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 const.i.tuency which had stood by him in four contests. Such a reverse occurs in the life of almost every prominent politician, and, though hara.s.sing, 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 a.s.sumed 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 a.s.sociates 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 a.s.sailed 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 sanct.i.ty 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 x.x.xVIII., 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 const.i.tution 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 pet.i.tion 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 a.s.sociated 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 const.i.tuents 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 cla.s.ses. 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 antic.i.p.ate 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 pa.s.sage 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 sh.e.l.ls, 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 a.s.sumed in it.
""Yours sincerely, ""W. E. Gladstone.""