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.'