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

A note adds: 'When the Tories came in in June, 1895, they adopted the
scheme of a Minister (the Duke of Devonshire) over both army and navy,
which had been put forward in the Dilke--Chesney--Arnold-Forster--
Wilkinson correspondence with Balfour and Chamberlain, and originally
invented by me. On the night of the Government (Liberal) defeat
Campbell-Bannerman had promised a Commander-in-Chief who should be the
Chief Military Adviser, a double triumph for my view.'

CHAPTER LVII

DEATH OF LADY DILKE--PARLIAMENT OF 1905

In 1903, Chamberlain, by raising the question of Tariff Reform and
putting himself at the head of a movement for revising the Free Trade
policy which had been accepted by both the great political parties since
1846, practically broke up the Conservative Government. It survived,
indeed, under the leadership of Mr. Balfour; but it was only a feeble
shadow of the powerful Administration which Lord Salisbury had formed in
1895.

On the motion for adjournment before the Whitsuntide recess (May 28th,
1903), Sir Charles raised the whole question of commercial policy,
directing himself chiefly to the speeches that had been made by Mr.
Balfour and by Mr. Bonar Law. But it was Mr. Chamberlain's policy that
was in question. Years later, after the whole subject has been
incessantly discussed, it is difficult to realize the effect produced by
the sudden and unexpected onset of that redoubtable champion. Free Trade
had been so long taken for granted that the case for it had become
unfamiliar; what remained was an academic conviction, and against that
Chamberlain arrayed an extraordinary personal prestige backed by a
boldness of assertion to which his position as a business man lent
authority. To meet an onset so sudden and so ably conducted was no easy
task, and for Dilke there was the unhappy personal element of a first
angry confrontation with his old ally. Mr. Chamberlain described Sir
Charles's motion as gratuitous and harassing, "an affair of spies," for
a day had been fixed for the regular encounter. Yet what was needed then
was to show on the Liberal side that confidence which anticipates the
combat. The temper of the time is well indicated by a letter from an old
friend, the Bishop of Hereford:

"I hope you will stick to the business, and protect ordinary people
from the new sophistry both by speech and writing. So few people
have any intellectual grip that everything may depend on the
leadership of a few men like yourself, who can speak with knowledge
and authority, and will take the trouble to put concrete facts
before the public."

Meanwhile Tariff Reform had begun to act as a disintegrant on the
Unionist party, and by the end of October, 1903, Lord James was writing
to Sir Charles Dilke as to the position of Unionist Free Traders: "Can
nothing be done for these unfortunate men?" There is no evidence that
their state moved Sir Charles to compassion, but it is clear that he
feared lest a regrouping of parties should destroy the commanding
position which Radicals had gained, and as soon as Parliament
reassembled he took action.

'_Thursday, February 11th_, 1904.--I sought an interview with John
Redmond, to whom I said that there seemed a rapidly increasing risk
of the speedy formation of a Whig Administration dominated by
Devonshire influence, and that it might be wise that he, with or
without Blake, should meet myself and Lloyd George for the Radicals,
J. R. Macdonald for the Labour Representation Committee, and with
him either Snowden or Keir Hardie. Redmond assented, and I then saw
Lloyd George. Lloyd George was at first inclined to assent, but on
second thoughts asked for time, which I think meant to see Dr.
Clifford.

'_Friday, February 12th_, 1904.--Lloyd George had not made up his
mind either way, but thought that it would be wise to meet except
for the fact that trouble might happen afterwards as to what had
passed. I pointed out that this could be easily guarded against by
his writing me a letter making any conditions or reservations which
he thought necessary, which I should show to Redmond, and write to
him that I had so shown. On this he promised to let me know on
Monday what he thought, and probably would prepare a draft letter.

'_February 18th, 1904.--Further talk with George. A little afraid of
being attacked by Perks for selling the pass on education. I said
that I must go on alone to a certain extent, and he then consented
to come in, and on my suggesting reservations--as, for example, on
education--he said: "No, I can trust the Irish as regards the
personal matter, and, as I come in, I will come in freely without
any reservations."'

Through the general unsettlement which Chamberlain's new policy had
created, a dissolution and a change of Government were now possibilities
of a not distant future, and speculations were rife as to the future
position of Sir Charles. Lady Dilke, who regarded the admission of her
husband to office as a proof of his public exoneration from the charges
brought against his character, was ardently desirous that he should
accept without reserve any offer of a place in the Cabinet, and it was
much against her wish that Sir Charles imposed conditions, in
conversation with a political friend who had been a member of the last
Liberal Cabinet. So far as anxiety again to hold office existed on his
part, it was more because of her wishes in the matter than from any
strong political ambition of his own. [Footnote: He wrote to Mr. Deakin
from Geneva, December 9th, 1904: "Only one word of what you say on 'too
tardy rewards in higher responsibilities'! I was in the inner ring of
the Cabinet before I was either a Cabinet Minister or a Privy
Councillor, 1880-1882, and I am not likely to have the offer of the
place the work of which would tempt me. The W.O. would kill me, but I
could not refuse it. I have been told on 'authority' that it will not
come to me."]

But the motive which in this, as in all else, swayed him so strongly was
now to be taken away.

Lady Dilke's wish for her husband's return to office was shared by many
Radical politicians, and in the course of the summer Captain Cecil
Norton, one of the Liberal Whips, in a speech expressed his opinion of
the value of Sir Charles Dilke's services, and his anticipation that the
fall of the Tory Government would bring back the Radical leader of 1885
to his full share of power. This utterance was enough to set the old
machinery in motion against him. A series of meetings had been organized
by the advanced Radical section of the House of Commons, and the first
was to have been held in Newington, Captain Norton's constituency, with
Sir Charles for the chief speaker. Threats of a hostile demonstration
reached the Newington committee, and it was decided--though Sir Charles
Dilke was opposed to any change--that the series should be opened with a
speech from him in his old constituency, the place where he was best
known and where he had most friends. It was fixed for October 20th,
1904.

Nothing of the reason for this change was told to Lady Dilke. Her health
had given some cause for anxiety, though at Dockett Eddy in August and
at Speech House in September she had been more bright, more gay, than
ever. She herself wrote to friends that she had "never been so happy in
her life," but felt need of rest, and was going to Pyrford for a long
rest.

She reached Pyrford with her husband on October 15th, and he wished her
to see a doctor, but she refused. "He would stop my going up with you on
Thursday, and I want to go. I think I ought to be there."

It was long since Dilke had stood before those whom he once represented,
and she was determined to be with him; she assisted at the triumphant
success of this meeting; but the strain of coming up to London and the
excitement justified her forecast of the doctor's opinion. That night
she was taken ill, yet till the morning would make no sign, for fear of
disturbing her husband. She admitted then that she was very ill; to
Pyrford, however, she was set on returning; in London she "could not
rest." By Sunday she seemed to be on the highroad to recovery, but on
that Sunday night the end came.

Those last days and hours have been fully described by Sir Charles in
the memoir prefixed to her posthumous book. All that he has written in
his own Memoir is this: 'October 23rd, 1904: Emilia died in my arms
after one of our happiest Sunday afternoons.'

So ended the marriage which, contracted under gloomy auspices in 1885,
had resulted in nineteen years of unbroken felicity. Her praise has been
written in love and reverence by her husband, who was her equal comrade.
The union between them was so complete as to exclude the thought of
gratitude, but whatever man can owe to a woman Sir Charles Dilke owed to
his wife; and though she died without achieving that end on which she
had set her heart, of utterly and explicitly cancelling by public assent
all the charges that had been brought against him, yet she had so lived
and so helped him to live that he was heedless of this matter, except
for her sake.

Over her grave many hands were stretched out to him. Chamberlain wrote
from Italy:

"My Dear Dilke,

"I have just seen with the deepest sympathy and sorrow the news of
the terrible loss you have sustained.

"Consolation would be idle in presence of such a blow, but I should
like you to feel that as an old friend, separated by the unhappy
political differences of these later years, I still share your
personal grief in losing a companion so devoted to you, and so well
qualified to aid and strengthen you in all the work and anxiety of
your active life.

"When the first great shock is past, I earnestly trust that you may
find in the continued performance of your public duties some
alleviation of your private sorrow, and I assure you most earnestly
of my sympathy in this time of trial.
"Believe me,
"Yours very truly,
"J. Chamberlain."

Mr. Morley wrote also:

"My Dear Dilke,

"I did not hear the news of the unhappy stroke that has befallen you
until it was a fortnight old. You need not to be told what a shock
it was. I think that I had known her longer than anybody--from the
time of a college ball at Oxford in 1859; a radiant creature she
then was. To me her friendship was unwavering, down to the last time
I saw her, when she gave me a long and _intime_ talk about the
things that, as you know, she had most at heart. I am deeply and
sincerely sorry and full of sympathy with you. Words count little in
such a disaster, but this I hope you will believe.
"Ever yours,
"John Morley."

When after his wife's death Sir Charles again took up his life in
London, those who saw him off his guard recognized keenly the effect of
this last sudden blow, heavier because unexpected. The very mainspring
of his life had been weakened. But he exerted himself to prepare Lady
Dilke's unpublished writings, and to write the memoir which prefaced
them. Of this he says:

'I put my whole soul into the work of bringing out her posthumous
book with a proper memoir, and it nearly killed me. I was never so
pleased with anything as with the success of the book. To hundreds
of the best people it seems to have meant and said all that I wished
it to say and mean.'

Probably, also, to many readers it gave for the first time a true image,
not of her only for whose sake it was written, but of him who wrote. One
letter of this moment deserves to be put on record. Mr. Arnold-Forster
wrote:

"Dear Sir Charles,

"In a very few days the Session, with all its conflicts, its
misunderstandings, and its boredom, will be upon us. Before it comes
let me take advantage of one of the few remaining days of calm to
write a line to you.

"It is inevitable, and no doubt right, that you and I should find
ourselves on different sides; we shall probably differ on a good
many points, and on some we shall very likely express our
differences. But I trust that nothing in the rough and tumble of
public work will interrupt the pleasant relations which have so long
existed between yourself and me, and the existence of which I have
so greatly valued.

"You have been a good and kind friend to me ever since I entered the
House, and I have always valued both your friendship and your good
opinion, when you could give it me. I have known well enough that I
owed much to Lady Dilke's friendship and affection for my wife; but
I shall never forget how generously that friendship was extended to
me. I was very deeply sensible of the privilege of receiving the
confidence and the good-will of a very noble and wonderfully able
woman.

"But I must not weary you with too long a letter. All I want to tell
you is that I cherish the hope that even now that this bond of
union, this comprehending and reconciling presence, is no longer
here to keep our tempers wise and sweet, you may still count me
among your warm friends, and--despite the estrangement of party
politics--may continue to give me your good-will and may believe in
the continuance of mine."

The Administration of Mr. Balfour fell in the last days of 1905. Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman was entrusted with the formation of a Liberal
Government, and the question was at once eagerly asked, in political
circles, whether Sir Charles Dilke would be a member of it. In February,
1905, he had written to Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice expressing a hope that
he would be outside the next Government, so as to be free to oppose the
deal with Russia which in his opinion Sir E. Grey was contemplating.

The feeling of the Conservative party on the question of his return to
official life is sufficiently shown by the fact that he had previously
been sounded as to his willingness to accept the chairmanship of the
Royal Commission on the Poor Law. That the attitude of the Court towards
him had changed is also clear. Not only was his attendance at Levees
approved, but he and Lady Dilke had received the royal command to the
Queen's Garden Party at Windsor. The attitude of his own party was,
however, the determining factor.

Before the critical time actually arrived, there had been tentative
conversations, and, although Sir Charles did not expect that any
invitation would come to him, Mr. Labouchere thought otherwise, and a
letter from him describes conversations which he had held with Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman: "I thought then from his general observations that
you would be War Minister."

In Labouchere's opinion the determining factor was a public
correspondence in which Dr. Talbot, then Bishop of Southwark, took the
lead in protesting against any such appointment. But this was probably a
mistaken view. There is no reason to believe that the Liberal leader had
any wish to include Sir Charles in his Ministry. The Cordite vote was
not forgotten by the members of the Liberal Administration of 1892-1895.
No office was offered to Sir Charles. His answer to the letter written
by Labouchere on January 6th was:

"I never thought C.-B. could possibly offer me the War Office, and I
could not have refused it or made conditions for the post, and it
would have killed me. I did not expect him to offer me any place.
Had my wife lived, that would have hurt her, and, through her, me.
As it is, I prefer to be outside--a thing which, though often true,
no one ever believes of others.

"But when in office--April, 1880, to June, 1885--I was exceptionally
powerful, and nearly always got my own way in my department. That
could never have been repeated--a strong reason why I have all along
preferred the pleasant front seat in the house to a less commanding
position on the stage."

When Mr. Haldane's name was announced for the War Office, Mr. Arnold-
Forster sent a message agreeing with Sir Charles's high estimate of the
new War Minister's abilities. "By far the best appointment they could
possibly make--with the one exception." And Mr. T. R. Buchanan,
Financial Secretary to the War Office, wrote in reply to Sir Charles's
congratulations:

"I have taken the liberty of showing your letter to Haldane, and he
desires me to thank you for what you say about him, and he values it
all the more highly because of your generosity. You would certainly
have been the natural man to be now in his place, and it is a public
loss that you are not in it."

At the election which followed Sir Charles was re-elected by an enormous
majority for his old constituency, after issuing this, the shortest of
all his habitually short addresses:

"Gentlemen,--I solicit with confidence the renewal of your trust.

"Believe me, your devoted servant,
"Charles W. Dilke."

In the autumn of 1905 he had delivered a series of addresses, mainly to
audiences of Labour men, advocating a general co-operation of Radicals
with the Irish and Labour groups. For Ireland he urged a return to the
"Parnell-Chamberlain scheme of 1885," but applied as a part of Home Rule
all round. His proposal was that the Irish members should in the autumn
sit in Dublin, the Scottish members in Edinburgh, the Welsh in Wales,
and the English at Westminster, and should then transact local affairs,
their decisions being ratified or rejected by the United House when it
met in spring as an Imperial Parliament.

In December, 1905, he wrote to Mr. Deakin:

"The composition of the new Ministry seems to me, as to everybody
else, good. The Imperial question will slumber, I think, until the
Irish question has become again acute. The Ministry ought to be able
to do very well in 1906; two Sessions up to Christmas. In 1907 I
expect a row with Redmond, in which I shall be more or less on
Redmond's side. The Liberal party will not face the fact that they
cannot avoid dealing with the Irish question without the certainty
of the Irish moderates, of whom Redmond is the most moderate, being
forced to say: 'We can no longer keep Ireland quiet for you.' The
Liberal party will not have coercion, and, that being so, they have
no alternative except to do what they ought to do. It would be wiser
to do it before they are compelled; and if they did it before
compulsion was applied, they would have more chance of carrying the
country with them."

In a lighter vein he wrote to Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, commenting on the
extraordinary predominance of Scottish members in the Cabinet, on
December 15th, 1905:

"I had already, before I received your criticism on the Scotch,
suggested to Hudson (who is with me) the things that Labouchere is
likely to say about his friends, and had yesterday got as far as his
turning round and asking us in a loud whisper: 'Who is it who
represents _England_ in this Government?'

[Footnote: The Cabinet consisted of nineteen persons. Of these, the
Prime Minister (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman); the Chancellor (Lord
Loreburn); the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Asquith); the Secretary
of State for the Colonies (Lord Elgin); the Secretary of State for India
(Lord Morley); the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane); the First
Lord of the Admiralty (Lord Tweedmouth); the Chief Secretary for Ireland
(Mr. Bryce); the Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sinclair)--nine in
all--were Scottish Peers or represented Scottish constituencies. It was
also observed that Sir Edward Grey's constituency was the Scottish
Borderland; and it was jestingly said that John Burns was put into the
Cabinet because he had persuaded the Premier that he descended from the
poet!

Mr. Birrell, when the Government was formed, was not in Parliament, but
his last constituency had been Scotch, The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
was Lord Aberdeen.]

"We used to think that the value of Randolph was that he gave to
politics the constant pleasure of the unexpected. Rosebery now does
this in the Lords, and Charles II.'s truthful saying about the House
of Commons, 'It is as good as a play,' becomes on account of
Rosebery temporarily true of the House of Lords. We shall all of us
be drawn there very often, and even such a House of Commons man as
your humble servant, grumbling the while, will nevertheless find
himself attracted to that 'throne.'"

When the new Parliament met in 1906, Labour had for the first time a
really important representation. [Footnote: See Chapter LII., "Labour,"
p. 346.]

Sir Charles noted in his Diary: 'The Labour party was my original scheme
for the I.L.P. as developed in talks at Pyrford, before its formation,
with Champion and with Ben Tillett. To join it or lead it was never my
thought.'

His purpose was rather to be a connecting link between the varying
groups in the development of a legislative programme which he forecast
with shrewd prevision. On January 6th, 1906, he wrote to Labouchere:

"As I now seem to have the confidence of Balfour, Redmond, and Keir
Hardie, the position will be difficult; but in the present year
Redmond and Keir Hardie will, I think, join with me in supporting
Government. Next year it will be different, unless, as I expect,
Grey goes for H.R. The small Budget of 1906 will be a
disappointment, and so, I fear, will be the big one of 1907.

"The really weak point is that the Government is damned unless it
fights the Lords in 1907, and that the promise of 'five years in
power' will prevent the hacks from fighting."

Holding these views, it was natural that he should seek to maintain that
organization of a Radical group which had existed continuously since
Fawcett established, or rather revived, it on first entering the
Parliament of 1865-1868. The Radical Club, of which Sir Charles himself
was the first secretary, grew out of this, and was largely directed by
him till 1880, when he ceased, on taking office, to be a member.
[Footnote: For earlier mention of the Radical Club, see Vol. I., Chapter
VIII., p. 100.] His brother succeeded him in the secretaryship; but with
Ashton Dilke's death the club died also, being replaced by a loose
committee organization which lasted till 1893, and then came to an
untimely end because the party Whips attempted to pack the meeting which
elected this committee. The elected body was then replaced by a
virtually self-chosen group. In 1904 an emergency committee of this
group was appointed; and when the new Parliament met, Sir Charles was
the only member of the committee left. Mr. Harcourt and Captain Norton
had taken office, Mr. Stanhope had gone to the Lords, Mr. Labouchere had
retired. It therefore fell to Sir Charles to reassemble surviving atoms
of this organism, to attract new ones, and to make known its nature and
purpose.

It had always been essential, in his view, that there should be no
"party," no chairman, and no whips; but simply a grouping for the
purpose of stimulating the Government by pressure as to practical and
immediate Parliamentary objects on which advanced men think alike or
harmoniously, and for current arrangements, such as balloting for
motions and generally making the best use of private members' time.

There was at the outset a great influx of members, and three secretaries
were appointed. At all meetings at which he was present Sir Charles took
the chair, and through this centre exercised much influence, committing
the House of Commons to a series of resolutions--abstract indeed, but
none the less important.

The various objects which Radicalism should have before it in 1906 are
sketched in a kind of shorthand summary:

"Good understanding with Irish Nationalist members, based on at
least the Parnell-Chamberlain National Council scheme of 1885, and
with the Labour party for common objects.

"So far as further political reforms are needed no registration
reform worth having, but principle of adult suffrage of all grown
men and women carries simplification and single vote.

"Payment of members and expenses.

"Single Chamber, or restriction of power of House of Lords (i.e., no
'Reform' of = stronger). [Footnote: Sir Charles always maintained
that "Reform" of the House of Lords would result in strengthening
its position.]

"Fiscal reform, capable of being dealt with by Budget or
administratively, and money to be saved by ... increased revenue
provided by increased graduation of death duties and by relieving
the Imperial Exchequer of the local grants, substituting taxation of
land values by the local authorities for the latter.