"It is too much the case with us in England," he wrote, "that when we are occupied with the consideration of the Irish problem, or dealing with the circ.u.mstances which most often lead to the rise and fall of Ministries, we allow the foreign affairs of the country to be transacted in the dark: with an absence of control which, owing to the efficiency of our Foreign Office, may produce no ill, but also with an absence of knowledge which cannot be advantageous. On the other hand, when some awkward circ.u.mstance arises, a disproportionate weight is attached to it by those who have wilfully remained in ignorance of the true position, and the diplomacy of the country is suddenly unduly hampered by criticism which rests on no foundation of fact."
Speaking from experience, he uttered a warning as to the danger of uninstructed debates and foolish questions--then so frequent--on foreign affairs in the House of Commons, and the harm done by them abroad. He spoke of the tendency to take advantage of some rebuff in foreign affairs for party motives, and urged that, as secrecy was not to be hoped for, members should at least try to inform themselves and the electorate, and avoid "periods of ignorant calm" or "equally ignorant panic." In this connection he never ceased to insist on the weakness of our position abroad, owing to the deficient strength and want of organization of our army; the small results shown for the immense amount spent; the insufficient stock of arms and ammunition, and the poor reserves of rifles; and he urged that, whatever our economies, none should fall upon equipment or reserves of material. Such economies he stigmatized as a "horrible treachery to the interests of the country."
[Footnote: The military situation as a whole is discussed in chapter vi.
of _The Present Position of European Politics_, "The United Kingdom."]
CHAPTER XLIX
PUBLIC LIFE AND RETURN TO PARLIAMENT
1886-1894
Pathways of return to political life soon began to open to Sir Charles Dilke. In November, 1886, Mr. Labouchere wrote:
"It looks as though Chamberlain will be the scapegoat. At present his going over bag and baggage to the Whigs has utterly disgusted the Radicals. As long as Gladstone lives things will go on fairly with us, but after--the deluge. The Radical M.P."s are regretting your not being in, as they would have accepted you as the leader."
In the autumn of 1886 the Council of the Chelsea Liberal a.s.sociation unanimously asked him to be their candidate (for Parliament), but he replied that he could not serve the borough to his own satisfaction while so large a section of the public still attached weight to the "gross calumnies" with which he had been a.s.sailed. He was, however, from the autumn of 1887, increasingly active in local affairs, both on the Vestry and the Board of Guardians, [Footnote: In the winter of 1888, Sir Charles was unanimously elected Chairman of the Board of Guardians, as also of the Vestry ("as was the case in subsequent years"). He wrote to Mr. Chamberlain: "I"ve taken the chairmanship of the Chelsea Board of Guardians, so am keeping my hand in on the prevention of obstruction. I am forced to begin gradually with them, and have only as yet ruled that I cannot _let two speak at once_."] and also on the newly formed Library Committee, on which he served for three years, till both the local libraries were established and opened.
To M. Joseph Reinach he wrote in April, 1887: "I have a splendid position as a writer, and writing projects which will occupy me for three years at least; and if any great calamity should occur which would force me back into public life--such as war with Russia, for example--I do not know that I should like the change." Nor was the political scene attractive at this moment. His friends were tearing each other asunder; and not only his political friends--both parties were rent with faction.
"On October 1st, 1886, Chamberlain called and gave me an interesting picture of the political state. He seemed to think that he could keep Mr. Gladstone out for life, and was persuaded that Randolph would give him all he wanted and leave Hartington and Salisbury in the lurch. Randolph had promised him to have an anti-Jingo foreign policy, leaving Turkey to her fate, and to pacify Ireland with the National Councils scheme, modified into two Councils, or into Provincial Councils, to suit Ulster; and Churchill had also promised him procedure reform--that is, a sharper closure--and a three-acres- and-a-cow policy for England.
"There was an article in the _Morning Post_, October 2nd, representing Churchill"s democratic views, but in the later autumn (while Chamberlain was away abroad) Churchill was beaten in the Cabinet both on his Irish scheme and also on the amendments which he proposed to make in the Local Government (England) Bill in the three-acres-and-a-cow direction. On December 17th Chamberlain, who had returned from abroad, came to lunch with me, furious at the defeat of Randolph Churchill. He found no fault with the Irish policy" (which was strongly coercionist), "or with the foreign policy of the Cabinet; but he was anxious to defeat them on their Local Government (England) Bill, if it was not altered back again to suit his policy. Ultimately a compromise on this matter was arranged."
For a moment it seemed as if Chamberlain"s anger with the Tory party was going to drive him back into his old a.s.sociations. On December 31st,
"Chamberlain and John Morley came in together to lunch, Chamberlain having been asked and Morley not, and it was somewhat startling.
"Chamberlain thinks that he can get Mr. Gladstone by the bait of "Four times Prime Minister" to accept his terms. On the other hand, Mr. Gladstone thinks that he can detach Chamberlain from Hartington.
Conferences are sitting: Harcourt, Hersch.e.l.l, and Morley, meeting Chamberlain and Trevelyan. Hartington is crusty at this. Chamberlain has threatened Hartington with the consequences if he, as he wants to, supports a reactionary Local Government Bill of Salisbury"s.
Chamberlain has written to Salisbury as to this Local Government Bill, and received a dilatory reply." He told me the whole long history of Randolph"s troubles with the Cabinet which preceded his resignation; first on procedure, as to which he finally obtained his own way, secondly as to foreign affairs, thirdly as to allotments, fourthly as to Local Government, and fifthly as to finance.
Churchill always stood absolutely alone, and, being in a minority of one, could only get his way at all by continually tendering his resignation. At last he resigned once too often, as it was of course on the wrong subject; Salisbury jumped at it, and accepted it in a cool letter when Churchill did not mean it in the least. It was only the cla.s.sical annual resignation of a Chancellor of the Exchequer against his colleagues of the army and navy. The Budget always involves the resignation either of the Secretary of State for War and First Lord of the Admiralty, or else of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but hitherto they have always managed to make it up."
Within a fortnight Sir Charles "was hearing from all sides about the Round Table Conferences which were intended to reunite the Liberal party.... From Chamberlain I heard that his view was to bring about a _modus vivendi_ only, under which the Conservative Government was to be turned out on some side-issue. Mr. Gladstone would become Prime Minister for the fourth time, if the Irish would consent to take Local Government and a Land Bill first, and to leave Home Rule over. He thought that Mr.
Gladstone was not unwilling, but that there would be difficulty in getting the Irish to consent. Morley and Harcourt were, according to Chamberlain, friendly to his suggestions, and Hartington hostile, not trusting Mr. Gladstone."
On January 15th, 1887, Sir Charles wrote to Mr. Chesson [Footnote: See note, p. 273.] that
"Chamberlain and Morley were both going to make conciliatory speeches, but that nothing had really been done at Harcourt"s house, every difficulty having been "reserved." There could be no doubt that several of the five who were there meeting were anxious to keep things open, on the chance of Mr. Gladstone not remaining in sufficiently good health to continue to lead the party. The independent Liberals were vexed at the Conferences. w.i.l.l.y Bright called on me, and said that obviously the great difficulty of the moment was "to keep Mr. Gladstone in the Gladstonian party." Morley, who also called on me, casually observed, "Harcourt was never a Home Ruler. The only Home Rulers in the last Cabinet were Lord Granville and Spencer, in addition to myself and Mr. Gladstone." When we remember the views of Spencer in May, 1885, his violent Home Rule, which dates from July, 1885, is laughable."
"On the 15th I had a long and curious conversation with Chamberlain about the matter. He said that the articles which had been appearing in the _Birmingham Post_ about his own position were inspired by him--that he and the other members of the Conference were telling the newspapers that everything was going on swimmingly, but that the whole thing was in reality a sham on both sides. Parnell was frightened at Mr. Gladstone"s declining health, and Mr. Gladstone did not wish to end his life by having smashed his party, so that the Conference was willingly continued, although it was doing nothing. It was the wish of all concerned in it to be at the point of an apparent reconciliation whenever Mr. Gladstone might become incapacitated, but he, Chamberlain, was firmly decided not to take office under Mr. Gladstone.
"Chamberlain said that Randolph Churchill on the previous night had asked him, "Shall I come over?" but that he, Chamberlain, had replied that he advised him not to, being afraid that Randolph would play for the lead of the party, and not liking the notion of having him for leader. He had advised Randolph to simulate moderation towards Lord Salisbury, in spite of his anger at the Duke of Norfolk and the members of the Conservative party who, since his quarrel with the Government, had been "attacking his private character.""
"On February 4th, 1887, Chamberlain again came to see me, and I noted in my diary that he was "very sore against Labouchere and others."
"On February 13th, Morley called and said that the Round Table Conference was hopeless, although they were to meet at dinner on the 14th, and once again after that. He said, "Both sides are very cross, and each side asks, "What is to become of the other?""
"On the same day Chance, M.P., told me, he being the attorney of the Nationalist party, that O"Shea was going forward with his divorce case against Parnell, and that Parnell had no defence possible. I have never known what was the reason of the immense delays which afterwards occurred."
Parties now began to settle into their new groupings.
"On March 2nd, 1887, Chamberlain came to lunch, and told me a good deal about the failure of the Round Table Conference, but it was not till April 3rd that he told me the whole story. On this latter day Deakin, the Chief Secretary of Victoria, and most interesting of Colonists, was with me; and Chamberlain came in before Deakin had gone, and, talking with his customary frankness, discussed the whole matter before the astonished Victorian. There had been a sad split caused by a letter which he had written, and which he admitted was an indiscreet one, to the _Baptist_, as to Welsh Disestablishment. A hint was then let fall that the Gladstonians were going to negotiate with Hartington direct. On this Chamberlain went off to Hartington and got from him a letter to say that Hartington would not negotiate himself, but that Chamberlain was in possession of his views.
Efforts were then made to get Chamberlain to meet Mr. Gladstone.
Chamberlain agreed to do so, but not to ask for the meeting. At length a meeting was fixed at Mr. Gladstone"s request for the morrow, Monday, April 4th. It was settled that at this Mr. Gladstone would ask what Chamberlain had to propose. Chamberlain was going to reply that Mr. Gladstone knew his views, and to then ask whether they were accepted, and he knew perfectly that nothing would come of it. He had on the same day, April 3rd, met Randolph at Mrs. Jeune"s at lunch. They had walked away together, when Randolph had proposed a Chamberlain-Hartington-Randolph league against both parties. This had tempted Chamberlain, but was an idle suggestion, as Hartington and Randolph could never work together."
In the autumn of 1887 Sir Charles and Lady Dilke went to Constantinople, and he writes:
"I had received at this time a letter from James, in which he said that Mr. Gladstone had sent for him to talk to him about me in the friendliest way, and, Mr. Gladstone having called, I wrote to him, and transmitted some messages from the Sultan, in the following letter:
"Athens, "_October 14th_.
""I have never thanked you except verbally through James for a kind and pleasant message which I had from you by James and Chamberlain last session.
""At Constantinople last Friday, and again to Lady Dilke last Monday, the Sultan said that he wished complimentary messages conveyed to you. The Greek Patriarch said the same thing to us on Tuesday and Wednesday. My wife told both that she hardly knew you, and I replied that I was unlikely to see you for some time, but would see that the messages reached you.
""The Greeks on the one hand, and the Bulgarians on the other, are now very friendly with the Sultan, but I regret to find that the dislike between the Greeks and the Bulgarians is as strong as ever.
The common preference of both for the Sultan over Russia has not sufficed to draw them together. The split between the Bulgarian Government and the Exarch of Bulgaria will, however, probably draw Bulgaria closer to the Phanar.""
Mr. Gladstone replied, on October 24th, that his message to Sir Charles expressed his real feeling, which he should have been glad to find other modes of expressing. He added that if the Sultan spoke sincerely in the message which Sir Charles transmitted,
"he must be acting as a good Christian: for Hobart Pasha when here, as a spy on Fehmi, told me the Sultan believed I was his greatest enemy. I have never been so great an enemy to him as he to himself.
I have never had extreme views about Turkey. Had I the settling of the affair, I should be disposed to keep the Turks in Constantinople, and not to let Home Rule when freely and honestly given mean total severance. But the materials of convulsion are, I fear, slowly gathering in that quarter, and Russia, shut out from her just claim to the pa.s.sage of the Straits, means to have the mastery of them. I always grieve over the feud of h.e.l.lene and Slav, out of which much mischief may come. The situation here is favourable to those who view the Irish Question as you do. The relations with Chamberlain have been rather painful. I think he has developed since the schism of March, 1886, even greater speaking and debating talents than he had shown before. I think also that the organization of dissentient Liberalism, in which he has borne so large a part, has been enormously favourable to his general creed as an advanced Radical, whereas Hartington with his weak-kneed men has been utterly hoodwinked, and hoodwinked by himself. On the other hand, I own myself amazed at Chamberlain"s proceedings during the last month. Everyone took a favourable view of his accepting the American mission; [Footnote: Mr. Chamberlain was corresponding with Sir Charles in regard to his mission, for which he started on October 29th, 1887. It had for its object the negotiation of a treaty with America on several outstanding questions.] but a man of one-tenth of his talent ought to have seen the folly of widening breaches and exasperating all pa.s.sions as a preliminary to charging himself with a business that eminently requires a serene atmosphere.
"We witnessed at Nottingham an enthusiasm literally the greatest I have ever seen."
"On my return to England before the middle of November, 1887, I received a letter from the Cinderford Liberal a.s.sociation, in the Forest of Dean, in which they referred to an attempt which had been made to induce me to stand for the Forest of Dean when Blake retired in July, 1887, and went on to press me to go there to speak....
After the completion of the army articles and of the book, I intended to set to work on a new version of my _Greater Britain_.
This afterwards became the book published under the t.i.tle of _Problems of Greater Britain_."
On October 28th, 1887, "Chamberlain wrote ... "Mr. Gladstone"s last speech shows distinct signs of old age. I think matters cannot long remain in their present state, and the whole policy of England--both foreign and domestic--may be greatly altered.""
On reaching Washington, Chamberlain wrote: "I do not find the "civilized world" so much pro-Irish as Mr. Gladstone would have us believe. On the contrary, I have as yet only met two Americans who have expressed themselves favourable to Mr. Gladstone"s policy. They are, generally speaking, inclined to some concession in the direction of State rights, but they are entirely opposed to anything in the nature of a self- governing colony, and they have no personal liking for the Irish. Above all, they are horrified at Mr. Gladstone"s recent utterances about law and order, and say openly that he must have lost his head."
"On January 4th, 1888, I made a speech in which I laid down my position as regarded Parliamentary candidature. It was made in presiding at the first dinner of the Hammersmith Central Liberal Club. About the same time I received requests to stand as candidate for Merthyr and for the northern division of the borough of West Ham, which I declined, pointing to my Hammersmith speech without giving further reasons."
"About this time, my son being now at Rugby, we went down to see him and lunched with the Percivals."
In the new session of 1888 Mr. Ritchie introduced his Local Government Bill, which (as Sir Charles had predicted to the Chelsea electors in 1885) was much influenced by the Liberal scheme that lay accessible in an official pigeonhole. The outline given by the new President of the Local Government Board in introducing the measure showed, however, that it fell short of expectation, and Sir Charles immediately criticized the project in an evening paper without waiting for publication of the text.
When the Bill was published, he issued notes upon it, in concert with Mr. Cobb, M.P. for the Rugby Division, condemning the absence of any attempt to "reform and revivify the parish."
"My main objection to Mr. Ritchie"s scheme was that, whereas in my scheme the District Councils had been more highly organized than the County Councils, in his scheme the reverse was the case. [Footnote: The allusion is here, apparently, to the Bill which Mr. Chamberlain prepared in 1886, but with considerable help from Sir Charles.]
There was no building up out of the smaller districts, giving the work as far as possible to the smallest, where the people were at their homes; but Mr. Ritchie"s unit was the county, and the smaller bodies were neglected.
"The Liberal leaders took a short-sighted course in recommending their friends to allow the Bill to pa.s.s almost without discussion."
[Footnote: In 1892 he again notes his intervention on this question.
"On November 9th, 1892, I had a long interview at the Local Government Board with Henry Fowler, the President, at his request, before I went down to the Chelsea Board of Guardians for the last time. He consulted me as to all his Bills, especially as to that on Local Government."]