Two other questions of abiding interest were touched on by Sir Charles this year. That of Upper Houses is mentioned in connection with interviews with Sir Graham Berry, one of his Colonial acquaintances.
'Mr. (afterwards Sir) Graham Berry, Prime Minister, or, as they call it in the Colonies, "Premier" of Victoria; a rough, able man, son of a Chelsea tradesman…. We arranged a reception, which was given to Berry by the parish of Chelsea at the Chelsea Vestry Hall, myself in the chair, when we presented him with an address expressing the hope that the Victoria Lower House might prevail in its struggle against the Upper. Professor Pearson, formerly of Oxford—a Free Trader, though Mr. Berry was a Protectionist—was with him, and they were over to try to persuade the Colonial Office to support them against the Upper House.'
'Sir Graham Berry was afterwards the Agent-General of his Colony, but still possessed the confidence of the Liberal party in Victoria in a higher degree than any other man, and he afterwards returned to local politics and became Speaker. Pearson wrote a great book before he died.'
Sir Graham Berry wrote later in this year 'for opinions upon a Bill of reform of the Upper House in his Parliament,' to which Sir Charles replied 'that I disliked Upper Houses so much as not to be in favour of reforming them.'
This attitude he always maintained. His views upon the whole question of representation were this year put into a pamphlet which
'advocated, in addition to the reforms upon which Liberals were agreed, the system of double elections, as on the Continent—that is to say, a second poll to be held when at the first the person at the head of the poll did not obtain a clear majority of votes.'
The other question takes the first place in Sir Charles's note of his conversations with Chamberlain at the beginning of the Session. This touched on economic difficulties, and runs thus:
"That it would be wise to have a motion on the condition of the realm: probably by moving for a Committee to inquire into the cause of the present distress, and that Mundella would be the best person to move, especially if the Front Bench would support him, as the distress is most severe in Sheffield."
Some years, however, elapsed before Sir Charles was able to deal with such questions authoritatively as President of the Local Government Board.
We can trace at this time the beginning of those close relations which Dilke and Chamberlain cultivated (even after they had joined Mr. Gladstone's Government) with the new power that was growing up in Parliament. On February 15th, 'we were anxious that the Irish should vote with us about the Zulu War, the more so because her leaders were hesitating upon the subject,' and Sir Charles invited Mr. Parnell to meet Mr. Chamberlain at dinner; but they 'were able to make but little of him.' Further meetings took place, from which the only practical result was a promise of Parnell's support in their opposition to the County Boards Bill, which the Conservative Government were putting forward as their main measure. The ground of opposition was that 'it was better to leave the present system alone than to create new Boards only half elective.'
The Memoir has a note respecting one of these meetings with the Irish leader at which Parnell was accompanied by Major Nolan, then member for County Galway:
'Nolan showed opportunist Nationalism; Parnell irreconcilable Nationalism. The latter let out, in spite of his great caution, that if we chose to go to Ireland on Mill's land programme, we could destroy his position and the Home Rule movement. Nolan said that a party which would give security of tenure to the small tenants could afford to leave the large ones out. (To touch the large tenancies in that sense would be virtually to charge the possession of property in Ireland with partial compensation.)'
At this moment, the beginning of 1879, the purely Nationalist agitation for self-government had not yet been joined to the demand for an improved and freer status for the Irish tenant. This was mainly the work of Davitt, and Davitt had scarcely yet been heard of by the wider public.
CHAPTER XIX
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS
Hospitable and popular, Sir Charles had the best of what those days could offer in talk and talkers. He compared his own country very unfavourably with the possible standard of social intercourse:
'In England and in France people seem wholly unaware that they cannot either in politics or in literature deal with or even understand questions involving philosophical and historical considerations without any training in either philosophy or history, and one sees writings and speeches by persons who think themselves members of an educated class which are unintelligible to any who have the slightest discipline of either habit of thought or form of expression.'
'In the best English political and literary society there is no conversation. Mr. Gladstone will talk with much charm about matters that he does not understand, or books that he is not really competent to criticize; but his conversation has no merit to those who are acquainted with the subjects on which he speaks. Men like Lord Rosslyn, [Footnote: Lord Rosslyn died in 1890.] Lord Houghton, Lord Granville (before his deafness), had a pleasant wit and some cultivation, as had Bromley Davenport, Beresford Hope, and others, as well as Arthur Balfour, but none of these men were or are at a high level; and where you get the high level in England, you fall into priggism. On the whole, Hastings, Duke of Bedford, was the best specimen that I ever knew of an English gentleman as regards learning and conversation; but then he was horrible as a man, in spite of his pretty manners, because ferocious in his ideas upon property. Now, at Rome is to be found that which is unknown in London, in Paris, in St. Petersburg, and unknown, I fancy, at Vienna and Berlin, although of these I know far less—namely, conversation not priggish or academic, and yet consistently maintained at a high level.
'I often heard Mr. Gladstone talk well at little Charles Forster's. "Mr. G." also seemed to me to talk especially well at the table of Sir Walter James, [Footnote: The first Lord Northbourne.] an old gentleman who had left Parliament soon after I was born. In those two houses he was supreme; but if Coleridge or the Viper (Abraham Hayward) or Browning were present, who talked better than he did, and would not give way to him, he was less good. Villiers, who was another good talker, "Mr. G." could not abide, and his presence also was a damper.'
In the next year we have 'a dinner at the French Embassy, where Gladstone was very agreeable, talking French well in an old-fashioned style.'
Also, in 1880, there is a dinner to which
'the first man to come was the Duke of Cambridge, who gave Mr. Gladstone his left hand, and said that his right was too painful through gout. Mr. Gladstone threw his arms up to the sky, as though he had just heard of the reception of Lord Beaconsfield in heaven, or of some other similar terrible news. His habit of play-acting in this fashion, in the interest of a supposed politeness, is a very odd one, giving a great air of unreality to everything he does; but of course it is a habit of long years.
'I heard good talk about this time at Coleridge's house, but preferred
his Blakes—which were even better than mine—to his conversation.'
Under the date February 23rd is record of sitting up late at night at the
Lubbocks' with Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, the Judge:
'We did not agree upon any point, for his opinions upon all things, especially hanging, were the exact opposite of my own. He talked of "our dear old British gallows." But we got on well, and I was one of those who greatly regretted his breakdown, which occurred some ten years later. He and Leslie Stephen were the sons of Sir James Stephen, Professor of History at Cambridge—very unlike one another in early life, when J. F. Stephen was a fat, half-Whig, half-Tory lawyer and Saturday Reviewer, and Leslie a starved-looking, free-thinking Radical parson, afterwards to throw off his Orders. As they grew old they became much alike in appearance, and in opinion.'
There is a note of spending a Sunday in March 'at Aston Clinton, with the widow of Sir Anthony de Rothschild and her daughter, Mrs. Cyril Flower, afterwards Lady Battersea.
'Sir Nathaniel de Rothschild and his wife came to dinner, and, well knowing as I did two other members of the family, I could see how strangely like a Royal family the Rothschilds are in one respect— namely, that they all quarrel with one another, but are united as against the world. When Cyril Flower, in 1878, made a speech unfriendly to the Government, but not more so than might naturally be expected at that time from a Liberal member, Baron Lionel sent for him, and told him that it was "wicked and abominable for him to attack a man who had been a poor Jew and was now the greatest man in England." "In Europe, papa," cut in Nathaniel, who was present at this public cursing.
'From March 15th to the 17th I stayed at York House with the Grant Duffs, where I met the Marquis and Marquise de la Ferronnays, Henry Cowper, Minto, Lord Reay, and Herbert Spencer. La Ferronnays was at this time Military Attaché at the French Embassy, but resigned as soon as the Republic became consolidated, and, being elected to the Chamber, was soon the fighting leader of the high Tory party—a not clever, but excellent gentleman, like the others.
'On Monday, March 31st, I dined at the Harcourts', but, alas I this time no Schouvalof. His place was occupied by Rancez, the Spanish Minister, who had the same diplomatic capacity for concealing the truth while talking with equal apparent frankness, but who was less amusing.
'On Monday, April 7th, I dined with Lord and Lady Arthur Russell, to meet old Lady Russell. I had seen her once before at Pembroke Lodge, and once at Harcourt's at dinner, on both of which previous occasions I had seen Lord Russell too—a shadow of his former self…. On this occasion Lady Russell was alone, Lord Russell having died in the previous year. [Footnote: In 1878.] The old lady was pleasant, and gave me a general invitation to come to Pembroke Lodge any or every Sunday, an invitation of which I afterwards availed myself.
'On April 9th I left for France for Easter, and had long and pleasant breakfasts at the Palais Bourbon with Gambetta, varied by a grand dinner on April 16th, at which I met many of those who afterwards held office—Ferry, afterwards Prime Minister; Rouvier, afterwards Prime Minister; Spuller, afterwards Minister for Foreign Affairs; Constans, afterwards Minister of the Interior; and Freycinet, afterwards Prime Minister—all of them dull men enough. Spuller, a kindly and pleasant dull man; Constans, a red-faced Burgundy drinker; Freycinet, a little white intriguer—on the whole a sorry crew, Gambetta towering above them in ability, in joviality, and even in reading.'
In a scrap of an old letter, dated Wednesday, April 16th, Sir Charles says:
"I've spent nearly all my time with Gambetta. He said that he thinks
Sella 'le premier homme politique de l'Italie, mais enragé
protectionniste.' He says he told him that if he were not so violent a
Protectionist he would be 'l'homme absolument nécessaire.'"
On this follows later the observation:
'If Gambetta was anything, he was anti-Russian and a Free Trader, and his friends, professing to continue his work, became, after about 1887, rabid Russians and fierce Protectionists.'
He speaks of Gambetta's 'contempt for Sella because Sella was a
Protectionist,' and adds: 'I suppose Gambetta would have become one
had he lived.'
While Dilke was in Paris he received a letter from Chamberlain referring to a motion about 'the interference of the Crown in politics,' of which Mr. Dillwyn had given notice. Mr. Chamberlain thought the subject "certainly a popular one, but very difficult to treat in the House of Commons."
'Dillwyn's motion was obviously what people would call "interesting," but obviously also highly dangerous, as it was really impossible to prove the case. The Queen does interfere constantly; more, however, when Liberal Ministers are in power than when she has a Conservative Cabinet, because the Conservatives on the whole do what she likes, as she is a Conservative; whereas the Liberals are continually doing, and indeed exist for the purpose of doing, the things she does not like. But it is very doubtful how far her interference is unconstitutional, and it would be quite impossible to prove it, unless Mr. Gladstone, for example, were to publish her letters—a not very likely supposition. The Queen is a woman of great ability…. She writes to the Prime Minister about everything she does not like, which, when he is a Liberal, means almost everything that he says or does. She complains of his colleagues' speeches. She complains, with less violence, of his own. She protests against Bills. She insists that administrative acts should not be done without delay, for the purpose of consulting with regard to them persons whose opinions she knows will be unfavourable. But if the Minister acts as she directs, he, and not she, becomes responsible; and he may be impeached, for example, for so doing. And… her action, to my mind, is, strictly speaking, constitutional. Even in the House of Commons, and in a speech taking a rough popular view of the Constitution, it would be difficult to maintain that with her immense experience the Queen is not justified in asking for time in order that men of distinction should be consulted upon various acts; and anything beyond this would be mere matter of inference, not proving the case even if the facts were known, which of course they are not. Our poor Dillwyn on this occasion, prompted by Trevelyan, walked into a hornets' nest; and, as he did it without consulting his two leaders, his leaders were not bound to follow him.'
'On March 21st I dined with Sir Baliol and Lady Bret, meeting the German Ambassador (Count Münster) and his daughter, and Lord and Lady Derby. She was not at all bitter about Lord Beaconsfield, although very bitter about the Court; and after dinner Lord Derby said that the Queen was now carrying on a confidential correspondence with every quarter of the globe, so that he was evidently bitter too….
'On April 22nd I received from Auberon Herbert a letter: "Things look well. The gilding is much tarnished, and shows the brass underneath. You have done right well. Many thanks for your letter. I went to Leeds—on the chance but I suspect I am best out of the House. I can do more to make people believe in themselves, and not in our Moslem idea of government—perhaps—outside the House than in it. You do agree in the fearfully paralyzing effect of belief in Government, don't you?" The last words reveal the growth in Auberon Herbert of anarchic views, which shortly afterwards turned him for all practical purposes from a Radical into a Tory, or, rather, turned him back to the point from which he had started, for as a Tory private secretary to a Tory Cabinet Minister he had begun political life at the time when he drew up the plan for the action of the troops against the mob on the day of the Hyde Park railings being torn down—a plan so drastic that the Home Secretary, Walpole, refused to move.
'On Wednesday, April 23rd, I dined with Waddy, M.P., Q.C., [Footnote: Afterwards County Court Judge.] a man who would have been a Judge but for his odd name and his odder manners, "to meet Lord Hartington and the President of the Wesleyan Conference," an odd mixture. Waddy is a Wesleyan, and wanted Hartington to make the acquaintance of the leading Wesleyans in England, and took this course to bring about the result.
'My Sundays at this time I had taken to spend at Pembroke Lodge, preferring it to Strawberry Hill as quieter, for we often had there (besides Lady Russell) only Lady Agatha and Rollo Russell, and little Lord Russell when he was home for the holidays from Winchester.
'On Monday, April 28th, I had an interview with the Duke of Argyll at his wish with regard to the Eastern Question generally, in which he took deep interest, and on which he made, perhaps, on the whole, the most conclusive speech delivered in Parliament against the policy of the Conservative Government. The Duke of Argyll was at this time the most finished and (for a stately occasion and a cultivated audience) about the most convincing speaker that could be found—to me, not so convincing as Gathorne Hardy, and, to all men, less gifted with charm and melody of voice than Mr. Bright; but fine in the extreme, with no serious drawbacks except a little too much satisfaction with himself; a very able man, as his monumental book upon the Eastern Question will suffice to show. In philosophy he dabbled, and for dabblers was a philosopher.
'On Friday, May 9th, I lunched with Lord and Lady Lansdowne, and found her one of the nicest women that I had ever met—a plain and simple lady. In the evening I dined with Lady Elizabeth Biddulph, and made the acquaintance of Herbert of the Colonial Office, whom I afterwards heard described by Grant Duff in a public speech as "the perfect permanent official." I had later, when Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to act twice for a short time during changes in the Colonial Office as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonial Office, in addition to my own duties, and I was able to discover for myself how true was what Grant Duff said. On one of these occasions Hicks Beach, who had been Colonial Secretary, gave notice to call attention to salaries of officers on the West Coast of Africa, and I at once sent over to the Colonial Office to tell Herbert that he had done so. Herbert immediately replied that the salaries were low, and the coast unhealthy, and that salaries could hardly be reduced; while, on the other hand, when Sir Michael had been Secretary of State, he had not proposed to raise them; but that so soon as we could learn which it was that he intended—i.e., to lower or to raise—he would send me, "in either event, a perfect case."
'On May 10th George Sheffield, the alter ego of Lord Lyons, asked himself to breakfast, and I gathered that Lord Lyons had told him to come and pump me as to what Gambetta had indicated of his intentions in France, as George Sheffield kept telling me that Gambetta evidently intended to make himself Dictator in name, as he was in fact.
'On Sunday, May 11th, I dined with Edmund Yates and his wife, meeting Irving, Browning, Sala, Mrs. Lynn Linton (just back from three years in Florence), Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Murray, and some others. I was intensely amused at watching Mrs. Douglas Murray, agreeable but rather superfine, looking at the Bardolphian nose of "George Augustus," who took her in to dinner, and of whom she had evidently never heard, and wondering what manner of wild man he could be.
'On May 17th, after the Greek Committee, I dined with the Lyulph Stanleys…. Chamberlain took Lord Airlie, whom he had never previously met, for Sir George Campbell, and addressed him in a friendly but disrespectful manner, whereupon Lord Airlie promptly and publicly said: "It is all right. You take me for Sir George Campbell. I am used to it; "for they were extraordinarily alike. [Footnote: Mr. Gladstone once made exactly the same mistake at a great public meeting in Scotland in 1879.] In fact, Lord Airlie used to wear his ribbon oftener than other people chiefly because Campbell had not got one, so that it formed a distinction, but not a sufficient one, for members of the House sometimes said to me at parties, "What is that ribbon that Campbell is wearing?" It must have been a relief to Sir George Campbell when Lord Airlie died; but it would have been a greater relief to Lord Airlie had Campbell died first.
'The next day I spent at Lubbock's…. Fitzmaurice, Fawcett, and I went for a walk to the oak under which Wilberforce decided to abolish slavery, and, strolling on, came to a stile, where we were doubtful of our way. Fawcett sat down, and Fitzmaurice, looking for the road, cried out: "Here comes a clod. We will ask him." The slouching labourer was Lord Derby, as we recognized with a loud laugh, joined in with terrific shouting by Fawcett as we privately informed him of the cause, at which Lord Derby was no doubt astonished. However, he did as well as the yokel, for he led us towards home. My low opinion of Lord Derby as a politician does not prevent my thinking that in private he is a most agreeable man; but his appearance is against him. He took us round by Holmwood, where Pitt lived, and Hayes, where his father, Chatham, lived.
'Whitsuntide I spent partly upon the river in my canoe, [Footnote: Canoeing had at this time taken for him the place of rowing, and he spent his Sundays on the river.] partly at Lord Derby's, and partly at Dudbrook, Lady Waldegrave's place in Essex; but the first part of my holiday was spoiled by a summer flood, although the river was very beautiful, there being beds of the snowflake or summer snowdrop in bloom, with large white cups tipped with green. They are all gone now (1900). [Footnote: One at least grew in the willow thicket by his house at Dockett Eddy in May, 1911, after his death, close by a nesting swan—two sights which would have filled him with interest and joy.] The weather was so cold that Lord Derby called it "winter dressed in green." He and his wife seemed to me to have come over to our side with almost indecent violence and suddenness; but to be called "Titus Oates" in the House of Lords by your relative and successor is too much. [Footnote: This speech of Lord Salisbury's was made on July 18th, 1878.] The close family connection between the Derbys and Lord Salisbury had a great deal to answer for in the sharpness of the quarrel.
'At the beginning of June I received at my house two distinguished Frenchmen whom I had not previously known: Edmond About and Coquelin the actor, the latter introduced to me by Gambetta.'
Coquelin was thus introduced:
'"CHAMBRE DES DÉPUTÉS, '"PRÉSIDENCE, '"31 Mai, 1879.
'"CHER AMI,
'"J'introduis auprès de vous mon ami Coquelin dont vous pourrez apprècier le charmant esprit, et je vous le recommande sans autrement faire de phrases, sachant que vous savez à premier vu reconnaître les vrais hommes.
'"C'est à l'ami que je confie l'ami,
'"À vous, LÉON GAMBETTA."
'About dined with me at the House of Commons on the day on which the House of Commons met after the Whitsuntide recess; but I did not at the moment know his peculiarity of being unable to touch any article of food which contained onion in any form or had been cooked with it, so that I am afraid I starved him. On June 13th I had prepared accordingly, and he dined with me, and met all the people who spoke good French—Leighton, Mitford, Fitzmaurice, Borthwick, Barrington, Bourke (the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs), Chamberlain—and Montebello and La Ferronnays of his own Embassy, and Gennadius the Greek. It was hard to say whether Mitford, Leighton, or Borthwick spoke the best French. But certainly neither Fitzmaurice, who was a quarter French, nor the three Frenchmen, could venture to contest matters with such talkers. I never heard any fault found with Leighton's French except that it is too good, though I have heard people declare that his Italian and his German were yet better; but I myself could see no fault in Mitford's. About naturally came to the conclusion, not entirely justified by fact, that all Englishmen could speak French.
'On June 22nd I gave a dinner for Gambetta's friends, Coquelin and
Hecht, at which I had Lord Granville, Lord Lansdowne, Malet,
Montgélas, Lord Reay, Lord Arthur Russell, and Gavard. Lord Granville
was at his very best, shining as he always did when he could talk
French theatre anecdotes to a man playing up to him as could Coquelin.
'I think it was on Thursday night, June 19th (1879), that, about midnight, Pender brought me a telegram to the House of Commons telling me that Prince Louis Napoleon had been killed by the Zulus, in order that I might telegraph it to Gambetta. I did so; and in the morning received from Gambetta a telegram asking me to repeat my telegram if it really came from me, evidently thinking that he had been hoaxed in my name, for my news reached Paris long before the thing was known there. The Queen was not told till 10.30 a.m., and she then informed the Empress Eugénie, so that I knew it eleven hours before the poor mother.'
On Sunday, June 29th, Sir Charles had stayed at Strawberry Hill. Within the same week Lady Waldegrave died suddenly. He was among the friends who went down to see her buried at Chewton, near Chewton Priory, her place in Somersetshire.
'Carlingford was present at the funeral, although his condition was very painful to his friends and he refused to leave the place, and remained there, with great fortitude but little wisdom, for a long time, until his nerve was completely gone. He never was afterwards the same man, and, although Mr. Gladstone put him into his Cabinet in 1881, for friendship's sake, [Footnote: There was another reason: his intimate knowledge of the details of the Irish Land Question, then the subject of legislation. He became Lord Privy Seal on the resignation of the Duke of Argyll.] he had become a broken invalid, and was unable even to bear the smallest reference to past days or even the sudden sight of friends who had known him in happier times.'
On July 8th there is a note of dining with Lord and Lady Derby, where were 'Lord Odo Russell and a good many other interesting people; Odo Russell always easily the first wherever he goes. He told me, what I was glad to hear, that Bismarck was most favourable to Greece.'
'July.—Two Crown Princes were in London at this time, and to both of them I had to be introduced as the maker of speeches in the House which they had heard: the Crown Prince of Sweden and the Hereditary Duke (son of the Grand Duke) of Baden. Like all Kings and Princes, except the King of Greece, and in later days the Emperor William II., they seemed to me heavy men, bored by having to pretend to be thoughtful persons, and I found that difficulty in distinguishing them the one from the other, which has always oppressed me in dealing with Royal personages.'
'At this time I had several interviews with Cardinal Manning, at his wish, about the Irish primary education question, in which I agreed with him, differing, however, wholly from him with regard to English education, which caused him always to reproach me with having what he playfully called a "geographical conscience."'
'In the many visits that I received from the Cardinal and paid to him at the end of July and beginning of August, 1879, I was amused by finding how much he cared for general gossip and even scandal. He insisted on talking to me about Sarah Bernhardt, and Gambetta, and the Prince of Wales, and all sorts and conditions of people. He told me that if he was not Cardinal Archbishop he would stand for Westminster in the Radical interest. But, Radical though he be in social questions, he is a ferocious Jingo.'
Manning, unlike almost all other Englishmen of his creed, had a sympathy for Irish Nationalism. Dilke shared the Cardinal-Archbishop's view as to the power of Rome in Irish politics, as may be seen from the concluding sentence of this passage from a letter written by him in August, 1879, with regard to the Act establishing what was called the Royal University:
"Shaw is a Protestant—a Congregationalist—who once was a preacher and now is a banker, but he is the leader of the Irish party, and speaks for the Bishops, as did Butt, who also was a Protestant. Parnell, too, is a Protestant, curiously enough. Biggar was, but has turned. I don't think popular feeling is engaged; but you must either govern through and with the priests—or by force."
Mr. Shaw's day of influence was nearly ended. The revolutionary party—for they aimed at, and effected nothing less than, a revolution—led by Parnell in the House and by Davitt in the country, were sweeping away the staunch adherents of pure constitutionalism, among whom Shaw and Butt were to be numbered. The Irish party was not the only one which contained conflicting elements:
'Manning attached more importance to an understanding with me and Chamberlain than to one with Hartington, and sided with us in the conflict which followed the scene between Hartington and Chamberlain on July 7th.'
Sir Charles describes the occurrence, though somewhat toning down a sufficiently stormy passage:
'What occurred was this: James, who was Hartington's right-hand man, and absolutely in his confidence, had started a debate on flogging, and came to us and told us that he quite agreed in our view that much should be made of it, and that it offered a good opportunity for getting rid of flogging in the Army, and then went away to dinner. Our men kept up the debate with a good deal of violence of language; and then Hartington, strolling in after dinner, and hearing that there was this obstruction, made a violent attack upon poor Hopwood (the Queen's Counsel, afterwards Recorder of Liverpool, a member of the Radical Club) and on those acting with him, for obstruction. Chamberlain, much nettled by this attack upon our men below the gangway for doing only that which they had been told to do, got up and ironically referred to Hartington as "the late leader," and I was stung, by Fawcett clumsily siding with Hartington, into supporting Chamberlain and Hopwood.
'My talents of diplomacy were called into requisition after the Hartington-Chamberlain quarrel, and I was very proud of managing to get through nineteen clauses of the Irish University Bill on the next day, July 8th, stopping all divisions except one, in which Parnell and I told together, and got Hartington into our lobby, which was, I think, a triumph of conciliation.
'Later in the month the Whigs, or men above the gangway, showed great anger at the completeness of Hartington's surrender to us, which, indeed, meant more than the immediate conquest, for it involved the ultimate supersession of Hartington by Gladstone. Harcourt, James, and Adam [Footnote: The Right Hon. W. P. Adam, afterwards Governor of Madras.] (the Chief Whip), in giving Chamberlain the victory by insisting that Hartington should yield, were considering the constituencies, not the House. As regarded the House, the popularity of stamping upon us would have been great. There was strong Whig dislike of our activity, and strong Radical personal hatred among ourselves. If Chamberlain were to have fought Hartington on any question on which he had not the Liberal constituencies with him, he would have got the worst of it; but then he was too wise to stir on any question on which he could not at least carry all the active elements of the party in large towns. The anti-Chamberlain set went to work to get up a banquet to Hartington, and were very cross with me when I told them that I was certain that the Whips would not let Hartington accept the banquet unless they obtained Chamberlain's signature to the requisition. It, of course, turned out as I expected. Some twenty men said that they would not sign unless Chamberlain did so, and he was then begged to sign, and, when he did, at once deprived the manifestation of all significance. It was all rather small and mean, but when one went to the root of the matter, one saw that the whole difficulty sprang from the fact that the Whigs had now no principles. Once upon a time they had had principles, but their principles had been adopted by the other side, and long before 1879 their distinctive opinions had been taken from them. A party cannot be dignified and consistent if its chiefs and the mass of its rank and file have no principles. My own opinion, which I preached on all occasions, was that the right course in these democratic days was for leaders to say, "Here are my opinions, but I know that on certain points they are not those of a majority;" and not to continue to pretend that all agreed when, as a fact, they differed.
'In a note in my diary upon the question of the leadership I say: "Harcourt's good points and bad points are both on a large scale. Childers is too much in city business and in companies to be one of the leading men in the party in the future. Hartington is too careless and too much bored to interest others. Gladstone and Bright are old; Bright 'past'; Gladstone still a great power, and, but for his Scotch deference to the aristocracy, which is a sad drawback, I could admire him with little check."
'On July 26th I received from Bradlaugh a letter about his candidature for Parliament, in which he wrote: "It appears that the so-called moderate Liberals mean to fight for one seat only at Northampton. I, therefore, can only fight for myself. This means Phipps's seat sure, and for the second either Merryweather or Ayrton, and I think the order expresses—subject to contingencies—the probability. There are one or two county constituencies and several boroughs where moderate Liberals will stand who cannot be elected without the votes of my friends. I am now consulted as to what my friends in such cases ought to do. Speaking moderately, I think I could surely prevent the return of five or six moderates, and render doubtful the return of ten or twelve more. Is it reasonable to expect me to aid actively those who do me the most possible mischief? I owe no debt of gratitude to anyone in England … except the people who love me. May it not be as well for me this coming election to pick, say, twenty seats and make a few burnt-offerings by way of example, to show the moderates that I am strong enough to be worth reckoning with? Pardon me if I am boring you with a matter in which you have no interest."'
At the close of the Session Sir Charles addressed his constituents—
'with an overwhelming case against the Government, in which I showed the folly of the pretences which had been put forward as to the Berlin settlement in Bulgaria and in Asia Minor, of the Anglo-Turkish Convention, of the occupation of Cyprus, and of the South African policy; and pointed out the fact that in the year we were spending fifty millions sterling upon our army and navy, and that if the navy was in excellent condition, no one would venture to make the same assertion with regard to our land forces.'
He crossed to France, saw Gambetta in Paris, and also Nubar Pasha, and went to drink waters at La Bourboule, and on to Le Puy, and thence started on one of the long tramps by which he came to know France as few Englishmen have done. He walked across to Vals, 'and so to the Rhone, and then to my solemn Provençal country—to my mind, a better Italy.'
At Toulon he busied himself with the German history of the nineteenth century for his projected book, and wrote much to his brother, who was now hoping to enter Parliament.
'Nubar, who had a quarrel with our Foreign Office, and who had been expelled from Egypt by the new Khedive, but, as Nubar thought, at the wish of the French Consul-General, was another correspondent of these days, destined afterwards to return to be made Prime Minister at the hands of this same Khedive.'
The Government's sixth year of office was running out, and a General
Election was at hand.
'At the end of the year I had letters describing the state of things in England from Harcourt, Chamberlain, and Adam. Chamberlain wrote: "Things look bad for the Tories. We shall have a majority at the next election. I feel confident." Adam wrote: "As things are at present, we shall have a majority independent of Home Rulers." Harcourt wrote that he was unusually dull and stupid: "I feel as if the soul of Northcote had transmigrated into me, and, if only I had a flaxen beard, I am sure I should make one of his Midland speeches to admiration…. I really find nothing new to say. Of course, there is the old story of Afghanistan, but the latter is already discounted, and it is rather a ticklish question. I never felt it so difficult to mix a prescription good for the present feeling of the constituencies…. Depend upon it, if we are to win (as we shall), it will not be on some startling cry, but by the turning over to us of that floating mass of middle votes which went over to the Tories last time, and will come back from them in disgust at the next election. It is much easier to persuade the public that the Government are duffers than that we are conjurers. I shall therefore … be dull and safe, and not overabusive. That, at least, is my diagnosis of the treatment the patient requires just now…. Not having materials for one speech, I have got to make a second. I must trust to the newspaper abuse of the first to supply me with materials for the second."'
Sir William Harcourt was too diffident, as his brilliant speeches at
Oxford and elsewhere, full of epigrams, had more effect on the electorate
than any others—not even excepting Mr. Gladstone's speeches in his
Midlothian campaign.
There is no suggestion in the correspondence of the ferment which was working in Midlothian. Mr. Gladstone was apart from both Whigs and Radicals in these days.
So closed the last years of Sir Charles's second Parliament. He had played in it a commanding part in debate upon matters of war and of foreign policy without abating his activity in domestic politics, such as the franchise, or flogging in the army, which he helped finally to abolish. No man could well seem to have fewer enemies or more friends.
CHAPTER XX
THE FORMATION OF A MINISTRY
I.
By the close of 1879 the Beaconsfield Administration was deeply discredited. The year had opened with the disaster in the Zulu War at Isandhlwana; in September came the tragedy at Kabul, when Sir Louis Cavagnari and his staff were slain by a sudden uprising of the tribesmen; and though Sir Frederick Roberts fought his way into the Afghan capital on October 12th, it was only to be beleaguered within the fortifications of Sherpur.
The European situation Sir Charles described to his constituents before the Session of 1880 opened:
'What, I asked, were they promised in the Treaty of Berlin? Turkey restored to strength, reformed, and, if reformed, made secure for a distant future; Greece contented; Russian influence excluded; and the Balkans fortified as "an impregnable frontier" for Turkey. Very different were the realities. Turkey had been partitioned; Greece had not been satisfied; surrender of Turkish territory to Greece, though it was the one form of surrender which might really have strengthened Turkey, had been opposed rather than advocated by the British delegates. Austria, gorged with Bosnia and Herzegovina, was alone contented.
'Of the Asia Minor clandestine convention, it was beyond our power to fulfil the terms. Russian intrigue would sooner or later create insurrection in Armenia. The insurrection would be put down by the old Turkish means, by the old savagery, and our guarantee would prove useless in face of public opinion at home. The Government had allowed Russia to gain exactly those things which in the excellent circular of April 1st, 1878, they had declared that it would be fatal to our country that she should possess. The Government had proclaimed British interests in language which I had described as the gospel of selfishness, but there was not a British interest which was not worse off for their rule. In Egypt, their policy of joint action with France was certain to lead to future trouble. Greece was dissatisfied, and leant on France, and the rising nationalities of South-Eastern Europe were all alienated from us. Russia was in possession, not only of Bessarabia, not only of a firm hold over Turkey by the stipulations with regard to the debt due to her, but of that fortress of Kars and that port of Batoum which our Government had told us she could not consistently with British interests be permitted to possess. To add insult to injury, we were thought such silly children as to believe that what was left of Turkey had been saved by our plenipotentiaries— saved in Asia by a bit of paper, and in Europe by an "impregnable frontier" which was situated in the middle of the Bulgarian country, and which the Sultan's troops would never be allowed to approach.
'This was a strong indictment, and, as is now seen, it was all true.'
Sir Charles's "indictment" was strengthened by information he had received as to England's treatment of M. Waddington's circular proposing mediation between Turkey and Greece, and by the knowledge that the championship of Greek interests was at this moment being left to France.
'On January 26th I reached Paris on my return from Toulon, and breakfasted with Gambetta, stupid Spuller remaining with us all the time. Barrère came to see me, and told me that the late ministerial crisis in France had had for cause Waddington's refusal to accept Gambetta's orders to turn out all the reactionaries from the Foreign Office. "That lock has now been forced." [Footnote: The Waddington Ministry had fallen in the last days of December, and M. de Freycinet came into power. M. Camille Barrère was at this time Gambetta's chief private secretary. Sir Charles had first met him in London during the Commune. He has had a distinguished career, and is, in 1917, Ambassador at Rome.] Tissot, French Minister at Athens, and known to me as having been formerly the representative of the Government of National Defence in London, when he occupied the Embassy and acted as an unauthorized Minister, is to be Ambassador at Constantinople, and Waddington will take the Embassy in London. Barrère has been made French Commissioner on the European Commission of the Danube, which enables him for nine months in the year to continue his newspaper work in Paris. It is true, as stated in the French newspapers, that Waddington's last circular proposing mediation between Turkey and Greece was accepted by all the Continental Powers, but not answered by England.
'On the 27th I breakfasted with Gambetta to meet General Billot, commanding the Marseille corps d'armée, who, in the event of war occurring between 1887 and 1890, would have been second in command of the French armies.
'"On the 28th Gambetta, at a private interview, confirmed what Barrère had said about Greece, regretted that Waddington had proposed to leave the town of Janina to Turkey, and thought that the French Government ought to go back to the old position of 'Thessaly and Epirus.' He added (most confidentially) that as soon as the trouble about 'Article 7' was over Léon Say would come as Ambassador to London." [Footnote: The double quotes here show that Sir Charles transcribed in his Memoir a note of the conversation taken at the time.] Léon Say did come, but Waddington came afterwards, though with some between. Article 7 was, of course, the Ferry proposal with regard to unauthorized congregations, which I opposed in conversations with Gambetta, who supported it as strongly in private as in public. [Footnote: The 'Article 7' referred to was in the Education Bill then under discussion in the French Assembly. By this article it was proposed that members of religious bodies which were not recognized by the law should be forbidden to teach in public or in private schools.] Opinion in France undoubtedly backed him in his opposition to "Clericalism," but I myself continue to think that it was unwise to harry the Church, although the position of the Government was in accordance with the law.
'On the same morning I received a letter from Chamberlain inviting
himself to dine with me on February 4th "to discuss the situation."
Chamberlain was strongly opposed to taking Lord Derby in the next
Administration, and determined also, if he could, to shut out Goschen.
'On Wednesday, January 28th, I reached London, and on the 29th saw Harcourt as to a request which had been made to him by A. M. Sullivan on behalf of Lord Ramsay, who was standing at Liverpool as the Liberal candidate, but who had pronounced in favour of Home Rule, to the great scandal of the country. The Irish members were supposed to be doing more harm than good by helping him, and were most anxious that someone from the Liberal Front Bench should give them countenance. Hartington was strongly opposed to Ramsay's action. Harcourt consented to go, and went, which must have meant, I think, that he had decided to throw over Hartington, seeing that Mr. G. was the only possible leader, and that he did not think that Mr. Gladstone would feel strongly about the Home Rule pledge. Harcourt told me that Lord Granville and Hartington intended that Lord Derby should be in the next Government, but found difficulties, inasmuch as they thought that the land question must be dealt with, and he was too conservative for the party on it. The Duke of Argyll was to be left out of the next Cabinet; no one would consent to become Viceroy of Ireland or Irish Secretary; and there was a difficulty about the Viceroyalty of India. I suggested Lansdowne for India, if his wife would go, and it is curious that after many years he was sent, although sent by the other party. Harcourt said that some of the older men over whose heads I had passed were very jealous of me. I said, half in jest: "I believe I am the only English politician who is not jealous," at which Harcourt laughed very much, and replied: "We all think that of ourselves." I said: "I mean it."'
The sincerity of that assertion was to be proved within three months. But he notes in his diary a decision in consequence of Harcourt's warning "to keep in the background this Session."
'On February 4th Harcourt wrote to me to say that, if I would go to his house that night, someone from Devonshire House should meet me to show me the Queen's Speech, as he had to go to Liverpool; Hartington, he said, was full of approval of my speech.'
The dissolution came suddenly, hastened by the result of a by-election, which encouraged the Government to believe that the country was with them. On February 10th Sir Charles dined at Lady Ripon's, where were 'the Duke of Argyll, Lord Granville, the Childers, and the Hayters.'
'The conversation of the evening turned upon the Southwark election, where we all knew that the Conservative must win, Clarke (later Sir Edward Clarke) being a popular Queen's Counsel, an excellent election speaker, while the Liberals were divided between two bad candidates…. When the numbers became known to me I wrote in my diary: "Southwark not quite so bad as I expected, but quite bad enough." Yet it was this election, which, to anyone who knew the facts, should have meant nothing, which is supposed to have induced the Tories to dissolve.' [Footnote: The Conservatives won both the Liverpool and Southwark elections.]
'Cross drowns the Government,' is Sir Charles's comment on the Return on the Water Question, for which he now moved; 'the notice contained such a mass of statistics as to make the return of a very searching character in its bearing on the agreement that the Home Secretary had come to with the water companies.' It did frighten Cross, as Mr. Trevelyan had prophesied, 'and the trouble between himself and his colleagues over this question was the immediate cause of the dissolution.' [Footnote: Mr. Cross, Home Secretary, had introduced a Bill to provide for the purchase of the undertakings of the London Water Companies, which was supposed to offer the companies too favourable terms. Sir Charles notes (July, 1879): "Manning was getting up a meeting on the water question, and got me to manage it for him." 'I fancy, indeed,' he adds in his Memoir, 'that it was the Cardinal who was the indirect cause of the dissolution in the spring of 1880, for he induced Cross to undertake the purchase of the Metropolitan Water Supply, and so got him into tangled negotiations.']
Just before the electoral campaign began—
'On March 4th I received a note from Lord Fife asking me to dine with him on Friday, the 12th, to meet the Prince of Wales at the Prince's wish. The note was of such a character that it left no choice. When the dinner came off it turned out well. The Prince laid himself out to be pleasant, and talked to me nearly all the evening—chiefly about French politics and the Greek question. The other guests were Lansdowne, Dunraven, Burnand of Punch, Bernal Osborne, and Colonel Carington, brother of Lord Carrington, a very pleasant member of the House.' [Footnote: Colonel Carington was M.P. for Wycombe, 1868-1883.]
There was still among leading politicians 'much doubt as to the prospects of the election,' which Sir Charles found expressed when he spent Sunday, March 7th, 'at Aston Clinton with the Cyril Flowers, Lord Hartington being there, and Charles Villiers (at eighty), and Wolff walking over from Tring Park.' However, on March 15th, Sir William Harcourt wrote from Oxford: "I have never wavered in my opinion that the Government will be beaten, though I thought a fortnight ago it would only be a shave."
In his own borough Sir Charles found that there were 580 publicans, and that 500 of them were Conservative.
'My belief in the influence of the publicans made me hesitate with regard to Chelsea, where I thought myself not unlikely to be beaten, but I had a full belief in the success of the party generally. I was triumphantly returned, bringing in Firth with me, by great majorities over a clever Tory, Lord Inverurie (afterwards Earl of Kintore, and Governor of South Australia), and a colonial sheep-farmer, who paid the cost.'
The result was declared on April 2nd, and Sir Charles, having stayed to vote in two divisions of Surrey where he owned property, left England for Toulon on the 7th—a proceeding which separated him from those who were importunate for office. Before his departure he had dined with Sir William Harcourt:
'I found his ambition to be to … succeed Lord Selborne as Lord Chancellor. In order to reach this goal, he would prefer to be Attorney-General rather than Home Secretary. James, however, cannot well be anything but Attorney-General. Harcourt would like James to be Home Secretary, for which James is not fit, but which he would like to be. If this combination should fail, then Harcourt would like to be Chancellor of the Exchequer…. He asked me what I should like, and I told him that I did not expect to be offered a great post, but that if there were any such chance the Navy was the only one that I should like.' [Footnote: Sir Charles's view that a Foreign Secretary had better be in the House of Lords, so long as there is a House of Lords to put him in, no doubt influenced his preference for the Admiralty.]
In regard to the events which have now to be narrated, it must be remembered that the Chamberlain of 1880 was not yet the author of any "unauthorized programme" or any "gospel of ransom." He was admittedly the controller of the Caucus. It was widely known that he, like Fawcett, had professed republican principles. But Queen Victoria's objection to Sir Charles Dilke—and it will be seen how strongly she maintained it—was based not merely on his avowal of abstract Republican theories, but also on his very concrete proposal to assert control over the Civil List. Chamberlain upon this matter was not committed to a personal view, and it had not yet been demonstrated that whatever position Dilke defended, Chamberlain would defend also.
A compact laying down the principle of mutual support between the two
Radicals was proposed in a letter written by Chamberlain to Dilke—then at
Toulon—immediately after the General Election had given the Liberals a
sweeping triumph. They came back 349 against 243 Conservatives. Irish
Nationalists were 60, of whom 35 followed Mr. Parnell.
Chamberlain's proposal was in these words:
"The time has come when we must have a full and frank explanation.
"What I should like—what I hope for with you—is a thorough offensive and defensive alliance, and in this case our position will be immensely strong.
"I am prepared to refuse all offers until and unless both of us are satisfied.
"Can you accept this position with perfect satisfaction? If you think I am asking more than I can give, I rely upon your saying so—and in this case you may depend on my loyalty and friendship—I shall support your claim cordially and just as warmly as if I were personally interested.
"But my own feeling is that if you are stronger than I am in the House, my influence is greater than yours out of it, and therefore that, together, we are much more powerful than separated; and that in a short time, if not now, we may make our own terms.
"To join a Government as subordinate members, to be silenced and to have no real influence on the policy, would be fatal to both of us. If we both remain outside, any Government will have to reckon with us, and, on the whole, this would be the position which on many grounds I should prefer.
"I am ready to make all allowances for the difficulties in the way of giving to both of us the only kind of places which it would be worth our while to accept. If these are insuperable, I will give a hearty support to any Government which is thoroughly liberal in its measures; but I am not going to play the part of a Radical Minnow among Whig Tritons.
"The victory which has just been won is the victory of the Radicals. Gladstone and the Caucus have triumphed all along the line, and it is the strong, definite, decided policy which has commended itself, and not the halting, half-hearted, armchair business…. The country feels it, and we should be mad to efface ourselves and disappoint the expectations of all our strongest supporters.
[Illustration: THE RT. HON. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN, M.P.
From the painting by F. Holl, R.A., in the National Portrait Gallery.]
"You see that my proposed condition is—both of us to be satisfied.
"As to what ought to satisfy us, if you agree to the principle, we will consult when the time comes, but my present impression is all or nothing."
'In other words, Chamberlain's view was that we should insist on both being in the Cabinet. My own view was that we should insist on one being in the Cabinet, and the other having a place of influence, giving him the opportunity of frequent speech in the House of Commons, pleasant to himself; and my view prevailed.
'On April 19th, Chamberlain wrote again that he had heard from Mr.
Bright that "Mr. Gladstone will take the Premiership if pressed."'
'"I am glad to see that all the papers speak of you as a certainty for the Cabinet. For myself, I am absolutely indifferent to office, and the only thing on which I am clear is that I will take no responsibility which does not carry with it some real power. Another point on which I have made up my mind is that I will not play second to Fawcett, or to anyone of the same standing, except yourself."'
On April 22nd, Sir Charles received at Toulon a telegram from Sir William Harcourt insisting on his immediate return, and he started at once for London, missing a second urgent telegram from Harcourt on his way. From Mr. Frederic Harrison he received a letter strongly urging him to claim at once a place in the Cabinet and 'to lead the new men.' He meant 'the cultured Radicals; Mr. Bryce and the like.' He urged that the new Left must have a full place in the Ministry, and that any Liberal Minister must be pledged to deal with redistribution in the House.
'Hill of the Daily News had written to me that with the exception of
Harcourt everybody thought that Gladstone must be Prime Minister.' Sir
Charles goes on to note a breakfast with Lord Houghton, Renan, Professor
Henry Smith of Oxford, Henry Reeve of the Edinburgh Review, Lord Arthur
Russell, and Lord Reay, at which they
'agreed that Gladstone must be Prime Minister, or would upset the
Government within a year. … Hill advised that I should take the
Cabinet without Chamberlain if Gladstone was Prime Minister, but
refuse the Cabinet without Chamberlain—i.e., insist on both being
in the Cabinet—if Hartington was Prime Minister.'
By the night of April 23rd, when Sir Charles reached London, the question of Mr. Gladstone's primacy was settled, and Ministry-making had begun, with the decision of Lord Granville to return to the Foreign Office, and Lord Hartington's consent to act as Secretary of State for India. Mr. Childers went to the War Office, Lord Northbrook to the Admiralty; Lord Selborne, most conservative of Whigs, became Lord Chancellor; Lord Spencer was President of the Council, Lord Kimberley took the Colonies, the Duke of Argyll the Privy Seal. Sir William Harcourt, who had been called "a Whig who talked Radicalism," was Home Secretary. Mr. Forster at the Irish Office, with Lord Cowper as Lord-Lieutenant, did not commend himself greatly to the advanced party, and Mr. Bright, in returning to the Chancellorship of the Duchy, brought with him only a tradition of Radicalism. When it is added that Mr. Dodson was President of the Local Government Board, ground will be seen for a warning which Sir Charles received that, although the victory had been forced upon them by the Radicals almost against their will, the "incorrigible old place-hunters would, if left to have their own way, appropriate the victory and the prizes calmly enough to themselves."
On Saturday, April 24th, Sir Charles had two interviews with Sir William
Harcourt, and communicated the result to Chamberlain:
'The position is that Gladstone is in the hands of Lord Wolverton, [Footnote: As Mr. Glyn he had been Chief Whip.] the evil counsellor of 1874, and that, while a Whig Premier must have had a Radical Cabinet, Gladstone will say, "You have got me; that is what you asked for," and will give us a Whig Cabinet. Stansfeld is likely to be in the Cabinet owing to W. E. Forster's influence, of which I personally shall be glad. Rosebery is likely to be put in, at which I shall not be sorry…. Gladstone disapproves strongly of people being put straight into the Cabinet who have not held office before. This is for Chamberlain and for me. They are likely to offer me the Under- Secretaryship for Foreign Affairs, which I suppose I shall be unable to accept. Later in the evening I was informally offered the Secretaryship of the Treasury, with management of the Government business in the House. Harcourt at a second interview said that Gladstone intended pedantically to follow Peel's rule that men should not be put straight into the Cabinet without going through non-Cabinet office; and that Chamberlain and I must both take non-Cabinet office; [Footnote: It is worth noting that Sir Robert Peel himself had violated this rule if it ever existed.] that he, Harcourt, strongly advised us to take Under-Secretaryships of which the Secretary was in the Upper House, or the Secretaryship of the Treasury. He then offered me the Under-Secretaryship for the Colonies, to which I replied, "Certainly not." He said, "Remember that with Mr. Gladstone Prime Minister, the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs will have no chance to speak, because Gladstone will do all the talking." [Footnote: Sir William Harcourt's prophecy received frequent confirmation. See infra, pp. 384, 459, 535, and Vol. II., p. 51.] At the same time, there was evidently another reason behind—namely, that Lord Granville had sooner have anybody in his office than me; in other words, he would like me in anybody's office except his own. Harcourt strongly urged me to take office on personal grounds—namely, in order to get over the Queen's prejudice, and so succeed naturally to the first vacancy in the Cabinet. I replied that I had sooner keep my independence than take office without power. He then said curtly, "It will not be a pleasant opposition." I said it would not be an opposition at all, as far as I could see, as I should support the Government and lead a very quiet, humdrum Parliamentary existence. Harcourt replied, "That is what is always said." "But I shall not be cross," was my last word. I telegraphed at night for Chamberlain, who replied that he would come up at five on Sunday afternoon and dine and sleep. But I prepared him, and was prepared by him, for a double refusal of office. In fact, we were decided on refusal of that which alone was offered.
'On Sunday afternoon, 25th, before seeing Chamberlain, I saw James, who went to Lord Granville and fully stated my views, reporting to me afterwards that Lord Granville seemed inclined to come round a little. James added of Harcourt: "Confound that Home Secretary! How discreet he is even before kissing hands! I shall live at the Home Office." I went to Euston to meet Chamberlain. We were fully agreed in our line, and he remained at my house the next morning, when I was sent for by Mr. Gladstone through Lord Granville, the note being simply to ask me to call at four o'clock at Lord Granville's house, where Mr. Gladstone was. The questions which I put to Chamberlain were—"Is your former opinion changed by the fact that Mr. Gladstone can, if he likes, do without us, whereas Hartington could not? Or is it changed by the fact that Gladstone's Government will last six years, whereas Hartington's would soon have been modified by Gladstone?" Chamberlain's view was my own view, that, although we were much weaker, we could not change our attitude as regards one of us being in the Cabinet. Before seeing Mr. Gladstone I had calls from Fawcett and Lefevre. Nothing had been offered to Fawcett; Lefevre had been sounded as to an Under- Secretaryship, and would take it. He told me he was sure that Stansfeld would have the Local Government Board again and be in the Cabinet. Childers came three times to see me in the course of the day, and said that he was most anxious that I should be in the Cabinet and Chamberlain in a good place outside it; but that the Queen had made a difficulty about my Republicanism, and he asked me to write him a letter about it. I declined to say anything new, but ultimately we agreed that I should write him a letter marked "Private," in which I wrote to the effect that on March 13th I had been asked the question at a meeting, and that my answer had been in the newspapers on March 15th, that it was the same answer which I had made before the election in 1874, and that I had nothing to alter in it.' [Footnote: The rest of the letter gave a full account of the incident of Saturday, March 13th, 1880:
"The Tories sent the 'Reverend' W. Pepperell, an ex-dissenting minister, to a meeting of mine, who asked me 'whether it was true that I was a republican?' I replied to the effect that 'while as a matter of speculative opinion I thought that a country starting afresh—as France after Sedan—would in these days generally do better to adopt a republican form of government than a limited monarchy, yet that in a country possessing a constitutional monarchy it would be mere folly to attempt to upturn it, and consequently folly even to try to disturb it.' The answer was a very long one, and was nowhere fully reported, but everything in it was on these lines."]
A copy of this letter was ultimately brought to the Queen, and on May 5th returned by Sir Henry Ponsonby with the words, "Her Majesty accepts Sir Charles Dilke's explanation." But Lord Granville, through whom it had been sent, and who had by that time become Sir Charles's immediate chief, softened the austerity of this formula by explaining that the Queen in a private letter had said she was "quite ready to believe all I had told her about you, having known you as a child."
These preliminary conversations having occupied the morning, Sir Charles set out after luncheon for the decisive interview.
'When I got to Lord Granville's I found Lord Granville, Lord Wolverton, and Mr. Gladstone in the room, and Mr. Gladstone at once offered me the Under-Secretaryship for Foreign Affairs. I asked who was to be in the Cabinet. I was told Mr. Gladstone, Lord Granville, Hartington, Harcourt, and Lord Spencer. Further than this, they said, nothing was settled. I asked, "What about Chamberlain?" Mr. Gladstone replied to the effect that Chamberlain was a very young member of the House who had never held office, and that it was impossible to put him straight into the Cabinet. I then said that this made it impossible that I should accept the Under-Secretaryship for Foreign Affairs, or any place. Mr. Gladstone said he would see whether anything could be done, but that he feared not. I then asked whether, supposing that anything could be done in my direction, I should be excluding Grant Duff [Footnote: Sir M. Grant Duff had been spoken of for this office in 1868, and had then in that Ministry become Under-Secretary of State for India. In 1880 he was—much to Sir Charles's joy—made Under- Secretary for the Colonies, his chief, Lord Kimberley, being in the Lords.] from the Under-Secretaryship for Foreign Affairs, because I said that I should be very sorry to do that, for both personal and public reasons. He replied that if I refused it, it would not be offered to Grant Duff; and I then left….
'On Tuesday morning Chamberlain was sent for, and accepted a seat in the Cabinet (with the Presidency of the Board of Trade), and at one o'clock I accepted the Under-Secretaryship for Foreign Affairs. Just about this time I received a message from James: "Do, for the sake of our future comfort, take something. The Bench will be dreadfully dull. Stansfeld in office must be worse than Stansfeld out." But Stansfeld was not in office. What had interfered at the last moment to prevent an appointment which was resolved upon I never knew for certain. [Footnote: Mr. Stansfeld is generally believed to have refused office owing to his wish to devote himself entirely to the cause of a special measure of social reform in which he was interested.] But, as they had not intended to put Chamberlain in, and I forced him in, I suppose that Stansfeld was the man who had to make way for Chamberlain.'
II.
So ended the negotiations. The Radical wing had asserted itself, and asserted itself successfully. It had been enabled to do so by Sir Charles's action. To him the matter represented the mere carrying out of a bargain; but friends were, as is natural in such a case, remonstrant, and he was accused of "needless self-sacrifice," of "Quixotic conduct," of "self-abnegation," of "your usual disinterestedness in politics," and the bargain was much criticized. A letter from Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, congratulating Sir Charles on the stand he had made, added: "Not that I am altogether satisfied with the result. I had assumed that as a matter of course you would be in the Cabinet. I share the universal feeling that of the two you had the undoubted claim to priority." But this regret was probably based on more than personal grounds, and may well be read with a letter written many years afterwards, in July, 1914: