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

The real difficulty for the Liberals was, however, the question of
leadership; and Sir Charles wrote an article in the _Speaker_ [Footnote:
September 5th, 1891.] in support of one of his few paradoxes--that Great
Britain would be better off without a Second Chamber, but that, given a
House of Lords, the Prime Minister should be a member of it. For this
reason he urged that though, 'when the moment has come for Mr. Gladstone
to think that he has earned a change into the position of adviser from
that of military chief, Sir William Harcourt will occupy the place he
pleases to assume--he will be able to make himself Prime Minister if he
chooses'--yet 'the party would be strongest with Mr. Gladstone for
adviser, Sir William Harcourt, as fighting chief, sharing the
responsibility with the leader in the Lords more fully than he would if
he were Prime Minister in the Lower House'; and he named Lord Spencer as
possible Prime Minister, since Lord Rosebery should be Foreign
Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister should not be
the same man, 'so heavy is the work of each of these two offices.'

With the opening of 1892 Parliament entered on its sixth, and last,
session, and 'on April 1st I received a letter from Chamberlain, in
which he said:

'"My own firm conviction is that parties will be nearly divided, and
if Mr. G. has a majority nothing will be done either in regard to
Ireland or to social questions in Great Britain.

'"I do not _expect_ the election till late in the autumn, and,
judging from appearances, the Opposition are much divided and rather
depressed in spirit. My prediction is that, unless the Gladstonians
give up the idea of a separate Parliament (I do not say extended
local government), they will not obtain power--though they may
obtain office--for this generation.

'"This is a bold prophecy for you, but it is my sincere opinion."'

Right essentially--for there was a very small Liberal majority--Mr.
Chamberlain was wrong on the point of date: the election came in July,
1892.

In the Forest proper, the local war-chant, 'Yaller for iver, an' Blue in
the river!' was shouted everywhere. But the constituency, 'a microcosm
of England, industrial and agricultural,' as Sir Charles had called it,
had districts where support of the 'working man's candidate' could only
be whispered; where closed hands were furtively opened to show a
marigold clasped in them; where perhaps, as a farmer's trap drove by
carrying voters to the poll, the voters, outwardly blue-ribboned, would
open their coats a little and show where the yellow was pinned. Lady
Dilke on polling-day took charge of these districts. Yellow flowers from
every garden were heaped into her carriage as she passed; and when votes
came to be counted, more than one had been spoilt by too enthusiastic
votaries who wrote across their paper, 'For Lady Dilke.' Her courage and
devotion had touched the loyalty of the Forest people, and she received
from them a tribute of genuine love. One who accompanied her tells of a
later day when, after a terrible mine accident, Lady Dilke came down to
visit the homes on which that blow had fallen. In one a young widow sat
staring dry-eyed at the fire or turning tearless looks on the child that
played near her. But when Lady Dilke entered, the woman rose from her
chair, and, running to her visitor, put her arms about her neck, and as
the two held each other, tears came at last.

Sir Charles Dilke was returned by a majority of two to one, and, he
writes laconically, 'in August was well received in the House of
Commons.'

In 1891 Sir Charles had expressed some surprise at hostile comment in
the _Times_ and other important organs on his selection as candidate for
the Forest of Dean, and Mr. Chamberlain told him candidly that opinion
in society and in the House itself was hostile to his candidature, and
that he must look forward to a 'mauvais quart d'heure.' But it was
otherwise. After his election there appears to have been a general
expectation that he would be silent, and keep out of the range of
hostile criticism. As a fact, he fell directly into his old habit of
raising every subject which interested him. Parliament met again on
January 31st, 1893, and as soon as notice of questions could be given,
Sir Charles was reviving interest in a subject familiar to him of old,
by asking the new Liberal Government to issue papers which had been
omitted from the official publications of France and Great Britain, but
had been published in the Madagascar Red Book.

Amongst congratulations on his election came one from the Prime Minister
at Antananarivo, rejoicing that the threatened freedom of Madagascar
would again have his support, and transmitting the Red Book just named.
Within the first week of the session Sir Charles had questioned
Government about the arbitration as to the Newfoundland fisheries; and
concerning a vacancy in the Bombay command, with inquiry as to whether
amalgamation of the Indian armies would be considered [Footnote: The
amalgamation of the Indian armies was achieved by abolition, in 1894, of
the separate military commands of the Presidencies.]--a change which he
had long advocated. He also reappeared in a different field, but one
familiar to him, by introducing a Bill to amend the system of voting in
local elections. Then, on February 11th, while the Address to the Crown
was still under discussion, he took part in a full-dress debate.

Mr. James Lowther, the leading Protectionist of days when Protection was
not a fashionable creed, proposed an amendment seeking to restrict the
immigration of destitute aliens; and he found a seconder in a trade-
unionist, Mr. Havelock Wilson, who spoke for the seamen. After Mr.
Gladstone had argued strongly against the proposal, but had shown his
perception of the widespread support which it received by expressing
willingness to appoint a committee of inquiry, Sir Charles Dilke rose,
and, claiming to speak for a small minority, opposed legislation and
committee alike.

The force of his appeal to the House lay in the description which he
gave of persecution directed against the Jews in Russia, coupled with
citation of many previous instances in which England had afforded
asylum, and had gained both advantage and respect by so doing. First-
hand knowledge of Russian conditions and detailed mastery of the
historical case were combined in what one of the more important speakers
for the motion (Sir William Marriott) called a 'magnificent speech'; and
Sir Charles himself observes that it turned many votes. Mr. Mundella
wrote to him after the debate: 'I think it was the best I ever heard
from you, and, moreover, was courageous and just.'

Mr. Mundella was no doubt struck by the fact that a man coming in, as
Sir Charles did, specially dependent on the support of organized Labour,
had in his first speech combated the view of Labour interests which was
put forward by trade-unionists. Sir Charles's reply to the trade-
unionists ran thus: If these aliens come to England, they very often
join trade-unions, and so accept the higher standard; if they do not,
the products of their work come in and compete even more disastrously.
From this there lay an argument against Free Trade, and this he
characteristically admitted. Free Trade was only a balance of
advantages, and Labour politicians, he pointed out, considered that the
arguments against it were outweighed by countervailing considerations.
To exclude the immigrants and not to exclude the products of their
labour would be inconsistent, and also it would lower the nation's
standard of humanity.

Early in the session he spoke again on the qualifications for membership
of local elective bodies, and incidentally condemned the proposed
Ministry of Labour as 'a sham remedy.' [Footnote: See "Labour," Chapter
LII., pp. 347, 348.] Not to create new Ministries, but to reorganize and
redistribute their work, was his policy, advocated repeatedly both in
the House of Commons and from the chair of the Statistical Society. He
spoke also on redistribution in this session, and these speeches were
'successful in their business way. Thus I regained influence of a quiet
sort.'

'For the first time' (1893) 'I dined at the Speaker's third dinner,
or "dinner of the discontented." The first dinner each year is to
the Government, the second to the late Government, and the third to
the Privy Councillors who were not of either of the others, and to a
few other leading members. Little Northcote was on the Speaker's
left, parted only by the Speaker from Randolph. I was opposite,
reflecting, whenever Jim Lowther would leave off slapping me on the
back.'

On January 29th, 1893, Sir Charles noted in his diary:

'There is a league between Harcourt and Labouchere against the
Rosebery-Asquith combination. Labouchere showed me a letter from
Harcourt: "Hell would be pleasant compared to the present
situation."'

'On my return to the House of Commons,' notes Sir Charles, 'I found
Chamberlain's debating power marvellous, but, while his method has
improved, it ... no longer carries the conviction of conviction with
it, which, to me, is everything.

'Asquith is the only new man who is "any good"--a bold, strong man,
of great intellectual power. Sir E. Grey is able, but terribly
Whiggish. Hanbury has improved, and so has Harcourt. The others are
where they were.'

Mr. Asquith he had met for the first time in 1891, at Mr. Chamberlain's
house, and found him 'much more intelligent than the ordinary run of
politicians.'

Dilke and Chamberlain, once closely united through a long period of
public life, had now been working apart for more than seven years.
Strong minds, that in the collaboration of their earlier policy mutually
influenced each other, had by a turn of personal fortune combining with
a great political change followed divided destinies; and their evolution
carried them far apart. They had met in private, had maintained the
personal bond, [Footnote: 'At this time I was searching for a secretary,
and Chamberlain found me Hudson, who, as he said, "fulfils all your
requirements."' The connection between the secretary and his chief ended
only with Sir Charles's death.] and in so meeting must inevitably have
been prompted by a desire to minimize differences. But now they stood
both again in the public arena--the one returning after the lapse of
years, the other sustained by an unbroken continuance of Parliamentary
activity--and the situation became difficult.

There were not many men who could work with Mr. Chamberlain in equal
alliance. For that a man was needed, confident enough in his own weight
not to fear being overbalanced in the combination; great enough in
nature to be devoid of jealousy; and wise enough to understand that
restless activity was the law of his ally's being. Upon those conditions
only was it possible for a cooler, more temperate, and, on some
subjects, better instructed politician to steer the tremendous motive
power which Mr. Chamberlain's personal force afforded. What was lost to
the world when the crippling of Sir Charles disjointed that alliance can
never be reckoned. Not only the alliance, but the personal intimacy, was
broken when their political ways sundered on the Home Rule division.
Friendship remained; but it was not possible that men of that mark, who
had met incessantly in the closest confederacy, could meet easily when
the very groundwork of their intimacy was gone.

Sir Charles worked hard for a Bill specially interesting now to his
constituents.

On April 18th, 1893, 'I wrote to Chamberlain and to Randolph Churchill
as to the Miners Bill, as its authors had asked me to lay plans for the
debate. From both I had replies favourable to local option, and on my
writing again to Chamberlain he answered: "The sentence about the Labour
leaders escaped me because I am, I confess, impatient of their extremely
unpractical policy, and also because I believe their real influence is
immensely exaggerated. A political leader having genuine sympathy with
the working classes and a practical programme could, in my opinion,
afford to set them aside. Mr. Gladstone has no real sympathy with the
working classes, and a perfect hatred for all forms of Socialism. His
concessions are extorted from him, and are the price paid for votes, and
therefore I do not wonder at the pressure put upon him."'

In the first week in May, 1893, 'I brought forward my Egypt motion,
spoke for the Miners Bill, and carried a resolution, drawn for us by the
Lord Chancellor himself, as to the appointment of the magistrates for
counties. From this time forward I shall not name my speeches and
ordinary action in the House, as I had now regained the position which I
had held in it up to 1878, though not my position of 1878-1880, nor that
of 1884-85.'

No Parliament is exactly like its predecessor, and changed conditions
had also changed the character of Sir Charles Dilke's Parliamentary
personal surroundings; but they were drawn now, as of old, from neither
party exclusively. The group comprised several young supporters of the
Government, like Mr. McKenna, who, having failed in Clapham, wrote to
Sir Charles on July 7th, 1892, of his regret at not being near him in
the House of Commons 'to go on learning from you--I don't mean
information, but patience and judgment and steadfastness.' Mr. McKenna
had now been returned for South Monmouthshire, one of the constituencies
which had been anxious to secure Sir Charles himself. Here Sir Charles
had many devoted friends, who gave introductions to Mr. McKenna, which
led to his adoption as candidate, and he wrote again to Sir Charles on
his election: 'I am glad to owe it to you.' Old friends--as, for
example, Mr. Morley--remained, and from the ranks of the Opposition at
least one rarely interesting figure stands out, that of H. O.
Arnold-Forster, who with Mrs. Arnold-Forster came to rank among the
nearest friends of Sir Charles and Lady Dilke. The political tie was
here due to common advocacy of army reform, and it took shape in a kind
of formal alliance.

'In November, 1893, in the debates on the Local Government Bill, I
carried a good deal of weight, and was able greatly to improve the
measure. I also in December made a speech in a naval debate which
was as successful as my Zulu speech--with as little reason, except
its opportuneness.'

In the Home Rule portion of the session of 1893, Sir Charles was mostly
silent, being, in his own words, inclined to 'keep still' on the main
issue. His only contributions to the long debates were made during the
Committee stage, and concerned the electoral arrangements--a matter upon
which Mr. Gladstone was quick to acknowledge his high competence. When
at last, in 1894, the Bill reached the Lords, it was rejected; and then
the foreseen change of leadership came to pass, and Lord Rosebery was
'popped into Mr. Gladstone's place by an intrigue.' Sir Charles
discussed in the _North American Review_ the result, which his Memoir
describes thus. Admitting that the choice, which 'came as a surprise to
the Liberal party in the country,' would strengthen the Government in
Scotland and in London by Lord Rosebery's personal prestige, he none the
less foresaw that the new leader would come into conflict 'with all that
is active in the Liberal party,' unless he could renounce 'his personal
wishes in favour of a reformed but a strong and indeed strengthened
Second Chamber.' His chance of success lay in putting himself as a peer
at the head of a movement against the veto of the House of Lords. 'The
chance is before him, but he is a cautious Scotchman who seldom makes up
his mind too soon, and who may possibly make it up too late.'

Meanwhile 'I was pressed to join Labouchere and Storey in opposing him,
which I declined to do, on the ground that I was concerned with the
measures proposed, but not with the men.'

Speaking in the Potteries on November 22nd, 'to a big audience which
took it well,' he 'attacked Rosebery about the Lords.'

'He would like to see Lord Rosebery in the popular House in which he
had never sat, and he would like to see Lord Salisbury back again.
Their ideas would undergo a change. The reform of the Upper House
was now not a Liberal but a Conservative nostrum.... It would be
necessary for the Radicals to fight even against their Liberal
leaders to prevent lengthening the life of the Parliamentary sick
man.... The Liberal party was still hampered by men who wanted
peerages for themselves and their sons, and he should not believe
that the leaders were in earnest until the Liberal party gave over
making peers. Moderate men must be warned by the example of what had
recently happened in Belgium, where the moderate Liberals had been
promptly suffocated between the two opposing forces of Toryism and
Socialism, as they were too pretentious to submit to Tory discipline
and too slavish to become frankly democratic.'

CHAPTER L

INDIA AND FRANCE--RHODES AND BISMARCK

1886-1892

I.

In the period covered by the earlier portion of the previous chapter,
Sir Charles Dilke had used his freedom as an opportunity for travel.

'During a visit to Paris, in the winter of 1886, paid in order to
discuss the question of the work which ultimately appeared in France
as _L'Europe en 1887_, I saw a good deal of Castelar, who was
visiting Paris at the same time; and it was to us that he made a
speech, which has become famous, about Boulanger, who was beginning
to attract great notice, declaring in French, "I know that General
Boulanger--he is a Spanish General;" meaning that the Spanish habit
of the military insurrection under the leadership of a showy General
was extending to France. [Footnote: In 1889 Sir Charles notes: 'My
wife and I were asked to dinner to meet General Boulanger; and I
decided that I would not go, neither did she.']

'Chamberlain, during his journey abroad, had seen a good deal of Sir
William White, the Ambassador at Constantinople, who wrote to me
about him: "We became friends, and spoke naturally of you, our
mutual friend. I could not help seeing Chamberlain's immense
quickness of observation and talents. In foreign politics he
appeared to me to be beginning his ABC, but disposed to learn...."
The Ambassador went on to say that the intimacy between France and
Russia was coming to the front at Constantinople, and that
Bismarck's Ambassador did not seem to take umbrage at it.

'In September, 1887, we went to France, where our journey had
nothing of great interest, except a visit to Vaux-le-Vicomte,
Fouquet's house, [Footnote: Near Melun, in the Seine-et-Marne, where
Fouquet gave the celebrated fete referred to. See _Memoires de
Fouquet_, by A. Cheruel, vol. ii., chap. xxxv.] which remains very
much as Fouquet left it, although the gardens in which he received
Louis XIV. in the great fete recounted by Dumas have been completed
by their present proprietor, with whom we stayed. We afterwards
visited Constantinople, and stayed for ten days at Therapia, and
then at Athens, where I had a great reception, as indeed throughout
Greece, on account of my previous services to the Greek cause; in
some cases payment was refused on this ground. [Footnote: A letter
from Lady Dilke of October 29th, 1887, written to Cardinal Manning,
a constant correspondent, deals with one of these episodes:

"We were received at the Piraeus by an order not to open our boxes,
an ignorant underling being severely rebuked, and bid to 'look at
the name on the boxes. Would you ask money from one who has done so
much for Greece?' In short, we had a royal reception. The Prime
Minister, the Metropolitan, and the other Ministers and their
families, and all dignitaries, ecclesiastical, academical,
political, military, all vied in showing Charles honour. The crowd
watched outside for a glimpse of him, and M. Ralli, when I said how
touched he was at their faithful gratitude, said: 'It is not only
our gratitude we wish to show him. You have no idea of the intense
sympathy felt for him in Athens.' We had but three days to give, and
so missed the great public banquet and the torchlight procession
which the students wished to organize. At Corinth the King and Queen
were equally kind."]

'Our journey to Turkey and Greece was full of interest. The Sultan
showed us immense courtesy. Greece after twenty-five years seemed to
me as lovely as ever. The Eastern Church were very civil to us, and
the reception at the Phanar at Constantinople by the Oecumenical
Patriarch, the Archbishop of Constantinople, Dionysius V., in Synod
was striking. I wrote from Constantinople to Chesson: "The
Bulgarians and the Greeks are both now on excellent terms with the
Turks, although, unfortunately, they still detest one another. The
Sultan does not care two straws about Bulgaria now, and will do
nothing in the matter except mark time. The Greek Patriarch gave us
an official reception, with some Archbishops present, who
represented the Churches of Asia and of the Islands, and showed us
their splendid Byzantine treasures. It is extraordinarily
interesting to see all the effects of St. Chrysostom; but I cannot
help feeling that the Church sold the Empire to the Turks, and would
have been more estimable had it _lost_ its jewels. The last
Constantine tried to reunite the Eastern and Western Churches, and
the poor man was denounced as a heretic, and surrounded only by
Latins when he was killed on the breach. The Church, however, went
through a small martyrdom later on, and was glorified by suffering
at the beginning of the Greek War of Independence, when the then
Patriarch was hanged by the Turks and dragged about for three days
by the Jews. They all seem on very good terms now, and the Patriarch
sang the praises of the present Sultan loudly. The Sultan has been
very civil. I did not want to see him, which doubtless made him the
more anxious to see me. He sent for me twice, and, besides the
audience at the Selamlik, had us to a state dinner given in our
honour at the Haremlik. I refused the Grand Cordon of the Medjidieh,
but Emilia accepted the Grand Cordon of the Chefkat for herself. He
is very anxious to make a good impression, and is having the _Shrine
of Death_ done into Turk!"

'I received a letter of thanks from the Secretary of the Trustees of
the National Portrait Gallery for having obtained for them from the
Sultan a copy of the portrait of Nelson which is in the Treasury at
Constantinople; but what I really tried to obtain was the original,
inasmuch as no one ever sees it where it is.'

Sir Charles Dilke, writing to Mr. Chamberlain an amused account of the
Sultan's advances, says: 'Lady White told Emilia that she heard I was to
be Grand Vizier.'

'My riding tour along the Baluch and Afghan frontiers was,' Sir
Charles notes, 'one of the pleasantest and most interesting
experiences of my life.' [Footnote: He adds, 'I described so fully
in the _Fortnightly Review_, in two articles of March 1st and April
1st, 1889, my riding tour ... that I shall say no more about it.'
This account of the journey is summarized from those articles, the
criticism on military questions being dealt with by Mr. Spenser
Wilkinson in the chapter on Defence (LV.).] Leaving England in
October, 1888, he landed with Lady Dilke at Karachi in November.
They were met by the Commander-in-Chief, Sir Frederick Roberts, and
went on over the broad-gauge line, then not officially open, through
the Bolan Pass to Quetta. 'When we reached the picturesque portion
of the pass, we left our carriages for an open truck placed at the
head of the train, in front of two engines, and there we sat with
the fore part of the truck occupied by the paws and head of His
Excellency's dog; next came the one lady of the party and Sir
Frederick Roberts, and then myself and all the staff. The long-
haired warriors and tribesmen, who occupied every point of vantage
on the crags, doubtless thought, and have since told their tribesmen
on their return, that the whole scene was devised to do honour to a
dog.'

They were travelling over part of 'the great strategic railroad
constructed after the Penjdeh incident, on orders given by the
Government of which I was a member.'

At Quetta he was among the guests of Sir Robert Sandeman, Agent for
British Baluchistan, ruler in all but name of those nominally
independent frontier principalities and clans. 'Quetta conversations
soon brought back reminiscences of far-off days. When I had last seen
Sir Robert Sandeman it had been in London, during the discussion of the
occupation of the Khojak position, in which I sided with him.... We
brought with us or found gathered here all the men who best understood
the problem of frontier defence--a very grave problem, too.'