When that letter reached Highbury, Sir Charles was in France, awaiting Mrs. Pattison"s arrival from India. Mr. Chamberlain"s reply was written without consultation on September 28th. In it he said that he had a.s.sumed that Local Government would be the first work of a Liberal Government, and that Bills for the three countries would be brought in together. Mr. Parnell"s change of front would, he thought, have limited the proposals to the establishment of County Councils, with certain powers for the acquisition of land by Local Authorities. He thought it unlikely that Parnell would bring forward a scheme that any Liberal Government could support; but if he did, he would do all he could to a.s.sist the Government in dealing with it, whether from inside or outside the Cabinet.
Chamberlain further urged Dilke to lay stress on the determination of his party not to be "mere lay figures in a Cabinet of Goschens." He regarded his party as indispensable, and if the Government tried to do without them, they were determined to make trouble. He expressed an earnest wish that Sir Charles Dilke could be working with them; but he did not press this at the moment, if Sir Charles was taking a holiday after his marriage.
Dilke took the briefest of holidays; on October 6th, three days after his wedding, he spoke at Chelsea. After dwelling at length on Chamberlain"s proposal to give powers of compulsory land purchase to local authorities, he asked for the widest form of elective self- government for Ireland consistent with the integrity of the Empire, [Footnote: "In my individual opinion, the natural crowning stone of any large edifice of local government must sooner or later be some such elective Local Government Board for each of the three princ.i.p.al parts of the United Kingdom and for the Princ.i.p.ality of Wales, as I have often sketched out to you. As regards Ireland, we all of us here, I think, agree that the widest form of elective self-government should be conferred which is consistent with the integrity of the Empire. No one can justify the existence of the nominated official Boards which at present attempt to govern Ireland. I care not whether the Irish people are or are not at the moment willing to accept the changes we have to propose. If the present system is as indefensible as I think it, we should propose them all the same. If they are not at first accepted, our scheme will at least be seen and weighed, and we shall be freed from the necessity of appearing to defend a system which is obnoxious to every Liberal principle. I would ask you to remember some words in Mr.
Ruskin"s chapter on "The Future of England," in his _Crown of Wild Olive_, which are very applicable to the situation:--"In Ireland, especially, a vicious system has been so long maintained that it has become impossible to give due support to the cause of order without seeming to countenance injury." The bodies which would deal with education, with private Bills, with provisional order Bills, and with appeals from local authorities in matters too large for county treatment, in Wales and Scotland and England itself, if I had my way, as well as in Ireland, would, I believe, make the future government of the United Kingdom, as a United Kingdom, more easy than it is at present."]
and went on to a.s.sume that the first session of the new Parliament would be "a Local Government session." In the following week "I made an important speech at Halifax on Local Government which attracted much attention." "Halifax will be all Local Government," he wrote to Mr.
Frank Hill, "which is necessary, as it is clear that Balfour and Salisbury have cribbed my last year"s Bill."
"I may note here that on October 6th, at my Chelsea meeting, George Russell told me that he had on the previous day induced Mr.
Gladstone to send for Chamberlain to Hawarden. On October 7th Chamberlain wrote:
""Hawarden Castle.
""My Dear Dilke,
""I was sent for here, but up to now I do not know why.... My present object is to say that you made a capital speech, and that I approve every word of it except the part about London Government.
But as to this I suppose that Londoners must have their way and their own form of munic.i.p.al government though I doubt if it will not prove a fatal gift. Why will the papers invent differences between you and me? I verily believe that if I spoke your speech, and you spoke mine, they would still find the distinguishing characteristics of each speaker unchanged. I thought your last part admirable and just what I should have said. Yet the _Standard_ thinks it quite a different note to the South London and Bradford speeches. Mr. G.
thinks Mr. Parnell"s last speech more satisfactory I confess I had not perceived the improvement. He (Mr. G.) is still very sweet on National Councils."
"On October 9th Chamberlain wrote:
""I am not quite certain what was Mr. G."s object in sending for me.
I suppose he desired to minimize our conditions as far as possible.
He was very pleasant and very well, with no apparent trace of his hoa.r.s.eness. He spoke at considerable length on the Irish Question; said he was more than ever impressed with the advantages of the Central Council scheme, and had written strongly to that effect to Hartington. But I do not gather that he has any definite plan under present circ.u.mstances. He thought Parnell"s last speech was more moderate (I confess I do not agree with him), and I suppose that if we get a majority his first effort will be to find a _modus vivendi_, and to enter into direct communications with this object.
""As regards Radical programme I stuck to the terms of your speech, namely, first, compulsory powers for acquiring land to be inserted in the Local Government Bill. Second, freedom to speak and vote as we liked on questions of free schools. He boggled a good deal over this, and said it was very weakening to a Government; but I told him we could not honestly do less, and that I expected a large majority of Liberals were in favour of the proposal. We did not come to any positive conclusion, nor do I think that he has absolutely made up his mind, but the tone of the conversation implied that he was seeking to work with us, and had no idea of doing without us. At the close he spoke of his intention to give up the leadership soon after the new Parliament met. I protested, and said that if he did this our whole att.i.tude would be changed, and we must and should ask from Hartington much larger concessions than we were prepared to accept from him. I expect the force of circ.u.mstances will keep him in his place till the end, though I believe he is sincerely anxious to be free."" [Footnote: Mr. Gladstone"s account of this interview is to be found in Morley"s _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii., p. 224.]
On October 17th Chamberlain wrote "on another letter of Mr. Gladstone"s, which I do not possess:
""I do not think it is wise to do anything about Mr G."s letter on Ireland. I agree with your recollection of the matter. But Mr. G. is not far wrong, and we have our hands full of other things. The Irish business is not the first just now."
"About this time I was taken as arbitrator in a considerable number of disputed candidatures, in most of which I acted by myself, and in one, the Walworth case, with Chamberlain and John Morley."
"I had been to see Manning, at his wish, with my wife, and he had spoken kindly about Chamberlain, on which I wrote to Chamberlain about him; and Chamberlain replied:
""Our experience in the Irish Question has not been encouraging. We understood the Cardinal cordially to approve of my scheme of National Councils and to be ready to use his influence in any way to promote its acceptance. On our part we were prepared to press the question at any sacrifice, and to make the adoption of our scheme a condition of our membership of any future Government. And yet, when the time came to ask the Cardinal for his help, he refused categorically so small a matter as an introduction to the Irish Bishops, and, as I understood, on the ground that the Conservatives were in office. Would not the same influence prevail in the matter of education? Besides, I do not see what Cardinal Manning has to offer. The majority of English Catholics are Conservative, and no concession that it is in our power to make would secure their support for the Liberal party. I am therefore of opinion that the differences between us can only be decided by the const.i.tuencies."
"The Cardinal wrote concerning Chamberlain:
""Mr. Chamberlain was good enough to send me his scheme for Local Government in Ireland, in which in the main I agree, and did all in my power to promote its acceptance. The Government went out, and you asked of me to promote what I called a "Midlothian in Ireland,"
under the eyes of the new Lord Lieutenant. (I wrote on this to Chamberlain: "I answered this at the time and have done so again now.") Did Mr. Chamberlain understand my agreement with his scheme as carrying any consequences beyond that scheme or any solidarity in such an aggressive action against any party whatsoever in power?...
In the matter in which he was courteous enough to make known his scheme to me, I have promoted it where and in ways he does not know."
"In a day or two there came another letter from Manning:
""It is true you did disclaim a Midlothian; but I told you that I know my Irishmen too well, and believe that even Paul and Barnabas would have been carried away. Moreover, if you had been silent as fishes, the moral effect would have been a counter-move. Your humility does not admit this. So you must absolve me for my one word.""
Mr. Chamberlain commented in strong terms on the diplomatic methods of the great ecclesiastic. The "countermove" implied that there had been a Tory move in the direction of Home Rule with a view to securing Irish support. Manning believed, as Mr. Gladstone also believed, that the Tories meant business; later it became clear that they had no constructive Irish policy at all. Yet the question grew daily more pressing.
"At the end of October Chamberlain wrote:
""I had a note from Mr. G. this morning urging unity, and saying he had an instinct that Irish questions "might elbow out all others."
This makes me uneasy. I hear from another source that he is trying to get Parnell"s ideas in detail. It is no use.""
To Mr. Gladstone, Chamberlain wrote, on October 26th, that he could not see his way at all about Ireland. He emphasized his view that Ireland had better go altogether than the responsibilities of a nominal union be accepted, and that probably the majority of Liberals would not give more than English Local Government; and that, if possible, Irish and English Local Government should be dealt with together. Unless the principle of the acquisition of land by local authorities was accepted, neither he nor Dilke nor Morley, nor probably Lefevre, could join the Government.
The strife between Chamberlain and Hartington was maintained, and Mr.
Gladstone interposed by a letter to the Chief Whip, in which he advised the intervention of Lord Granville in view of "his great tact, prudence, and experience." On November 5th Mr. Chamberlain wrote to Sir Charles, enclosing Mr. Gladstone"s letter, and adding:
"Mr. G."s is the most definite proof I have had yet that he does not mean to quarrel with us. Lord Granville has just been here. He told me nothing about Ireland, but _I am convinced_ that Mr. Gladstone has been trying to make a treaty all to himself. It must fail."
No such treaty was made, and on the eve of the General Election of November, 1885, Parnell issued an instruction that the Irish in England should vote Tory.
"On Tuesday, November 24th, our poll took place in Chelsea, and on Wednesday, November 25th, the count, which showed that I was returned, although only by a small majority.... The Irish had voted for Whitmore, the Conservative candidate, my opponent, in consequence of the issue at the last moment of the bill, "Mr.
Parnell"s order--Vote for the Conservative, Mr. Whitmore. Irishmen, do your duty and obey your leader.""
"I had been summoned by Chamberlain, who desired a meeting of our party within the party, in a letter in which he said:
""It does not look as if the Tories would have the chance of doing much mischief; but I should much like them to be in for a couple of years before we try again, and then I should "go for the Church."""
Dilke notes that Chamberlain was persuaded to drop this line of attack, on which he had already embarked. Disestablishment of the Church of England had proved to be anything but a good election cry; the ransom doctrine had not brought in more votes than it lost; and the 366 certain Liberal seats with twenty-six doubtful ones which Mr. Schnadhorst counted up at the end of October were now an illusion of the past. The election was generally taken as a set-back to the extreme Radicals.
"On Sat.u.r.day, December 5th, we met at Highbury, and remained in council until Monday, December 7th. Mr. Gladstone, we were informed (that is Morley, Lefevre, and myself), had presented a Home Rule scheme to the Queen, who had shown it to Lord Salisbury, and Randolph Churchill had told Lady Dorothy Nevill, who had told Chamberlain, but no statement had been made by Mr. Gladstone to his former colleagues."
CHAPTER XLV
BEGINNING OF THE HOME RULE SPLIT
DECEMBER, 1885, TO FEBRUARY, 1886
After the meeting of Radicals, December 5th to 7th, at Highbury, Sir Charles went back to London.
"On Wednesday, December 9th, I spoke at the Central Poor Law Conference.... I carried the a.s.sembly, which was one of Poor Law Guardians, and therefore Conservative, along with me in the opinion that it was desirable to elect directly the whole of the new bodies in local government, instead of having either a special representation of Magistrates or any system of indirect election or choice of Aldermen."
He argued in the belief that the next session might still see a Tory Government in power. "If the Conservatives propose a Local Government Bill," he said at Chelsea, "it will be our Local Government Bill which they will propose." He notes: "They proposed two-thirds of it, and carried one-third, in 1888."
"At this moment, not knowing how far Mr. Gladstone was willing to go in the Home Rule direction, and that there was, therefore, any chance of his securing the real support of the Irish party, I was opposed to the attempt to turn out the Government and form a Liberal Administration resting on the support of a minority, and I spoke in that sense to my const.i.tuents. My view was that it would be disastrous to advanced Liberalism to form a Government resting on a minority, as it would be impossible to carry any legislation not of a Conservative type."
"Chamberlain wrote to me on December 15th, with regard to one of my speeches, that I was too polite to the Tories. "This," he added, "is where I never err."
"On December 18th I received some copies of important letters. Mr.
Gladstone"s scheme had got out on the 16th, [Footnote: Lord Morley"s _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii., pp. 264,265, shows that the "scheme got out" owing to Sir Charles Dilke"s speech to his const.i.tuents.
Mr. Herbert Gladstone came to town on the 14th partly in consequence of a speech "made a few days before by Sir Charles Dilke," and the talk it caused. The speech was "taken to mean" that the two Radical leaders preferred keeping the Tories in power "in the expectation that some moderate measures of reform might be got from them, and that meanwhile they would become committed with the Irishmen.
Tactics of this kind were equivalent to the exclusion of Mr.
Gladstone, for in every letter that he wrote he p.r.o.nounced the Irish Question urgent." Accordingly, on December 16th there came the unauthorized version of Mr. Gladstone"s scheme, given to the Press through his son.] and on the 17th he wrote to Lord Hartington a letter of which the latter sent me a long extract. [Footnote: The letter, which has been printed both by Lord Morley and by Mr.