The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke, Vol. 2

S >> Stephen Gwynn >> The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke, Vol. 2

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 Tuesday, February 24th, I breakfasted at Alfred de Rothschild's
house, to meet the German Ambassador, Count Muenster, at the latter's
wish. Alfred de Rothschild did not sit down with us, and we were
_tete-a-tete_. Muenster was very free in his remarks about Bismarck.
"No one ever contradicts him." "He sees none but flatterers." "His
life is a period to be got through."'

Two March entries are apposite here:

'On Wednesday, March 4th, Rosebery wrote to me to ask me to dine
with him to meet "Herbert Bismarck," who had suddenly arrived, but I
was engaged to the Speaker's dinner, and had to put off seeing young
Bismarck till Thursday, the 5th. He had come over to try to force us
to dismiss Lord Granville and Lord Derby. I noted in my Diary:
[Footnote: Sir Charles's Diaries, to portions of which certain
biographers had access, are at this point quoted by Lord Edmond
Fitzmaurice in his _Life of Lord Granville_, vol. ii., p. 430. The
passage runs: "Negotiations with Germany on the vexed colonial
questions were meanwhile proceeding, more particularly with regard
to New Guinea. Sir Julian Pauncefote proposed a plan which it was
hoped might satisfy the German Chancellor, and Count Herbert
Bismarck reappeared as co-negotiator with Count Muenster in London.
Lord Rosebery, who had just joined the Cabinet as Lord Privy Seal,
also took part in the negotiations. 'Herbert Bismarck came over
again,' Sir Charles Dilke noted; 'if at his former visit he had only
tried to get us to dismiss Lord Derby, on this occasion he wanted us
to dismiss Lord Granville and Lord Derby.'"] "He puts us in a
difficult position as individuals, for how can we say to this
personally friendly fellow that we do not think Lord Granville's
speech in the Lords on Friday foolish, or how say that we think that
the allusion to old Bismarck's dislike of Muenster in a recent
despatch from Malet ought to have been published."

'On Friday, March 6th, I saw Herbert Bismarck again twice.... I
having expressed anxiety about Zanzibar, he told me that his father
had directed him to say that he "considered Zanzibar as independent
as Turkey or Russia." It is to my mind shameful that, after this,
Lord Granville should have begun and Lord Salisbury have rapidly
completed arrangements by which the Zanzibar mainland, the whole
trade of which was in our hands, was handed over to Germany.'

'On March 7th we discussed Herbert Bismarck's views on the
Cameroons, on German claims in New Guinea (on this head we settled
with him), and on Pondoland.'

While the difficulties with Germany were being discussed, differences as
to Egyptian policy and our relations with France continued.

On January 20th, Egypt once more threatened to break up the Government.
France had proposed an international Commission of Inquiry into the
financial situation.

'We discussed a French proposal which, as I wrote to the Chancellor,
had at least one advantage--namely, "that it re-forms the majority
in the Cabinet by uniting two of the three parties--yours and mine."
Mr. Gladstone, Lord Granville, Kimberley, Derby, Harcourt, the
Chancellor, Trevelyan, and Dilke, eight in all, supported taking the
new French proposals as a basis. Chamberlain was absent ill.
Northbrook, Hartington, Childers, to my astonishment, and
Carlingford were against us. After the Cabinet Hartington wrote to
Mr. Gladstone to say that he "could not accept the decision," and
Northbrook supported him.' Next day, however, 'when we turned to
Egyptian finance, Trevelyan went over from our side to the other.
Mr. Gladstone announced that what we had decided on the previous day
was not to prevent our arguing against the French proposed inquiry,
and thus Hartington was kept in.'

'On January 23rd I forwarded to Chamberlain a letter from
Sandringham, which showed that the Queen had been alarmed at the
possibility that my proposed Civil List inquiry might affect not
only new grants, but also the Civil List arrangements made at the
beginning of the reign. Chamberlain made a Delphic reply that, on
the one hand, inquiry would be a farce if it did not include the
existing Civil List, but that on the other hand there could be no
intention to make any change in the arrangements with the Queen.'

'On January 28th, I heard from Sandringham that the Prince of Wales
was going to Osborne the next day, and would broach to the Queen his
friendliness to the idea of a new settlement of the Civil List.
Chamberlain was anxious that no difficulty should be made by us on
the occasion of the marriage of Princess Beatrice. He wrote: "_If
alone_, I should wait for something or somebody to turn up. Before
Prince Edward wants an allowance who knows what may happen? But I am
perfectly ready to follow your lead or to lead to your prompting."'

All arrangements were being made on the assumption that Lord Hartington
would become Prime Minister.

'I had been left by Mr. Gladstone in a certain doubt as to whether I
was to be completely responsible for the Redistribution Bill, or
whether Hartington was to share the responsibility. I wrote to
Hartington: "Mr. Gladstone sends me everything on Redistribution,
and expresses no opinion of his own. Northcote and Salisbury write
to me only, and the whole thing is more and more in my hands. If I
let things drift, it is clear that I shall practically have sole
charge of the Bill, for no one else will know anything about it. I
do not shrink from this at all. It is work I like. But, as you will
probably be called on to form an Administration immediately after
the passing of the Bill, don't you think it would look well, and
that our people and the Press and the country would like it, if you
were to take charge of the Bill? If so, I had better have two or
three days' work at it with you."

'Hartington had asked me to stay with him at Hardwick to talk it
over, but it was only a Saturday to Monday visit from January 10th
to 12th, and there were many people in the house, and our whole
conversation was but very short; and Hartington continued to show
but little desire to work at the detail, and the Bill could only be
handled by those who knew its detail.'

Although the Opposition leaders had accepted the compact, it was at this
time quite uncertain whether the House of Commons would consent to the
Redistribution scheme--affecting as it did the interests of every
member. The Fourth Party had not been consulted in the arrangement, and
inevitable friction followed.

'On January 27th I had a correspondence with Northcote in reference
to some mischief which had been made by Randolph Churchill.
Northcote had been told by the Conservative Chief Whip, "Dilke told
Randolph that the Government would have given more grouping if we
had pressed for it." The Conservative party being angry at the
absence of grouping of the boroughs, Northcote had taken up the
point, but he now wrote: "Whatever Churchill said must have been in
the nature of an inference of his own from what had previously
passed, from which he had probably gathered that the Government were
ready to concede grouping." But there was a lady in the case who had
gossiped about what Northcote had said to her, and he promised to
write to the offender.'

'On January 13th Mr. Gladstone wrote as to the Redistribution Bill:
"The difficulty as I see it about communication with Northcote is
that he seems to have little weight of influence, and to be afraid
or unwilling to assume any responsibility. I have usually found him
reasonable in his own views, but obliged to reserve his judgment
until after consulting his friends, which consultations I have found
always to end badly. On the other hand, it is, of course, necessary
to pay him due respect. What may prove to be best under these
circumstances is--(1) not to be bound always to consult HIM, (2) to
consult him freely on the easier and smaller matters, but (3) in a
stiff question, such as the numbers of the House may prove to be, to
get at Salisbury if possible, under whose wing Northcote will, I
think, mostly be content to walk, (4) Or, if Salisbury cannot be got
alone, then Northcote and Salisbury would be far preferable to
Northcote alone."'

All these difficulties had to be met by Sir Charles. When the Bill
actually came before the House, 'Mr. Gladstone instructed James to
assist me in the conduct of it. But practically I had it to myself.'
Lord Hartington had rendered invaluable service in the preliminary
negotiations. But for such laborious work of detail as was needed to
carry through this Bill, neither temperament nor surroundings had fitted
him. His Hardwick home is thus described by Sir Charles in a letter
which he wrote to Mrs. Pattison:

'I am writing in my bedroom, which is--bed and all--that of Mary
Queen of Scots, who was the prisoner of Bess of Hardwick. It is a
wonderful house, indeed--enormous, and yet completely covered with
the tapestry and the pictures of the time.... The casement windows
have never been touched since Queen Elizabeth was here, and are
enormous. (There is a local proverb which speaks of the hall as "all
window and no wall.") The result is that, in spite of heavy hanging
curtains, the candles are blown out if you go near the windows....
The portrait of the first Cavendish--who was usher of Cardinal
Wolsey, and who married Bess of Hardwick, the richest lady of the
day--is exactly like Hartington, but a vulgar Hartington--fat and
greasy--a Hartington who might have kept a public-house.'

Mr. Chamberlain wrote to Sir Charles at Hardwick concerning his host:

'The true Whig tradition is to keep abreast of the movement which
they would willingly restrain, and do nothing to quicken, but it is
difficult for a man of Hartington's temperament to make the
sacrifice of pride which these tactics require.'

Mr. Chamberlain's Ipswich speech had made its mark, and Sir Charles
notes 'the beginning of the terror caused by the unauthorized programme'
in 'a letter which I received from Lord Salisbury, who was at Florence,
as to my draft Report of the Housing Commission.'

'Lord Salisbury had greatly changed his views since he had sketched
out socialistic proposals for me in his own hand. He now complained
of that which I had said on "the burning questions of expropriation,
betterment, and land tenure," and thought that Chamberlain's
evidence had affected the report, and that such views "must now be
considered in the light of the doctrines as to land he has recently
laid down."'

That letter, received on January 30th, must have been written two days
earlier, and evidently at that moment there were plans of forming an
administration which should exclude the Radicals.

'On January 28th Harcourt told me that he had stopped the Queen
deciding to send for Goschen to form a Whig Ministry if we were
beaten or if Mr. Gladstone resigned by telling her that Goschen
would refuse, or that, if he consented, no one would join him.'

On January 29th, at Birmingham, Mr. Chamberlain made reply to his
critics in a speech which added to the Ipswich programme manhood
suffrage and payment of members, and which further declared that the
sanctity of public property far exceeded that of private property. If
land, for instance, had been 'lost or wasted or stolen,' some equivalent
for it must be found, and some compensation exacted from the wrongdoers.
[Footnote: 'The ransom theory,' afterwards alluded to (see Chapter
XLIV., p. 182).]

These utterances from a member of the Cabinet were not likely to pass
unchallenged.

'On Monday, February 2nd, Chamberlain telegraphed to me that he was
coming up on the next day, Tuesday, the 3rd, on purpose to see me on
an important matter; and on the morning of the 3rd I received in a
secret box the letters about which he was coming. There was one from
Mr. Gladstone complaining of the unauthorized programme, and a draft
proposed reply, and Chamberlain added: "Take them (Mr. Gladstone's
letters and enclosures from the Whigs) in connection with the
_Times_ articles. There is to be a dead set evidently.... There are
three possibilities. (1) Mr. Gladstone may wish me to resign. (2) A
vote of censure may be proposed in the House of Commons and carried.
(3) Mr. Gladstone may defend me, and in so doing may to all intents
and purposes censure me in such a way as to entail my resignation.
The first would not, I think, do me any harm. The second would do me
good. The third would not be pleasant. My object in proposed reply
is to make Mr. G. speak more plainly, and to let me know where I
stand. I have spoken in the first person because (until I see you) I
have no right to assume that you will accept a joint responsibility.
But I think you will, and then if we go out or are forced out there
will be a devil of a row. I have been speaking to Schnadhorst to-day
on the possibility. He says (you must take the opinion for what it
is worth) that it would strengthen us in the country.... I assume
Trevelyan would go with Mr. G.... I shall want to know what you
think of it all, and whether you have any alterations to propose in
the reply."

'I noted: "I, of course, make common cause. The Whigs want to force
him into a row with Mr. G., who, they think, will break him in place
of his breaking Hartington after Mr. G. is gone." I admitted to
Chamberlain when we met on February 3rd that there was, as he said,
a dead set at him, and that the _Pall Mall_ for a wonder was backing
it up. On his first point I was sure that Mr. Gladstone did not wish
for his resignation, and knew that I should go too. On the second, I
doubted any member being ready to bell the cat; and on the third
point I was sure that Mr. Gladstone's defence of Chamberlain would
not be such as to entail his resignation.'

Sir Charles thought, and told Chamberlain, that the object of the Whigs
was to force them 'to war with Mr. G. who is strong, and not with
Hartington,' against whom the Radicals would hold winning cards. 'We
therefore play into their hands by going NOW.' Meanwhile, he took up a
fighting attitude towards the rest of the world.

'I had written to Mr. Gladstone very strongly backing up
Chamberlain's right to express his individual opinion upon the
questions of the future, and pointing out his patience in not
repudiating some of Hartington's remarks, and saying that I could
not let him go out alone.'

'On February 4th I heard from Chamberlain ... thanking me for
getting Carrington, who represented my Department in the Lords, to
make a pro-Chamberlain speech.'

This was the more valuable because the whole Press was against the
"unauthorized programme." At the same time, Sir Charles did not fail to
point out that their position was an unsound one, writing first:

'Our words as to the future are too wide. They would cover my
preaching a Republic for two years hence, or your preaching the
nationalization of land without compensation for the next
Parliament.'

He urged also that the precedent which Mr. Chamberlain sought to
establish was two-edged.

February 5th, 'At night I gave Chamberlain a hint that some day others
might turn against him that freedom of speech which he claimed as
against Hartington; and he prepared a document which, under the form of
standing out for full right of free speech, really yielded the whole
point. He covered his retreat with great skill, and the document as
corrected by me would be valuable if it could be found. I have no copy,
but have memoranda which passed between us, in one of which I begged him
to keep the draft with my corrections as representing our joint view,
inasmuch as it might be important in the future. Chamberlain notes, in a
minute which I have, his acceptance of the general doctrine, with a
declaration that the present was an exceptional period; that there was a
new departure under the franchise reform, that it was essential to give
a general direction to the discussion, that his actual proposals were
moderate, and such as only to point to, firstly, a revision of taxation
which Mr. Gladstone himself had advocated, details being open, but the
principle being to secure equality of sacrifice; secondly, the extension
of power of local authorities on lines already conceded in Ireland.'

The two allies were fighting a hard fight at a critical moment. At such
times even the closest friends naturally seek to reassure each other,
and to a letter from Sir Charles Mr. Chamberlain made this reply,
January 11th:

'The malice and ingenuity of men is so great that I should be afraid
they would some day break our friendship if it had not victoriously
stood the strain of public life for so many years. I will swear that
I will never do anything knowingly to imperil it, and I hope that we
are both agreed that if by any chance either of us should think that
he has the slightest cause of complaint he will not keep it to
himself for a day, but will have a frank explanation. In this case I
shall feel safe, for I am certain that any mistake would be
immediately repaired by whoever might be in fault.'

CHAPTER XXXIX

THE FALL OF KHARTOUM AND THE PENJDEH INCIDENT

'On the morning of Thursday, February 5th, 1885, at 3 a.m., Brett
went to Lord Granville with the news of the fall of Khartoum. He
used to tell how he had been wholly unable to find the old
gentleman, and how the servants had ultimately asserted that their
master was at Walmer--which he was not. At the same hour the news
was sold by a War Office messenger to one of the News Agencies. The
resident clerk at the War Office had written to Thompson, of the War
Office, in an unsealed envelope, instead of putting the despatch
into a box. It did not matter much on this occasion, but it might
matter in a great European war. A Cabinet was immediately summoned
for the next day. [Footnote: The following correspondence between
Mr. Brett (now Viscount Eslier) and Sir Charles throws light on the
summoning of the Cabinet:

War Office,

Thursday morning, 3 a.m.

Here is some bad news.

No Ministers in town, except you and Chamberlain!

Have tried Lord G. and Lord Northbrook. No results!

So things must take their chance. There ought to have been a Cabinet
to-morrow; but suppose it is not possible.

R.B.

Please return enclosed. Will send you a copy later. Have you any
suggestion to make?

You will see that W. proposes to keep this secret. Not possible for
long in this Office.

_Sir Charles Dilke to Mr. Brett._

Telegraph to _Mr. G. and Hartington to come up to-day_, and call a
Cabinet for to-morrow at 11 a.m. Make Hamilton telegraph to all
Ministers at once. I'm prepared to take it on myself if you like,
but you can send this to Chamberlain if he agrees.

I agree certainly.--J. C.

Local Government Board,

February 5th, 1885.

It is absurd not to make them come up _to-day_ in face of Wolseley's
"_It is most essential that I shall have the earliest possible
decision._"] Only three subjects were discussed: Khartoum, secrecy,
and the question of the Italians as against the Turks in the Red
Sea.'

On February 7th, 'The next matter was Wolseley, who had confused us by
greatly varying his statements.... Next came a proposal that Gordon
should be bought from the Mahdi.'

'On February 9th Mr. Gladstone mentioned his intention to bring in
Rosebery and Lefevre as members of the Cabinet. It was decided that
the Italians should be allowed to go to Kassala--a decision which
was afterwards reversed. The French views on Egyptian finance were
named, the despatch of Indian troops to Suakim again discussed.
Wolseley having asked that General Greaves should be sent to Suakim,
Childers said that the Queen and Duke of Cambridge had stopped that
officer's promotion because he "belonged to the Ashantee gang"
(Wolseley's friends), and that the Duke had now complained that he
did not know him. Chamberlain proposed that we should invite the
Canadian Government to send a force to Suakim; and, finally,
Childers was allowed to mention finance, which had been the object
for which the Cabinet was called.

'On February 10th I wrote to Chamberlain that Rosebery and Lefevre
would help the Cabinet with the public, but would weaken us in the
Cabinet.

'On February 11th there was another Cabinet, five members being
absent--namely, the Chancellor, Carlingford, Spencer, Chamberlain,
and Trevelyan--owing to the suddenness of the call. It was on the
Suakim command, Mr. Gladstone being very obstinate for Greaves, as
against Graham with Greaves for Chief of Staff--a compromise. I
supported Hartington--I do not know why--and we beat Mr. Gladstone
by 5 to 4. Both officers were inferior men, and Graham did but
badly. Probably Greaves would have done no better....

'Mr. Gladstone complained that he and Hartington had received at
Carnforth on the 5th a disagreeable telegram _en clair_ from the
Queen, and Mr. Gladstone was very anxious to know whether the Tories
had found it out, asking anxiously, "What are the station-master's
politics?"

'February 13th ... I was with Harcourt when Rosebery came to be
sworn in, so I took the opportunity of making Rosebery help us to
make Lord Derby uncomfortable for proposing to refuse the troops
offered by the colony of New South Wales.

'We began to discuss our Soudan policy with some anxiety.

'Courtney and Morley had insisted in private letters that we should
only rescue, and not attack the rebels, and the _Times_ agreed with
them--unless we intended to stay in the country and establish a
Government. Wolseley's policy would be represented as one of "smash
and retire," and it was for this reason that Chamberlain pressed
negotiations with the Mahdi, as he thought we should be stronger if
we could show that the Mahdi had rejected a fair offer. It was on
February 13th that Hartington most strongly pressed his proposal for
the Suakim railroad, and invited me to be a member of a Cabinet
Committee to consider the proposal.'

'On Monday, February 16th, the first matter discussed was the
Russian answer as regards Egyptian finance. The Soudan was put off
till the next day, Chamberlain making a strong speech first upon our
policy. Hartington asked for five million, to include the cost of
his Suakim-Berber railway, and for leave to call out reserves.

'On February 19th I had an interview with Mr. Gladstone, and found
him anxious to be turned out on the vote of censure. Indeed, he was
longing for it, in the firm belief that, if turned out, he would
come back after the dissolution in November, while, if not turned
out, he would be more likely to be beaten.

'On February 20th the subjects discussed were Egypt (Finance and
Suez Canal) and the sending a colonial force to Suakim. Chamberlain
had developed to Childers at the same meeting a proposal that
Hartington should form a Ministry to carry on the Soudan War, with
the loyal support of those of us who went out with Mr. Gladstone.

'On February 25th, Goschen having asked for assurances as to the
Berber railway, Chamberlain wrote to me saying that if Hartington
gave them, it might be a sufficient cause for our resignation, as we
were not prepared to commit the country to establishing settled
government in any part of the Soudan. Chamberlain proposed that we
should resign before the division, and that the Government being
beaten, there should then be brought about the establishment of what
he called the combination or patriotic Government, which meant a
Hartington administration. I, on the whole, preferred to go on as we
were, so I stopped a box of Hartington's which was going round the
Cabinet, and proposed an alteration of form which prevented
Chamberlain going out on these assurances.

'During the debate I went away to dine, and, not having heard the
middle of Harcourt's speech, asked Chamberlain whether Harcourt had
tried to answer any of Goschen's questions, to which Chamberlain
answered, "Not one. He asked questions in turn," which is a good
description of Harcourt's style. I then wrote on a slip of paper,
"Forster is taking notes"; and Chamberlain replied, "Forster--
against slavery, against Zebehr, [Footnote: Zebehr was arrested in
Cairo on the ground of treasonable correspondence with the Mahdi,
and interned at Gibraltar, but later was allowed to return to Cairo.
He died in January, 1903.] and of course generally in favour of a
crusade," a note which is also characteristic--of both these men.