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 the next evening, March 26th, when the Ministers were dining
with the Speaker, we received a very unpleasant telegram from
Baring, pointing, we thought, to a possible resignation unless it
was promised to send an expedition to Khartoum. I suggested the
following answer: "We adhere to our instructions of the 25th, 160
Secret. We cannot send an expedition now, and entertain the gravest
objection to contemplating an expedition in the autumn." This answer
was rejected in favour of one suggested by Mr. Gladstone and Lord
Granville. Our telegram 160 Secret had been an absolute refusal, and
my additional words had been intended by me slightly to open the
door, which was as much as I could hope that the Cabinet would do.
But the telegram actually sent on March 28th (165 Secret, extended
in 191) was to the effect that we were unable to alter the
instructions, and it was accompanied by two long despatches,
virtually written by Harcourt, and afterwards laid before
Parliament, explaining our reasons for not sending Zebehr and for
not sending an expedition. Gordon had been communicating with us
with difficulty, as the telegraph was broken from time to time, but
he had told us that if he was to evacuate Khartoum he wished to
resign his commission and to take all his steam vessels and stores
to the equatorial provinces, "which he would consider under the King
of the Belgians." This Baring had told him he must not do. Baring
had rejected every possible alternative except the sending of
Zebehr, and Zebehr we could not have sent. In discussing the
question of an expedition to Khartoum, Baring had told us that
Gordon was "not in any immediate danger. He has provisions for six
months." Gordon himself had telegraphed: "As I have been
inconsistent about Zebehr, it is my fault, and I should bear the
blame if Zebehr is sent, and should put up with the inconvenience if
he is not." He had himself told us that he had provisions for six
months, but had after this informed us that provisions were still
coming in freely to Khartoum--as late as after March 15th, a week
later than the date at which he had told us that he had six months'
provisions in the town. I had made up my mind that we must send an
expedition, but I did not agree with Baring that it was physically
possible to send an expedition at this moment, and thought that if
sent at high Nile it would be in time. On the 23rd, after Gordon's
defeat, by treachery and shooting, of the two black Pashas, Gordon
telegraphed: "I think we are now safe, and that as the Nile rises we
shall account for the rebels." This we received on March 31st.

'On March 27th there was a Cabinet without Chamberlain, who was
listening to George Russell's speech which I had got him leave to
make, and without Mr. Gladstone, who was still ill. The Cabinet
decided against an expedition to Khartoum, but the Chancellor' (Lord
Selborne) 'gave us to understand that he should resign if one were
not sent in the autumn, and Harcourt intimated that he should resign
if one were sent. Lord Granville observed that no Cabinet could last
a day if it was to be exposed to going to pieces on differences as
regards the future. Harcourt proposed to "clear out" of Egypt
immediately. Lord Granville won an easy victory over him by proving
that only three weeks ago he had wanted to take Egypt under our
protection. Harcourt then said that as long ago as November, 1883,
he had spoken in favour of clearing out. "Yes," said Lord Granville,
"so you did; but I said three weeks ago."

'On March 29th there was a Cabinet at Coombe Warren. Mr. Gladstone
seemed pretty well, and had at least one good laugh. He still
regretted Zebehr. The Cabinet considered Gordon, what we should do
with slavery at Suakim, and House of Commons business.'

About this date the main body of the British troops was withdrawn from
Suakim in accordance with the decision of March 25th. They had inflicted
defeats on Osman Digna at El Teb, and again at Tamanieb; many Dervishes
and not a few English had been killed, but no effect of moment had been
produced, and the road to Berber was not opened.

A new complication now arose. Egypt was presented with Europe's total
claims for the losses to Europeans in the burnings at Alexandria. They
amounted to four millions and a half. How was this demand to be met?
Under the Law of Liquidation established in 1880, Egypt could not borrow
without the consent of the five Powers who had constituted the
Commission of Liquidation. The demand presented to Egypt had to be
considered by the one Power which was now _de facto_ supreme in Egypt.

'On April 2nd there was an important Cabinet called on Egyptian
finance. It began, of course, on something else. We discussed the
future of Suakim; the replies to be given in the House on the next
day as to Gordon; and then Childers' views upon Egyptian finance;
while we were considering these, there came a letter from Northcote
with the questions that he intended to put on the next day'
(questions which could only be answered by a full statement of
policy on all the points of the Egyptian problem). 'After going back
to this, we went on again to finance, and decided to call a
conference of the Great Powers to alter the Law of Liquidation. Mr.
Gladstone had unwillingly consented to meet the Powers by proposing
to reduce the charge for the British army; and he was anxious to get
the money for the British taxpayer out of a borrowing operation on
the future value of the Canal Shares. Chamberlain and I decided that
if he did this the Tories would declare that Mr. Gladstone had
become a pensioner on the bounty of Lord Beaconsfield. There was
some talk at this Cabinet as to whether we should guarantee the
Egyptian debt, to which I was opposed. Chamberlain had at one time
been friendly to such an operation, but had now "gone round" on the
ground that we could not "carry it against the Tories and the
Radicals." "Is there anything else?" said Chamberlain to Mr.
Gladstone as the Cabinet was breaking up. "No," said Mr. Gladstone,
"we have done our Egyptian business and we are an Egyptian
Government."'

II.

From this time forward the 'Egyptian Government' at Westminster had two
main subjects of concern--the question of extricating Gordon with the
garrisons, and the question of dealing with the international situation,
partly diplomatic and partly financial. France, increasingly unfriendly
to Great Britain, was above all unfriendly in regard to Egypt: while
Bismarck, doing his best to foment this quarrel, was at the same time
weakening Great Britain by menaces in Africa and Australasia, and the
danger of a Russian advance in Central Asia hung like a thundercloud
over the whole situation. [Footnote: Sir Charles wrote to Mr. Brett on
November 15th, 1884: 'I told Herbert Bismarck when he was here that it
was very silly of his father to get in the way of our Egypt plans, for
France would not go to war about them, and therefore, after threatening,
he would have to look on and see the things he had threatened against
done quietly.']

There were three groups of opinion in the Government in regard to the
Soudan. The first was for an expedition which should carry with it the
consequence of occupation more or less prolonged. Another was against
any expedition and in favour of immediate evacuation. A third section--
including Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Chamberlain--accepted the need of an
expedition, but was determined that occupation should not follow. It was
incumbent on this last-named group to suggest a positive policy, and
Dilke, as will be seen, had his plan ready. There was a further decision
to be taken. When once an expedition was in contemplation, the route and
the character of the expedition had to be fixed. On this matter also Sir
Charles had early formed a resolve, but neither he nor anyone else could
pin the Cabinet to a clear course of action.

'At this time' (April 2nd) 'Chamberlain wrote to me of Egypt: "Once
more Hartington, and you and I, are at opposite poles. For one, I do
not mean to be forced any further in the direction of protectorate."

'Although they would not admit it, the Cabinet were rapidly coming
round at this time to an autumn Gordon expedition, and Chamberlain
wrote to me: "I believe it will come to this in the end"; while
Northbrook was in favour of an expedition. I then made up a list
from private information showing that six of us were favourable to
an expedition, as against five the other way--several members having
made no statement either way. Those for an expedition were
Hartington, Northbrook, the Chancellor (Lord Selborne), Derby,
Chamberlain, and myself; and those against it, Mr. Gladstone, Lord
Granville, Harcourt, Kimberley, and Dodson. On April 21st, Egypt was
discussed without decision, though with the note by me: "The
majority now begin to see that an October expedition is certain."

'On the 23rd a Cabinet ... considered the possibility of reaching
Berber.... After the Cabinet of April 23rd, I advocated a naval
expedition by the Nile on the ground that the Admiralty were likely
to do the thing better than the War Office. [Footnote: A review by
Sir Charles in the _Athenaeum_ of October 24th, 1908, deals with the
_Life of Lord Northbrook_, by Sir Bernard Mallet, and his allusions
to Lord Northbrook's consideration, as early as April, of a 'rescue
and retire' expedition by the Nile route for the autumn, 'it being
assumed that the boats then ordered could not pass the various
cataracts before High Nile.' See _Life of Lord Northbrook_, pp.
185-186. A review by Sir Charles of March 28th, 1908, in the same
paper, of _Modern Egypt_, by the Earl of Cromer, also deals with
Lord Northbrook's pressure for a Nile Expedition in March, 1884.] On
April 28th, Berber, Khartoum, and Gordon, on which there was nothing
new, but Hartington insisted on a large and important military
expedition.'

'On April 29th Baring had now come over about Egypt, and attended a
Cabinet to state his views. I saw him privately, and settled with
him the details for a possible Nile expedition "small and early."
The difficulty was at the sixth cataract. He also broached to me his
scheme for a new control by the four Powers already represented on
the Caisse de la Dette--namely, England, France, Austria, and Italy,
with an English president.'

'At the next Cabinet there was a proposal by Hartington that there
should be a vote of thanks to Sir Gerald Graham and Admiral Hewett
for the Suakim expedition--a proposal which the Cabinet rejected,
having had quite enough of votes of thanks on the former occasion
when Wolseley and Beauchamp Seymour were in question. The next
matter was what we should say about our Law of Liquidation
Conference, on which there arose an awkward question as to what
should happen in the probable case of the representatives of the
Powers not being unanimous. There was every reason to suppose that
the French would not agree to anything, and precedents went to show
that unanimity was necessary to render valid the decisions of a
conference. Indeed, there was no precedent as regards questions of
principle which told the other way; and at the Congress of Berlin
Prince Bismarck had stated, as recorded in the first protocol, that
as regarded substantive proposals it was an incontestable principle
that the minority should not be bound to acquiesce in a vote of a
majority.

'Then came the consideration of the action to be taken by the
Egyptian Government towards Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., [Footnote: Mr. James
O'Kelly, then M.P. for Koscommon, a very adventurous war
correspondent. He died in 1916.] Parnell's friend, who had been
trying to join the Mahdi. We next considered Lord Salisbury's
relations towards Tewfik as Khedive, as affected by the violent
attacks of many Conservative members, put up by Broadley, upon
Tewfik's character. Randolph Churchill had made a most ferocious
series of attacks upon the Khedive, without one atom of truth in
them. It is a curious example of his forgetful flightiness, that
when, a few years later, he went to Egypt, he was struck with wonder
at the Khedive's refusal to receive him. The terms of the French
acceptance of our invitation to the Conference were discussed, as
were the House of Commons questions as to Gordon, and the offer of
Mr. Guy Dawnay, M.P., to go as a messenger to Gordon at his own
cost. Then followed the internal condition of Egypt, as to which
Baring's views were stated by me; then Harrar; then the employment
of negroes or Turks for the Egyptian army; then the Turks at Suakim;
then the Somali coast.

'On the same day I had an interview with the ex-Khedive Ismail, who
had gone downhill. He always had a certain difficulty in collecting
his ideas and putting them into words, but on this occasion it went
farther than I had previously known. He wished to impress on me the
necessity for defending Egypt against the Mahdi at some given point
upon the Nile, when occurred that incident of his continually
working up to the name of the place and forgetting it. [Footnote:
See Chapter XXX., Vol. I., p. 487.]

'On May 5th there was a Cabinet. We considered the vote of censure
as to Gordon, and decided that time must be given for it; and I then
had some correspondence with Northbrook across the table as to an
expedition. I said: "Northbrook, I should be glad to know all you
know against the Nile route. Ismail, who knows all about it, thinks
it quite possible." Northbrook replied: "My objections are
uncertainty of getting steamers up at all (we know nothing of the
140 miles beyond Wady Halfa), and necessity of assistance from
natives, which may not be given. Key" (Sir Cooper Key) "is in rather
a delicate position, as he does not like to go against Wolseley,
whose opinion is for the Nile, and the responsibility is with the
W.O."

'On May 7th there was another Cabinet. It was decided that Nubar
need not be brought to London for the Conference, that a fresh place
in some other unhappy portion of the world must be found for
Clifford Lloyd; [Footnote: A Resident Magistrate who had come
violently into collision with the Nationalists in Ireland, and who
had also proved himself a storm centre in Egypt, as he afterwards
did in Mauritius.] and one was found, and he again fought with the
local authorities as he had fought in Ireland and in Egypt. With
regard to the attitude of France, it was decided that we could not,
so long as we remained in Egypt, put up with a new international
control. It was decided to bring the Turks to Suakim, although this
decision was afterwards reversed. We then wasted much of our time on
the consideration of what should be our attitude on the vote of
censure which was pending in the House. Harcourt had drawn an
amendment for Mr. Gladstone on which they had agreed. Chamberlain
and I had agreed to support a mere negative, and we talked the
others over....

'On May 11th Fitzmaurice wrote to me complaining that no definite
instructions had been given him with regard to the conduct of the
Gordon debate' (on the vote of censure), [Footnote: See _Hansard_,
vol. cclxxxviii., 3rd series, debate of May 13th, 1884] 'as was
usual in such important cases, but stating that he expected me to
speak. On the next day, May 12th, I learnt that Hartington had
refused to speak, although he was finally made to do so by Mr.
Gladstone. On Tuesday, May 13th, I made a good speech from 12.10 to
1.10 a.m.--too late for the reporters. "The debate has (I noted in
my diary) been the best I ever heard. Mr. Gladstone was not so good
as usual, while Hartington and I were neither better nor worse than
usual. But Churchill, Forster, Cowen, John Morley, and Beach, all
spoke far above their usual level; and the rest were good. A
memorable debate, which I do not expect to see excelled for interest
and fire, and I am glad to have had the honour to wind it up for the
Liberal party." Afterwards I noted that it "does not read well."

'On May 14th Cabinet again decided that Nubar must not come over for
the Conference; discussed internal affairs of Egypt, then the
Conference again; and then called in Sir Evelyn Baring and discussed
with him the same matters of Clifford Lloyd, Nubar, Conference, the
Turks and the Red Sea ports, what was to be said to Waddington about
the Conference, and the detail of a scheme of Childers upon Egyptian
finance, which was extraordinarily unpopular with the Cabinet.

'On May 17th at noon there was a full Cabinet (Spencer being
present), and a long one. The first matter discussed was the Queen
and Conference, [Footnote: Proposed Conference of the Powers on the
Law of Liquidation.] and a strong objection on the part of Mr.
Gladstone to tell Parliament anything about the Conference.
Chamberlain wrote to me on this: "What a queer twist this objection
of Mr. G. is!" To which I replied: "I really wish he would have gone
to Coombe for this lovely day and let us go on without him. He has
wasted an hour and a half. Mr. G. will fight a whole day in Cabinet
to avoid telling Parliament something, and then after all will tell
them twice as much in reply to Ashmead Bartlett." On this
Chamberlain wrote:

"Here lies Mr. G., who has left us repining,
While he is, no doubt, still engaged in refining;
And explaining distinctions to Peter and Paul,
Who faintly protest that distinctions so small
Were never submitted to saints to perplex them,
Until the Prime Minister came up to vex them."

[Footnote: These were notes passed during the sitting of the Cabinet. On
Mr. Gladstone's inconvenient habit of giving information at question
time, see Vol. I., pp. 307, 384, 459, 535; and _infra_, p. 118.]

'The Cabinet decided to send a telegram to Gordon through Zebehr, in
order to obtain safe conveyance for it, offering free use of money
among the tribes.

'To Grant Duff I wrote on May 17th: "The Queen is much against our
arrangements with France. If we 'let them out' we spoil them, and if
we don't we shall be condemned for a 'secret negotiation with France
by a moribund Cabinet.' Yet, though we look very wrong, we _are_
right."'

'On the 19th it was decided that the Nile was to be patrolled by the
Navy as far as Wady Halfa.'

This was in the direction of the military policy which Sir Charles
favoured, but in which he was not to succeed. His diplomatic proposals
now have to be considered.

'At this time I sent a box round the Cabinet as to the
neutralization of Egypt, Northbrook assenting. In a minute dated May
22nd, Lord Northbrook wrote: "I am disposed to think it would be
wise to propose at once an international guarantee of the neutrality
of Egypt, (1) It would give a substance and solidity to the French
assurances." (To Grant Duff I wrote on the 22nd: "We have got from
France an engagement not to go to Egypt when we come away, and never
at any future time, except by the authority of Europe.") "(2)
Without it I hardly see a chance of escaping from annexation.... All
the circumstances of Egypt ... point to this solution, and ... the
release of Egypt from the Soudan makes the solution possible."
Chamberlain wrote: "I agree entirely with Dilke and Northbrook. (1)
As to the intrinsic importance of such a proposal. If adopted it
secures every essential British interest, and promises relief from
the intolerable burden of a continued occupation. I am strongly in
favour of making the proposal at once. It will give a real guarantee
to the Powers of our good faith and intention to clear out of the
country. (2) I attach great importance to it as forming a definite
policy.... To make Egypt the 'Belgium of the East' is an object
easily popularized. The phrase will carry the proposal." Kimberley
wrote: "I agree with Northbrook and Dilke. The neutralization of
Egypt will be a gain in itself, irrespective altogether of the
question of its internal administration. It would also ... render it
easy to establish a firm domestic Government in so far as it would
put an end to the rivalries ... which exercise a very disturbing
influence on all Egyptian affairs.--K." This minute received the
support of the signatures of the Chancellor, Harcourt, and Childers.
Lord Derby wrote: "I agree so entirely with the views of Lord
Northbrook and Sir Charles Dilke that I need add nothing to what
they have written. There is only one alternative in the long-run;
guaranteed neutrality or annexation.--D., May 23." Carlingford also
agreed, but Hartington strongly dissented; and although Lord
Granville agreed with us, Hartington's dissent was so fierce that he
succeeded in preventing Mr. Gladstone from expressing an opinion,
and the view taken by ten members of the Cabinet remained without
effect.

'... On May 24th, the next matter discussed was the neutralization
of Egypt, which Mr. Gladstone decided, in face of Hartington's
minute, was "not to be immediately proposed."' [Footnote: The offer
of neutralization was, however, made. See _infra_, Chapter XXXVIII.,
pp. 94, 97.]

'We then returned to our old business of Waddington and the
Conference. Mr. Gladstone next complained that he had been
catechized in the House of Commons on Monday, May 19th, as to
whether he "told most lies on Monday or on Thursday." We then
discussed the desirability of making a statement in the House as to
the number of years that our troops would remain in Egypt;
Northbrook and Hartington suggesting either five years or three
years from January, 1885, and Carlingford suggesting one year, in
which he was supported by the Prime Minister and myself; but three
years prevailed. Next came Morocco; and then a Gordon
expedition--Mr. Gladstone speaking strongly against it.

'On May 27th there was a Cabinet before the Whitsuntide recess. It
was decided what statement was to be made to Parliament about the
Conference. Lord Granville had told Waddington that we should not
stay more than five years in Egypt at the outside, and Hartington,
who himself had been willing to limit our stay to three years, now
fought violently against a limitation even to five. Chamberlain
wrote to me: "As usual--the question having been twice settled,
Hartington, in a minority of one, raises the whole question again.
It is direct, unmitigated, and unconcealed obstruction." We then
discussed the expedition to Khartoum and the making of a Suakim-
Berber railway, but it was decided that orders were not yet to be
given. On the next day Mr. Gladstone, who had gone to Hawarden,
wrote:

'"My Dear Northbrook,

'"I have received and read this morning Sir Cooper Key's very
interesting paper on an expedition to Khartoum. I write, however, to
suggest that it would be a great advantage if two suggestions it
contains were to be fully examined and developed. (1) The _small_
river expedition which he thinks practicable. (2) The small desert
expedition from Korosko to which he also adverts as an auxiliary
method.... Clear as is the case for the railway from Suakim, as
against the large expedition by the Nile, in every other view it is
attended with the most formidable difficulties of a moral and
political kind ... whether the 'turning of the first sod' of a
Soudan railway will not be the substitution for an Egyptian
domination there, of an English domination ... more unnatural, more
costly, more destructive, and altogether without foundation in
public right. It would be an immense advantage that the expedition
(should one be needed) should be one occupying little time, and
_leaving no trace behind it_.

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

'Of this letter a copy was made by Edward Hamilton, and enclosed to
me with an autograph letter from Mr. Gladstone.

'On May 31st I had received a further letter from Mr. Gladstone
about the Soudan expedition, in which he said: "Suakim and Berber
route has utterly beaten Nile route for a large expedition.... But
the question of a small expedition has hardly yet been touched,
while some believe Gordon is or will be free, and there need be no
expedition at all." I sent this letter to Lord Northbrook, and to
Lord Hartington, pointing out that Colonel Sartorius had written a
letter to the papers in favour of an expedition of a thousand picked
men armed with repeating rifles; and after receiving replies, I
wrote to Mr. Gladstone on June 4th that I had not had much
encouragement from Hartington and Northbrook, the fact being that
Hartington was determined on giving Wolseley his big job. [Footnote:
See _Life of Granville_, vol. ii., p. 395.]