As early as May, 1891, Dilke had made up his mind (and stated it in a letter to Count Herbert Bismarck) that the Liberal party would win the next election. The question of the Leadership was raised at the end of the session in a letter from Chamberlain:
"I am told that Mr. Gladstone is much shaken by his late illness, and I cannot see how he can ever lead the House again, though his name will always be a tower of strength in the const.i.tuencies."
But in December Mr. Chamberlain said that he did not think the prospects of a General Election were so good for Mr. Gladstone as they had been six months ago.
"James, dining at my house, had said a long time before this that the prospects of the Liberals might look rosy, but that they had not realized the extent to which the Liberal Unionists intended to spend their money upon Labour candidates;" and this danger "began to show itself more clearly about this time." On December 28th "I had an amusing letter from Cyril Flower:
""Surely for a real good muddle in political affairs, Welsh, Irish, Scotch, and English, there has never been a bigger, and what with Pamellites and anti-Parnellites (Christian and anti-Christian) Whigs, Labour candidates, Radicals, Tories, Jacobites, and Liberal Unionists, the next House will be as rum a kettle of fish as ever stewed since George III. The worst of it is, as the House gets more and more divided (like the French Chambers) into sets, it also becomes more and more incapable of getting through its business, and the littleness of the individual members becomes daily more apparent.""
The real difficulty for the Liberals was, however, the question of leadership; and Sir Charles wrote an article in the _Speaker_ [Footnote: September 5th, 1891.] in support of one of his few paradoxes--that Great Britain would be better off without a Second Chamber, but that, given a House of Lords, the Prime Minister should be a member of it. For this reason he urged that though, "when the moment has come for Mr. Gladstone to think that he has earned a change into the position of adviser from that of military chief, Sir William Harcourt will occupy the place he pleases to a.s.sume--he will be able to make himself Prime Minister if he chooses"--yet "the party would be strongest with Mr. Gladstone for adviser, Sir William Harcourt, as fighting chief, sharing the responsibility with the leader in the Lords more fully than he would if he were Prime Minister in the Lower House"; and he named Lord Spencer as possible Prime Minister, since Lord Rosebery should be Foreign Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister should not be the same man, "so heavy is the work of each of these two offices."
With the opening of 1892 Parliament entered on its sixth, and last, session, and "on April 1st I received a letter from Chamberlain, in which he said:
""My own firm conviction is that parties will be nearly divided, and if Mr. G. has a majority nothing will be done either in regard to Ireland or to social questions in Great Britain.
""I do not _expect_ the election till late in the autumn, and, judging from appearances, the Opposition are much divided and rather depressed in spirit. My prediction is that, unless the Gladstonians give up the idea of a separate Parliament (I do not say extended local government), they will not obtain power--though they may obtain office--for this generation.
""This is a bold prophecy for you, but it is my sincere opinion.""
Right essentially--for there was a very small Liberal majority--Mr.
Chamberlain was wrong on the point of date: the election came in July, 1892.
In the Forest proper, the local war-chant, "Yaller for iver, an" Blue in the river!" was shouted everywhere. But the const.i.tuency, "a microcosm of England, industrial and agricultural," as Sir Charles had called it, had districts where support of the "working man"s candidate" could only be whispered; where closed hands were furtively opened to show a marigold clasped in them; where perhaps, as a farmer"s trap drove by carrying voters to the poll, the voters, outwardly blue-ribboned, would open their coats a little and show where the yellow was pinned. Lady Dilke on polling-day took charge of these districts. Yellow flowers from every garden were heaped into her carriage as she pa.s.sed; and when votes came to be counted, more than one had been spoilt by too enthusiastic votaries who wrote across their paper, "For Lady Dilke." Her courage and devotion had touched the loyalty of the Forest people, and she received from them a tribute of genuine love. One who accompanied her tells of a later day when, after a terrible mine accident, Lady Dilke came down to visit the homes on which that blow had fallen. In one a young widow sat staring dry-eyed at the fire or turning tearless looks on the child that played near her. But when Lady Dilke entered, the woman rose from her chair, and, running to her visitor, put her arms about her neck, and as the two held each other, tears came at last.
Sir Charles Dilke was returned by a majority of two to one, and, he writes laconically, "in August was well received in the House of Commons."
In 1891 Sir Charles had expressed some surprise at hostile comment in the _Times_ and other important organs on his selection as candidate for the Forest of Dean, and Mr. Chamberlain told him candidly that opinion in society and in the House itself was hostile to his candidature, and that he must look forward to a "mauvais quart d"heure." But it was otherwise. After his election there appears to have been a general expectation that he would be silent, and keep out of the range of hostile criticism. As a fact, he fell directly into his old habit of raising every subject which interested him. Parliament met again on January 31st, 1893, and as soon as notice of questions could be given, Sir Charles was reviving interest in a subject familiar to him of old, by asking the new Liberal Government to issue papers which had been omitted from the official publications of France and Great Britain, but had been published in the Madagascar Red Book.
Amongst congratulations on his election came one from the Prime Minister at Antananarivo, rejoicing that the threatened freedom of Madagascar would again have his support, and transmitting the Red Book just named.
Within the first week of the session Sir Charles had questioned Government about the arbitration as to the Newfoundland fisheries; and concerning a vacancy in the Bombay command, with inquiry as to whether amalgamation of the Indian armies would be considered [Footnote: The amalgamation of the Indian armies was achieved by abolition, in 1894, of the separate military commands of the Presidencies.]--a change which he had long advocated. He also reappeared in a different field, but one familiar to him, by introducing a Bill to amend the system of voting in local elections. Then, on February 11th, while the Address to the Crown was still under discussion, he took part in a full-dress debate.
Mr. James Lowther, the leading Protectionist of days when Protection was not a fashionable creed, proposed an amendment seeking to restrict the immigration of dest.i.tute aliens; and he found a seconder in a trade- unionist, Mr. Havelock Wilson, who spoke for the seamen. After Mr.
Gladstone had argued strongly against the proposal, but had shown his perception of the widespread support which it received by expressing willingness to appoint a committee of inquiry, Sir Charles Dilke rose, and, claiming to speak for a small minority, opposed legislation and committee alike.
The force of his appeal to the House lay in the description which he gave of persecution directed against the Jews in Russia, coupled with citation of many previous instances in which England had afforded asylum, and had gained both advantage and respect by so doing. First- hand knowledge of Russian conditions and detailed mastery of the historical case were combined in what one of the more important speakers for the motion (Sir William Marriott) called a "magnificent speech"; and Sir Charles himself observes that it turned many votes. Mr. Mundella wrote to him after the debate: "I think it was the best I ever heard from you, and, moreover, was courageous and just."
Mr. Mundella was no doubt struck by the fact that a man coming in, as Sir Charles did, specially dependent on the support of organized Labour, had in his first speech combated the view of Labour interests which was put forward by trade-unionists. Sir Charles"s reply to the trade- unionists ran thus: If these aliens come to England, they very often join trade-unions, and so accept the higher standard; if they do not, the products of their work come in and compete even more disastrously.
From this there lay an argument against Free Trade, and this he characteristically admitted. Free Trade was only a balance of advantages, and Labour politicians, he pointed out, considered that the arguments against it were outweighed by countervailing considerations.
To exclude the immigrants and not to exclude the products of their labour would be inconsistent, and also it would lower the nation"s standard of humanity.
Early in the session he spoke again on the qualifications for membership of local elective bodies, and incidentally condemned the proposed Ministry of Labour as "a sham remedy." [Footnote: See "Labour," Chapter LII., pp. 347, 348.] Not to create new Ministries, but to reorganize and redistribute their work, was his policy, advocated repeatedly both in the House of Commons and from the chair of the Statistical Society. He spoke also on redistribution in this session, and these speeches were "successful in their business way. Thus I regained influence of a quiet sort."
"For the first time" (1893) "I dined at the Speaker"s third dinner, or "dinner of the discontented." The first dinner each year is to the Government, the second to the late Government, and the third to the Privy Councillors who were not of either of the others, and to a few other leading members. Little Northcote was on the Speaker"s left, parted only by the Speaker from Randolph. I was opposite, reflecting, whenever Jim Lowther would leave off slapping me on the back."
On January 29th, 1893, Sir Charles noted in his diary:
"There is a league between Harcourt and Labouchere against the Rosebery-Asquith combination. Labouchere showed me a letter from Harcourt: "h.e.l.l would be pleasant compared to the present situation.""
"On my return to the House of Commons," notes Sir Charles, "I found Chamberlain"s debating power marvellous, but, while his method has improved, it ... no longer carries the conviction of conviction with it, which, to me, is everything.
"Asquith is the only new man who is "any good"--a bold, strong man, of great intellectual power. Sir E. Grey is able, but terribly Whiggish. Hanbury has improved, and so has Harcourt. The others are where they were."
Mr. Asquith he had met for the first time in 1891, at Mr. Chamberlain"s house, and found him "much more intelligent than the ordinary run of politicians."
Dilke and Chamberlain, once closely united through a long period of public life, had now been working apart for more than seven years.
Strong minds, that in the collaboration of their earlier policy mutually influenced each other, had by a turn of personal fortune combining with a great political change followed divided destinies; and their evolution carried them far apart. They had met in private, had maintained the personal bond, [Footnote: "At this time I was searching for a secretary, and Chamberlain found me Hudson, who, as he said, "fulfils all your requirements."" The connection between the secretary and his chief ended only with Sir Charles"s death.] and in so meeting must inevitably have been prompted by a desire to minimize differences. But now they stood both again in the public arena--the one returning after the lapse of years, the other sustained by an unbroken continuance of Parliamentary activity--and the situation became difficult.
There were not many men who could work with Mr. Chamberlain in equal alliance. For that a man was needed, confident enough in his own weight not to fear being overbalanced in the combination; great enough in nature to be devoid of jealousy; and wise enough to understand that restless activity was the law of his ally"s being. Upon those conditions only was it possible for a cooler, more temperate, and, on some subjects, better instructed politician to steer the tremendous motive power which Mr. Chamberlain"s personal force afforded. What was lost to the world when the crippling of Sir Charles disjointed that alliance can never be reckoned. Not only the alliance, but the personal intimacy, was broken when their political ways sundered on the Home Rule division.
Friendship remained; but it was not possible that men of that mark, who had met incessantly in the closest confederacy, could meet easily when the very groundwork of their intimacy was gone.
Sir Charles worked hard for a Bill specially interesting now to his const.i.tuents.
On April 18th, 1893, "I wrote to Chamberlain and to Randolph Churchill as to the Miners Bill, as its authors had asked me to lay plans for the debate. From both I had replies favourable to local option, and on my writing again to Chamberlain he answered: "The sentence about the Labour leaders escaped me because I am, I confess, impatient of their extremely unpractical policy, and also because I believe their real influence is immensely exaggerated. A political leader having genuine sympathy with the working cla.s.ses and a practical programme could, in my opinion, afford to set them aside. Mr. Gladstone has no real sympathy with the working cla.s.ses, and a perfect hatred for all forms of Socialism. His concessions are extorted from him, and are the price paid for votes, and therefore I do not wonder at the pressure put upon him.""
In the first week in May, 1893, "I brought forward my Egypt motion, spoke for the Miners Bill, and carried a resolution, drawn for us by the Lord Chancellor himself, as to the appointment of the magistrates for counties. From this time forward I shall not name my speeches and ordinary action in the House, as I had now regained the position which I had held in it up to 1878, though not my position of 1878-1880, nor that of 1884-85."
No Parliament is exactly like its predecessor, and changed conditions had also changed the character of Sir Charles Dilke"s Parliamentary personal surroundings; but they were drawn now, as of old, from neither party exclusively. The group comprised several young supporters of the Government, like Mr. McKenna, who, having failed in Clapham, wrote to Sir Charles on July 7th, 1892, of his regret at not being near him in the House of Commons "to go on learning from you--I don"t mean information, but patience and judgment and steadfastness." Mr. McKenna had now been returned for South Monmouthshire, one of the const.i.tuencies which had been anxious to secure Sir Charles himself. Here Sir Charles had many devoted friends, who gave introductions to Mr. McKenna, which led to his adoption as candidate, and he wrote again to Sir Charles on his election: "I am glad to owe it to you." Old friends--as, for example, Mr. Morley--remained, and from the ranks of the Opposition at least one rarely interesting figure stands out, that of H. O.
Arnold-Forster, who with Mrs. Arnold-Forster came to rank among the nearest friends of Sir Charles and Lady Dilke. The political tie was here due to common advocacy of army reform, and it took shape in a kind of formal alliance.
"In November, 1893, in the debates on the Local Government Bill, I carried a good deal of weight, and was able greatly to improve the measure. I also in December made a speech in a naval debate which was as successful as my Zulu speech--with as little reason, except its opportuneness."
In the Home Rule portion of the session of 1893, Sir Charles was mostly silent, being, in his own words, inclined to "keep still" on the main issue. His only contributions to the long debates were made during the Committee stage, and concerned the electoral arrangements--a matter upon which Mr. Gladstone was quick to acknowledge his high competence. When at last, in 1894, the Bill reached the Lords, it was rejected; and then the foreseen change of leadership came to pa.s.s, and Lord Rosebery was "popped into Mr. Gladstone"s place by an intrigue." Sir Charles discussed in the _North American Review_ the result, which his Memoir describes thus. Admitting that the choice, which "came as a surprise to the Liberal party in the country," would strengthen the Government in Scotland and in London by Lord Rosebery"s personal prestige, he none the less foresaw that the new leader would come into conflict "with all that is active in the Liberal party," unless he could renounce "his personal wishes in favour of a reformed but a strong and indeed strengthened Second Chamber." His chance of success lay in putting himself as a peer at the head of a movement against the veto of the House of Lords. "The chance is before him, but he is a cautious Scotchman who seldom makes up his mind too soon, and who may possibly make it up too late."
Meanwhile "I was pressed to join Labouchere and Storey in opposing him, which I declined to do, on the ground that I was concerned with the measures proposed, but not with the men."
Speaking in the Potteries on November 22nd, "to a big audience which took it well," he "attacked Rosebery about the Lords."
"He would like to see Lord Rosebery in the popular House in which he had never sat, and he would like to see Lord Salisbury back again.
Their ideas would undergo a change. The reform of the Upper House was now not a Liberal but a Conservative nostrum.... It would be necessary for the Radicals to fight even against their Liberal leaders to prevent lengthening the life of the Parliamentary sick man.... The Liberal party was still hampered by men who wanted peerages for themselves and their sons, and he should not believe that the leaders were in earnest until the Liberal party gave over making peers. Moderate men must be warned by the example of what had recently happened in Belgium, where the moderate Liberals had been promptly suffocated between the two opposing forces of Toryism and Socialism, as they were too pretentious to submit to Tory discipline and too slavish to become frankly democratic."
CHAPTER L
INDIA AND FRANCE--RHODES AND BISMARCK
1886-1892
I.
In the period covered by the earlier portion of the previous chapter, Sir Charles Dilke had used his freedom as an opportunity for travel.
"During a visit to Paris, in the winter of 1886, paid in order to discuss the question of the work which ultimately appeared in France as _L"Europe en 1887_, I saw a good deal of Castelar, who was visiting Paris at the same time; and it was to us that he made a speech, which has become famous, about Boulanger, who was beginning to attract great notice, declaring in French, "I know that General Boulanger--he is a Spanish General;" meaning that the Spanish habit of the military insurrection under the leadership of a showy General was extending to France. [Footnote: In 1889 Sir Charles notes: "My wife and I were asked to dinner to meet General Boulanger; and I decided that I would not go, neither did she."]
"Chamberlain, during his journey abroad, had seen a good deal of Sir William White, the Amba.s.sador at Constantinople, who wrote to me about him: "We became friends, and spoke naturally of you, our mutual friend. I could not help seeing Chamberlain"s immense quickness of observation and talents. In foreign politics he appeared to me to be beginning his ABC, but disposed to learn...."
The Amba.s.sador went on to say that the intimacy between France and Russia was coming to the front at Constantinople, and that Bismarck"s Amba.s.sador did not seem to take umbrage at it.