""_Confidential_.
""76, Sloane Street, S.W., ""_January_ 5_th_, 1894.
""Dear Wilkinson,
""I saw Balfour (in a full discussion) this afternoon. We provisionally agreed, with Lord Salisbury"s consent, that Sir George Chesney, Arnold-Forster (if he agrees), you, and I, should sign a letter which we should address (with the view to publishing it with the replies) to Mr. Gladstone as Prime Minister and leader of my party, to Lord Salisbury and to Balfour as leaders of Sir George Chesney"s party, and to the Duke of Devonshire and Chamberlain as leaders of Arnold-Forster"s party, and of which I should privately send a copy to the Prince of Wales in the hope of its reaching the Queen. In this letter we should press for the joint consideration of the naval and military problem, and point either to the creation of a Defence Ministry, of which the War Office and Admiralty would be the branches--to which the objection is that Parliamentary consent would be necessary--or to a more active control over the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and their Estimates, by the Prime Minister personally, or to that which is Balfour"s own scheme and which has the support, among our people, of Rosebery and Asquith: the creation of a Defence Committee of the Cabinet, ordinarily to consist of the Prime Minister, of the leader of the other House, of the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord, and (doubtless) the Chancellor of the Exchequer (?), with expert advisers and permanent records which would carry on their work from Government to Government. Mr. Gladstone would snub us. The other four would not, and our proposal (that is, our third proposal, which is Balfour"s) would probably be adopted when the Conservatives came in, and continued by the Liberals.
""Balfour would be very willing to express his favourable opinion of our view in debate in the House of Commons, should we raise one next Session, and Lord Salisbury is less inclined to make a strong and distinctly favourable reply to our letter than is Balfour.
""Balfour would go more willingly, if possible, than he does into the schemes if he could see his way beforehand to the saving of money on the army for the purpose of devoting it to the navy. He says that he himself cannot put his finger on the waste which he knows must exist, that Buller has to some extent his confidence and tells him that there is none, although Balfour is not convinced by this. We discussed our Indian army scheme, to which he sees no objection, and (very fully) the Duke of Cambridge and the extent to which he will be supported by the Queen.
""Balfour sees immense difficulty in the absence of a sufficiently commanding expert, and in the consequent jealousy between the Admiralty and War Office officials.
""Will the letter which Sir George Chesney has do as a base, or would it be better to write a shorter and a fresh letter? If the latter, will you try your hand at it, if you approve? And after noting this will you return it to me, that I may send it to Sir George Chesney and then to Arnold-Forster?
""Balfour had in reading _us_ [Footnote: "Us" refers to the joint work on Imperial Defence. One of the recommendations was to subst.i.tute marines for soldiers in the small garrisons, such as Bermuda.] asked questions through George Hamilton, who agrees with us, on the point of further employment of marines, and has been told that they would be sadly costly.
""Yours very truly, ""Charles W. Dilke.""
APPENDIX II
In reply to the joint letter, Chamberlain wrote to Dilke:
"I have received the interesting paper on the subject of National Defence which you have communicated to me on behalf of yourself and the other signatories. One of the greatest difficulties which any politician must feel in dealing with this question has been the apparent difference of opinion among those best qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject, and it is an important advance to find practical proposals agreed to by some of those who have given special study to the problems involved. Without venturing at the present state of the inquiry to commit myself to any specific proposal, I may say that I am favourably inclined to the main lines laid down in your paper--namely, the closer union between the two great departments of national defence, and the recognition of the responsibility of the professional advisers of the Cabinet on all questions of military and naval provision and administration."
Mr. Balfour wrote:
"I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of February 12th, dealing with certain very important points connected with the problem of National Defence. Though it would be inopportune for me to pa.s.s any detailed judgment upon the scheme which you have laid before me in outline, and though it is evident that difficulties of a serious kind must attend any effort to carry out so important a change in our traditional methods of dealing with the Admiralty and the War Office, I may yet be permitted to express my own conviction that the evils that you indicate are real evils, and that the imperfections in our existing system, on which you insist, might under certain not impossible contingencies seriously imperil our most important national interests.
"That four gentlemen of different training, belonging to different parties in the State, approaching this subject from different points of view, and having little, perhaps, in common except a very intimate knowledge of the questions connected with National Defence, should be in entire agreement as to the general lines along which future reformation should proceed, is a fact of which the public will doubtless take note, and which is not likely to be ignored by those responsible for the preservation of the Empire."
"Our letter was in all the papers about February 28th (1894), with replies from Balfour and Chamberlain. Mr. Gladstone"s reply, written just before he resigned, was in his own hand, and more than usually legible. Though it was not marked "Private," I did not print it, as it seemed too personal and playful. It meant that he had resigned, but I did not know this till an hour after I had received it:
""You will forgive my pleading eyesight, which demanded the help of others and thereby r.e.t.a.r.ded operations, as an excuse for my having failed to acknowledge the paper on Naval Defence which you were so good as to send me. You will, I fear, find me a less interesting correspondent than some who have replied at length, for I fear I ought to confine myself to a.s.suring you that I have taken care it should come to the notice of my colleagues."
"On March 9th I sat near to Asquith at a dinner, and he told me that his Defence Committee of the Cabinet, favoured by Balfour and Rosebery, would soon be "a fact." The decision was made known in a debate which I raised on the 16th."
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 a.s.sertion 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 hara.s.sing, "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 antic.i.p.ates 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 compa.s.sion, 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 rea.s.sembled 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 a.s.sented, and I then saw Lloyd George. Lloyd George was at first inclined to a.s.sent, 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 pa.s.sed. 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 pa.s.s 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 antic.i.p.ation 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 const.i.tuency, 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 const.i.tuency, 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 a.s.sisted 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 grat.i.tude, 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 a.s.sent 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 a.s.sure 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."