← catalogue

The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke, Volume 2

by Stephen Lucius Gwynn · English · Gutenberg #8540 · 1,291,025 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke, Volume 2
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke, Volume 2

Author: Stephen Lucius Gwynn

Editor: Gertrude M. Tuckwell


        
Release date: July 1, 2005 [eBook #8540]
                Most recently updated: December 26, 2020

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8540

Credits: Produced by Charles Franks, David King and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LIFE OF THE RT. HON. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, VOLUME 2 ***




Produced by Charles Franks, David King
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team




THE LIFE OF THE RT. HON.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

BART., M.P.

BEGUN BY STEPHEN GWYNN, M.P.

COMPLETED AND EDITED BY

GERTRUDE M. TUCKWELL

LITERARY EXECUTRIX OF SIR CHARLES DILKE

WITH PORTRAITS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL. II.



CONTENTS OF VOL. II.

CHAPTER

XXXIV. HOME AFFAIRS (OCTOBER, 1883, TO DECEMBER, 1884)

XXXV. EGYPT (1884)

XXXVI. FRANCHISE AND REDISTRIBUTION (JULY TO DECEMBER, 1884)

XXXVII. FOREIGN AFFAIRS IN 1884

XXXVIII. DIVIDED COUNSELS (JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, 1885)

XXXIX. THE FALL OF KHARTOUM AND THE PENJDEH INCIDENT

XL. REDISTRIBUTION: COERCION AND DEVOLUTION (1885)

XLI. FALL OF ADMINISTRATION (JUNE TO JULY, 1885)

XLII. OUT OF OFFICE (JULY, 1885)

XLIII. THE TURNING-POINT (JULY, 1885, TO JULY, 1886)

XLIV. THE RADICAL PROGRAMME _VERSUS_ HOME RULE (JULY TO DECEMBER, 1885)

XLV. BEGINNING OF THE HOME RULE SPLIT (DECEMBER, 1885, TO FEBRUARY,
     1886)

XLVI. THE FIRST HOME RULE BILL (FEBRUARY TO JULY, 1886)

XLVII. LADY DILKE--76, SLOANE STREET

XLVIII. FOREIGN POLICY

XLIX. PUBLIC LIFE AND RETURN TO PARLIAMENT (1886-1894)

L. INDIA AND FRANCE--RHODES AND BISMARCK (1886-1892)

LI. PERSONAL LIFE--IN OPPOSITION (1895-1904)

LII. LABOUR (1870-1911)

LIII. WORK FOR NATIVE RACES (1870-1911)

LIV. THE BRITISH ARMY

LV. IMPERIAL DEFENCE

LVI. ARMY AND NAVY IN PARLIAMENT

LVII. DEATH OF LADY DILKE--PARLIAMENT OF 1905

LVIII. FOREIGN AFFAIRS (1890-1910)

LIX. THE LAST YEARS

LX. LITERARY WORK AND INTERESTS

LXI. TABLE TALK

INDEX

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS TO VOL. II

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE IN THE YEAR 1908
From a drawing by W. Strang.

MRS. MARK PATTISON
From a photograph taken about 1878.

SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH, 1ST BARON WENTWORTH (DIED
MARCH 3RD, 1550-51)
From a painting ascribed to Theodore Bernardi.

BISMARCK
From a photograph given by him to Sir Charles W. Dilke.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE ROWING
From a photograph reproduced by permission of the _Daily Mirror_.

DOCKETT EDDY
From photographs.

PYRFORD ROUGH
From photographs.

LADY DILKE IN THE YEAR 1903
From a photograph by Thomson.



THE LIFE OF SIR CHARLES DILKE

CHAPTER XXXIV

HOME AFFAIRS

OCTOBER, 1883-DECEMBER, 1884


I.

The interval between the Sessions of 1883 and 1884 was critical for the
question of electoral reform which interested Liberals beyond all other
questions, but involved the risk of bringing dissensions in the Cabinet
to the point of open rupture. As the months went by, Mr. Chamberlain and
Lord Hartington used less and less concealment of their differences,
while it was well known to all the Cabinet that the alliance between
Chamberlain and Dilke was complete and unconditional. Whoever broke with
Chamberlain broke with Dilke. Fortunately a certain bond of personal
sympathy, in spite of divergent views, existed between Lord Hartington
and Sir Charles Dilke, and this bond largely helped to hold Mr.
Gladstone's Government together.

In the negotiations which followed between the leaders of the two great
Parties, Sir Charles Dilke was able to show the full measure of his
value to the State. It was of first-rate importance that the Liberal
Party should possess at that moment a representative with whom Lord
Salisbury found it congenial to treat, and whom the most advanced
Liberals trusted unreservedly to treat with Lord Salisbury.

The same confidence could hardly have been given by them to Lord
Hartington, who held that "equalization of the franchise was pressing
mainly on account of the pledges that had been given, and not much for
any other reason." [Footnote: Letter to Mr. Gladstone of October 24th,
1883, quoted by Mr. Bernard Holland in his _Life of the Duke of
Devonshire_, vol. i., p. 395.] Most Liberals took a very different view
of the need for this reform. Further, Lord Hartington held that
franchise and redistribution should be treated simultaneously, and he
was unwilling to extend the franchise in Ireland.

At a Cabinet on October 25th, 1883, the question of simultaneous or
separate treatment of the problems had been settled. Mr. Gladstone, says
Sir Charles, 'made a speech which meant franchise first and the rest
nowhere.' On the Irish question, Sir Charles was instructed to get
accurate statistics as to the effects of equalizing the franchise
between boroughs and counties, and 'on Friday, November 16th,' he notes,
'I wrote to Chamberlain: "I have some awful figures for poor Hartington
to swallow--700,000 county householders in the Irish counties."' Lord
Hartington still stuck to his point of linking redistribution and
franchise.

But on November 22nd,

    'Mr. Gladstone read a long and admirable memorandum in favour of the
    views held by him, by Chamberlain, and by me, as to franchise and
    redistribution--that is, franchise first, with a promise of
    redistribution but no Bill; and Hartington received no support after
    this from any members of the Cabinet.'

There were, however, matters in which Lord Hartington's Conservative
tendencies found an ally in the Prime Minister. On November 28th, 1883,
at the Committee of the Cabinet on Local Government,

    'Chamberlain noted: "Mr. Gladstone hesitates to disfranchise the
    freeholders in boroughs--persons voting as householders in boroughs
    and as freeholders in the counties in which the boroughs are
    constituted. I am in favour of one man one vote, and told him so."
    Our not getting one man one vote was entirely Mr. Gladstone's fault,
    for the Cabinet expected and would have taken it, Hartington alone
    opposing, as he opposed everything all through.'

The question of widening the franchise in Ireland was still unsettled,
and Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Hartington both made allusion to it in
public speeches at this moment. The speeches, apart from their marked
difference in general tone, were on this point in flat contradiction to
each other, and on December 2nd Lord Hartington wrote to Mr. Gladstone
with a threat of resignation. On that day he delivered at Accrington a
long eulogy of the Whigs, who had 'formed a connecting link between the
advanced party and those classes which, possessing property, powers, and
influence, are naturally averse to change.' The Whigs it was, he
contended, who had by their guidance and their action reduced changes in
the direction of popular reform to the 'calm and peaceful process of
constitutional acts.'

    'At this moment there was a conflict raging between Chamberlain and
    Hartington, and in their autumn speeches each of them pretty plainly
    attacked the other's policy. Chamberlain wrote to me: "Why does
    Hartington think _aloud_ when he thinks one thing and is going to do
    the other? And why does he snub the Caucus when he has made up his
    mind to do exactly what they want? If he cannot learn to be a little
    more diplomatic, he will make a devil of a rum leader!" A little
    later Chamberlain gave me "passages from a speech which _ought_ to
    be delivered: 'Yes, gentlemen, I entirely agree with Lord
    Hartington. It is the business and duty of Radicals to lead great
    popular movements, and if they are fortunate enough to kindle the
    fire of national enthusiasm and to stir the hearts of the people,
    then it will be the high prerogative of the great Whig noble who has
    been waiting round the corner to direct and guide and moderate the
    movement which he has done all in his power to prevent and
    discourage.'"

    'The storm between Hartington and Chamberlain having broken out
    again, Chamberlain wrote to me on December 5th, enclosing a letter
    of reproof from Mr. Gladstone, and saying: "I replied casuistically
    that I would endeavour to exclude from my speeches the slightest
    reference to Hartington, but that he was really too trying. I
    reminded Mr. G. that I had asked if I were free to argue the
    question, and that he had said: Yes--no one taking exception." In
    the following week Chamberlain came to town and dined with me,
    and we discussed the matter. Although Mr. Gladstone had blown
    Chamberlain up, he was really much more angry with Hartington.'

It appears from the _Life of the Duke of Devonshire_ that Mr. Gladstone
continued through December his attempts to mediate. [Footnote: See _Life
of the Duke of Devonshire_, by Mr. Bernard Holland, vol. i, p. 398 _et
seq_.] The matter is thus related by Sir Charles, though not from first-
hand knowledge, since he went to Toulon in the middle of December, and
stayed there till January 8th, 1884:

    'During my absence I had missed one Cabinet, the first that I ever
    missed, and perhaps the only one. It was held suddenly on January
    3rd, and I could not arrive in time. Mr. Gladstone had come up from
    Hawarden under the impression that Hartington was going to resign,
    because we would not produce a redistribution scheme along with
    franchise. On the morning of the 3rd, however, he received a letter
    in which Hartington gave way on the understanding that Mr. Gladstone
    would state the general heads of his redistribution scheme. The
    subject was not named at the Cabinet of the 3rd, which dealt with
    Egypt only. But the Cabinet adjourned to the 4th, and on January 4th
    discussed South Africa, and also ... received a statement from Mr.
    Gladstone as to his intention to state the heads of our
    redistribution scheme in "very general terms." On the 10th I noted:
    "The Cabinets have resulted in peace between Lord Hartington and Mr.
    Gladstone, but the Reform Bill will be less complete than I had
    hoped." "Mr. Gladstone calmed Hartington by promising not to run
    away from us after franchise and before redistribution, which was
    what Hartington feared he meant to do."'

Discussion upon the detail of the Bill was resumed, and on January 23rd,
1884,

    'the Chancellor (Lord Selborne), Hartington, Kimberley, and Dodson,
    supported by Mr. Gladstone, forced, against Harcourt, Chamberlain,
    and myself, a decision not to attach any condition of residence to
    the property vote.'

    'On January 28th there was a meeting of the Committee of the Cabinet
    on the Franchise Bill in Mr. Gladstone's room. Chamberlain was
    anxious to "make Hartington go out on franchise." I asked him how he
    thought it was to be done, and he replied: "If he is restive now,
    raise the question of Mr. Gladstone's statement on redistribution,
    and oppose all limitations in that statement"; and he added that Mr.
    Gladstone had only agreed to make the statement unwillingly to quiet
    Hartington, and that if Hartington were not quieted Mr. Gladstone
    would go back about it. Chamberlain and I on this occasion tried to
    make the Franchise Bill more Radical, but failed, Mr. Gladstone
    opposing us on old-fashioned grounds.'

    'Chamberlain came to me' (on April 26th) 'about a plan which Mr.
    Gladstone was to broach at the next Cabinet, for putting off the
    operation of the Franchise Act until January 1st, '86, in order to
    give time for redistribution to be dealt with. We decided to oppose
    it, on the ground that it would not improbably lead to our being
    forced into holding an election on the old franchise.'

At the beginning of the Session Sir Charles helped on the general policy
of Radicalism by one of his many minor electoral reforms. This was a
Bill to extend over the United Kingdom the right of keeping the poll
open till eight o'clock at night, which he had secured as a privilege
for Londoners in 1878. He notes that on February 11th he 'fought with
Tory obstructives as to hours of polling, and won'; but the violent
resistance which was offered at first did not continue, and the Bill
passed quietly in July, after time had been given to discuss it in the
constituencies.

    'On this day (July 22nd) I had a long and curious conversation with
    Healy as to Irish redistribution and as to the hours of poll in
    counties, with regard to which he was against extension, but said
    that he was forced to support it in public. He told me that his
    private opinion was that the Land Act had quieted Ireland.'

The 'Representation of the People' Bill, as the franchise measure was
called, was introduced on February 28th, 1884, and made steady progress,
Liberals finding their task facilitated by the difficulties of their
opponents.

    'On May 7th I wrote to Chamberlain to say that I had to speak at a
    house dinner of the Devonshire Club that night, and to ask him if
    there was anything he wanted said, to which he replied: "Note
    Randolph Churchill's letter to Salisbury with reference to the
    Conservative Caucus, and the vindication of the Birmingham one." It
    was impossible not to notice this important letter, which
    revolutionized politics for some time.'

    '_May 14th_.--After the Cabinet I was informed by Chamberlain that a
    week earlier, on Wednesday, May 7th, Randolph Churchill had sent to
    him to know whether, if he broke with the Conservatives, the
    Birmingham Liberals would support him as an independent candidate.'

Sir Charles's letter to his agent at this time sums up the political
position:

    'The Tory game is to delay the franchise until they have upset us
    upon Egypt, before the Franchise Bill has reached the Lords.... Our
    side will be in a humour to treat as traitors any who do not insist
    that the one Bill and nothing else shall be had in view--in face of
    the tremendous struggle impending in the Lords.'

    'On _May 13th_ I had received a letter from Mr. Gladstone in answer
    to one from me in a matter which afterwards became important, and
    but for Chamberlain's strong stand would have forced me to leave the
    Government. I had so strong an opinion in favour of woman's suffrage
    that I could not undertake to vote against it, even when proposed as
    an amendment to a great Government Bill.'

Sir Charles had written as follows:

    'ANTIBES,
    '_Easter Eve_, '84.

    'I had thought till lately that the Woman's Suffrage division in
    Committee on the Franchise Bill would have been so hollow that my
    absence from it would not have mattered; but as I find that
    Grosvenor thinks that it will not be hollow, it becomes my duty to
    write to you about it. I myself think Grosvenor wrong; the woman's
    suffrage people claim some 250 "friends," but this they do by
    counting all who, having voted with them once, have abstained from
    voting for many years, and who are really foes. The division can
    only be a close one if the Tory party as a body support the view
    which is Northcote's, I believe, and was Disraeli's, but many of the
    leaders would be bitterly opposed to such a course. Mr. Disraeli
    left the woman's suffrage amendment an open question on his own
    Reform Bill, and forbade the Government Whips to tell against the
    amendment, but the mass of the Tory party voted in the majority. On
    this next occasion there will be a larger Liberal vote against the
    change than there was last year, and I do not believe that there
    will be a larger Tory vote in its favour. But, supposing that I am
    wrong and Grosvenor right, I should feel no difficulty in voting
    against the amendment on the grounds of tactics which would be
    stated, provided that Fawcett and Courtney, who are the only other
    thick-and-thin supporters of woman's suffrage in the Government,
    voted also, but I cannot vote if they abstain. Under these
    circumstances what had I better do?'

Mr. Gladstone wrote back on May 11th:

    'The question as to the votes of members of the Government on
    woman's suffrage is beyond me, and I have always intended to ask the
    Cabinet, and (like the Gordon rescue) at the proper time. The
    distinction appears to me as clear as possible between supporting a
    thing in its right place and forcing it into its wrong place. To
    nail on to the extension of the franchise, founded upon principles
    already known and in use, a vast social question, which is surely
    entitled to be considered as such, appears to me in principle very
    doubtful. When to this is added the admirable pretext--nay, the fair
    argument--it would give to the House of Lords for "putting off" the
    Bill, I cannot see the ground for hesitation. But I quite understand
    what (I believe) is your view, that there should be one rule for all
    the members of the Government.'

    'This was an important letter. The words "(like the Gordon rescue)
    at the proper time" seem to show that Mr. Gladstone had already made
    up his mind to send an expedition to Khartoum, although he would not
    say so. The body of the letter proved that Mr. Gladstone had a very
    strong opinion against me on the main point, and the consultation of
    the Cabinet (which was dead against woman suffrage), and the one
    rule for all members of the Government, meant that he intended to
    force my vote by a Cabinet resolution, and, killing two birds with
    one stone, to attack at the same time Fawcett, who had walked out on
    several questions, and announced his intention of walking out on
    others.

    'By May 22nd I had finally made up my mind that I could not vote
    against the woman franchise amendment--even as a mere matter of
    tactics and deference to others--if Courtney and Fawcett went out on
    the matter. I could not speak to them about it because of the
    "Cabinet secret" doctrine. Childers had been directed by the Cabinet
    to sound Courtney, because he was Courtney's official superior in
    the Treasury. Childers was to offer Courtney that if he would vote
    against the amendment he should be allowed to speak for woman
    franchise on the merits, and that none of its opponents in the
    Cabinet (that is, all except myself) should speak against it on the
    merits. I noted: "On the whole I think that we shall walk out, and
    not be turned out for so doing." I again explained my position to
    Mr. Gladstone.... I felt that the majority of those voting for woman
    franchise on this occasion would be Tories, voting for party
    reasons, and in order to upset the Bill. I was therefore unwilling
    to go out on this occasion, but thought I could not do otherwise
    than make common cause with Courtney. On the merits of woman
    franchise I had and have a strong opinion. I always thought the
    refusal of it contrary to the public interest. The refusal of the
    franchise also affects the whole position of women most
    unfavourably.' [Footnote: Mrs. Fawcett wrote thanking him 'in the
    name of the friends of Women's Suffrage. Your being a member of the
    Cabinet made your position in the matter one of special difficulty;
    but I do assure you that our gratitude is real and unfeigned.']

On May 24th Sir Charles told the Cabinet what 'I had told Mr. Gladstone
in a letter which I had written to him on Easter Eve, and renewed on the
occasion when he made the reply which has been quoted above.'

When the amendment was reached, Dilke, with Fawcett and Courtney,
abstained. This led to serious trouble. Sir Charles wrote on June 12th
in his Diary:

    'Hartington is very angry with me for not voting, and wants me
    turned out for it. He has to vote every day for things which he
    strongly disapproves, and this makes the position difficult. He says
    that my position was wholly different from that of Fawcett and
    Courtney, because I was a party to the decision of the Cabinet, and
    that custom binds the minority in the collective decision of Her
    Majesty's servants. This is undoubtedly the accepted theory. Poor
    Hibbert was made to vote. [Footnote: Sir John Tomlinson Hibbert (d.
    1908), at this time Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was an able
    administrator, and held office in Mr. Gladstone's four
    administrations. He assisted materially in the passing of the
    Execution within Gaols Act, Married Women's Property Act, and Clergy
    Disabilities Act, and was keenly interested in the reform of the
    Poor Law.] I fear the Cabinet put the yoke, not of political
    necessity, but of their personal prejudice against woman suffrage,
    on the necks of their followers.'

The matter came up at a Cabinet on June 14th, and was made worse because
a letter from Lord Hartington, 'offensive in tone,' had been circulated
by accident. However, Mr. Gladstone issued a minute about my walking out
on woman's suffrage, which concluded by a proposal, if his colleagues
concurred, to request me to remain in the Government. Thus ended a
personal crisis which, to use the French phrase, had been 'open' since
my letter to Mr. Gladstone dated 'Antibes, Easter Eve.'

    'Chamberlain wrote to me: "It is settled"; and I wrote back: "It is
    settled. I would not have asked you to stand by me, as I have no
    constitutional case, and your conduct in so doing could not be
    defended. I always count on your friendship, but this would have
    been too much." He replied: "We are both right. You could not ask
    me, but if you had been requested to resign I should have gone too."
    Chamberlain had previously informed the Cabinet that, though he
    differed from me about woman's suffrage, and regretted the course
    that I had felt myself obliged to take, he intended to stand by me
    "to the fullest extent."' [Footnote: The further negotiations with
    regard to Franchise and Redistribution in 1884, and the 'compact'
    which ended them, are dealt with in Chapter XXXVI., infra, pp.
    63-79.]


II.

While the great measure of the Session went steadily through its stages,
various other questions were also occupying the Cabinet. The search for
a new Speaker in succession to Sir Henry Brand, who had declared at the
beginning of 1883 his unwillingness to retain office beyond that
Session, was one, and not the least important, of these questions. Sir
Henry James was first mentioned, and he refused.

    'November, 1883. Some had thought of putting up Dodson, but the
    Tories had announced that they should run Ridley in opposition to
    him. There was also a difficulty about filling Dodson's place.
    Trevelyan was the only man who could be put into the Cabinet without
    causing the resignation of Courtney and Fawcett, and Mr. Gladstone
    was still in the humour which he had developed at the time of the
    offer of the Chief Secretaryship to me, and declared that he would
    not have the Chief Secretary in the Cabinet, the Viceroy being in
    it, for this would be to have two Kings of Brentford.'

On November 10th 'Childers seemed the favourite for Speakership,' but on
the 12th it was decided that Herschell, Goschen, Arthur Peel, and
Campbell-Bannerman, were to be offered the Speakership--in that order.
It was known that Herschell would refuse, it was thought that Goschen
would refuse on the ground of sight, and Peel on the ground of health,
and it was intended that Campbell-Bannerman should have it. Herschell
did refuse, but Goschen accepted, and had to be shown by his doctor that
he could not see members across the House, that he would be capable of
confusing Healy with Parnell.... Peel accepted, and in spite of his bad
health took it, and has kept it till this day (1891).'

There was also continuous discussion behind the scenes as to the two
important measures of local government reform--for London and for the
country.

    'By November 8th, 1883, I had succeeded in bringing Harcourt round
    on the London police matter ... to let the City keep their police,
    and then went to Mr. Gladstone.... After twelve o'clock at night
    Harcourt joined us, and it was agreed to put both London and local
    government in the Queen's Speech for 1884.'

Dilke spent much work upon the London Government Bill with Harcourt in
January of that year; but the Bill, having passed its second reading,
was not further proceeded with, owing to House of Commons difficulties.
Sir Charles gives the true reason in a letter to his agent:

    'One unfortunate thing about the London Bill is that no one in the
    House cares about it except Dilke, Firth, and the Prime Minister,
    and no one outside the House except the Liberal electors of Chelsea.
    This is the private hidden opinion of Harcourt and of the
    Metropolitan Liberal members except Firth. I am personally so strong
    for the Bill that I have not at any time admitted this to Harcourt,
    and I have only hinted it to Firth....'

When Sir William Harcourt's Bill collapsed, Dilke attempted a minor
improvement for the Metropolis by framing a City Guilds Bill, which he
described to Mr. Gladstone as following the scheme of the Bills by which
the Universities had been reformed. But the Chancellor, Lord Selborne,
fought strongly against this proposal: and nothing came of it.

The great scheme for reforming Local Government in England and Wales was
meanwhile being considered by the Committee to which it had been
referred. Besides Sir Charles Dilke, who naturally acted as Chairman,
the Committee consisted of Mr. Chamberlain, Lord Kimberley, Mr.
Childers, Lord Carlingford, and Mr. Dodson (who were members of the
Cabinet), and Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice. With them were Sir Henry Thring,
the celebrated Parliamentary draughtsman, and Mr. Hugh Owen, the
Permanent Secretary of the Local Government Board. The task of obtaining
agreement, and even sometimes of maintaining order, in a Committee
composed of persons representing such a variety of opinion, was no easy
one, and it tested to the full the tact and ingenuity of the Chairman.
Mr. Dodson, Sir Charles Dilke's immediate predecessor at the Local
Government Board, and Lord Carlingford represented the views which had
hitherto prevailed in favour of piecemeal and gradual reform. Mr.
Chamberlain, Lord Kimberley, and Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice were, on the
contrary, supporters of the large Bill which the Chairman had prepared;
while Mr. Childers, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was there mainly to
keep a vigilant watch on the local authorities, who were suspected, and
not without reason, of desiring to treat the Treasury as a sort of
"milch cow," a description which Mr. Gladstone had recently made current
in a debate in the House of Commons, Sir Henry Thring was no mere
draughtsman. He had had an immense experience of official life, had
known every man of public importance over a long period of years, and
had very determined views on most subjects, which he never hesitated to
express in clear-cut language and without respect of persons. Mr. Lowe,
it was asserted, had once observed at a Cabinet just before Thring
entered the room: 'I think before he arrives we had better carry a
preliminary resolution that we are all d----d fools.' As it also
happened, Local Government was a subject on which Sir Henry Thring, and
not without reason, prided himself as an expert, and the Committee over
which Sir Charles Dilke presided consequently had Sir Henry Thring's
views conveyed to them in unmistakable terms. One of his special objects
of hostility was the Poor Law Union area, which he hoped ultimately to
destroy. On the other hand, Mr. Hugh Owen, like nearly all the Local
Government Board officials of that time, regarded the Poor Law and
everything connected with it as sacred. The controversies were
frequently fierce, and on one occasion a serious crisis almost arose
owing to Lord Kimberley asking to be informed if Sir Henry Thring was
preparing a Bill of his own or was acting on his instructions.

The Bill of 1884 contained almost everything now to be found within the
corners of the two great measures of 1888 and 1894, which, the one
passed by a Conservative, the other by a Liberal Government, entirely
revolutionized the Local Government of England. It was, however, decided
to have no Aldermen, but a few ex-officio seats were created on the
County Council. Otherwise direct election was the method chosen for all
the new Councils. The administration of the Poor Law was kept within the
purview of the Bill, after a long controversy as to the method of
electing the representatives of urban parishes on the local Poor Law
authority, when such an authority included both a borough and a rural
district; and the limit of population that was to entitle a borough to a
complete independence from the county authority was raised from the
figure originally proposed of 20,000 to 100,000 and upwards.

It had been part of Sir Charles Dilke's plan to include education within
the framework of the Bill, making the Borough and District Councils the
local education authority, with a limited superior jurisdiction in the
County Council. But it was found that almost insurmountable difficulties
would arise in adding so immense a proposal to an already large measure,
and it had to be abandoned.

Mr. Gladstone expressed a decided view on one portion of the Bill only.
He gave his strongest support to the proposal that the price of any
increased contributions in the shape of Treasury grants should be the
complete reform of the conflict of areas and jurisdictions, which added
so much to the difficulties and the cost of local administration.
[Footnote: In a speech made at Halifax on October 13th, 1885, which
occupies nearly the whole of a page of the _Times_, Sir Charles Dilke,
after the fall of the Government, gave a full account of the proposed
measure.]

The question of female councillors inevitably found its way into the
discussions, and it was decided in their favour, notwithstanding much
divergence of opinion.

    '"I am sorry," Childers wrote, "about female councillors, but I
    suppose I am in a minority, and that we shall soon have women M.P.'s
    and Cabinet Ministers." This shows that we had decided to clear up
    the doubt as to the possibility of women serving as councillors, and
    distinctly to give them the opportunity of so doing. When Ritchie
    afterwards introduced portions of my Bill, he left this doubtful,
    and the Lady Sandhurst decision was the result.' [Footnote: See for
    "Lady Sandhurst decision," infra, p. 17.]

Sir Charles differed from other members of the Committee in the desire
to make the county and not the Local Government Board the sole appellate
authority from the district. 'I would, indeed,' he says, 'have gone
farther, had I been able to convince my colleagues, and have set up an
elective Local Government Board for England.'

Owing to the Parliamentary position, progress with any large measures of
reform was, however, difficult even in the preliminary stages; and the
road seemed to get more encumbered every day, for the period now under
review indicates the high-water mark of Parliamentary obstruction in the
skilled hands of the Irish Party and Lord Randolph Churchill, who
successfully defied the feeble reforms of procedure of 1882. So it came
about that early in 1884 Sir Charles was found rather mournfully writing
to Mr. Gladstone:

    'We produced to-day our last draft of the Local Government Bill, and
    had our funeral meeting over it, I fear. I wish to tell you with
    what spirit and skill Edmond Fitzmaurice has gone into the matter.
    He is the only man I know who is fit to be President of this Board.'

In the autumn of 1883 Sir Charles made what was rare with him, a kind of
oratorical progress. He spoke at Glasgow, at Greenock, and lastly at
Paisley, where he received the freedom of the burgh for his services
connected with the commercial negotiations. His speech at Paisley
naturally dealt with commercial policy, and drew an admiring letter from
Sir Robert Morier, who was then just bringing to a head the offer of a
commercial treaty with Spain. The Cabinet, however, had been much
inclined to issue a general declaration on the subject,

    'Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville being against all commercial
    treaties, I for good ones and against bad ones, and Chamberlain for
    punishing Italy for her conduct to us.' [Footnote: 'March 5th,
    1883.--We turned to Tariff Treaties: Lord Granville and Mr.
    Gladstone wishing for a general and abstract declaration against
    them, and I, with support of Childers, urging most strongly the
    other view. The proposed declaration was a gratuitous piece of
    folly, for we were not called on to say anything at all.']

When the proposed treaty with Spain, and the changes in duties which it
would involve, were before the Cabinet on November 10th,

    'I am afraid I played upon Mr. Gladstone's favourite weakness (next
    to praise of Montenegro)--namely, abuse of the Customs, a department
    for the routine of which he always had a perfect loathing.'


III.

Queen Victoria's demand for investigation into the housing of the poor
[Footnote: See Vol. I., p. 509.] had led to prompt administrative
action, planned by Sir Charles before he left for his Christmas holiday.

    'While I was at Toulon there were issued from the Local Government
    Board the circulars on the Housing of the Working Class, which I had
    prepared before leaving London.... One circular, December 29th, 1883
    ... called on the Vestries to make use of the powers which they
    possessed for regulating the condition of houses let in lodgings.
    Another, December 30th ... called attention to their powers under
    the Sanitary Acts, and under the Artisans and Labourers' Dwellings
    Acts; and one of the same date to a similar effect went to all urban
    sanitary districts throughout the country, while a further circular
    with digests of the laws was sent out on January 7th, 1884. This
    action was afterwards repeated by Chamberlain and others, and taken
    for new, and again by Walter Long.'

But, naturally, the first man to do it stirred up a hornets' nest.
_Punch_ of the first week in January, 1884, derides the 'Bitter Cry of
Bumbledom' against Dilke and Mr. Hugh Owen, [Footnote: Years after Sir
Hugh Owen, G.C.B., wrote to Dilke: 'I shall always remember that I owed
my first step in the Order of the Bath to you.'] Secretary to the Local
Government Board:

  '_Us_ to blame? That's a capital notion! Drat them and their
      "statutes" and "digests"!
  "Convenience of reference." Ah! that is one of their imperent sly
      jests.
  Removal of Noosances? Yah! If we started on _that_ lay perniskers
  There is more than a few in the Westries 'ud feel suthin' singein'
      their wiskers,
  Or BUMBLE'S a Dutchman. Their Circ'lar--it's mighty obliging--defines
      'em,
  The Noosances namely; I wonder if parties _read_ Circ'lars as signs
      'em,
  If so, Local Government Boarders must be most oncommonly knowin',
  And I'd like to 'eave bricks at that DILKE and his long-winded
      myrmidon OWEN.
  The public's got Slums on the brain, and with sanitry bunkum's have
      busted.
  _We_ make a more wigorous use of the powers with which we're
      entrusted!
  Wy, if we are at it all day with their drains, ashpits, roofs, walls,
      and windies,
  Wot time shall we 'ave for our feeds and our little porochial
      shindies!
  And all for the 'labouring classes'--the greediest, ongratefullest
      beggars.
  I tell you these Radical lot and their rubbishy littery eggers,
  Who talk of neglected old brooms, and would 'ave _us_ turn to at their
      handles,
  Are Noosances wus than bad smells and the rest o' their sanitry
      "scandals."'

Sir Charles's main object in local government was to decentralize, and
he sought to move in this direction by stimulating the exercise of
existing powers and the habit of responsibility in local popularly
elected bodies. But inquiry was also necessary.

    'On February 8th, 1884, it had been decided to appoint a Royal
    Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, and Mr. Gladstone
    had expressed his wish that I should be chairman of the Commission,
    on which the Prince of Wales desired to serve.'

    'On the 9th it was settled that Bodley, my secretary, should be
    secretary to the Royal Commission. I immediately wrote to Manning to
    ask him to serve, and he consented on February 12th.'

Lord Salisbury's name lent another distinction to the list, which was
completed by February 16th. [Footnote: In addition to the Prince, the
Cardinal, and Lord Salisbury, Dilke's Commission consisted of Lord
Brownlow, Lord Carrington, Mr. Goschen, Sir Richard Cross, the Bishop of
Bedford (Dr. Walsham How), Mr. E. Lyulph Stanley, Mr. McCullagh Torrens,
Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. George Godwin, and Mr. Samuel
Morley. To these were added later Mr. Dwyer Gray and Sir George
Harrison, for Ireland and Scotland respectively.]

    'A very difficult question arose about his precedence. I referred it
    to the Prince of Wales, who said that he thought Manning ought to
    take precedence, as a Prince, after Princes of the Blood, and before
    Lord Salisbury.'

The nice question was referred to Lord Salisbury and to many other
authorities, and finally to Lord Sydney, who wrote, from the Board of
Green Cloth, 'that in 1849, at the Queen's Levee at Dublin Castle, the
Roman Catholic Primate followed the Protestant Archbishop, but he was
not a Cardinal. _A fortiori_ I presume a Cardinal as a Prince of the
Holy Roman Empire would have precedence next to the Prince of Wales. It
showed, however, extraordinary ignorance on the part of the Lord Steward
to suppose that the Holy Roman Empire and the Papal Court were the same
thing.' [Footnote: The story of how the question of precedence was
settled in Manning's favour is given in detail in Mr. Bodley's _Cardinal
Manning, and Other Essays_ (1912).]

    'It was on February 12th that I received Sir Henry Ponsonby's letter
    announcing the approval of the Queen to the Prince serving on the
    Commission as an ordinary member under my chairmanship, and the
    Prince of Wales expressed his pleasure at the Queen's approval.'

    'On February 22nd the members of the Cabinet present (at a meeting
    at the Foreign Office) discussed my proposal to put Miss Octavia
    Hill on my Royal Commission, no woman having ever sat on one; and
    Harcourt having refused to sign the Commission if it contained a
    woman's name, Mr. Gladstone, Kimberley, and Northbrook sided with
    me, and Hartington with Harcourt. Lord Granville said that he was
    with me on the principle, but against me on the person. After this
    Mr. Gladstone went round, and said that the decision of the Cabinet
    was against me. Asquith put several women on a Royal Commission a
    few years later, but refused them the precedence to which they were
    entitled, and gave every male member precedence before them.'

Mr. Lyulph Stanley was included to represent his sister, Miss Maude
Stanley, whom Sir Charles Dilke had wished to appoint.

Later in the year Sir Charles successfully asserted the principle for
which he was contending, by putting women on the Metropolitan Asylums
Board. Lady Ducie had the honour of the first invitation to serve, and
Sir Charles afterwards added Miss Maude Stanley and others. The question
of qualification was discussed, only to be set aside. The law officers

    'knew the women would be knocked off if anyone raised the question,
    and in Lady Sandhurst's case this was afterwards made clear; but no
    one did raise it against my nominees, and they stayed on for life.'

    'March 7th.--I had now had several interviews with Lord Salisbury
    and the Prince of Wales about the Royal Commission, and the first
    meeting of the Commission itself was held on March 5th.... We really
    began our work on March 14th. My work was heavy at this time, with
    sittings of the Commission twice a week, for which I had to prepare,
    as I did all the examination in chief of the witnesses, and, indeed,
    found them all and corresponded with them in advance.'

    'The Commission was dull, although it produced a certain amount of
    valuable evidence, and almost the only amusing incident which
    occurred in the course of many months was Lord Salisbury making a
    rather wild suggestion, when Broadhurst put down his pen, and,
    looking up in a pause, said with an astonished air, "Why, that is
    Socialism!" at which there was a loud laugh all round.'

    'I wrote to Lord Salisbury on May 7th to ask him for his suggestions
    as to what I called "remedies" to be proposed by our Commission, as
    I had already made my own list, and wished from this time forward to
    examine each witness on the same heads, with a view to collecting a
    body of evidence for the Report, intended to lead to recommendation
    and legislation upon these particular points....'

Some of Lord Salisbury's suggestions were 'valuable, and still throw
much light on his temporary Radicalism, which unfortunately soon wore
off.'

    'It is clear that on May 9th, 1884, he was contemplating throwing
    the rates upon the land, and making a long step towards leasehold
    enfranchisement. Lord Salisbury's proposal on this last head was
    virtually one for "judicial rents," as far as principle went, and
    destructive of the old view of the rights of holders of landed
    property--although, perhaps, not one carrying much advantage to
    anybody!'

The Report of the Commission proposed the rating of vacant land, but
before it was drafted Lord Salisbury condemned the proposal in a
memorandum attached to the Report, which Mr. Goschen supported by
another independent minute.

Sir Charles sent also a request for the suggestion of 'remedies' to
Cardinal Manning, who, says a scribbled note, 'is our only
revolutionary!'

    'On Friday, May 16th, at the Commission the Cardinal handed me his
    list of suggestions, which were not only revolutionary, but ill-
    considered, and I have to note how curiously impracticable a
    schemer, given to the wildest plans, this great ecclesiastic showed
    himself. He suggested the removal out of London, not only of prisons
    and infirmaries (which no doubt are under the control of public
    authorities), but also of breweries, ironworks, and all factories
    not needed for daily or home work, as a means of giving us areas for
    housing the working class, suggestions the value or practicability
    of which I need hardly discuss.'

    'On May 18th, I having proposed to add to the Royal Commission a
    member for Ireland and a member for Scotland before we began to take
    the Scotch and Irish evidence, and having proposed Gray, the
    Nationalist member and proprietor of the _Freeman's Journal_, who
    was the highest Irish authority upon the subject, Ponsonby replied:
    "Although the Queen cannot say she has a high opinion of Mr. Gray,
    Her Majesty will approve of his appointment, and that of the Lord
    Provost of Edinburgh, on the Royal Commission." Sir Henry Ponsonby
    was a worthy successor of General Grey--a wise counsellor of much
    prudence, invaluable to the Queen.'

    'Early in June Chamberlain came a good deal to the Local Government
    Board to consider the evidence which he was to give before my
    Commission. His view was mine--that in the Metropolis the housing of
    the working classes could only be dealt with by imposing the most
    stringent obligations on the owners of property on which artisans'
    dwellings already existed; and Chamberlain was willing to go so far
    as to reserve such property permanently for the object, with State
    interference to secure fair rents. I argued with him that a strong
    case could be made against him on such points as extension of trade
    from the City into Whitechapel, extension of fashionable dwellings
    from Mayfair into Chelsea, and so forth. He then fell back upon a
    proposal for exchange, and said that at all events there was no
    practical alternative to his view, an opinion in which I agreed. On
    a later day in June the Cardinal wrote to me expressing his regret
    for absence from the Commission, "at which I should like to have
    seen Lord Salisbury examine Mr. Chamberlain." But the Commission
    kept up its character for dulness, and nothing noteworthy occurred.'

The Commission on Housing, to which so much of Sir Charles's time was
devoted, had an importance, now forgotten, in the modern development of
Social Reform.

    'Up to five-and-twenty years ago,' said a writer in a daily
    newspaper on Social Reform in 1910, 'when the living Sir Charles
    Dilke was the President of the Local Government Board, no one cared
    how the poor lived or fared. They could reside in the most
    ramshackle tenements in insanitary slums, for which, by the way,
    they were charged exorbitant rents, far higher than what they would
    now pay for the well-ventilated and well-equipped self-contained
    houses of the London County Council and building companies which
    provide accommodation for the industrial classes. Sir Charles saw
    the abject and helpless condition of the people of London, and
    resolved, when he succeeded to office, to try and remedy the evils
    under which they laboured. His enthusiasm in the cause of the poor
    caught on, and in a short time "slumming" became a fashionable
    craze. Committees were formed--the premier one being that which had
    its headquarters at the Mansion House--to improve the dwellings of
    the poor. In a short time the movement became a great success, and,
    that there should be no falling back, medical officers of health,
    whose sole time was to be devoted to their duties, and battalions of
    sanitary inspectors, were appointed in every district in the
    Metropolis.'

It cannot be said that 'no one cared,' for outside the great official
movement which Sir Charles Dilke directed were the devoted social
workers on whom he called for evidence at the Commission, and to whose
labours he always paid tribute; nor must be forgotten the Queen's fine
letter calling on her Ministers to act. But, as Miss Octavia Hill wrote
to him on March 22nd, 1884, 'you among all men realize most clearly that
action is more needed than words.'

The question of Housing is so inextricably bound up with all the
conditions of the poor, with hours of work and with those questions of
wages which Sir Charles had first studied with John Stuart Mill, that it
is natural to find him presiding over another inquiry which, though
prepared for in 1884, was carried out in the first weeks of 1885.

    'At the beginning of the new year of 1885 there were completed the
    final arrangements for my presidency of the Industrial Remuneration
    Conference, which was held at the end of January at Prince's Hall,
    Piccadilly, on three mornings and three afternoons. A large sum of
    money had been given for the purpose of promoting the consideration
    of the best means for bringing about a more equal division of the
    products of industry between capital and labour, so that it might
    become possible for all to enjoy a fair share of material comfort
    and intellectual culture--possible for all to lead a dignified life,
    and less difficult to lead a good life. The trustees who were
    appointed decided to promote a conference on the present system
    whereby the products of industry are distributed between the various
    classes of the community, and the means whereby that system should
    be improved. They then divided the subject into subheads, and asked
    certain persons to read papers, and an extraordinarily interesting
    series of discussions was the result. In my own speech in opening
    the proceedings I called attention to the nature of the German
    Governmental Socialism, and quoted Prince Bismarck's speeches,
    showing what was the object which the Prussian Government had in
    view--namely, to try experiments as to the labour of man with the
    view "to reach a state of things in which no man could say: 'I bear
    the burden of society, but no one cares for me.'" This Conference
    first introduced to London audiences all the leaders of the new
    Unionism, and future chiefs of the Dockers' Strike. Among the
    speakers were Arthur Balfour and John Burns, who told us of his
    dismissal from his employment as an engineer at Brotherhoods
    [Footnote: A great engineering firm at Chippenham in Wiltshire.] for
    attending as delegate of the "S.D.F."'

    'I am convinced,' wrote Mr. Burns in 1914 from the Office of the
    Local Government Board, over which he then presided, 'that few, if
    any, conferences held in London in recent years have done more good
    for the cause of social progress than the Industrial Remuneration
    Conference of 1885. The Conference focussed public opinion and
    sympathy upon a large number of important questions, which have
    since made greater headway than they would have done if the
    Conference had not taken place. I have the highest opinion of the
    value of its work, and of the good influence it exercised in
    stimulating inquiry and action in many directions.'

Six years later, when Sir Charles was before the electors of the Forest
of Dean as their chosen candidate, he discussed the whole question of
limiting by law the hours of work; and he told them how his experience
of those days spent in the chair of the Conference in 1885 had converted
him 'from a position of absolute impartiality to one strongly favourable
to legislative limitation.'

A speech delivered by him in January, 1884, to the Liberals of Bedford
Park, brings together the two sides of his work. For him political
reform lay at the very base of social reform; in his opinion the
government of London and extension of the franchise ought not to be
party questions at all; his desire was to call the whole people of the
country into citizenship of the State, and he would make exercise of the
voting power compulsory and universal. People said there was no 'magic
in the vote.' He wanted as many citizens as possible to have the right
to consider 'the sort of magic by which many persons contrived to live
at all under the existing social conditions.'

A proof of his friendship for the cause of labour, and of his desire to
associate manual workers with the administration, was given by him in a
use of patronage, in which he departed from his principle of confining
it to the men in his office, tendering the chance of official employment
to two leading representatives of labour in August, 1884.

    'I had a "good" appointment under the Local Government Board to
    make, and I offered it not only to Broadhurst, but afterwards to
    Burt. I expected both of them to decline, which both did, but I
    should have been glad if either of them would have taken it, for
    both were competent.'


IV.

As to his departmental work, Sir Charles notes in July, 1884:

    'I have said but little of my work at the Local Government Board,
    because, though heavy, it was of an uninteresting nature.'
    [Footnote: There are, however, many entries, of which this for 1884
    is typical:

    'September 8th.--With the Local Government Board Inspectors Fleming
    and Courtenay to the worst villages in England. I made my way from
    Bridport to Yeovil, Nettlecombe, Powerstock, Maiden Newton, Taunton
    and its neighbourhood, Wiveliscombe, Bridgwater, and North
    Petherton.'

    'Between September 21st and 27th I was visiting workhouses and
    infirmaries every day, and on the 27th I completed my visits to
    every workhouse, infirmary, and poor-law school in or belonging to
    Metropolitan Unions.]

    'My chief new departure was in connection with the emigration of
    pauper children, which had been long virtually prohibited, and which
    I once more authorized.'

Mr. Preston Thomas has fortunately preserved a note of another
innovation. The Guardians of a certain union in Cambridgeshire had
committed the offence of spending three shillings and threepence of
public money on toys for sick pauper children in the workhouse
infirmary. The case had occurred before, and the Board's legal advisers
had held the expenditure to be unwarrantable, and had surcharged the
offending Guardians. Dilke was questioned in the House about the matter,
and admitted the previous decisions, but said that the Board had changed
its mind. So the children at Wisbech kept their toys; and not only that,
but a circular went out from Whitehall suggesting that workhouse girls
should be supplied with a reasonable number of skipping-ropes and
battledores and shuttlecocks.

The appearance of cholera in French and Spanish ports disquieted the
public, and as early as July 25th, 1883,

    'I circulated a draft of a Bill to meet the cholera scare, which I
    carried into law as the Diseases Prevention Act. I did not much
    believe in cholera, but I took advantage of the scare to carry some
    useful clauses to deal with smallpox epidemics, the most important
    clause being one giving compulsory powers for acquiring wharves, by
    which we could clear the London smallpox hospitals, removing the
    patients to the Atlas and Castalia floating hospitals on the Thames.
    I was a strong partisan of the floating hospitals for smallpox. I
    used to pay frequent visits to them, and in the early summer of 1885
    stayed there from Saturday to Monday; and I used also to go to the
    camp at Darenth to which we removed convalescents from the ships.'

He notes that he was revaccinated before one of these visits:

    'September, 1884.--My arm was in a frightful condition from the
    vaccine disease, though I was still a teetotaller, now of about ten
    years' standing.'

During the autumn recess:

    'In the course of this week I was every day inspecting schools and
    asylums, the imbecile asylums at Caterham, Leavesden, and many
    others; and my smallpox wharves were also giving me much trouble, as
    Rotherhithe and the other places showed strong objections to them,
    which I was, however, able to remove.'

But the veteran official who has been already quoted attaches a very
different importance to this whole matter. In France and Spain, says Mr.
Preston Thomas, the Governments were chiefly concerned to deny the
existence of any danger. In England the medical staff demanded such an
increase in the number of inspectors as would enable them to take proper
precautions at the ports.

    'Fortunately, Sir Charles Dilke had become President of the Board,
    and carried with him a political weight which his two worthy, but
    not particularly influential, predecessors, Sclater-Booth and
    Dodson, had not enjoyed. He had one or two passages of arms with
    Childers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it was attempted to
    interfere with the estimates which he had put forward, and which he
    declined to defend in Parliament if they were curtailed. There was
    an appeal to the Premier, and Sir Charles Dilke had come off
    victorious. So when he proposed largely to increase the medical
    staff in order to make a sanitary survey of the entire coast, the
    Treasury's sanction was given, and the work was carried out with
    far-reaching results. The authorities of the ports ... were
    impressed with a sense of their responsibilities; not only did they
    organize special arrangements for the inspection of ships from
    infected countries, but they also recognized the necessity of
    setting their own houses in order in a literal sense, and many of
    them for the first time displayed activity in providing pure water,
    efficient sewerage, and a prompt removal of nuisances.... The
    communications of the Board's expert with the local authorities and
    their officers ... did something more than lay the foundations of
    that Public Health System ... which has saved us from any outbreak
    of cholera for the last quarter of a century, [Footnote: Written in
    1909.] and has reduced the mortality from preventable diseases to a
    rate which such countries as France and Germany may well envy.'
    (_Work and Play of a Government Inspector_, p. 148.)

It should be noted, too, that the first definite action of the Housing
Commission concerned the Local Government Board:

    'It was decided to ask Parliament to alter its standing orders with
    regard to persons of the labouring class displaced under
    Parliamentary Powers, and to insist on local inquiry in such cases,
    and the approval of the Local Government Board after it has been
    shown that suitable accommodation had been found for the people
    displaced. This was done by resolution of both Houses of
    Parliament.'


V.

The friendliness which had grown up between Sir Charles and Lord
Salisbury, and was later in this year to be of public service, is
illustrated by an amusing note in the Memoir. Sir Charles Dilke was
never a clubman, and had incurred the remonstrances of Sir M. Grant Duff
by refusing to take up membership of the Athenaeum, as he was entitled
to do on entering the Cabinet. But there is a club more august than the
Athenaeum, and here also Dilke showed indisposition to enter. He notes
in May:

    'Before this I had been much pressed to accept my election at
    Grillion's Club on Lord Salisbury's nomination. The Club considers
    itself such an illustrious body that it elects candidates without
    telling them they are proposed, and I received notice of my election
    accompanied by some congratulations. I at first refused to join, but
    afterwards wrote to the secretary: "Carlingford has been to see me
    about Grillion's, and tells me that I should have the terrible
    distinction of being the first man who ever declined to belong to
    it, an oddity which I cannot face, so ... I will ask your leave to
    withdraw my refusal." On May 3rd I breakfasted at the Club for the
    first time, Mr. Gladstone and a good many other Front Bench people,
    chiefly Conservatives, being present.'

The meetings of the Housing Commission had also increased the frequency
of intercourse between Sir Charles Dilke and the Prince of Wales, who
was in this May

    'showing a devotion to the work of my Commission which was quite
    unusual with him, and he cut short his holiday and returned from
    Royat to London on purpose for our meeting.'

On January 11th, 1884, the Duke of Albany wrote to Sir Charles that he
had hoped to call, but was not sure whether he had returned to England.
'I write to express a hope that your opinions will coincide with the
request which I have made to Lord Derby ... namely, to succeed Lord
Normanby as Governor of Victoria.' He referred to their talk at
Claremont of his 'hopes, which were not realized, of going to Canada.'
'The Prince went on to say that, as I had been in Australia, I was "a
more competent judge than some others of the Ministers as to the
advisability of my appointment."' He spoke of the matter as one in which
he was 'vitally interested,' and his 'sincere trust' in Sir Charles's
support. The Cabinet agreed to the appointment,

    'unless the Queen persisted in her opposition. The matter had been
    discussed at Eastwell (where I stayed with the Duchess of Edinburgh
    from the 19th to the 21st) by me with the Duchess as well as with
    Princess Louise and Lorne, who were also there. The Duke of
    Edinburgh was not there, but at Majorca in his ship. The party
    consisted of Nigra, the Italian Ambassador, the Wolseleys, Lord
    Baring and his sister Lady Emma, and Count Adlerberg of the Russian
    Embassy, in addition to the Princess Louise and Lome already named.'

    'On January 24th there was a regular Cabinet. The Queen had written
    that she would not allow Prince Leopold to go to Victoria.'

On March 28th 'we heard of the death of Prince Leopold,' codicils to
whose will Sir Charles had witnessed in the preceding year. 'All
newspapers wrote of the pleasant boy as though he had been a man of
literary genius.'

But anxious as Sir Charles had been to further Prince Leopold's wishes,
and in spite of his 'respect for his memory,' he could not allow a
principle, for which he always fought, to be waived.

    'The Queen wrote to Mr. Gladstone at this time (April 5th) with
    regard to provision for the child and possible posthumous child of
    the Duke of Albany, and I wrote to Mr. Gladstone that I could not
    possibly agree to any provision for them, for which there was no
    exact precedent, without the Select Committee which I had previously
    been promised as regarded any new application.'

On April 22nd Mr. Gladstone alluded 'to a letter to the Queen, but he
did not read it to us,' and Sir Charles again insisted 'upon inquiry
before the proposal of any provision for which there was no direct
precedent.'

    'At the Cabinet of Monday, April 28th, we found that the Queen was
    indignant with us for our refusal to make further provision for the
    Duchess of Albany.... None of the precedents of the century
    warranted provision for children in infancy. It was agreed that Mr.
    Gladstone was to write to the Queen again, but "our negative answer
    is only applicable to the case where the children are in infancy."
    In other words, we did not wish to bind those who might come after
    us, but the phrase was not to commit us as to what we would do in
    five years' time.'




CHAPTER XXXV

EGYPT

1884


I.

At the close of 1883 the destruction of Hicks's army had made clear to
all that the Soudan was, for the time at least, lost to Egypt; and close
upon this disaster in the central region had followed defeats on the Red
Sea coast. But Egyptian garrisons were holding out at Sinkat, some fifty
miles from the port of Suakim, and at Tokar, only twenty miles from the
coast. In October, 1883, a small force sent to relieve Sinkat was cut up
by the Dervishes under Osman Digna; in November, a larger column of 500,
accompanied by the British Consul, was utterly routed in an attempt to
reach Tokar. General Baker, with his newly formed gendarmerie, was then
ordered to Suakim. He desired to enlist the services of Zebehr Pasha, a
famous leader of men, but a former dealer in slaves. To this the British
authorities objected, and Zebehr was not sent. Baker went, attempted
with 3,500 troops to reach Tokar, and on February 2nd, 1884, lost 2,000
of them near the wells of El Teb. Both Tokar and Sinkat soon after fell
into the hands of the Dervishes.

Long before this event, the evacuation of the Soudan had been decreed. A
peremptory mandate from the British Government was sent to Cherif Pasha,
the Egyptian Prime Minister, who, as he had intimated that he would do,
resigned rather than be responsible for giving up so vast a possession.
On January 8th, Nubar took office to carry out the prescribed policy.
But the problem was how to get away the garrisons, and, since England
had ordered evacuation, the Egyptian Government looked to England for
assistance.

    'On January 16th I noted: "Baring wants to make us send a British
    officer to conduct the retreat from Khartoum. I have written to Lord
    Granville to protest." Baring had been pressing for an answer to his
    suggestion named above. I had all along fought against the "Hicks
    Expedition," and this seemed a consequence. The Egyptian Government
    had resigned, and the sole supporter of the abandonment policy among
    the Egyptians in Egypt was the Khedive himself; but Nubar was sent
    for, and accepted office (with a number of cyphers) to carry it into
    effect. On January 10th Lord Granville had telegraphed to Baring,
    without my knowledge, "Would Gordon or Wilson be of use?" [Footnote:
    Colonel Sir Charles Wilson. See his _Life_, by Sir Charles Watson,
    p. 244.] On the 11th Baring replied, "I do not think that the
    services of Gordon or Wilson can be utilized at present"; and after
    a reply had been received I saw the telegrams. The earlier Gordon
    suggestions by Granville, now revealed by E. Fitzmaurice from the
    Granville Papers, and expounded in Cromer's (1908) book, were never
    before the Cabinet. [Footnote: Life of Lord Granville, vol. ii., pp.
    381, 382.]

    'On the 14th Lord Granville telegraphed to Baring: "Can you give
    further information as to prospects of retreat from (? for) army and
    residents at Khartoum, and measures taken? Can anything more be
    done?" Power, our Consular Agent at Khartoum, had also been told
    that he might leave. On January 16th Baring telegraphed: "The
    Egyptian Government would feel obliged if Her Majesty's Government
    would send out at once a qualified British officer to go to Khartoum
    with full powers, civil and military, to conduct the retreat." Lord
    Granville then telegraphed for Gordon, and on the 18th I was
    summoned suddenly to a meeting at the War Office in Hartington's
    room, at which were present, before I arrived, Hartington, Lord
    Granville and Lord Northbrook, and Colonel Gordon. Gordon said that
    he believed that the danger at Khartoum had been "grossly
    exaggerated," and that the two Englishmen there had "lost their
    heads"; he would be able to bring away the garrisons without
    difficulty. We decided that he should go to Suakim to collect
    information and report on the situation in the Soudan. This was the
    sole decision taken, but it was understood that if he found he could
    get across he should go on to Berber. Gordon started at night on the
    same day.

    'On January 22nd the first subject mentioned was that of Egyptian
    finance, a Rothschild loan for six months being suggested, but
    nothing settled. The Cabinet approved our action in sending Gordon.
    But they had before them a great deal more than what we had
    done--namely, what he had done himself. On his road between London
    and Brindisi he had prepared a series of decrees which he
    telegraphed to us and which we telegraphed to Baring. In these he
    announced the restoration to the various Sultans of the Soudan of
    their independence, and he made the Khedive say: "I have
    commissioned General Gordon, late Governor-General of the Soudan, to
    proceed there as my representative, and to arrange with you" (the
    peoples of the Soudan) "for the evacuation of the country and the
    withdrawal of my troops." He then made the Khedive appoint him
    "Governor-General for the time necessary to accomplish the
    evacuation." He also telegraphed to the Hadendowa and Bishareen
    Arabs of the desert between Suakim and Berber, directing them to
    meet him at Suakim, and saying that he should be there in fourteen
    days. In sending these we told Baring: "Suggestions made by Gordon.
    We have no local knowledge sufficient to judge. You may settle
    terms, and act upon them at once, as time presses, or after
    consultation with him." Mr. Gladstone did not object, although
    strongly opposed to our undertaking responsibility in the Soudan,
    because Gordon still spoke in every sentence of conducting the
    evacuation; but reading his proclamations in the light of his
    subsequent change of mind, and desire to stay in Khartoum and be
    supported by force, it seems clear that he had deceived us and did
    not really mean evacuation. This, however, could not yet be seen
    from the words he used. I wrote to Lord Granville on January 22nd,
    to point out that in addition to the danger in the Soudan, which had
    been foreseen, there was a risk that Gordon might get himself
    carried off alive into the desert by some of the Arab chiefs that he
    was to meet, and that in that case we should have to send an
    expedition after him.

    'On January 31st there was a meeting at the War Office about Egypt
    between Hartington, Lord Granville, Edmond Fitzmaurice and myself.
    As the facts about Gordon were beginning to be misrepresented in the
    Press, Lord Granville set them down in writing. [Footnote: See _Life
    of Gladstone_, vol. iii., pp. 152-155; Life of Granville, vol. ii.,
    pp. 381-385 and 512, where a letter from Lord Cromer on General
    Gordon's instructions is printed; and chap. xvi. ('Gordon, and the
    Soudan') in _The Development of the European Nations, 1870-1900_, by
    Dr. J. Holland Rose.] It had been stated, and was afterwards
    repeated by Justin McCarthy in his history, that the mission on
    which we sent Gordon "was in direct opposition to his own ideas. He
    was not in favour of the abandonment of the Soudan or the evacuation
    of Khartoum." It had also been said that the whole mission had been
    forced upon us by the Press--i.e., by Stead, in the _Pall Mall
    Gazette_. Lord Granville gave me a memorandum saying that Gordon had
    acknowledged that the statements in the _Pall Mall_ were "not
    accurate." Lord Granville went on to say that he did not think that
    Gordon could be said to have "changed his mind. It appeared in his
    conversation with Wolseley on the Tuesday that he (Gordon) was not
    decided in his opinion, and that he was as likely to recommend one
    course as another.... I told him that we would not send him out to
    re-open the whole question, and he then declared himself ready to go
    out merely to help in the evacuation of the interior of the Soudan.
    He is not remarkably precise in conversation, though I found him
    much more so than Wolseley had led me to expect."

    'Lord Granville had previously written to me on this point: "The
    papers seem to think that Gordon is a new discovery by the
    Government under pressure of the Press. It happens that I consulted
    Malet on the subject months ago. But after communicating with Cherif
    he sent me an unfavourable reply. I subsequently consulted Baring,
    who agreed with Cherif that it was best not to do so. I consulted
    him again after the change of Ministry, with the same result. On the
    other hand Gordon was in Syria, having declared before leaving
    England that he would not enter the Egyptian service. It was only on
    his return to England that I heard indirectly that, although he had
    no wish to go, he would willingly obey the orders of Her Majesty's
    Government and act under the instructions of Sir Evelyn Baring and
    the orders of General Stephenson. Having got the full concurrence of
    Sir E. Baring by telegraph, the matter was arranged."

    'The fact was that it was Wolseley, Gordon's friend, who suggested
    that he should be sent and who induced him to go; but Wolseley's
    account of the matter could not, I fear, be trusted, as he is more
    inclined to attack Gladstone than to let out anything which in the
    light of subsequent events might be unpleasant to himself.

    'Edmond Fitzmaurice had drawn up an elaborate memorandum for our
    meeting at the War Office, which I have, with my own corrections. He
    thought that the public was hostile to us on four grounds: our
    non-interference to stop Hicks; [Footnote: General Hicks advanced
    west of the Nile, contrary to the views of Lord Dufferin, who wished
    him to limit his advance to the province lying between the
    bifurcation of the Blue and White Nile. See the _Life of Dufferin_,
    by Alfred Lyall, vol. ii., pp. 56, 57.] our failure to withdraw the
    garrisons of Khartoum and of the Equatorial Provinces in time to
    avoid disaster; our failure to relieve Sinkat; and, on the other
    hand, our decision to force the Egyptians to evacuate the Soudan in
    the face of defeat, a decision which had overturned Cherif Pasha.
    With regard to Hicks, we could only tell the truth, which was that
    our policy was to limit, not extend, the sphere of our
    responsibilities in Egypt; that we followed the advice we got, which
    was either for doing exactly what we did, or for a moderate support
    of Hicks, which latter we declined. Our opponents were prophesying
    after the event. We should have taken a great responsibility had we
    absolutely forbidden the Egyptian Government to make use of their
    own troops (not including any portion of the army officered by
    English officers under Sir Evelyn Wood for the defence of Lower
    Egypt) to crush the Mahdi. Hicks had at first defeated the Mahdi in
    every encounter and cleared him out of the whole country east of the
    Nile. [Footnote: Hicks Pasha complained that directly Lord Dufferin
    had left Cairo for Constantinople, he ceased to received adequate
    support from the Egyptian Government (_Life of Dufferin_. vol. ii.,
    p. 55).] The main point, however, and that of present importance,
    was our forcing upon the Egyptians the policy of evacuating the
    Soudan after Hicks's defeat. Fitzmaurice wrote: "The Soudan could
    not be held without the assistance of England, and it is not a
    British interest to hold the Soudan.... The cost of the Soudan is
    one of the causes which ruin the Egyptian Treasury." Edmond
    Fitzmaurice then went on to explain in his memorandum the reasons
    which had forced us to wait until January 4th before we had told the
    Egyptian Government as to withdrawal from the interior of the
    Soudan, including Khartoum--"that the Ministers must carry out the
    advice offered them, or forfeit their places."

    'On January 9th we had been told from Khartoum that, if a retreat
    was ordered at once, it could be safely effected; and it was on the
    next day, the 10th, that we offered the services of Colonels Gordon
    and Sir Charles Wilson, which were declined. It was not till January
    16th that we were able to induce the Egyptians, even under their new
    withdrawal Government, to ask for a British officer, and on the 18th
    Gordon was sent. Gordon, however--who had left us to go to Suakim,
    and for whom we had drawn up a route from Suakim to Berber, in case
    he should go forward, and negotiated with the tribes for his free
    passage, and of whom we had telegraphed to Baring, "He does not wish
    to go to Cairo"--went to Cairo, "at Baring's" suggestion. He did not
    even land at Alexandria, but he was stopped by Baring at Port Said
    when on his way to Suakim, Baring sending Sir Evelyn Wood to meet
    him. Baring had already given orders, through Nubar, to commence the
    evacuation. Gordon had telegraphed to us requesting us to send
    Zebehr Pasha to Cyprus--that is, arbitrarily to arrest him and
    deport him. Yet, when he reached Cairo, at his own wish he had had
    an interview with this very man, and shortly afterwards he
    telegraphed to us, asking leave to take him to Khartoum and to make
    him virtually Governor of the Soudan, which, indeed, would have been
    entirely outside our power; for Forster, supported by the Anti-
    Slavery Society and the Conservatives, would at once have upset us
    in the House of Commons and reversed the policy. Wolseley had
    already begun to press as early as the 23rd for the sending of an
    expedition via Suakim and Berber.

    'On January 26th Gordon had left for Khartoum without any
    communication with us upon the question whether he should go, and
    the last thing we had from him before he started was a memorandum in
    which, among other things, he said of the Soudan: "Few men can stand
    its fearful monotony and deadly climate." He insisted on absolute
    authority, and Stewart, who was with him, did the same for him, and,
    backing up his chief's arguments at this moment against Zebehr, said
    that Zebehr's return would undoubtedly be a misfortune to the
    Soudanese, and also a direct encouragement to the slave trade.

    'On February 1st we received a telegram from Baring, telling us that
    Gordon had taken with him proclamations of evacuation, and other
    proclamations less direct, with authority to issue those which he
    thought best; but "he fully understands that he is to carry out the
    policy of evacuation, in which he expressed to me his entire
    agreement. I have sent home by last mail my instructions to him,
    which leave no doubt on this point, and which were drafted at his
    request and with his full approval.... There is no sort of
    difference between his views and those entertained by Nubar Pasha
    and myself." Here ended our responsibility, because it must be
    remembered that Gordon at Khartoum was entirely outside our reach,
    and openly told us that he should not obey our orders when he did
    not choose to do so. From this moment we had only to please
    ourselves as to whether we should disavow him and say that he was
    acting in defiance of instructions, and must be left to his fate, or
    whether we should send an expedition to get him out.

    'Doubtless "we" wavered between these two opinions. Mr. Gladstone
    from the first moment that Gordon broke his orders was for the
    former view. Lord Hartington from the first moment was for the
    latter. Chamberlain and I supported Hartington, although we fully
    recognized Gordon's violations of his orders in much of his action
    at Khartoum, where he changed the policy agreed upon with Baring and
    with us to that expressed by him in the words, "Smash the Mahdi."
    Many members of the Cabinet went backwards and forwards in their
    opinion, but the circumstances were of incredible difficulty, and it
    must be remembered that we were not sure of being allowed to carry
    out either policy; and not only was it difficult to decide which of
    the two was right, but it was also difficult to decide whether
    either policy was possible--that is to say, whether the one adopted
    would not be immediately upset by a Parliamentary vote. The Liberal
    party in the House of Commons was divided on the matter, the Whigs
    generally wishing for an expedition, and the Radicals being hot for
    immediate abandonment of the Soudan, which meant abandonment of
    Gordon. The Conservatives were divided; most of them probably wished
    for an expedition, but they were afraid to say so; and Randolph
    Churchill, whose strength at this time was immense, was in full
    agreement with Labouchere and Wilfrid Lawson, and was denouncing the
    retention of the Soudan as a violation of the principles of freedom.

    'Gordon on his way up and on his arrival at Khartoum issued
    extraordinary proclamations. Arriving there alone, but with
    incredible prestige, he was hailed as father of the people; he
    burned the taxation books and the whips upon the public place; he
    released the prisoners from the gaol; he sent away the commander of
    the garrison with the words, "Rest assured you leave this place as
    safe as Kensington Park." He declared the Mahdi "Sultan of
    Kordofan." Gordon, of all men in the world, sanctioned slavery by
    another written document; and he then asked us to send the arch
    slave-driver Zebehr to his help, which we thought on Baring's
    truthful opinion of the moment that we ought not to do, and which we
    certainly could not have done. I thought and still think that Gordon
    had lost his senses, as he had done on former critical occasions in
    his life; but the romantic element in his nature appealed to me,
    and, while I could not but admit that he had defied every
    instruction which had been given to him, I should have sent an
    expedition to bring him out, although thinking it probable that when
    Wolseley reached him he would have refused to come.'

While Gordon was on his way to Khartoum, which he reached on February
18th, the defeat at El Teb had occurred, and the question arose as to
what should be done in the Eastern Soudan.

    'On February 6th the Cabinet met twice, and at our second meeting it
    was decided to send marines to Suakim.

    'On Thursday, February 7th, I visited the Admiralty with Pauncefote
    in order to take in hand the defence of the Red Sea coast against
    the Arabs, and then I went to the War Office, where I met
    Hartington, Northbrook, Wolseley, and Cooper Key, in order to
    concert steps. When I passed through the Secretary's room after the
    meeting, and stayed for a moment to talk with Hobart and Fleetwood
    Wilson, the Duke of Cambridge (whose room opened into theirs, and
    who had evidently been lying in wait for me) rushed out and carried
    me off into his room, and made much of me, with an enthusiastic
    desire to help an expedition. At night, Hartington, Chamberlain, and
    I met in Hartington's room and decided to press for relief of
    Gordon.

    'On February 8th Chamberlain wrote to me, "I should like to
    telegraph to Baring, 'If you think that employment of British troops
    could relieve beleaguered garrisons in Soudan without danger, you
    are authorized to concert measures with Evelyn Wood.'" A Cabinet was
    called at the wish of Hartington, Chamberlain, and myself, for this
    day upon this point. Hartington, Harcourt, Northbrook, Carlingford,
    Chamberlain, and I, were for asking Gordon if a demonstration at
    Suakim would help him. Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville, very strong
    the other way, broke up the meeting sooner than agree.'

    'Gordon had acted as Governor-General of the Soudan without having
    told us that he had accepted this appointment, and we had had to ask
    on February 4th a question which had been answered by Baring on the
    5th, to the effect that Gordon had "at his own request" been
    appointed Governor-General. On February 6th Baring had telegraphed
    stating that Gordon had said that it was possible he might go to the
    Mahdi and not be heard of for two months, as the Mahdi might keep
    him as a hostage for Zebehr. On the same day we telegraphed to
    Baring approving his having told Gordon that there would be the
    strongest objections to his placing himself in the Mahdi's power. On
    February 7th we received a despatch by post from Baring in which he
    informed us that, while Gordon would probably ask for Zebehr, "it
    would certainly not be desirable to send him ... for he is
    manifestly animated by a feeling of deep resentment against General
    Gordon." At the same time Baring forwarded a shorthand report of the
    meeting between Gordon, Zebehr, Baring, Stewart, Colonel Watson, Sir
    Evelyn Wood, and Nubar, at which Zebehr had told Gordon that he had
    entrusted his son to him, "and told you he was thenceforth your son.
    He was only sixteen years of age.... I entrusted my son to you....
    But you killed my son whom I entrusted to you. He was as your own
    son." _Gordon_: "Well, well, I killed my own son. There is an end of
    it." _Zebehr_: "And then you brought my wives and women and children
    in chains to Khartoum, a thing which for my name in the Soudan was
    most degrading."

    'By the same mail we received a despatch from Baring in which he
    made it clear that Gordon's instructions had Gordon's full approval.
    "He expressed to me his entire concurrence in the instructions. The
    only suggestion he made was in connection with the passage in which,
    speaking of the policy of abandoning the Soudan, I had said, 'I
    understand also that you entirely concur in the desirability of
    adopting this policy.' General Gordon wished that I should add the
    words 'and that you think it should on no account be changed.' These
    words were accordingly added."

    'Between this Cabinet and the next we received, on February 9th, a
    telegram from Baring to the effect that he was sending home a letter
    from Gordon to the King of the Belgians in which he urged the king
    to appoint him Governor of the Equatorial Provinces, Gordon's idea
    being to go there from Khartoum; and Baring stated his own view that
    we should forbid Gordon to go south of Khartoum. In his letter,
    which was dated February 1st, Gordon said that the King of the
    Belgians had told him that he would take over the Provinces with the
    troops in them, when Gordon had been at Brussels immediately before
    we sent him out; but not one word had Gordon ever breathed of this;
    and when we first heard of it he was virtually beyond our reach,
    seated, when our answer arrived, at Khartoum, and little disposed to
    listen to us, although on some points, for a few days, he pretended
    to listen.

    'On February 12th Baring telegraphed that he hoped that "H.M.G. will
    not change any of the main points of their policy"; but, as will be
    seen a little later, Baring soon changed his own, adopting the new
    policy of Gordon, and pressing it upon us.

    'On February 12th it was decided, against Mr. Gladstone, to send an
    expedition to the Red Sea Coast.

    'On February 13th we had before us a statement which had been made
    the previous day by Randolph Churchill, to the effect that in the
    summer of 1883 General Gordon had offered to go to the Soudan, and
    that the Government had telegraphed to him accepting his offer, and
    then written to him declining it. Lord Granville instructed me to
    say that the whole story was one gigantic concoction. I then asked
    Hartington if he knew anything about it; and Lord Wolseley
    ultimately discovered that Randolph Churchill had confused the Congo
    with the Nile, an amusing example of his harum-scarum recklessness.
    Gordon had telegraphed from Syria in October for leave to accept
    service under the King of the Belgians on the Congo, and the
    Commander-in-Chief had replied by telegraph that the Secretary of
    State declined to sanction his employment. In transmission the word
    "declines" was changed into "decides," which exactly reversed its
    sense, so that Gordon had received a confirming letter consistent
    with the telegram as sent, but exactly reversing the sense of the
    telegram as received. He had told the story which Churchill had
    heard, but altered from one side of Africa to the other.'

On February 14th Sir Charles made effective use of this blunder in the
debate upon the vote of censure concerning Egypt. It was a debating
speech which, he himself notes, 'had extraordinary success.' Lord
Randolph Churchill had been more than usually aggressive, and Sir
Charles hammered him with detailed facts. [Footnote: He comments on the
20th on the opinions expressed to him as to his powers of debate: 'This
is a curious position for a man who has no natural gift of speech. I can
remember when I was the worst speaker that ever spoke at all.'] The
debate on this vote of censure, occasioned by the fall of Sinkat,
occupied the House for five days. The motion was defeated by forty-nine.

    'On February 14th I found that Lord Granville had not answered an
    important question from Baring about Wood's Egyptians which had been
    received by us on the 13th, and that because he had not seen it. We
    had started a red label as a danger-signal for pressing notes; but
    Lord Granville's room was full of red-labelled notes not touched.'

He records his remonstrances with Lord Granville as to the non-
employment of Sir Evelyn Wood's Egyptians. On February 18th there was a
Cabinet 'partly upon this subject. It was decided to send reinforcements
to Egypt.'

    'On February 21st there was another Cabinet which again discussed
    the Egyptian question and decided to send Wood's Egyptians to
    Assouan. On the 15th Gordon had reassured us by telling us that all
    communication between Cairo and the Soudan would be finally at an
    end within three months' (that is, that evacuation would be easily
    carried out). 'On February 18th we had heard that on the 17th Gordon
    had issued a proclamation saying that the Government would not
    interfere with the buying and selling of slaves; and this telegram,
    having got out from Cairo, produced a storm in England. On the 19th
    there occurred another matter which was considered by the Cabinet at
    the same time--the absolute refusal of Admiral Hewett, and very
    proper refusal, to issue a proclamation calling on the chiefs from
    Suakim to go peacefully to meet Gordon at Khartoum, inasmuch as the
    Admiral knew "that English troops are about to be sent against the
    people in question." The issue of this proclamation had been
    recommended by Wolseley, who thinks that Governments exist for the
    purpose of deceiving enemies in war for the benefit of generals.

    'On the same day, February 19th, we had received a telegram which
    had been sent off from Khartoum by Gordon on the 18th, asking that
    Zebehr should be sent to the Soudan, "be made K.C.M.G., and given
    presents." This was backed by Stewart, so far as that he said that
    someone should be sent, adding that he was not sure whether Zebehr
    was the best man. It was clear from Gordon's proposed conditions
    that Zebehr was to be free to prosecute the slave trade. In another
    memorandum on the same day Gordon said that we must "give a
    commission to some man and promise him the moral support of
    H.M.G.... It may be argued that H.M.G. would thus be giving ...
    moral support to a man who will rule over a slave state.... This
    nomination of my successor must ... be direct from Her Majesty's
    Government.... As for the man, H.M.G. should select one above all
    others, namely Zebehr." Baring now backed this opinion up, so that
    we were face to face with an absolute change of front on the part of
    Gordon and Baring, and a partial change of front on the part of
    Stewart. On the other hand, Baring, at the same time when he told us
    to appoint Zebehr, added: "I am quite certain that Zebehr hates
    Gordon bitterly, and that he is very vindictive. I would not on any
    account risk putting Gordon in his power.... He is, to my personal
    knowledge, exceedingly untruthful.... I cannot recommend his being
    promised the moral support of Her Majesty's Government. He would
    scarcely understand the phrase, and, moreover, I do not think he
    would attach importance to any support which was not material.... I
    doubt the utility of making conditions. Zebehr would probably not
    observe them long." Baring further proposed that Zebehr should be
    given money, and he left us to judge of the effect of the whole
    scheme on public opinion in England. Colonel Watson, who had been
    present at the meeting between Zebehr and Gordon, informed us that
    to let Gordon and Zebehr be together in the Soudan "would entail the
    death of either one or other of them." On the 21st Gordon
    telegraphed to the newspapers explaining away his slave trade
    proclamation, but its terms were even worse than could have been
    gathered from the first summary, which was all that we had received.

    'On February 21st we received the text of Gordon's proclamation,
    which contained the words, "I confer upon you these rights, that
    henceforth none shall interfere with your property," and spoke with
    apparent regret of "severe measures taken by Government for the
    suppression of slave traffic, and seizure and punishment of all
    concerned."

    'On February 26th there was a meeting of Mr. Gladstone, Hartington,
    Childers, Chamberlain, Dodson, and myself, to approve a telegram
    from Hartington to General Graham; [Footnote: General Graham was in
    command of the expedition to Suakim.] and on the next day again, the
    27th, a meeting of Lord Granville, Hartington, Northbrook, and
    myself, which decided to invite the Turk to show himself at the Red
    Sea ports. On the 29th there was a Cabinet at which it was decided
    that the Turk must approve our future ruler of the Soudan, and that
    British troops were to go as far as Assouan if Baring thought it
    necessary.

    'On February 27th Gordon had frightened us out of our senses by
    telegraphing that, having put out his programme of peace, and
    allowed time to elapse, he was now sending out his troops to show
    his force; and another telegram from him said: "Expedition starts at
    once to attack rebels." On the same day he telegraphed that he had
    issued a proclamation "that British troops are now on their way, and
    in a few days will reach Khartoum." It was very difficult to know
    what to do with this amazing lie: solemnly to point out to him by
    telegraph that it was a lie was hardly of much use with a man of
    Gordon's stamp; and what was done was to send a strong private
    telegram to Baring to communicate with him about it, but the result
    was not encouraging, for it was the first ground for the desperate
    quarrel which Gordon afterwards picked with Baring, and for his
    charge against Baring of inciting the Government to drive him to his
    death.

    'On the next day, February 28th, Gordon, having heard that Zebehr
    was refused, telegraphed his policy of smashing up the Mahdi, which,
    however, he seemed inclined to attempt with a most inadequate force.
    "Mahdi must be smashed up. Mahdi is most unpopular, and with care
    and time could be smashed.... If you decide on smashing Mahdi, then
    send another hundred thousand pounds, and send 200 Indian troops to
    Wady Haifa, and an officer to Dongola under pretence to look out
    quarters for troops.... At present it would be comparatively easy to
    destroy Mahdi." Gordon had also telegraphed to Baring to recommend
    that 3,000 black Egyptian troops should be kept in the Soudan, and
    completely throwing over the evacuation policy. Baring added for
    himself: "There are obviously many contradictions in General
    Gordon's different proposals"; but he went on to express his
    agreement in Gordon's new policy, strongly supported the selection
    of Zebehr, and sneered at us for having regard to uninstructed
    opinion in England. On the same day Gordon telegraphed: "If a
    hundred British troops were sent to Assouan or Wady Halfa, they
    would run no more risk than Nile tourists, and would have the best
    effect." At the same time Baring said: "I certainly would not risk
    sending so small a body as 100 men." It will be seen in how great a
    difficulty the Government were placed; but Baring's position was, in
    fact, as difficult as our own. We were evidently dealing with a wild
    man under the influence of that climate of Central Africa which acts
    even upon the sanest men like strong drink.

    'On the same day Gordon telegraphed to us completely changing his
    ground about Suakim. He had previously prevented our doing anything
    except trying to relieve the towns blockaded, but on March 1st told
    us to do something to draw the Hadendowa down to Suakim. On the 2nd,
    General Graham having beaten the Arabs at Teb, the Admiral asked us
    to send more troops and to threaten Osman Digna's main force, a
    suggestion which concurred with Gordon's. And on March 5th the
    Cabinet met and decided that, while it was impossible to send Zebehr
    to the Soudan, General Graham was to be allowed to attack Osman
    Digna's main force.... Chamberlain then suggested that I should go
    to Egypt: Hartington evidently thought that somebody should go, and
    thought he had better go himself. Lord Granville would not have
    either, as might have been expected.... I suggested a way out of the
    Zebehr difficulty, and wrote to Chamberlain: "If I were sent out to
    do this, I believe I should get away the forces from the interior
    and have Zebehr elected, entirely without our action, by the
    Notables at Khartoum. On the whole, this would do if we did not do
    it. This would, in my opinion, be improved by Turkish approval under
    Turkish suzerainty, but that you do not like." Chamberlain answered:
    "Perhaps we cannot help having Zebehr, but surely we ought not to
    promote him, directly or indirectly; not only because he is a slave-
    hunter, but also because he will probably attack Egypt sooner or
    later, and very likely with the help of our subsidy." I replied: "I
    am quite clear that we must not set up Zebehr, but if we retire we
    cannot prevent his election by the Notables; and they would elect
    him." In the meantime Gordon had completely thrown over Baring's
    suggestion that Zebehr should be sent (but so sent that he and
    Gordon should not be in the Soudan together) by telegraphing that
    the combination at Khartoum of Zebehr and himself was "an absolute
    necessity," and that it would be "absolutely necessary" for him to
    stay at Khartoum with Zebehr for four months; and Stewart had now
    completely come over to Gordon's policy about Zebehr personally. On
    the other hand, Baring and the military authorities in Egypt were
    unanimously opposed to the idea of sending a small British force to
    Wady Halfa.

    'On March 7th it was decided to give an inland district to the
    Abyssinians, but not to offer them a port (which was what they
    wanted), on account of its not being ours to give away from the
    Turks. The Cabinet would not hear of receiving a Turkish
    Commissioner at Cairo.

    'On March 11th we further considered pressing demands from Gordon
    and Baring for Zebehr. Mr. Gladstone had taken to his bed, but was
    known to be strongly in favour of sending Zebehr. The Cabinet were
    unanimous the other way, and Hartington was sent to see Mr.
    Gladstone, we waiting till he returned. When he came back, he
    laconically stated what had passed as follows: "He thinks it very
    likely that we cannot make the House swallow Zebehr, but he thinks
    he could." Morley has told this, but the words which he took
    verbally from me are less good. [Footnote: _Life of Gladstone_, vol.
    iii., p. 159.] Baring on the 6th had recommended a further attack on
    Osman Digna, which he thought might open the Berber route. On the
    9th we received Gordon's replies to our telegrams of the 5th,
    showing that he had done nothing towards the evacuation of Khartoum
    except by sending away the sick. He admitted that it was possible
    that "Zebehr, who hates the tribes, did stir up the fires of revolt,
    in hopes that he would be sent to quell it. It is the irony of fate
    that he will get his wish if sent up." On the same day Baring
    informed us that it was clear that Gordon now had no influence
    outside Khartoum, and that he contemplated the despatch of British
    troops. The Anti-Slavery Society had strongly protested against the
    employment of Zebehr, and they pointed out to us the records of
    murders "in which this man has stood the foremost and the principal
    actor.... Countenance ... of such an individual by the British
    Government would be a degradation for England and a scandal to
    Europe." W. E. Forster, amid loud cheers from the Conservatives,
    protested in advance in the House of Commons against the policy of
    sending Zebehr. On March 11th we had received in the morning from
    Baring twelve telegrams from Gordon, of the most extraordinary
    nature, which Baring had answered: "I am most anxious to help and
    support you in every way, but I find it very difficult to understand
    exactly what it is you want." Besides deciding that Zebehr could not
    be sent, the Cabinet changed its mind about the employment of Turks
    in the Red Sea, and decided that they could not be allowed to go
    there at present.

    'On March 13th the matter was again considered by a Cabinet, which
    was not called a Cabinet as Mr. Gladstone was in bed and Chamberlain
    was at Birmingham, and on the 14th we met again, still retaining our
    opinion; and on Sunday, the 16th, Mr. Gladstone at last unwillingly
    gave up Zebehr as impossible. [Footnote: _Life of Granville_, vol.
    ii., p. 388.]

    'I had been at this time working out the facts connected with the
    two routes to Khartoum in case an expedition should be sent, and had
    made up my own mind in favour of the Nile route; Wolseley still
    being the other way.

    'On March 17th, I wrote to Lord Northbrook to protest against a
    proclamation which had been issued by the Admiral and General at
    Suakim offering a reward for Osman Digna, and I wrote also to
    Hartington upon the same subject, stating that I would not defend
    it, and that if it were "not disapproved, and the disapproval made
    public, I cannot remain a member of the Government." Northbrook
    would not admit that he had disapproved it, but Hartington did, and
    also informed me that Northbrook had telegraphed. Lord Granville
    agreed with me that the proclamation was not defensible, and it was
    as a fact withdrawn, although the Admiral was very angry.

    'Mr. Gladstone had gone down to Coombe, near Wimbledon. On March
    22nd we held a Cabinet without him.... Harcourt was now writing to
    me in favour of the view "that we must get out of Egypt as soon as
    possible at any price. The idea of our administering it or of the
    Egyptian army defending it is equally out of the question." On the
    25th we had another Cabinet without Mr. Gladstone. Turning to
    Gordon, we decided that a force was not to be sent to Berber; but I
    noted in my diary: "It will _have_ to be sent next autumn, I
    believe"; but when I said to Berber, it must be remembered, of
    course, that there were two ways of reaching Berber, and Lord
    Hartington, Brett, and I, now turned steadily to the consideration
    of which of those two ways should be taken. It will be remembered
    that we already had a report in print as to the Suakim-Berber route.
    [Footnote: See p. 33; 'We had drawn up a route from Suakim to
    Berber.'] We now obtained from Wolseley a general report, which was
    afterwards printed and circulated to the Cabinet on April 8th. Lord
    Wolseley, preparing for the sending of a military force to Khartoum
    this autumn, stated that his force must be exclusively British, for
    he doubted whether the very best of our Indian regiments could stand
    the charges of the Arabs, besides which our natives took the field
    encumbered with followers. Lord Roberts, who was not given to
    boasting, told me, long afterwards, that he, on the other hand, was
    sure that he could have marched from Suakim to the Nile and Khartoum
    with an exclusively Indian force. It is the case that our best
    Gurkha troops have sometimes stood when white troops have run.
    Wolseley had now come round to a boat expedition, which I had been
    for a long time urging, upon information which I had obtained for
    myself from the Admiralty, and which was afterwards printed by the
    Foreign Intelligence Committee at the Admiralty, and circulated to
    the Cabinet in April, a further document upon the subject being
    circulated to the Cabinet in May. It must be remembered that the
    date of passing the cataracts was settled for us by the high Nile,
    and that there was only one time of year at which the expedition
    could be safely sent.

    'The Cabinet of March 25th further decided that Graham must soon be
    brought away from Suakim.

    'On the next evening, March 26th, when the Ministers were dining
    with the Speaker, we received a very unpleasant telegram from
    Baring, pointing, we thought, to a possible resignation unless it
    was promised to send an expedition to Khartoum. I suggested the
    following answer: "We adhere to our instructions of the 25th, 160
    Secret. We cannot send an expedition now, and entertain the gravest
    objection to contemplating an expedition in the autumn." This answer
    was rejected in favour of one suggested by Mr. Gladstone and Lord
    Granville. Our telegram 160 Secret had been an absolute refusal, and
    my additional words had been intended by me slightly to open the
    door, which was as much as I could hope that the Cabinet would do.
    But the telegram actually sent on March 28th (165 Secret, extended
    in 191) was to the effect that we were unable to alter the
    instructions, and it was accompanied by two long despatches,
    virtually written by Harcourt, and afterwards laid before
    Parliament, explaining our reasons for not sending Zebehr and for
    not sending an expedition. Gordon had been communicating with us
    with difficulty, as the telegraph was broken from time to time, but
    he had told us that if he was to evacuate Khartoum he wished to
    resign his commission and to take all his steam vessels and stores
    to the equatorial provinces, "which he would consider under the King
    of the Belgians." This Baring had told him he must not do. Baring
    had rejected every possible alternative except the sending of
    Zebehr, and Zebehr we could not have sent. In discussing the
    question of an expedition to Khartoum, Baring had told us that
    Gordon was "not in any immediate danger. He has provisions for six
    months." Gordon himself had telegraphed: "As I have been
    inconsistent about Zebehr, it is my fault, and I should bear the
    blame if Zebehr is sent, and should put up with the inconvenience if
    he is not." He had himself told us that he had provisions for six
    months, but had after this informed us that provisions were still
    coming in freely to Khartoum--as late as after March 15th, a week
    later than the date at which he had told us that he had six months'
    provisions in the town. I had made up my mind that we must send an
    expedition, but I did not agree with Baring that it was physically
    possible to send an expedition at this moment, and thought that if
    sent at high Nile it would be in time. On the 23rd, after Gordon's
    defeat, by treachery and shooting, of the two black Pashas, Gordon
    telegraphed: "I think we are now safe, and that as the Nile rises we
    shall account for the rebels." This we received on March 31st.

    'On March 27th there was a Cabinet without Chamberlain, who was
    listening to George Russell's speech which I had got him leave to
    make, and without Mr. Gladstone, who was still ill. The Cabinet
    decided against an expedition to Khartoum, but the Chancellor' (Lord
    Selborne) 'gave us to understand that he should resign if one were
    not sent in the autumn, and Harcourt intimated that he should resign
    if one were sent. Lord Granville observed that no Cabinet could last
    a day if it was to be exposed to going to pieces on differences as
    regards the future. Harcourt proposed to "clear out" of Egypt
    immediately. Lord Granville won an easy victory over him by proving
    that only three weeks ago he had wanted to take Egypt under our
    protection. Harcourt then said that as long ago as November, 1883,
    he had spoken in favour of clearing out. "Yes," said Lord Granville,
    "so you did; but I said three weeks ago."

    'On March 29th there was a Cabinet at Coombe Warren. Mr. Gladstone
    seemed pretty well, and had at least one good laugh. He still
    regretted Zebehr. The Cabinet considered Gordon, what we should do
    with slavery at Suakim, and House of Commons business.'

About this date the main body of the British troops was withdrawn from
Suakim in accordance with the decision of March 25th. They had inflicted
defeats on Osman Digna at El Teb, and again at Tamanieb; many Dervishes
and not a few English had been killed, but no effect of moment had been
produced, and the road to Berber was not opened.

A new complication now arose. Egypt was presented with Europe's total
claims for the losses to Europeans in the burnings at Alexandria. They
amounted to four millions and a half. How was this demand to be met?
Under the Law of Liquidation established in 1880, Egypt could not borrow
without the consent of the five Powers who had constituted the
Commission of Liquidation. The demand presented to Egypt had to be
considered by the one Power which was now _de facto_ supreme in Egypt.

    'On April 2nd there was an important Cabinet called on Egyptian
    finance. It began, of course, on something else. We discussed the
    future of Suakim; the replies to be given in the House on the next
    day as to Gordon; and then Childers' views upon Egyptian finance;
    while we were considering these, there came a letter from Northcote
    with the questions that he intended to put on the next day'
    (questions which could only be answered by a full statement of
    policy on all the points of the Egyptian problem). 'After going back
    to this, we went on again to finance, and decided to call a
    conference of the Great Powers to alter the Law of Liquidation. Mr.
    Gladstone had unwillingly consented to meet the Powers by proposing
    to reduce the charge for the British army; and he was anxious to get
    the money for the British taxpayer out of a borrowing operation on
    the future value of the Canal Shares. Chamberlain and I decided that
    if he did this the Tories would declare that Mr. Gladstone had
    become a pensioner on the bounty of Lord Beaconsfield. There was
    some talk at this Cabinet as to whether we should guarantee the
    Egyptian debt, to which I was opposed. Chamberlain had at one time
    been friendly to such an operation, but had now "gone round" on the
    ground that we could not "carry it against the Tories and the
    Radicals." "Is there anything else?" said Chamberlain to Mr.
    Gladstone as the Cabinet was breaking up. "No," said Mr. Gladstone,
    "we have done our Egyptian business and we are an Egyptian
    Government."'


II.

From this time forward the 'Egyptian Government' at Westminster had two
main subjects of concern--the question of extricating Gordon with the
garrisons, and the question of dealing with the international situation,
partly diplomatic and partly financial. France, increasingly unfriendly
to Great Britain, was above all unfriendly in regard to Egypt: while
Bismarck, doing his best to foment this quarrel, was at the same time
weakening Great Britain by menaces in Africa and Australasia, and the
danger of a Russian advance in Central Asia hung like a thundercloud
over the whole situation. [Footnote: Sir Charles wrote to Mr. Brett on
November 15th, 1884: 'I told Herbert Bismarck when he was here that it
was very silly of his father to get in the way of our Egypt plans, for
France would not go to war about them, and therefore, after threatening,
he would have to look on and see the things he had threatened against
done quietly.']

There were three groups of opinion in the Government in regard to the
Soudan. The first was for an expedition which should carry with it the
consequence of occupation more or less prolonged. Another was against
any expedition and in favour of immediate evacuation. A third section--
including Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Chamberlain--accepted the need of an
expedition, but was determined that occupation should not follow. It was
incumbent on this last-named group to suggest a positive policy, and
Dilke, as will be seen, had his plan ready. There was a further decision
to be taken. When once an expedition was in contemplation, the route and
the character of the expedition had to be fixed. On this matter also Sir
Charles had early formed a resolve, but neither he nor anyone else could
pin the Cabinet to a clear course of action.

    'At this time' (April 2nd) 'Chamberlain wrote to me of Egypt: "Once
    more Hartington, and you and I, are at opposite poles. For one, I do
    not mean to be forced any further in the direction of protectorate."

    'Although they would not admit it, the Cabinet were rapidly coming
    round at this time to an autumn Gordon expedition, and Chamberlain
    wrote to me: "I believe it will come to this in the end"; while
    Northbrook was in favour of an expedition. I then made up a list
    from private information showing that six of us were favourable to
    an expedition, as against five the other way--several members having
    made no statement either way. Those for an expedition were
    Hartington, Northbrook, the Chancellor (Lord Selborne), Derby,
    Chamberlain, and myself; and those against it, Mr. Gladstone, Lord
    Granville, Harcourt, Kimberley, and Dodson. On April 21st, Egypt was
    discussed without decision, though with the note by me: "The
    majority now begin to see that an October expedition is certain."

    'On the 23rd a Cabinet ... considered the possibility of reaching
    Berber.... After the Cabinet of April 23rd, I advocated a naval
    expedition by the Nile on the ground that the Admiralty were likely
    to do the thing better than the War Office. [Footnote: A review by
    Sir Charles in the _Athenæum_ of October 24th, 1908, deals with the
    _Life of Lord Northbrook_, by Sir Bernard Mallet, and his allusions
    to Lord Northbrook's consideration, as early as April, of a 'rescue
    and retire' expedition by the Nile route for the autumn, 'it being
    assumed that the boats then ordered could not pass the various
    cataracts before High Nile.' See _Life of Lord Northbrook_, pp.
    185-186. A review by Sir Charles of March 28th, 1908, in the same
    paper, of _Modern Egypt_, by the Earl of Cromer, also deals with
    Lord Northbrook's pressure for a Nile Expedition in March, 1884.] On
    April 28th, Berber, Khartoum, and Gordon, on which there was nothing
    new, but Hartington insisted on a large and important military
    expedition.'

    'On April 29th Baring had now come over about Egypt, and attended a
    Cabinet to state his views. I saw him privately, and settled with
    him the details for a possible Nile expedition "small and early."
    The difficulty was at the sixth cataract. He also broached to me his
    scheme for a new control by the four Powers already represented on
    the Caisse de la Dette--namely, England, France, Austria, and Italy,
    with an English president.'

    'At the next Cabinet there was a proposal by Hartington that there
    should be a vote of thanks to Sir Gerald Graham and Admiral Hewett
    for the Suakim expedition--a proposal which the Cabinet rejected,
    having had quite enough of votes of thanks on the former occasion
    when Wolseley and Beauchamp Seymour were in question. The next
    matter was what we should say about our Law of Liquidation
    Conference, on which there arose an awkward question as to what
    should happen in the probable case of the representatives of the
    Powers not being unanimous. There was every reason to suppose that
    the French would not agree to anything, and precedents went to show
    that unanimity was necessary to render valid the decisions of a
    conference. Indeed, there was no precedent as regards questions of
    principle which told the other way; and at the Congress of Berlin
    Prince Bismarck had stated, as recorded in the first protocol, that
    as regarded substantive proposals it was an incontestable principle
    that the minority should not be bound to acquiesce in a vote of a
    majority.

    'Then came the consideration of the action to be taken by the
    Egyptian Government towards Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., [Footnote: Mr. James
    O'Kelly, then M.P. for Koscommon, a very adventurous war
    correspondent. He died in 1916.] Parnell's friend, who had been
    trying to join the Mahdi. We next considered Lord Salisbury's
    relations towards Tewfik as Khedive, as affected by the violent
    attacks of many Conservative members, put up by Broadley, upon
    Tewfik's character. Randolph Churchill had made a most ferocious
    series of attacks upon the Khedive, without one atom of truth in
    them. It is a curious example of his forgetful flightiness, that
    when, a few years later, he went to Egypt, he was struck with wonder
    at the Khedive's refusal to receive him. The terms of the French
    acceptance of our invitation to the Conference were discussed, as
    were the House of Commons questions as to Gordon, and the offer of
    Mr. Guy Dawnay, M.P., to go as a messenger to Gordon at his own
    cost. Then followed the internal condition of Egypt, as to which
    Baring's views were stated by me; then Harrar; then the employment
    of negroes or Turks for the Egyptian army; then the Turks at Suakim;
    then the Somali coast.

    'On the same day I had an interview with the ex-Khedive Ismail, who
    had gone downhill. He always had a certain difficulty in collecting
    his ideas and putting them into words, but on this occasion it went
    farther than I had previously known. He wished to impress on me the
    necessity for defending Egypt against the Mahdi at some given point
    upon the Nile, when occurred that incident of his continually
    working up to the name of the place and forgetting it. [Footnote:
    See Chapter XXX., Vol. I., p. 487.]

    'On May 5th there was a Cabinet. We considered the vote of censure
    as to Gordon, and decided that time must be given for it; and I then
    had some correspondence with Northbrook across the table as to an
    expedition. I said: "Northbrook, I should be glad to know all you
    know against the Nile route. Ismail, who knows all about it, thinks
    it quite possible." Northbrook replied: "My objections are
    uncertainty of getting steamers up at all (we know nothing of the
    140 miles beyond Wady Halfa), and necessity of assistance from
    natives, which may not be given. Key" (Sir Cooper Key) "is in rather
    a delicate position, as he does not like to go against Wolseley,
    whose opinion is for the Nile, and the responsibility is with the
    W.O."

    'On May 7th there was another Cabinet. It was decided that Nubar
    need not be brought to London for the Conference, that a fresh place
    in some other unhappy portion of the world must be found for
    Clifford Lloyd; [Footnote: A Resident Magistrate who had come
    violently into collision with the Nationalists in Ireland, and who
    had also proved himself a storm centre in Egypt, as he afterwards
    did in Mauritius.] and one was found, and he again fought with the
    local authorities as he had fought in Ireland and in Egypt. With
    regard to the attitude of France, it was decided that we could not,
    so long as we remained in Egypt, put up with a new international
    control. It was decided to bring the Turks to Suakim, although this
    decision was afterwards reversed. We then wasted much of our time on
    the consideration of what should be our attitude on the vote of
    censure which was pending in the House. Harcourt had drawn an
    amendment for Mr. Gladstone on which they had agreed. Chamberlain
    and I had agreed to support a mere negative, and we talked the
    others over....

    'On May 11th Fitzmaurice wrote to me complaining that no definite
    instructions had been given him with regard to the conduct of the
    Gordon debate' (on the vote of censure), [Footnote: See _Hansard_,
    vol. cclxxxviii., 3rd series, debate of May 13th, 1884] 'as was
    usual in such important cases, but stating that he expected me to
    speak. On the next day, May 12th, I learnt that Hartington had
    refused to speak, although he was finally made to do so by Mr.
    Gladstone. On Tuesday, May 13th, I made a good speech from 12.10 to
    1.10 a.m.--too late for the reporters. "The debate has (I noted in
    my diary) been the best I ever heard. Mr. Gladstone was not so good
    as usual, while Hartington and I were neither better nor worse than
    usual. But Churchill, Forster, Cowen, John Morley, and Beach, all
    spoke far above their usual level; and the rest were good. A
    memorable debate, which I do not expect to see excelled for interest
    and fire, and I am glad to have had the honour to wind it up for the
    Liberal party." Afterwards I noted that it "does not read well."

    'On May 14th Cabinet again decided that Nubar must not come over for
    the Conference; discussed internal affairs of Egypt, then the
    Conference again; and then called in Sir Evelyn Baring and discussed
    with him the same matters of Clifford Lloyd, Nubar, Conference, the
    Turks and the Red Sea ports, what was to be said to Waddington about
    the Conference, and the detail of a scheme of Childers upon Egyptian
    finance, which was extraordinarily unpopular with the Cabinet.

    'On May 17th at noon there was a full Cabinet (Spencer being
    present), and a long one. The first matter discussed was the Queen
    and Conference, [Footnote: Proposed Conference of the Powers on the
    Law of Liquidation.] and a strong objection on the part of Mr.
    Gladstone to tell Parliament anything about the Conference.
    Chamberlain wrote to me on this: "What a queer twist this objection
    of Mr. G. is!" To which I replied: "I really wish he would have gone
    to Coombe for this lovely day and let us go on without him. He has
    wasted an hour and a half. Mr. G. will fight a whole day in Cabinet
    to avoid telling Parliament something, and then after all will tell
    them twice as much in reply to Ashmead Bartlett." On this
    Chamberlain wrote:

    "Here lies Mr. G., who has left us repining,
    While he is, no doubt, still engaged in refining;
    And explaining distinctions to Peter and Paul,
    Who faintly protest that distinctions so small
    Were never submitted to saints to perplex them,
    Until the Prime Minister came up to vex them."

[Footnote: These were notes passed during the sitting of the Cabinet. On
Mr. Gladstone's inconvenient habit of giving information at question
time, see Vol. I., pp. 307, 384, 459, 535; and _infra_, p. 118.]

    'The Cabinet decided to send a telegram to Gordon through Zebehr, in
    order to obtain safe conveyance for it, offering free use of money
    among the tribes.

    'To Grant Duff I wrote on May 17th: "The Queen is much against our
    arrangements with France. If we 'let them out' we spoil them, and if
    we don't we shall be condemned for a 'secret negotiation with France
    by a moribund Cabinet.' Yet, though we look very wrong, we _are_
    right."'

    'On the 19th it was decided that the Nile was to be patrolled by the
    Navy as far as Wady Halfa.'

This was in the direction of the military policy which Sir Charles
favoured, but in which he was not to succeed. His diplomatic proposals
now have to be considered.

    'At this time I sent a box round the Cabinet as to the
    neutralization of Egypt, Northbrook assenting. In a minute dated May
    22nd, Lord Northbrook wrote: "I am disposed to think it would be
    wise to propose at once an international guarantee of the neutrality
    of Egypt, (1) It would give a substance and solidity to the French
    assurances." (To Grant Duff I wrote on the 22nd: "We have got from
    France an engagement not to go to Egypt when we come away, and never
    at any future time, except by the authority of Europe.") "(2)
    Without it I hardly see a chance of escaping from annexation.... All
    the circumstances of Egypt ... point to this solution, and ... the
    release of Egypt from the Soudan makes the solution possible."
    Chamberlain wrote: "I agree entirely with Dilke and Northbrook. (1)
    As to the intrinsic importance of such a proposal. If adopted it
    secures every essential British interest, and promises relief from
    the intolerable burden of a continued occupation. I am strongly in
    favour of making the proposal at once. It will give a real guarantee
    to the Powers of our good faith and intention to clear out of the
    country. (2) I attach great importance to it as forming a definite
    policy.... To make Egypt the 'Belgium of the East' is an object
    easily popularized. The phrase will carry the proposal." Kimberley
    wrote: "I agree with Northbrook and Dilke. The neutralization of
    Egypt will be a gain in itself, irrespective altogether of the
    question of its internal administration. It would also ... render it
    easy to establish a firm domestic Government in so far as it would
    put an end to the rivalries ... which exercise a very disturbing
    influence on all Egyptian affairs.--K." This minute received the
    support of the signatures of the Chancellor, Harcourt, and Childers.
    Lord Derby wrote: "I agree so entirely with the views of Lord
    Northbrook and Sir Charles Dilke that I need add nothing to what
    they have written. There is only one alternative in the long-run;
    guaranteed neutrality or annexation.--D., May 23." Carlingford also
    agreed, but Hartington strongly dissented; and although Lord
    Granville agreed with us, Hartington's dissent was so fierce that he
    succeeded in preventing Mr. Gladstone from expressing an opinion,
    and the view taken by ten members of the Cabinet remained without
    effect.

    '... On May 24th, the next matter discussed was the neutralization
    of Egypt, which Mr. Gladstone decided, in face of Hartington's
    minute, was "not to be immediately proposed."' [Footnote: The offer
    of neutralization was, however, made. See _infra_, Chapter XXXVIII.,
    pp. 94, 97.]

    'We then returned to our old business of Waddington and the
    Conference. Mr. Gladstone next complained that he had been
    catechized in the House of Commons on Monday, May 19th, as to
    whether he "told most lies on Monday or on Thursday." We then
    discussed the desirability of making a statement in the House as to
    the number of years that our troops would remain in Egypt;
    Northbrook and Hartington suggesting either five years or three
    years from January, 1885, and Carlingford suggesting one year, in
    which he was supported by the Prime Minister and myself; but three
    years prevailed. Next came Morocco; and then a Gordon
    expedition--Mr. Gladstone speaking strongly against it.

    'On May 27th there was a Cabinet before the Whitsuntide recess. It
    was decided what statement was to be made to Parliament about the
    Conference. Lord Granville had told Waddington that we should not
    stay more than five years in Egypt at the outside, and Hartington,
    who himself had been willing to limit our stay to three years, now
    fought violently against a limitation even to five. Chamberlain
    wrote to me: "As usual--the question having been twice settled,
    Hartington, in a minority of one, raises the whole question again.
    It is direct, unmitigated, and unconcealed obstruction." We then
    discussed the expedition to Khartoum and the making of a Suakim-
    Berber railway, but it was decided that orders were not yet to be
    given. On the next day Mr. Gladstone, who had gone to Hawarden,
    wrote:

    '"My Dear Northbrook,

    '"I have received and read this morning Sir Cooper Key's very
    interesting paper on an expedition to Khartoum. I write, however, to
    suggest that it would be a great advantage if two suggestions it
    contains were to be fully examined and developed. (1) The _small_
    river expedition which he thinks practicable. (2) The small desert
    expedition from Korosko to which he also adverts as an auxiliary
    method.... Clear as is the case for the railway from Suakim, as
    against the large expedition by the Nile, in every other view it is
    attended with the most formidable difficulties of a moral and
    political kind ... whether the 'turning of the first sod' of a
    Soudan railway will not be the substitution for an Egyptian
    domination there, of an English domination ... more unnatural, more
    costly, more destructive, and altogether without foundation in
    public right. It would be an immense advantage that the expedition
    (should one be needed) should be one occupying little time, and
    _leaving no trace behind it_.

             '"Yours sincerely,
                   '"W. E. Gladstone."

    'Of this letter a copy was made by Edward Hamilton, and enclosed to
    me with an autograph letter from Mr. Gladstone.

    'On May 31st I had received a further letter from Mr. Gladstone
    about the Soudan expedition, in which he said: "Suakim and Berber
    route has utterly beaten Nile route for a large expedition.... But
    the question of a small expedition has hardly yet been touched,
    while some believe Gordon is or will be free, and there need be no
    expedition at all." I sent this letter to Lord Northbrook, and to
    Lord Hartington, pointing out that Colonel Sartorius had written a
    letter to the papers in favour of an expedition of a thousand picked
    men armed with repeating rifles; and after receiving replies, I
    wrote to Mr. Gladstone on June 4th that I had not had much
    encouragement from Hartington and Northbrook, the fact being that
    Hartington was determined on giving Wolseley his big job. [Footnote:
    See _Life of Granville_, vol. ii., p. 395.]

    'On June 6th Lord Granville called a meeting to ask us whether,
    Waddington having now agreed to all our demands, we could devise
    some plan of getting out of them. He said that for his own part he
    should not have asked the question, but that Hartington had
    suggested it.... He said: "I must rather complain of Hartington's
    conduct--from so intimate a friend. If it had been Dodson I should
    have been very angry." After such an introduction, the meeting could
    hardly come to a conclusion favourable to Hartington's views.

    'On June 9th Sir Henry Ponsonby came to see me before the Cabinet,
    wishing to talk to me before he spoke to any other member, as the
    Queen thought that I was the most in agreement with her views, which
    was not the case, as regarded evacuation. He discussed with me two
    points: First the term of years, as to which I explained that, under
    the agreement, if at the end of three and a half years any one Power
    thought we had better stay, and we ourselves wished to stay, then we
    could stay. It was not my wish that we should. Secondly, as to the
    union of Bulgaria and East Roumelia, about which I did not care, and
    as to which I suggested that the Queen should propose to Lord
    Granville to take counsel with Austria. [Footnote: The union took
    place in 1885.] At the Cabinet which followed we discussed the words
    of our promise to lay our French agreements before Parliament, and
    also our answer as to the Turks and Suakim. The French having
    written us a disagreeable despatch, we agreed that they must be made
    to take it back.

    'On the next day, June 10th, there was a Cabinet to begin the
    railway from Suakim. and to consider the draft despatch to
    Waddington, and as the Government at this time was not very strong,
    it was decided to leave for our successors a Cabinet minute upon the
    subject of our relations at this time with France. After the Cabinet
    I had to see Mr. Gladstone from Lord Granville upon the question
    whether we should insist on a casting vote on the Caisse. Mr.
    Gladstone, against the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet, replied:
    "No, not to the point of breaking off."'

On June 12th Sir Charles made two notes in his Diary of that date:

    'I think that if Mr. Gladstone was to stay in, and live on, we
    should come as regards Egypt to evacuation and neutralization. Under
    the Tories, or under Hartington, the _status quo_ may be tried for a
    long time.'

    'When Bismarck offered Egypt to Dizzy, it was in order to embroil
    England with France.'


III.

From this point onwards in the Memoir the focus of the Egyptian question
changes; attention is centred on the diplomatic questions arising out of
the financial problem.

As between England and France the issue concerned itself with the
proposal to pay less than the promised interest on previously existing
loans. The French view, expressed through M. Barrère, the French agent
in Egypt, was that interest need not be reduced; the alternative view
was that the bondholders must make a sacrifice of part of their
interest, at any rate for some period of years, in return for the better
security they were obtaining.

    'On July 3rd Barrère called and explained to me a scheme of his on
    Egyptian finance, in which he was now highly skilled, having been
    French Agent in Egypt for some time. I put the matter before Lord
    Granville, who sent it to Mr. Gladstone and Childers. Barrère argued
    that it was not necessary to reduce interest, or, to use the slang
    of the moment, to "cut the coupon." We called a meeting of the
    Commons Ministers, and Chamberlain announced that he should resign
    if the coupon were not cut.

    'July 18th, 1884.--We had virtually decided on declaring Egypt
    bankrupt in order to force the hands of the French, but Waddington,
    at a meeting with Childers, had broached a plan, which had
    originally been suggested by the Germans, for a temporary reduction
    of interest, to be reconsidered at the end of a certain number of
    years.' (These proposals were discussed at the Conference, which met
    in the latter half of July, held seven sittings, and then broke down
    without arriving at a conclusion on August 1st.) 'The question now
    raised was--at the end of what number of years? The French said
    three, and we decided to propose ten; but with a willingness to take
    six or even five; we advancing 4 1/2 millions instead of 8, or, in
    other words, leaving out the indemnities due by Egypt. If this
    arrangement failed, then we were to fall back on bankruptcy.
    Harcourt was much against declaring bankruptcy, and in favour of the
    policy of "scuttle." Hartington was against bankruptcy, and for
    paying the differences ourselves; so as to force us into annexation.
    Spencer, Childers, Chamberlain, and I, were for bankruptcy or for a
    strong threat of bankruptcy.

    'On July 21st there was a meeting of members of the Cabinet after
    questions, at which Mr. Gladstone, Lord Granville, Hartington,
    Harcourt, Childers, and I, were present. The French had backed out
    of their proposals, and we considered a new scheme of Childers's to
    put all administrative charges in Egypt before interest of debt, a
    scheme which it was certain that the French would refuse. Harcourt
    was again violent against bankruptcy, which he announced he thought
    grossly "illegal," as if there were such a thing as illegality in
    such affairs.

    'On August 2nd there was a full Cabinet, every member being present,
    and we had to consider whether, the Conference having broken down,
    Baring should go back to Egypt or remain at the Foreign Office and
    continue to advise us. Lord Granville proposed that he should
    remain, and that Malet should go to Egypt. Chamberlain proposed that
    Goschen should go. Childers proposed J. K. Cross. [Footnote:
    Under-Secretary for India.] Dufferin was mentioned; then Lord
    Granville proposed Northbrook. All other names were immediately
    withdrawn, and Northbrook took time to consider, but evidently meant
    to go, and decided, I think, in the course of the same evening.
    Baring was then called in, and we once more began to chop straw by
    considering the "ulterior consequences" of the collapse of the
    Conference--i.e., bankruptcy. Lastly, Gordon was dealt with, and
    it was decided that a supplementary estimate should be proposed,
    with the understanding that we should spend more if it was wanted. I
    wrote to Chamberlain: "We always have two subjects--(a) Conference,
    (b) Gordon." And he wrote back: "The first always taking up two or
    three hours; and the second five minutes at the fag end of
    business."

    'On August 3rd I noted "we are going to send Northbrook to Egypt to
    put down Barrère."

    'On August 5th we considered the instructions to Northbrook, or
    rather whether he should have any at all, and if so, what they
    should be. Northbrook read us a scheme which he had written, which
    attempted to conciliate Turkey and Italy, so as to have great naval
    strength in the Mediterranean and to prevent all chance of a sudden
    occupation of Egypt by France. We were to express our continued
    determination not to annex. We were to stay five years at the
    request of the Sultan. We were again to propose to the Powers those
    arrangements with regard to the Canal which we had proposed already.
    We were to pay the indemnities in stock; and the next coupon in
    full; and we were to promise for the future not less than 4 per
    cent, on privileged stocks, and not less than 3 per cent, on the
    Unified debt, while we were in Egypt. Indian troops were to hold
    Massowah. Harcourt, in reply, read a written counter-statement,
    again proposing to "scuttle," and again threatening us that we
    should have war with France. Hartington again spoke for a guarantee
    by us of the whole Egyptian debt. After Hartington's observations
    the discussion was, as usual, adjourned. Chamberlain and I decided
    that we would ask for our old term of three and a half years'
    occupation, as against Northbrook's five. Next came Gordon, and
    Hartington proposed that we should embody some militia.

    'On August 6th there was another Cabinet, and the first question was
    that of Northbrook's scheme. Lord Granville agreed to a temporary
    use of Turkish troops provided that they were to leave Egypt when we
    left. Chamberlain would not agree, and wished to stick to
    Northbrook's phrase only inviting "co-operation." This view
    prevailed, and it was decided that if the Turks proposed to send a
    commissioner, we were to refuse. But the question of troops was
    really left open for more discussion. Next came the question of an
    advance of nearly a million which had been made by Rothschild to
    Egypt, and we asked him, as a favour to ourselves, to let it run,
    which was all he wanted us to do. Northbrook, who is not strong, had
    been a good deal fatigued with the discussion on his scheme, and
    instead of sleeping (his usual practice at a Cabinet) on this
    occasion fainted, and we had to get up and look after him at this
    point.

    'On August 26th I received a letter from Hartington, saying that
    Northbrook was going to Osborne at the end of the week, and starting
    for Egypt from there. Hartington told me he was coming up to meet
    him, and he afterwards wrote to me to fix an appointment at the War
    Office on the 29th. This I kept. Northbrook was deplorably weak. He
    had returned from Rosebery's completely under the influence of Mr.
    Gladstone's pro-French views. [Footnote: At Dalmeny Lord Northbrook
    "met Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone." See Life of Lord Northbrook, p. 190.]
    He had settled to spend a day at Walmer, and had telegraphed to Lord
    Lyons to meet him there. His plan now was to ask the French
    Government to send a man to Egypt in order that he and the Frenchman
    might settle matters together. Hartington and I pointed out to him
    that the Frenchman's instructions from his Government must either be
    to refuse all reduction of interest, or to consent to it upon
    obtaining from us a better political position than that given to
    France by the Anglo-French agreement. We explained to him that it
    would be impossible for us to tolerate such proposals. I wrote to
    Chamberlain a full account of the interview.

    'September 22nd_.--We decided with reference to Egyptian finance
    that Chamberlain should write a strong letter to Lord Granville
    protesting against any British advance to Egypt, unless accompanied
    by a cutting of the coupon. He did so, and on September 25th sent me
    a copy, and I sent the copy to Childers, and wrote myself to Lord
    Granville. On the 27th I received a memorandum from Chamberlain as
    to Lord Granville, Lord Derby, and Bismarck.

    'Chamberlain's memorandum was a fierce denunciation of the
    principles laid down in Northbrook's despatch No. 4, dated September
    13th, and received September 22nd.' [Footnote: Lord Northbrook had
    arrived in Egypt.]

Controversy now raged over Lord Northbrook's scheme, and added to the
difficulties of the Cabinet, which was divided on the question of
lowering or not lowering the rate of interest.

    'On 19th November the second matter mentioned was Northbrook's
    scheme, against which I fought hard.... I pointed out that early in
    April, when Mr. Gladstone had wished to borrow on the future value
    of the Canal shares, that proposal had not been accepted, and we
    laid down the principle that it was for the bondholders to make
    sacrifices. On July 3rd we had decided that the coupon must be
    "cut." On July 18th the whole Cabinet had taken the same view except
    Harcourt and the Chancellor, and four members--Childers, Spencer,
    Chamberlain, and I--had advocated distinct bankruptcy. On August 2nd
    we had seen Baring to lay our plans for bankruptcy. On August 5th
    Northbrook himself had proposed a reduction of the interest. On
    August 29th there had been a general agreement to the same effect.
    Northbrook's policy had enormously sent up Egyptian stocks. After my
    strong observations the opinions stood: Mr. Gladstone, Childers,
    Chamberlain, Harcourt, Trevelyan, and Dilke against Northbrook's
    scheme; for it, Lord Granville, the Chancellor, Hartington, Spencer,
    Kimberley, Derby, Carlingford, and Northbrook himself. All the Lords
    on one side, curiously enough, and all the Sirs and Mr.'s on the
    other; eight to six against us. But I noted: "Mr. Gladstone is so
    strong that we shall win." "As we did."' [Footnote: Letter from Sir
    Charles to Mr. Brett (afterwards Lord Esher):

    Local Government Board,
    Whitehall,
    _November_ 19_th_, 1884.

    '_My_ policy has always been bankruptcy and stand the shot, and if
    we had stuck to that we should have had no trouble with the Powers;
    but indiscretions have made that difficult. It is not pleasant to be
    called in too late. I quite agree in your general view, but how can
    the bondholder be got to make sacrifices without his consent?']

    'At the meeting of the Cabinet of December 2nd, Egyptian finance
    again came up. We were informed that Prince Bismarck suggested oral
    communications among ambassadors. For this Malet proposed Paris, and
    we replied Berlin.'

IV.

During this time the Government continued to waver as to the Soudan
expedition.

On June 21st

    'with regard to Gordon it was decided to wait ten days before
    settling anything, and to see whether we heard from him in reply to
    the silly questions which had been asked.'

On June 27th came the definitive news that Berber had fallen on May
26th. On July 5th

    'We discussed the Egyptian army of the future, and then the question
    of whether we should send an expedition to Khartoum, as to which we
    again could come to no decision; Mr. Gladstone still opposing.'

Dilke, backed by Chamberlain, was still pressing the military solution
which he favoured. On July 16th

    'Hartington on this occasion gave up the Berber-Suakim route, and
    pressed for a decision as to an immediate expedition by the Nile. He
    was supported by the Chancellor, Northbrook, Carlingford, and
    Dodson. Mr. Gladstone, Harcourt, and Childers opposed.

    'Chamberlain and I opposed a large expedition by the Nile, and
    supported a small expedition, under the control of the navy, with a
    body of picked men. Baring was called in about the police in Egypt,
    and his views in support of Nubar were approved. Nubar was to have
    his own way in the appointment of Inspectors of Police in Egypt.'

    'On July 22nd we found that Mr. Gladstone had again taken up Zebehr,
    and was anxious to send him to Khartoum in order to avoid a British
    expedition.

    'On July 25th there was a full Cabinet, Spencer being present, which
    first discussed the Conference and then the Gordon expedition, for
    which for the first time a large majority of the Cabinet pronounced.
    The issue was narrowed down to that of sending some sort of British
    force to or towards Dongola; and this was supported by Hartington,
    the Chancellor, Derby, Northbrook, Spencer, Carlingford, Dodson,
    Chamberlain, and me, while on the other side were only Mr.
    Gladstone, Harcourt, and Kimberley. Lord Granville said nothing. By
    the stoutness of their resistance the three for the moment prevailed
    over the nine.

    'On July 31st a storm was brewing about Gordon, and Harcourt went
    about declaring that the Government would break up upon the
    question. On the next day, August 1st, a way out of the difficulty
    was found in an agreement that we should ask for a small vote of
    credit, which we were to use or not as should be thought right
    later.'

It must be remembered that communications with Gordon were now
interrupted, though occasionally renewed, and this added to the
confusion.

    'On September 17th we received a telegram from Gordon which looked
    as though he were perfectly mad, although some of the other
    telegrams from him sent at the same time were sane enough.'

Since Parliament had risen and the Cabinet scattered, preparations had
been going on apace.

    'When Hartington came to me on September 15th he told me that he had
    already spent "£750,000 out of the £300,000" for the Gordon
    expedition.' [Footnote: 'On August 9th Lord Hartington again asked
    us for permission to embody militia or call out a portion of the
    First-Class Army Reserve.']

    'On October 4th Chamberlain had written strongly against Wolseley's
    great expedition, Harcourt was still opposing the whole thing. After
    this meeting of the Cabinet Northbrook wrote to Gordon a long letter
    based on the Cabinet decision. He stated that the expedition under
    Wolseley was not sent for the purpose of defeating the Mahdi, but
    only of enabling the Egyptian garrison of Khartoum, the civil
    employees and their families, with Gordon, to return to Egypt. He
    offered the Grand Cross of the Bath' (to Gordon) 'as from the Queen
    personally. He explained our refusal of Zebehr, and he suggested the
    placing at Khartoum of the Mudir of Dongola. It was easy, however,
    to write to Gordon, but it was not easy to get the letters to him;
    and we had to attempt even to send them by Tripoli and the desert.'
    [Footnote: As to the last communications with Gordon, see _Life of
    Granville_, vol. ii., pp. 397-399. Besides the authorities already
    quoted, the Parliamentary Papers Nos. 2, 6, 12, 13, and 25, for
    1884, may be referred to.]

That is the last detailed reference to Gordon in the Memoir until
February 5th, 1885, when the news of the fall of Khartoum reached
London. The matter had passed out of the hands of the Cabinet into those
of the soldiers.

This comment in the Diary may fitly end this chapter:

    'On February 20th I noted (conversation, I think, not printed), Lord
    Acton says of Gladstone: "Cannot make up my mind whether he is not
    wholly unconscious when working himself up to a change of position.
    After watching him do it, I think that he is so. He lives completely
    in what for the moment he chooses to believe."'



CHAPTER XXXVI

FRANCHISE AND REDISTRIBUTION

JULY TO DECEMBER, 1884.


In the summer of 1884 the Government Bill for extension of the franchise
had strong and even passionate support throughout the country; but that
policy threatened a breach with Lord Hartington, who in the opinion of
many was by prescriptive right Mr. Gladstone's successor. Still more
entangling were the difficulties in respect of Egypt, over which the
Government was so hopelessly divided that no coherent policy could be
pursued. Sir Charles notes that on July 18th Mr. Gladstone,

    'who had the greatest abhorrence for City dinners, proposed the
    extinction of the Lord Mayor's ministerial banquet; the fact being
    that the Government of London Bill and the failure to send an
    expedition to Khartoum had made the Ministry so unpopular in the
    City that he did not think it wise to subject himself to the torture
    which such banquets are to him.'

    'The Tory game,' Sir Charles wrote on May 24th, 1884, to his agent,
    'is to delay the franchise until they have upset us upon Egypt,
    before the Franchise Bill has reached the Lords.' [Footnote: This
    letter is also quoted in Chapter XXXIV.]

When the Franchise Bill went up to the Lords in the first week of July,
it was rejected for a reasoned amendment which declined to alter the
franchise except as part of a scheme dealing with redistribution of
seats.

    'On July 5th there was a Cabinet to consider what was called the
    crisis--our relations with the House of Lords over the franchise,
    and Spencer was present.... The question to be considered was that
    of dissolution or an autumn Session. Lord Granville, Hartington, and
    Lord Derby were for an immediate dissolution on the old franchise,
    which was at once negatived.'

    'On June 21st there was mentioned the attitude of the House of
    Lords. Lord Granville said something in favour of life peerages. I
    asked Chamberlain whether he thought that it was seriously meant,
    and writing passed between us in which he replied: "Serious, I
    think"; to which I answered: "You won't have it, will you?" Answer:
    "No."'

    'On July 7th Mr. Gladstone explained to me his plan for dealing with
    the House of Lords, which was not so objectionable to me as the
    schemes known as "Reform of the House of Lords." It was to imitate
    the French constitution, and in cases of difference to make the two
    Houses sit in Congress and vote together. From the practical point
    of view it would be as difficult to carry as the abolition of the
    House of Lords, and if carried would not be of much use to the
    Liberal party except on occasions when their majority was absolutely
    overwhelming.

    'On July 8th offers of compromise came to us from the Lords, but
    they would not offer terms which we could accept. We decided to
    propose to them a solemn resolution by both Houses pledging us to
    redistribution. This they refused.'

The extent of real agreement which existed between the two sides had not
yet been divined; and it was Sir Charles who set on foot the work which
finally averted conflict.

    'Early in July I began to take time by the forelock by preparing,
    without instructions from the Cabinet, a Redistribution scheme; and
    the first memoranda drawn up by Sir John Lambert for my use were
    written in that month, although it was not till after Parliament had
    separated for the recess that we got seriously to work. In the
    evening of July 14th Mr. Gladstone broached to me his views on
    Redistribution, and we practically hatched the Bill.'

Party feeling ran high, and the Queen intervened.

    'On July 9th in the morning Sir Henry Ponsonby came up to see the
    Duke of Richmond and some of us, and tried to settle the deadlock,
    but failed.... The Cabinet decided that Chamberlain must not take
    the chair at a meeting at the Agricultural Hall to denounce the
    House of Lords.'

Liberals in general were, however, speaking out, and at a Cabinet a week
later they had 'some fun with Hartington concerning his Lancashire
meetings, with strong resolutions directed against the House of Lords
for doing that which he privately approved.' Also, there was a
tremendous demonstration in the Metropolis.

    'On July 21st I saw the Franchise Demonstration on this day from the
    Speaker's window, the procession passing from three till six.'

    'After the Cabinet on August 5th we congratulated Chamberlain upon
    his Birmingham franchise meeting, and he told us that Birmingham was
    "thirsting for the blood of the Lords"--saying to Bright: "You are
    too lenient with them. We won't stand them any longer." I told him
    that as the _Times_ had said that he was too violent, I had no doubt
    the Queen would say so also, to which he replied: "Probably, and if
    she does I shall most likely ... deny her right to criticise my
    speeches, although she may, if she likes, dismiss me, in which case
    I will lead an agitation against the Lords in the country." I
    answered: "Yes, but you cannot go alone in such a case, and
    therefore should not appear to contemplate doing so." He replied: "I
    am not going, but perhaps she can dismiss me. What then? I am not
    going to tie my tongue." I retorted: "In that case it would surely
    be even more essential than usual that I should go too." He closed
    the matter by saying: "If it really arose out of the agitation
    against the Lords and the interference of the Crown with the liberty
    of speech of ministers, I do not see how a Radical could stay in.
    Remember, I have observed Mr. Gladstone's limits. I have said
    nothing about the future; only denounced past action."'

Mr. Chamberlain's outside agitation coincided with Sir Charles's work
towards a peaceful solution. On August 9th

    'A Committee of the Cabinet was appointed to deal with
    Redistribution--to consist of Hartington, Kimberley, Childers,
    Chamberlain, and me, with the addition of Lefevre. They forgot
    James, who was anxious to be on it, [Footnote: Sir Charles wrote to
    Sir Henry James on the matter, and received a reply admitting that
    he had been "slightly touched" by the omission of his name, but
    saying that he would still give his services.] but I soon got rid of
    the Committee and went on by myself with Lambert.'

Parliament was prorogued on August 14th, but very soon compromise was in
the air.

    'On August 21st and 22nd I had interviews with Hartington at his
    wish, nominally to talk over the sending of Wolseley to Egypt, but
    really to see what I thought of a compromise with the Lords on the
    basis of Lord Cowper's letter in the _Times_--introduction of the
    Redistribution Bill in October.'

The situation was profoundly modified by speeches from Lord Salisbury,
which made it clear that the plan "hatched" between Mr. Gladstone and
Sir Charles was not likely to have any terrors for him. Lord Kimberley
wrote in September:

    'Now that Salisbury is going in for electoral districts, it will
    become a sort of open competition which party can go furthest. I
    should not be surprised if he were to trump us by proposing to
    abolish the House of Lords.'

    'I had now decided to agree with Lord Salisbury in advance, and
    divide the counties into single-member districts if Mr. Gladstone
    would let me; and Trevelyan, to whom I had broached my scheme,
    wrote: "I very much approve of the scheme of dividing counties. I
    hope to goodness you will be able to carry it out."'

The original draft, completed on September 18th, followed the lines laid
down in consultation with Mr. Gladstone. The object of obtaining fair
representation, and doing away with over-representation of vested
interests, was thus attacked and began with two great industrial
centres.

The scheme for England treated Lancashire and Yorkshire as urban
throughout, and divided them into single-member districts; but the
remaining 'rural' counties of England were divided into two-member
districts. Thus, 'the net increase of county members was 53.' Boroughs
which had less than 10,000 inhabitants (53 in all) were merged into the
counties; those with a population of between 10,000 and under 40,000,
which had two members, lost one. Thus, having added to the under-
represented, Sir Charles took from the over-represented, and adds: 'this
gave us 33 more seats.' Sir Charles in a secret memorandum added that he
thought the fixing of so low a limit as 10,000 showed 'an altogether
indefensible tenderness to vested interests.' 'I should carry the loss
of one member far higher than the 40,000 line adopted, and should take
away one member up to the point at which I began to give two' to a new
constituency. Dilke was in favour of carrying merger of small boroughs
to a greater extent than was adopted in the Act.

    'Summing up, on our English borough scheme,' he said, 'I am struck
    by its _extreme_ timidity. I do not see how it is to stand the
    revolutionary criticism of Lord Salisbury.' 'My plan for the
    Metropolis gave to it its legitimate proportion of members: 55 in
    all.... These figures should be compared with 22--the previous
    number.'

As to Ireland, he admitted that 'if you take its population as a whole
it was over-represented in our plan; yet the difference in favour of
Ireland is very small; moreover, Wales is vastly better treated than
Ireland.' Lord Spencer 'thought there would be a howl from Belfast,' and
wished for the representation of minorities. 'But the Irish Government
made no practical proposal,' and the whole of this intricate business
was left almost entirely to Sir Charles.

    'On September 29th Mr. Gladstone wrote at length conveying his
    general approval of my plan, and stating that he did not intend to
    "handle" the Bill in the House of Commons; and so wished to defer to
    the opinions of his colleagues. He gave me leave to add 12 members
    to the House for Scotland, instead of taking the 12 from England;
    and he congratulated me upon the "wonderful progress" which I had
    made.... On the same day on which I had received Mr. Gladstone's
    letter I saw one from Sir Henry Ponsonby to Mr. Gladstone with Mr.
    Gladstone's reply. Sir Henry Ponsonby made proposals.... Mr.
    Gladstone had refused both for the present; the former with scorn
    and the latter with argument. [Footnote: The first was "that the
    Lords should read the Franchise Bill a second time, and then pass a
    resolution declaring that they would go into Committee as soon as
    the Redistribution Bill reached them."]

    'On September 30th further letters were circulated, one from Sir
    Henry Ponsonby on the 27th, in which he said that the reform of the
    House of Lords must in any case come, but must come later, and that
    he would see the leaders of the Opposition about the second
    suggestion of his previous letter as it had not been absolutely
    refused (the suggestion being that the Lords should provide in the
    Franchise Bill that it should come into force on January 1st, 1886,
    unless the Redistribution Bill were sooner passed).

    'On October 4th Hartington made a speech which produced a storm upon
    this subject of Compromise as to Reform.' (He proposed that the
    Lords should pass the Franchise Bill 'after seeing the conditions of
    the Redistribution Bill and satisfying themselves that they were
    fair.') 'But Mr. Gladstone went with Chamberlain and myself against
    any compromise.'

Mr. Chamberlain put the point that no bargain could be considered unless
the Franchise Bill were first passed without conditions very plainly in
a speech on October 7th, and next day at the Cabinet

    'Mr. Gladstone expressed his approval of Chamberlain's speech of the
    previous night, and attacked Hartington for his earlier one. It
    seemed to me that at this moment Lord Salisbury might have caught
    Hartington by offering the compromise which Hartington had
    suggested.... I refused to discuss Redistribution with the Cabinet,
    telling Chamberlain that they would "drive me wild with little
    peddling points."'

The appreciation of Sir Charles's competence was general. It was not
limited to Parliament, and he met the expression of it when he appeared
on the platform in three great centres of the Lancashire industrial
democracy.

    'On Tuesday, October 14th, I spoke at Oldham, and on October 15th at
    the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, and on the 16th at Stockport. I had
    a wonderful reception at all these meetings, but especially at the
    Manchester meeting.'

Sir Charles's personal record served the party well, for the Tory cry
was that the Liberals wished to preserve the inequalities of the
existing divisions. To this he answered by appealing to the projects
which he had introduced year after year, and recalling their reception
from the Tory Government:

    'I have preached for redistribution in the desert, I have advocated
    it unceasingly for years, I have been a bore upon it in Parliament
    and out; even the franchise is no less important in my eyes as being
    that which I have a dozen times called "the necessary first step to
    a complete redistribution" than in and for itself. Redistribution
    is, however, if possible, of even more tremendous difficulty than
    importance. It offers a greater hold than any other subject to the
    arts of blocking and delay.' [Footnote: October 14th, at Oldham.]

    'On October 17th Spencer reported from Balmoral that the Queen was
    much pleased with her "Speech"; but not so with other people's
    speeches, being angry at the violence of the language used.'

Lord Salisbury had declared that if Birmingham was going to march on
London, he hoped Mr. Chamberlain would head the procession and get his
head broken for his pains. Mr. Chamberlain retorted that he would gladly
head the procession if Lord Salisbury would promise to come and meet it,
and then, if his own head were broken, 'it should be broken in very good
company.' On October 21st

    'I was sent for by Mr. Gladstone about Chamberlain's speech, and
    wrote to Chamberlain to ask him if he could tone it down a
    little.... On October 22nd at the Cabinet Chamberlain told me that
    he was willing to adopt the words of my letter in explanation of his
    speech.'

He agreed to write for publication a letter to one of his Quaker
constituents; but it was judged insufficient.

    'On October 28th Mr. Gladstone wrote to me: "I thought you and I
    were perfectly agreed about the unfortunate expressions in
    Chamberlain's speech ... and in the expectation that his letter ...
    would fully meet the case. I own that in my opinion it did not come
    up to the mark. All I had really wished was a note conceived in the
    same spirit as that in which he withdrew the 'jackal' because it
    gave offence. Can nothing more be done? You saw a recent letter of
    mine in defence, written when I thought the objections taken not to
    be just. I am precluded from writing any such letter with the facts
    as they now stand, but I hope that you may be able to bring them to
    the standard of our reasonable expectations." I sent this letter to
    Chamberlain, as was intended, with a note from me to say that it was
    clear that the Queen had written Mr. Gladstone a second letter about
    the matter, and asked whether I should say that I thought
    Chamberlain's letter met the case; and Chamberlain replied: "Yes. I
    cannot and _will not_ do more." This I communicated to Mr.
    Gladstone. Randolph Churchill had taken the matter up. He accused
    Chamberlain of having advocated violence, and was loudly
    threatening, even to me, that there should be "somebody killed at
    Birmingham next time." Chamberlain told me that Randolph had tried
    to get up a march against Highbury on the part of the Birmingham
    Tory roughs; but they were still on speaking terms, and often
    chatting together at the smoking-room at the House. On the same day,
    the 28th, late in the evening Mr. Gladstone sent for me about the
    Chamberlain matter, and said of the Queen: "She not only attacks him
    but me through him, and says I pay a great deal too much attention
    to him." When Chamberlain and I went home, as we almost always did,
    together in one cab, he broke out, evidently much worried and
    excited, against Mr. Gladstone.

    'Next day I warned Mr. Gladstone that it would not take much to make
    a serious row.'

On October 15th Sir Charles wrote to Sir M. Grant Duff that he expected
'they would sit till February, and send the Bill up a third time.' On
October 24th Mr. Gladstone was inclined to resign at the second
rejection, which was taken for a certainty. But as to the final issue,
it was becoming daily clearer that the Commons were going to win against
the Lords. Even in the home counties Liberalism had become aggressive.

    'October 24th.--Franchise and Redistribution seemed well in view
    when I discovered on this day that Nathaniel Rothschild, who had
    lately looked on Buckinghamshire as his own, was now down on his
    knees to Carrington about it.' Work now began on the details of the
    draft Bill.

    'On October 25th there was a full meeting of my Committee of the
    Cabinet on Redistribution. I took the chair, and Hartington,
    Kimberley, Childers, Chamberlain, James, and Lefevre, sat round the
    table. I got my own way in everything, and succeeded in raising the
    10,000 limit of merger to 15,000. Mr. Gladstone, who disliked the
    change, and who was the strongest Conservative living upon the
    subject, yielded to it on the same night by letter.'

Sir Charles now threw himself into getting as big a measure as possible
by a 'truce of God' between the parties.

    'On October 29th Mr. Gladstone told me that Lord Carnarvon had
    proposed to him that they should meet in order to come to some
    conclusion about Redistribution. He had declined, but had tried,
    through Sir Erskine May, to induce the Tories to appoint a Committee
    of their own to draw up a scheme. I saw Sir Erskine May and told him
    to tell Northcote that I would accept, and press the acceptance of,
    any scheme not obviously unfair, and not containing minority
    representation, which I should be unable to carry.'

    'On October 31st there was a Cabinet which was Trevelyan's first,
    and very glad he and his wife were to escape from Ireland,
    [Footnote: The Chief Secretaryship was offered to Mr. Shaw Lefevre,
    who refused on the same ground as had previously been taken by Sir
    Charles. Without Cabinet rank he was not prepared to accept it. Sir
    Henry Campbell-Bannerman was then appointed. Mr. Lefevre entered the
    Cabinet as Postmaster-General after the death of Mr. Fawcett, which
    occurred on November 6th, 1884.] which had aged him dreadfully....
    On the question of Reform Hartington told us that he had had several
    interviews with Sir Michael Beach, who had expressly stated that he
    was not authorized by his party to make suggestions, but had
    proposed total merger up to 25,000, and loss of the second seat up
    to 80,000. I, to clinch the matter, at once volunteered to draw up a
    scheme on this basis.'

    'James called my attention to some communications in the
    Conservative newspapers, stating that he had it on very high
    authority (which with James always meant Randolph Churchill) that
    the extremely large schemes hinted at were Lord Salisbury's, and
    would be supported by the whole Conservative party; but these
    schemes suggested minority-representation in urban districts, with
    single-member constituencies in counties; or, as Chamberlain said,
    "Tory minority represented in towns, and Liberal minority
    extinguished in county." Lord Salisbury, however, was only keeping
    his friends in good humour with minority-representation. In the
    evening Randolph Churchill sent me a message that he wished to have
    a conference with me about Redistribution, and by an arrangement
    made through Sir Erskine May, we met in the Office of the Serjeant-
    at-Arms. He then told me that Beach's scheme was his, and that he
    was convinced that an agreement might be come to on those lines. I
    assured him of my warm support for a large scheme. I think this was
    the occasion (about this time) when Randolph, who was thinking of
    going to India, vented his anger as to Salisbury. Winston Churchill
    told me in March, 1901, that his father had come to terms with
    Salisbury as to the future Tory Government before he started for
    India. I told him this could not be, as the possibility of forming
    one depended on the Irish, and that Lord Salisbury could not at this
    early date have agreed to buy them by the promises of (1) Enquiry
    into Spencer's police, (2) no Coercion, (3) a Viceroy personally
    favourable to Home Rule.

    'In the evening I dined with the Duchess of Manchester to meet the
    Dufferins, on which occasion Dufferin shone, but his health and
    spirits were now beginning to decline. Hartington was at the dinner,
    and told me that he had had a fresh interview with Beach, this time
    at his (Hartington's) request.

    'On Saturday, November 1st, I had some correspondence with
    Hartington about these interviews, of which I warmly approved; and
    on the 3rd Hartington wrote to me that he was going to see Beach
    again that day, and I placed all my scheme before him for
    communication to the Conservative front bench.'

Publicly there was war.

    'On November 4th was the laying of the foundation-stone of the
    National Liberal Club, at which Harcourt, after saying that he was a
    moderate politician, compared the House of Lords to Sodom and
    Gomorrah.'

But privately

    'on this day Hartington again saw Beach, and afterwards
    Churchill.... Beach said that Lord Salisbury unreservedly accepted
    the Queen's suggestion for a meeting of the leaders.... Conferences
    went on, but all through the month Beach declined to take a
    "representative character, or negotiate in such a way as would
    commit his party"--to use Hartington's words. Hartington now thought
    "Mr. Gladstone would be able either to come to terms with Lord
    Salisbury or to put him completely in the wrong." Hartington added:
    "Beach very much regrets the Lowther and John Manners speeches,"'

and probably Lord Hartington expressed regret for Sir William Harcourt's
references to Sodom and Gomorrah.

    'On the 6th there was a meeting of my Committee on Redistribution to
    consider Beach's proposals, at which I took the chair, but did
    little else, and left all the talking to the others, and their view
    came to this--that they were quite willing to agree to the Tory
    revolutionary scheme, provided the Tories would take the odium with
    the House of Commons of proposing it.'

    'On November 7th the Cabinet decided that I should be joined to
    Hartington as recognized plenipotentiary.'

On the 10th

    'I proposed and Mr. Gladstone agreed to write to Lord Salisbury
    "distinctly accepting the Queen's offers." On November 11th we
    confirmed our decisions at the last Cabinet as to completely taking
    away from Lord Salisbury the power of saying that he had accepted
    and we declined the Queen's proposals, by unreservedly supporting
    Mr. Gladstone's letter to the Queen.'

On November 15th Mr. Gladstone informed the Cabinet that the Lords were
unyielding.

    'Northcote had taken tea with him on the previous evening. The Lords
    would not part with the Franchise Bill till the Redistribution Bill
    was in their House. As regarded Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford
    Northcote, Mr. Gladstone considered the door absolutely closed, but
    he was informed that the Duke of Richmond and Lord Cairns did not
    agree with the leaders. We then drew up a statement to be made on
    Monday, November 17th, in both Houses of Parliament as to the steps
    we had taken to produce conciliation, Harcourt saying: "This is the
    apple-woman spitting on her old apples and shining 'em up!"--the
    fact being that it was only done to put the Lords in the wrong.'

    'On Monday, November 17th, when I returned from Sandringham, I had
    to see Lord Rowton, who had been sent to me by the Prince of Wales
    to try and produce a settlement of the Redistribution difficulty,
    but we only sat and smiled at one another; he saying that he had
    come because he had been told to come, and I saying that I had
    nothing new to tell him, for Lord Salisbury knew all we had to say.'

    'On November 19th there was a Cabinet. The first matter mentioned
    was the arrangement with the Conservatives for an interview, and at
    four o'clock on this day, November 19th, occurred the first meeting
    of the parties: an interview between Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford
    Northcote on the one side, and Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville on
    the other. Lord Salisbury had written to me about it already, and
    had privately seen my papers the previous day at the Commission, and
    had asked me a great number of questions, and I had given him my
    division of the Metropolis and of Lancashire at his wish, and
    received from him the following note: "I do not know whether it will
    be possible to discuss the application of the one-member principle
    to the Counties and the Metropolitan Constituencies and the suburbs
    of the larger towns." The hesitating way in which he asked shows
    that we might have avoided the single-members had we fought upon the
    point. But, as I liked them myself, I fought the other way, against
    Mr. Gladstone. At the interview between the leaders of the two
    parties and the two Houses it was merely decided that the real
    interview should take place on Saturday, November 22nd, at noon
    between the two Conservative chiefs and Mr. Gladstone, Lord
    Hartington, and me, Lord Granville being left out as knowing nothing
    of the subject. On November 21st I continued my private conference
    with Lord Salisbury at the Royal Commission, and we settled who the
    Boundary Commissioners should be. On Saturday, November 22nd, I had
    a conference with Chamberlain before going to the meeting with Lord
    Salisbury. Chamberlain was in favour of two-member seats as against
    single members, especially for boroughs. He was as clear as was Lord
    Salisbury that the single-member system would damage the Liberal
    party in the Metropolis.

    'In the afternoon the Conference took place, and there never was so
    friendly and pleasant a meeting. I fully described it in three
    letters to Chamberlain, in which I said, among other things: "It
    looks as though Lord Salisbury is really anxious that we should pass
    our Bill." No memorandum on this day passed in writing, and the
    written compact was concluded between Lord Salisbury and me only on
    November 28th. The meeting of the 22nd was known at the time as the
    Downing Street meeting; and the other as "the Arlington Street
    compact."

    'On Sunday, November 23rd, Lord Salisbury wrote to me a letter which
    I sent on to Mr. Gladstone and which he kept. Mr. Gladstone replied
    on the same day undertaking to move the adjournment of the House for
    a week, and showing that he was not at all sure that Lord Salisbury,
    having got from us the whole of our scheme and given us nothing in
    writing which was worth anything, did not mean to sell us.
    Chamberlain wrote on the same day in reply to my letters, "I cannot
    make head or tail of Salisbury. He appears to be swallowing every
    word that he has ever written or spoken about Redistribution.... I
    wonder if he will carry his party with him.... On the whole, you
    seem to be doing very well."'

Discussion now went on by correspondence between Sir Charles and Lord
Salisbury, and it touched subjects which might easily have led to
friction. Lord Salisbury proposed to create a number of urban
constituencies by grouping; his plan being to get the small towns taken
out of rural districts which he looked upon as otherwise Conservative,
and to group them with small manufacturing boroughs:

    'I was aghast at this suggestion, because it was a very difficult
    thing, in a Parliamentary sense, to create a few such groups in
    England; and if the thing was to be carried far and not confined to
    a few cases only it would entirely have destroyed the whole of the
    work that we had done, because all the counties would have had their
    numbers altered. I therefore fought stoutly for my own scheme, which
    I succeeded in carrying almost untouched. Lord Salisbury's letter
    crossed one from me to him in which, after Mr. Gladstone's leave
    (conveyed in the words "I see no objection to sending him this
    excellent and succinct paper marked Secret"), I had communicated to
    Lord Salisbury my views and the grounds on which they were based.'

    'On the 26th, at four o'clock, we met at Downing Street, all five
    being present.... Lord Salisbury, yielding to my reasoning, gave up
    grouping,' on the understanding that the Boundary Commissioners were
    'to keep the urban patches as far as possible by themselves....
    Ultimately it was settled that single-member districts should be
    universal in counties, and that we should leave open for the present
    the question of how far it should be applied to boroughs.'

Lord Salisbury wished to retain the minority clause in places where he
thought it had worked well, but he did not ask for it in Birmingham and
Glasgow. 'All this showed great indecision,' says Sir Charles, and he
observes that 'Lord Salisbury did not seem to me thoroughly to
understand his subject.' It is probable, at all events, that he was no
match on the details either for Sir Charles or for Mr. Gladstone, who,
after the Conference, thus summed up his impressions in a letter dated
November 26th:

    'My Dear Dilke,

    'I send you herewith for your consideration a first sketch which I
    have made of a possible communication to-morrow after the Cabinet
    from us to the Legates of the opposite party. I think that if the
    Cabinet make it an _ultimatum_ we should be safe with it. There was
    a careful abstention to-day on their side from anything beyond
    praising this or that, and at the outset they spoke of the
    one-member system for boroughs "with exceptions" as what they
    desired.

    'Yours sincerely,

    'W. E. Gladstone.'

    'Mr. Gladstone's memorandum was on my lines. On the next morning,
    November 27th, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Granville, Hartington, I, and
    Chamberlain met before the Cabinet at 11 o'clock, and kept the
    Cabinet waiting, the Cabinet having been called for twelve, and
    Redistribution alone being considered at it. I announced at the
    Cabinet that the Tories proposed and we accepted single-member
    districts universally in counties, boundaries to be drawn by a
    commission who were to separate urban from rural as far as possible,
    without grouping and without creating constituencies of utterly
    eccentric shape. The names of the commissioners had been settled,
    and both sides were pledged to accept their proposals, unless the
    two sides agreed to differ from them. [Footnote: At the meeting of
    the 26th 'it was agreed that the Boundary Commissioners should
    consist of those gentlemen who had been advising me.']

    'The Tories proposed single-member districts almost everywhere in
    boroughs, and only positively named one exception--the City of
    London--but were evidently prepared to make some exceptions. They
    made our agreement on this point the condition of passing the
    Franchise Bill, of giving up the decrease of the Irish members from
    103 to 100 which they urged, of giving up all forms of minority
    vote, and of giving up grouping. My own opinion and that of the
    Prime Minister were in favour of agreement. Hartington, who much
    disliked what he thought would be the extinction of the Whigs by an
    omnipresent caucus for candidates' selection, was hostile to the
    single-member system. I pointed out that we already proposed in our
    amended scheme 120 single-member borough seats out of 284 borough
    seats. We had thrown out to the Tories a question as to whether they
    would accept, say, 184 single-borough seats, and give us, say, not
    more than 100 for double-member seats; or, if they liked, two-thirds
    and one-third; and they did not positively decline this suggestion.
    Mr. Gladstone proposed to "save from compulsory division those urban
    constituencies, not Metropolitan, which, now possessing dual
    representation, are to have their representation neither increased
    nor diminished." (This was the ultimate agreement.) Also, that
    "cities and towns which are to receive four members and upwards, ten
    in number, should have one central or principal area set apart with
    two members." (This was purely personal on Mr. Gladstone's part and
    was universally rejected.)

    'I argued warmly in favour of supporting Lord Salisbury's scheme
    (upon which he and I were absolutely agreed), I being delighted at
    having got seven more members for the Metropolis than were given by
    my scheme in its last form after the Cabinet had cut it down. In
    order to secure Chamberlain's support I told him "I might be able to
    save a seat for you and give the extended Birmingham seven if you
    liked to make that a condition, but in that case I must get one
    somewhere for Glasgow also out of the rest of Scotland, which is
    skinning flints."

    'The reception of our proposals by the Cabinet, to which Grosvenor'
    (the Chief Whip) 'had been called in, was not altogether favourable.
    Childers talked about resigning, and Grosvenor was most hostile. We
    had the enormous advantage, however, that Chamberlain and I and Mr.
    Gladstone were the only three people who understood the subject, so
    that the others were unable to fight except in the form known as
    swearing at large. I was sent off from the Cabinet to Lord Salisbury
    to tell him that we could agree. At three o'clock we had a further
    conference with the Conservative leaders, and came to an agreement
    on my base, Chamberlain, who was somewhat hostile, yielding to me, I
    going in and out to him, for he was at Downing Street in another
    room.'

Next day memoranda were exchanged between the parties to the Conference,
and Mr. Gladstone was pledged to stand by the heads set down in his
memoranda, and accept no provision outside of these without Sir Stafford
Northcote's agreement. One detail is of interest as illustrating Mr.
Gladstone's inherited Conservatism, which comes out all through these
negotiations.

    'Mr. Gladstone in sending this (memorandum) to me said: "You will
    see that Salisbury stands upon our printed statement as to
    Universities." Mr. Gladstone, knowing that I was strongly opposed to
    University representation, took this matter upon himself. He
    proposed a more general form of words in place of Lord Salisbury's
    pledge against new matters, and, as for Universities, wrote: "Assure
    Salisbury that I personally will _bind_ myself out and out to this
    proposition."'

    'In the afternoon I went to Lord Salisbury to settle the terms of
    agreement, and had to go four times from him to Mr. Gladstone, and
    four times back again, before we finished....

    'The next day I lunched with Mr. Gladstone to meet Miss Mary
    Anderson, the actress, and Princess Louise. I received at lunch a
    letter from Lord Salisbury making a few reservations ... none of
    them difficult of acceptance.

    'On December 2nd I got a note from Harcourt--to ask what I had been
    doing with the British Constitution in his absence. On December 8th
    I had a serious grumble from Spencer from Dublin as to my having
    settled with Salisbury who were to be the Irish Commissioners, and
    only asked the Irish Government after the thing was done. I had
    undoubtedly been wrong, and can only say that Spencer let me off
    cheaply....'

Sir Charles's holiday in the South of France, whither he went on
December 17th, was broken by copies of a correspondence between Lord
Spencer and Lord Salisbury, the latter writing 'with much sound and
fury' on the question of another Conservative Boundary Commissioner for
Ireland. 'Lord Salisbury had always been so extremely soft and sweet to
me that it was a revelation to find him writing to Spencer in the style
of Harcourt or of Chamberlain when in a passion.'

    'Sir Stafford Northcote also wrote to me upon the subject, and
    passing on to Scotland in his letter, added, "It is, I think,
    understood that we may have a free fight over the grouping of Scotch
    boroughs." This question of the Scotch boroughs was afterwards
    referred to me and Charles Dalrymple (M.P. for Buteshire), and I
    gave Dalrymple one or two changes that he wanted, which, I think,
    did not matter.'

Such difficulties were few and subordinate. The scheme was settled in
principle, for after the Arlington Street compact

    'I wrote the letter to the Boundary Commissioners the same night,
    and after I had signed their instructions on December 5th I had a
    pause in my Redistribution work for some time.'

But at the end of December Lord Hartington wrote:

    'I think it will take two of us all our time to work the Bill
    through; and you know so much more about it than anybody else that
    you must necessarily take the greatest share of the details';

and ended with an invitation to Sir Charles to stay at Hardwick to do
some preliminary work on the measure.




CHAPTER XXXVII

FOREIGN AFFAIRS IN 1884

Mrs. Mark Patterson


I.

During 1884 'I warned Lord Granville, Mr. Gladstone, Fitzmaurice, and
Childers, that I should not in future be able to speak on foreign
affairs on account of the terrible work of the Redistribution Bill, and
of the Royal Commission,' for 'I was now so busy with the preparation
for working the Redistribution Bill through the House, and with the
Report of the Royal Commission, that I objected to receiving Foreign
Office papers not sent to other members of the Cabinet ... but Lord
Granville insisted that I should still see them, and circulated a letter
to that effect.'

During 1884 and 1885 Foreign Office work was not only exacting, but was
connected with acute disagreements in the Ministry itself. It has been
seen how closely Sir Charles was occupied with the Egyptian question,
and how constantly he found himself opposed to Lord Hartington in his
views of policy. Moreover, out of the Egyptian difficulty there sprang a
general divergence from France, and this led to action by France in
various quarters of the globe calculated to offend British
susceptibilities and to injure British prestige. Sir Charles, friend of
France as he was, had been strong for resenting and resisting such
action, and this attitude had brought him into conflict with those who
on the whole had supported him in Egyptian matters. A new factor was now
introduced. Bismarck had previously been content to urge on the French
in their colonization policy, but in 1884 the German Chancellor, who in
1883 had been working out his schemes of national insurance, found his
hand forced by the Colonial party, and, in view of the coming German
elections, could no longer afford to ignore them. Bismarck, 'contrary to
his conviction and his will,' said Lord Ampthill, accepted a policy of
colonization, which had the secondary effect of harassing and
humiliating the British Liberal Administration. [Footnote: _Life of
Granville_, vol. ii., p. 355.] Sir Charles, who realized that every such
annexation meant the exclusion of British trade from an actual or
potential market, fought for strong British action, but he fought
against the older Liberals of the Cabinet. Again and again the Radical
leaders were overborne by Mr. Gladstone.

The German Government had demanded protection for a German firm of
traders who had established themselves in the territory of Angra
Pequena, on the west coast of Africa, 280 miles south of Walfisch Bay.
Lord Granville, after considerable delays, caused chiefly by the
necessity of consulting the Colonial Office, which in its turn had to
consult the Cape Government, where a change of Ministry was impending,
objected to the declaration of a German protectorate.

    'June 14th, 1884.--At a Cabinet at Lord Granville's house on
    Conference.... Waddington waiting in another room.

    'H. Bismarck was also in the house, and had been very rude to Lord
    Granville about Angra Pequena, which was mentioned to the Cabinet,
    which would do nothing.

    'June 2lth--... Angra Pequena was mentioned, and it was decided that
    Bismarck, who was greatly irritated with the Government, was to have
    all he wanted.

    'On September 22nd Chamberlain came to me on his return from abroad.
    He told me that H. Bismarck had told him that the German Chancellor
    was very angry at having had no answer to a full statement of German
    views as to Angra Pequena and other colonial matters, which had been
    sent to Lord Granville on August 30th, and he was astonished to
    learn that the Cabinet had not seen his letter....

    'On the 27th Lord Granville had in the meantime written: "I will
    send you my letter and Bismarck's answer, but I do not wish the
    correspondence to be mentioned.... My only excuse, but a good one,
    for acting merely as a medium between the German Government and the
    Colonial Office, was that I had continually the most positive
    assurances in London, and still more in Berlin, that Bismarck was
    dead against German colonization--as he _was_."' [Footnote: On this
    chapter of African history, see _Life of Granville_, vol. ii., chap.
    x., _passim_.]

This was the first of a series of instances in which, to Sir Charles's
great disgust, the British Foreign and Colonial Offices 'lay down to
Germany.'

Since the annexation of part of New Guinea by Queensland had been
disavowed in April, 1883, all Australia was vehemently concerned over
the ultimate fate of this territory, and pressed the home Government to
forestall other Powers by occupying it.

    'June 27th we discussed New Guinea, as to which Lord Derby was
    getting into serious trouble.

    'On July 5th there was a Cabinet called to consider what was called
    the "crisis"--our relation with the House of Lords over the
    Franchise. But so peculiar is the British Empire that, although the
    Cabinet was called upon this question, we immediately proceeded to
    consider for the greater portion of the day matters in Sumatra, in
    the Malay Archipelago, and the Pacific, and ... the affairs of New
    Guinea and so forth. Harcourt, Lord Selborne, and Mr. Gladstone
    violently opposed the occupation of New Guinea--Harcourt and Mr.
    Gladstone on anti-imperialistic grounds, and Lord Selborne on
    grounds connected with the protection of the aborigines against the
    rapacity and violence of the Queensland settlers. Hartington, Lord
    Granville, Derby, Kimberley, Chamberlain, and I, took the Australian
    view. The matter was adjourned, as matters always are adjourned when
    the Prime Minister is against the Cabinet.'

    'August 6th.--We then attacked New Guinea, most of us wanting
    annexation, some protectorate, and decided on the latter to please
    the Chancellor and Mr. Gladstone.'

    'August 9th.--We first discussed German colonies in the South Seas.
    Bismarck had seized North New Guinea, and we decided to stick to the
    long peninsula which faces both north and south.'

Bismarck's immediate answer was to annex, not only the north coast, but
what is now called the Bismarck Archipelago.

    'October 4th.--Next came New Guinea. Were we to insist, as we had
    done previously, on keeping the Germans off the north coast of the
    long eastern peninsula? The previous decision was reversed. The
    Cabinet, however, vetoed a suggestion for the joint commission with
    Germany as to land claims in the Pacific Islands being allowed to
    meddle in New Guinea. We then decided to annex one quarter, and
    several members of the Cabinet expressed a hope that _this time_ the
    thing would "really be done."' [Footnote: A useful sketch of these
    events has recently appeared in the paper read before the Royal
    Geographical Society by Sir Everard Im Thurn, K.C.M.G. See
    _Journal_, vol. xlv., No. 5, April, 1915.]

These instances did not stand alone. Two native chiefs in the Cameroons
had so far back as 1882 proposed to be taken under British protection,
and Sir Charles had pressed acceptance of their offer. The matter had
been discussed in the Cabinet, and Lord Derby and Lord Granville were
still debating what should be done, when a German expedition seized the
territory.

    'On September 18th I received from Chamberlain a letter from
    Leipsic, in which he said: "The Cameroons! It is enough to make one
    sick. As you say, we decided to assume the protectorate eighteen
    months ago, and I thought it was all settled. If the Board of Trade
    or Local Government Board managed their business after the fashion
    of the Foreign Office and Colonial Office, you and I would deserve
    to be hung."'

Those who thought with Sir Charles felt considerable anxiety about
possibilities on the East Coast of Africa. The Cameroons were lost, but
a protectorate over Zanzibar had been offered, and Zanzibar was the
outlet for an important trading district, which the forward party
thought of securing. The Prime Minister was opposed to all such schemes.
'On December 14th Mr. Gladstone broke out against the proposed
annexations in what is now called the Kilimanjaro district.'

He wrote to Sir Charles: 'Terribly have I been puzzled and perplexed on
finding a group of the soberest men among us to have concocted a scheme
such as that touching the mountain country behind Zanzibar with an
unrememberable name. There _must_ somewhere or other be reasons for it
which have not come before me. I have asked Granville whether it may not
stand over for a while.' [Footnote: The allusion is to the treaties with
native chiefs which were negotiated by Mr. (afterwards Sir) Harry
Johnston in 1883-84. These treaties were the foundation of what is now
known as British East Africa, and related mainly to the Kilimanjaro and
Taveita districts. It would appear that Mr. Gladstone himself had at
first expressed an interest in the development of British influence
'over this hinterland of snow mountains and elevated plateaux,' to which
his attention had been drawn by the report of Mr. Joseph Thomson.
Speaking subsequently at the Colonial Institute, Sir Harry Johnston said
that 'about twenty years ago he was making preparations for his first
expedition to British Africa. He had a very distinguished predecessor,
whom he regarded as the real originator of British East Africa: Mr.
Joseph Thomson, who died all too young in 1895. His great journey from
Mombasa was commenced in 1882 and finished in 1884.... His reports sent
home to the Royal Geographical Society had attracted the attention of
Mr. Gladstone; and there was another British statesman, Lord Edmond
Fitzmaurice, who perhaps more than most of his colleagues saw the
possibility of a white man's settlement in Equatorial Africa, and who
chose to select him (Sir H. Johnston) as one agency by which this work
should be commenced.' (_Journal_ of the Royal Colonial Institute,
1903-04, No. 5, p. 317.) The territory covered by the Kilimanjaro
Treaties was ceded to Germany under the arrangement made at the end of
1885, but the remainder has continued to be British (see Sir Harry
Johnston, _A History of the Colonization of Africa by Alien Races_, pp.
376-409.]

Mr. Gladstone could not bring himself to understand that the great
States of Europe had, almost without premeditation, moved into a field
of policy which involved the apportionment of regions scarcely yet known
in any detail to the geographers; nor did he realize the far-reaching
consequences of the acquisition or refusal of some of these districts.
The question of the Congo, for example, involved, as Sir Robert Morier
had foreseen, the settlement of the whole West African coast. In April
Sir Charles had recorded how he

    'had to read up African papers, and found reason to fear that the
    King of the Belgians was contemplating the sale of his Congo
    dominions to France. We had a meeting at the Foreign Office in the
    afternoon, [Footnote: April 26th, 1884.] at which were present Lord
    Granville, Kimberley, Chamberlain, myself, and Fitzmaurice, and,
    finding that we could not possibly carry our Congo Treaty with
    Portugal, we determined to find a way out by referring it to the
    Powers.' [Footnote: The following extract from an article in the
    _Quarterly Review_ explains the importance attached by Sir Charles
    to this Congo treaty, and the far-reaching results which it would
    have had:

    'In 1875 the results of Lieutenant Cameron's great journey across
    Africa became known.... They revealed ... the material for a Central
    African Empire awaiting the enterprise of a European or an Asiatic
    power. There is now little doubt that, had the famous treaty
    negotiated by Sir Charles Dilke, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, and Sir
    Robert Morier in 1884, been ratified and carried out ... the Congo
    Basin would have been added to the British Empire, together with
    Delagoa Bay and Nyasaland, before its time; with Dahomey also, and
    an all-British West African Coast between Sierra Leone and the
    Gaboon.' (_Quarterly Review_, January, 1906.)

It would perhaps have been more accurate had the author spoken of the
'treaty proposed to be negotiated.' The original plan of Sir Robert
Morier--part of a large scheme for the settlement of all outstanding
questions with Portugal--contemplated _inter alia_ some territorial
acquisition on the Congo by Great Britain. But the Cabinet put a veto on
this. The Foreign Office had therefore to fall back on the alternative
but less ambitious plan contained in the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of
1884, which was never ratified, owing to the opposition of Germany.
(_Life of Granville_, vol. ii., chap. x.;

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/8540