The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke Volume I Part 47

"_18th_.--He is confined to his bed in London; I am to see him there instead of here."

'On January 20th Herbert Bismarck dined with me--a man to whom I took a liking. I had not seen much of him before this date, but from this time forward we had continual meetings--a man of far stronger ability than that for which the public gives him credit. He had a special aversion to being called "Herbert," and insisted on being called the Count of Bismarck-Schoenhausen.

'On Sunday, January 22nd, I dined with the German Councillor of Emba.s.sy... and met again Count Bismarck. I wrote in my diary on this day: "Bismarck is a chip of the old block: not a bad sort of brute, with a great deal of humour of a rough kind. He saw through ----, an Austrian, who is a toad-eater, in a moment, and stopped a pompous story of his about ----. As soon as we were told by the narrator, with a proper British shake of the head, that he 'drank,' Bismarck shouted at the top of his voice: 'Well, that is _one_ point in his favour.'

----, disconcerted, went on and said: 'He fell from the landing and was killed.' 'Ah,' cried Bismarck, 'what a wretched const.i.tution he must have had!'" In an aside to me Bismarck violently attacked Papists, and broke out against the Confessional in the tone of Newdegate, or of Whalley, or of General Grant. To the whole table he stoutly maintained that it was right that no Jew should be admitted into the Prussian Guards or into clubs. One man at table said: "But you had a Jew in the Guards"; to which Bismarck replied: "We precious soon hunted him out." The man hunted out was the son of Prince Bismarck's banker, the Rothschilds' agent, British Consul at Berlin, and Bismarck's confidential adviser at the time of the treaty of Versailles. I added in my diary of young Bismarck: "He is only 'sham'

mad."

'On March 29th I received a letter from Crowe [Footnote: Of Sir Joseph Crowe, British Commercial Attache, Sir Charles says:

"Joseph Archer Crowe had been known to me as _Daily News_ correspondent in Paris when I was six years old in 1849, and when my grandfather was managing the _Daily News_. Many years afterwards I got to know of a Crowe, a great authority on Italian Painters, but I had not the least idea that this Crowe was the same person as the other Crowe. When I entered the Foreign Office I became aware of the diplomatic and consular work that had been done by J. A. Crowe, but I was not aware of his ident.i.ty with either of the others till we sat together on the Royal Commission. After ceasing to be a young painter in Paris, Crowe became _Ill.u.s.trated London News_ correspondent in the Crimea, and then accepted an art appointment in India. He was at Bombay during the Mutiny. Subsequently he went through the Franco- Italian campaign of 1859 as the war-correspondent of the _Times_, being present at the battle of Solferino. He was appointed in 1860 Consul-General for Saxony. Few men wrote four languages so well, and while I never heard him speak German I'm told that it was as good as his English, and his French was as good as either."] from Berlin, saying that the Chancellor was weak in health and prophesying ultimate war. In sending it to Lord Granville, I wrote: "I obstinately refuse to believe that the Russian Emperor will go to his destruction at the behest of his revolutionists." And Lord Granville wrote back: "I agree. Herbert Bismarck confirms the account of his father's weakness.

Cannot walk eighty yards without sitting down."'

In France, the greatest of French statesmen had been turned out of office on January 26th. [Footnote: The Gambetta Ministry fell by a vote on Scrutin de Liste on January 26th. The Freycinet Ministry succeeded to office on January 31st. On January 31st, 1882, Sir Charles wrote to Mr.

Frank Hill: "No member of the new French Government is taken from the majority that overthrew Gambetta. All who are deputies voted in the Minority. All who are senators would have so voted."] But already people were saying that Gambetta must be President, and that by 1886, the date of the next Presidential election, he would have recovered all his popularity--or lost it for ever. 'The alternative of death,' says Dilke, 'had not occurred to them; yet it was death, coupled with popularity, that came.'

The friends had not met since Gambetta's fall, but

'Gambetta found time to write and thank me for my speech, as well as for what I had said to him about his fall. He again promised a visit to London in one of these letters.'

"PARIS, "_Le 31 Janvier_, 1882.

"MON CHER AMI,

"Je vous remercie de votre bonne et forte parole. Elle me plait par- dessus tout venant de vous, qui etes bon juge en fait de dignite et d'autorite politique.

"Je ne regrette en partant qu'une seule chose--de n'avoir pu terminer le traite. Mais j'ai grand espoir d'avoir porte les choses a.s.sez loin pour empecher les successeurs de reculer.

"Quand vous reverrai-je? Je compte bien que ce sera e Londres, qui sera toujours en beau quand vous y serez.

"Bien cordialement,

"LeON GAMBETTA."

'But the visit was destined never to take place,' though for years it had been continually talked of between them. About August, 1876, when it was almost settled, Sir Charles had noted:

'Gambetta never came to England in his life but once (about 1869), and that was on a curious mission, considering what the future was to bring forth; for he came under the Empire as the representative of the Republicans to enter into consultation with the Orleans Princes for the overthrow of Louis Napoleon. This interview would no doubt be denied if mentioned by many of Gambetta's friends, but he told me of it himself.'

On April 16th, 1882, Sir Charles, on his way back from spending the Easter recess at Toulon, breakfasted with Gambetta, who told his friend 'that he was "unique among fallen Ministers, for others, once fallen, are forgiven," whereas he was "worse hated and more attacked than when in power."'

He was none the less witty. There was talk of reforms in Russia--reforms that had been suddenly obliterated by the murder of the reforming Tsar.

"What did Russia want with a 'Parlement'?" (Gambetta asked). "She has two Generals who provide her with it. Skobelef, _Parle_; et Ignatief, _Ment._"

'On the 21st January, 1882, Alfred de Rothschild came to see me to tell me that Bontoux had been to "Alphonse" [Footnote: The head of the Paris house.] to ask him to help the Union Generale, which had been a Catholic alliance against the Jews, and was now on its last legs. On the next day Alphonse de Rothschild decided that he would not, as was indeed to be expected, unless he had very strong, purely financial, reasons the other way. He ultimately helped enough to save the brokers, but not enough to save Bontoux or the rest. I found that, ever since the Battle of Waterloo, the Rothschilds in London and in Paris have been in the habit of writing to one another long letters every day, and from time to time I saw these letters from Alphonse when they bore upon political affairs.'

Sir Charles was not impressed by the political insight of those doc.u.ments, which seemed to him 'extraordinarily uninteresting,' expressing old- fas.h.i.+oned Conservative ideas, though 'the Rothschilds all think they are Liberals.'

The jottings end with a definition of diplomacy:

'On the 24th January, 1882, I dined at the French Emba.s.sy, where Baron Solvyns, the Belgian Minister, amused me with the saying that diplomacy meant "to pa.s.s one's life a expliquer les choses sans les comprendre."'

[Footnote: Adapted from Beaumarchais, who thus describes "la politique" in 'Le Mariage de Figaro,' Act III., Scene ii.]

CHAPTER XXVIII

THE PHOENIX PARK MURDERS

I.

Ireland and Egypt fill the most important places in the history of 1882.

That was the year, in Ireland, of the Kilmainham Treaty, the resignation of Mr. Forster, and the Phoenix Park murders; in Egypt, of the riots in Alexandria, followed by the bombardment, which caused Mr. Bright's resignation, and the battle of Tel-el-Kebir.

They had their roots far back in preceding years. But the abrupt development of the trouble in Egypt was due to an accident; that of the Irish question was of no sudden or casual growth. The Parliamentary difficulty as to procedure of the House was only part of Parnell's deliberate design to paralyze legislature and executive alike. [Footnote: Sir Charles notes: 'In 1890, when I wrote out these diaries, I showed them to Chamberlain, and gave him a copy of some part, notably that relating to the Kilmainham Treaty and that relating to Egypt (1882). His remembrance of events agreed with the notes made by me at the time.']

Government, for the moment, was trying to suppress Parnell and his a.s.sociates. The Irish leader himself had been in gaol since October 12th, 1881; Mr. Dillon, Mr. s.e.xton, Mr. Davitt, and many hundreds of lesser men, had been imprisoned without sentence or form of trial. Sir Charles Dilke, whom n.o.body believed to be an adviser of coercion, experienced as a member of the Government manifestations of Irish displeasure.

'On January 31st I addressed my const.i.tuents. The Irish attacked the meeting, and one East-Ender came at my private secretary with a chair, howling Mr. Bright's phrase: "Force is no remedy!" As a very violent breach of the peace had been committed, the police came in and cleared the room, and after that our people came back again, and I was able to make my speech quietly.... Congratulations upon my speech on all hands were warm, especially those of Chamberlain and Lord Granville.

Chamberlain had written to me before the meeting to recommend a free resort to "chuckers-out," and on my informing him of the use made of Bright's maxim, he amused himself by communicating it to Bright, who was only grim upon the subject.'

Irish discontent could count on sympathy and support from the rulers of America. On March 31st, 1882, the Memoir notes: 'It was settled to tell the Americans that those suspects who would leave the United Kingdom and engage not to return might go.'

'On April 20th I had to point out to Lord Granville the fact that the Irish had shown on the previous day that they had got hold of the condition which we had attempted to make with the Americans as to the liberation of American suspects, a condition which the Americans had indignantly refused.'

All these things affected public opinion in Great Britain. At this moment the Radical wing was demanding a change of policy in Ireland, while Mr.

Forster was pressing hard for renewal of the Coercion Act, which, having been pa.s.sed in 1881 for a year only, was now expiring. The Radicals won, and the change of policy was inaugurated by the so-called Kilmainham Treaty.

'At this moment' (April, 1882) 'Parnell was let out of prison, at Mr.

Gladstone's wish, to go to Paris to attend a funeral, but he was away from prison, also at Mr. Gladstone's wish, unnecessarily long, and, staying in London with Captain and Mrs. O'Shea, was seen by Chamberlain at the wish of Mr. Gladstone (expressed on April 20th), with the view that Chamberlain should offer him leave of absence from prison with the view of concocting some arrangement (for his release and for the pacification of Ireland) between him and the Government.

On the 21st Chamberlain and I met and decided that we would resign if it was proposed to renew the Coercion Act, or the power of arbitrary arrest in its then naked form.

'On April 22nd, 1882, Chamberlain obtained from the Cabinet, by a majority, Mr. Gladstone being strongly with him, his own way in the Irish Question, with full leave to enter into negotiations with Parnell through O'Shea, but to be disavowed if he failed. Mr.

Gladstone reported the Cabinet of the 22nd to the Queen, stating that the decision of the Cabinet was to the effect that it was wise "to strengthen the law in Ireland." This was one way of putting it. What the Cabinet really decided on April 22nd was to let out Parnell and his friends, and to drop arbitrary arrest, although they did decide to have a new Coercion Bill on minor points, to which Coercion Bill Parnell himself was favourable. The statement that Parnell was favourable would be denied, but O'Shea showed me a draft Bill, which was, so he said, in Parnell's writing. I knew the hand, and it seemed to be so.

'On April 25th Chamberlain reported to the Cabinet the result of his interviews. Lord Cowper had already resigned the Lord-Lieutenancy, but Forster's resignation (for some reason which I have never understood) was kept back for a little. It is a curious fact that the d.u.c.h.ess of Manchester told me in the middle of March that Lord Spencer was to succeed Lord Cowper; but the first the Cabinet heard of it was on April 25th.

'On April 26th, Parnell having returned to gaol, leave was given to Captain O'Shea to go and see him at Kilmainham with full powers, but nothing in writing. On the same day a letter, which was sent me by Chamberlain, after Forster had seen it and sent it on to him, shows that Forster was still acting, or at all events being treated by Mr.

Gladstone as though he was going forward with his policy. But on the 28th Chamberlain told me that Forster would resign. In my diary I say: "The Chancellor and Lord Kimberley may go with him. In this case the Irish Secretarys.h.i.+p would be offered to Shaw" (member for Limerick, Mr. b.u.t.t's successor as leader of the moderate Home Rulers), "but he would refuse because he could not get his county to return him. Then it must come either to Chamberlain or to myself. I said I should wish in this event that he should take it and I succeed him at the Board of Trade. He said that my appointment would make less row than his. I admitted this, but said that his would be the best for the public service. Besides, my opinion in favour of Home Rule would form a grave difficulty in my way." It will be seen that it never occurred for a moment to either Chamberlain or myself that the Irish Secretarys.h.i.+p would be offered without a seat in the Cabinet; but we counted without remembering Mr. Gladstone's affection for Lord Spencer.... It will also be seen that I did not count Chamberlain as being a Home Ruler like myself.

'On the 29th Forster told Harcourt at the banquet of the Royal Academy that he should resign "if it is decided to let out the men." It is necessary to be careful about one's history of this moment, for no authorities are to be trusted. My diary was written at the time from information chiefly supplied by Chamberlain, and Chamberlain has since seen and agreed to this record (1906). On Sunday, April 30th, the _Observer_ gave an account of what had pa.s.sed at a Cabinet of the previous day; but no such Cabinet was held, and on May 1st the _Times_ also gave an account of what pa.s.sed at "Sat.u.r.day's Cabinet"!

'On May 1st I saw Chamberlain before the Cabinet. Parnell had written to Justin McCarthy to promise that if let out he was ready to advise payment of rent and cessation of outrages, but McCarthy would not allow the letters to be made public. Forster insisted that he should give a public promise. I suggested to Chamberlain that to call on Parnell to give a public promise was to recognize Parnell as the Government of Ireland. Chamberlain agreed to argue that the promise should be a private one so far as Parnell was concerned, but that the Government should state that such a promise had been made. After the Cabinet Chamberlain told me that at the Cabinet of the next day Forster would resign; but he thought that the Chancellor, who was restive about the remedial legislation proposed in the shape of an Arrears Bill, would "go" too. I fancy the Chancellor had promised to resign, but he didn't.'

This reference to Lord Selborne is supplemented by the Memoir for 1893, where Sir Charles has a detached note:

'Our former Chancellor at eighty-two is "not less" prosy in the Lords than he used to be, for he was always "slow." When W. E. Forster resigned in 1882, Lord Granville left the Cabinet room to go down to tell the Queen. Then, and then only, Lord Selborne said: "But I agree with him, and must resign also." "It is too late," said Harcourt, "it would not now be respectful to the Queen as Granville has started." So the Chancellor did not resign.'