REDISTRIBUTION: COERCION AND DEVOLUTION
1885
I.
The year 1885 saw the Seats Bill, with its numerous compromises in
detail, passed into law, but not without attendant difficulties.
'On Ash Wednesday, February 18th, I saw Sir Stafford Northcote, and
settled with him, in view of the meeting of the House on the next
day, the whole course of affairs for the 19th and 20th, under guise
of discussing details of the Seats Bill. After we had parted,
Northcote wrote to me that on consideration he had come to the
conclusion that he must give notice of a vote of censure, but our
amicable communication continued on the next day. "On
consideration," with Northcote, always meant "After bullying by
Randolph."'
In the process of settlement there were constant meetings with Lord
Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote together, with Lord John Manners,
with Sir Michael Hicks Beach; while on the Conservative scheme for Irish
grouping
'I saw Healy for them, to discover if the thing could be done by
general consent; and, although Healy did not oppose right out, the
prospect of an agreement on details was far from promising. Healy
and I took the opportunity to discuss the Parnell-Chamberlain Irish
National Board scheme, of which I had written to Grant Duff on
January 23rd, "Chamberlain has a grand scheme for an Irish Board."'
March 6th.--'Healy having told me that he was sure Lord Salisbury had
"rigged" the Irish Boundary Commission, and I having written this to
Spencer, I received an indignant denial. "If indignation were justified
at anything that Healy says, I should indignantly deny his accusation."'
'Between March 11th and 13th the Conservatives had given me a good
deal of trouble by trying, under pressure from their friends, to
vary the Seats Agreement upon several points.... They then attacked
the two-member towns in England, which, it may be remembered, had
been insisted on by Mr. Gladstone against my wish; and Northcote
wrote: "Lord Salisbury and I never liked that _privilegium_, and
wished to have single-member constituencies everywhere"; he tried
hard to get me to reopen the question, knowing doubtless that I was
with him on the merits. He continued to press the question as late
as March 15th, when he wrote: "Our men are getting hard to hold,
and, having twice walked through the lobby almost alone, I have no
taste for repeating the operation." Conference with Lord Salisbury
followed, and the final stages were reached: from Monday, March
23rd, I had the Seats Bill in Committee four days a week.'
The essential fact in these dealings is that emphasized by Mr. Howel
Thomas, Secretary to the Boundary Commission:
'No political or other pressure would induce Sir Charles--and the
strongest pressure was used again and again--even to contemplate a
departure from the spirit of the compact. When once an agreement
became possible, he would spare no trouble to modify details. But
without agreement, however strong the argument for a change, nothing
was listened to.'
'On May 6th I received from Sir John Lambert, the retired Permanent
Secretary of the Local Government Board, a most grateful letter
about the Privy Councillorship, which had been announced to him by
Mr. Gladstone, and which no man ever more greatly deserved as an
honour, or by his character more greatly honoured.' [Footnote: John
Lambert's letter to Sir Charles contained these words: 'I have had
the opportunity of assisting you in a work which has placed you in
the very foremost rank of statesmen, and I have formed a friendship
which is one of the most gratifying incidents of my declining
years.']
'On the morning of May 9th I received a letter from Northcote,
congratulating me on the manner in which I had conducted the
Redistribution Bill "through its difficult stages.... Let me thank
you once more for the great consideration, as well as the perfect
loyalty, with which you have dealt with the numerous questions, and
congratulate you on having brought your ship so well into port."'
[Footnote: Upon a table in the larger drawing-room at 76, Sloane
Street there stood always a bronze 'Victory' sent by Sir George
Trevelyan to Sir Charles to celebrate the passing of the
Redistribution Bill, with these words:
'Dear Dilke,--The bronze is a Victory on a globe. The Victory is
obvious. The globe below signifies the manner in which your conduct
of the Redistribution Bill got the Tory Press under your feet. I am
pleased to think that, as a work of art, it may pass muster even
before such an artist as the future Lady Dilke.... It is a copy of a
Herculaneum bronze.... I cannot help hoping that you will think it
not unworthy of the event which it is meant to commemorate.']
But 'port' was not finally reached till after the fall of the Ministry
in June.
Work on the Housing Commission was also practically completed.
Throughout the year the Report had been under discussion.
On February 16th 'I told Chamberlain that the Labourers' Ireland
Committee had "advised taking of land under compulsory powers in order
to attach it to cottages"--a proposal which was afterwards carried; to
which Chamberlain replied: "And your Commission?" and I answered: "We
_shall_, I hope, but Lord Salisbury is jibbing since your speeches" (on
the unauthorized programme).
'On March 11th, at the meeting of my Housing Commission, Lord
Salisbury proposed what Goschen at once described as "Revolution,"
and Broadhurst "Socialism." He wanted to give public money out of
taxes to London. It may have been silly, but it was not either
revolutionary or socialistic.'
When it came to the point of acting on the Report, the Tory leader was
very far from revolutionary; on June 4th,
'I was also seeing Lord Salisbury as to the Housing Commission
Bills, which he was to introduce into the House of Lords, [Footnote:
Sir Charles was to take charge of the measures in the Commons.] He
was strongly opposed to putting it into the power of Boards of
Guardians "to build out of the rates as many cottages, with half-
acres attached, as they like, taking for the purpose any land
they please." In another letter he wrote: "I should provide that--
(1) The Local Authority must pass a petition to the Local Government
Board to apply the Acts. (2) The Local Government Board must send
down and inquire with a long notice. (3) If the Local Government
Board inspector reports (i.) that the poorer classes of the parish
are not, and are not likely to be, sufficiently housed without the
application of the Acts; (ii.) that the Acts can be applied without
ultimate loss to the ratepayers, then a vote of the local
authorities should be sufficient to apply the Acts. It would be
better that a sufficient interval should be passed in these
processes to insure that the second vote should be given by a newly
elected local authority."'
On April 4th to 9th the Housing Commission visited Scotland.
'On the evening of April 4th I dined with the Lord Provost of
Edinburgh. On Easter Day I attended the Kirk with the Lord Provost,
hearing a magnificent sermon by Principal Caird, and in the evening
dined with the Lord Advocate. On Easter Tuesday I dined with the
Convention of Royal Burghs. On Thursday, April 9th, we left
Edinburgh for London.'
There remained only the question of inquiring and reporting with regard
to Ireland, and here perplexities abounded.
As far back as February 7th at the Cabinet, 'the third matter discussed
was that of the proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to Dublin as a
member of my Commission, or, by himself, in advance of the visit of the
Commission. It was decided that Parliament could not be asked for his
expenses without trouble with the Irish.'
April 9th.--'I now began discussing with Spencer the conditions on which
the Commission was to appear at Dublin, with regard to which there were
great difficulties. Gray was on the Commission, but could not be
Spencer's guest in any way, although, on the other hand, he and his
friends were willing to receive me in spite of my being a member of the
Government. [Footnote: Mr. Dwyer Gray, Nationalist member for Carlow in
1885. In 1886 he represented St. Stephen's Green, Dublin.] Spencer, in
inviting me to stay with him, wrote: "I do not think you will fear the
denunciation of _United Ireland_."
'On April 17th I entered in my diary, after the meeting of the Royal
Commission at which we signed our report: "Pleasures of Ireland. If
we stay with Spencer, the Irish witnesses say that they will not
appear before the Commission; and if we do not, I am told that the
'loyalists' will not appear." On this day I wrote to Grant Duff: "I
may go" (out) "with Chamberlain over Budget [Footnote:
Correspondence with Mr. Gladstone on the Budget and the Beer Tax has
been given in the previous chapter, pp. 118-120.] or over Irish
Coercion." He replied, and my rejoinder will be found below.'
[Footnote: Sir Charles's summary of this letter will be found in
this chapter (p. 143).]
Trouble had arisen also over Mr. Childers's wish to increase the duty on
sparkling wines. This Sir Charles strongly opposed
'on the ground that it would upset the French and make them withdraw
the most favoured nation treatment which I had won, and the matter
was adjourned.'
'On Saturday, May 16th, there was another Cabinet. Childers proposed
to raise the wine duties, to reduce by one-half his proposed
increase on spirits, and to limit to one year his increase on beer.
We all agreed, against Childers, to postpone any announcement of
changes for three weeks, and Childers, thinking that this meant that
we had agreed not to take his proposals, said that he would resign.'
April 24th.--'I had now received Spencer's consent to my quitting the
Viceregal Lodge, when at Dublin at Whitsuntide, for one evening, to
attend a party at Gray's, which was the virtual condition of our not
being boycotted by the Nationalists.'
Negotiations between the Irish party and both English parties were at
this time in the air, and it will be seen that this visit to Ireland
became connected with political issues quite different from its
ostensible and non-controversial object.
II.
Early in 1885 anti-Irish feeling, which to some extent had been allayed,
was again roused by dynamite outrages. One bomb was exploded in the
Tower of London, and two in the precincts of Parliament. The general
temper may be judged by an entry of February 7th:
'I remonstrated with Harcourt as to the restrictions at the House,
which he and the Speaker had agreed on, so far as they affected the
Press. I said that it was ridiculous to shut out little Lucy, the
"Toby" of _Punch_, and Harcourt gravely assured me that Lucy was a
man who would willingly bring dynamite into the House himself; after
which I had no more to say.'
It was in face of this feeling that Mr. Chamberlain had drafted a scheme
giving very large powers of self-government to an Irish popularly
elected body.
When Sir Charles was declaring for resignation, he received a
communication which made the Irish matter pressing.
'On April 22nd Cardinal Manning wrote to me that he had some
information of importance which he wished for an opportunity of
making known to me, and he begged me to come to him on my way to
Whitehall on the morrow. I had to see Lord Salisbury and Sir
Stafford Northcote as to the Seats Bill, and it was not until the
afternoon that I was able to see the Cardinal. He spoke in the name
of Croke and another Roman Catholic Irish Archbishop, and of five
Irish Roman Catholic Bishops who had been staying with him, the
latter being a deputation of five to Rome who represented "the 14
Bishops." He said that Croke had become frightened of the extreme
Nationalists. The Cardinal declared that the Roman Catholic clergy
were ready to pacify Ireland if we would pass Chamberlain's Local
Government Ireland Scheme, with a Central Board such as Chamberlain
proposed. The Bishops and clergy would be prepared to denounce, not
only separation, but also an Irish Parliament. I had reason to know
that Lord Spencer was unfavourable to any negotiation with Cardinal
Manning, but on the 24th, having that day again seen Manning, who
put the dots on the "i's" and volunteered that if the Irish Bishops
got the elective board for Ireland they would denounce as
revolutionary an Irish Parliament, I wrote to Mr. Gladstone stating
Manning's views, and suggesting that Chamberlain should see the
Cardinal on the morrow. [Footnote: See the next two pages, where
accounts of these interviews and correspondence occur.]
'I said in my letter to Mr. Gladstone: "I knew that the Pope, in
sending for the Bishops to Rome, had acted on Manning's advice. I
also knew that Manning bitterly resented Errington's visits to Rome.
This was all I knew on the subject until to-day, when Manning
suddenly proposed to me to bring about peace and good-will in
Ireland on the basis of Chamberlain's Local Government and Central
Board Scheme.... Manning has got a pledge from the Roman Catholic
Bishops, including even Archbishop Croke ... and from Davitt, to
denounce separation. He has got from the Bishops, including Croke, a
declaration against an Irish Parliament, provided they obtain the
Local Government Central Board. I suggested that he should see
Chamberlain at once, and learn secretly the details of his
proposals. He said nothing of coercion, and I, of course, avoided
the subject, as I did not know whether a coercion Bill is to be
proposed. I should suggest that Manning be encouraged to let the
Pope have Chamberlain's scheme."
'I sent this memorandum to Chamberlain and to Lord Spencer, as well
as to Mr. Gladstone, and Chamberlain wrote: "I am quite willing to
call on the Cardinal if Mr. Gladstone approves." Lord Spencer wrote:
"The question of Mr. Chamberlain's seeing the Cardinal with a view
of his scheme being made known to the Pope is for Mr. Gladstone's
decision, but I would venture to say that he should not disclose his
plan to the Cardinal unless the Cabinet agree to it." This last
memorandum from Lord Spencer is dated the 25th, but on the 24th
Chamberlain, Mr. Gladstone having consented, had seen the Cardinal.
I also saw the Cardinal again on the 25th, and he told me that in
his opinion it was essential that Dr. Walsh should be made
Archbishop of Dublin. He also told me that he was going to see
Parnell on the Chamberlain scheme. On April 30th the Cardinal saw
Parnell, and told him that the Bishops would support Chamberlain in
the Local Government of Ireland scheme. Parnell promised that he
would support it, and would not obstruct the Crimes Bill. So O'Shea
told me, and showed me a paper unsigned, which purported to be, and
which, knowing the hand, I believe was, Parnell's writing, somewhat
to this effect. On the 28th a Committee of the Cabinet had been
appointed on Chamberlain's Irish Local Government and Central
Council scheme. On May 1st the Cardinal told me of his interview
with Parnell, and of a more completely satisfactory interview
between himself and Sexton.
'The scheme was one which proposed the establishment in Ireland of a
national elective Council, to which were to be referred matters at
present in the hands of some four Boards at Dublin Castle. Mr.
Gladstone's consent to Chamberlain's interview with the Cardinal had
been given in conversation at the House of Commons on the 23rd, and
I have a letter from Mr. Gladstone stating this. I had probably, for
some reason which I forget, both written and spoken to him after my
first interview with Manning on the 22nd, and put the matter again
in a letter (possibly to go to Spencer) on the 24th. I have also a
letter from Chamberlain on the 24th, saying that his interview with
Manning "quite confirms your minute, and the position is hopeful."
With regard to the Cardinal's insisting upon Walsh, and his anger at
Errington's interference, I had a letter which I sent to Lord
Spencer, and which he kept, but returned my minute referring to the
Cardinal's letter, endorsed only "S. 25-4-85." Chamberlain also
wrote on the same day, again stating that his interview with the
Cardinal had been highly satisfactory, and adding: "Do not let Mr.
Errington meddle with the Archbishopric of Dublin." On April 26th
the Cardinal had again written to me about the Errington business
and the See of Dublin, and this second letter on the subject I kept.
The only new point in it was that contained in the following phrase:
"I have an impression that efforts have been made to represent Dr.
Walsh as a Nationalist. He is not more so than I am; and whether
that is excessive or obstructive you will judge."
'On Tuesday, April 28th, the Cardinal again spoke to me as to the
archbishopric, expressing his great vexation as to Spencer's action
through Errington. I sent a minute to Spencer which he returned,
writing, with regard to Manning's moderate opinions: "I wish it may
be so. Responsibility does wonders. Maynooth is so bad that the Pope
is now discussing it with the Bishops." Dr. Walsh, Manning's
candidate, was President of Maynooth. I sent Spencer's minute to
Chamberlain, who returned it with a strong minute of his own for
Spencer, who again wrote: "H.E. the Cardinal is wrong in his
estimate of Dr. Walsh." On April 30th Manning wrote mentioning a
further conversation with Parnell, and adding: "The result is that I
strongly advise the prompt introduction of the scheme I have in
writing. It cannot be known too soon. But both on general and on
particular reasons I hope that neither you nor your friend will
dream of the act you spoke of. Government are pledged in their first
Queen's Speech to county government in Ireland. Let them redeem
their pledge. All the rest will follow." The "act," of course, was
resignation.'
'At the Cabinet Committee of May 1st on Ireland, Carlingford and
Harcourt, in Spencer's interest, violently attacked Chamberlain's
scheme; Hartington less violently; Childers, Lefevre, and Trevelyan
supported. Spencer seeming to waver, Harcourt rather turned round,
and Mr. Gladstone afterwards told Chamberlain that Carlingford's
opposition did not matter.
'On May 1st I again saw Manning, who told me of further interviews
with Parnell and Sexton. I noted in my diary: "2nd to 6th. The Irish
row--Mr. Gladstone between Chamberlain and Spencer: the deep sea and
the devil, or the devil and the deep sea--continues."
'On May 7th the Cardinal wrote: "How can the _Standard_ have got the
Irish scheme? Nothing is secret and nobody is safe. My copy of it is
both safe and secret." On May 8th I wrote to Grant Duff:
"Chamberlain and I have a big Irish Local Government scheme on hand,
which is backed by the R. C. Bishops--which may either pacify
Ireland or break up the Government." On the 9th, Harcourt having
come over, Chamberlain's scheme received the support of all the
Commoners except Hartington, and was opposed by all the peers except
Lord Granville. Mr. Gladstone said to me in leaving the room:
"Within six years, if it pleases God to spare their lives, they will
be repenting in ashes." At night he wrote to Lord Spencer and to
Hartington that he intended to go out upon this question.
'During Sunday, May 10th, Harcourt tried hard to patch matters up on
the basis of "No Home Rule, no coercion, no remedial legislation, no
Ireland at all."'
On May 13th 'Cardinal Manning dined with me, and we further discussed
the position of Chamberlain's scheme.'
Then suddenly a new and complicating factor was introduced:
'On Friday, May 15th, there was another Cabinet, from which
Trevelyan was absent through illness. A Land Purchase Ireland Bill
was suddenly presented to us, to which I expressed strong
opposition, unless it were to be accompanied by "Chamberlain's Local
Government scheme"; and a Coercion Bill was also presented to us,
against which Chamberlain, Lefevre, and I, protested. We, however,
declared that we would yield as regards some points in the Coercion
Bill provided the Land Purchase Bill were dropped or the "Local
Government measure" introduced.' [Footnote: A Land Purchase Bill had
been proposed in the end of April, 1884, by Lord Spencer, which
after preliminary consideration by a Committee was discussed in
Cabinet.
'I opposed the whole thing. Lord Derby gave five reasons against it,
all five unanswerable, and then supported it. Northbrook agreed with
me. Childers, supported by a unanimous Cabinet committee, proposed a
scheme of Chamberlain's suggestion for advancing the whole purchase
money. Spencer proposed three-fourths. Mr. Gladstone had a scheme of
his own which nobody could understand. Spencer insisted on counting
heads. Lord Granville, who would, of course, have supported Mr.
Gladstone, had gone away. Trevelyan, who had been called in, was not
allowed to vote, and the result was that the majority pronounced
against Chamberlain's scheme; Spencer who was for three-fourths, and
I against the whole thing, voting together with Carlingford,
Northbrook, the Chancellor, Hartington, and Dodson--a scratch
lot--against Mr. Gladstone, Childers, Harcourt, Kimberley, Derby,
and Chamberlain.']
'On Sunday, May 17th, I dined with Edward Levy Lawson, [Footnote:
Afterwards the first Lord Burnham.] and met the Prince of Wales and
Randolph Churchill; and Randolph told the Prince and myself that
which he had previously told the Irish members--namely, that
Salisbury had promised to have no coercion; but I noted in my diary
that I did not believe this. I was wrong, for Salisbury afterwards
said at Newport that his mind had been made up against coercion long
before the change of Government. I knew that Randolph had seen
Parnell, as I had twice seen them together in Gosset's room, which
only Randolph and I ever used before 5 p m.'
There were now two separate subjects of division leading to resignations
in the Cabinet. There were those who would resign unless coercion was
renewed, and there was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was
resigning because he could not get his way as to the Budget. His
resignation was 'suspended'; but Mr. Gladstone was evidently anxious to
be out of it all.
'On the Sunday Childers informed us that he would go on for three
weeks. On Wednesday afternoon, May 20th, Mr. Gladstone spoke to me
at the House, and told me that he would go on until the end of the
Session, and would then resign, and that Hartington would try to
form a Government, although he might fail in getting one that could
agree on Irish proposals. Mr. Gladstone said nothing about land
purchase, but in the course of the afternoon he suddenly announced
publicly the introduction of a Land Purchase Bill, thinking, I
believe, that he had Chamberlain's consent to a Bill limited to one
year. I at once wrote him a letter of resignation, and then sent off
for Chamberlain, Lefevre, and Trevelyan.
'Chamberlain's interview with Mr. Gladstone that had misled the
latter had taken place after the Cabinet of Saturday--I think on the
morning of Monday, the 18th--and their meeting was on the subject of
Childers's Budget proposals. Chamberlain, writing to me about it,
said: "We are likely to want four millions less money. Therefore,
says Childers, let us have a new Budget and clap an additional tax
of £300,000 on wine." Chamberlain also wrote to me, after his
interview with Mr. Gladstone, on the Monday afternoon, telling me
that Randolph Churchill was going to give notice of a Committee to
inquire into the state of Ireland, that Churchill thought that we
should be out by that time and supporting him, and that he
contemplated a separation from his own leaders, and a union, on a
Radical Irish policy for "Local Government," and against coercion,
of the two sides from below the gangway. Chamberlain added that, if
the Russian matter "were out of the way, Mr. Gladstone would let us
go, and I think _we must go_." This correspondence had left me
unaware of any change in Chamberlain's view, if there was any, about
the Land Purchase Bill. As soon as Chamberlain reached the House on
the 20th, and heard from me what I had done, he also wrote a letter
of resignation; but he was not pleased, and perhaps rightly, at my
having taken so strong a step without consulting him on the precise
point.
'In Chamberlain's letter, which was sent at 6 p.m. on the 20th, he
said: "Dear Mr. Gladstone,--I have heard with great surprise that
you have this afternoon given notice of the introduction of a Land
Purchase Bill for Ireland, unaccompanied by any reference to the
large scheme of Local Government, the promise of which for next year
was the condition of the assent given by Sir Charles Dilke and
myself to the proposal for dealing with Land Purchase during the
present Session. I am convinced that a measure of the kind suggested
by Lord Spencer will have a distinct tendency to increase the
agitation for a separation between the two countries, and at the
same time will seriously prejudice the success of any such scheme of
Local Government as I have submitted to the Cabinet.... In the
circumstances I feel that I have no alternative but to place my
resignation in your hands."
'On the morning of May 21st Lefevre informed us that he should go
with us, and also wrote a letter of resignation, in which he said
that he did not agree with us as to Land Purchase, but that as we
went he must go, too, on coercion.
'Mr. Gladstone sent for me on the 21st, and I suggested a way out,
in our acceptance of the Land Purchase Bill, with a promise of "the
Local Government Scheme" for 1886. Mr. Gladstone fell in with this
view, and proposed that at Dublin, for which I was starting on
Friday morning, May 22nd, I should try to get Spencer's consent to
the limitation of the new Coercion Bill to a single year, and the
promise of the "Local Government Bill" for 1886. On the 21st Mr.
Gladstone wrote to me several times, as did also Chamberlain. Mr.
Gladstone had written to Chamberlain on the night of the 20th: "I
have never been in greater surprise than at the fresh trouble
developed this afternoon. I believed myself to be acting entirely
within the lines of your and Dilke's concurrence, and surely I am
right in thinking that you could not have supposed that the notice
of an intention to bring in a Bill offered the occasion on which to
refer to the distinct though allied subject of Local Government.
What I understood to be your and Dilke's procedure was to agree to a
Land Purchase Bill with a provision of funds for one year, which
would leave the whole measure ... dependent on a fresh judgment
which might be associated with Local Government as its condition. It
seems to me to be a matter which we may perfectly well consider, and
hope to arrange, in what terms reference shall be made to Local
Government when the Bill is brought in. Will not that be the time to
part, if part we must, which I do not believe? I send a copy of this
to Dilke, and will only add, to the expression of my surprise, my
deep concern."
'When I received a letter from Mr. Gladstone, enclosing a copy of
his to Chamberlain, I replied (first showing my answer to Lefevre
and sending it to Chamberlain) to the effect that the proposal to
introduce a Land Purchase Bill had been discussed by and rejected by
the Cabinet, that I could not concur in the reversal of its
judgment, and that, thinking as I did that a deliberate opinion of
the Cabinet had been disregarded without warrant, and having, so
thinking, resigned, I should be unable to attend any meeting of the
Cabinet if one were summoned. I have a letter from Chamberlain to Mr
Gladstone dated 21st, and two later ones from Mr. Gladstone to
myself. Chamberlain said:
'"My Dear Mr. Gladstone,
'"I fear there has been a serious misapprehension on both sides with
respect to a Land Purchase Bill, and I take blame to myself if I did
not express myself with sufficient clearness. I certainly never
imagined that the promise of introduction would be made without
further reference to the Cabinet, or without some definite decision
as to Local Government. I doubt very much if it is wise or even
right to attempt to cover over the serious differences of principle
that have lately disclosed themselves in the Cabinet. I think it is
now certain that they will cause a split in the new Parliament, and
it seems hardly fair to the constituencies that this should only be
admitted after they have discharged their functions, and when they
are unable to influence the result.
'"I am,
'"Yours sincerely,
'"J. CHAMBERLAIN."
'They _did_ "cause" a split in the new Parliament, but Spencer the
Coercionist and Chamberlain the Nationalist had changed places!'
'I do not know which of Mr. Gladstone's two letters dated the 21st
is the earlier. In the one Mr. Gladstone wrote: "I hope that my note
may have shown you that the time for considering your difficulty (if
there be one) has not arrived. Please to tell me if this is so, as
if it were not I should have to summon the Cabinet this afternoon to
report what has happened. The messenger will wait for an answer.--
Yours sincerely, W. E. Gladstone.--This is also for Chamberlain." I
replied somewhat curtly that if there were a Cabinet I could not
attend. The other letter referred to a conversation which had taken
place between Hamilton and Chamberlain, and said that the latter was
"willing that his letter should stand as _non avenu_ until after the
recess--i.e. (so I understand it), we should, before the Bill is
introduced, consider in what terms the subject of Local Government
should be referred to when the Bill is introduced. I am not trying
to bind you to this understanding, but if you and he will come here
at 3.0 we will try to get at the bottom of the matter." My reply
was:
'"21st May.
'"I certainly cannot withdraw my resignation unless the incident is
explained to the whole of the members of the Cabinet. If you could
see your way to circulate a box explaining that we were not
consenting parties to the reversal of the opinion of the Cabinet,
then I would try to help find some way out. I am, however, hopeless
as to the wisdom of doing so. We differ so completely on the
questions which will occupy the time of Parliament for the remainder
of the Session that I feel that the Cabinet cannot hold together
with advantage to the country. Lefevre strongly agrees with this
view Northbrook and Hartington, who, with Lefevre, were against
Chamberlain and myself on the merits, evidently felt as amazed as we
were at the reversal of the decision."'
'At this moment Chamberlain wrote to Mrs. Pattison' (in India) 'to
say that the times were "most anxious. Mr. Gladstone is certainly
going to retire soon, and the influence which has held together
discordant elements will be removed with him. Fortunately, we know
our own minds, and are not deficient in resolution, but it is not
always easy to see clearly the right times and way of giving effect
to our decisions. I do not myself believe that the struggle between
us and the Whigs can be long postponed. It has nearly come over the
question of Ireland, and even now we may be compelled to break off
on this vital point. In any case we shall not join another
Government nor meet another Parliament without a decision; and if it
is against our views, the split will be final and complete, and we
shall be out of office until we can lead a purely Radical
Administration. We must win in the end, but the contest will be a
bitter one, and may lead us farther than we contemplate at
present.... I was dining last Saturday with Lord Ripon, who
professed to be well pleased ... and declared his full adhesion to
the new gospel; but the majority of his class and school are getting
thoroughly frightened, and will probably quicken and intensify the
movement by setting themselves against it, instead of trying to
guide and direct it. A good deal depends on Lord Hartington. He is
constitutionally contemptuous of, and unsympathetic with, the
democratic sentiment of the times."
'By our telegrams of May 21st, I saw that on the 20th Sir John Kirk,
our man at Zanzibar, had been snubbed by Lord Granville, and I felt
that if I went out upon the Irish Question I should be able at least
to speak my mind as to the manner in which we had pandered to the
Germans on the Zanzibar coast.
'On May 21st I wrote to Grant Duff: "Mr. G. will resign at the end
of the session. I rather doubt Hartington being able to form a
Government."
'On the morning of Friday, May 22nd, I left for Dublin, and by
teatime was at the Viceregal Lodge.'
On the previous day Sir Charles had written:
'Local Government Board,
'May 21st, 1885.
'My Dear Grant Duff,
'Off to Ireland, where I expect to be Boycotted by both sides
[Footnote: It turned out the other way.]--by the Nationalists
because I stay with Spencer, and by the Orangemen because we sit at
the Mansion House.
'Yours,
'Chs. W. D.'
'As Mr. Gladstone at our last interview had bid me convert Spencer
if I could, and virtually promised that he would support our views
if Spencer would, I had asked Trevelyan and Harcourt to back me up
in letters. Harcourt made delay. Trevelyan wrote on the 23rd: "I am
sorry the whole thing is in the newspapers, and see in it another
reason for getting it settled. If you and Chamberlain make it a
point to have the Bill for a year, I should be glad to see the
concession made. The concession on the part of those who take
another view would not be greater than was made by those of us who
objected to have a Land Bill that was not based upon a new system of
Local Government."
'Early in the morning of Saturday, the 23rd, before the meeting of
my Commission at the City Hall, I had had a long talk with Spencer,
and I felt, more strongly than I ever had before, that his position
in Dublin was untenable, and that he ought to be allowed to go. On
Whit Sunday I attended church with Spencer, and in the afternoon
took him for the only walk which he had enjoyed for a long time. We
passed the spot where Lord Frederick Cavendish was killed, and
accompanied by a single aide-de-camp, but watched at a distance by
two policemen in plain clothes, and met at every street corner by
two others, walked to the strawberry gardens, and on our return, it
being a lovely Sunday when the Wicklow Mountains were at their best
and the hawthorn in bloom, met thousands of Dublin people driving
out to the strawberry gardens on cars. In the course of the whole
long walk but one man lifted his hat to Spencer, who was universally
recognized, but assailed by the majority of those we met with shouts
of, "Who killed Myles Joyce?" [Footnote: One of several men hanged
for the Maamtrasna murders. All the other men sentenced protested
that Myles Joyce was innocent, and died protesting it. Strong
efforts were made to gain a reprieve for this lad.] while some
varied the proceedings by calling "Murderer!" after him. A few days
later, when I was driving with Lady Spencer in an open carriage, a
well-dressed bicyclist came riding through the cavalry escort, and
in a quiet, conversational tone observed to us, "Who killed Myles
Joyce?" At his dinner-party on the Sunday evening Spencer told us
that a Roman Catholic priest [Footnote: Father Healy, parish priest
of Bray, and most famous of modern Irish talkers.] who was present
(the Vicar of Bray, I think, but not _the_ Bray) was the only priest
in Ireland who would enter his walls, while the Castle was boycotted
by every Archbishop and Bishop. On Monday morning, the 25th, Whit
Monday, I paid a visit to the Mansion House at the request of the
Lord Mayor of Dublin, taking by Spencer's leave the Viceregal
carriages there, where they had in his second viceroyalty not been
before, and was received by the Lord Mayor in state, which consisted
in much exhibition of the most gorgeous porter (in green and gold)
that my eyes had ever beheld. I afterwards went on to see Hamilton,
[Footnote: Sir Robert Hamilton, who had succeeded Mr. Bourke as the
permanent head of Dublin Castle.] the Under-Secretary. He offered us
as a maximum County Boards plus a Central Education Board for
Ireland, to administer all the grants with rating powers, and to be
called a great experiment to be extended if it answered. In the
evening I discussed this with Spencer, who went a little farther,
and offered, in addition to County Boards, four elective Central
Boards for Ireland, to discharge much the same duties which
Chamberlain's scheme gave to the Central Board; but Spencer
obstinately refused to take the plunge of making the four Boards
into one Board. It was on this point that we broke off; and he never
got farther forward until after the Government had gone out. He has
since declared that his conversion to a more advanced Home Rule
scheme than that of Chamberlain, which he had refused, was caused by
the return of a certain majority of Nationalist members; but he was
perfectly aware at this time what that majority would be, and I
confess that I have never been able to understand why Hamilton and
Spencer should have held out as they did in May against the moderate
scheme, and have supported the extreme one as early as July, which I
believe to have been the case. Had Spencer yielded at this moment,
it is at least possible that the Irish question would have been
settled. At all events, there has never been in our time so fair a
chance of settlement.
'On Tuesday, the 26th, I heard from Lefevre, who wrote strongly
against the Coercion Bill for Spencer's benefit, but added in a
separate letter that he regarded the notice in the _Birmingham Post_
as indicating that Chamberlain had been talking freely about the
dissensions in the Cabinet, and that if this was so he considered it
unfortunate, as tending to increase the difficulty of getting any
further concessions from Spencer or other members of the Cabinet who
favoured coercion.
'On Tuesday evening the Commission dined with Gray, and met Dr.
Walsh, the new Archbishop; but at Dr. Walsh's wish I had gone to
Gray's house half an hour before dinner to see the Archbishop
privately, and to be thanked by him for the part that I had taken in
trying to prevent opposition to the choice. In the evening Gray had
a party at which both sides were represented, Chief Justice Morris
being among those present. Gray's house, although the Spencers
disliked him, was one at which the parties always met as much as is
possible at all in Ireland. When Gray came out of gaol after his
imprisonment he gave a small dinner, at which were present the Judge
who had sentenced him, the gaoler who had had him in custody, and
the prosecuting counsel. The most interesting man at Gray's was
Fottrell, the man whose memoirs ought to be interesting, for he had
acted as intermediary between the Castle (that is, Hamilton) and
Parnell at the time when secret communications were passing between
them, although openly they were at war.
'Dickson, the Ulster Liberal member, [Footnote: M.P. For Dungannon,
Tyrone, 1880-1885. He afterwards became a leading Unionist.] was at
Gray's, and he announced that he had at last come over to
Chamberlain's scheme. Now, Hartington was crossing the next day to
stay at the Viceregal Lodge, and was to speak at Belfast under
Dickson's auspices, and the announcement of Dickson's change of
front was a startling blow to him and Spencer.
'On the morning of Wednesday, the 27th, I wrote to Grant Duff: "A
pretty pass you Whigs have brought this country to! I really think
we Radicals ought to be allowed to try. We certainly could not do it
_worse_. 'Poland' has been a byword, yet Poland is far less of a
weakness to Russia than Ireland to us, and the Russians have now the
Polish peasantry with them, if they have the towns and nobles
against them. _We_ have _no_ friends in Ireland. All our policy has
aimed at conciliating at least Ulster, and now Ulster is fast
becoming as Nationalist as Cork. The Liberals carried Belfast
freeholders in the late Antrim election to the cry of 'Down with
coercion!' and 'No special legislation!' Hartington comes to-night,
and I shall try to arrange some compromise with him and Spencer as
to the future--probably an Irish elective education Council."
'On the evening of the 27th I had a long conference with Hartington
and Spencer, in which I "worked" Dickson much. Before this I had had
the third meeting of my Commission, and then a public meeting in
connection with the Dublin Ladies' Central Association, a body
dealing with the Housing of the Working Classes. On the morning of
May 28th Spencer came into my bedroom before eight o'clock, and told
me that Hartington was very ill, suffering from sleeplessness and
fever, and that it would be quite impossible for him to make his
Belfast speech.... Dickson soon came to the Viceregal Lodge, and
earnestly begged me to go to Belfast in Hartington's place, but
under the circumstances I felt that it was impossible that I should
do so, although he promised me that a special train should be
waiting at the last moment if I would change my mind.
'I received this day a letter from Cardinal Manning strongly urging
that Chamberlain, Lefevre, and I, should stay in. "If you and the
like of you leave the Whigs, they will fall back and unite in
resisting you. So long as you are in contact with them, they will
yield to reason. These are the thoughts of an Old Testament
Radical." But the Old Testament Radical went on to make proposals to
me with regard to the Roman Catholic vote in Chelsea which would
have astonished the Old Testament prophets.
'Another letter which I received this day was from O'Shea about
Parnell's opinions on the Coercion Bill, but it is so obscure that I
can make nothing of it. It was on a suggestion of Lefevre's with
regard to bringing the Coercion Bill into force only by
"proclamation." It shows, however, if O'Shea is to be believed, that
Parnell was willing to accept a coercion measure of some kind, or,
at all events, to haggle about its terms, if publicly resisting it
as a whole.
'By the same post I received a letter from Heneage [Footnote: Mr.
Edward Heneage, for many years M.P. for Grimsby, and for a short
time Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1886. He was afterwards
a leading Unionist.] professing to state the general view of the
House of Commons, and pronouncing in favour of a liberal policy
towards Ireland. "(1) Non-renewal of the Crimes Act. (2) Amendment
of the jury laws. (3) Amendment of the purchase clauses. (4)
Abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy. (5) Improvement of Local
Government." This I showed to Spencer, with a memorandum of my own
in which I said that it was "a curious letter from a Whig." Spencer
wrote on my memorandum in returning the letter: "It is an odd
letter.... He wrote to me the other day about the abolition of the
Lord Lieutenancy, rather apologizing for bringing it on. I replied
deprecating any movement which might not go with action. To denounce
an office without at once abolishing it would weaken the hands of
him who filled it."
'I wrote to Lefevre and Chamberlain that Hartington had come very
well, and was very well at dinner, but bored at having to speak.
"Walker told him what I told him as to the unwisdom of speaking in
favour of coercion in Belfast immediately after the anti-coercion
speeches of the Liberals at the Antrim election; and to-day he is
ill. I do not know how far the two things are connected; but the
papers will _say_ they are."
'I lunched with Sir Edward Guinness and sat in the Speaker's chair
of the Irish Parliament; dined with Sir Robert Hamilton at the Yacht
Club at Kingstown; slept on board the boat and crossed next day;
spent Saturday to Tuesday at Dockett Eddy; and on Tuesday was at the
State Concert, where several of us tried to patch up some means of
being able to meet in Cabinet on June 5th. On Thursday, June 4th, I
had a long talk with Mr. Gladstone, and, on his agreeing to support
the Heneage-Lefevre-O'Shea proposal, now supported by Chamberlain,
for only bringing the Coercion Bill into force by a proclamation,
agreed to attend the Cabinet the next day, but without withdrawing
my resignation, which remained "suspended."
'I began on the 3rd and ended on the 5th June a letter to Grant Duff
in reply to one from him bidding me not break off from the
Government on any but a clear and obvious issue. I told him that (1)
Radicals in a minority would only ever get their way by often
threatening to go, even on secondary points, and that they must not
threaten unless they "meant it." (2) Mr. G. insisted he was "going."
"Therefore we have to count with Hartington. We doubt if we can form
part of a Hartington Government, and we can't do so if we do not ...
impose our terms by threats.... This is why I have been forcing the
pace of late.... Chamberlain is a little timid just now, in view of
the elections and the fury of the _Pall Mall_. I could not drive
Chamberlain out without his free consent, so I am rather tied.
Still, we shall (June 5th) get our own way, I fancy, at to-day's
Cabinet."
'On the morning of June 5th my position in attending the Cabinet was
weakened, if not made ridiculous, by a letter from Spencer in which
he refused the Heneage-Lefevre-O'Shea compromise. But I went all the
same, for I was not supposed to know what he had written to Mr.
Gladstone. The first matter discussed was the Budget. I opposed the
proposed increase of the wine duties from 1s. to 1s. 3d., and from
2s. 6d. to 3s. (all bottled wine to be at the 3s. rate). I carried
with me at first all except Mr. Gladstone against Childers, and at
last Mr. Gladstone also. Childers then left the room; Mr. Gladstone,
Lord Granville, Harcourt, and the Chancellor, one by one, went after
him, but he would not come back. The Guards at Alexandria were
mentioned, and then Spencer's letter to Mr. Gladstone against the
proclamation clause read, whereon Chamberlain and I protested
against coercion as a whole, and no decision upon any point was come
to.
'On June 6th I dined at Harcourt's Queen's Birthday dinner, and
afterwards attended Lady Granville's Foreign Office party, but these
were expiring festivities.
'On Monday, June 8th, there was a Cabinet, at which the first matter
was Irish Coercion and the proclamation clause. Spencer now offered
proclamation by the Viceroy (i.e., not by the Government in
London, which was our proposal) for all the Bill except the
intimidation part, but refused to have it for the boycotting clause.
Trevelyan now joined Chamberlain, Lefevre, and myself, in opposing
Spencer; the others supported him, but tried to make him yield. We
decided that if he yielded we should ask that a statement to the
Cabinet should be promised to precede proclamation.'
On June 8th Mr. Childers moved the second reading of his Budget Bill,
which was met by an amendment moved by Sir Michael Hicks Beach,
condemning the proposed increase upon beer and spirits without any
corresponding increase on wine, and declining to increase the duty on
real property until promised changes were made in regard to local
taxation.
'I made a good debating Budget speech, of which Sir John Lambert
wrote "In Tea, Domine, spero," and I replied: "Since the time of Sir
Thomas More all these profane 'good things' have come from devout
Catholics."'
Other leading men followed, and Mr. Gladstone summed up by saying that
you must tax either alcohol or tea and sugar. But the division went
against him: 6 Liberals voted with the Tories, and 76 were absent. The
majority against the Government was 12. The end had at length come.