morier to Lord Granville showed that Bismarck
had sent the Crown Prince of Germany to Spain to induce Spain to join
the "peace league"' (Triple Alliance), 'and had failed.'

On November 22nd, 1883,

'At the Cabinet I saw a telegram from Lord Dufferin, No. 86, received
late on the previous night, in which the Sultan asked our advice as to
offers of alliance in the event of immediate general war, which had
probably been made him by both sides. We replied to it after the
Cabinet (No. 68): "We cannot enter into hypothetical engagements or
make arrangements in contemplation of war between friendly Powers now
at peace. The Sultan must be aware that Germany is the most powerful
military nation on the Continent, and that she has no ambitious views
against Turkey. Strongly advise the Sultan not to enter into
entangling engagements." This whole story of the Sultan's was probably
a lie, to get us to say whether we would defend his Armenian frontier,
but, curiously enough, Dufferin seemed to believe it.'

'On May 24th, 1883, I informed the Ministers assembled of two
interesting matters of foreign affairs. The one was Bismarck's
denunciation to us of a league among the small Christian States of the
Balkan Peninsula for provoking popular votes in Turkey in favour of
annexation of various provinces to one or other of the partners. The
other was an offer by the Grand Sherif of Mecca to turn the Turks out
of Arabia, and place it under British protection.'

The gravest danger to the world's peace lay in the fact that to the
ordinary Englishman Russia was still the natural enemy, and that France,
smarting under the rebuff she had experienced in Egypt, was assuming a
more unfriendly attitude towards Great Britain.

In South Africa the state of things established after Majuba was revealing
itself as one of constant friction, and border wars between the Boers and
African tribes claiming British protection led to ceaseless controversy.

'On the 10th (March, '83) there was another Cabinet. A Transvaal
debate was coming on on Thursday the 15th, and in view of this
Chamberlain asked for support of his opinion that an expedition should
be sent out to save Montsioa. He was supported only by Hartington and
myself, but he afterwards managed to commit us to it, and to force his
view upon Mr. Gladstone. He passed a paper to me when he found we
could not win at the Cabinet: "How far would the difficulty be met by
supplying arms to Mankowane and (query) to Montsioa, and permitting
volunteers to go to their assistance?" I replied, "I don't think it
would stand House of Commons discussion." To this he answered,
"Perhaps not. But the first is what Mankowane himself asks for, and if
we gave him what he wants that course ought to be defensible." I
wrote, "Yes, I was thinking more of Montsioa."' [Footnote: Mankowane
and Montsioa were independent native chiefs of Bechuanaland, for whose
protection the Aborigines' Protection Society was appealing to the
British Government.]

'March 16th, 1883, Mr. Gladstone asked me to speak in the event of the
Transvaal debate coming on again, and I refused, as I did not agree in
the policy pursued. Chamberlain said he would speak in my place, and
did so.

'May 26th or 27th. We decided at the Cabinet to keep Basutoland.

'June 13th. As to South Africa, the Colonial Office told us that they
hoped to induce the Cape to take Bechuanaland. A little later on the
whole of their efforts were directed in the opposite direction--
namely, to induce the Cape to let us keep Bechuanaland separate from
the Cape. It was announced that Reay had accepted the Transvaal
Mission.

'June 23rd. We decided that Reay was not to go out, because the
Transvaal people preferred to come to us.

'November 30th. We talked of the Transvaal, which looked bad.'

The Transvaal deputation is mentioned immediately after this as having
arrived.

There are also allusions to South African affairs having been raised at
other Cabinets in this year, but no details given.

Late in 1883, Sir Charles says, 'I was pressing for the restoration of
Cetewayo, and Lord Derby insisted that he had brought all his troubles on
himself.'

At this time Russia had subdued the Turcomans and made herself paramount
in the territories north of Persia and Afghanistan. It was only a matter
of months before Russian troops would be on the ill-defined frontiers of
Afghanistan. Great Britain was bound to the Amir of Afghanistan by an
engagement to assist him against external attack, provided that he
complied with British advice as to his foreign relations. Not only was a
collision predicted between Russia and the Amir, whose territory Great
Britain had thus guaranteed, but it was known where the struggle would be.

'It was also about this time' (February, 1883) 'that the Russian
Government took up my suggestion as to the delimitation of the
boundary of Afghanistan. But, as Currie wrote, "the object of the
Russian Foreign Office may only be to keep the British Government
quiet, while they are settling the boundary question with Persia and
annexing ... Merv, with a view to a fresh departure in the direction
of Herat as soon as that process is accomplished."'

'We already foresaw that the struggle would be over Penjdeh. A
memorandum of 1882, by Major Napier, [Footnote: Lieutenant-Colonel the
Hon. G. C. Napier, C.I.E., son of the first Lord Napier of Magdala,
and twin brother of the second Lord Napier.] had told us that "below
Penjdeh the Afghans would not appear to have ever extended their
authority." Mr. Currie, [Footnote: Afterwards Lord Currie, Assistant
Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office.] as he then was, prophesied
that the line proposed by the Russians would strike the Murghab near
Penjdeh.'

This was a situation well fitted to arouse Sir Charles, who wrote to Lord
Edmond Fitzmaurice: "I'm as great a jingo in Central Asia as I am a
scuttler in South Africa." His policy was not that of the India Office. He
advocated delimitation of the Afghan frontiers, and in October, 1882, the
Amir had asked for this. [Footnote: 'On October 17th, 1882, the Amir had
proposed to Lord Ripon that delimitation of his frontiers which I was
pressing at the time, but which had been refused by Lord Ripon. Lord
Granville and Fitzmaurice had come round to my view. Northbrook strongly
resisted, and wanted his famous treaty.'] 'The Government of India
insisted at this time upon the proposal to Russia of a treaty with regard
to Afghanistan.' Sir Charles thought that British interests in India would
be better served by strengthening Afghanistan, by ascertaining exactly
what the Amir's rights were, and by making him feel that he would be
protected in them. To-day, when Afghanistan is one of the self-equipping
Asiatic military powers, and admittedly an awkward enemy to tackle, the
situation seems plain enough; but in those days Abdurrahman, new on the
throne, was still a 'King with opposition.'

'On April 20th, 1883, there was a meeting at the Foreign Office as to
Central Asia between Lord Granville, Hartington, Kimberley,
Northbrook, Edmond Fitzmaurice, and myself. The Amir was in a friendly
humour, and I felt that the evacuation of Kandahar had been better
than a dozen victories.'

The evacuation of Kandahar had been Lord Ripon's work, but Lord Ripon was
now inclining to compromise the unity of the Native State which he had
then laboured to establish. He was disposed to keep the Amir at arm's
length, and wished to decline a visit of ceremony which Abdurrahman
proposed. All the Committee at the Foreign Office were against this,
except Lord Northbrook, who 'did not believe in Abdurrahman's strength,
and believed that he would soon be turned out of Herat by his own
Governor.'

'On June 7th it was settled that the Amir should have twelve lakhs of
rupees a year.' But Sir Charles had not yet carried his point as to
preventing a treaty with Russia, and

'Philip Currie and Fitzmaurice both wrote to me in favour of the India
Office view, while Condie Stephen [Footnote: Sir Alexander Condie
Stephen, K.C.M.G., was in 1882-83 despatched from the Legation at
Teheran on a mission to Khorassan, the north-east province of Persia]
returned from Central Asia with the same view in favour of a
treaty.... But Currie put a postscript to his long letter, in which he
departed altogether from the treaty position, and took up my own view
as to delimitation: "In view of our engagement to defend Afghanistan
from foreign aggression, we ought surely to know the limits of the
territory we have guaranteed."

'I finally said that I had no objection to a treaty which would merely
recapitulate facts and set out the Afghan frontier. This was my last
word, and, Lord Granville agreeing with me, we went on with
delimitation as against treaty.... It was not until June 8th, 1888,
that the Emperor of Russia recognized the arrangement and the frontier
marked by the boundary pillars.'