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

'By-and-by it will be remembered that as a fact the issue was never
fairly represented and never fairly met,' was the estimate of Sir
Francis Jeune, afterwards President of the Divorce Court. And from the
first there were many lawyers and thinking men and women who would have
endorsed it. From the first also there were those who believed Sir
Charles's word. Among such faithful friends, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice,
Sir Robert Collins, Mr. Cyril Flower, Mrs. Westlake and Mr. Westlake,
Q.C., Mr. Thursfield of the _Times_, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Francis and
Lady Jeune, Sir Charles's old college friend Judge Steavenson, stand out
in memory. He himself says: 'I received after the trial ... a vast
number of letters from people who wrote to express their belief in me.
Some, as, for example, from Dr. Hatch' (the eminent Oxford theologian)
'and his wife, and from Dr. Percival, Head-master of Rugby, [Footnote:
Dr. Percival was President of Trinity College, Oxford, till 1887, when
he went to Rugby. He became Bishop of Hereford.] and his wife, were from
firm friends of Emilia, brought to me by their belief in her; some from
friends, some from political foes, of all sorts--all breathing
confidence and devotion.'

Mr. Chamberlain wrote: 'I feel bitterly my powerlessness to do or say
anything useful at the present time.' In such a case the testimony of
intimates is weighty, and Sir John Gorst sent in June, 1913, his
recollection of words used by Mr. Chamberlain in the autumn of 1886: 'I
assure you that, as a man of honour, I don't believe the charges made
against him. If you had been in and out of his house at all times as I
have been, you would see they were impossible.'

Then as now there existed a certain body of opinion which would have
discriminated between a man's private honour and his public usefulness,
holding that the nation which throws aside a great public servant
because of charges of personal immorality is confusing issues, and
sacrificing the country's welfare to private questions. Whatever is to
be said for this view, it was one to which Sir Charles Dilke wished to
owe nothing. He did not share it, and those whose adherence he
acknowledged were those who believed his word. From different sources,
then, Sir Charles had found confidence and support, but they were small
stay in that gradually accumulating torrent of misfortune.

As the Press campaign had developed in the spring, he found himself
avoided in Parliament and in society. In the House, where a few months
before he had again and again been the Government spokesman and
representative, he was retired into the ranks of private members. This
short Parliament of 1886 came to an end in June, and, in the General
Election which followed, London went solidly against Home Rule; and Sir
Charles, though as compared with other Gladstonian Liberals he did well,
found himself rejected by the constituency which had stood by him in
four contests. Such a reverse occurs in the life of almost every
prominent politician, and, though harassing, is of no determining
import. For Sir Charles Dilke at this moment it was a cruel blow. The
personal discredit against which he had to fight coincided with the
discredit of his party; and when the jury came to their decision in
July, after a week in which the newspapers had been filled daily with
columns of scandalous detail, public feeling assumed a character of
bitter personal hostility.

'Sir Charles's fall,' says the chronicler of that period, Mr. Justin
McCarthy, 'is like that of a tower. He stood high above every rising
English statesman, and but for what has happened he must have been Prime
Minister after Gladstone.' [Footnote: This article appeared in a
Canadian journal after the second trial.]

CHAPTER XLIV

THE RADICAL PROGRAMME _VERSUS_ HOME RULE

JULY TO DECEMBER, 1885.

[Footnote: This chapter and the next cover the same dates as the
preceding chapter, which contains the record of other than political
events, while these deal with the political history of the time.]

The period between July, 1885, and July, 1886, determined the course of
English history for a generation. At the beginning of this period, Sir
Charles Dilke was one of the three men on the Liberal side who, after
Mr. Gladstone, counted most, and he commanded more general approval than
either Chamberlain or Hartington. But from the first rumour of his
personal misfortune his influence rapidly dwindled; when the period
closed, many of those who had been his political associates had left
him, and from Mr. Chamberlain, in political life, he was irretrievably
sundered.

In July, 1885, the much-talked-of visit of the Radical leaders to
Ireland was abandoned, owing, it appears, to the change in Sir Charles's
personal fortunes. Meanwhile the first-fruits of the Tory alliance with
Parnellism had begun to appear, and on July 21st Mr. Gladstone had made,
as has been seen, [Footnote: See p.158] a powerful appeal to his Radical
colleagues for support of Lord Spencer--addressing it, after his
invariable custom, to Dilke. It was the last time that he did so, and he
wrote then without knowledge of the blow which had already fallen on Sir
Charles.

In the end Mr. Gladstone's appeal was disregarded, and, when Lord
Spencer's policy was assailed in the House, the Press noted the
significant absence of Dilke and Chamberlain from the front bench. It
would have been more significant had not Sir Charles been then engrossed
with his personal concerns. Not until the last days of August was he
'sufficiently recovered from the blow to be able to take some interest
in politics'; and then it was merely to take an interest, not to take a
part. Yet already the crucial question for Liberal policy had begun to
define itself.

On August 24th, Parnell, speaking in Ireland, declared that the one
plank in Ireland's platform was National independence. In reply, Lord
Hartington, speaking at Waterfoot in Lancashire, declared his confidence
that no British party would concede Parnell's demand. But Lord
Hartington did not confine his speech to this

'A speech by Hartington in Lancashire read to Chamberlain and myself
like a declaration of war against the unauthorized programme and its
author; and when Rosebery wrote to me to congratulate me on my
coming marriage, I replied in this sense. I had a good deal of
correspondence with James as to what should be the nature of
Chamberlain's reply at Warrington on Tuesday, September 8th, James
trying to patch up things: "The ransom theory [Footnote: Mr.
Chamberlain on January 29th, 1885, at Birmingham: "I hold that the
sanctity of public property is greater than even that of private
property, and that, if it has been lost or wasted or stolen, some
equivalent must be found for it, and some compensation may fairly be
exacted from the wrongdoer." See Chapter XXXVIII., p. 105.] startled
a good many people, and dissent from it was to be expected. But
surely such dissent does not cause a man to be unfit to be in the
Liberal ranks...." James also sent me a memorandum from which I
extracted the following sentence: "If it be once introduced as an
admitted principle that no man can take office without stipulating
for the success of every question to which he may have given a
support, and if every man in Government is to be bound to reject all
concessions to those with whom he has on any point ever differed,
the practical constitution of this country would be overthrown...."
On September 5th Chamberlain had received a letter from Harcourt
which I afterwards considered with him "I set store by your
declaration that you will try to be as moderate as you can. You have
no idea how moderate you can be till you try. I am not the least
despondent about the state of affairs. The Liberal party has a
Pentecostian gift of tongues, and the Parthians, Medes, Elamites,
and others, require to have the gospel preached to them in very
different languages.... I suppose that Bosebery reported to you his
phrase that 'he had expressed himself on the land question more
clumsily even than usual!' It is impossible to be angry with such
frankness...."'

Lord Rosebery had written at the same time to Sir Charles that the real
trouble arose from 'clumsiness of arrangement,' and quoted Lord
Hartington's words as accepting this view.

'John Morley wrote also on September 4th to Chamberlain that Goschen
was rather wrathful that Hartington should be so slow and infrequent
in speaking while he, Chamberlain, was so active, but that he did
not believe Hartington meant war.'

None adverted to the difficulty, which was nevertheless the central one,
of reaching an agreement concerning an Irish policy. Mr. Morley was
right when he said that there was not going to be 'war' in the Liberal
party over questions of English reform. The question which was to split
the party was Ireland, and Chamberlain in his Warrington speech joined
Hartington in repudiating Parnell's demand. But Mr. Chamberlain saw what
Lord Hartington did not, that a Liberal party must have a positive
policy, and his conception of a Liberal policy during these months was
to force the pace on social questions and leave Ireland alone.

At these critical moments of August and September, 1885, Sir Charles was
a guest in Mr. Chamberlain's house, and was in consultation with him;
but it was a consultation to which one of the two brought a mind
preoccupied with his own most vital concerns. Scarcely a month had gone
by since the petition had been filed, in July, 1885; much less than a
month since he had been on the very edge of a complete breakdown. He had
been dragged back, almost against his will and against his judgment,
into political life by that imperious personality with which he had been
so long associated in equal comradeship. Under the old conditions Sir
Charles and Mr. Chamberlain would have inevitably influenced each
other's action, and it is at least possible that Sir Charles's gift for
bringing men together and concentrating on essentials might have altered
the whole course of events. But it is clear, from what followed later,
that under the conditions which existed there was no thorough discussion
between them, since the line which Sir Charles took on Ireland when the
dividing of the ways came was a surprise to his friend.

'On September 10th, 1885, there came a letter from Mr. Gladstone,
addressed to Chamberlain and myself. Chamberlain replied, after
consultation, in our joint names.'

They developed their views as to their programme of English as distinct
from Irish reforms.

'Mr. Gladstone wished to issue an address (to his constituents with
a view to the General Election), and had got Hartington to ask him
to do so, and he now wanted us also to ask him. We stipulated that
we must have (1) power to local authorities to take land for
housing, allotments, and so forth, and (2) free schools: otherwise,
while we could not object to his issuing his own address, we could
not offer to support or join a future Government.'

'On the 15th Chamberlain wrote to me to Paris that he gathered Mr.
G. intended to issue immediately, without waiting his reply.'

He would write, however, asking for further allusions to compulsory
powers for taking land, and asked Sir Charles to write direct about
registration.

On September 20th Mr. Chamberlain wrote again, enclosing a copy of his
letter to Mr. Gladstone, and stating his opinion that the manifesto was
bad, and that he regarded it, especially the part referring to free
schools and education, [Footnote: Mr. Gladstone was never at any time in
harmony with the views of the more advanced section of his own party on
education. See the account of the curious controversy between him and
Lord Russell during the last days of the latter's leadership of the
Liberal party (_Life of Granville_, vol. i., pp. 516, 517).] as a slap
in the face to himself and Sir Charles. He added that he had written
frankly to Mr. Gladstone, telling him that he was dissatisfied, and
expressed his opinion that Mr. Gladstone would give way, and that his
reign could not last long. Through the somewhat involved phraseology of
Mr. Gladstone's letter, it seemed possible to extract some hope in
regard to extra powers for local authorities, and a revision of taxation
in favour of the working classes. He concluded by saying that if his
party could get a majority, he would make their terms on joining the
Government, and regretting that Sir Charles was not still staying with
him.

The letter to Mr. Gladstone spoke of the manifesto as a blow to the
Radical party, and went on to say that, in the event of the Liberal
party returning in full power to office, he would offer loyal support,
as far as possible, to any Government that might be formed, but that the
joining any Administration formed on the narrow basis of the programme
now presented would be impossible. It ended with the words: 'Dilke has
left me, but, from a letter I have received from him, I am justified in
saying that he shares my views.'

'I told Chamberlain that in my first speech (and I had two to make
shortly after my proposed marriage in October) I intended to attack
Reform of the House of Lords from the Single Chamber point of view.'

He replied urging Sir Charles to give this question prominence and
importance, and to do so in the name of the Radical Party, as expressing
their policy, for fear that even Radical candidates should be under some
misapprehension. He also authorized him to use his (Mr. Chamberlain's)
name, as concurring in the views expressed.

'On the 25th I received a letter from Chamberlain containing Mr.
Gladstone's reply:

'"My Dear Chamberlain,

'"Were I engaged (which Heaven forfend) in the formation of a new
Liberal Government, and were your letter of yesterday an answer to
some invitation to join it, then _I_ should have read the letter
with great regret; but I pointed out to you (as I think), in a
previous letter, that it would (as far as I could judge) be an
entire mistake to lay down a _credo_ of Liberal policy for a new
Government at the present juncture. You and Hartington were both
demurring in opposite senses, and I made to each the same reply. My
aim was for the election only, in giving form to my address. As to
what lies beyond, I suppose the party will, so far as it has a
choice, set first about the matters on which it is agreed. But no
one is bound to this proposition.

'"Bright once said, with much force and sense, that the average
opinion of the party ought to be the rule of immediate action.

'"It is likely that there may be a split in the party in the far or
middle distance, but I shall have nothing to do with it, and you, I
am sure, do not wish to anticipate it or force it on. What I have
said may, I hope, mitigate any regret such as you seem to intimate.

'"I am at present busy on private affairs and papers, to which for
six years past I have hardly given one continuous hour. Later on I
should like much to explain to you my personal views and intentions
in conversation. It would be difficult to do so in writing. They
turn very much upon Ireland--the one imperial question that seems at
present possible to be brought into immediate view. But, for
Liberals generally, I should have thought that there was work enough
for three or four years on which they might all agree. So far as my
observation and correspondence go, I have not found that non-Whig
opinion is offended.

'"Sincerely yours,
'"W. E. Gladstone.

'"P.S.--A letter received from Dilke speaks pleasingly about the
address.

'"I may say that I was quite unconscious of interfering with your
present view, which I understood to be that none of your advanced
proposals were to be excluded, but all left open for discussion.--W.
E. G."

'On the passage with regard to Ireland I noted: "He means that he
would go on as Prime Minister if he could see his way to carry the
larger Local Government (Ireland) scheme, and not otherwise." But he
meant more.'

Sir Charles also wrote suggesting that Mr. Chamberlain should, in his
correspondence with Mr. Gladstone, go into the question of the Whig
composition of Liberal Cabinets, and the latter promised 'to say just
what you suggest.'

Those who occupied the centre position in the Liberal party were
bewildered by divided counsels.

'On September 28th I received from Chamberlain a letter enclosing
one from Harcourt.... He (Harcourt) dwelt upon the delicacy of Mr.
Gladstone's position. "He (Mr. Gladstone) says, if he is not wanted,
he will 'cut out,' and he doubts, I think, if either you or
Hartington want him. But I hope in this he is mistaken; for he is
wanted, and neither section can do without him.... When I spoke at
Plymouth I knew nothing of the contents of his address, nor indeed,
that it was about to appear so soon, though, oddly enough, it came
out the next day. I therefore spoke like a cat in walnut shells, and
had, like a man who makes a miss at billiards, to 'play for safety.'
I am quite with you on the subject of the acquisition of land by
local authorities, and also on free education, which seem to be your
two _sine qua nons_. As to what you say about remaining outside a
new Liberal Government, forgive me for saying that is all nonsense.
If a Liberal Government cannot be formed with you and Dilke, it
certainly cannot be formed without you. You have acquired the right
and the power to make your own conditions, and I am sure they will
be reasonable ones."'

Sir William Harcourt omitted to consider the possibility of a Government
being formed--as actually happened--while the charges against Sir
Charles were still untried. Politically, he made an omission which was
less natural; once more there is no reference to the Irish problem and
its effect. Yet in Mr. Gladstone's mind it was daily becoming more
insistent.

'On September 28th Chamberlain wrote enclosing a letter from Mr.
Gladstone, and his reply:

'"My Dear Chamberlain,

'"I felt well pleased and easy after receiving your note of the
21st, but there is a point I should like to put to you with
reference to your self-denying ordinance making the three points
conditions of office.

'"Suppose Parnell to come back eighty to ninety strong, to keep them
together, to bring forward a plan which shall contain in your
opinion adequate securities for the union of the Empire, and to
press this plan, under whatever name, as having claims to precedence
(claims which could hardly be denied even by opponents), do you
think no Government should be formed to promote such a plan, unless
the three points were glued on to it at the same time? Do you not
think you would do well to reserve elbow-room for a case like this?
I hope you will not think my suggestion--it is not a question--
captious and a man-trap. It is meant in a very different sense. A
Liberal majority is assumed in it.

'"Yours sincerely,
'"W. E. Gladstone."'

When that letter reached Highbury, Sir Charles was in France, awaiting
Mrs. Pattison's arrival from India. Mr. Chamberlain's reply was written
without consultation on September 28th. In it he said that he had
assumed that Local Government would be the first work of a Liberal
Government, and that Bills for the three countries would be brought in
together. Mr. Parnell's change of front would, he thought, have limited
the proposals to the establishment of County Councils, with certain
powers for the acquisition of land by Local Authorities. He thought it
unlikely that Parnell would bring forward a scheme that any Liberal
Government could support; but if he did, he would do all he could to
assist the Government in dealing with it, whether from inside or outside
the Cabinet.

Chamberlain further urged Dilke to lay stress on the determination of
his party not to be 'mere lay figures in a Cabinet of Goschens.' He
regarded his party as indispensable, and if the Government tried to do
without them, they were determined to make trouble. He expressed an
earnest wish that Sir Charles Dilke could be working with them; but he
did not press this at the moment, if Sir Charles was taking a holiday
after his marriage.

Dilke took the briefest of holidays; on October 6th, three days after
his wedding, he spoke at Chelsea. After dwelling at length on
Chamberlain's proposal to give powers of compulsory land purchase to
local authorities, he asked for the widest form of elective self-
government for Ireland consistent with the integrity of the Empire,
[Footnote: 'In my individual opinion, the natural crowning stone of any
large edifice of local government must sooner or later be some such
elective Local Government Board for each of the three principal parts of
the United Kingdom and for the Principality of Wales, as I have often
sketched out to you. As regards Ireland, we all of us here, I think,
agree that the widest form of elective self-government should be
conferred which is consistent with the integrity of the Empire. No one
can justify the existence of the nominated official Boards which at
present attempt to govern Ireland. I care not whether the Irish people
are or are not at the moment willing to accept the changes we have to
propose. If the present system is as indefensible as I think it, we
should propose them all the same. If they are not at first accepted, our
scheme will at least be seen and weighed, and we shall be freed from the
necessity of appearing to defend a system which is obnoxious to every
Liberal principle. I would ask you to remember some words in Mr.
Ruskin's chapter on "The Future of England," in his _Crown of Wild
Olive_, which are very applicable to the situation:--"In Ireland,
especially, a vicious system has been so long maintained that it has
become impossible to give due support to the cause of order without
seeming to countenance injury." The bodies which would deal with
education, with private Bills, with provisional order Bills, and with
appeals from local authorities in matters too large for county
treatment, in Wales and Scotland and England itself, if I had my way, as
well as in Ireland, would, I believe, make the future government of the
United Kingdom, as a United Kingdom, more easy than it is at present.']
and went on to assume that the first session of the new Parliament would
be 'a Local Government session.' In the following week 'I made an
important speech at Halifax on Local Government which attracted much
attention.' 'Halifax will be all Local Government,' he wrote to Mr.
Frank Hill, 'which is necessary, as it is clear that Balfour and
Salisbury have cribbed my last year's Bill.'

'I may note here that on October 6th, at my Chelsea meeting, George
Russell told me that he had on the previous day induced Mr.
Gladstone to send for Chamberlain to Hawarden. On October 7th
Chamberlain wrote:

'"Hawarden Castle.

'"My Dear Dilke,

'"I was sent for here, but up to now I do not know why.... My
present object is to say that you made a capital speech, and that I
approve every word of it except the part about London Government.
But as to this I suppose that Londoners must have their way and
their own form of municipal government though I doubt if it will not
prove a fatal gift. Why will the papers invent differences between
you and me? I verily believe that if I spoke your speech, and you
spoke mine, they would still find the distinguishing characteristics
of each speaker unchanged. I thought your last part admirable and
just what I should have said. Yet the _Standard_ thinks it quite a
different note to the South London and Bradford speeches. Mr. G.
thinks Mr. Parnell's last speech more satisfactory I confess I had
not perceived the improvement. He (Mr. G.) is still very sweet on
National Councils."

'On October 9th Chamberlain wrote:

'"I am not quite certain what was Mr. G.'s object in sending for me.
I suppose he desired to minimize our conditions as far as possible.
He was very pleasant and very well, with no apparent trace of his
hoarseness. He spoke at considerable length on the Irish Question;
said he was more than ever impressed with the advantages of the
Central Council scheme, and had written strongly to that effect to
Hartington. But I do not gather that he has any definite plan under
present circumstances. He thought Parnell's last speech was more
moderate (I confess I do not agree with him), and I suppose that if
we get a majority his first effort will be to find a _modus
vivendi_, and to enter into direct communications with this object.