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 But he exerted himself to prepare Lady Dilke"s unpublished writings, and to write the memoir which prefaced them.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 n.o.ble 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 att.i.tude 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 att.i.tude 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 const.i.tuency, 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 const.i.tuencies. It was also observed that Sir Edward Grey"s const.i.tuency 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 const.i.tuency 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 d.a.m.ned 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 rea.s.semble 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, subst.i.tuting taxation of land values by the local authorities for the latter.
"This last point is closely connected with full power to local authorities to acquire land for all purposes, and this with munic.i.p.al trading and other forms of munic.i.p.al Socialism. The heads of the Labour policy are now so universally embraced as not to be specially Radical; Taff Vale, for example, being supported by all Liberals and some Tories, and the Miners" Eight Hours receiving the support of nearly all Liberals and of some Tories."
On the question of electoral reform, and specially of woman"s suffrage, all his action was guided by one conclusion thus expressed, and embodied in the Franchise Bill introduced by him each Session:
"The limited franchise, if it is ever carried, will be carried as a party Conservative measure intended to aid Conservative opinions and to rest the franchise upon an una.s.sailable limited base, and it will be carried in that case against the counter-proposal of the suffrage of all grown men and women, made by those representing the advanced thought of the country." [Footnote: Memorandum by Sir Charles Dilke on "Suffrage of All Grown Men and Women," issued by the People"s Suffrage Federation.]
It is unnecessary to emphasize the completeness with which political evolution has followed the lines here marked out by him. Others reaped the harvest. But no man then living had done more to sow the seed.
The Parliament in which he found himself was one of singular interest.
He wrote:
"The old form of party divisions is, in the great majority of const.i.tuencies, not yet much affected by recent events. In the House of Commons it is almost dead for the present year....