MR CHAMBERLAIN AS A YOUNG MAN
Photo DRAYCOTT, BIRMINGHAM.
The Life of
The Right Honourable
Joseph Chamberlain
BY
LOUIS CRESWICKE
AUTHOR OF
" SOUTH AFRICA AND THE TRANSVAAL WAR," " ROXANE," ETC.
WITH AN EXTENSIVE SERIES OF PORTRAITS, CARTOONS
AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS
IN FOUR VOLUMES— VOL. II.
LONDON
THE CAXTON PUBLISHING COMPANY
CLUN HOUSE, SURREY STREET, W.C.
.
C
CONTENTS
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE ......... vii
CHAPTER I
I
DEVELOPMENTS OF THE CAMPAIGN — MR. GLADSTONE'S MANIFESTO, SEP-
TEMBER 1885 — THE ULTIMATUM — VISIT TO HAWARDEN — LORD SALIS-
BURY'S PRONOUNCEMENT — A POLICY OF CHAMBERLAIN-AND- WATER . . i
II
HOME RULE AND RULERS — MR. PARNELL ON THE WARPATH — " COQUETTING
WITH THE IRISH " — LORD CARNARVON'S SYMPATHY WITH MR. PARNELL —
MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S NATIONAL COUNCILS SCHEME — "No LORDS RE-
QUIRED" — MR. PARNELL'S MANIFESTO, NOVEMBER 21 .... 20
III
THE ELECTIONS OF 1885 — LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL IN THE LION'S DEN
— " THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH " — VIEWS OF THE " DAILY NEWS," THE
"STANDARD," AND THE "TIMES" — "THE MAN WHO BURNT DOWN THE
TEMPLE OF DIANA AT EPHESUS " — " THE SUDDEN CONVERSION OF MR.
GLADSTONE" ........... *
CHAPTER II
I
FIRST HOME RULE ADMINISTRATION COMES INTO POWER, 1886 — MR.
CHAMBERLAIN'S ATTITUDE — MINISTERS THIRTEEN AT TABLE — • FIRST
READING OF THE HOME RULE BILL — APRIL — MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S OBJEC-
TIONS — THE Two THOUSAND — CORONER'S INQUEST ON THE LAND BILL 60
iii
Contents
ii
FAGB
AN EVENTFUL MAY — MR. GLADSTONE'S MAY MANIFESTO AND CAPTURE OF
THE CAUCUS — " THE GRAND YOUNG BANTAM " — MR. BRIGHT IN ANTA-
GONISM— PRESSURE ON THE UNIONIST RADICALS — MR. LABOUCHERE AND
MR. CHAMBERLAIN ........ 80
X'
III
REJECTION OF THE HOME RULE BILL, JUNE 8, 1886 — A MEMORABLE
SCENE — MR. GLADSTONE'S TOUR DB FORCE — " ONE OF THE GOLDEN
MOMENTS OF OUR HISTORY" 94
IV
GENERAL ELECTION — " THE MAN WHO KILLED THE HOME RULE BILL " — EX-
PLANATION TO HIS CONSTITUENTS — THE RADICAL UNION — DEFEAT OF
MR. GLADSTONE, JULY 1886 .' 101
CHAPTER III
I
CONSERVATIVES IN POWER, 1886-7 — THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN — RESIGNATION
OF LORD R. CHURCHILL — ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE — THE LETTER
TO THE " BAPTIST " — COLLAPSE OF THE CONFERENCE — MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S
EXPLANATION — MR. GOSCHEN LEADS THE WAY — THE CRIMES BILL . . 1 14
II
"PARNELLISM AND CRIME" — MARCH 7, 1887 — THE FINAL CLEAVAGE —
"COMPLETE AND IRRETRIEVABLE" — MR. CHAMBERLAIN IN SCOTLAND—
His ISOLATION — THE TALE OF PIGOTT AND " PARNELLISM UNMASKED "
— A VISIT TO ULSTER — NATIONALIST ANIMOSITY 132
CHAPTER IV
I
A DIPLOMATIC MISSION, 1887-8 — THE IMPERIALIST NOTE — THE LAMP THAT
LIGHTS THE PATH TO THE CONFEDERATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE —
KILLING Two BIRDS WITH ONE STONE — VISITS CANADA — SPEAKS AT
PHILADELPHIA ON THE EVER-EXISTING TIES THAT BIND AMERICANS AND
BRITONS — LORD SALISBURY EXPLAINS THE NECESSITY FOR CONCESSION
TO THE UNIONISTS ....
iv
Contents
M
STUDYING THE EMPIRE — COLONIAL AND FOREIGN POLICY — "WHAT SHOULD
THEY KNOW OF ENGLAND WHO ONLY ENGLAND KNOW ? " — WHO is TO BE
THE DOMINANT POWER IN SOUTH AFRICA ? — MARRIAGE IN NEW YORK —
ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION OF MR. CHAMBERLAIN AND HIS BRIDE —
JOURNEY TO EGYPT — VIEWS ON THE OCCUPATION OF EGYPT AND THE
POLICY OF "SCUTTLE" 156
III
CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATION WITH A RADICAL FLAVOUR — THE UNAUTHORISED
PROGRAMME — AUTHORISED WORK OF 1887-1892 — 'A UNIONIST POLICY
FOR IRELAND — THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL — REPORT OF THE PARNELL
COMMISSION — TRIUMPH OF MR. PARNELL — COLLAPSE OF HIS CAUSE —
FREE EDUCATION — IRISH LAND PURCHASE BILL — OLD AGE PENSIONS
SCHEME PROPOUNDED — SUCCEEDS THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE AS LIBERAL-
UNIONIST LEADER — MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S NEW SOCIALISTIC PROGRAMME . 164
CHAPTER V
I
GENERAL ELECTION, 1892 — THE MIDLANDS LIBERAL-UNIONIST ASSOCIATION
FOUNDED — MR. GLADSTONE'S FOURTH ADMINISTRATION — DUBLIN
SALUTES MR. MORLEY — THE HOME RULE BILL AGAIN — THE GUILLOTINE
SYSTEM — THE IN AND Our CLAUSE — " A BILL FOR THE WEAKENING OF
GREAT BRITAIN " — FREE FIGHT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS . . .178
II
THE SOCIAL PROGRAMME — THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN UGANDA —
" PEGGING OUT CLAIMS FOR POSTERITY " — THE QUESTION OF THE UNEM-
PLOYED— FOREIGN COMPETITION — A REMEDY — A CONSERVATIVE DINNER
— THE NEW RADICALS AND THE OLD RADICALS — CLAIMS FOR THE BIR-
MINGHAM RADICALS THE HONOUR OF ORIGINATING FREE EDUCATION . 191
III
RESIGNATION OF MR. GLADSTONE, MARCH 3, 1894 — THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
AS PRIME MINISTER — A "TOTTERING ADMINISTRATION" — DEFEAT OF
GOVERNMENT, JUNE 21, 1895 197
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
MR. CHAMBERLAIN AS A YOUNG MAN Frontispiece
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY vul
RIGHT HON. SIR MICHAEL E. HICKS BEACH, BART. 17
"NOT FOR JOE!". 31
LORD GOSCHEN * . . • • • • • • • • 32
" CALLING THEM HOME " 35
MR. AND MRS. CHAMBERLAIN 49
"PAS DE FASCINATION" . • . • ^3
RIGHT HON. H. H. ASQUITH . . 64
"THE GRAND OLD FALCONER" 81
"EASTER EGGS" . . < . ' ; • * 83
"THE FINISH!!" . . 89
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE • • 97
"A LITTLE DINNER IN ARLINGTON STREET" i°7
"CROSS-ROADS" . . . ...... IIJ
MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S HOME, "HIGHBURY," BIRMINGHAM . . . .112
"CHAMBERLAIN PASHA" . "5
" YOUNG KING COAL!!" .... 117
"Is THE OLD MIN FRIENDLY?" . . . IX9
"THE SPIDER AND THE FLY" • • .121
"NEW FRIENDS" '....*..'• I23
"OUT OF IT; OR, UP IN SKYE" I25
EARL SPENCER • I29
"THE BRUMMAGEM OLYMPIANS" 13*
"SHUT IN!!" . . / . . .139
"THE MESSENGER OF PEACE" 143
RIGHT HON. SIR WILLIAM VERNON HARCOURT M4
"THE GLADSTONE BAIT" 145
" ON HIS OWN HOOK " 149
"JOSEPH'S SWEETHEART" 155
DR. DALE OF BIRMINGHAM 161
"THE CHALLENGE; OR, THE RIVAL CHANTICLEERS" J6i
"AN EXHIBITION MATCH" . . . . . . . • • .167
RIGHT HON. W. E. FORSTER 176*
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE— VOL. II.
1885.
September 17. — Mr. Gladstone's Mani-
festo.
24. — Mr. Chamberlain at Victoria Hall
discusses Lord Iddesleigh's compari-
son between " myself and Mr. John
Cade."
October i. — Speaks at Bradford.
7. — Lord Salisbury at Newport on Federa-
tion and on the Irish problem.
Visits Mr. Gladstone at Hawar-
den.
14. — Speaks at Trowbridge. Describes
the political reforms achieved by
" inveterate Cockneys."
20. — Addresses his constituents at Bir-
mingham. " A policy of Chamber-
lain-and- water."
December. — General Election.
1 7. — Great dinner at Birmingham.
1886.
January 28. — Defeat of Lord Salisbury.
February 3. — Mr. Gladstone's Third Ad-
ministration.
Contributes " A Radical View of
the Irish Crisis" (Fortnightly).
Conditionally becomes President
of the Local Government Board.
March. — He resigns.
April 8. — Home Rule Bill introduced.
13. — First Reading of Home Rule Bill.
14. — Patriotic union at the Opera House.
1 6. — Land Purchase Bill introduced.
June 7-8. — Home Rule Bill rejected.
Dissolution.
17. — Inauguration of National Radical
Union.
19. — General Election.
21. — Addresses Constituents.
August. — Lord Salisbury takes office.
Lord Hartington and Mr. Chamber-
lain object to coalition.
September.— Mr. Parnell's Tenants Relief
Bill thrown out.
October. — Plan of campaign arranged.
December. — Resignation of Lord Ran-
dolph Churchill.
1887.
January. — Round Table Conference.
February 2 1. — Resignation of Sir Michael
Hicks Beach. Appointment of Mr.
Arthur Balfour.
March 7. — Publication by the Times of
" Parnellism and Crime."
April. — Visits Scotland.
13. — Speaks at Ayr.
15. — Remarkable Experiences in Edin-
burgh.
1 6. — Visits Inverness.
1 8. — Goes to Dingwall.
October. — Visits Ulster. Is enthusiasti-
cally received by Ulster Protestants.
Is chosen with Sir Lionel Sackville
West and Sir C. Tupper as H.M.
Plenipotentiary to settle the fisheries
dispute with America.
November. — Meets Miss Endicott at
British Legation, Washington.
December 30. — Speaks at dinner at
Toronto, of Confederation of the
British Empire.
1888.
February 16. — Sends summary of position
to Lord Salisbury.
29. — Speaks at Philadelphia. "Some
American Columbus should under-
take the discovery of England."
March. — Returns from America and re-
ceives enthusiastic welcome in Bir-
mingham. Is presented with the
freedom of the borough.
April. — Reviews at Birmingham the new
position of parties.
vn
Chronological Table
r i
9. — Discusses Relations with United
States and the Colonies.
May. — Becomes President of Liberal-
Unionist Association.
. 14. — Speaks at London Chamber of
Commerce on British Interests in
South Africa.
November 15. — Marries Miss Endicott.
Goes to the Riviera.
1889.
January. — Birmingham's welcome to
Mr. Chamberlain and his bride.
Travels in Egypt and studies the
old and the new regime.
1890.
March. — Debate on Report of Special
Commission. Mr. Chamberlain on
the Physical Force Party.
8. — Discusses at Birmingham Jeweller's
Art at Dinner of Jewellers and
Silversmiths Association.
24. — Confesses at Birmingham his mis-
takes regarding Egyptian policy.
December. — Writes "Shall we Americanise
our Municipal Institutions ? " (Nine-
teenth Century).
1891.
May. — Contributes " Favourable Aspects
of State Socialism " (North American
Review).
October 6. — Death of Charles Stewart
Parnell.
1892.
February. — Contributes "Old Age Pen-
sions " (National Review).
Irish Local Government Bill Intro-
duced.
March. — Irish Local Government Bill
withdrawn.
June. — Dissolution.
July. — Election. Personal triumph of
Mr. Chamberlain. Victory of the
Home Rule Party. Mr. Austen
Chamberlain becomes Member for
East Worcestershire.
27. — Becomes President of the Midlands
Liberal-Unionist Association.
August. — Resignation of Lord Salisbury.
15. — Mr. Gladstone forms Fourth Ad-
ministration.
November. — Contributes " Municipal In-
stitutions in America and England "
(Forum) ; " The Labour Question 'r
(Nineteenth Century).
1893.
February 13. — Second Home Rule Bill
introduced.
March 20. — Discusses Uganda. Advises
the "pegging out of claims for
posterity."
April.— Writes " A Bill for the Weaken-
ing of Great Britain " (Nineteenth
Century).
July 27. — Remarkable scene in the House
of Commons.
September. — Home Rule Bill rejected by
the Lords.
1894.
January 22. — Discusses the state of the
unemployed and the development
of free markets.
30. — Dines at Edgbaston Conservative
, Club.
March. — Mr. Gladstone resigns. The
Earl of Rosebery becomes Prime
Minister. Mr. Chamberlain visits
Edinburgh and attacks speech of
the Prime Minister.
June. — Contributes "Municipal Govern-
ment " (New Review).
September 5. — Speech at Liverpool on
social reform as common ground for
Conservatism and Radicalism.
Delivers at Leeds counterblast to
proceedings of National Liberal
Federation.
October 16. — Expresses his views at Dur-
ham regarding Church questions.
November 22. — Speaks at Hey wood.
1895.
June . — Defeat of the Government.
July 13. — General Election.
vm
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY
Photo KI -HUN. HKKTKOBD.
THE LIFE OF
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN
CHAPTER I
I.— DEVELOPMENTS OF THE CAMPAIGN— MR. GLADSTONE'S
MANIFESTO, SEPTEMBER 1885
O^ the 1 7th of September, the day preceding that on
which Mr. Chamberlain addressed the Crofters, Mr.
Gladstone issued his manifesto. In this paper it was
observed that Mr. Chamberlain's proposals were not
included. The four main items of the " Grand Old
Man's" deliverance dealt with reforms, but the agrarian schemes
that formed the great features ofxthe unauthorised programme he
practically consigned to the shelf.
He reviewed the legislative work of 1880, and passed on to the
Treaty of Berlin, defended the policy of the Government in regard
to Afghanistan, South Africa, and lastly Egypt. His remarks
regarding the blunders in the Soudan are of interest : —
" The chief sources of comfort, in reviewing a series of transactions generally
painful, are that we have respected, to the utmost of our power, international
laws and arrangements ; have confined within Egyptian limits troubles which
menaced the general peace ; have used every administrative effort to support
our gallant forces in maintaining the honour of the British arms ; have, beyond
all doubt, introduced most valuable improvements, too sorely needed, into
Egyptian law and government ; and, finally, have indicated provisions on a
reasonable basis for the future government of Egypt, and the exercise of its
legal autonomy, without foreign intervention.
" Even preceding topics have been touched but roughly in this Address ;
still more does the complexity of the Egyptian question defy any attempt to
unfold it fully within the limits— even the extended limits — which I must
observe. But in this slight outline I shall use no language which I am not able
to sustain.
'* Postponing for the moment, with a view to greater clearness, what relates
to the Soudan, I affirm that every step that we took in Egypt, down to the
VOL. II. A
Life of Chamberlain
time of the operations against Arabi Pasha, in 1882, was the direct consequence
of the agreement with France for reciprocal support, and for the maintenance
of a native Government, which had been concluded in 1879 before our accession
to office.
" The French Chamber, in the exercise of its undoubted right, rejected, in
1882, the proposal of its Ministry to take part in military measures. Sorrow-
fully, but without doubt, though I felt less than many of my countrymen the
pressure of the argument from British interests other than that of honour, I
held, and I still hold, that that paramount interest compelled us, in the execu-
tion of our pledge for the maintenance of a native Government, to re-establish
the authority of the Khedive and the peace of the country, and to prosecute all
the practicable reforms.
" Our judgment was sustained by public opinion. In November 1883 we
had reached a point at which we were able to advise the evacuation of Cairo,
together with the immediate reduction of the occupying force to a brigade in
Alexandria and at Port Said. We had thus, in my judgment, a hopeftil
prospect of an early evacuation of the entire country.
" It was then that the disasters of an unhappy war in the Soudan, in no
way due to us, produced a state of things so menacing to Egypt itself, that we
found it our duty at once to take measures intended to prevent the extension
of the disturbances beyond that region. But we insisted upon its evacuation
by Egypt, and we offered our aid towards the withdrawal of the garrisons by
peaceful means.
"Lord Hartington has lately, and justly, stated, in general terms, that he is
not disposed to deny our having fallen into errors of judgment. I will go one
step farther, and admit that we committed such errors, and serious errors too,
with cost of treasure and of precious lives in the Soudan. For none of these
errors were we rebuked by the voice of the Opposition. We were only rebuked,
and that incessantly, because we did not commit them with precipitation, and
because we did not commit other errors greater still.
"Our mistakes in the Soudan I cannot now state in detail. The task
belongs to history. Our responsibility for them cannot be questioned. Yet
its character ought not to be misapprehended. In such a task miscarriages
were inevitable. They are the proper and certain consequence of undertakings
that war against nature, and that lie beyond the scope of human means and of
rational and prudent human action ; and the first authors of these undertakings
are the real makers of the mischief.
" However, as between political parties, the matter at length came to a
pretty clear issue. At the beginning of the late session, in one of their
innumerable motions of censure, the Opposition condemned us because we
would not engage to keep the Queen's forces in the Soudan until we had
effected the establishment of some regular government there. We, who had
always deprecated the use of British force for such a purpose, refused the
engagement. Further, and since the recent change of Ministry, the new
Government has declared in Parliament that, though the process of evacuating
the Soudan was too far advanced to be recalled or arrested, yet the measure
was in itself to be regretted and condemned. Now, about the vast importance
of this question there is no more doubt than about the positions of the two
parties in regard to it. I know there are persons of no mean authority who
have held that the expedition to Khartoum would have been the most arduous
military effort undertaken by us since the battle of Waterloo. We thought the
2
Developments of the Campaign
evacuation necessary, wise, and just. The Tories thought it needless and
deplorable. Either the country has been saved by the late Government from a
most perilous and costly undertaking, to which the present Government had
striven to commit it ; or it has been deprived by us of a noble opportunity,
which they would have used on its behalf. The principles of opposite policies
are here pretty clearly brought out • let the country judge between them. So
much for the Soudan. . . ."
He went on to treat of public expenditure, and then proceeded to
the discussion of domestic affairs.
On the subject of procedure he launched some shots at the
Irishmen who had lately execrated him : —
"Those who are reasonably so keen for legislation on one subject or another,
should recollect that with regard to each and all of them the primary question
is as to the sound working condition of the great instrument by which all
legislation is accomplished. If that instrument is properly adjusted I believe
the House can do its work ; if that operation is defeated or evaded I am certain
it cannot. The constituencies have now to choose a new House ; and it
depends entirely on their selection among candidates and on their treatment of
candidates with reference to these questions whether that work shall be done
or not.
" Meantime, I desire clearly to point out the three cardinal points of the
question. First, the congestion of business, now notorious and inveterate,
degrades the House of Commons, by placing it at the mercy of those among its
members who seek for notoriety by obstructing business, instead of pursuing the
more honourable road to reputation by useful service, or of those who, with
more semblance of warrant, seek to cripple the action of the House of Commons
in order to force the acceptance of their own political projects. Secondly, it
disappoints, irritates, and injures the country by the suspension of useful
legislation. And lastly, and perhaps worst of all, it defeats the fundamental
rule of our parliamentary system that the majority shall prevail, and puts it in
the power of the minority to prevent, by unduly consuming the time of the
House, the passing of measures which it dislikes, but of which it is afraid
openly to declare its disapproval. This country will not, in the full sense, be a
self-governing country until the machinery of the House of Commons is amended,
and its procedure reformed."
He discussed local government in the following terms : —
"... In the reform of local government the first objects to be aimed at, in
my judgment, are to rectify the balance of taxation as between real and personal
property — to put an end to the gross injustice of charging upon labour, through
the medium of the Consolidated Fund, local burdens which our laws have always
wisely treated as incident to property ; to relieve the ratepayer, not at the charge
of the working population, but wholly or mainly by making over for local pur-
poses carefully chosen items of taxation ; to supply local management with
inducements to economy instead of tempting, and almost forcing, it into waste ;
finally, and most of all, to render the system thoroughly representative and free.
The gentry of this country have, especially in the counties, long and with
justice been commended for the upright and intelligent discharge of local duty.
I am confident that they will continue to enjoy this honourable distinction none
3
Life of Chamberlain
the less when our system shall have been placed throughout under effective
control. . . ."
In regard to registration he said : —
"... The law has fixed the qualification of voters in the three kingdoms.
But the possession of the qualification has to be established in the case of each
individual before he can vote. After this has been done, his name is placed
upon the authenticated list, which we term the register. The subsidiary
conditions under which he thus comes into practical possession of his title
require to be reconsidered, and the whole subject demands review, in order
that this essential process, the complement of the late Reform Act, may be
carried through with certainty, simplicity, and the smallest possible expendi-
ture of personal labour and of money. . . ."
Having dealt with the four legislative subjects that he con-
sidered had reached maturity, and supplied a scheme of present
action for the party, he waived with eloquent words the questions
of reform or reconstruction of the House of Lords, the abolition
of payment for Primary Education, and the severance of Church
from State, and passed on to Ireland. He well knew that all eyes
were fixed in anxiety to note which way the weather-vane pointed.
" In my opinion, not now for the first time delivered, the limit is clear
within which any desires of Ireland, constitutionally ascertained, may, and
beyond which they cannot, receive the assent of Parliament. To maintain the
supremacy of the Crown, the unity of the Empire, and all the authority of
Parliament necessary for the conservation of that unity, is the first duty of every
representative of the people. Subject to this governing principle, every grant to
portions of the country of enlarged powers for the management of their own
affairs is, in my view, not a source of danger, but a means of averting it, and
is in the nature of a new guarantee for increased cohesion, happiness, and
strength.
" We have no right to expect that the remedial process in human affairs
shall always be greatly shorter than the period of mistakes and misgovernment.
And if in the case of Ireland half a century of efforts at redress, not always
consistent or sustained, and following upon long ages for which as a whole we
blush, have still left something to be attempted, we ought not to wax weary in
well-doing, nor rest until every claim which justice may be found to urge shall
have been satisfied.
" The main question is whether it is for the interests of all the three coun-
tries that the thorough and enduring harmony which has now been long estab-
lished, but only after centuries of manful strife, between England and Scotland
should include Ireland also. My personal answer to the question is this : I
believe history and posterity will consign to disgrace the name and memory of
every man, be he who he may, and on whichever side of the Channel he may
dwell, that, having the power to aid in an equitable settlement between Ireland
and Great Britain, shall use that power not to aid, but to prevent or to retard
it. If the duty of working for this end cannot be doubted, then I trust that, on
the one hand, Ireland will remember that she too is subject to the authority of
reason and justice, and cannot always plead the wrongs of other days in bar of
4
Developments of the Campaign
submission to them ; and that the two sister kingdoms, aware of their over-
whelming strength, will dismiss every fear except that of doing wrong, and
will make yet another effort to complete a reconciling work which has already
done so much to redeem the past, and which, when completed, will yet more
redound to the honour of our legislation and our race. . . ."
It is unnecessary to quote further from the " long and
dreary document." Sufficient to say that for the time being
it salved wounds and smoothed the surface of political things,
however powerless it was to effect permanent healing. The great
man stood between two fires, the Irish on one side — of which he
was cautious, foreseeing the effect of the Franchise Act of 1884
on Irish representation — and his own disintegrating party on the
other. The attitude of the timid Whigs and the conduct of the
Socialist Radicals kept him in perpetual throes of anxiety, and he
found it daily growing more hard to maintain his equilibrium — to
balance himself comfortably between Lord Hartington and the
decorous right wing of his party, and Mr. Chamberlain and the
unorthodox left. There were hints, too, that Lord Hartington and
the oM-fashioned Whigs might co-operate with the Progressive
Conservatives led by Lord Randolph Churchill — a development that
would have been as entirely distasteful to Mr. Chamberlain as to
Mr. Gladstone ; but the hints eventually proved unfounded, for the
Whigs, frightened as they were of Mr. Chamberlain, shied from the
overtures of Lord Randolph Churchill, and on the principle of
"better the devil you know than the devil you don't know,"
preferred rather to face the known vagaries of the unauthorised
programme than confront the unknown audacities of the Tory
Democrat.
The public were inclined to be surprised that Mr. Chamberlain
should so cordially welcome Mr. Gladstone's manifesto, which prac-
tically ignored his pet projects ; but the Radical leader loyally declared
that, in common with every Liberal, he could recognise the importance
of Mr. Gladstone's four great reforms. If they stood alone, he said he
would be bound to lend whatever support and assistance he could to
bring about their speedy adoption. But he gave it to be under-
stood that these reforms did not stand alone, and the further develop-
ment of the Liberal programme which he had been pressing on the
attention of his fellow-men would continue to be put forward by
himself, either with or without indication of the chiefs support or
approval. " I hold myself free, without any suspicion of disloyalty,
to continue to press for those reforms which I believe are called for
by the just expectations of the great majority of the population."
At such temerity the hair of the Opposition naturally stood erect,
the Whigs' bristled : Mr. Chamberlain remained unmoved. His
5
Life of Chamberlain
language in addressing the Crofters had caused veritable tremors
among politicians of the cut-and-dried order, but far from regretting
the sensation he caused, the Reformer pursued the even tenor
of his programme, directing at various times squibs, shots, or
salvoes at those who were criticising him. In a notable speech
delivered on his return from the North (Victoria Hall, 24th Septem-
ber), he said that he had been reading the flood of speeches poured
forth by the Conservatives, and had failed to find in any of them an
indication of definite policy. They protested against imaginary
schemes of plunder and confiscation that no responsible politician
would have put forth ; they abounded in denunciation of the "very
moderate " proposals he had suggested for the elevation of the
working-class of the country ; but from first to last, he pointed out,
there was never a word of an alternative of the policy they
condemned. He offered as an example the speech that had
recently been made by Lord Iddesleigh in Scotland, and alluded
to his having been dubbed Jack Cade — treating the thing in the
easy cynical style that delighted his hearers. " Lord Iddesleigh
is so good-tempered, such a courteous opponent, that I take it in
very good part the comparison between my self and Mr. John Cade!
Knowing as I do of what Tory misrepresentation is capable, I am
inclined to think that Jack Cade was an ill-used, much misunderstood
gentleman, who happened to have sympathy with the poor and
oppressed, and who therefore was made the mark for the malignant
hatred of the aristocratic and land-owning classes, who combined to
burlesque his opinions and put him out of the way." This was a
neat mode of advertising to various adversaries that he gauged,
how entirely rejoiced they would be to get him too out of the way \
He went on handling Lord Iddesleigh with gentle sarcasm — tearing
his speech to ribbons, and finishing up his allusions to him personally
with the remark : " Lord Iddesleigh is a student of Shakespeare.
He seems to take his 'history from the immortal bard. I wish he
would go also to his pages for philosophy, and remember that ' it is
all men's office to speak patience to those who wring under the load
of sorrow, but no man's virtue or sufficiency to be so moral that he
shall endure the like himself.' "
Referring to the spirit in which the members of his own party
should act, he said : —
" It is the duty of all of us to make sacrifices to secure the unity of the party
which has been in the past the great instrument of reform and progress, and to
which we look in the future for those further changes which we believe to be
necessary to secure the welfare and the contentment of the population. The
obligation lies upon leaders and upon followers alike, and I hope, before I sit
down, to show you that I am prepared to practise what I preach. In the mean-
6
Developments of the Campaign
time, I would urge on all those electors who may attach the slightest import-
ance to my opinion, that in every case in which two professing Liberals are
standing for the same constituency the friends of each ought to insist that their
candidates shall submit themselves to some such impartial tribunal as has been
suggested by your chairman, and which, after full inquiry, may decide which
of them is entitled to bear the Liberal flag at the next election. I see in the
newspapers this morning that Mr. Bradlaugh has set us a good example by
offering freely and without reserve to submit his own claim to such an arbitra-
tion, and I hope and trust that all the others will follow in the direction to
which he has pointed. . . ."
Having declared the issues too vital to be sacrificed to individual
pretensions or to personal vanity, he invited his audience to consider
their importance in a fresh light.
"It is the more necessary to investigate them, because in recent times
the ordinary lines of party demarcation have been confused and crossed
until it is difficult to see the true bearing of the controversy. The
old Tory party, with its historic traditions, has disappeared. It has
repudiated its name and become Conservative. The Conservatives in turn,
unhappy and discontented, have been seeking for another designation, and
sometimes they have come before you as Constitutionalists, and then they
break out in a new place as Liberal-Conservatives. Even this does not
exhaust their kaleidoscopic changes, for many of them now, under the erratic
guidance of Lord Randolph Churchill, are masquerading as Tory-Democrats.
What is the meaning of all those numerous changes ? I dare say you have
heard of that immoral person who was brought up before the magistrate for
having married seven wives, and who, when called upon for his defence, impu-
dently said, ' It is all right, I was only trying to get a good one.'
" If the Tories are trying to get a good name (he went on) they have been
singularly unsuccessful. When a private individual assumes a number of aliases
it is not unfair to suppose that he is ashamed of his identity, and that his past
life is open to suspicion. Of course it may be — and we ought to be willing to give
him the benefit of the doubt — a sign of repentance and of grace ; but it may be
only a prelude to further misdoings. Now, the Tories have many previous
convictions recorded against them. What proof is there that recent adversity
has had a chastening' effect ? I will frankly admit, if I had known nothing of
their past history, that I should not have been disposed myself to look unfavour-
ably upon their recent performances. They are, as you know, the men in
possession. They have been placed in their present situation by a combination
which is still shrouded in impenetrable mystery. We have been solemnly
assured that it is not the result of an alliance, that it is not a compact, and
that it is not a bargain which has secured for them the support of the Irish
National party in the House of Commons and in the country. No, gentlemen,
it is a fortuitous coincidence that just on the eve of a vote of censure the whole
Tory party became suddenly converted from the policy of repression and
coercion, which up to that moment they had consistently advocated, to a policy
of conciliation, which had previously only received the support of a few Radical
members, like your chairman of to-night. I am willing to accept the ex-
planation, improbable as it appears at first sight, and I do so all the more
willingly because their surrender to Mr. Parnell is not more remarkable than
7
Life of Chamberlain
their submission to English Radicals on many points of home and foreign
policy. . . ."
He then declared the vigorous foreign policy of the Tories had
consisted in carrying into effect all the arrangements and proposals
that the Liberals had made.
" In addition they have recalled Sir Charles Warren from the scene of his
successes in South Africa, and they have surrendered the interests of Zanzibar
to Germany. I do not say that this may not be a very safe and a very prudent
policy for the Government to pursue, but it is not a very chivalrous one, and it
is not what their language led us to expect. After all the accusations they have
hurled at us because we took a conciliatory course with foreign countries, it
is refreshing to find the young lions of the Tory party ' roaring as gently as
any sucking dove/ and displaying unaccustomed virtues of meekness and
humility. . . .
" There will be woe in the habitations of the Primrose League. There will
be great lamentation in the houses of the Jingoes ; but they will not be able —
they dare not lift a finger or move a soldier in order to save their Eastern policy
from an utter breakdown. Those," he said, " are things which may reconcile
us to the temporary existence of this stop-gap administration, but the spectacle
is not an improving or an elevating one. The Government has been living on
its own words. It is passing its life amid the crumbling ruins of its old faith
and traditions. If its policy be, as I think it to be, on the whole a just and a
prudent one, what a pity it is they did not perceive it a little sooner when they
were in opposition. Their conversion has been too sudden to give us con-
fidence in its stability; and already I think I see signs that they are getting
weary of well-doing, and, like a dissolving vie,w, the Democrat is fading away
and the Tory is coming back again. This change is curiously coincident with
the indisposition of Lord Randolph Churchill. We all deplore the cause which
is keeping the noble lord from the political arena, and we all regret its con-
sequences, for when he is silent there is very little that is either interesting or
exhilarating in the Tory oratory. I do not wonder that the managers of their
meetings have found it necessary to provide a substitute, and in the absence of
Lord Randolph they have varied amusements, such as burlesque acting, eccentric
comedy, juggling performances, and conjurers' tricks. . . ."
Having thoroughly trounced the Tories he returned to the
discussion of three items of his programme : —
" In the first place, I have pointed out that the incidence of taxation is at
present unfair, and presses hardly upon the working-classes,- and that it should
be rearranged so as to secure equality of sacrifice among all classes of tax-
payers in the country. On this point at any rate Mr. Gladstone's language is
precise enough and leaves nothing to desire, for he says that the balance of
taxation as between property and labour must be adjusted with a scrupulous-
ness which, unfortunately, has been too often absent when property has had
the exclusive control of parliamentary action. The second point to which I
have attached importance relates to the subject of free elementary schools,
which seem to me to follow as a corollary to our system of compulsory
education. On previous occasions I have pointed out the hardships, the
8
Developments of the Campaign
unnecessary sufferings inflicted upon the industrious poor by the particular
form which this taxation takes ; and I have also called attention to the
obstacles which it throws in the way of regular attendance and the spread
of education. Now, if you will allow me a few words, I will endeavour to
answer the particular objection which has been taken to this proposal. It has
been said that the poor will not value that for which they do not pay. That
may be so. But even in this case they will pay. They will pay their fair
share from the rates and taxes, to which they contribute in common with all
the other subjects of the Crown. The question is not whether there shall be
payment, but it is how and when that payment shall be made. The question
is whether it shall be made by means of the general taxation of the country,
and be spread over the whole of a man's tax-paying life, or whether, on the
other hand, it shall be a burden put on a particular part of his life and shall be
pressed upon him just at the time when his necessities are greatest and the
•demands made upon him are most exacting. If we are now to assume that no
public service will be valued unless it is paid for at the time, we have hitherto
been proceeding upon wrong lines in most departments of our public affairs.
We ought to make a charge for admission to the British Museum and the
National Gallery. . . .
" Then the third point to which I have called attention is the proposal that
local representative authorities should everywhere have power to acquire land
compulsorily at its fair value for public purposes, and among those public
services I have laid great stress upon the letting of land for allotments and for
the creation of small tenancies. If we are in earnest in desiring to multiply
the number of those who have a real and direct interest in the soil they till —
if we wish to stop the continual flow of agricultural labourers to the towns,
where they enter into competition with the artisan, and necessarily lower the
average rate of wages, while they add to the overcrowding and the destitution
which we all regret, we must — it is essential and necessary that we should —
find some additional facilities for enabling agricultural labourers to obtain
possessory rights. The local authorities in every case will be the best judges
of their separate interests. They are not likely to act very hastily or to engage
in any wild speculations. Where landlords are willing, as some of them have
shown themselves to be, to fulfil their obligations, no external interference will
be necessary ; but where they are not willing or are unable, what can be the
injustice, in view of the constant depopulation of the country and in view of
the widespread desire on the part of the labourers to get back the land — what
can be the injustice of proceeding on the lines of much of our recent legislation
and of doing for the English labourer what we have already done for the Irish
peasant ? The latter certainly is not more worthy of our care and consideration
than the former. . . .
41 If I am right, these views will find their adequate expression, and they will
receive due weight and attention from the party leaders. If I am disappointed,
then my course is clear. I cannot press the views of a minority against the
conclusions of the majority of the party to which I belong. On the other hand,
it would be dishonourable in me, and lowering the high tone which ought to be
observed in public life, if, after having committed myself personally, as I have
done, to the advocacy of those proposals, I were to take my place in any
Government which excluded them from its programme. In that case it would
be my duty to stand out, and to lend loyal support to those who are carrying
out reforms with which I agree, although they are unable to go with me a little
9
Life of Chamberlain
farther. The sacrifice will not be one of very great merit, for I have not found
an official life so free from care that I should be unwilling to fall back once
more into the ranks and to occupy a humbler position and to lend what support
I can to the common cause."
At Bradford, on the ist of October, Mr. Chamberlain opened
the proceedings by alluding in graceful terms to his old enemy, Mr.
Forster, who had been stricken down with illness. He said that it
was no time to recall ancient differences of opinion which had at
times politically separated them ; he could only now recognise the
great qualities, the indomitable energy and courage that Mr. Forster
had expended in the service of his country. He alluded to the part
he had played in the great constitutional changes that had been
effected, and the magnitude of the revolution that had so peacefully
been accomplished. But the great feature of his speech he kept for
the end, when he reiterated his determination not to enter any
Government that excluded the reforms he had been advocating.
Earlier he made a ferocious lunge at the Lords and the Tories,
whose civilities to Mr. Parnell that gentleman had taken pains to
hint at, and whose machinations were certainly suspicious : —
"The House of Lords," he said, "has always been the obsequious hand-
maid of the Tory party, and when a Conservative Government is driven by
party exigencies to promote a Radical programme, the Peers develop an un-
suspected capacity for Radical doctrines, and in these circumstances we should
have no need to waste the time of the House of Commons in the endeavour to
reform its procedure, the abuse of which has clone so much to lower its dignity
and to lessen its efficiency. The most admirable specific against obstruction is
to put all the chief obstructors on the Treasury Bench ; and it is astonishing
how merrily the work goes on when the Tory-Irish party is allowed to play at
Government under the watchful eyes of a Liberal majority. I am inclined to
think that under the same conditions we should have very little difficulty about
a Liberal programme. For the Tories have shown such a power of assimilating
even the most advanced proposals, that I am strongly inclined to think that in a
short time we should see even the measures that I have been advocating, which
seem to some persons so extreme, elevated into chief items of the domestic
policy of the Tory administration. . . ."
After reproaching them for the lack of a policy, he proceeded : —
" They have emptied our boxes, but what have they got in their own ?
Perhaps when Lord R. Churchill emerges from his temporary retirement he
may tell us something on this subject, and he may let us know whether they
are prepared once more to try and obtain votes by outbidding their opponents.
In the meantime I do not think it is well to take too seriously these violent
denunciations of the Liberal or even of the Radical programme, which may be
only a preliminary, as they have been before, to its adoption. I was reading the
other day a speech by the Attorney-General, which I thought rather suggestive,
and which I am inclined to recommend to the consideration of those moderate
Liberals who may be thinking of ;imitating the example of Mr. Dundas and
10
Developments of the Campaign
going over to the Tory party. The Attorney-General is new to political life,
and he let the cat out of the bag in a way which a less ingenuous man might
possibly have avoided, because he said, at the close of a long speech, that if the
Conservative party had not done enough for the working-classes, let their
opponents force them to go farther in the same direction, and they would be
only too delighted to yield to the pressure. How considerate ! There has been
nothing like it since the time of the American stump orator, who concluded his
harangue by saying, ' Those are my opinions, gentlemen ; if you don't like
them, they can be changed.' "
He then reverted to the problem of the poor : —
" I have not been, as some of my critics have asserted, indifferent to the
services which have been rendered by great leaders of the people in the past —
by Mr. Cobden, by Mr. Bright, and, greatest of all, by Mr. Gladstone. But
where I differ from my censors — Mr. Goschen and others — is in the conviction
that we also have our duties to fulfil, and that we cannot discharge our duties
by standing indolently by, with faint praise for those who have done the work in
the past, and barren criticism for those who continue it in. the present. The
great problem of our civilisation has been attacked, but it is still unsolved. We
approach its consideration now under more favourable auspices than those who
have toiled in these paths before. They had to appeal to a limited class, perhaps
not altogether disinterested and unprejudiced ; but now we have called the
whole people into our counsels — those who suffer will have a voice in the dis-
cussion, and the search for remedies will be prosecuted with the co-operation
of those who know most about the character and extent of the disease. Now,
let me recapitulate the facts with which we have to deal. What is this
problem ? England is the richest country in the world, and the accumulation
of wealth has gone on in the last generation in unheard-of proportions. It has
been estimated that in twenty years the annual income of the United Kingdom
has been augmented by six hundred millions sterling. Everywhere you see
the evidences of this great prosperity. It is said that we are passing through
a time of depression ; but if you will go to London, to any one of our large towns,
you will see everywhere signs of improvement — all the marks of vast expendi-
ture and luxurious living. Not long ago there was a great sale of the furniture
and works of art which came from the castle of a Scotch duke ; and, in spite of
the great depression, articles of not the slightest interest or utility to any one
but the collector and the student were eagerly competed for at the auction at
prices which counted by thousands of pounds. It is evident that there must
be at least a fortunate class which depression has been powerless to reach.
And during the same time, although with some fluctuations, the general bulk of
our trade has multiplied many fold ; the production of iron, of coal, of woollen
goods, of cotton manufactures, of all our chief industries, has enormously
increased ; Invention has lent her aid to swell the general tide of prosperity,
and new industries have been created by discoveries in chemistry, in photo-
graphy, and in electricity. Everywhere the resources of the country have been
increased, and its stored up capital has been augmented. Would not that be
a pleasant picture if it were not for the reverse ? Unfortunately, there is a
pendant to all this luxury. There are among us continually, in spite of this
growing wealth, nearly a million of persons who seek a refuge from starvation,
from the restricted charity of the State ; and there are millions more who are
II
Life of Chamberlain
hopeless of providing "against any unforeseen misfortune — against illness, for
instance, or old age. I am sure any one who has any experience of the poor
knows with what patience and with what courage they bear the evils from
which they suffer, and with how little of envy or irritation they regard the
good fortune of those who are more prosperous than themselves. But their
resignation ought not to blind us to their claims. I do not believe it is just.
I sometimes think it is hardly safe to pass by those great inequalities, those
flagrant contrasts, to speak of them as the result of unvarying causation, and
the inevitable law of Providence, without even an attempt to raise the general
condition of the poor, and to do something to lighten the lot of those who are
most miserable among our fellow-creatures. If we do not at least make the
effort, I think we may find, in the words of the Poet-Laureate —
' There is a poor blind Samson in this land,
Shorn of his strength and bound in chains of steel,
Who may in some grim revel raise his hand,
And shake the pillars of our commonweal.'
There are three things on which I have laid especial stress. In the first place,
I have claimed a remission of taxation in order to remove inequalities which
now, in my opinion, rest unjustly upon the mass of the necessitous classes.
Upon that I will not say another word, because the subject is one which is
adequately dealt with in Mr. Gladstone's manifesto, and I am perfectly content
to leave it in the hands of one who, by common consent, is an unsurpassed
master of the subject. And I have also had my say upon the great question of
the reform of the land laws. I am not altogether satisfied to limit my aspira-
tion to those two great branches of the subject which include the abolition of
the law of settlement and the cheapening ^of land transfer. I think it is
absolutely essential that we should go farther. If you want to raise the general
condition of the whole people, you must begin with the lowest stratum ; and at
the present time I do not hesitate to say that the toil which is least remunera-
tive is that of the agricultural labourer. Whether that is owing to the depriva-
tion of his political rights I cannot say ; but, at all events, now that he has
been placed in possession of them, it is becoming, I think, sufficiently evident
that he knows what is his greatest want, and how it may be supplied. Well,
I am myself convinced you can look for no improvement until the just claims of
the labourer have been satisfied and the steady depopulation of the country has
been completely stayed. Why, England is no longer ' Merry England ' since the
labourer was divorced from the soil he tills. How to restore to him the land is
the land question with which the great mass of the English are chiefly concerned.
I saw that Lord Iddesleigh the other day said that he did not see how this could
be done without plunder and confiscation ; and, following him, other members
of the party have gone farther, until Mr. Stanhope told a meeting the other day
that the Radicals were going about promising to every labourer three acres of
land and a cow. I do not know whether the Tories think that they will make
the Radical programme unpopular by this description of it. For my part, it
seems to me rather dangerous for the owners of property to confuse perfectly
moderate, just, and reasonable proposals for effecting an object which everybody
admits to be desirable with wild schemes of confiscation. They may chance to
be taken at their word. They will go far to make confiscation popular if they
point to it as the only means by which a natural desire can be gratified. But
12
Developments of the Campaign
about my own proposal there is certainly nothing of plunder. I have been
anxious that the final settlement of this great question should be referred to
those new local, popular, and representative authorities, which I hope it will be
the first duty of any Liberal Government to establish throughout the length and
breadth of the land, and to them I have suggested should be given power to
acquire land by compulsion at a fair price for every public purpose. And
among the public purposes, one of the chief I have in view is the letting of the
allotments and the creating of small tenancies. I am convinced that at the
present moment, in almost every village, there are one or two or more who are
well qualified to take advantage of such facilities as these, and who would do
well if they could only obtain, at a reasonable price, a fair quantity of the land
that they cultivate for the advantage of others, and that have no hope at all for
themselves.
" I assume that these men would begin, in the first instance, with allot-
ments ; and then, when they had amassed a little capital, their ambition would
grow, and they might be educated to replace and replenish that yeoman class
from whose disappearance we may date the rise of pauperism in the United
Kingdom. What are the objections to the proposals which I have made ? The
landlords object — and they always do — to part with their land at a fair price.
The right of refusing land for public purposes — for railways, for waterworks,
for chapels and schools, for roads, and for allotments — has always been a
cherished privilege, and whenever it has been invaded the landowning class
have taken care to exact a heavy compensation for the restoration to the
community of the power to re-enter upon its former inheritance. I refuse
altogether to recognise this as among the sacred rights of property. I say it is
a right which has no sanction in justice, and which ought not to have the
support of the law."
And now, having disposed of his revolutionary projects, he came
to what may be called the declaration of independence — the indi-
vidual asserting himself above the level of a party : —
" Before I sit down, I would ask leave to say one word as to my personal
position, which has been, I will not say misunderstood, but at all events mis-
represented, by those who affect to be the guides and leaders of public opinion.
The very same writers who a short time ago denounced me for raising this
.question in order to secure my personal advancement, are now equally indignant
because I have stated my determination not to purchase the ordinary rewards
of political ambition by the sacrifice of the cause that I have at heart. I am
accused of dictating terms to the Liberal party and to its great leader, because
I have said that I could not consent to enter any Government which deliberately
excluded from its programme those reforms which I have been advocating as of
prime importance throughout the length and breadth of the land. I may be
mistaken in the weight that I attach to these proposals. I may have over-
estimated their popularity among the people, and, if so, it is quite right that
others should lead where I have failed to obtain your support. But that I
should purchase place and office by the abandonment of the opinions I have
expressed, that I should put my principles in my pocket, and that I should
consent to an unworthy silence on those matters to which I have professed to
attach so great an importance, would be a degradation which no honourable
man can regard with complacency or satisfaction. What is the complaint that
13
Life of Chamberlain
Thave to make against the present Government ? It is that they are acting
and speaking in office in absolute contradiction to all they said and did in
opposition. I say that that is conduct which is lowering to the dignity of public
life, by whomsoever it is practised. I should like to quote to you the opinion
of a great authority upon the subject, and who may perhaps not be unwilling
to be reminded of his former expressions. It was Lord Salisbury who said,
when he was Lord Cranborne and a member of the House of Commons : ' Our
theory of government is that on each side of the House there should be men
supporting definite opinions, and that what they have supported in opposition
they should adhere to in office, and that every one should know from the fact
of their being in office that these particular opinions will be supported. If you
refuse that, you practically destroy the whole basis upon which our form of
government rests, and you make the House of Commons a mere scrambling
place for office. You practically banish all honourable men from the political
arena, and you will find in the long run that the time will come when your
statesmen will become nothing but political adventurers, and that professions
of opinion will be looked upon as so many political manoeuvres for the purpose
of attaining office.' Lord Salisbury is now in office, but how far he and his
colleagues are supporting the opinions they expressed in opposition let their
actions and their speeches — ay, and their silence — tell. For my part I accept
the precept and I reject the example. I am told that in so doing I make it im-
possible that I should ever again be called upon to serve the country. I imagine
that is a decision which will rest with a higher tribunal than the editors of
London newspapers. But in any case, office for me has no attraction unless it
may be made to serve the cause I have undertaken to promote ; and if that
reward is denied me, or is beyond my grasp, I will be content to leave to others
the spoils of victory."
On the 7th of October Mr. Chamberlain went to Hawarden.
He held a long conversation with his chief regarding the troublous
state of affairs. He pointed out three things that he considered
indispensable to the starting of a Liberal Government — namely, his
schemes in connection with a Local Government Bill for small hold-
ings and allotments ; his proposal for the readjustment of taxation
according to the terms of Mr. Gladstone's addresses ; and the question
of free education, though he did not ask that it should necessarily be-
come part of the creed of a new Cabinet. The question of H ome Rule
was discussed, and Mr. Chamberlain suggested a Local Government
Bill, which he believed might come to satisfy Mr. Parnell. During
the meeting the Irish question was paramount in Mr. Gladstone's
mind ; in Mr. Chamberlain's, his schemes for progress. Mr. Gladstone,
his age jieavy upon him, suggested that a great Irish question, with
possibility of settlement, would exact his aid and service, but any
less imperious demand on him, such as land laws, local matters, and
the domestic questions that Mr. Chamberlain hung to, were matters
of years which did not constitute a call upon him at the end of a
long life. It was patent that Mr. Gladstone had no eyes, ears, nor
mind for anything but the Irishmen. He didn't want their custom,
Developments of the Campaign
but, at the same time, he had to take care they didn't carry it to
another market, while Mr. Chamberlain, with his wild agrarian dreams,
could keep his ambitions packed away for a more convenient season,
a season when Ireland should be pacified. It will be seen that both
statesmen were wrapped up in their ideals, the younger visioning a
species of co-operative proprietorship of the soil, the older the un-
heard-of phenomena of contented Irishmen !
At this time Mr. Parnell was playing a most brilliant game —
the game of his life. Having managed to acquire the sympathy of
Lord Randolph Churchill, and to make him (as he had formerly
done Mr. Chamberlain) into the private ear of the Government in
power, it was now his object to pour forth just as much or as
little as he chose, for the purpose of creating the impression that
each party was only too anxious to outbid the other for the vote of
Ireland. Lord Randolph had evidently enlisted the sympathies of
Lord Carnarvon, whose unique overture — the granting of an inter-
view to the Irish obstructionist can be looked at as no less than an
overture — served at least to imply a weighing in the balance of Irish
demands. Mr. Parnell was so firmly convinced that the Tory pair
meant business, that his warm imagination promptly hatched what
he thought to be the egg of a concession, and the full-fledged fig-
ment of his brain he put forth as fact. Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Chamberlain were made aware that great things for Ireland were
brewing in the Conservative camp, and naturally assumed that the
movement must have the support, or at least the countenance, of
Lord Salisbury. They were too prone to believe that the Tory
chief was a figurehead piloted by his navigating lieutenant, and were
attracted more by the brilliant quips and quirks of the last than by
the upright character of the first. The influence of Lord Randolph
was at that time undoubtedly very great, and Mr. Chamberlain not
long before had asked, " Is Lord Randolph Churchill going to bow
the knee to Lord Salisbury, or is Lord Salisbury going to pass
under Lord Randolph Churchill's yoke ? " But in this case neither
Lord Carnarvon nor Lord Randolph Churchill could succeed by
suggestion or persuasion in altering the attitude of the Prime
Minister. Lord Carnarvon clung to the hope of converting him,
but he was entirely mistaken in his man, and nothing could be more
straightforward and definite than the pronouncement made by the
Tory leader at Newport on the 7th of October. It was at one and
the same time a dignified noli me tangere to the Irishmen and to
those whose meddling had given ground for the aspersions of the
Opposition.
Lord Salisbury mentioned having seen in the journals a remark-
able speech from the Irish leader, in which he referred in so marked
15
Life of Chamberlain
a way to the position of Austria and Hungary, that he gathered the
words were intended to cover some kind of new proposition, and
that some notion of Imperial Federation was floating in his mind.
" In speaking of Imperial Federation as entirely apart from the Irish
question," he then said, " I wish to guard myself very carefully. / consider it
to be one of the questions of the future. I believe that the drawing nearer
of the Colonies of this country is the policy to which English patriots must
look who desire to give effect in the councils of the world to the real strength
of the English nation, and who desire to draw all the advantage that can be
drawn from that marvellous cluster of dependencies which distinguishes our
Empire above any other empire which ancient or modern times record"
It is interesting to note in this utterance the thought that has
been echoed so repeatedly, and to so much advantage, by Mr.
Chamberlain in later years !
" Our Colonies," Lord Salisbury continued, " are tied to us by deep affection,
and we should be guilty not only of coldness of heart, but of gross and palpable
folly, if we allow that sentiment to cool, and do not draw from it as much
advantage for the common weal of the whole of the English race as circum-
stances will permit us to do. I know that the idea of Imperial Federation is
still shapeless and unformed, and it is impossible for any man to do more
than to keep his mind open to a desire to give effect to aspirations which bear
the mark of the truest patriotism upon them, and therefore I wish to avoid any
language that may seem to discourage the plan in which perhaps the fondest
hopes of high Imperial greatness for England in the future may be wrapped.
But, with respect to Ireland, I am bound to say that I have never seen any plan,
or any suggestion, that will give me at present the slightest ground for antici-
pating that it is in that direction that we shall find any satisfactory solution of
the Irish problem. I wish that it may be so, but I think that we shall be holding
out false expectations if we avow a belief which, as yet at all events, we cannot
entertain. To maintain the integrity of the Empire must undoubtedly be our
first policy with respect to Ireland."
The Opposition, however, remained unconvinced. The early part
of the pronouncement had contained some sort of apology for the
abandonment of coercion — a somewhat lame one — which appeared
to Liberal eyes as a flimsy blind to cover the machinations of Lord
Randolph Churchill, and the effort of Lord Carnarvon to ingratiate
himself with the Nationalists. Though appearances were certainly
suspicious, it is averred by the Tory party that, apart from Lord
Carnarvon and Lord Randolph Churchill, the activities of the Govern-
ment were directed by a sole and patriotic object, that of pacifying
Ireland and keeping Mr. Gladstone out of office. The public was
sick of magnanimous policies that led to humiliation at Pretoria and
Kandahar, of blunders in Egypt, and of bungles that put up the
backs of now Turkey, now Russia, now Germany, Austria, and
France ; and Lord Salisbury's adherence to his post, which he felt
16
RT. HON. SIR MICHAEL E. HICKS-BEACH, BART.
fhoto UUSSELL & Soss, I.OXDOX.
Developments of the Campaign
to be fraught with responsibility without power, was due to the deter-
mined hope of saving the prestige of the country at a critical time.
But of this the inventor of the unauthorised programme recked
nothing. He was intent on his domestic irons,- some of which he
feared might never become hot. He had no mind for anything but
the principle of the reforms he meant to compass, in spite of whatever
Lord Salisbury or Mr. Gladstone might advance to the contrary.
Of Ireland he was beginning to despair. Mr. Parnell's ex-
travagant demands were growing daily under the hothouse of Tory
sympathy, and it is not to be wondered at that Mr. Chamberlain,
in view of this expansion, became more and more bitter against his
opponents for having nursed the abnormal and impossible growth.
When Mr. Chamberlain visited Trowbridge (i4th of October),
he alluded to his recent meeting with Mr. Gladstone, and
stated that the Chief was waiting with hope and confidence
the result of the appeal he had made to his countrymen. He
then recalled the fact that he had been dubbed "an inveterate
Cockney" by Lord Salisbury, and proceeded to enumerate the
phalanx of inveterate Cockneys who had been responsible for the
progressive movements of recent years, winding up with Mr. Glad-
stone, " the son of a Scotch merchant settled in Liverpool," who had
carried forth the great financial measures to which the prosperity of
the country was due, and who had completed the grandest achieve-
ment of the Liberal party which enabled the bulk of the people to
take their share in the government of the country. He resumed
his arguments on the subject of the reforms he proposed, hitting out
meanwhile at the Prime Minister and Mr. Goschen with a zest that
cheered and delighted his audience. He accused the last of scenting
out difficulties in the way of reform, and said that the business of
a statesman was not merely the finding out of difficulties, but the
overcoming of them. He wound up with the lines : —
" It's a mercy we have men to tell us
The rights and wrongs of these things anyhow,
And that Providence sends us oracular fellows,
To sit on the fence and slang those at the plough."
Fortunately Providence in this respect has continued for many
years to be beneficent to Mr. Chamberlain. Whenever he has toiled
at the plough — he has taken very little rest, too — there has been
scarcely sitting room on the fence for the number of "oracular
fellows " who have gathered together for the slanging chorus. But
the ploughman, it must be admitted, has never been behind-hand.
Despite his exertions, he had fitted himself to the music of the
cheery idlers and given them solos worth listening to for their pains.
VOL. IT. 17 B
Life of Chamberlain
On his return to Birmingham he carried on the war. " What," he
cried to his constituents on the 2Oth of October — "What has Lord
Salisbury to offer us that should induce us to retain him in the
position he now occupies under false pretences?" He jeered at the
Newport speech, and quoted the member for Hackney, who had
described the programme as "a policy of Chamberlain-and-water."
Though the Radical then made merry over the quotation, there is no
doubt that Chamberlain-and-water is now found to be an uncommonly
good brew, its invigorating properties becoming the more potent and
valuable to the constitution by reason of the benevolent dilution.
Mr. Chamberlain proceeded to pick to pieces the Prime Minister's
reference to the land question, which he described as the greatest
of the questions with which they had to deal. Lord Salisbury, he
said, had appreciated the necessity of multiplying the number of
those who have a practical interest in the soil, and had even seemed
willing to consider practical suggestions for the attainment of this
result. But a few days later he had apparently repented ; he made
no mention of the custom of primogeniture, and in regard to the
question of entail he had expressed the opinion that the bill of Lord
Cairns had effected everything necessary as regards settlement, and
had seemed unwilling to limit the right of landed proprietors to
tie up their land in the interest of their families. Though Lord
Salisbury had admitted that the cheapening of land transfer might
be in itself a desirable object, he had said that in his opinion it
would but increase the tendency of the land to fall into the fewest
possible hands. "So," cried Mr. Chamberlain, "you see what the
programme comes to ! While Lord Salisbury admits it is desirable to
multiply the owners of the land, the only practical legislation he is pre-
pared to propose will have, according to his own accounts, exactly the
opposite effect." This he described as Toryism all over. "It is
cynical, it is obstructive ; it is selfish, it is incapable ! " He then
recurred to the proposals of the Radicals, that local authorities
should be empowered to obtain land compulsorily at a fair price for
public purposes, and that they should be authorised to let this land
for allotments and small holdings. These proposals had been ob-
jected to by Lord Salisbury, but curiously enough Sir Michael Hicks
Beach, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had propounded an almost
identical scheme. He had addressed an agricultural audience, and
told them that every labourer ought to have a decent cottage and
a garden at a fair rent ; and that if by chance the gardens were not
conveniently provided, the local authority might be empowered to
step in and even purchase land with authority from Parliament for
that purpose. Mr. Chamberlain invited his audience to point out
the difference between the proposition of the Chancellor of the
18
Developments of the Campaign
Exchequer and his own. Of course it might be argued that Sir
Michael Hicks Beach confined himself to allotments, while he went
further and proposed to give local authorities power to let on small
farms. Still Mr. Stanhope (his successor at the Board of Trade)
had gone with him, in that he had told his constituents that the
thing needed was a system of graduating an agricultural ladder, on
which the labourer, having put his foot, might, by his own activity,
attain to higher things. Where, he asked, in these schemes,
which were tantamount to his own, were the fearful evils predicted
by Lord Salisbury ? He then said, " I think I can guess what is
the real objection which Lord Salisbury, a great landowner himself,
and a representative of the landed interest, takes to the proposal
that has been made." He then explained what he imagined to be
the "fearful evil" that had aroused his lordship's indignation. "It
is the fair price that sticks in his throat ! The other day he talked
of the necessity under which local authorities would be of purchasing
land that will only pay 2 per cent., and when I pointed out that that
would mean buying land at fifty years' purchase, whereas the ordinary
price of land was from twenty-five to thirty years' purchase, he said,
with the noble scorn that is characteristic of these great proprietors,
that really it would be well that the discussion should be confined
to those who understood the subject. ' Mr. Chamberlain takes no
account of the outgoings of the land,' Lord Salisbury had said."
According to him these outgoings were the moneys needed for
revising the Land Laws, for providing buildings, and for general
improvements. " I should like to know," argued Mr. Chamberlain,
"the ordinary time when landlords made these improvements, and
spend their money without a good return for this investment."
He quoted innumerable cases where they actually borrowed from
the State at 3 and 3^ per cent., and then charged their tenants
4 and 5 per cent, for the accommodation. It was absurd of Lord
Salisbury to talk of outgoings as though they were not in an invest-
ment in the land, for which landowners always expected to get a
fair return. When he spoke of fifty years' purchase he was think-
ing of the price paid hitherto by local authorities when they had
had to take the land of the country in order to secure the prosperity,
health, and comfort of their constituents. "It has been one of
the privileges of the landowners in these circumstances to exact
an extortionate price ! "
He then gave an instructive illustration, the circumstances of
which are to be found in the pages of Hansard. It showed how a
London landowner had demanded the insertion of a clause in a bill
introduced by the Metropolitian Board of Works, which gave him
the fullest price for his land (it was to be bought at its prospective
19
Life of Chamberlain
value) ; he was to have compensation for severance, he was to have
10 per cent, for compulsory sale, and, heaped on all this, he was
to enjoy the advantage and profit which would naturally accrue
from the turning of his property into the front land of a great
thoroughfare. This proposal, altogether exceptional in its char-
acter, was rejected by the Committee of the House of Commons,
but when the bill went up to the House of Lords the clause was
inserted for the protection of this individual landowner, although
many other landowners were affected by the same bill. Mr.
Fawcett moved that the House of Commons should disagree with
the Lords' amendment, and the resolution was carried without a
division. The Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works
declared that if this clause were pressed it would imperil all further
Metropolitan improvements, so greatly would it add to their cost ;
and another Tory member volunteered that such clause would be
a fraud on the ratepayers. "And who do you think was the land-
owner the conduct of whose agents was stigmatised by the Tory
members in the language I have quoted ? It was the Marquis
of Salisbury — the Prime Minister of England ! "
Mr. Chamberlain having made this startling announcement,
went on more gracefully to confess that he did not doubt that Lord
Salisbury's agents acted for him without his interference, and that
it was only fair to add, when the bill went back to the Lords, Lord
Salisbury himself had concurred in the advice that the clause should
not be insisted on. " Nevertheless," he went on, " if these are the
rights of property, I say they ought to be limited and restricted in
the future."
He wound up optimistically, expressed his belief that the feeling
of the country was in favour of the proposals the Radicals had
made, and urged all to work in order not to be left behind by the
country districts. " Everywhere in the counties there is a great
awakening ; there is enthusiasm and expectation and hope. . . .
I do not hesitate to predict that if the towns do their duty, there
will be at the next election the greatest Liberal majority that the
country has known during the last half-century."
II.— HOME RULE AND RULERS— MR. PARNELL ON THE WARPATH,
AUTUMN, 1885
In a speech delivered at Hackney on the 24th of July, Mr.
Chamberlain inveighed against the Tories, now they were in office,
for their change of front in regard to the Irish and the administration
of law in Ireland. He showed that the Tories had originally de-
fended Lord Spencer, particularly in points where he was supposed
20
Home Rule and Rulers
to be at variance with his Radical colleagues. Now all was changed.
They had made a compact with the Parnellite party ; the leaders
had ostentatiously separated themselves from Lord Spencer, and had
granted an inquiry (itself a condemnation of his justice and fairplay),
which brought into question the whole course of the administration
of justice in Ireland. By their one act, he averred, they had lessened
the authority of the law in Ireland more effectually than the Radicals
had done in five years.
At Trowbridge, too, he scoffed at the Prime Minister for "ex-
hausting his ingenuity " in showing that the ordinary law was quite
sufficient. "He says now that he has long been of opinion that the
renewal of exceptional legislation has been quite impossible. If so,
never was secret better kept ! Not one hint did he give of this
change of opinion while the Tory members, who are now the
members of his Cabinet, were hounding on the late Government to
proceed at once to the further work of coercive legislation."
It must here be noted that Lord Salisbury, on the 29th July, had
replied to the charge of " coquetting with the Irish," and had justi-
fied the action of the Government on the conciliatory question by
saying it was the natural outcome of the Franchise Act of 1884 —
" to extend the suffrage and to ignore the voice of the people " was
impossible. This did not explain the tactics of Lord Carnarvon and
Lord Randolph Churchill, who were known to be holding amicable
correspondence with Mr. Parnell with a view to affecting an arrange-
ment, which eventually Lord Salisbury refused to consider. It must
be admitted that the attitude of Lord Carnarvon gave colour to the
accusation brought by the Radicals, as it also gave impetus to the
crescent hopes of the Parnellites. Soon after taking over the post
of Viceroy, he announced the intention of the Government not to
renew the Crimes Act ; and Lord Ashbourne (Chancellor of Ireland)
introduced a proposal, known later as the Ashbourne Act, for pro-
viding certain facilities for the sale of land. Then came his promise,
on the motion of Mr. Parnell, to inquire into Lord Spencer's conduct
with reference to the Barbavilla and Maamtrasna murders, a promise
which was so direct a slur on a statesman whose task had been to
support law and order in difficult circumstances, that it naturally
roused the indignation not only of the Liberals, but of all who were
punctilious in matters of taste. Mr. Bright was particularly bitter,
and at a dinner given by the Liberal party in honour of Lord Spencer,
and presided over by Lord Hartington, he denounced as disloyal
to the Crown and hostile to the interest of Great Britain those who
had so insolently assailed Lord Spencer. The Tory press, though
not so loud in complaint, were decidedly shocked. The Times
said : " It is not Lord Spencer alone whose good faith has been
21
Life of Chamberlain
impeached, but the Irish judiciary, the law officers of the Crown, the
public prosecutor, the magistracy, and the police." The Standard,
while admitting the force of the temptation to conciliate Mr. Parnell,
said : " We do not at all dispute the probability that the simple ex-
pedient adopted will succeed. But that, in our opinion, is not enough
to justify the tactics that have been employed."
Lord Carnarvon now, like Mr. Chamberlain, denounced the
" hateful word coercion," but he proceeded farther (doubtless in the
interests of peace), and arranged a secret confab with Mr. Parnell
himself. This was in July. Mr. Justin M'Carthy acted as go-
between, but he was not a witness of the interview. The result was
that there are two differing versions of the scene that took place.
But neither version — that of Lord Carnarvon or that of Mr.
Parnell — was given to the public till nearly a year later (June 7,
1886). According to the account of the Viceroy, he expressed to
Mr. Parnell that the responsibility of his action was entirely his own,
and not shared in by any of his colleagues. His object was to
obtain first-hand information, and not by any means to make any
agreement or understanding, however shadowy ; nor, as a servant of
the Queen, would he listen to anything inconsistent with the main-
tenance of the Union between England and Ireland.
9
Mr. Parnell took a much broader view of Lord Carnarvon's
aims. In the Times (June 12, 1886) he gave an account of this
interview, in which he said : —
" My reference in the House of Commons on Monday, explanatory of the
reasons which induced the passage in my speech at Wicklow regarding protec-
tion, has called from Lord Carnarvon a lengthy explanation with respect to my
interview with him in July, as to which he makes certain positive, but chiefly a
series of negative statements.
" It will, I think, be now generally considered desirable that some further
positive information should be given to the public regarding the details of that
interview — that the deficiences left by Lord Carnarvon should be supplemented,
and that I should say how far my recollection coincides with his.
" But first it will be convenient that I should recall to mind the reference which
I made on Monday to the Wicklow speech, and as to which the controversy, at
first with Sir M. Hicks Beach and now with Lord Carnarvon, has arisen.
" His speech about protection at Wicklow was made at a time when he had
every reason to believe that the Conservative party, if they had been success-
ful at the polls, would have afforded Ireland a statutory legislature, with the
right to protect her own industries, and that this would have been coupled with
a settlement of the land question on the basis of purchase on a larger scale than
that now proposed by the Prime Minister.
" What I have now to tell regarding that interview of July will, I think, be
held fully to justify that reference.
" I regret that I am obliged to commence this recital by differing with Lord
Carnarvon point-blank as to a question of fact.
22
Home Rule and Rulers
" He says, in his explanation, that towards the end of last July it was
intimated to him that if he were willing, I should also be willing to meet him in
conversation ; in other words, that I sought the interview.
"Now this I positively deny, and as a matter-of-fact the meeting was
brought about by an intimation being conveyed to me exactly the converse to
that which Lord Carnarvon alleges was conveyed to him.
" In this connection I may mention that Lord Carnarvon originally proposed
that I should meet him at the house of a gentleman, now a prominent Conserva-
tive member of Parliament, who subsequently undertook a mission to Ireland,
and obtained letters of introduction to several leading members of the Irish
Parliamentary party, with whom he discussed in detail the species of Irish
Parliament that would be acceptable to Ireland.
" I declined, however, to meet Lord Carnarvon at the house of a stranger,
and suggested that if the interview was to take place at all, it had best be at
his own residence.
" I must also take issue as to the correctness of Lord's Carnarvon's memory
as to two of the ' three conditions ' which, he alleges, he stated to me as the
conditions upon which he could enter into communication with me — viz. that,
first of all, he was acting of himself, and that the responsibility was his and the
communications were from himself alone ; and, secondly, that he was there as
the Queen's servant, and that he would neither hear nor say one word that was
inconsistent with the union of the two countries, and that I assented to these
conditions.
" Now, Lord Carnarvon did not lay down any ' conditions ' whatever as a
preliminary to his entering into conversation with me.
" It must be manifest that if he had desired to do so, he would have
intimated them when requesting the interview.
" He certainly made no use whatever of the terms of the two ' conditions *
which I have repeated.
"There is, however, some foundation for his statement concerning the
remaining one, inasmuch as he undoubtedly remarked at the commencement
that he hoped I would understand that we were not engaged 'in making any
treaty or bargain whatever.'
" Lord Carnarvon then proceeded to say that he had sought this interview
for the purpose of ascertaining my views regarding — should he call it — 'a
Constitution for Ireland,' but I soon found that he had brought me there in
order that he might communicate his own views upon this matter as well as
ascertain mine.
" I readily opened my mind to him on this subject, and in reply to an
inquiry as to a proposal which had been made to build up a central legislative
body upon the foundation of county boards, I told him that I thought this
would be working in the wrong direction, and would not be accepted by
Ireland ; that the central legislative body should be a Parliament in name and
in fact, and that to it should be left the construction of whatever system of local
government for the counties might be found necessary.
" Lord Carnarvon assured me that was his own view also, and that he
strongly appreciated the importance of giving due weight to the sentiment of
the Irish in this matter.
" He then inquired whether, in my judgment, some plan for constituting a
Parliament in Dublin, short of the repeal of the Union, might not be devised
and prove acceptable to Ireland, and he made certain suggestions to this end,
23
Life of Chamberlain
taking the colonial model as a basis, which struck me as being the result of
much thought and knowledge on the subject.
" Then came the reference to protection. We were discussing the general
outline of a plan for constituting a legislature for Ireland on the colonial model,
when I took occasion to remark that protection for certain Irish industries
against English and foreign competition would be absolutely necessary, upon
which Lord Carnarvon said, ' I entirely agree with you ; but what a row there
will be about it in England.'
" At the conclusion of the conversation, which lasted for more than an hour,
and to which Lord Carnarvon was very much the larger contributor, I left him,
believing that I was in complete accord with him regarding the main outlines
of a settlement conferring a legislature upon Ireland.
" In conversing with him, I dealt with the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who
was responsible for the government of the country.
" I did not suppose that he would fail to impress the views which he had
disclosed to me upon the Cabinet, and I have reason to believe that he did so
impress them, and that they were strongly shared in by more than one import-
ant member of that body, and strongly opposed by none."
On the whole, it will be seen that Mr. Parnell believed that he
and his companion were in accord regarding the main outlines of a
settlement conferring a legislature upon Ireland.
Lord Carnarvon in the House of Lords denied having given
any undertaking. Mr. Parnell, however, adhered to his statement,
that the nature of the conversation induced him to believe that the
Viceroy — if not his party — was ready to come to terms. Doubtless,
with Mr. Parnell the wish was father to the thought, and gave birth
to hidden meanings in Lord Carnarvon's undoubted expression of
interest in the subject of some form of self-government (not inde-
pendent of Imperial control), such as might satisfy real local require-
ments and to some extent national aspirations. He very naturally
assumed that Lord Carnarvon, holding the views he had indicated,
would not have been selected for the post of Viceroy unless his
sentiments were approved by the Cabinet. But it may easily be
imagined that this interview, not generally known, but hinted at
freely in certain quarters, gave just cause for Liberal insinuations
against the tactics of the Tories at this momentous period.
Meanwhile Mr. Parnell had roused England with his assertion :
" I hope that it may not be necessary for us in the new Parliament
to devote our attention to subsidiary measures, and that it may be
possible for us to have a programme and a platform with only one
plank — and that one plank National Independence." The press
broke into a tempest of denunciation. The Times declared the
thing impossible. The Standard called on Whigs and Tories to
resist the rebel chief. The Daily News declared that Great Britain
could but be saved from the tyranny of the Irishman by a strong
administration composed of advanced Liberals. The Daily Tele-
24
Home Rule and Rulers
graph hoped that the House would not be " seduced or terrified into
surrender." The Manchester Guardian howled for the punishment
of any party who should follow in the course traced by Parnell, &c.
&c. Lord Hartington, at Waterfoot (August 29), gave the belli-
gerent keynote. He said that Mr. Parnell had for once " committed
a mistake by proclaiming that Ireland's sole demand was an Irish
Parliament. All England," he added, " would now unite in resisting
so fatal and mischievous a proposal."
Mr. Parnell promptly flung defiance at the Whig leader. He con-
cluded by saying: "If they have not succeeded in 'squetching us*
during the last five years, they are not likely to do so during the
next five years, unless they brace themselves up to adopt one of two
alternatives, by the adoption of either one of which we should ulti-
mately win, and perhaps win a larger and heavier stake than we
otherwise should." He proceeded to declare that they would have
either to grant Ireland the complete right to rule herself, or "they
would have to take away the share — the sham share — in the English
constitutional system which they extended to us at the Union, and
govern Ireland as a Crown Colony." To this outpouring, it may
be remembered, Mr. Chamberlain replied at Warrington on the
Sth September, by declaring that if these were the terms on which
Mr. Parnell's support were to be obtained, he would not enter into
competition for it. He clearly stated that Mr. Parnell's new pro-
gramme involved a greater extension than anything previously
understood as Home Rule, and the powers he claimed for his
support were beyond anything existing in the case of the State
Legislatures of the American Union (the accepted model of Irish
demands), and that if this claim were admitted all hope to main-
tain a united kingdom must be abandoned. About the same time
Mr. John Morley protested against separation, while approving the
scheme of Home Rule organised on a Canadian model.
Meanwhile Mr. Gladstone was earnestly debating within himself
how to " climb down " from the attitude which had turned against him
the Irish vote, and how also to decoy the vote from the trap he
suspected the Tories were warily laying. They on their side con-
tinued to point out that coercion had failed in its objects, and that
now that the Irish were admitted to share in the extended franchise,
it was absurd for Parliament to impose restrictions on their personal
liberty. Lord Salisbury was acutely watched from both sides : lynx
eyes spied eagerly to catch him tripping. Though he did not express
himself in favour of Home Rule, it was obvious to the Opposition that
he was adopting an extremely politic attitude. If, said his enemies,
he was not absolutely " trafficking with disorder and disloyalty," he
was prepared to close his eyes to the necessity of dealing with
25
Life of Chamberlain
it. He did not, like Mr. Chamberlain, make a brave stand against
the ParnelUtes, and cry out definitely non possumus. He was
respectful, even conciliatory. Mr. Parnell meanwhile winked, and
went up another rung on the ladder of aspiration. He encouraged the
courtship of Whigs and Tories, and deigned from his newly-acquired
eminence to smile on the suitors ; it was pleasing thus to find both
parties sidling towards Ireland, and to know that the hand of the
fair could be bestowed to the wooer who should offer to make the
larger settlement.
The phrase Home Ruler, it must be remembered, had not at this
time the exact and full significance that is implied by the use of the
term in the twentieth century. In 1880 it served to denote certain
politicians who advocated the creation of a system of self-govern-
ment for Ireland in the matter of her domestic affairs. Taken in
this way the word Home Ruler might well have been applied to
Mr. Chamberlain, who all along was in favour of local government
and the sweeping away of authority at Dublin Castle.
In 1884 or early in 1885 Mr. Chamberlain, though averse from
an independent Irish Parliament, proposed a National Councils
scheme, which at the time was welcome to the Irishmen. His idea
was to have a council in Dublin, another probably in Belfast, but
if possible only one central council. It was to take over the work
of all the Dublin Boards and deal with local matters — land, edu-
cation, and the like — introducing its own bills, but submitting them
eventually for the sanction of the Imperial Parliament. Mr. Parnell
disapproved of this scheme. Cardinal Manning, whom Mr. Cham-
berlain consulted on the subject, stated that the bishops and priests
were in favour of it — in fact, that they would prefer a National
Councils scheme to an independent Parliament. When Mr. Cham-
berlain brought the proposition before the Cabinet it was rejected,
though Mr. Gladstone personally was in favour of it. The idea spread
abroad by his biographers that Mr. Chamberlain was on the point
of being converted to Home Rule has been emphatically contra-
dicted by Mr. Chamberlain. He asserts he was never near being
converted to an Irish Parliament. Beyond the National Councils
scheme he would not go. At that time he had every reason to
hope that the Parnellites would be entirely satisfied, so far as " the
divine discontent," which seems to be an Irishman's birthright,
would allow them to be appeased. Mr. Chamberlain himself said :
" No doubt there might have remained the national sentiment in
favour of the establishment of a separate legislature, but if such
council as I had suggested had been established and put in working
order, and the interference of foreign authorities had been abolished,
I believe that the old grievance would have died out, and that a
26
Home Rule and Rulers
new generation would have arisen which would have been glad and
willing to accept the obligation as well as the advantage which the
union of the three kingdoms for Imperial interests is calculated to
secure." It was impossible to foresee the Tory tactics of the
summer, and how during this year of strife and hum, during these
bandyings of civility and abuse, of biddings and bargainings, of
conciliation and coercion, between Tories and Nationalists, and
Liberals and Nationalists, the term Home Ruler, like the demand
for Home Rule, developed till it became finally the jacket which
essayed to cover the swollen proportions of Mr. Parnell's ambitious
separation scheme.
Indeed, the idea had in the main some such foundation as
Burke's when he said : " The Parliament of Great Britain sits at the
head of a great empire in two capacities : one as the local legislature
of this island, providing for all things of home immediately, and by
no other instrument than the executive power ; the other, and I
think her nobler capacity, is what I call her Imperial character,
in which, as from the throne of heaven, she superintends all the
several inferior legislatures, and guides and controls them all without
annihilating any. As all these provincial legislatures are only co-
ordinate with each other, they ought all to be subordinate to her,
else they can neither preserve mutual peace nor hope for mutual
justice, nor effectually afford mutual assistance." Mr. Chamberlain,
like Burke, would have covered by this more than the original Home
Rule proposition ; he would have relieved the congestion of the
Imperial Parliament by giving Scotland and Wales each their
inferior local legislature for the management of their immediate
internal affairs.
The expansion of Mr. Parnell's, programme, if such it may be
called, grew with the increase of his power, and according to over-
tures privily or publicly made by members of both parties. In the
speech of August, previously referred to, he alluded to an Irish
Parliament almost as a fait accompli, dwelling and dilating on the
powers that it would claim. These comprised a free hand, the
building up and protecting of Irish industries, and the control of
public education. A single chamber would satisfy him — his needs
were modest ! — and his motto, like Mr. Chamberlain's, was, " No
Lords required." It was the magnitude of this, Mr. Parnell's revised
demand, that had brought forth frorr^Mr. Chamberlain at Warring-
ton, on 8th September, an emphatic expression of his opinions,
which is best quoted verbatim : —
" I suppose that moderate Liberals at least have some opinion upon this
matter, but upon it Lord Randolph Churchill, although he spoke for an hour
and a half at Sheffield, was significantly silent in view of the most important
27
Life of Chamberlain
declaration which has ever been made by any Irish leaders. Lord Randolph
Churchill, the most influential member of the Tory Government, uttered not
a word, gave not a sign to show what was the opinion of the party which
he has educated, and which he has led with regard to the unhesitating and
uncompromising demand which Mr. Parnell has made with regard to the
separation of Ireland from the British Empire. I will say that the reticence
of the noble lord is at least as eloquent as speech, and the moderate Liberals
must be blind indeed if they do not see in it the natural consequence of
the Maamtrasna alliance, and of the tacit compact by which the Tories have
become possessed of office. I am not going to imitate the reserve of the
Tory Minister, because I consider the time has come when every man should
speak out on this question. He owes it as much to the Irish people as to the
English and the Scotch, that there should be no ambiguity in his utterances on
a matter which so vitally affects the interests of the three countries. I think
I may claim to be in some measure an impartial witness upon such a matter.
I have tried to be a friend of Ireland. I have felt the deepest sympathy with
the Irish people in their struggle against oppression and against unjust laws ;
in their impatience with a system of government which is alien to their national
sentiment, and under which many of their best and ablest and most patriotic
sons have been excluded from the practical work of administration in Ireland,
even in the subject to which I have been referring. I saw that Lord Randolph
Churchill went out of his way to say that when Mr. Forster resigned it was
in consequence of a discreditable intrigue which was principally the work of
Mr. Chamberlain. Well, you know that there was no intrigue at all, and
that Mr. Forster left office because he could not agree with the release of
Mr. Parnell and his companions from Kilmainham, where they were confined
without trial. I will only say upon that, that subsequent events have amply
justified the policy of the Government, to which I gave my hearty support and
approval ; but I only refer to it now because I think, in common with many
other things, it shows that I have not been personally an opponent of Mr.
Parnell, or a prejudiced opponent of the cause to which he has devoted his life.
Before I speak of the main points in his recent declaration, there is one matter
upon which I think scant justice has hitherto been done him. On many
previous occasions we have regretted that the Irish leader did not use the
influence which he has deservedly acquired with his own people, in order to
repudiate and denounce the outrages which have disgraced and stained an
agitation in many other respects worthy of admiration and sympathy. But
when he spoke the other day at Dublin he used language which for firmness
and evident conviction left nothing to be desired, and he showed the folly and
the wickedness of the cowardly crimes which have done so much to prejudice
the Irish cause in the eyes of all honourable and honest men. I amjglad to
acknowledge that it is a point of good augury now that a new struggle is
beginning that the Irish leader should have set his face so sternly against
everything in the nature of riot and disorder. Well, now, what is Mr.
Parnell's programme? He says that in his opinion the time has come to
abandon altogether all attempt to obtain further remedial measures or subsidiary
reforms, and to concentrate the efforts of the Irish representatives upon the
secujdng—of a separate and independent Parliament, which is to consist of a
single, chamber, and wlwse first object it is to put on a protective duty against
all English manufactures. Then he says, in the second place^ that he expects
Whig and Tory will vie -with one another in helping him to a settlement on
28
Home Rule and Rulers
his^ojtw tfrms-f~mFd~fte says, in the last place, that if any party seeks to make this
object imposs.ibl&j.he.jwd his. friends will make all things impossible for them.
Well, gentlemen, I am not a Whig, and I am certainly not a Tory. But,
speaking for myself, I say that if these, and these alone, are the termson which
Mr. Pamelas support is to be obtained, I will not enter into competition for it.
This^new programme of Mr. ParnelFs involves a great extension of anything
that we have hitherto understood by ' Home Rule.' The powers he claims
for his separate Parliament are altogether beyond anything which exists in
the case of the State Legislatures of the American Union, which has hitherto
been the type and model of the Irish demands; and if this claim were conceded
we might as well for ever abandon all hope of maintaining a united kingdom.
We should establish within less than thirty miles of our shores a new foreign
country animated from the outset with unfriendly intentions towards ourselves.
A policy like that I firmly believe would be disastrous and ruinous to Ireland
herself. It would be disastrous to the security of this country, and under
these circumstances I hold that we are bound to take every step in our power
to avert so great a calamity. We willappeal to the Irish people. I cannot
bring myself to believe that they are so prejudiced by the recollection of past
wrongs that they will not recognise the anxiety of the present generation
of Englishmen to do them justice — to remove every tangible grievance, and
establish equal laws between the three kingdoms. I think if they are per-
suaded of this they will be unwilling to sever themselves from the common
history of the United Kingdom, in which Irishmen have taken so great and
glorious a part I won't dwell upon the threats with which l\fr. Parnell has
accompanied his demand. I suppose they were intended for Irish consump-
tion ; but I think they were unnecessary and uncalled for. Mr. Parnell seems
to me to forget the change which has come over our constitutional system.
He is no longer dealing with interests and classes, represented in the British
House of Commons altogether out of proportion to their number, but he is face
to face with the whole population of England and Scotland, reinforced as it
will be at least by one-fifth of the population of Ireland. To threaten millions
of people ^with me vengeance of four millions — that is a rhetorical artifice which
is altogether unworthy of Mr. Parnell's power and influence. But it is said
by him that justice requires that we should concede to Irishmen the abso-
lute right of self-government. I would reply that it is a right which must be
considered in relation to the security and welfare of the other countries in juxta-
position to which Ireland is placed, and with whose interests hers are indis-
solubly linked. 1 cannot admit that five millions of Irishmen have any greater
inherent right to gpvern themselves from the rest of the United Kingdom, or
a greater right to self-government, than the five million inhabitants of the
Metropolis. God has made us neighbours, and I would to Heaven that our
rulers had made us friends. But as neighbours, neither one nor the other has
any right so to rule his own household so as to be a source of annoyance or
danger to the other. But subject to that limitation, 1 for my part would
concede the greatest possible measure of local government to the Irish people
as T would concede it to the English people. Some time ago — more than
twelve months since — I proposed a scheme with the object of providing a
proper representative authority throughout the length and breadth of the land,
charged with the important duty of dealing exclusively with local work. I
proposed also a national elective council to which might be given the super-
vision ~and the control which is exercised by some of the departments in
29
Life of Chamberlain
London, and which are commonly known in. Ireland under the name of Dublin
Castle. I proposed to sweep away all the networks of boards created by. the
English Government, and which in being carried out in Ireland caused much
irritation and often natural annoyance. I had reason to believe at the time
that some such scheme would have been welcomed by the great bulk of the
Irish people as a full and satisfactory system of local government. No doubt
there would have remained the national sentiment for the establishment of
a separate Legislature, but if such councils as I had suggested had been
established and put in full working order, if the hurtful influence of foreign
authorities had been abolished, I believe that the old sense of grievances would
have died out and that the new generations would have been willing to accept
the obligation as well as the advantage their unity with England for Imperial
interests is calculated to afford. My proposals unfortunately did not meet
with the support of the moderate Liberals," and under these circumstances it
would have been useless to proceed with them. What has happened — the
opportunity has passed away. Mr. Parnell, encouraged by the Tory surrender,
has raised his terms, and the national leaders have abandoned, at all events for
the time, all care for local government properly so-called, in the expectation
that one or other of the great parties, either from fear or from interest, will
concede their demand for a national and a separate Legislature."
Already a large section of the Irish party had interpreted the
clause regarding Ireland in Mr. Gladstone's manifesto as meaning
that the veteran intended to take up Home Rule. They had also
seen in Lord Salisbury's Newport speech a counter-move, and
their excitement was intensified. As master of the situation, Mr.
Parnell imagined he had but to formulate, and promptly one or
other party would " cave in."
Though the unreasonableness of the Irishman's attitude was put
down by Mr. Chamberlain to Tory intrigue, the Tories attributed it
to Mr. Gladstone's very conciliatory attitude, and to his private yet
obvious feelings in the matter. It was now reported in an American
journal, doubtless inspired by Mr. Parnell, that Mr. Gladstone had
made strides in the direction of a large measure of legislative
independence for Ireland, and various British journals, too, harped
upon what to Irish ears was a flattering tune.
An important pronouncement came on the I2th of October from
|; Mr. Childers, who spoke, so it was supposed, as the mouthpiece of
/Mr. Gladstone. He declared at Pontefract his readiness to give
/ 1 Ireland a large measure of local government. She should legislate
I for herself, reserving Imperial rights over foreign policy, military
organisation, external trade, post office, the currency, the national
debt, and the court of ultimate appeal. The subject was carried
farther on the Qth of November, when Mr. Gladstone started on his
second Mid-Lothian campaign. He first declared that what Ireland
may deliberately and constitutionally demand, unless it infringes the
principle connected with the honourable maintenance of the unity of
30
"NOT FOR JOE!"
JOEY C. (to Mr. G-SCH-N). — " No room for you, sir ! "
RIVAL CONDUCTOR. — " Here you are, sir ! Jump in here, sir ! Come along of us / / "
(From Punch, Nov. 14, 1885. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punch.)
Life of Chamberlain
the Empire, will be a demand that we are bound at any rate to
treat with careful attention. To stint Ireland in power which may
be necessary or desirable for the management of matters purely
Irish would be a great error ; and if she were so stinted, the end
that any such measure might contemplate could not be attained.
Secondly, he stated, throwing cold water instantly on the flame that
he had just aroused in the Irish breast : " Apart from the terms
Whig or Tory, there is one thing I will say, and will endeavour to
impress on you, and it is this — it will be a vital danger to the country
and the Empire if at a time when the demand of Ireland for
large powers of self-government is to be dealt with, there is not
in Parliament a party totally independent of the Irish vote." This
statement, ambiguous in the extreme after all that had gone before,
brought most of his Irish hearers abruptly to the " As you were "
position. But Mr. Parnell swallowed what he chose, and left what
he chose. He pinned the leader to his Home Rule announcement,
and congratulated him in a speech at Liverpool " on approaching
Irish autonomy with that breadth of statesmanship for which he was
renowned." But still Mr. Gladstone wavered ; he nibbled indeed
at Mr. Parnell's bait so long as to irritate him. At last the
Irishman grew furious, and declared war to the knife between
Liberals and the Irish. " Ireland has been knocking at the English
door long enough with kid gloves. . . . Ireland will soon throw off
the kid gloves, and she will knock with the mailed hand." In his
manifesto of 2ist. November the Irish electors of Great Britain were
called on to vote against " the men who coerced Ireland, deluged
Egypt with blood, menaced religious liberty in the schools, the
freedom of speech in Parliament, and promise to the country
generally a repetition of the crimes and follies of the .last Liberal
administration."
This was a brilliant coup for weakening the Liberal party, and
for creating a balance between the factions, which might subsequently
be regulated by his personal touch. The animosities it aroused,
the fierce antagonism and fiery passions it let loose, were of no
consequence so long as for one brief term he became lord of the
situation.
III.— ELECTIONS OF 1885, Nov. 23-DEC. 19— LORD RANDOLPH
CHURCHILL IN THE LIONS' DEN
The election period was swept by a cyclone of political elements,
the four winds of Conservatism, Liberalism, Home Rule, and Radi-
calism blowing from all quarters, and keeping the atmosphere of
Great Britain seething with excitement. At Birmingham Mr.
Chamberlain was everywhere received with enthusiasm, his con-
32
LORD GOSCHEN
Photo RUBSEU. * SON'S, JXISDOK.
Elections of 1885
stituents vying to demonstrate their approval of his past services,
and of the prospective advantages of his unauthorised programme.
Through his untiring efforts new voters were indebted for their
political enfranchisement, and now they meant to show not only by
word but by deed how keenly his labour on their behalf had been
appreciated.
Now that the new Redistribution Act was in force, Birmingham
was enabled to return seven instead of the usual three members to
Parliament. As a natural consequence the home of "Our Joe"
became the centre of the whirlwind — the candidates, Bright, Cham-
berlain, Dixon, Kenrick, Powell Williams, Cook, and Broadhurst,
being each opposed by persons who were certainly not lacking in
courage. These dared to beard the Radical lions in their den, and as
reward reaped some exciting and not altogether pleasant experiences.
Lord Randolph Churchill alone of the adventurous crew gained
some little success by reason of an audacity and freedom of speech
that savoured of the redoubtable Joe himself. But Lord Randolph
was scarcely up to the mark, and his appearance, which had been
looked forward to with considerable curiosity, was viewed as a com-
parative failure. Still his effort was bold, and Mr. Bright escaped
defeat by a majority of 800 only.
Lord Randolph on the 3Oth of October addressed the electors
of the central division of Birmingham at the Bristol Street Board
School — a ticket audience, not, he said, because he was afraid of
Birmingham, but because space was strictly limited. He therefore
had a comparatively easy time, and was able to inveigh against the
Birmingham idols with impunity. He attacked the principles of
Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain, declaring that while the first dealt
with the very remote past, the second dwelt on the very remote
future. " They cautiously avoid looking on their work of the past
five years." He said : —
" When I was in Birmingham eighteen months ago I endeavoured to point
out to those who were in the Town Hall at that time how great a change had
come over the Radical party; that it was no longer the old philosophical
Radical party, which possessed a sturdy independence and the peculiarities of
English politicians, and, moreover, which controlled and opposed Governments
quite irrespective of party ; but I pointed out that it had become a party more
of an advanced Socialistic type, more resembling the Socialism of France or of
Germany, a party which believed it was the duty of the State to do everything
for the people, and that the individual was to look to the State for protection
and for guidance, and that the State was to mark out, with great closeness of
definition and great rigour, the lines on which individual action should proceed.
Well, that is a most remarkable change. I believe no one sees it more clearly,
no one dislikes it more intensely, than Mr. Bright himself. I do not believe
there is any sympathy of political sentiment or of political aspiration between
VOL. II. 33 C
Life of Chamberlain
Mr. Bright as the representative of the old Radical and Mr. Chamberlain as the
representative of the new. Mr. Chamberlain has more than once styled what
are called the doctrines of political economy as a heartless creed — a selfish and
a heartless creed. Well, you must remember that those doctrines which Mr.
Chamberlain thus denominates were the doctrines of not only Lord Grey and
Lord John Russell, but they were also the doctrines of Sir Robert Peel, they
were the doctrines of Mr. Gladstone — and, for all I know, are still, although
there was a momentary aberration on the Irish Land Act — still they were the
doctrines of Mr. Gladstone ; and it is under these doctrines of political economy,
which Mr. Chamberlain so derides and so denounces, that England has enjoyed
a greater measure of prosperity and of power than perhaps any other country
in the world. Well, gentlemen, not only have the Radicals changed and the
Tories changed — Tories have changed for the better and the Radicals for the
worse — but the Whigs have changed. In the old days — in the days of Lord
Russell and Lord Palmerston — the Whigs, who undoubtedly possessed very
sound political traditions, and to whom, undoubtedly, the English people owe
much of their freedom — in old days those Whigs dominated and controlled the
Radical party. Now the position is precisely the reverse. The Radical party
dominate and control the Whigs, and the Whigs follow in a humble, and, I
think, a cowardly manner at the heels of Mr. Chamberlain and the Birmingham
caucus. . . .
" Of course it was not possible for a Government like Lord Salisbury 's,.
coming into office in the month of June, and having so short a time before
them until the election was round — it was not possible for them to do much, or
to produce any very great or startling effect upon the mind of the country. Nor,
indeed, was that our object. The object of Lord Salisbury in taking office was
to assume a great trust, which Mr. Gladstone had either thrown down or been
compelled to throw down, and to carry on the affairs of the country in a
creditable and a safe manner until the country could once more make its voice
heard. Well, I have said, gentlemen, we could not do much ; but I think we
still have done a good deal. It is unnecessary to remind you that we have
brought to a conclusion that most anxious dispute between ourselves and the
Empire of Russia with regard to the frontier of Afghanistan. We have also
brought to a conclusion those very delicate negotiations with other Powers
which were necessary in order to save Egypt from bankruptcy. Well, the
Government may say — the late Government may say — ' You are only carrying
out our policy.' Well, that is a very common expression among Liberals.
They say, ' You are not entitled to any credit for what you have done, because
you are carrying out our policy.' Well, I wish that anybody, if there is
anybody in this room who is influenced by that argument, or if anybody who
makes that argument in other public places should use it — I should be very
glad if they will kindly inform us, and inform the public, what Liberal policy we
are carrying out. I made a speech in London in the month of May, in which
I proved, from facts and from history, that what with Ireland, what with South
Africa, what with Egypt, and what with Afghanistan, Mr. Gladstone's Government
had followed at different times no less than thirty-seven policies. . . ."
He then described his party policy as distinct from the lamentable
muddle of the Gladstone Government, after which he proceeded to
discuss Lord Salisbury's idea of Federation : —
" But there is another subject which Lord Salisbury alluded to in his speech
34
CALLING THEM HOME.
(From Punch, Nov. 21, 1885. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punch.)
Life of Chamberlain
at Newport, and which I alluded to in my address to the electors of this
division — the question of Imperial Federation ; a very large question, and one
which, if it could be carried out, or if the foundations of it could be laid, would
add enormously to the strength, and the solidity, and the prosperity of the
Empire. Now, some of the leaders of the Liberal party — some of their most
distinguished men — are greatly in favour of a policy which should have for its
object something in the nature of Imperial federation. I take Lord Rosebery
and I take Mr. Forster. They have attended meetings connected solely with
this object, and they have advocated it as far as possible among the con-
stituencies in the country. But now Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington are
altogether silent on this subject. It does not appear to have entered into their
heads that the project of Imperial federation, or a policy tending towards that
consummation, is one which they would either consider or propose. But Mr.
Bright is most bitter in opposition to it. Of course you quite understand that
by Imperial federation is meant a closer and more practical union for the pur-
pose of defence — perhaps for the purpose of commerce — between the colonies
and the mother country. Now, what did Mr. Bright say about that ? Mr.
Bright made a speech in this year, on the 3Oth of January, and he said, ' What
do the Imperial Federation League propose ? That the British Empire — that
is, the United Kingdom and all its colonies — should form one country, one
interest — one undivided interest — for the purpose of defence. The idea, in my
opinion, is ludicrous, the whole thing is childish, and will not bear discussion
for a moment.' Well, that is a matter on which I hope Mr. Bright will explain
himself more at length when he addresses the electors of this division. If you
return Mr. Bright to Parliament you indorse these ideas, and you, as electors
of this division, will pronounce that any more close and more practical union
between the colonies and the mother country, for the purpose of defence or of
commerce, is a ludicrous idea, one too childish to deserve attention. Well
now, gentlemen, as I said, our foreign and our colonial policy, our programme
of policy, deals very fully with all these matters. We do offer an intelligible
policy to the people of this country, and we have been able, in the short time
we have been in office, to give, as it were, an earnest to the people in this
country of our power and our capacity to carry out that policy. Now, look at
the Liberal programme. It seems to me absolutely barren of all ideas. They
confine themselves almost entirely to domestic legislation. They turn away
utterly from such questions as foreign policy and of colonial policy. Look at
Lord Hartington's address. He hardly alluded to it. Mr. Chamberlain's
address does not allude to it. Mr. Bright's address does not allude to these
questions, and you can only judge of what the foreign policy of Mr. Gladstone's
Government would be, if you put them back in office, by what the foreign
policy of that Government has been, and you may fairly anticipate if you restore
Mr. Gladstone to office you would have another event in the nature of Majuba
Hill, another event in the nature of a surrender of territories of the Crown to
rebels, you would have another series of events in the nature of the past events
which have happened in Egypt, you would have still further encroachment by
European Powers on your Indian dependency, and there is nothing to lead you
to suppose that you would not have a repetition of trouble with Ireland."
As may be imagined Lord Randolph was not too comfortably
situated, though undoubtedly the Radicals admired his pluck in
poaching thus freely on the enemy's preserves. There was in his
36
Elections of 1885
manner what may be called an eloquent impertinence, which was
distinctly piquant, and more than one of the audience wondered
whether Lord Randolph had taken a leaf out of "Joe's" book, and
whether the latter had revenged the theft by stealing a chapter from
Lord Randolph's.
Mr. Herbert Gladstone, in imitation of the Tory Democrat's
style, provided an amusing sketch of the "clock faces," which served
to enliven the monotony of electioneering dicta. He described the
Conservative party as a great clock tower with four faces, each face
telling a different tale as to the time : —
" One of the faces resembled Lord Iddesleigh, whom they might remember
in times not far distant as Sir Stafford Northcote, but who was now in the
House of Lords, lost to sight but to memory dear — on that face the hands
were quite still ; then on another, resembling Mr. Parnell, the hands kept a
steady course, because Mr. Parnell knew his own mind and wished to carry
out his policy in Ireland by the help of the Conservative party; then they
came to the face resembling Lord Salisbury, and its hands moved forward
jerkily or went back in order to accommodate themselves to the wishes of each
spectator in turn ; and last of all they came to the fourth face — that of Jack-in-
the-box — and the hands on that face wheeled round so fast that the eye could
not follow them."
Jack-in-the-box referred, of course, to the presumptuous per-
sonage who invited Birmingham to remove Mr. Bright from
Westminster and substitute himself.
Later on the Dart gave its version of " The History of Joseph.'*
Some forty years or more ago
At work I sat, thus musing :
How long must I as " Cobbler Joe "
My time be thus misusing ?
I meant to fight for higher game,
Instead of pegging there so,
But how to climb the mount of fame
By merit I'd no right to.
I tried the dodge of Johnny Bright,
And worked upon his plan
Of always preaching " might was right,"
Which pleased the working man.
He took the " bait," I stroked his back,
As others had before done ;
To Westminster, then, in a crack
He sent me with the " old un."
Meanwhile Mr. Chamberlain set to work with* a will. He got
quickly in touch with his old friends, and at one meeting invited all
37
Life of Chamberlain
his old workmen who happened to be present to come on the plat-
form and shake hands with him. " It is your fault," he said, "that
I am no longer a screw-maker, and that I became a Cabinet Minister."
And this genial invitation, spoken in the kindly fashion that he
reserves for his friends, induced many of the old folks who had
served with him to come forward and heartily welcome him among
them. So hearty indeed was the demonstration that it was long
before he was able to put forth all he had to say. The gist of it we
already know. He dwelt always on his reform programme, and
expatiated on the great and unusual opportunity now afforded to
show how newly enfranchised opinion could shape itself for the
propagation of the gospel of progress throughout the land.
Here in his own country Mr. Chamberlain was looked on almost
as a demigod. Faith in him was unbounded. No matter the
multitudes of detractors without, within, there were ardent wor-
shippers the quality of whose admiration was stronger and more virile
than the quantity of ignorant and impotent opprobrium of which there
was never any lack. All his friends were generous in their approval
of the speeches that have won such applause in the North, especially
Dr. Dale, who wrote his hearty congratulations. Particularly admir-
able, he said, was the form apart from the substance of those speeches.
The form, including rhetorical elements, "reached a level which I think
you never touched before, and which I hope you will keep. It is
a great thing for a man to make an advance of this kind when he has
touched fifty" Other evidences of the pride taken by Birmingham
in their apostle were forthcoming from all sides, and it is a significant
fact, which should afford food for reflection to his enemies, that here
where the statesman was best known, most intimately criticised,
and most acutely watched, he was and is most esteemed and most
beloved.
But to return to the elections. These were now actively going
forward, while the public with bated breath watched the course of
events all over the country. There is no better mode of judging
the opinions and emotions of this momentous epoch than by com-
paring the views of rival journals and noting the marvellous tints
assumed by a single fact when viewed through the medium of party
spectacles.
At the end of November the Daily News wrote : —
" Though the results of the elections so far as they have gone are in our view
deeply to be regretted, as indicating an unsound and even dangerous political
mood in large classes, there is no need for despair. Hitherto the distinction
between town and country representation has coincided in the main with the
division of Liberals and Conservatives. The general election which is now
taking place was expected to reverse this state of things. It is doing so far
38
Elections of 1885
more thoroughly, we are sorry to say, with regard to the towns than even the
most sanguine Conservative or the most desponding Liberal anticipated. It
must do so with equal or with even greater completeness in the counties. It is
still possible for the Liberals by strenuous exertion to retrieve, and more than
retrieve, in the county constituencies the reverses that have befallen them in the
towns. Above all things, it is necessary that there should be the closest union
and the most cordial co-operation between the different sections of the party.
Whig and Radical must be as one before the common enemy. Mr. Gladstone
very properly refuses to be classed either among the moderate or the advanced
Liberals. It is enough for him to be a Liberal, without heightening or restrict-
ing addition. He leads the Liberal party as a whole, and it is his business
while informing it with his own views to give effect to its general spirit, which
those views contribute largely to shape and direct. The average convictions
and sentiments of the party can alone form the basis of common action. But
an average implies a higher and a lower between which it strikes the mean. It
is incompatible with a petrified identity of sentiment, with a dead monotony of
ideas. To ask the advanced Liberals to lay aside the spirit of enterprise and
innovation, or the moderate Liberals to abandon their temper of caution and
circumspection, is to require from one or the other of them sacrifices which it is
not only illegitimate to demand, but which it would be ruinous to the party to
effect. Lord Hartington is quite right — it is in harmony with his temperament
and with the traditions which he represents — to carry into political life the
spirit of the punning, or as it is called in heraldry the canting, motto of his
house, Cavendo tutus. It is not, perhaps, the most inspiring of sentiments, but
it is one of the most essential; and the greatest warriors from Fabius to
Washington, not to seek any later illustrations, have acted on it without
imputation upon their courage. On the other hand, the Hotspurs of conflict,
who from the nettle danger would pluck the flower safely, have their indispen-
sable place in politics not less than in warfare. ' Not like in like, but like in
difference ' is a principle as essential to party as it is to conjugal union. Every
organisation exists by the combination of dissimilar elements. A repetition of
the same ingredients forms simply a loose mechanical aggregate without vital
union. To drop metaphor, it is obvious that the attitude taken by such states-
men as Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke is essential to the association
of the advanced with the moderate section of the party. If Radicals did not
find spokesmen and representatives of their ideas in politicians of Ministerial
rank their severance from the party would be inevitable. In renouncing the
demand for immediate action upon their opinions they do not abandon the
right of advocating and challenging discussion on them. While acquiescing in
the principle that legislation must proceed on the average sentiments and
convictions of the party, they are bound to do their best towards forming a
higher level of average sentiment and conviction as the basis of future action.
We therefore hold that Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke, in frankly
speaking their minds on questions not yet ripe for legislation, are contributing,
not to the disruption, but to the closer union of the Liberal party. It is
precisely because the time for acting upon the proposals which Mr. Chamberlain
has made has not come that the discussion of them is opportune, in order that
a sound opinion may be formed when the decision has to be taken. His views
with respect to taxation, free education, and allotments of land have been
assailed as involving a violation of the principles of political economy. But
this is to confound the principles of political economy with the doctrines of a
39
Life of Chamberlain
particular school of political economists, in which there is much truth, but not
all the truth. Objectors do not see that sound principles may be limited by
principles equally sound, and that there is a danger in making any one set of
ideas absolute in the sphere of government. The doctrine of laissez faire, of
individualism, and of non-intervention, which some moderate Liberals seem
disposed to champion against Mr. Chamberlain, was erected into an absolute
principle by the elder political economists, of whom James Mill was the
principal."
The Standard at the same time dealt with the most important
phase of the Home Rule complication and the quandary of the
combatants : — •
" It is too early to speculate about the effect of the reverses on the fortunes
of the Whig- Radical combination. That England does not love coalitions is a
hackneyed truth ; but it receives fresh illustration in the events of the hour.
Had the ill-matched colleagues scrambled back to place, the unnatural league
would probably have been dissolved in the effort to frame a common plan of
action. Disaster is a bad conciliator ; and the Radicals will probably escape
from the recriminations of the angry Whigs by protesting that the time has come
for starting on their own account. But there is an immediate moral which
concerns us more than the remote consequences. It is one which we desire
every elector who respects the authority of Mr. Gladstone, and who has not yet
recorded his vote, to lay very seriously to heart. The recognised leader of both
sections of the Liberal party has taken extraordinary pains to define the supreme
duty of Englishmen at the present time. It is, in brief, to place a Ministry in
power, backed by a majority large enough to render it absolutely independent
of the Home Rule vote. It is a matter of only subordinate importance whether
the Government be Liberal or Conservative ; the paramount, the indispensable,
condition is that it shall be in a position, not on Irish questions only, but on all
questions, to rise superior to the menace or the solicitations of the Nationalists.
Mr. Gladstone, it is true, in applying this doctrine, insisted that the Liberal party
was the one that ought to be strengthened. It was an incentive to unity — a
persuasive to ardent Radicals and hesitating Whigs to cast away all party
ambitions and all scruples of conscience, and to devote themselves heart and
soul to piling up a huge party majority. But we feel sure that had Mr. Glad-
stone foreseen that the Tories would carry nearly everything before them in
England, he would have exhorted the Scotch friends to discharge the primary
duty of patriotism by siding with the strong. Circumstances may possibly
prevent Mr. Gladstone from resuming the lapsed thread of his Mid-lothian dis-
course, but all who believe that he spoke from real conviction, that his appeal to-
national as opposed to partisan sentiment was honest and sincere, will act in
the spirit of his emphatic and repeated entreaty. We need add no word of our
own to supplement the warnings of Liberal statesmanship. Convinced as we are,
on general grounds, that a reversion to the feebleness and fussiness of Liberal
rule would have been fatal to the best interests of the country, we hold as
strongly as Mr. Gladstone himself does, that no Government which lies, directly
or indirectly, at the mercy of the Home Rule faction in the House of Commons
can deal safely or effectually with the Irish menace. The Liberals have lost
their own game ; they will, according to Mr. Gladstone's own showing, place
the unity of the Empire in danger if they persist in trying to reduce the number
of points their opponents have still to score."
40
Elections of 1885
The Times took the opportunity to jump on Mr. Chamberlain,
and to ascribe to him all the topsy-turvydom of the situation : —
" A great deal of time and ingenuity is likely to be expended by partisan
apologists on the futile and unnecessary task of seeking far-fetched explana-
tions for a very simple sequence of cause and effect. The Opposition have to
thank Mr. Chamberlain, not only for their defeat at the polls, but for the
irreme'diable disruption and hopeless disorganisation of the Liberal party, with
its great historic past and its high claims to national gratitude. We have
freely recognised Mr. Chamberlain's ability, the development of his powers as a
speaker, the energy and persistence with which he pursues his ends, and the
sincerity of feeling which may be held to excuse his violence, his rancour, and
his disregard of scruples. But he has now accomplished something which,
even a few months ago, seemed to be far beyond his reach. His achievement
in destroying the Liberal party as an organised and united power in the State
may give him such immortality as was won by the man who burned down the
temple of Diana at Ephesus. Its nearest modern parallel is the ruin and the
shame which the Whigs brought upon themselves when, during the gallant
stand made by England against the military despotism of Napoleon, they threw
their weight on the anti-national side. Mr. Chamberlain, no doubt, remains,
for the time, without a rival as the leader of a new Radical party, distinct in its
aims and its methods from the old Liberalism, or even the old Radicalism, with
which his colleagues have been down to a very recent date exclusively iden-
tified. This sectional gain, however, has been purchased by the loss of the
political elements which have for the past half-century made the Liberals in the
truest sense the representatives of the sentiment and the judgment of the
nation. Lord Hartington and others keep their places in the front ranks of the
Opposition, partly from feelings of loyalty to the party cause or to Mr. Glad-
stone himself; partly, perhaps, from slowness of apprehension. But they
have hardly anybody behind them. The moderate Liberals, alarmed by Mr.
Chamberlain's attacks on property and on the Church, and by the weakness
of the resistance to those fatal tactics among the other party leaders, have
evidently recorded their votes for moderate candidates, who, owing to the
blundering activity and coarse dictation of the caucuses, are now to be found
mainly in the Conservative ranks. The defeats of Mr. Childers at Pontefract,
of Mr. Shaw-Lefevre at Reading, of Mr. George Russell in Fulham, and of Mr.
Holmes in Hackney, are scarcely more significant than Lord Randolph
Churchill's poll at Birmingham and Sir Charles Dilke's narrow escape in
Chelsea. If the close of Mr. Gladstone's long and illustrious political career is
marked by disasters, which in the natural course of events he will have no
chance of repairing, it is due, doubtless, in large measure to the discouraging
record of the last Administration, but still more to the effect on the public mind
of the Radical policy as enunciated by Mr. Chamberlain. But the Conserva-
tive party, and especially their leaders, have imperfectly learned the lessons
taught in the severe school of adversity If they imagine that the verdict of the
nation, recorded as a protest against the schemes of Radical politicians and
the pretence of Liberal unity, gives any sanction to a reversal of Liberal policy
or a return to the narrow ideas of a defunct Toryism. The formation of Lord
Salisbury's Government, deliberately excluding, as it did, the reactionary
elements, held out a promise which, it must be admitted, has not been broken,
that Conservatism would be henceforward progressive, and would frankly
41
Life of Chamberlain
accept the result of democratic change. As we have all along maintained,
there have been for a long time past only two rival policies before the country
— the Liberal policy, most ably vindicated by Mr. Goschen, but practically
accepted by Lord Salisbury and his party, and the Radical policy, preached
with revolutionary passion by Mr. Chamberlain, and forced by the caucuses
on candidates and constituencies alike. The event has shown already — what-
ever the future may have in store for us — that the English people, those of
them at least who have had any experience in the exercise of political rights,
are opposed to organic changes either in Church or State, though they are in
favour of steady and rational progress on the old lines, in harmony with the
traditions of true Liberalism, and with a view to the maintenance of the
greatness as well as the freedom of England."
A tremendous tirade this, but one which nerved Mr. Chamber-
lain to action, and kept all the gladiator faculties which he so
marvellously uses in emergency in first-rate trim. His energy,
together with the " revolutionary passion " complained of, set his
constituency humming with animation, and elsewhere he exerted
himself to awaken voters to a sense of their duty to turn the Tories
out. Early in December he went to Leicester, and spoke here,
there, and everywhere in support of Mr. Paget, Liberal candidate
for the Harborough Division.
So far, he said, the Liberals in the counties had justified the
expectations that had been formed.
The majority, on the whole, had been conclusive for the Liberal
party when the circumstances were taken into consideration under
which the new votes had been given.
Never, probably, in the political history of this country had such
great and such unworthy pressure been exercised upon the voters
as during the present election ; and he was glad to think that, on
the whole, the new electors had been proof against such form of
intimidation.
In face of the unsatisfactory results that had been recorded in
the boroughs, it was reported, by people who appeared to gloat over
it, that there was a great Conservative reaction. He, however, sus-
pected their jubilation might be premature, and went on to explain
how his party had had a most unusual and extraordinary combina-
tion against them, a combination he described as the five P's. These,
taken in the order of their importance, beginning with the least
important, signified Priests, Publicans, Parsons, Parnellites, and
Protectionists !
Never before had such a combination been in force, and he
doubted if history would ever repeat itself. Some classes had gone
over absolutely to the Conservative side, a fact which needed to
be recognised ; but others were temporarily turned aside by circum-
stances which could not again occur. "For instance" he said, the
42
Elections of 1885
well-known note of war in his voice, " the Irish vote has been against
us in all the boroughs, and has materially lessened our majority, and
has lost a great number of seats, especially in Lancashire. Mr.
Parnell makes it his boast that he has throttled the Liberal party.
Well, I think the probability is that before long he will have occasion
to regret that boast"
He went on to show that if it were true that Mr. Parnell had
throttled the Liberal party, he then had throttled the one great
machine for securing justice to Ireland ; for, apart from the Liberal
allegiance, it was not probable or possible for the remaining griev-
ances of Ireland to be effectually or satisfactorily settled.
"But I do not believe in the permanent alienation of the Irish
vote from the Liberal party, and therefore I say that that factor in
the combination against us is likely to change its position on another
occasion."
He went on to describe another most serious element in this
election. That was the prevalence of bad trade, which caused very
serious depression in a great number of districts.
People were dissatisfied with the existing order of things, and
were inclined, by way of a change, to apply any quack remedy that
might be proposed to them.
But, he thought, "after a short experience of the blessings of
Conservative rule," the influence of bad trade would result in an
opposite swing of the pendulum. The change then would be a
change for the better instead of a change for the worse ; and there-
fore, although there might be disappointment at the result in the
boroughs, he was not discouraged, and looked forward with hope
and confidence to the future.
" We shall in all probability have for a short time a weak
Government, 'existing on the sufferance of their opponents. If it
does no mischief, it may be permitted to live ; but if it begins to do
harm, I think we shall make a speedy end of it"
Mr. Chamberlain within his constituency worked like a Trojan.
As the days wore on excitement in Birmingham neared fever
pitch. In seven quarters thousands of eager hearers were con-
centrating their energies to push the whole seven candidates, in
spite of opposition, to a united victory. Birmingham was deter-
mined at all costs to retain her Liberal reputation, and retain it
she did.
Never was there so great a stir as on the last night after the
frantic turmoil of the day, after the terrific suspense of the counting
of the votes, and the final thrills as return after return was posted on
the Town Hall, it was found that the " favourites " — the whole seven of
43
Life of Chamberlain
them — had been elected, had vanquished with more or less brilliancy
the daring outsiders who had ventured to contest the day. Each
fresh triumph was greeted with roars of ecstasy : the multitude,
packed tightly in the square, cheered itself hoarse, and at the club
demonstrations so heart-stirring took place that some eyes even filled
with tears, showing how earnestly ladies and men had watched the
hard tussle, and how sincerely they rejoiced in the glorious cul-
mination. Each member in turn received an ovation, and Mr.
Chamberlain, whose majority was largest in the borough, and
whose popularity was, if possible, more remarkable than ever,
was overwhelmed by the fervent congratulations of his admirers
and well-wishers.
Outside, the work grew more and more exciting. As the
battle waxed hotter and hotter the Liberals, rampant, scoured the
country, working hard that not one of the still unpolled seats should
escape them. Among the most vigorous fighters was Sir William
Harcourt, who vehemently denounced the suspected alliance between
Conservatives and Nationalists, and in a speech at Lowestoft gave
vent to a remarkable epigram that has not been permitted to drop
into oblivion. Vociferously he condemned the Conservatives "to
stew in Parnellite juice till they stank in the nostrils of the people ! "
The pronouncement was about as unfortunate as that of the
Times when discussing the Conservative successes in the towns.
The great journal was all too ready to ignore the fact that, owing
to the alarm felt regarding Mr. Gladstone's oscillations in favour of
Home Rule, educated voters had ranged themselves on guard. Mis-
trusting the Liberal party as a whole, they voted for the Tories to
avoid being misunderstood, and what success the Liberals finally
attained was due, some said, entirely to Mr. Chamberlain ; his
" unauthorised programme," like Kellermann's unauthorised charge,
practically won the political Marengo, though the grand old Napoleon
got all the credit for the victory.
While the elections were drawing to a close, the Irish question
naturally rose into greater prominence than ever. People looked in
vain for something definite in the programme of the future. All
politicians were agreed that something must be done to amend
local government in the " distressful country." Yet the something
remained nebulous but for vague outlines of concessions flitting
through the speeches of the leaders of the parties.
Mr. Gladstone in his Mid-Lothian address had declared he was
willing to give Ireland the fullest local control compatible with the
maintenance of Imperial authority. Lord Hartington, following on
the same lines, had added a proviso that protection must be secured
to che loyal minority in Ireland ; and Mr. Chamberlain had stuck to
44
Elections of 1885
his scheme of National Councils, applicable to Scotland as well as
to Ireland, giving to each country control of its purely domestic
affairs and relieving the Imperial Parliament from the mass of
private legislation that pressed on it.
The Conservatives had done little more. Lord Salisbury at
Newport, -though he did not lean towards federation between
Great Britain and Ireland on the Austro- Hungarian model, had
not disposed of the idea as wholly inadmissible ; and the other
Conservative leaders had maintained a discreet and conciliatory
silence.
Naturally, Mr. Parnell and his followers were in a frenzy of ex-
citement, and the great leader grew hourly more confident of success.
One thing, he said, was certain, that the Irish question would be
the question of the session unless foreign complications should arise.
He told an interviewer that he did not believe in the possibility of a
coalition Government, and could see no converging lines between
any considerable section of the two English parties. If such a
combination were possible, however, it would not, as experience had
shown, last long. Coalition Ministries in England had always been
short-lived. He doubted whether the Conservatives could detach as
many as twelve men from the Liberal ranks for the purpose of a
coalition, and even if they could, the dozen or so detached would be,
he thought, a very poor substitute for the eighty-six Irish votes.
But the settlement of the Irish question, he expected, would come
from the Liberals.
Assuming that they were about equal to the Tories and Nation-
alists combined, it lay in his power, upon their acceptance of his
terms, to give them at once a majority of 170 votes, which, even
making allowance for considerable defections from their ranks, would
be amply sufficient to enable them to deal with the Irish question
and every other question ; whereas the Conservatives could not,
even with his aid, get more than a bare majority, and would be
always hampered by the action of their eighteen or nineteen
followers from Ireland.
While Mr. Parnell was arranging to throw the Tories over,
report said that they were busy inventing measures to conciliate
him. It was hinted in the Freeman 's Journal that Lord Randolph
Churchill had prepared a special local self-government bill for
Ireland — indeed, it seemed that everything that Mr. Chamberlain
thought wise and diplomatic to do for the Liberals, Lord Randolph
immediately attempted to outdo. The Tory bill was said to be dis-
approved by the Irish, for it followed lines laid down by Lord
Castletown in the Fortnightly Review. This article (December
1885) declared emphatically against the repeal of the Union, the
45
Life of Chamberlain
concession of a separate Parliament, the right of independent legis-
lation, and even against the establishment of a National Council.
All these schemes, it prophesied, would end in conflict with Great
Britain, and in the gravest disasters to Ireland — possibly to an Irish
civil war. The proposal was to abolish the Castle, to do away with
the Lord- Lieutenant, to erect the Irish Privy Council into a species
of Court of Appeal from the local bodies, and then to hand over the
local government of Ireland to county councils, dealing with public
works and general county administration, and to boards of guardians,
dealing with the poor law and education.
Some limited power of taxation was to be given, and
also some power of initiating and carrying local Acts for local
purposes, subject first to an appeal to the Irish Privy Council, and
finally to the Imperial Parliament. There were further details, but
none of them approached the sum of Mr. Parnell's demands ; and it
was patent that if this were the nature of the Tory bait the Nation-
alists would soon cease to nibble, and after a short and stormy
interval would turn for relief to any Liberal dose that might
alleviate them.
At last the interval of tremendous suspense came to an end — the
worst was known. The result was found to be exactly that which
Mr. Gladstone had deprecated. The Grand Old Man had not
been made independent of the Irish vote ; he had been defeated
by the combination of the five P's Mr. Chamberlain had spoken of.
The Dart caught up the idea and waxed witty over it : —
" Oh, why are the Radicals looking so glum ?
Has anything happened to ' rile ' 'em ?
Well, according to Joey, they've p's in their shoes,
And they haven't been able to ' bile ' 'em ! "
The Liberals had outstripped the Tories, it is true, but the figures
when read out presented a curious sum and also a problem : —
Liberals
Tories ......
Liberal majority over the Tories
The additional 86 were at the disposal of Mr. Parnell !
This remarkable man had, as he had prognosticated, become the
pivot of political mechanism. His wonderful personality, the mag-
netism rather than the force of his will, had served to gather round
him a tremendous following, antagonistic in detail but united in the
patriotic desire to carry Ireland on their shoulders to victory. His
army was described as composed of Parliamentarians in the centre,
46
Elections of 1885
with the Catholic Church for right wing and the Clan-na-Gael for
left. With this force he had engaged in an enveloping movement,
which swept the face of the Emerald Isle and carried all before it.
The Whigs were wiped out ; eighteen Conservatives only survived,
while eighty -five Nationalists, elected by enormous majorities,
flaunted the banner of Home Rule into Parliament. These carried
every seat in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, save those for the
University of Dublin. Ulster returned seventeen Nationalists and
only sixteen Tories.
Thus, counting Mr. T. P. O'Connor, who had been returned for
Liverpool (with eight Conservatives), Mr. Parnell found himself
with eighty-six Home Rulers to his hand. If the Liberals had 335
votes and the Conservatives had 249, his following of eighty-six
provided power in the future to make or to mar! He had but to
give the word, and he could either neutralise the Liberal majority
by joining the Tories, or back the Liberals and return Mr. Gladstone
to power with a working majority of 172. Naturally, such a man
was the hero of the hour ; all eyes were turned towards him. How
would he act ?
Then came the corollary : How would Lord Salisbury act ? How
would Mr. Gladstone act ? and finally, How would Mr. Chamber-
lain act ?
Facing each other were two strong men— on either side were
the leaders of parties.
To jump better at some sort of conclusion, it is necessary
slightly to retrace our steps.
Early in December Mr. Gladstone had communicated to a lead-
ing Liberal that he was in favour of establishing a Parliament in
Ireland ; but beyond stating the fact that Home Rule was prac-
tically conceded, he admitted nothing.
The party naturally began to bubble with excitement and
curiosity.
"How about Hartington?" said some. "Has he been con-
sulted ? " asked others.
It was gathered that only Lord Spencer and Mr. Robert Hamil-
ton (Irish Under-Secretary) had been sounded, and were in favour
of the scheme.
"Still," argued the cautious ones, "if Lord Hartington stands
aside, Mr. Gladstone will be beaten."
Another suggested that Mr. Morley was at that time at
Highbury propounding a scheme to Mr. Chamberlain. It was
uncertain whether Mr. Chamberlain or Mr. Morley might not
come to some mutual understanding which would set Ireland on
her feet. Later it was discovered the pair were not in accord —
47
Life of Chamberlain
that the prospects of Ireland were swaying still with the pendulum
of excited opinion.
Mr. Morley was informed how Mr. Gladstone now viewed the
matter, and was shown the Chief's letter. On being assured that
it was genuine, he cried, " Then, if this be true, I will break with
Chamberlain and join Mr. Gladstone."
The news was promptly swept into the Irish quarter, and there
were cheers on hearing that " Morley is all right." :
If Mr. Morley was all right, Mr. Chamberlain was all wrong.
If Mr. Chamberlain was all right, then Mr. Morley was all wrong.
The problem had to be proved by time and by the verdict of the
people.
At this critical period a remarkable thing happened. The
Standard on. the i/th of December announced that Mr. Gladstone
was prepared to deal with the question of Home Rule on the
following lines : —
The unity of the Empire, the authority of the Crown, and the
supremacy of the Imperial Parliament were to be assured.
An Irish Parliament was to be created, and to be entrusted with
administrative and legislative affairs.
There was to be security for the representation of minorities,
and for the partition of Imperial charges. A certain number of
Irish members were to be nominated by the Crown.
As may be imagined, the announcement created a tremendous
stir ; warnings of a coming earthquake could scarcely have caused
a greater panic among London politicians. Nor was there much
consolation to be found in the telegram which was instantly for-
warded by Mr. Gladstone to the Central News.
He declared : " The statement is not an accurate representation
of my views, but is, I presume, a speculation on them. It is not
published with my knowledge or authority, nor is any other beyond
my own public declarations." The excitement in the provinces
grew intense, and the clash of press opinions resounded through the
length and breadth of the land. The sudden conversion of Mr.
Gladstone to Home Rule made the subject of the hour in Tory
quarters. The Daily News seemed to favour the turn of the tide ;
the Spectator expressed the opinion that if we were not prepared for
separation, any great step in the direction of Home Rule would be
a greater mistake than passive resistance to Mr. Parnell, even should
he turn out Government after Government.
While all this was going forward, the Liberals of Birmingham
celebrated their electoral success at a banquet given on the 1 7th of
December to the seven members of the Birmingham Reform Club.
1 See " Life of Charles Stewart Parnell. " R. Barry O'Brien.
48
MR. AND MRS. CHAMBERLAIN
ruuto r. MACFADYA.N, XKWCASTLR.ON-TVNB.
Elections of 1885
Dr. Dale presided, and the toast, "The Liberal Seven," was re-
sponded to by Mr. Chamberlain. In a brilliant speech he touched
on the leading excitement, and summed up his independent position
and his relation to the Liberal party.
He began by a reference to the Times newspaper, which had
been confidently anticipating the defeat of the Liberal party, and had
expressed a kind of qualified rejoicing in the fact that their majority
had at least been diminished. He pointed out that although, of
course, the Times could not be expected to condescend to details,
there was little cause for regret. The details were these : —
"In 1880 the Liberal vote in Birmingham was 32,000. If you add to that
one-ninth for the increase in the electorate, you will get 35,500 as the propor-
tionate vote at the present time ; from that you have to deduct 3000 Irish voters
who went bodily over to the enemy under circumstances upon which I need not
at this moment dilate. That leaves 32,500 as the proportionate genuine
English vote which we had to secure in order to maintain our position. We
actually polled 33,500, an increase of more than loco over the number that we
polled in 1880, at the high flood of Liberal success and Liberal enthusiasm. It
is quite true that our opponents increased their poll in even greater proportion.
Making these allowances of which I have spoken, they polled 3000 more than
they did five years ago. But that 3000 is not taken from the Liberal army. It
came from the class which ordinarily is apathetic and indifferent at times of
elections, and which on this occasion was swept into the Tory net by the
fallacious and plausible promises of the Fair Trade candidates, and by the
frantic exertions of the publicans and the parsons, who combined all the
strength of their respective organisations in order to defeat the popular cause,
and who failed in their effort, as they deserved to fail."
He saw no reason to doubt they would revert to the normal
Liberal majority which characterised the borough of Birmingham.
A very strange and unprecedented condition of affairs would shortly
be discovered at Westminster. The Liberal party in all its sections
would find itself constituting almost exactly one-half of the House of
Commons. It would be in a great majority in England, in an over-
whelming majority in Scotland and in Wales, and if it remained
united and faithful to its leader, Lord Salisbury would hold office
without any authority from the majority of the British nation, but by
the grace of Mr. Parnell and by the madness of the Irish National
party.
" How shall I describe the situation ? " he asked. " I will not attempt
it in my own words, but / will call your attention to some remarks which
were made a few years ago at Portsmouth by Lord Randolph Churchill,
and the application of which I will leave you to make. He said : ' The
destiny of the country is at the present time in the hands of a gang of
political desperadoes, most of whom are aliens in race and religion. Mr.
Parnell and his party represent the principles of the Land League. It is
through them that the Government is enabled to remain in office.1 I have never
VOL. II. 49 D
Life of Chamberlain
thought it necessary to apply language of that kind to Mr. Parnell or to his
followers. I do not adopt it now, but I think it is expedient to remind Lord
Randolph Churchill that Lord Salisbury is Prime Minister, and that he must
owe his office and his position to the goodwill of those whom a short while ago
he described as ' political desperadoes.' In face of a position such as this, it
becomes of interest and importance to consider how far the various sections of
the Liberal party are united in object and in aim, how far each of them may
count upon the loyalty and the consideration of the other. Now, if I were to
assume that the spirit in which this question has recently been discussed by
some of the organs of moderate Liberalism really represented the attitude and
intentions of that section of the party, I should despair for the solid co-opera-
tion which can alone form the foundation of party union."
He proceeded to describe how he had read, a short time ago, in a
journal which professed Liberal opinions, that it was one compensa-
tion for the result of the borough elections that the " Chamberlain
gang" had been signally discomfited. The same idea in more
becoming language had dictated the more recent articles in the
Scotsman, the Leeds Mercury, and the London Spectator — all of
them journals conducted with the greatest ability, but without a
spark of popular sympathy. Their views, he believed, were not
shared by the responsible representatives of moderate Liberalism.
They betrayed an incomprehensible ignorance of the results of the
recent election, and a temper which, if it were really representative,
would make united action impossible. The men, the statesmen,
who might really claim authority to speak for their section of the
party, were not likely to be deceived. These knew the' true lesson
of the recent polls, and they were not willing to exaggerate differ-
ences, or to force a split that would break the Liberal party into
pieces, and would firmly establish, for some time at all events, in
the seat of Government their Tory opponents. He then proceeded
to estimate the forces which in a few weeks' time would be ranged
under Mr. Gladstone's banner. The eight members from Birming-
ham and Aston would speak with a single voice the opinions and
the aspirations of a great Radical community, and the result so
satisfactory in Birmingham was still more so in the district of which
Birmingham is the centre. In the six Midland counties which
looked to Birmingham in some sort as their metropolis, were re-
turned forty-three Liberals to twelve Tories — a result which could
hardly be beaten anywhere out of Scotland.
"Where," he asked, "is the sign of the unpopularity of advanced
opinions over which the Scotsman has been gloating, and the London
Spectator has been musing and moralising according to its wont ? Let us
look farther afield — let us look at London. The elections in London have
been unsatisfactory and discouraging. They are not creditable to London
Liberalism. But then you have to recollect that London has only recently
50
Elections of 1885
been placed in possession of its full political privileges, and that it is a
huge invertebrate agglomeration. It has never enjoyed the advantage or
practised the habit of effective combination. I do not hesitate to say that in
London fifteen seats at least were lost owing to the foolish divisions provoked
by personal ambition and petty vanity, and owing to the utter lack of anything
like a popular representative organisation. But even in London we have
nothing to be discouraged about. Of its twenty-three Liberal members, I am
assured there is not one who does not profess to belong to what is called the
advanced section. But it is a curious coincidence that my brother, who is, I
suppose, a member of the 'Chamberlain gang/ was returned by the largest
majority that was given to any Liberal in the metropolis. Why, gentlemen, it is
perfect folly to ignore the fact that in London, at all events, moderate Liberal-
ism has no attractions for the constituency, and that the fight there will be in
the future, as it has been in these elections, between Radicals and Tories."
And now he reminded his hearers that in many of the agricultural
districts — in such counties as Wiltshire, Suffolk, Norfolk, and other
places — the battle had been fought and won by the advanced pro-
gramme. It had saved the Liberal party from disaster, and, under
these circumstances, it was inexpedient and ungrateful to ignore the
self-evident fact. The great majority of Liberal members had
already committed themselves to the principle of free education ; the
majority of the county Liberals had pledged themselves to legislation
which should have for its object to give facilities to the thrifty and
industrious labourer, to obtain some more direct and independent
interest in the soil that he cultivates ; and twelve labour candidates
had been returned, including Mr. Joseph Arch, who had defeated
and badly beaten a member of one of the great territorial families in
the country. Then there were four or five members who had been
elected as especially representing the Crofters of Scotland, than
whom there was not in the whole population a class more deserving
of sympathy and support. The lesson of this election was, he
insisted, that wherever Liberalism had been robust and thorough,
and determined and definite in its aim, it had held its own against
all the forces that had been brought against it ; and the chief victories
of the Tories had been in districts like the county of Lancashire and
the metropolitan counties, which were the chosen home of moderate
Liberalism, and where the managers shared the Tory fears concern-
ing the intentions and the policy of what is sometimes described as
the " Birmingham School." In the new Parliament the Radical
party would be more numerous, more resolute, and more powerful
than it had ever been in any previous House of Commons ; and he
ventured to say it would not allow this great business of politics to
be degraded into a barren strife for place and power. It would not
suffer it to be a miserable contention between tweedledum and
tweedledee. The Radical party were honest by conviction ; they
51
Life of Chamberlain
were the men in earnest. They would have in the future a great
influence and a great importance in the councils and the policy of
the Liberal party. But their opinion and wishes would not be
thrust at all hazards upon unwilling recipients ; there would be
mutual concession, and the policy of the Liberal party ought to be
governed by the average opinion of its members.
"The fastest walkers," he said, "are not the men to fix the pace of the
army; but neither is the main body to be kept back perpetually by a few
stragglers who are always half inclined to join the enemy."
He then proceeded to a discussion of the future.
"We don't know what are the intentions of the Government, if they
have any. We don't know what are the plans of Mr. Parnell, and, above
all, we don't know what are the wishes and intentions of Mr. Gladstone.
I imagine, however, that there will be no great eagerness on the part of
the Liberal party to assume office, or to relieve the Tories from the difficulty
of the situation which the}' have made for themselves by their Irish alliance.
On the other hand, their condition is so precarious, that it will be very
difficult for them to keep on their legs. A change in the policy of Mr.
Parnell, a personal caprice on the part of the Irish leader, might at any
moment put them in a minority of 170; and it would be impossible, even
if it were desirable, to save them from a crushing defeat. Well, would it
be desirable ? There is a great deal to be said on either side of the question.
There are two reasons which strike me at once, and which would make me
regret anything in the nature of a premature catastrophe. The first is, the
natural feeling that I should like to see this Government drink to the dregs the
cup of humiliation which they have filled for themselves. They have purchased
office by a discreditable surrender of all their principles, and I should be glad
to see them face to face with the difficulties of the situation. And perhaps a
still stronger reason is, that at the present moment I cannot see a sufficient
certainty that their place could be taken by a strong Liberal Government, able
to deal with the claims of legislation ; and I should imagine you would agree
with me that a weak Tory Government, resting on the sufferance of its oppo-
nents, is for us a much better thing than a weak Liberal Government existing
only with the support of the Tories. But then, on the other hand, there are
also strong motives for desiring to get rid of this administration, born of shame-
less surrender of its convictions, and only kept alive by their sacrifice, or by
the scornful forbearance of its natural opponents. . . ."
He then jibed at the Tories and the Government mouthpiece,
Lord Randolph Churchill, and at their rumoured programme : A
reform in the procedure of the House of Commons, an amendment
in the law of registration, an improvement in the registration of titles,
a cheapening of land transfers, and a popular democratic and repre-
sentative local government, extended to the three kingdoms.
"What," he cried, "can be a more shameful instance of political immo-
rality than this, that these people who have bought themselves into office
by bidding for Parnellite support, should strive to maintain their position by
52
Elections of 1885
cribbing from the Liberal leader every single plank in his platform ? If we are
to have Mr. Gladstone's programme, don't you think we had better have Mr.
Gladstone with it ? "
He criticised the advisers of the Crown, who seldom recognised
provincial merit, for having thought it desirable to recognise in a
particular way the professional eminence of the Medical School of
Birmingham. The school had existed for many years, and had an
honourable reputation, and many of its members have been known
far and wide beyond the confines of the borough ; some having had
even an European renown. If an honour had been conferred upon
them, all would have rejoiced. But the favour of the Crown had
been bestowed on the chairman of a ward committee which had
endeavoured unsuccessfully to promote the election of Lord
Randolph Churchill. For these reasons, and for others, he
imagined all would be glad to turn out the Tory Government at
the earliest possible moment that it could be replaced with a Liberal
Government with a large majority at its back.
" / hope we are also agreed that we should not like a Liberal Government to
hold office at the mercy of Mr. Parnell, or to lend itself to its avowed intention and
declared policy to turn out one Government after another in order to make all
Governments ridiculous or impossible. If there is to be co-operation between the
Liberal party and the Irish party, it must^be founded on common interests, and be
publicly avowed and openly defended. I have hoped — I have expressed publicly
the desire — that the two democracies, the English and the Irish, moved by
common aspiration and sympathetic appreciation, should march shoulder to
shoulder along the paths of political freedom and progress. But Mr. Parnell by
his recent action has done much to delay such a result— perhaps even to make it
impossible. He has alienated and embittered all sections of the Liberal party
by the cynical indifference by which he has thrown the whole weight of the
Irish vote in favour of the party which has for all time resisted and opposed
every effort to redress the grievances of his country, and against the party to
which Irishmen owe every scrap of liberty which they possess."
He then pointed out that we were face to face with a very
remarkable demonstration of the Irish people, and that national
questions of grave importance must not be prejudiced by personal
considerations. The majority of the people were earnestly in favour
of a change in the administration of their Government, and of some
system which would give to them a larger control of their domestic
affairs. The Liberals, by their public declarations and principles,
were pledged to acknowledge the substantial justice of the claim.
The newspapers gave an account of negotiations which are reported
to have been proceeding between the leaders of the Liberal party in
England and Mr. Parnell. In some of these papers it had been
stated that he himself was a party to these negotiations, and that he
approved of a scheme which it was alleged had been agreed upon.
53
Life of Chamberlain
" As far as I am personally concerned," he declared, " there is not a word of
truth in that statement. I have had no part in any negotiations. I have
expressed no approval of any scheme, and I think it very likely that the rumours
which affect other prominent members of the Liberal party may be equally
groundless. As to Mr. Gladstone, we know what his opinion is from his
public utterances. He has said again and again that the first duty of Liberal
statesmen is to maintain the integrity of the Empire and the supremacy of the
Crown ; but that, subject to that, he was prepared to give the largest possible
measure of local government that could be conceived or proposed."
Mr. Chamberlain then announced that he entirely agreed with
those principles, and had so much faith in the experience and the
patriotism of Mr. Gladstone, that he could not doubt that if his
leader should ever see his way to propose any scheme of arrange-
ment, he would be able conscientiously to give it his humble support.
"But," he continued, "it is right — it is due to the Irish people to say,
that all sections of the Liberal party, Radicals as well as Whigs, are deter-
mined that the integrity of the Empire shall be a reality, and not an empty
phrase. To preserve the Union, the Northern States of America poured out
their blood and their treasure like water, and fought and won the contest of
our time ; and if Englishmen still possess the courage and the stubborn deter-
mination which were the ancient characteristics of the race, and which were so
conspicuous in the great American contest, we shall allow no temptation and
no threat to check our resolution to maintain unimpaired the effective union of
the three kingdoms that owe allegiance to the present Sovereign. Speaking
personally, I would venture to say that the time has hardly arrived when the
Liberal party can interpose usefully or with advantage to settle this great
question. Mr. Parnell has appealed to the Tories. Let him settle accounts
with his new friends. Let him test their sincerity and goodwill. Let him test
their good faith and their tardy generosity, and if he finds that he has been
deceived — if he finds that his aid and support have been accepted and used, and
that the consideration for them is now withheld, then perhaps he will approach
the Liberal party in a spirit of reason and conciliation. In that case, it will be
our duty to examine with care and impartiality any proposal he may bring on
behalf of the Irish people, who have recently given him so remarkable a proof
of their confidence, and if his proposals accord with the principles that Mr.
Gladstone has laid down, it may yet be that there is still reserved for our
leader the crowning glory of his public life — that he may bring back peace and
prosperity to Ireland, and reconcile the races which are now united in these
islands under the British Crown. . . ."
Lord Hartington on the 2oth of December publicly denied that
proposals for satisfying the demands of the Parnellites had ever
reached him, and said that he saw no reason to depart in any
degree from his previous declarations. Mr. Forster, who was still
ill, wrote from Torquay indorsing these opinions. Mr. John Morley,
though deeply in sympathy with the " wild Irishman," expressed at
Newcastle on the 2ist of December his fears for the future. "It
will stir deep passions, it will perhaps destroy a great party. But
54
Elections of 1885
whatever may be the outcome, I say it is the duty of every one of us
Liberals to view the question as calmly and steadfastly as he can,
feeling that he is discharging as urgent a duty as has been imposed
upon English citizens since the civil wars of the seventeenth
century."
Mr. Campbell-Bannerman was in favour of dealing with the
difficulty by conference between the leaders of the two parties and
Mr. Parnell. And Mr. Gladstone, inspired by much the same idea,
endeavoured to lure the Prime Minister into correspondence for the
purpose of settling the Irish problem independently of party politics.
Any arrangement for the sweeping from the earth of the Irish
members would at that time have been by all most gratefully
received. Mr. Gladstone, who was between the devil and the
deep sea, considered his party's position " a bed of roses compared
with that of the Government." He was pelted with telegrams of
query, remonstrance, argument, and abuse till he scarcely knew
whether he stood on head or heels, and sincerely hoped for support
from within or without in his uncomfortable dilemma. On the 2Oth
of December he wrote to Mr. Balfour, referring to a conversation
they had had at the house of a mutual friend : —
" I wish under the very peculiar circumstances of the case (the urgency of
it) to go a step farther, and say that I think it would be a public calamity if
this great subject should fall into the lines of party conflict. I am sure the
question can only be dealt with by a Government, and I desire, specially on
grounds of public policy, that it should be dealt with by the present Govern-
ment. If, therefore, they bring in a proposal for settling the whole question
of the future government of Ireland, my desire will be, reserving of course
necessary freedom, to treat it in the same spirit in which I have endeavoured
to proceed with respect to Afghanistan and in respect of the Balkan peninsula."
•Mr. Balfour in reply assured Mr. Gladstone that it was the
desire of the leaders of the Opposition to treat the Irish question
as a national and not a party one, though he cautiously expressed
the fear "that under our existing Parliamentary system this will not
prove so easy when we are dealing with an integral portion of the
United Kingdom as it proved when we were connected with the
remote regions of Roumelia and Afghanistan." Mr. Balfour framed
his reply in as enigmatic terms as his correspondent. Save for the
announcements in the Standard, he had no reason to decide whether
Mr. Gladstone intended to support the policy of coercion as well as
a policy of Home Rule, and the Conservative leaders had no object
to serve in meeting Mr. Gladstone's proposals. Apart from the
section that had got mixed up with Lord Carnarvon's and Lord
Randolph Churchill's overtures to Mr. Parnell, the Tories were in
favour of "a strong and resolute Government for Ireland."
55
Life of Chamberlain
On the 23rd December Mr. Gladstone again wrote, that " while
expressing a desire that the Government should act, I am not myself
acting." So long, he said, as he entertained a hope that the Govern-
ment would take their decision, he should decline all communication
of his own views beyond the circle of private confidence, and only
allow to be fully known his great anxiety that the Government should
decide and act in this matter.
Lord Salisbury, who appreciated the sentiment of the epistle,
found that it suggested "a communication of the views of the
Government, which at this stage would be at variance with usage."
So Mr. Balfour replied that as Parliament would meet for business
before the usual time it was thought better to avoid a departure
from the ordinary practice, which might be misunderstood. Mr.
Gladstone on the 5th of January declared that if his note had con-
veyed any suggestion in respect to a communication of ministerial
intentions, it was entirely opposed to his intention.
Thus discreetly ended a futile palaver between diplomatic foxes !
Meanwhile round and about the ferment continued, voices from
every quarter being raised to back up or knock down the man who
should dare to say the decisive word.
Mr. Lecky the historian gave his opinion plump and plain. The
essential fact of the question was that the present Irish party was
"animated by two leading ideas — a desire to plunder the whole
landed property of the country, and the inveterate hatred of the
English connection in any form." The Fortnightly Review (attri-
buted to Mr. Chamberlain) criticised the premature disclosures of
Mr. Gladstone, and made three suggestions — first, that the land ques-
tion should be settled in concert with the Parnellites on a possible
scheme suggested by Mr. Giffen in the Statist ; second, that failing the
agreement of Mr. Parnell, Mr. Healy should be invited to assume
office ; and third, that Home Rule should stand over sine die — or, in
other words, till more urgent questions had been decided.
Mr. John Morley on the 7th of January strenuously strove to
gather the Liberal party together, and declared that Liberalism would
be unworthy of " its great traditions and muscular vigour in dealing
with difficult questions if it had nothing to say when a crisis such as
this arose, requiring all the resources of constructive statesmanship
to deal with it, and making such demands on our national fortitude
and enterprise." A measure of land purchase he deemed absolutely
necessary, but argued that order in Ireland and power in the House
could best be obtained by the translation of the Irish members
to their own field "of action. In a large Irish Parliament, with im-
portant duties and large sense of responsibility, lay the future welfare
of the country.
56
Elections of 1885
Lord Salisbury on his part gave confidence to a deputation of
Ulster loyalists, by declaring his recognition of the responsibilities
of the Government in regard to them ; but Mr. Gladstone excused
himself from receiving the deputation, on the ground that such a
course might exhibit him as competitor with the Government in the
field of labour and responsibility which at present was exclusively
their own, " and would tend to accredit a statement, alike mischievous
and groundless, which is now actively promulgated from quarters
and with motives that I shall not attempt to describe, to the effect
that I have signified an intention to make or adopt proposals with
reference to Irish legislation."
So far, therefore, Mr. Gladstone remained outside the margin ;
but he was aware that Mr. Parnell kept open the hand of invita-
tion, and that the Irish leader was beginning to despair now the
elections were over of help from the Tories. These had found that
the experiment of abandoning coercion had been a failure, and there
was a hint that the Cabinet was divided between coercionists and
anti-coercionists.
The hint seemed to be confirmed by the development of events.
Soon after the meeting of Parliament on the i2th of January 1886,
Lord Carnarvon, the Viceroy, and Sir William Hart-Dyke, the
Chief Secretary for Ireland, resigned. The appointment of the
last was hurriedly filled by Mr. W. H. Smith, who, on looking
into matters in the " distressful country," found that in view of the
recrudescence of boycotting, the executive must ask for extended
powers.
The resignation of Lord Carnarvon gave rise to considerable
gossip, but the late Viceroy, by way of explanation, declared that
he had always had the intention of resigning after a few months of
office. The public scarcely understood this excuse, but the in-
ference was, that his had been a mere "stop-gap" service in a
"stop-gap" Government. Sympathisers with the Irish formed their
V • u
own conclusions however.
On the 2ist of January it was found that in the Royal Speech
was contained a definite declaration against Home Rule. " I am
resolutely opposed to any disturbance of that fundamental law
(legislative union), and in resisting it I am convinced that I am
heartily supported by my Parliament and my people." Later the
Sovereign said : "If, as my information leads me to apprehend, the
existing provisions of the law should prove to be inadequate to cope
with these growing evils, I look with confidence to your willingness
to invest my Governments with all necessary powers."
A few days later (on the 26th) things approached boiling point.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the coming introduc-
57
Life of Chamberlain
tion of a Coercion Bill, to be followed by a bill for extending the
Land Purchase Act of the foregone session. Naturally it became
patent that now on the very first opportunity Lord Salisbury's
Government would be thrown out by the united vote of Nationalists
and Liberals.
The opportunity was not slow to arise. An amendment of the
Address was proposed by Mr. Jesse Collings : " That this House
regrets that no measures are announced by Her Majesty for the
relief of the agricultural classes, especially for affording facilities to the
labourers and others in the smaller districts to obtain allotments and
small holdings on equitable terms as to rent and security of tenure."
Ministers endeavoured to postpone a division — a division which
they knew would be fatal, till at least their Irish policy was settled
and their opponents forced into a revelation of their programme.
They failed. An animated debate brought to the front the question
of the " unauthorised programme " that Mr. Gladstone in his mani-
festo had been pleased to ignore.
The Chief now discovered occult virtues in the scheme for bene-
fiting the working-classes ; it became the vehicle of carrying him to
power, and through no direct effort of his own.
Mr. Chamberlain as it were took the stage ; once more his
cherished dream was propounded, and he fought with fervid fluency
for his many F's. In course of the debate he said : "We support a
hostile amendment ; in the first place, because the condition and
claims of the agricultural labourers constitute one of the great
questions raised at the last election, and because it is our bounden
duty to uphold those claims in Parliament ; and, in the second place,
because we have no confidence that the Government will either do
justice to the agricultural labourers or to any other questions they
may have to deal with."
Mr. Collings' amendment was carried by 331 votes against 252,
and the Government were defeated.
The remarkable feature of the defeat lay not in Mr. Collings'
" three acres and a cow " policy, but in the new revolution of the
Irish question that that policy had permitted to take shape. While
the Irish now joined the Liberals for the purpose — the sole purpose
— of ousting the Tories who had countenanced Mr. W. H. Smith's
innovations, Lord Hartington, Mr. Goschen, Sir Henry James,
Lord Ebrington, Mr. Courtney, Sir John Lubbock, and others
voted against their party in fear of assisting to power a leader who
was more or less pledged to Home Rule. These at once put their
foot down ; others, Mr. Bright, Mr. C. P. Villiers, Mr. Leatham,
Sir Julian Goldsmid, merely made themselves scarce on the
critical occasion.
58
Elections of 1885
It has been argued that Mr. Chamberlain was entirely responsible
for having brought the Home Rule Administration into power.
Doubtless Mr. Collings acted with the approval of his friend, but
did Mr. Chamberlain indeed believe that his revered chief would, in
spite of his assertions to the contrary, cave in to Mr. Parnell in
the way he did ? It will be seen from the letter addressed a few
days later accepting office that he had not conceived it possible
that the change of Government would mean the introduction of the
form of Home Rule he had deprecated, and that he had certainly no
intention of returning to office to be made the instrument of the Irish
in committing the country to the grave danger that threatened it
59
CHAPTER II
I.— FIRST HOME RULE ADMINISTRATION COMES INTO POWER
ON the 28th of January Lord Salisbury tendered his
resignation to the Queen, and Mr. Gladstone pro-
ceeded to London. His new Cabinet was thus con-
stituted : Mr. Gladstone (First Lord of the Treasury
and Lord Privy Seal) ; Lord Herschell (Lord
Chancellor) ; Lord Spencer (Lord President) ; Sir William V.
Harcourt (Chancellor of the Exchequer) ; Mr. Childers (Home
Secretary) ; Lord Rosebery (Foreign Secretary) ; Lord Granville
(Secretary for the Colonies) ; Mr. Campbell- Bannerman (Secre-
tary for War) ; Lord Kimberley (Secretary for India) ; Mr. George
Trevelyan (Secretary for Scotland) ; Lord Ripon (First Lord of
the Admiralty) ; Mr. John Morley (Chief Secretary for Ireland) ;
Mr. Mundella (President of the Board of Trade) ; and Mr.
Chamberlain (President of the Local Government Board).
Ministers outside the Cabinet were Lord Aberdeen (Viceroy of
Ireland); Lord Wolverton (Postmaster-General); Sir Lyon Play-
fair (Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education) ;
Mr. Heneage (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) ; Mr. John
Mellor (Judge Advocate-General) ; Sir Charles Russell (Attorney •
General) ; and Sir Horace Davey (Solicitor-General). The Under-
secretaries were Mr. Broadhurst (Home Office) ; Mr. Bryce
(Foreign Office) ; Mr. Osborne Morgan (Colonial Office) ; Sir N.
Kay Shuttleworth (India Office) ; Lord Sandhurst (War Office) ;
Mr. Acland (Board of Trade) ; and Mr. Jesse Collings (Local
Government Board).
Members of the party who disassociated themselves from the
new phase of affairs and refused or were not asked to take office
were — Lord Hartington, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Forster, Sir Henry
James (Lord James of Hereford), Mr. Courtney, Lord Selborne,
Lord Derby, and Lord Northbrook. To these were subsequently
joined two from the Cabinet, Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan,
who only accepted office on certain conditions ; and two from outside
it, Mr. Jesse Collings and Mr. Heneage (Lord Heneage).
Lord Hartington and other Liberals disapproving Mr. Glad-
stone's altered attitude towards Ireland had broken away for good,
but Mr. Chamberlain still struggled to follow his chief. He did so,
60
First Home Rule Administration
however, with misgiving. His heart was set on his plan of domestic
reform, so much so that, though offered the Admiralty, he declined
the post as being unsuited to one whose social aims had but now
been inviting the sympathy of the country. He had, as yet, no
Imperial passion, and though he had been chaffingly called a Jingo
by Mr. Bright, he was so merely by comparison with the Manchester
school of politicians, the peace-at-any-price party. He preferred an
office where his municipal capabilities would take a national com-
plexion, where his seedling hopes might find field for fruition ; but
whatever the office he should hold he would accept it only on certain
conditions. Those conditions unhappily threatened to make him
diametrically opposed to Mr. Gladstone, who was the joy of his
Radical group, and to fling him into consort with the fossil Whigs,
whose effete principles he had systematically derided. The quan-
dary was harassing in the extreme ; but he thought by expressing
himself definitely and thereupon joining his old chief, his weight in
the Cabinet might be sufficient to direct the trend of affairs towards
a more satisfactory issue.
It was no easy matter to sever himself in haste from the
traditions of his life, from all hopes of reform, from the ambitions
of an honoured party, and the thousand-and-one associations that
for nigh on twenty years had bound him to the great figure whom
he had never ceased to revere. He clung to the belief that all was
not yet lost, that some form of Home Rule could be devised that
would satisfy his conscience and also the earlier claims of Mr.
Parnell, and that the "thinly veiled scheme of separation," as he
had styled it, might not only be veiled, but shrouded to hide such
scars as might be left by concessions on either side.
But his hope of influencing the " Grand Old Man " was fallacious.
It must be remembered that at the elbow of Mr. Gladstone was
now Mr. John Morley, whose appointment to the post of Irish
Secretary was at once construed by the Parnellites into a move in
the direction of concession. Mr. Morley during the electoral
campaign had pronounced strongly in favour of some form of govern-
ment for Ireland on the colonial model, had proposed the production
of measures dealing with the land, and the exclusion of Irish
members. Another active member in forming the new Ministry
was Sir William Harcourt, whose recent harangue at Lowestoft
did not prevent him from offering "indefatigable and effective
help" in arranging the stew-pan for the Parnellite juice that
was to " stink in the nostrils of the people." The only thing
to account for the activity for which Mr. Gladstone cordially
thanked him, is the presumption that since devotion to leaders has
ever demanded martyrdom, Sir William Harcourt's fealty to the
61
Life of Chamberlain
great chief required of him the aromatic liquefaction he had so
graphically described.
Mr. Chamberlain was not prepared to enter the stew-pan.
In a letter written to Mr. Gladstone on the 3oth January, two
days after the resignation of Lord Salisbury, he most emphatically
gave his opinions on the subject of Ireland, and claimed the right to
retain " unlimited liberty of judgment and rejection on any scheme "
that might ultimately be proposed.
He wrote : —
"40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W.,
"January 30, 1 886.
" MY DEAR MR. GLADSTONE, — I have availed myseif of the opportunity
you have kindly afforded me to consider further your offer of a seat in your
Government.
. "I recognise the justice of your view that the question of Ireland is para-
I mount to all others, and must first engage your attention. The statement of
\ your intention to examine whether it is practicable to comply with the wishes
of the Irish people, as testified by the return of eighty-five representatives of
the Nationalist party, does not go beyond your previous public declarations,
while the conditions which you attach to the possibility of such compliance
seem to me adequate, and are also in accordance with your repeated public
utterances.
" But I have already thought it due to you to say that, according to my
present judgment, it will not be found possible to reconcile these conditions
with the establishment of a national legislative body sitting in Dublin, and I
have explained my own preference for an^aftempLJo come to terms with the
Irish members on a basis of a more limited scheme of local government,
coupled with proposals for a settlement of the land, and perhaps also of the
education question. You have been kind enough, after hearing these opinions,
Mto repeat your request that I should join your Government, and you have ex-
plained that, in this case, I shall retain unlimited liberty of judgment and
rejection on any scheme that may ultimately be proposed, and that the full
consideration of such minor proposals as I have referred to, as an alternative
to any larger arrangement, will not be excluded by you.
" On the other hand, I have no difficulty in assuring you of my readiness
to give an unprejudiced examination to any more extensive proposals that may
be made, with an anxious desire that the results may be more favourable than
I am at present able to anticipate. In the circumstances, and with the most
earnest hope that I may be able in any way to assist you in your difficult
work, I beg to accept the offer you have made to submit my name to Her
Majesty for a post in the new Government. — I am, my dear Mr. Gladstone,
yqurs sincerely, J. CHAMBERLAIN."
In reading the clear and candid announcement of his intentions,
it, is possible to appreciate the wilful maliciousness of those — his
j^nemies — who afterwards charged him with having joined the
*J Government with a view to wrecking it. It was only when it
became known to him that Mr. Gladstone, aided by Mr. John
62
Life of Chamberlain
Morley and others, had really embarked on a complete scheme
for the propitiation of Mr. Parnell and his obstructive party, and, in
fact, of settling their demands in full, that he realised how utterly
impossible it was for him to fit in his enunciated plans for the
local government of Ireland with the Home Rule Bill in its more
modernised form.
Mr. Gladstone's policy consisted of a scheme for the creation of
./an Irish Parliament and defining its powers, together with another
for dealing with the land question, which was supported by Lord
Spencer and Mr. Morley, on the ground that it was only fair to
relieve an embryonic Irish Parliament from the troubles of such
a large question at the very outset of affairs. Mr. Chamberlain and
Mr. Trevelyan objected and threatened resignation, but Mr. Glad-
stone argued against such action being taken, in regard to the
mere outlines of schemes that were as yet incomplete. JMi^-
Chamberlain objected to the new proposals regarding Irish repre-
sentation, also to the grant of full rights of taxation to Ireland ; he
disapproved the surrender of the appointment of judges and magis-
trates ; and he protested against the_ specification of the things that
an Triqfr f^nwmmf>nt might *wt flp, instead of the regulation of the
things that it -might-do.
Respecting these outlines, Mr. Chamberlain, the critic of the
Cabinet, as he was called, was not consulted till everything was
practically decided. The Land Purchase Bill, involving the gnor-
mous outlay of British money on behalf of a country to be
dissevered from England and no longer controlled by her
Parliament, was to be followed by a Home Rule Bill which pro-
posed the establishment of a Parliament in Dublin with very
large powers, to which he knew he could never consent. To
tnnVthere were in the bill two principles that he regarded as
vital. The first was that of autonomy, to which he cordially as-
sented ; the second was the mode of securing that autonomy. He
found that the Government had proceeded on the lines of separation
or of colonial independence, while he would have advocated federa-
tion on the Canadian or some such pattern. He remonstrated, and
explained his own schemes to no purpose ; and at last, in spite of
ijall invitations to reconsider his decision, he announced that he must
'.pevitably break with the Government.
He resigned on the I5th March. To Mr. Gladstone he sent the
following letter, and later, in the House of Commons, he explained
the fine line he drew and had always drawn between the principles
he had advocated for the largest possible extension of local govern-
ment for Ireland and those which menaced the integrity of the
Empire. But even then he was ready to come to terms, for he was
64
RT. HON. H. H. ASQUITH
rv*o ELLIOTT * Tn. LOOMS.
First Home Rule Administration
well-wisher of Ireland and devoted to his own party.
He invited Mr. Gladstone to modify and to reconsider the bill, and
to remove the supreme point of objection, but without avail.
The letter of resignation ran : —
14 MY DEAR MR. GLADSTONE, — I have carefully considered the results of the
discussion on Saturday, and I have come, with the deepest reluctance, to the
conclusion that I shall not be justified in attending the meeting of the Cabinet
on Tuesday, and that I must ask you to lay my resignation before Her
Majesty.
" You will remember that in accepting office I expressed grave doubts as
' to the probability of my being able to support your Irish policy. Up to that
time, however, no definite proposals had been formulated by you, and it was
only on Saturday last that you were in a position to make a communication to
the Cabinet on that subject Without entering on unnecessary details, I may
say that you proposed a scheme of Irish Land Purchase which involved an
enormous and unprecedented use of British credit, in order, in your own words,
'to afford to the Irish landlord retuge and flfcfence from a possible mode ot
government in Ireland which he regards as fatal to him.'
" This scheme, while contemplating only a trifling reduction of the judicial
rents fixed before the recent fall in prices, would commit the British taxpayer
to tremendous obligations, accompanied, in my opinion, with serious risk of
ultimate loss. The greater part of the land of Ireland would be handed over
to a new Irish elective authority, who would thus be at once the landlords and
the delegates of the Irish tenants. I fear that these two capacities would be
found inconsistent, and that the tenants, unable or unwilling to pay the rents
demanded, would speedily elect an authority pledged to give them relief, and to
seek to recoup itself by an early repudiation of what would be described as the
English tribute.
" With these anticipations I was naturally anxious to know what was the
object for which this risk was to be incurred, and for what form of Irish govern-
ment it was to pave the way.
" I gathered from your statements that though your plans are not finally
matured, yet that you have come to the conclusion that any extension of local
government on municipal lines, including even the creation of a national council
or "councils ~for purely Irish business, would now be entirely inadequate, and
that you are convinced of the necessity for conceding a separate legislative
assembly for Ireland, with full powers to deal with all Irish affairs.
I" I understood that you would exclude from their competence the control
of the Army and Navy and the direction of foreign and colonial policy, but that
you would allow them to arrange their own customs tariff, to have entire control
of the civil forces of the country, and even, if they thought fit, to establish a
volunteer army.
" It appgars to m* that « proposal nf this fcinH mnsf be regarded as tanta-
mpunQp SL proposaTTor separation.
" I think it is even worse, because it would set up an unstable and tempo-
rary form of government, which would be a source of perpetual irritation and
agitation until the whole demands of the Nationalist party were conceded.
" The Irish Parliament would be called upon to pay three or four millions a
year as its contribution to the National Debt and the Army and Navy, and it
VOL. II. 65 E
Life of Chamberlain
would be required, in addition, to pay nearly five millions a year for interest
and sinking fund on the cost of Irish land.
" These charges would be felt to be so heavy a burden on a poor country
that persistent controversy would arise thereupon, and the due fulfilment of
their obligations by the new Irish authority could only be enforced by a
military intervention which would be undertaken with every disadvantage,
and after all the resources of the country and the civil executive power had
been surrendered to the Irish National Government.
" I conclude, therefore, that the policy which you propose to recommend to
Parliament and the country practically amounts to a proposal that Great Britain
should burden itself with an enormous addition to the National Debt, and prob-
ably also to an immediate increase of taxation, not in order to secure the
closer and more effective union of the three kingdoms, but, on the contrary, to
purchase the repeal of the Union and the practical separation of Ireland from
England and Scotland.
" My public utterances and my conscientious convictions nare absolutely
opposed to such a policy, and I feel that the differences which have now been
disclosed are so vital that I can no longer entertain the hope of being of service
in the Government.
" I must, therefore, respectfully request you to take the necessary steps for
relieving me of the office I have the honour to hold. — I am, yours very truly,
"J. CHAMBERLAIN."
The Home Rule Bill was at first to have been introduced on
the 22nd of March, but it was postponed till the ist of April, and
then to the 8th of April. A matter involving so many conflicting
interests, Mr. Gladstone said, needed delay. During this interval
various negotiations had been taking place between the chief and his
mutinous colleague. Mr. Gladstone was now distraught, not solely
by the attitude of Mr. Chamberlain but by that of Mr. Trevelyan,
who had resigned at the same moment, and for an identical cause.
(Mr. Chamberlain objected more to the Land Bill, while Mr.
Trevelyan tabooed the whole Home Rule principle.) Lord Hart-
ington, Mr. Goschen, and various other Liberals previously men-
tioned were ranged on the other side for the express purpose
of putting a spoke in the wheel of Gladstonian machinations,
and now two others threatened to leave the fold unless some
form of modification as regarded the proposed Dublin Parliament
could be arranged. But unfortunately Mr. Gladstone had gone
much too far to recede. It is difficult to pat and to rub at the same
time, and while he endeavoured to rub off the rust from Irish
tempers, it was impossible to pat down the plumage of his ruffled
colleagues. His position was unenviable in the extreme, and
though he fumbled with the bill, and Mr. Chamberlain submitted as
an alternative his original and improved scheme for the establish-
ment of a National Council in Dublin — a council subject to the
Imperial Parliament yet free to manage its internal affairs, to
66
First Home Rule Administration
make bye-laws, and levy rates (but not taxes), the result was a
failure.
^Mr. Chamberlain now stood at the parting of the ways. Though
Lord Hartington and Mr. Goschen were openly in sympathy
with Lord Salisbury and Mr. W. H. Smith, his face was still
turned in the direction of his old allies. There is no doubt that the
Radical leader endeavoured to cling to the ties by which he had
been bound during the whole of his political life ; that he hoped
when this temporary storm was passed, again to resume the old
relations, again to march forward to progress under the party
banner for the honour of which he had worked for twenty years so
faithfully and so well. Lord Hartington, though his dissent was
more loudly pronounced, though he declared that 86 members must
not presume to dictate to 584, and had identified himself with the
Opposition, was actuated however by much the same personal
feeling for Mr. Gladstone as was Mr. Chamberlain. In a speech
delivered at the Eighty Club he said, " I think that no one who
has read or heard during a long series of years the declarations of
Mr. Gladstone on the question of self-government in Ireland can
be surprised at the tone of his present declaration. Lord Randolph
Churchill, himself an attentive student of Mr. Gladstone's speeches,
can find no date later than 1871 in which Mr. Gladstone has
spoken strongly against the demand of the Irish people for greater
self-government." He went on to say that when he looked back
on the declarations made by Mr. Gladstone in Parliament, and the
increased definiteness of these declarations in his Mid-Lothian
speeclies, and the other evidences of the conclusions he had formed,
and the ideas he was considering in his mind, he felt neither he nor
any one else had any right whatever to complain of the tone of the
declarations made by Mr. Gladstone on this subject
Meanwhile Lord Randolph Churchill, who previously had been
actively employed in the overtures that gave rise to the charge
against the Tories of "coquetting" with the Irish question, was
creating a sensation in the United Kingdom — a very disunited
kingdom in all but name ! He descanted on the subject of the
Unionists and Separatists, as he called those who opposed and those
who advocated Home Rule, and drew an emotional picture of the
Protestants of Ireland giving proof of their loyalty to the British
throne. "I believe," he said, "there will be found hundreds and
thousands of English hearts and hands who will be beside them and
around them and behind them — who will be of opinion that, before
the unity of this United Empire is for ever shattered, before the
sun of England shall begin to set, a blow will have to be struck, the
sound of which shall go into all lands, the echoes of which shall
67
Life of Chamberlain
reverberate to the uttermost ends of the earth!" This "high
falutin," as it was called, was vastly appreciated at the time, for it
was an era of ferment, and at such periods the intoxicating pro-
perties of verbosity are at their strongest. In Ulster the Tory
Democrat waxed poetic, and after denouncing Mr. Gladstone for
having clutched power by a " profligate manoeuvre," and after pro-
pounding an effective " no surrender " policy, fired off as his last
salvo the lines —
" Wave, Ulster, all thy banners wave,
And charge with all thy cavalry."
While all this was going forward the party managers were inquiring-
into the conduct of the Liberals who had voted against Mr. Jesse
Collings' amendment, and those that were at variance with the
Chief. Birmingham naturally received full satisfaction from the
explanations of Mr. Chamberlain, who looked forward to reunion
of the party in the near future, but Lord Hartington was less fortu-
nate. The Liberal Council of the Rossendale division of Lan-
cashire invited an explanation from him of his attitude, and his
constituents, on hearing his able defence of his opinions, maintained
a reserved neutrality — neither approving nor censuring the course
pursued — but expressing the hope that such measures would be
passed as would lead to the peace and prosperity of Great Britain
and Ireland.
On the 2 /th of March Mr. Chamberlain's resignation was ac-
cepted, and his place was subsequently filled by Mr. Stansfeld. On
the retirement of Mr. Trevelyan, Ministers sat thirteen at table, and
those given to superstition dreaded the worst. As may be imagined,
while so much talking was going forward the press were not silent.
The split in the Cabinet set tongues galloping — that Mr. Gladstone's
scheme should be too extreme for Radical Chamberlain struck all as
amazing. The Times, the Standard, the Daily Telegraph, and the
Daily Chronicle were aghast. They thought things must be
madder than mad to be tabooed by the great " Jo-a-head." The
Times, alarmed, feared they had to deal with a situation in which
were avowed schemes so extravagant that they were rejected by
Mr. Chamberlain as well as by Lord Hartington ! The Daily
Chronicle argued that " the Liberal Cabinet cannot be so demented
as to consign Ireland to anarchy and ruin ! "
On the 8th of April the Home Rule Bill was introduced, and the
gong sounded for the most exciting controversy of the Victorian
era. No such scene is remembered within the ken of parliamentary
man. Shortly after daybreak frantic and fasting members were
seen scudding to the House to secure seats, some one hundred and
68
First Home Rule Administration
fifty of them breakfasting there. By noon every place was appro-
priated, and lunch for three hundred had to be provided.
In viewof the unparalleled demand for places, the Speaker had taken
the precaution to limit members to a hat apiece, consequently those
who had deposited as hostages their headgear on their seats were con-
strained to remain in the building or to wander about Westminster
thatchless ! Many whose patience would not allow them to remain
inactive till the afternoon, and whose craniums were well covered by
nature, walked airily abroad ; but others, who had no desire to pro-
vide "skating rinks for flies," remained forlornly within, cogitating
the upshot of the night's event. Later in the day notable visitors
began to troop in, and the buzz of the eager inquisitive throng stirred
the air. By this time crowded benches filled the floor of the House
from the mace to the bar, and an overflow of Irishmen even trickled
into the Conservative ranks. In the place reserved for strangers
was [a. curious medley of nineteenth-century personages — Cardinal
Manning, Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Schnadhorst, the moving spirit
of the caucus, Mr. Buckle, the editor of the Times, and others.
The lobbies were thronged with princes and potentates of high
degree. The Royal party was composed of the Prince of Wales and
Prince Albert Victor, Prince Christian and the Duke of Cambridge,
and the hidden presence of the Princess of Wales and Princess
Beatrice, followed by duchesses innumerable added a chastened lustre
to the assembly. Mr. Gladstone from Downing Street was escorted
to the House by a cheering mob, whose roars resounded without
the ancient walls like the thunders of a stormy sea. His entry
was the signal for tremendous enthusiasm, the Liberals rising to
hail him, for the time at least, sovereign of the situation ; the Irish-
men— as an apostle, a saviour. They waved and cheered and yelled
with all the vigour with which, but a few short months before, they
had tumultuously execrated him, and designedly wrought his over-
throw. Not one soul in the House but hung on the movements of
this grand old man, seen now by some as a grand old adventurer,
by others as a valiant desperado, but by all acknowledged as the
greatest orator the century had known. Curiosity — hopeful, regretful,
critical, condemnatory, admiring, or lamenting — was visible on every
face. Emotion of other kinds betrayed itself in the bearing of
Ministers, comrades, friends, and colleagues ; in that of the many
members who had won their seats, as the< saying is, " by the skin
of their teeth," and thought they were successfully placed for a good
six years ; in that of the men who had been his rivals, of the men
who were to replace him, of those who had made their reputations,
and of others who had theirs yet to make ; in thelbearing of all was
amazed conjecture, a thrilling, silent, almost awe-struck expectation.
69
Life of Chamberlain
The great man spoke. The silver volume of his oratory flowed
— persuasive, argumentative, explanatory ; the tone of his voice,
with the majesty of his glance, was such that on hearing it the soul
contributed artistic assent before the understanding could determine
so much as a "yea" or a " nay." It was a magnificent tour de force
— the charge of heart and intellect and genius — the charge of his
whole flesh against relentless guns ; the guns of Imperial duty
thundering resistance. His speech, which he himself thought
would never end, lasted three and a half hours ; it was, first, a
marvellous exhibition of Demosthenian art, and, second, an astound-
ing feat of physical endurance. For any man, far less one treading
towards the borders of octogenarianism, the performance was a
marvel. He argued, first, that the policy of Home Rule and that of
the land question could not be divided, and that Ministers had
arrived at the conclusion that the Irish question must be faced in
its entirety. Their object, therefore, was to restore to Parliament
its liberty of action, and establish satisfactory relations, between
Great Britain and Ireland. He dilated on the agrarian crime,
stating, to the joy of the Nationalists, that had the same causes
been found in Scotland and England similar results might have
occurred. In respect of coercion, it could not be tried till all else
had failed. All had not yet failed, for as yet the law in Ireland had
not been invested with a domestic character. By giving both legis-
lation andj^mjnistratipn into Irish hands, the hatred of the law might
be overcome. Other countries had gained rather than lost by inde-
pendent government — Sweden and Norway, Austria and Hungary,
for instance — ^jP5J *T?"^ Mr Glaflgfang^jthe great expedient was to
promote " the establishment, by the authority of a Parliament, of a
legislative body sitting in Dublin for the conduct both of legislation
and administration, under the conditions which may be described
by the Act defining Irish as distinct from Imperial affairs." With
all this Mr. Gladstone proposed to arrange for the preservation of the
unity of the Empire, the peace of the minority, the political equality
N/ of the three countries, and the equitable distribution of Imperial
burdens. He declared the impossibility of admitting to Westminster
members empowered to debate only on Irish questions. There was
no choice but to keep Irish members for all purposes or to dispose
of their services altogether, and that being the case, it had been
decided by Government to exclude them altogether from the British
Padiarnent. Then, since the English could not force on Ireland
taxation without representation, the taxing power would be placed
in the hands of the Irish Parliament, while customs and excise duties
appertaining to customs would be controlled as usual, save that
Ireland's share would be handed over for her use. He then minutely
70
First Home Rule Administration
entered into the constructive portions of his plan, and after describing
how the various offices should be filled, and the constabulary even-
tually raised, he passed on to the subject of finance. From exhaus-
tive and complicated details he returned to the oratorial mood, and
declaimed : " I rely on the patriotism and sagacity of this House. I
rely__on the effect oTTr^e'^TscusbiOnT'''! rely, above all, 'on the just
and generous sentiments of the two British nations ; and looking
forward, I ask the House to assist us in the work we have under-
taken— to believe that no trivial motives could have driven us on, to
assist us in the work which we believe will restore Parliament to its
dignity, and legislation to its free and unimpeded course. ... I ask that
we should practice — as we very often preach — in our own case, with
firm and fearless hand, the doctrine that we have so often inculcated
upon others, namely, that the concession of local self-government is
not the way to sap or to impair, but the way to strengthen and to
consolidate unity." Then the speaker's voice grew mellow with a
pathetic note of exhortation : " I ask," he said, " that we should rely
less on merely written stipulations, and more on those better stipula-
tions^hat>«u^jaudttgn _ pn the heart and on the mind of man. I ask
thatjwe should apply to Ireland the happy experience which we have
gained in KnglanH ?nd ^roi3anc^~where'a course of^ejieratiQiislEas
noWtaught us, not as a dream or theory, but as a practice, or as
life — that the best and surest foundation we can build on is the
foundation afforded by the affections, the convictions, and the
will of men ; and it is thus, "by the decree of the Almighty that, far
more thanby__Jany_ Qthex^endeavour, we may be able to secure at
once Asocial peace, and the fame, the power, and the permanence of
the, Empire! "
While they listened to this wonderful flow of verbiage even his
opponents were touched — their reason was arrested, their minds were
lifted from the Slough of Despond, Ireland, to the wonderful possi-
bilities put forth by the genius of this marvellous man, whose very
voice thrilled witfr the ardour of the cause he had persuaded himself
was a righteous and a just cause. But presently came to them a mun-
dane vision of stumbling-blocks : Ulster trampled on and unprovided
for ; of judges and constabulary Ineffective owing1 to their dependence
on an elective Parliament of pronounced Irish- American intluence ;
and an Expropriation Bill that threatened to ruin all save the wealthier
landlords. All these things were put forth by Mr. Trevelyan and
others; and when all was said and done, Mr. Parnell was not satisfied.
His was one of the speeches of the debate, and he described the
financial propositions that Mr. Gladstone had set forth as a " hard
bargain," only acceptable to Ireland by reason of her ardent craving
for Home Rule. His peroration was memorable for its sincerity — it
'
Life of Chamberlain
was not an oracular masterpiece ; it was the being of the man pour- .
ing itself forth for the cause of his people.
Mr. Chamberlain expressed his opinion of the bill, and attempted
to read the letters that have been quoted which bore on his attitude
in regard to joining the Cabinet, but since Mr. Gladstone objected to
the introduction of matter connected with the, as yet, undiscussed Land
Purchase Bill, he had to content himself by raising the whole storm
of his well-known objections to Mr. Gladstone's full-fledged scheme.
A trying ordeal was the explanation of his attitude in relation to
it But his pale face, lifted above the simple violets that adorned
his buttonhole, his calm, keen glance and trenchant, incisive enuncia-
tion, denoted that a strong man confident in his strength and in his
reason stood before his fellows.
He assured the House' that no act of his public life had been so
painful as the tendering of his resignation. " I am told that by taking
that step I have wrecked my political prospects — destroyed all hope
of future usefulness." He proceeded to say that he could view that
prospect with equanimity, but it was more hard to reconcile himself
to a departure from one whom he for so many years had followed
and honoured, and to leave personal friends and political associates v
with whom he had no other cause of difference whatever. " I can
assure the House," he earnestly said, " I find it a more difficult task
to leave a Government than to enter one." Then came a noble
expression of respect for the Chief. " I admit that if any difference
of opinion has arisen between myself and my right hon. friend with
his unrivalled experience, his vast knowledge of public affairs, his
long and tried devotion to the public service, the natural presumption
is that he is right and I am wrong."
He had yielded on many occasions to that presumption. But on
this occasion, one where the issue was of such vital importance
and where a mistake if made would be fatal and irrevocable, it
seemed to be his duty — the duty of every man, however humble- — to
bring to its consideration an independent judgment. Private feeling
— personal friendship, political ambition — the cherished object of a
public life — these, every one of them, must be set aside before the
claim of still higher and more important issues.
" Since I have been in public affairs I have called myself — not
altogether without reason — a Radical. But the title has not pre-
vented me from giving great consideration to Imperial interests. 7
have cared for the honour \ the influence, the integrity of the Empire. It '
I is because I believe these things to be in danger that I have felt myself
called upon to make the greatest sacrifice any public man can make"
He then proceeded to read the letter containing his stipulation on
joining the Cabinet, described again his opinions on Home Rule, and
72
First Home Rule Administration
"said : "If now, sir, to my deep regret, and with the greatest possible
reluctance, I have felt compelled to sever myself from the Government
of my right hon. friend, it is because in my heart and conscience I do
not think the scheme which he last night explained to the House
maintains the limitations that he has always declared himself deter-
mined^to preserve."
^Mr. Chamberlain's explanation of his exact views is best given
in his own words : —
" " I hope I am not going beyond the limitation which has been imposed on
(me, when I say briefly my objection is not to one portion of the scheme, but to
the scheme as a whole. ,1 object to either part of the scheme. I object — I
will not say to the proposal of my right hon. friend, because I do not know
what it is — I shall not know until he has explained it in the final form which it
has received — but I know this, that whatever it is I shall object if it lays — "
[here he was disturbed by the ironical cheers of the Irishmen] — " I must say
that the zeal of hon. members opposite overleaps itself." He then went on :
" I am not hostile to the scheme of land purchase. It would not be right of
me tq^ state Ihy views on that subject ; hut T wj]l say at once that I am prepared
for <aT6cheme ofJanH purrViag^. What I was going to say when I was inter-
aS, Ihat I shniiM nhjf>rt tn any srh»tn» whirh laid on {be Bri^gf) t»x-
payer__g_ tremenffoiic Hahility, find WJjflt I thought to be flfl flfflnyj™? n'sk-
AEove~all, I should object to any scheme that was intended only as a bribe to
Irish' landlords to induce them to modify their hostility to a scheme of Home
Rule, and which did not give evidence of an essential and considerable advan-
tage for Irish tenants, who are a class, the poorer tenants especially, deserving
^of sympathy and assistance. Then I objected to the new authority proposed
to be created, because it was- certain to become practically independent. The
scheme was o.ne for separation and not for Home Rule. I objected to the two
together, because they seemed to me to combine the maximum of risk and the
minimum of advantage, and the utmost possible sacrifice for an object which
I did not believe it to be worth our while to strive to attain. I do not wish
to be misunderstood — the object, of course, being the creation of a separate
statutory Parliament in Dublin. I wanted to have said something more about
the land, but I pass over that. Only I will say this — a perfectly general remark
also, and applying almost to any scheme of land purchase — that we shall be
asked to consider any scheme of land purchase as an inseparable adjunct to
a scheme which, in my opinion, practically will place Ireland in the position of
Canada. Now I want to test that illustration of Canada. Canada is loyal and
friendly to this country. Ireland, I am sorry to say, at the present time is not
loyal, and cannot -be called friendly. But if Canada came to this House and
asked for any large use of British credit in order to buy Canadian land or to
carry out public works in Canada, why, it would be scouted from one ^end of
the kingdom to the other.
" Well* thg-r^ hnw ^n it possibly be right for us to give to Ireland what we
refuse to Canada, when the sole result would be to try and put Ireland in the
position in which Canada has been for several years. I said I shall object to
any scheme that involves the British taxpayer in excessive risks. Why is
the risk of any scheme excessive ? I have been myself an advocate of large
schemes in England and Scotland intended by the use of public money to
73
Life of Chamberlain
turn a small tenant into the proprietor of the land that he tilled. I have not
been unwilling to take the risk in such a case. But what I object to is to take
a risk for what I believe in a short time will be a foreign country. For an
integral part of the United Kingdom I am prepared to take a risk. I am not
prepared to take a risk in order to promote what is in my judgment a thinly
veiled scheme of separation. The fact is that the key to the whole situation is
the proposal to exclude Irish members from this House. I do not wonder that
that is a proposal which has many attractions, both for Liberal and for Con-
servative members. The hon. member for Cork has often shown that he can
be in this House a most agreeable colleague ; but I am sure he will not think
me offensive if I say that he and his friends have also shown that they can be
very disagreeable at times. He in one of his speeches threatened that if his
demands were not complied with he would make all legislation impossible."
Mr. Parnell challenged this statement, declaring that he had made
no such threat ; but Mr. Chamberlain replied that he would send to
the hon. member if he liked the passage, the date, and the place
where the speech was alleged to have been made.
" But I do not want to press that, and I readily accept his statement that
he never said so. However, whether he said it or not, there are many
people who think he would have the power to do something of that kind, and
that fact weighs very much with English and Scotch members in the desire
that they at all events should be left alone to carry on English and Scotch
business without Irish assistance. It is quite unreasonable to turn out Irish
members from this House and leave them entirely unrepresented in reference
to matters in which Irish interests are largely concerned, and which are dealt
with by an Imperial Parliament. Just consider that under the scheme of the
Prime Minister the customs and the excise are to be taken from their control ;
all the prerogatives of the Crown are to be removed from their competence to*
deal with, as are also the Army and the Navy and foreign and colonial policy.
Are the Irish members of opinion that the Irish people would be permanently
content to be shut out from all part in the Imperial policy of this country ? I
am going to quote the hon. member for Cork again, but also from memory.
He will tell me if I am wrong. I think that in one of his speeches he said
something to the effect that he would never be satisfied until Ireland took her
full place among the nations of the world. That is, I think, a patriotic aspira-
tion, but I would point out that it never can be realised under the scheme of
my right hon. friend. How can Ireland take her place among the nations of
the world when her mouth is closed on every international question ? Ireland
is to have no part in the arrangement of commercial treaties by which her
interests may be seriously affected. She will have no part in deciding the
policy under which war may break out, in which her sentiment may be
seriously engaged on one side or the other, or which may put in serious peril
her own coast. She is to have no part in the control of the Army and Navy
of this country. That is extraordinary, because the annals of our army show
that there have been no more illustrious members of that army than Irishmen ;
and Irishmen under this scheme are to be content to be sent to battle and to
death for matters which Irish representatives are to have no voice in discussing
or determining.
" I say that Ireland under these circumstances is asked to occupy a position.
74
First Home Rule Administration
of degradation, and I venture to predict that, whatever hon. members may do
now in order to obtain this instalment of their demands, their own countrymen
will never rest satisfied with such an inadequate concession. Again, Ireland
is to pay a fixed contribution to the Army and Navy in which she is to have
no part, but that contribution is not to be increased if England gets into
difficulty or into war. It^may be that in the most terrible crisis of the fate
of the Empire Ireland is expected to be indifferent and unaffected, contributing
not one single penny in order to secure the safety of the realm of which she
is supposed to form a part. Where, in all this, is the integrity of the Empire ?
In my view the solution of the question should be sought in some form of
federation, which would really maintain the Imperial unity, and which would
af the sa^pe time conciliate the qesjng W a natmnaT inral ynw>rnm«»nt lyEich is
felt so strongly by the constituents of hon. members opposite. I do not suppose
that the circumstances of the case are the same, but I say it is on these lines,
not on the lines of our relations with self-governing colonies, that it is possible
to find a solution of the difficulty."
He then referred to his own position in this critical period. " There are
some persons, servile partisans who disgrace political life, who say that I have
been guilty of treachery because I have resigned an office which I could no
longer hold with honour. What would these men have been entitled to say if,
holding the opinions that I do, which I expressed before joining the Govern-
ment, and which I have expressed to-d£y, I had remained on that bench
pretending to serve my country with a lie upon my lips ? I do not assume —
Heaven knows I do not pretend to dogmatise on a question of this kind — I do
not presume to condemn those who differ from me ; but of one thing I am
certain, that I should have been guilty of an incredible shame and baseness if
I had clung to place and office in support of a policy which in my heart I believe
to be injurious to the best interests of Ireland and Great Britain."
The first reading of the bill (ijth April) passed without a
division, but not without rough handling from Tories and Lords.
On the 1 4th of April a meeting organised by the Loyal and
Patriotic Union was held at. the Opera House. Lord Salisbury
was present, so also was Lord Hartington, and the world began at
once to discuss the fusion of Whigs and Tories that for some time
past had been prophesied. But Mr. Chamberlain yet held aloof.
He was disinclined to identify himself with- the Whig secession,
though it was impossible to ignore the fact that such a consumma-
tion might eventually become inevitable.
The question of the exclusion or retention of the Irish members
had become by degrees the crux of the Home Rule argument. Mr.
Chamberlain had stood out for the retention of the Irish members,
and Mr. Gladstone had refused to alter his clause. While this
remained there seemed small chance of the reconciliation that Mr.
Chamberlain desired.
Meanwhile the Irishmen among themselves were in a consider-
able state of turmoil as to how the dissensions in the Liberal camp
would finally adjust themselves.
75
Life of Chamberlain
" Gladstone plus Chamberlain can carry Home Rule, but Glad-
stone minus Chamberlain cannot." Such was the verdict. What
then would happen to Gladstone if Chamberlain and Hartington
joined hands against him ? cried the Nationalists, and a tremor of
anxiety ran through their ranks.
When the Land Bill was introduced, Mr. Chamberlain attacked
the whole policy of the bill as impracticable. He thought it unwise
to ma)^ grants to the Irish which could not be extenHp^] tn Smfs
andJEnglish people of the same order. He explained also that since
his resJ^matuuL-great changes had been made in tEeT Home Rule
Bill, changes in which " I rejoice to see an approximation be ween
the views of my right honourable friend and myself, which I did
not dare to hope for at the time I left the Cabinet."
He then dwelt on the precedent that would now be made by
borrowing many millions of English pnnney to payoff T"ffb *gn^orffa
TKe demands of1 depressed trade would, he feared, increase ; and
a precedent of State aid, if it were created, might become irre-
sistible. If there were no other objection to the scheme, there was
the bare fact that ere long England would need the money herself.
Tne people of Scotland — the crofters and others whose misery
equalled that of Ireland ; the labourers of England, who should be
given opportunities to secure a direct interest in the soil they culti-
vated— all were refused, and what was refused to these could not
well be granted to the people of Ireland. These considerations he
thought should be weighed before the second reading of the bill.
Then amid cheers from the Gladstonians, he cried, " I recognise the
spirit of conciliation with which the Government has tried to meet
some of the objections already taken to the scheme. I need not
assure my right hon. friend, or my friends around me, that the differ-
ence which unfortunately for a time — I hope it may be only a short
time — have separated my right hon. friend, have not impaired my
respect for his character and abilities. I am not an irreconcilable
opponent. My right hon. friend has made considerable modifica-
tions Ja his bill. All I can say is, that if the movement should
continue, as I hope it may, I shall be delighted to be relieved from
an attitude which I only assumed with the greatest reluctance, and
which I can only maintain with the deepest pain and regret."
On this night Mr. Chamberlain was free to read his letter of
resignation that has been already referred to.
At Easter Mr. Chamberlain visited Birmingham, addressed the
Birmingham Liberal Association — the Two Thousand — and put
before his constituents the facts of the case. His coming had been
anxiously looked forward to, the rights of his attitude hotly dis-
cussed. In face of the great man, excitement grew intense. He,
76
First Home Rule Administration
too, was not a little perturbed as to what the future would bring'
forth. The most staunch members of the Liberal party were
weighing and arguing. Were they to go with Lord Hartington
and Mr. Bright, who stood definitely apart from the bill ? with Mr.
Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan, who were in the thick of a fight
whose end was not yet determinable ? or were they to close eyes,
ears, and mind, and go nose-led by any string that Mr. Gladstone
should fasten to them ? So implicit was their faith in the Grand Old
Man that they were uncertain whether they could venture to accept
the judgment of Mr. Chamberlain — which, however, they felt to be
as sincere as it was disinterested. " He would have been a traitor
to us, a traitor to his chief, a traitor to his country, if he had not
given it frankly," Dr. Dale, the apostle of Birmingham, told them.
It was no question of leadership now. Mr. Gladstone was
the leader of the party, but — ah ! that the party were forced to
think, to act, to speak for themselves. In years gone by Mr.
Chamberlain, in all matters save his own speciality, his almost
sacred F's, had followed as a procession follows in the wake of
the High Priest, repeating duly the appointed word. Now, to his
cost, he made his stand, and the block in the procession created a
mttde for which he was held responsible. He had now to prove to
his constituents and to the country that his act was no wanton act
of aggressiveness, no mean plan of desertion for ulterior ends, but
an obligatory duty which could not be shirked or temporised with
— a duty to his country which surmounted every personal considera-
tion. On the 2ist of April he explained to his constituents his _
miserable dilemma. " Fifteen years ago I was drawn into politics
by my interest in social questions — by my desire to promote the
welfare of the great majority of the population." These, he went
on to describe, thrifty, hard-working artisans and labourers, he
saw condemned by bad laws, by neglect of their rulers, to a life
of exacting toil — with none of the advantages afforded by education,
weighted by conditions that he thought unfair and unjust. To the
Liberal party he looked as a means of remedy and redress — as a
great instrument of progress and reform. From that hour he
worked with all his might, sacrificing money, time, labour — even
opinions — to maintain the organisation, and to preserve the unity
of the Liberal party.
The expression "I have made sacrifices of my opinions" fell
strangely on the ear, and those who had marvelled at Mr. Chamber-
lain's apparent apathy in regard to what may be called out-of-door-
questions, began to wonder how far this man of men had consented
to follow at a time he knew he could not hope to lead. His speech
went on : —
77
Life of Chamberlain
" And even now — in this time of discouragement and anxiety,
when personal friends and political ties are breaking down under the
strain of the dissensions which have been raised among us — I entreat
you so to continue this discussion that when the time of trial is past,
we may once more unite without embittered memories, without
unkind reflections, to carry forward the great work upon which we
have hitherto been absolutely unanimous."
Mr. Chamberlain then turned the attention of the audience, who
fervently applauded him, to the social questions which at the last
election had filled their minds. The change in the situation — the
waiving of that engrossing theme — how had it come about? It
was the result of "the force of character, of the determination, the
courage of one illustrious man," which qualities, while admired in
themselves, were in the result never more deplored. He then went
on to speak of Mr. Parnell. " I have never, either in public or in
private, spoken with other than respect of Mr. Parnell. I believe
him to be sincere and patriotic. I think very often he has been
mistaken in his course, but at least I give him credit for perfect
honesty of purpose, and I recognise in him a man who knows his
mind ! " In this last word of appreciation we have Mr. Chamberlain
through and through. He is a man who knows his mind — reveals
it ; and if perchance that mind has changed, looked forth on the
scenery of life from higher windows, he as readily describes the new
view that he has been privileged to enjoy.
He returned to the bill. He objected to it as a symbol of
separation. Mr. Parnell had said, " None of us will be satisfied till we
have destroyed the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England."
This bill proposed Imperial taxation for Ireland without Imperial
representation ; yet England might be struggling for very existence
— in the very throes of death — while Ireland remained unconcerned !
Under the new constitution she would be unaffected — there could
be no call on her for aid ; she would be irresponsible save for a
fixed contribution settled upon a peace estimate of the cost of the
army and navy. Further, Mr. Chamberlain pointed out, coercion,
far from being dead, would revive in its worst form. On one side
of Ireland was the loyal minority — industrious, prosperous — who
were bitterly opposed to the scheme. They believed that neither
property, religion, nor life could safely be entrusted to a National
Parliament in Dublin. " Well, for my part, I hate coercion," he
said, " and I am not disposed to coerce these men by British
soldiers." He went on to say he thought the Land Bill a bad one.
" I would sooner go out of politics altogether than give my vote to
pledge the capital of the country and the future earnings of every
man in the United Kingdom, in order to modify the opposition of a
78
First Home Rule Administration
small class of Irish proprietors to a scheme which, if it remain in its
present form, will, I believe, infallibly lead to the separation of
Ireland from England." He then pointed out TKaTTns resignation,
far from being unique, had precedent in the action of Mr. Gladstone
himself, who had more than once separated himself from a Govern-
ment whose policy was disapproved. If for private interests or
personal ambition he had been false to his convictions and disre-
garded the vital interests of his country — then indeed might he be
condemned, then indeed might he be despised, but as it was, to be
consistent with the sincerity of his convictions, he had no recourse
but to act as he had acted.
The explanation to all appearance was a satisfactory one. Mr.
Schnadhorst, the President of the Liberal Association, proposed a
vote of confidence in Mr. Chamberlain, and said that the meeting,
recognising his honesty in the course he had taken, placed on record
its judgment that in fulfilling his conditions he had been guided by
a high sense of personal honour and public duty.
Further, Dr. Dale moved a second resolution, which practically
committed Birmingham to a Unionist policy. While appreciating
Mr. Gladstone's efforts as leader of the party to settle the Irish
question on the lines proposed, the undoubted demand for the
maintenance of Union demonstrated that the meeting of Liberals
were greatly at variance with Mr. Gladstone's scheme. Finally, the
resolution was triumphantly carried, and even those who at the
onset had been ready to swallow anything prescribed by the great
physician for Ireland, began to betiave^hat^ there are other cures for
disease than amputation, and to understand that" Mr. Cha*ft1X!rifrin>g
zealous precautions were after all the most calculated to promote the
healthfJuladjustment of affairs.
The Two I'housandpTedged themselves to follow Mr. Chamberlain,
to reject the Land Bill, and entertain only such revised Home Rule
Bill as he should approve ! The Birmingham Free Lance was very
jocose at Mr. Chamberlain's expense, and brought out a cartoon
of the Grand Old Nurse William with the twin baby Bills in arms.
Approaching them was Surgeon Chamberlain with a knife :—
" NURSE GLADSTONE. — Oh dear ! oh dear ! What are you going
to do with them ?
" MR. CHAMBERLAIN. — Only a little operation. You should have
consulted me before."
By Mother Gladstone's skirts, sleeking, rubbing itself, and purring,
was a tame cat marked " Morley " ; in the distance a crowd of won-
dering surgeons, rivals, and professors arguing the points of the
case. On the wall was a placard : " The 2000 Liberal students are
79
Life of Chamberlain
cordially invited to assist at a lecture on the use of the knife.— ~
J. C." And also a notice : " Coroner 's inquest on the Land Bill
— The Verdict"
II.— AN EVENTFUL MAY— MR. GLADSTONE'S MANIFESTO
Mr. Chamberlain even at this juncture had not entirely given up
hopes of being reunited to his party, and his constituents still upheld
him manfully, believing that he might yet be induced to come to
terms with the Chief. In a manifesto issued by Mr. Gladstone —
which began a series of political May meetings — the veteran modified
his programme. The Land Bill was smoothed over (he recognised
that tactically it was a blunder), and the Home Rule Bill had merely,
as an essential point, the establishment of a legislative body in Dublin
for the purpose of making laws for Ireland as distinct from Imperial
affairs.
His programme had naturally the effect of an effort to repair the
rift in the lute, but later, events happened which put Mr. Chamberlain
Xon his mettle, and showed him that if he was meant to stand alone,
^ he could do it with a will. On the 5th of May the National Liberal
Federation — the " caucus " that Mr. Chamberlain had reared and
nourished and vivified — carried by a huge majority a series of resolu-
tions supporting the Government. Mr. Schnadhorst, the man whose
career practically owed its fashioning to Mr. Chamberlain, went over
to the enemy, and nearly all the local associations in the country
followed suit. This action was said by some to be due to party
pj?inciple merely, but others declared that such was the magnetism
^^of Mr. Gladstone's marvellous personality that it was difficult to
apply political reasonings in the presence of so commanding a hero.
There was then an attempt to oust Mr. Chamberlain from what may
be called his own territory — Birmingham — an attempt which failed,
and taught the lesson that their man, once having mounted the
political Pegasus, meant to sit tight, and was not to be unseated by
political buck jumpings.
Naturally the public looked askant at such temerity. There is
a certain amazement, bordering on disapproval, that takes possession
of mediocre minds when brought face to face with an independent
spirit. Mr. Chamberlain's bold moves produced an effect similar to
that caused by Hampden when he put his foot down against the
Naval tax in 1636. "Till this time," said Clarendon, "he was
rather of reputation in his own country than of public discourse
or fame in the kingdom ; but then he grew the argument of all
tongues, every man inquiring who and what he was that durst,
at his own charge, support the liberty and prosperity of the
80
THE GRAND OLD FALCONER.
WILLIAM (a trifle k,,sky).—« Oh, for my falconer's voice,
To lure this tassel-gentle l>ack again ! " '
(From the other WILLIAM — adapted.)
(From Punch, May i, 1886. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punck.)
VOL. II.
Life of Chamberlain
kingdom ; " and later, referring to him, the historian said, " The
judgments proved of more advantage and credit to the gentleman
condemned than to the King's service." In like manner to Mr.
Chamberlain the adverse and hostile voices redounded advantage-
ously and caused people to ponder what manner of man he was
who dared to cut himself adrift from the mighty vessel of Liberalism
and prepare to weather the gales alone.
For he had at the moment little prospect of anything but wreck.
Every one predicted that the result of his action would leave him
under a ban of unpopularity for years, that his abandonment of Mr.
Gladstone would cost him certainly Nonconformist support, and
possibly the loss of the very political friends and associates whom he
held most in esteem. The future was frowning on all sides, but
against his settled convictions there was no going back. On
the 6th of May, in a letter to Mr. T. H. Bolton, Mr. Chamber-
lain said that "the key of the position was to maintain the repre-
sentation of Ireland in Parliament and her responsibility in Imperial
affairs." He believed that if this key were accepted, the fatal breach
that threatened to take place in the Liberal ranks might be happily
averted. It was a last act of propitiation, but so inflated had Mr.
Gladstone and his advisers become by their successful capture of
the caucus that they underestimated Mr. Chamberlain's influence
with the country and set to work to defy him. The action of his
quondam friends merely showed that conciliation had become
impossible. Mr. Chamberlain had tried the suaviter in modo. He
replaced it by the fortiter in re. Meetings were arranged for
the 1 2th, I4th, and I5th of May to plumb the opinions of the
mutineers of the party, and what was to be their combined action in
regard to the second reading of the obnoxious bill. And thus gradu-
ally came to pass the curious commingling of forces that brought
about the change in Mr. Chamberlain's outlook. He, and the
Radicals who adhered to him and to Mr. Bright, now found them-
selves in accord on a vital subject with the Whigs who followed
Lord Hartington ; the two sections, widely different in so many
matters, uniting naturally in the face of a common danger.
Rumours were now afloat that the Government meant to " hang
up " the bill provided the second reading was carried. Mr. Parnell
vigorously objected. He remonstrated at headquarters, declaring
that the Government ought to show that they were in earnest in the
matter. By hanging up the bill the position of the dissenting mem-
bers would be strengthened and that of the assenting ones weakened.
Moreover, the people of Ireland would be inclined to believe that
if the bill were dropped it would be dropped for ever.
The Liberals remained in the utmost state of disturbance ; some
82
An Eventful May
thirty-four of their members had gone over to the Liberal-Unionist
Committee, thirty-nine more determined to fight, and about the
same number remained in a state of painful oscillation.
On the second reading of the bill (roth May) Lord Hartington
EASTER EGGS.
THE GRAND OLD HEN. — See what beautiful Eggs I've laid !
THE GRAND YOUNG BANTAM. — Yes, and see how I've smashed one
of them.
(From the Birmingham Ov>/t by permission.)
moved a simple amendment in the form of rejection. He hammered
the thing flat, stigmatising it as "a mischievous measure," and the
weight of his right arm, propelled by the uprightness and sincerity of
his character, struck conviction into many wavering minds.
The increase in popularity of the dissentient spirit may be judged
from the results of the meetings that took place while the debate
83
Life of Chamberlain
dragged its weary length till June. That on the I2th of May, in-
viting members favourable to the Home Rule principle but opposed
to the present phase of the bill, was attended by only thirty-two mem-
bers. At another meeting held by Lord Hartington at Devonshire
House on the I4th, the number almost, doubled itself, and it became
evident that shortly a formidable force of dissentient Liberals would
stand between the country and the objectionable innovation. Mean-
while, both inside and outside the House, the pros and cons of the
bill never ceased to be discussed, weighed, or wrangled over, each
critic repeating faintly or forcibly, according to individual disposition,
the arguments that had been propounded by both parties in the debate,
which arguments, with commentaries from the press ad libitum, were
now fodder for the man in the street. The whole knotty problem
of Ministers and Opposition was thrashed out in club and railway
carriage, in dining-room and office. People went back to Pitt and
Grattan and Burke to verify quotations, and delivered them pat in
support of their particular views. A few Tories dismissed the whole
thing summarily ; it was not to be mentioned. The thin end of the
wedge to let in an Irish Republic ? Never ! Solid and square-toed
minds nodded approval over the emphatic pronouncements of Lord
Hartington, who both on the first and second reading (April 9 and
May 10) forcibly rejected the scheme in terms that were unequi-
vocal and entirely sincere ; they rejoiced that the integrity of the
Empire was safe in his hands. Some were agreed there was virtue
in the bill ; but it did not go far enough, it would not secure a peace-
ful and contented Ireland ; others averred that there might have been
virtue in the bill had it not gone too far. The Irish leader was a
first-rate huckster, they said, and little by little the Prime Minister
was going up and up ; he had begun by offering to let the Irish
contribution to the Imperial Fund be one-fourteenth part, and by-
and-by Mr. Parnell, with another tweak of the screw, would stand
out for the payment of less than a twentieth part. The idea of
content coupled with Ireland was generally scouted ; had not Grattan
said that the " King, lords, and commons of Ireland only could make
laws to bind Ireland." Was it likely that the men who had made
themselves so designedly unpleasant in the House of Commons
would change their tactics when set up on their own soil ? Had
the great leader taken leave of his senses ? asked one. Was he so
enamoured of power that he turned traitor ? said another. Was he
sincere, or was it merely a mask? cried a third. Sincere to the
core ! declared a fourth. Mr. Gladstone never attempted to con-
vince others without first convincing himself; he was sincere, and
desperately in earnest. He was ready to weep tears of blood for the
sake of Ireland ! " And the Irish vote," added a cynical Tory.
84
An Eventful May
In practical circles Mr. Gladstone's estimates were commented on
with considerable acrimony. The .£1,718,544 which was set down
for Civil Service salaries in Ireland were denounced by some as " the
Great Bribe," by others as " a magnificent present that Mr. Glad-
stone proposed to lay at the feet of Mr. Parnell." Certainly this
sum was justly described as the key to the situation, for it was stated
in certain quarters that the bill would hardly have been looked at
across the water, especially after Mr. Gladstone's reservations, save
for the bait of the Civil Service salaries and the judicial and magis-
terial emoluments. It was said, moreover, that every branch presi-
dent or secretary to the National League expected before the end
of the year to get a Government situation, and that, compared with
Mr. Gladstone's wholesale transaction, the secret corruption of Grat-
tan's Parliament was a bagatelle !
Mr. Chamberlain's actions also were being virulently criticised
Some asserted that he was actuated by a natural antagonism to
" "r. Gladstone ; others hinted of dark ambitious designs that were
hatching in the Radical's brains. But in reality Mr. Chamberlain
was cutting himself adrift to float upon an unknown sea. He had
resigned his post as member of the Cabinet, and with it he threw
up his generally recognised position as heir-presumptive to the
eadership. And these prospects he set aside — for what? His
passages at arms with Lord Salisbury yet buzzed in Tory memory ;
his quips at the expense of the moderate Liberals were repeated on
every hand. He had made no single move to ingratiate himself
with the Mammon of Unrighteousness, so that when the end came
they should receive him in their houses. Why then did he act as
he did ? Why, when a little trimming of the sails of his convictions
would have enabled him to retain the brilliant berth that it had taken
him years to acquire — why did he cut himself adrift to sail in the
open practically alone ? Some of his detractors hinted that his
object was to drive Mr. Gladstone from his throne, and with such
Liberals as he could muster support a coalition Ministry in which he
and Lord Hartington would take prominent positions. The journals
even went so far as to plan out a phantom Cabinet, in which the
names of Lord Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain, of Mr. Goschen,
Sir Henry James, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Courtney, Lord Selborne,
Lord Northbrook, Lord Derby, and the Duke of Argyll figured.
The outline afforded ample food for gossip, and people drew fantastic
dialogues that were supposed to take place between the partial Home
Ruler, Mr. Chamberlain, and the solid Unionist, Lord Hartington ;
between Rip Van Winkle, the orthodox representative of Whig
tradition, and Jack Cade, the unorthodox inventor of unauthorised
ideals. It was all very humorous — exciting for the Press, stimulat-
85
Life of Chamberlain
ing for companies at the breakfast table, and tickling to the palates
of amateur politicians, but to Mr. Chamberlain it was vital ! Blondin
crossing on his rope the Falls of Niagara carried his life in his
hand ; Mr. Chamberlain balancing himself on the fine line between
the call of Imperial duty and his long-cherished scheme for the
welfare of Ireland, risked not life, bald and simple, but life as it
appeared to him, full of fine issues immatured, yet budding with a
thousand hints of promise soon possibly to be blighted.
On the 1 5th of May Lord Salisbury also held a meeting, and
dispersed any nebulous whispers regarding the solidity of the Tory
party and its relation to the dissentient Liberals. He instructed the
Conservatives that in the coming division the victory lay with them,
and also the responsibilities of it ; with them and not with the allies
whose assistance they would gladly accept, and to whom, should they
desire it, assistance would be rendered.
Till now Mr. Bright had not expressed himself in any way on
the subject of the bills, and there was a lingering hope in the Radical
party and among the Irishmen that he by his silence might mean
consent. This hope was shortly dispelled, when in an interview
with Mr. Barry O'Brien at the Reform Club he stated his objections
both to the Land and to the Home Rule Bills.
He announced that he did not object to the bill on the ground
that it might lead to religious persecution, because he thought the
days for that kind of thing were past, and, moreover, that Ireland,
if disposed to persecute, would find herself too contiguous to a Pro-
testant country to attempt it. He laid stress on the fact that the
Protestants were well able to take care of themselves, and that it
was the Catholics and not the Protestants who had come under the
harrow of the League. The idea of separation he scouted as absurd
in view of the increasing population of England and the diminishing
population of Ireland. " I do not know that separation would be
a bad thing if you could separate far enough," the great orator said ;
and Mr. O'Brien, with the happy whimsicality of his nation, helped
him out still further with a quotation from one of his own famous
speeches : " If we could be moved two thousand miles to the west-
ward?"— and Mr. Bright, smiling, nodded assent. He offered no
varnish, but declared that " Many of us would be glad to get rid of
you ; but we have been thrown together by nature, and so we must
remain."1 He further stated his objection to the bill because he
believed it went either too far or not far enough, and would lead to
friction between the two countries, and the Irish Parliament would
be perpetually agitating to break the bars of " the statutory cage "
in which it was confined. He considered the most pleasing clause
1 " Life of Charles Stewart Parnell." R. Barry O'Brien.
86
An Eventful May
of Mr. Gladstone's bill that which Mr. Chamberlain objected to.
It excluded the Irish members from Westminster. It was curious
how widely different were opinions in this particular matter. Mr.
Bright was only too anxious to purge Westminster of the Irish
members, and Mr. Chamberlain fought to retain them. Mr. Glad-
stone favoured their exclusion, and Mr. Parnell was in agreement
with him. He saw in the arrangement more than appeared on the
surface. He imagined that the Irish Parliament would thus acquire
an independent character, which was highly desirable. But the
matter to him was one of detail, and not as it was to others, a vital
hinge of the machinery.
In other respects Mr. Bright found the bill wanting. His desire
was so to legislate as to divert Irish energy in Irish party warfare,
and give no party leader a chance to take up the anti- English cry.
An optimistic programme doubtless, but one which would have
deprived Ireland of its main stimulus towards existence. Finally,
in bidding Mr. O'Brien adieu, Mr. Bright regretted that he could
not be of his party, though he had been all his life on the Irish side.
But so little did he desire to work against the Irish cause that he
even then doubted whether he should act at all. Hitherto, he said,
he had refrained from speaking on account of Mr. Gladstone — he
had abstained out of personal regard for him.
In the same way Mr. Chamberlain also hesitated before making
a final stand.
By this it will be seen how the political and social ramifications of
society lapped or crumbled, sometimes through the personalities of
individuals, sometimes through the principles of parties. No longer
was Tory opposed to Whig and Whig to Tory alone, but Whig
fought Whig and Radical fought Radical, and Tories turned cold
shoulders on even the discussion of the " infamous plot " that
menaced the Empire. In some of the political clubs it was said
to have " rained blackballs," and certainly in many socially inclined
drawing-rooms the word Ireland was tabooed. The mention of
Gladstone started a chorus of execration. The Prime Minister by
the time the Royal birthday arrived was in sore straits to know
how to send forth the usual invitations, so few peers, even of the
lower rank, were now available. The Duke of Argyll, old friend
as he was, had privately been invited, and refused to be present.
Perplexity reached its height when the question of hiding the
" nakedness of the land " from the Prince of Wales came to be
considered. Fortunately the Prince was not present, though young
Prince Albert Victor was, and a sufficiency of bigwigs put in an
appearance and saved the situation. Still from day to day the
buzz grew louder, the mystification and misinterpretation more
Life of Chamberlain
intense. Suggestions, problems, arrangements, concessions, plans,
and counter-plans echoed on all sides, till politicians came almost to
change their opinions with their shirts. Men's minds floated, in fact,
like feathers propelled by the last breath of the political spokesman.
Many Radicals decided not to think for themselves, but to take
their cue from the colossal figure of Mr. Bright. Out of sympathy
for the Chief he still made no public utterance, but privately he
washed his hands of the new policy ; and though he disapproved
of Mr. Gladstone's project, Mr. Chamberlain's shadowy scheme of
federation was no more acceptable to him. He would not consent to
the Home Rule measure, " a measure so offensive to the Protestants
of Ireland " ; and the Land Bill he objected to for reasons stated.
He indeed expressed himself incapable of viewing without hostility
any of the subjects which were supported by "the rebel members,"
men who for six years past had insulted the Queen, torn down the
national flag, declared the Lord-Lieutenant guilty of murder, and
" made the Imperial Parliament an assembly totally unable to
manage the legislative business for which it annually assembles
at Westminster." Elsewhere he told his friends that if Mr. Glad-
stone's tremendous weight were not attached to the bills, he doubted
if twenty persons outside the Irish party would support them.
The Prime Minister called a meeting of the Liberal party
at the Foreign Office on the 27th of May. The circular was
addressed to those Liberals " who were in favour of the establish-
ment of a legislative body in Dublin for the management of
affairs especially and exclusively Irish." The meeting was attended
by some two hundred and twenty members. Mr. Gladstone
discoursed for an hour, and pointed out that the bill must not
become a mockery ; that members not entirely in agreement
with the whole scheme might still vote for the second reading of
the bill with a view to its amendment in committee ; that the Land
Bill could be made a separate question ; that he would consider any
plan for the retention of Irish members consistent with the liberty
of the Irish legislative body ; and that in regard to procedure after
the second reading, they could either hang up the bill and defer
committee till the autumn, or wind up the session, prorogue, and
reintroduce the amended bill in October. To hanging up the bill
we know Mr. Parnell objected strongly, and his objections he again
forcibly put before Mr. Gladstone, who was already aware of them.
With Mr. Gladstone's eloquence the Foreign Office gathering
was content — waverers were almost caught again in the toils. But a
debate that followed speedily removed the good effect created. The
Opposition asked uncomfortable questions. Sir Michael Hicks
Beach required to know whether the bill was to be withdrawn or
88
I
"o
£ z c-
*? 2 «
c: a y -5
c« o * d
S £ o
I
JS1
1
1
I
s
a
0
= S
-«
I
Life of Chamberlain
postponed ? If withdrawn, that would mean that the vote on the
second reading would be a farce ; if postponed, the administration of
the law in Ireland would be at a standstill. The contemplation of
such trifling with a vital question, such paralysing of schemes for
restoring order in Ireland, worked the objector to great heights of
indignation, till at last he declared that a bill read a second time
on such conditions could be called merely a Continuance in Office
Bill !
Mr. Gladstone, with convenient dignity, refused to discuss the
crude impeachment, after which arose a heated discussion as to
whether or not Ministers had undertaken to remodel the bill. Lord
Randolph Churchill pursued his usual tactics, and argued that the
word used was "reconstructed." Promptly the subject of recon-
struction was denied, the Prime Minister declaring that there was but
one clause touching the future of the representatives of Ireland to the
Imperial Parliament that remained to be considered. Finally, it was
announced that if the bill were read a second time Ministers would
advise prorogation, introducing the bill amended, reconstructed, and
remodelled in October. Thus every one was made aware that the
Government was decided to go to the country with the scheme as it
stood rather than court fresh entanglements by striking out in new
and possibly more dangerous directions.
On, the 3ist of the month Mr. Chamberlain presided at a meet-
ing of members who, being in favour of some sort of autonomy
for Ireland, disapproved of the Government bills in their present
shape. The great question of moment was, should they abstain
from the division or vote against the Government ? By abstain-
ing they might still repair the rent that was beginning to gape
in the party, and Mr. Chamberlain even now sought for means of
averting complete rupture. But the " death warrant," as it was
called, came from Mr. Bright. Though he was not present, he now
definitely expressed by letter his intention to vote against the bill.
At a subsequent meeting of Lord Harrington's followers feeling
against the bill was even more pronounced, and, as a result, it was
found that a total of some eighty-eight Liberals were ready to
go into the lobby against the Government.
It was not till the last that Mr. Chamberlain himself decided
to vote against the bill, and his defence for the decision which
caused so much turmoil and animosity he put forth in a speech
delivered on the ist of June. He alluded to the personal attacks
which doubtless relieved the monotony of the debate, but he declared
them " below the level of the great constitutional discussion in which
they were called on to take part." These proposals, he said, had
been admitted by the Government to be the gravest and most
90
An Eventful May
startling that had been presented to Parliament during the life of
the present generation.
He alluded to the difference of the public attitude in regard to
his own conduct and that of Mr. Bright. Yet Mr. Bright was going
into the lobby to vote against the bill — against the friend, the
associate, the leader whom he had followed with loyal devotion for
many years of his life. Why, he asked, was he himself in a different
position ? No one doubted the honour of Mr. Bright. He re-
minded his audience of his Warrington speech on the 8th of
September, and quoted the passage about his determination not to
purchase Mr. Parnell's support on Mr. Parnell's conditions. He
was thanked by many friends for what they called that plain, frank,
courageous declaration ; and now — a very few months later — he was
accused of personal and unworthy motives. He pronounced the
charge " unjust — ridiculous." " There is not a man here," he cried,
" who does not know that every personal and political consideration
would lead me to cast in my lot with the Prime Minister. Why,
sir, not a day passes in which I do not receive dozens or scores of
letters urging me for my own sake to vote for the bill and ' dish the
Whigs.' '
He proceeded to say that the temptation was no doubt a great
one, but, after all, he was not sufficiently base to serve his personal
ambition by betraying his country ; and felt convinced when the heat
of the fray was over Liberals would not judge harshly those who
had pursued what they honestly believed to be the path of duty,
even though that path led to disruption of party ties and the loss of
the influence and power which it was the legitimate ambition of
every man to seek among his political friends and associates.
This speech, energetic and uncompromising as it was, served to
sweep away any hopes that might have been entertained regarding
possible concessions and reconciliations within the Liberal camp.
The Unionist Liberals, it was evident, were determined not to be
entrapped into voting for what Mr. Gladstone at one time put
forward as a vague principle, yet at another propounded as a
complete and " mischievous " scheme. If the second reading of the
bill were to be carried, those who should vote for it might, they
suspected, be'committed in the autumn to support, not a remodelled
nor revised measure, but, to all intents and purposes, the identical
thing !
Sir Michael Hicks Beach now announced that the front opposi-
tion bench would take no further part in the debate, and interest
was removed to the speeches of Mr. Goschen, Mr. Sexton, and
Mr. Parnell, till the night of the 7th brought forth one of the
grandest displays of oratory that had been heard for years.
Life of Chamberlain
But, in view of the final issue, pressure of all kinds was brought
to bear on Mr. Chamberlain for the purpose of making him pocket
his convictions and reunite himself with his party. On the 5th of
June Mr. Labouchere wrote to him thus : —
" MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN, — At the desire of a large number of Radical
members of Parliament, I write to make an appeal to you with regard to your
attitude upon the Government for Ireland Bill.
"They are all of them among your warmest admirers, and they have
always looked to you as the leader of their phase of political thought.
" They advocated your ' unauthorised programme ' at the last general
election, and they have persistently defended you against the attacks and
aspersions of all who have denounced you and your views upon political or
social issues.
" With much that you have said upon the Irish Bill they agree, and they
think that they have a right to ask you to give a fair consideration to any
request that they may make to you in order to maintain the union which they
are so anxious should exist between you and them.
" In your speech upon the second reading of the bill you said that you were
in favour of the principle of a separate domestic Legislature for Ireland, with
due reservations, but that you did not consider that Mr. Gladstone had
made it sufficiently clear that voting for the bill would mean nothing but a
recognition of this principle, and would leave its supporters absolute indepen-
dence of judgment with regard to the new bill that he might introduce in an
autumn session.
" I think that he has met this objection in his letter to Mr. Moulton that
has been published to-day.
" We think, therefore, that perhaps you could now respond to our wishes,
and either vote for the bill, or, if you could not go so far as this, abstain from
voting.
"The issue of the division on Monday is, we believe, entirely in your
hands.
" Should the bill be lost, there will be a general election at once, which
will disturb the trade and commerce of the country, and it will take place at
a time which, as no doubt you are aware, will be the worst period of the year
for the Radicals, owing to the registration laws now in force.
" It is impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that a general election with-
out you on our side may lead to a Whig-Tory or Tory-Whig Government,
which would relegate to the dim and distant future all those measures which
you and we so ardently desire may become law.
" Under these circumstances is it too much for us to ask you to make an
effort to avert all these contingencies ?
"When Achilles returned to his tent the Greeks were defeated. What
would it have been had Achilles lent the weight of his arm to the Trojans ?
" I fully recognise how conciliatory your attitude has been, and how
anxiously you have sought to see your way from disruption during all the
discussions which I have had with you.
" I still cannot help hoping that, in view of the distinct assurances of
Mr. Gladstone in his letter to Mr. Moulton, and in view of the wishes of so
many of your warmest admirers in the House of Commons, you will see your
92
An Eventful May
way to defer to the request which, through me, they make to you. — Yours
truly, H. LABOUCHERE.
" THE RIGHT HON. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Esq., M.P."
Mr. Chamberlain's reply was straightforward — decisive.
"40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W.,
"June 5, 1886.
" MY DEAR LABOUCHERE, — I thank you for your letter of this morning,
and sincerely appreciate the spirit in which it is written, but especially
your recognition that my attitude has been conciliatory throughout these
unfortunate differences, and that I have been at all times most anxious to
prevent the disruption of the Liberal party.
"You do not give me the names of the friends on whose behalf you write,
and who now urge me to vote in favour of the second reading of a bill with
many of my objections to which they themselves agree.
" I do not know, therefore, whether or no they have already pledged them-
selves to take the course which you urge upon me ; but I assume that this is
the case, as I have not myself received any communications in the same sense
from any of those who have declared their inability to support the second
reading.
" I am unable to accept your reference to my speech as quite accurate, but
I adhere on every point to the words of the original report.
" I quite admit that Mr. Gladstone has given ample assurance that he will
not hold any member who may vote for the second reading as committed
thereby to a similar vote for the second reading of the bill when reintroduced
in October ; but the question still remains — whether such members will not be
obliged to take this course in order to preserve their own logical consistency.
" Up to the present time Mr. Gladstone has given no indication whatever
that the bill to be presented in October will be materially different from the
bill now before the House.
" On the contrary, he has distinctly stated that he will not depart from the
main outlines of the present measure.
" It is, however, to the main outlines of the present bill that the opposition
of my friends and myself has been directed, and it appears to me that we
should be stultifying ourselves if we were to abstain at the last moment from
giving effect to our conscientious convictions.
"We are ready to accept as a principle the expediency of establishing
some kind of legislative authority in Ireland, subject to the conditions which
Mr. Gladstone himself has laid down ; but we honestly believe that none of these
conditions are satisfactorily secured by the plan which has been placed before us.
" I share your apprehension as to the result of a general election at the
present time ; but the responsibility for this must, I think, in common fairness,
rest with those who will have brought in, and forced to a division, a bill
which, in the words of Mr. Bright, 'not twenty members outside the Irish
party would support if Mr. Gladstone's great authority were withdrawn from
it' — I am, yours very truly, J. CHAMBERLAIN.
"P.S. — As I understand that many Radical members are cognisant of your
letter, I propose to send it, together with my reply, for publication.1
" H. LABOUCHERE, Esq., M.P."
1 The Times, June 7, 1886.
93
Life of Chamberlain
Here was the ultimatum of a man, brave as he was sincere.
He deliberately sacrificed himself in the very blossom of his
brilliant career — resigned his chance of heirship to Gladstone, and
yet saw no absolute certainty of success with the Conservatives.
Some predicted a humiliating fall to the ground between the two
stools ; others hinted at pulverisation as a result of the impact of
contending parties ; but Mr. Chamberlain saw all the dangers, and
faced them, determined never to become the man to let " I dare
not " wait upon " I would."
III.— REJECTION OF THE HOME RULE BILL, JUNE 8, 1886
On the night of the 7th of June the greatest historical scene that
has been witnessed since the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 was
enacted in the House of Commons. As a natural consequence of
the interest that had been growing daily hotter and hotter, an un-
precedentedly large audience clamoured for admission, and at prayer
time all available places were crowded by an eager, excited com-
pany. When business began there was scarcely breathing space,
and the galleries from floor to roof were packed with all the most
notable personages that London could muster. A tense, almost
unnatural passivity seemed to prevail — all appeared to be gathering
themselves together in almost breathless expectation of a tremendous
crisis. Presently the suspense was broken by cheers for the goodly
form of Mr. Bright, who, for the first time during the proceedings,
was in evidence, and then by more cheers, this time for Mr. Glad-
stone and for Lord Hartington.
The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. Goschen, who ex-
pressed his regret that the issue had become confused by the events
of the last fortnight, until scarcely any member knew precisely what
he was going to vote on. None knew whether the bill was to be
reconstructed or not, and the general confusion illustrated the draw-
back of coming to a vote on explanations, and not on the bill itself.
He characterised the bill as, in fact, a bundle of impossibilities.
Information on many points was still necessary. For instance, were
this bill and the Land Bill still inseparably connected? was the
twenty-fourth clause to be struck out altogether ? and was there to
be any separate treatment for Ulster ? At the root of the matter lay
the supremacy of Parliament, and he contended that it was seriously
impaired by the bill, and dependent entirely upon clauses and condi-
tions in the bill which, in all probability, the House of Commons
never would assent to. Another important point was the position
of the Roman Catholics towards the university ; but he believed
that the Irish laity would be at a great disadvantage in being
94
Rejection of the Home Rule Bill
deprived of the assistance of England in their struggle with the clergy
to get the control of education. The fiscal arrangements of the bill
were certain to produce friction, and finally the legislative, commer-
cial, and executive friction certain to result from the bill must lead
to separation. As to Grattan's Parliament, he pointed out that it
was no precedent, inasmuch as the executive then constituted the
link of union between the two countries ; and moreover, Grattan's
Parliament was not given spontaneously but extorted from us at a
period of great difficulty. Reverting to the influence which had
been brought to bear to secure the passing of the bill, he protested
warmly against Mr. Gladstone's reckless language about "classes
and their dependants," and predicted that he had kindled a flame
for the purpose of getting up the steam to pass his bill, which might
lead to serious consequences. After some remarks on the financial
part of the question, he protested against the strained interpretation
put on the word "coercion," and concluded with a vigorous appeal
to the new; democracy not to be hustled into an irreparable breach
of the foundations of the constitution.
Mr. Parnell's was the speech of a statesman, finely reasoned,
masterly. He twitted Mr. Goschen with having been the sup-
porter of many lost causes, deprecated with him all outrages, whether
enacted in Kerry or Ulster, and attributed recent crime to the
language lately used by Lord Randolph Churchill and Mr.
Chamberlain. Turning to the bill, he admitted that he would at
one time have preferred the restoration of Grattan's Parliament, but
he now saw advantages in an Irish Legislature established for home
government only, being limited and subordinated to the Imperial
Parliament.
He maintained that under the bill the British Parliament would
retain unimpaired the same power and authority with respect to
Ireland that it now possessed ; and in answer to the objection that
the bill contained no element of finality, he insisted that the bill
had been freely, cheerfully, and gladly accepted by all the leaders of
national feeling both in Ireland and America. Dealing next with
the question of Ulster, he refused to assent to its separation from
the proposed scheme. With regard to the retention of the Irish
members, he preferred to keep his mind open. Personally, he had
no objection to their retention, but he believed that great difficulties
would ensue, and that ultimately it would be the English members
and not the Irish who would object to their being retained. " If,"
he said, " I had regard to the spirit with which the right hon.
member for West Birmingham has dealt with the question, I should
have been hopelessly alienated from the plan of retaining the Irish
members. He has dealt with it in a way to attach an apparent
95
stigma of inferiority to us, and in order that he may have the excuse
for constantly meddling in our affairs, checking us, thwarting us,
and keeping us under his thumb. The Irish people will never sub-
mit to that ! " This declaration was delivered with great dignity,
and many persons, marking the bearing of the man, were inclined
to question which was the hero of the evening, Mr. Gladstone or
"the Uncrowned King." The general verdict was in favour of the
sincere, the earnest, the devoted Irishman ! He now astonished
every one by saying that before the general election the leaders of
the Conservative party distinctly offered, in the event of their
obtaining a majority, to submit not only a plan for the complete
autonomous government of Ireland, but also a scheme of land purchase
on a much larger scale than that proposed by Mr. Gladstone, and
predicted that if the bill were lost coercion of a more stringent
nature than that hitherto adopted would have to be resorted to.
" What has been the effect of coercion during five years ? " he
asked ; and he proceeded to deal with the past actions of the
Government and the brutality of the police. " You have fined the
innocent for offences committed by the guilty ; you have taken power
to expel aliens from the country ; you have revived the Curfew law
and the blood-money of your Norman conquerors ; you have gagged
the Press, and seized and suppressed newspapers ; you have manu-
factured new crimes and offences, and applied fresh penalties unknown
to your law for those crimes and offences. All this you have done
for five years, and all this and much more you will have to do
again." He went on to speak of the provisions in the bill for the
exclusion of the Irish members from the Imperial Parliament and
the objection taken to it, quoting Mr. Trevelyan, who had said that
there is no halfway-house between separation and the maintenance
of law and order in Ireland by Imperial authority. In his judgment,
he declared that there was no halfway-house between the concession
of legislative autonomy to Ireland and the disfranchisement of the
country and her government as a Crown colony. Perhaps the most
telling feature of his speech was his final appeal when he looked
round the House on all the rapt faces of members, who, whether
they agreed or disagreed, were drinking in his words — an appeal
whose fervour was devoid of any hint of drama: "'I am con-
vinced there are a sufficient number of wise and just members in
this House to cause it to disregard appeals made to passion, and
to choose the better way of founding peace and goodwill among
nations ; and when the members in the division lobby come to be
told, it will also be told, for the admiration of all future genera-
tions, that England and her Parliament in this nineteenth century
were wise enough, brave enough, and generous enough to close the
96
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE
Photo RUSSELL, LOSDOS.
Rejection of the Home Rule Bill
strife of centuries, and to give peace and prosperity to suffering
Ireland."
Mr. M. Howard argued that since the Union the commercial
prosperity of Ireland had materially increased, maintaining that there
was no evidence that the industrial classes of that country desired
Home Rule. Mr. Menzies and Mr. E. R. Russell supported the
bill, while Mr. Muntz opposed it. Mr. Cowen, a lifelong supporter
of Home Rule, ardently advocated the bill, and expressed his
conviction that it would not affect the unity of the Empire.
..The debate was wound up for the Opposition by Sir Michael
Hicks Beach, whose zeal and patriotism caused him to deliver an
unusually effective utterance. He complained that, important as
the bill was, its history was more important. It did not embody
the policy of a party nor of its leaders. It was the output of one
man, and that one man had not been converted to his opinion till he
had discovered he could not get a majority in the new House of
Commons without the aid of the Irish members !
He then challenged Mr. Parnell's statement that he had reason
to expect from the late Conservative Government a statutory Parlia-
ment, with power to protect Irish industries. He indignantly
repudiated the assertion, and said that for himself and his colleagues
he categorically denied that they had ever any such intention ! l
There was now great cheering from the Opposition, in the midst of
which Mr. Parnell promptly rose, and asked whether the right hon.
gentleman denied that that intention was communicated to him by
one of his colleagues, a Minister of the Crown.
Sir Michael Hicks Beach earnestly and sincerely replied, "Yes,
I do deny it ! " He further added, that if any one had made such a
statement, it was without authority. Thereupon arose loud cries of
" Name, name," and the utmost excitement prevailed. Sir Michael
Hicks Beach said that Mr. Parnell would confer a favour on the late
Government if he would state the name of the person who had made
the statement Cheers and counter-cheers now rent the air, and
when it was possible to be heard Mr. Parnell spoke. He declared
the appeal to be a safe one, but expressed a willingness to give the
name of the right hon. gentleman's colleague when that colleague
accorded him permission. Sir Michael indignantly retorted that
the Irish members had established a curious code of honour,
which prompted them to stop when insinuation was insufficient
and proof was required. He then proceeded with his speech
— commented on the unusual prolongation of the debate with the
1 This was unfortunate, for Sir Michael Hicks Beach was not aware of the interview
with Lord Carnarvon that has already been mentioned. Only owing to this passage at
arms did the overture become public property.
VOL. II. 97 G
Life of Chamberlain
assent of the Government, and on the manner in which the delay
had been used to bring persuasion, and even intimidation, to bear on
those Liberals who could not change their minds as rapidly as the
Government. For all practical purposes, he asserted, the bill did
away with the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and handed it
over to the Parliament in Dublin.
In regard to the presence of the Irish members, the proposed
alterations, while they would irreparably injure the Imperial Parlia-
ment, would not affect nor remove the main objections to the bill.
The Protestants of the North, he insisted, were justly alarmed at
the bill, because they dreaded not so much legislation as unfair
administration. The question of Ulster was the primary difficulty,
and the Conservative party would decline to give to the Roman
Catholic majority a power over the Ulster men — a power which, in
its effects, would be worse than any Coercion Act which had ever
been passed. He finally asserted that the measure destroyed the
advantages of the Union, while it failed to satisfy the national
sentiment, and he felt he could safely prophesy that the decision of
the country would be unanimous against it.
. Then came Mr. Gladstone's turn. Amid cheers he rose to reply,
his eye alight with the fire of enthusiasm, his marble-pale handsome
visage ennobled by the earnestness of his cause. First he described
Sir Michael Hicks Beach's " facts " as foundationless, and then
proceeded to the measure itself. He denied that he solely was
responsible for the bill, and repeated his previous assertions that the
principles and not the particulars were the question. The twenty-
fourth or any other clause might be altered — amendments might be
proposed ; the Government was prepared carefully to consider
everything. He characterised as vulgar slang the Unionist name
of Separation Bill, and quoted various instances to show that, apart
from the intervention of a third Power, the grant of local indepen-
dence had never been followed by severance. The severance of the
Government of Ireland for local purposes only, he maintained, would
be a mode of union rather than disunion.
Then with some bitterness he attacked Mr. Chamberlain, who
•jwas the most silent though the most vital figure of the moving
drama. He alluded to his opponent's statement that a dissolution
had no terrors for him. " I do not see," he sarcastically remarked,
" how a dissolution can have any terrors for him. He has trimmed
his vessel, and has touched his rudder in so masterly a way that in
whichever direction the winds of heaven may blow they must fill
his sails. Supposing that at an election public opinion should be
very strong in favour of the bill, my right hon. friend would then
be perfectly prepared to meet that public opinion and tell it, ' I {
98
Rejection of the Home Rule Bill
declared strongly that I adopted the principle of the bill.' If, on the
other hand, the public were averse from the bill, he again is fully
armed, because he says — ' Yes, I voted against the bill.' Sup-
posing again public opinion is in favour of a very large plan for
Ireland, my right hon. friend is perfectly provided for that case also.
1 The Government plan was not large enough for him, and he pro-
posed in his speech on the introduction of the bill that we should
have a measure on the basis of federation — which goes farther than
this bill. Lastly, and now I have nearly boxed the compass. Sup-
posing that public opinion should take an entirely different turn, and
instead of wanting very large should want very small measures for
Ireland, still the resources of my right hon. friend are not exhausted,
because he is then able to point out that the last of his plans was
for four provincial circuits controlled from London. All these
alternatives and provisions were visibly creations of the vivid imagi-
nation, born of the hour and perishing with the hour, totally unavail-
able for the solution of a great and difficult problem."
Having delivered this telling thrust he proceeded to address
the House in earnest accents of appeal, mingled with the inspired
note of the born orator. Now, he said, was one of the "golden
moments " of our history ; here was an opportunity that might never
recur. " Ireland stands at your bar, expectant, hopeful, almost
suppliant. Her words are the words of truth and soberness. She
asks a blessed oblivion of the past, and in that oblivion our interest
is deeper even than hers. Mr. Goschen asks us to abide by the
traditions of which we are the heirs. What traditions ? By Irish
traditions ? Go into the length and breadth of the world ; ransack
the literature of all countries — find if you can a single voice, a single
book, even a single newspaper article, unless the product of the day,
in which the conduct of England towards Ireland is anywhere treated
save with profound and bitter condemnation. ..." Passionately
he went on, his voice growing more and more mellow as he pleaded
for Ireland "She asks also a boon for the future, and unless we
are much mistaken it will be a boon to our honour, no less than a
boon to her happiness, prosperity, and peace." Then his tone grew
solemn in final exhortation. " Think, I beseech you ! think well,
think wisely, think not for the moment but for the years to come,
before you reject our plan."
By this time the House was wrought to a state of emotion so
tense as to be tremulous. As Mr. Gladstone sat down, after having
spoken for an hour and a half to a breathless assembly, a gasp of
relief broke forth, followed by a quick revulsion of supernatural
excitement.
The Speaker immediately put the momentous question, and
99
Life of Chamberlain
instantaneously from Radical and Irish benches came forth with
thunderous reverberation the cry, "Aye."
Then from the Opposition the response — boisterous, stentorian,
" No."
The Speaker readily declared that the " Ayes" had it, but amid
a turmoil of cheers and counter-cheers and cries of " Agreed " from
the Nationalists, his decision was formally challenged.
The bells clanged, the House grew more and more crowded, the
Speaker again put the question. Again the thunder of assent and
dissent. Quickly the Ayes moved to the right, the Noes to the
left. Mr. A. Morley and Mr. Marjoribanks were named tellers for
the first, and Mr. Brand and Mr. Caine for the last. Hastily, almost
feverishly, the members filed out, and in some ten minutes' time
began to return to their seats, Sir Charles Dilke leading the Minis-
terialists. At this time the attention of the assembling house was
bent in fascinated curiosity on the faces of the Liberals that passed
the threshold of the " No " lobby — stern, troubled, flushed, angry
faces. Presently came another attraction — Mr. Gladstone, singu-
larly pale, a marvellous figure, making his way from the division
lobby. The crowd pressed back to make way for him, and an Irish
cheer rang through the air.
^ Then, came Mr. Chamberlain — cold, calm ; perhaps the calmest
figure in the whole throng. A hostile demonstration from the Irish-
men met his ears, but he turned neither to right nor to left, passed
along in front of the Treasury Bench, and then waited for what he
knew was to come. The Aye tellers had returned. The Noes, how-
ever, had not yet finished entering. The anxiety, the suspense, the
impatience grew terrific. Then came the denouement. All eyes
were fixed on the clerk as he handed the paper to Mr. Brand.
There were men who trembled, so great was the tension of that final
pause. The next moment the pent-up excitement burst forth ; one
sustained cheer — ominous, thrilling — broke from the triumphant
Unionists !
In vain the Speaker rose and beckoned for silence. In vain he
strove to quell the storm of rejoicing. The four tellers in line had
merely to stand and wait. At length, when human throats could
do no more, the Speaker, in clear, level tones, made his announce-
ment : —
Ayes . . . . . . .311
Noes . . . . . . . 341
Then followed a scene of frenzy passing description. The Con-
servatives roared with triumphant lungs, jumping on their seats and
100
General Election
waving their hats in exultation, while some of their rapture was
reflected even in the Liberal benches.
Ministers bore their defeat with dignified resignation. (It was
not till later that the Grand Old Man bent under the crushing
burden of his disappointment.)
And amid the whirlpool of conflicting passions Mr. Chamberlain
sat immovable. His was the hardest part to play of all, for the
penalty of might is enhanced responsibility ; but he played it
unflinchingly to the bitter end.
The Irish en masse uprose. " Three cheers for the Grand Old
Man," they cried ; and right lustily they, with many others, re-
sponded. Then came the words, "Groans for Chamberlain."
That call, too, was responded to from the Irish quarter. It was an
ordeal that none but a brave man could have endured — none but
a brave man supported by his sense of duty. Mr. Chamberlain
faced his foes — like a Briton — one man to 86 !
At last, at two o'clock on the morning of the 8th of June — the
anniversary of the ill-omened date that saw Mr. Gladstone's Govern-
ment overthrown by the Irish in 1885 — came the end of this
marvellous scene. The excitement within the House was then
carried out of doors, the infection spreading to the anxious crowds,
who on hearing the result broke into cheers as each prominent actor
passed the historic portal. Lord Hartington received so fervid an
ovation that it needed the protection of the police before he could
escape from his admiring fellow-countrymen. The veteran leader,
too, for auld lang syne — and sympathy for his years rather than
for his cardinal effort — elicited enthusiastic cries that mingled with
sounds less welcome to his ears. Presently some one more pacific
sang out, "God Save the Queen." The effect was magical. The
anthem was quickly caught up by others, and gradually the hoarse
strains ascending round the ancient pile grew louder and louder, pro-
claiming far and wide the marriage of Tory and Unionist, the death
of the Home Rule Bill, and the moral justification of the man who
killed it!
IV.— GENERAL ELECTION— DEFEAT OF MR. GLADSTONE, 1886
After this crushing disappointment several Ministers inclined
towards resignation, but Mr. Gladstone would not hear of it. He
thought such action would be interpreted as a sign of weakness and
of mistrust in themselves. There was no instance, he argued, of
a Ministry defeated on a great policy such as his failing to appeal
to the country. The country, he felt confident, would go with him,
and he had no idea of implying by word or act abandonment of the
lor
Life of Chamberlain
cause. So a dissolution followed, and the length and breadth of the
land was once more swept by the hurricane of politics.
Only eight months before the Liberals had blown blasts of
denunciation at Ireland and Mr. Parnell ; now the wind had veered
round, and zephyr-like breezes carried the epithalamium of Parnellites
and Liberals to the four quarters of Great Britain. The great, the
only question was now that of union or separation, and Mr. Glad-
stone himself threw down the glove when he said, " If I had twenty
votes I would give all the twenty against the man who votes against
Ireland and our policy."
Though his Irish policy was undisclosed, though the form of
the bill of the next session was inchoate, Mr. Gladstone confidently
expected that the Liberal party would give him a majority in favour
of his scheme, in favour of the shadow that was to develop into a
scheme. The veteran had "got the bit between his teeth," as the
saying is. He was prepared to run straight ahead, trampling over
everything that might chance to block his course ; he was ready at
all costs to proclaim war to the knife with any of his old adherents
who should dare to disagree with him. No wonder, then, the Liberals
who so ventured began to arm themselves and prepare for combat
in earnest, and that Mr. Chamberlain, who with or without reason
had been held as the responsible mover of the dissentient party,
should decide that if war there was to be, the thing should be carried
through with vigour that should startle Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Morley, and Mr. Schnadhorst who buoyed them up with false hope
of the power of the Irish vote in the English constituencies.
On Mr. Chamberlain fell the brunt of battle as had fallen the
brunt of abuse. Why he should have been selected as special target
for the enemy it is difficult to say ; it is a riddle that has astonished
impartial observers. Certainly a large personality is easier than a
little one to aim at, but his large personality did not stand alone.
With him were Lord Hartington, Lord Selborne, Sir George
Trevelyan, Sir Henry James, and Mr. Goschen, together with the
imposing figure of John Bright, whose "moral weight" was declared
to have been the factor in sending down the scale. These thought
and acted as he did, yet he was singled out as the criminal, the
arch-traitor, the double-face, and that despite the speeches he
had made at Warrington and elsewhere clearly pronouncing his
views regarding a parliament or national council for Ireland, and
the extent to which he was prepared to go. The attempt to force
his hand made by Mr. Gladstone naturally aroused his antagonism,
and thrust on him the obligation to fight implacably against a bill
which contained a colourable imitation of his own ideas in a spurious,
unpatriotic shape.
102
General Election
In regard to his determined attitude Mr. Chamberlain freely ex-
pressed himself in an interview with Mr. Barry O'Brien, the author
of the " Life of Charles Stewart Parnell." They had a conversa-
tion (Feb. 1898) regarding Mr. Chamberlain's original proposal of
National Councils for Ireland and the subsequent negotiations
between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell, and the effort of Mr.
Gladstone to persuade Mr. Chamberlain to his views.
Then Mr. O'Brien said : " I should now like to talk about the
Home Rule Bill. I have come to the conclusion after giving the
matter — your speeches and all that has been written and said upon the
subject — the best consideration I could, that you were never a Home
Ruler in one sense ; but there are some points which I should feel
obliged if you would clear up for me. You opposed the exclusion
of the Irish members from the Imperial Parliament. I thought at
that time, and I think a great many other people thought too, that
you were in favour, or that ultimately you came to be in favour, of
the principle of Mr. Gladstone's bill, but that you objected to the
exclusion of the Irish members as a matter of detail. What I should
like to ask is, if you objected to the exclusion as a matter of detail
or if you really used that clause for the purpose of attacking the bill ?
Was it really your aim to turn Mr. Gladstone's flank by attacking
that point ? "
" Mr. Chamberlain. — ' I wanted to kill the bill.'
" And you used the question of the exclusion of the Irish
members for that purpose ? "
" Mr. Chamberlain. — * I did, and I used the Land Bill for the same
purpose. I was not opposed to the reform of the land laws. I was
not opposed to land purchase. It was the right way to settle the
land question, but there were many things in the bill to which I
was opposed on principle. My main object in attacking it, though,
was to kill the Home Rule Bill. As soon as the Land Bill was out
of the way, I attacked the question of the exclusion of the Irish
members. I used that point to show the absurdity of the whole
scheme.'
" Well, I may say, Mr. Chamberlain, that that is the conclusion
I have myself come to. It was strategy, simply strategy."
" Mr. Chamberlain. — ' I wanted to kill the bill. You may take
that all the time.' "
Mr. Chamberlain assured Mr. O'Brien that he had never been
near being converted to an Irish Parliament, the National Councils'
scheme having been the extreme limit to which he had been pre-
pared to go. Whatever his actions subsequently, they were de-
signedly arranged to oppose the bill, which overstepped that limit.
Indeed, it seemed that the very fact of his responsibility for having
103
Life of Chamberlain
propounded or fathered the National Councils' scheme forced
on him the responsibility to reject the introduction of a spurious
offspring. Thus, then, we find the key to the vituperations and
abuse that mark this period of Mr. Chamberlain's career, and that
at the time caused him intense pain and annoyance. He not only
had to defend his country from the bill — as his colleagues, the
dissentient Liberals, had had to do — but it behoved him to defend
himself from appearing to accept the thing as the prime outcome of
his mind. His was the duty to unmask the alien and disown it.
But the blasts and the blizzards had their value, and Mr.
Chamberlain reaped his reward. Mr. Gladstone's indignation at his
colleague's secession from the ranks of his disciples, the Irishmen's
fury at the loss of the main pillar of their Home Rule edifice, the
lampoons of the press, the diatribes of the Gladstonian journals, the
cartoons of caricaturists — what were they all but testimony to the
weight of a great man in the history of our own time ? Before this
date he was formidable, after it he was colossal. Every effort to
minimise the power of the statesman merely enhanced it, andjie
gained daily in force to meet the perpetual demand made upon him.
The election period of 1886 was perhaps the greatest period of
his life. He threw himself into the work with unparalleled vigour,
upheld as he was by the justness of his cause, united to the per-
sonal pride which refuses to acknowledge defeat.
Never was so keen a struggle, never was tug of war contested
inch by inch with more zest, more thew, and more earnestness.
Great voices rang above the uproar of contest ; the huge voices of
Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain, the aristo-
cratic tones of Lord Salisbury and Lord Hartington, and the
chanticleer note of Lord Randolph Churchill. " For the sake of
this message of peace," put forth the last, "this farrago of superlative
nonsense, the British constitution is to be torn up, and the Liberal
party shivered to fragments ! And why ? to gratify the ambition of
an old man in a hurry." He described the Prime Minister under
various aliases — " The People's William," " The Grand Old Man,"
" The Old Parliamentary Hand." " Now," he wrote, " in the part of
the grand electioneering agent he demands a vote of confidence from
the constituencies. Confidence in what ? — In the Liberal party ?
No ! The Liberal party as we know it exists no longer ! In his Irish
project ? No ! It is dead, to be resuscitated not either wholly or in
part, just as it may suit the personal convenience of the author. In
his Government ? No ! They are a mere collection of items whom
he does not condescend to consult ! In himself? Yes. This is the
latest and the most perilous innovation in our constitutional practice.
A pure unadulterated personal plebiscite, that is the demand — a
104
General Election
political expedient borrowed from the last and worst days of the
Second Empire." Though the document was lacking in finish and
grace, it was not devoid of truth. Mr. Gladstone's great popularity,
supported by the statements of Mr. Schnadhorst, who submitted
figures showing that the Irish vote in the English constituencies
would carry the elections in favour of the Government, led the
unfortunate Veteran to expectations of a personal triumph that
were far from justified by the results.
From the first the contest threatened to be uneven. Men of
wealth and standing had gone with the Liberal- Unionists, who in face
of a dreaded danger agreed to act in concert, and arranged that no
Conservative or Unionist should come in collision over the same seats ;
while the Gladstonites, blind followers of the blind, were crippled for
want of the brains and the means to carry on any serious warfare.
Theirs was a forlorn hope, and many of them knew it. Meanwhile
Mr. Goschen brilliantly held forth ; Lord Hartington gave out his
sound, steady-going opinions ; Mr. Bright expressed the strong
feelings already described in his letter. Mr. Chamberlain, in this
turning-point of his career, gathered to himself new life, new
courage to fight the fight that had been forced upon him. Like
a war-horse the sniff of battle nerved him. Whatever the future
might hold, his cause to-day was a high cause, and the combat
against the greatest living statesman was worth the winning.
In his election address (2ist of June) he explained that during
the last few months he had gone through a time of great trial and
anxiety : —
" I have had a great responsibility cast upon me, and I have incurred much
odium and abuse in consequence of the course which I have thought it my
duty to take. In public life one gets accustomed to a good deal of strong
language from one's political opponents. I remember a story of the great
French statesman, M. Thiers, of whom one of his political adversaries said that
he was the most profligate scoundrel and ruffian on the face of the globe, and
one of his rather fussy friends came to M. Thiers, and he called his attention
to this language, and he asked him whether he was not going to take some
notice of it. M. Thiers said, ' No, why should I ? That is only the way in
which this gentleman expresses his difference of opinion.' Gentlemen, although
one easily becomes case-hardened to the ordinary abuse of one's political
opponents, I will confess to you that I have been pained and grieved by some
of the language which has been used by those with whom for so many years
I have been co-operating in public life. I have been wounded in the house of
my friends, and my foes have been those of my own household, and sometimes
I have asked myself whether this game is worth the candle, and whether I was
called upon to pursue to the end this bitter struggle which is foreign to all the
objects with which I entered public life — objects which are now indefinitely
postponed by this new controversy which has been sprung upon us."
At other times he told his supporters that he had not given
105
Life of Chamberlain
up all hope of promoting the welfare of Ireland in the fashion he
had originally sketched out. Though determined in their opposi-
tion to a separate Parliament for Ireland, Liberal- Unionists, he
declared, were anxious to meet so far as possible the "legitimate
aspirations of the Irish people, shared, as they believe them to be,
by Scotland and by Wales, for greater independence in the manage-
ment of their local affairs. He laid stress on four points which
should stand at the bottom of any satisfactory arrangement for
Ireland: the relief of the Imperial Parliament by the removal of
purely Irish concerns ; the full representation of Irish opinion on
matters of local Irish interest ; the opening of opportunities for the
display of Irish ambition and patriotism ; and the removal of irritating
and harassing interference on the part of England. His idea was
to establish a system of local government for the three kingdoms,
and a wider scheme by which not only Ireland, but all the segments of
the British Isles might be subject to the authority of Parliament, and
obtain enhanced control of their purely local affairs.
His plan for dealing with Ireland he had very explicitly described
on the 9th of April. The first thing would be to bring out a bill to
stay all evictions for six months, leaving any arrears to be settled in
connection with the final settlement. Then he would throw on the
Government the duty of lending to those landlords who might have
any need of it such a proportion of their rent as would save them
from privation and necessity. The sum he proposed to set aside
for this purpose would be about four millions. Further, he would
pursue the inquiry which had been begun by the Prime Minister
and the Government, but it should no longer be carried on by a
single individual however colossal his intelligence might be — nor
even by a single party, but, with the co-operation and assent of all
parties in the House, by a committee that would represent all
sections of the House. He again declared that " In my view the
solution of this question should be sought in some form of federa-
tion which would really maintain the Imperial unity, and which
would at the same time conciliate the desire for a national local
Government."
On the capture of the caucus by Mr. Gladstone in May, Mr.
Chamberlain founded the Radical Union to replace his lost allies
and to oppose them in their support of Home Rule, and cement
the varying sections of the dissentient group. The Radical Unionists
had for creed the original idea of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamber-
lain before the seesaw of the Irish vote turned the heads of the
party. They were " willing to accept Mr. Gladstone's statement of
the Irish problem as it was presented by him before the last General
Election," and their ambition was to return a Liberal majority sufft-
106
A LITTLE DINNER IN ARLINGTON STREET. ("One of those things which are not so strange, that,
though they never did, they might happen." — SHERIDAN.)
Lord S-L-SB-RY. — " If you'll come to me, I'll give you my Recipe for this Dish."
Mr. CH-MB-RL-N.— " No, thank you, my Lord. There s such a lot of pepper in it, that it quite
overpowers the pleasant flavour of the union."
(From Punch. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punch.)
Life of Chamberlain
cient to carry a good and safe measure that would reunite the
Liberal party. The programme of the Union followed the lines
of Mr. Chamberlain's address — in fact the provisions advocated for
Ireland were such as might be applied at any time to Scotland,
Wales, and even to provinces of the United Kingdom. Mr. Cham-
berlain attended on the i7th of June the inaugural meeting of the
new union, and discussed the question of how to appease the Irish
Americans or Mr. Parnell ; the Irish people themselves were more
reasonable and more loyal. But the question was whether at the
present time the word local government was properly understood,
since all provisions for that purpose in Ireland had been so inade-
quate and so unsatisfactory. If, he said, opportunity were afforded
for local patriotism and local ambition — if they were given the
management or proper conditions of their domestic business, and if
Irish ideas and sentiments were allowed full play in such legislation
as did not come into collision with the reasonable rights of indivi-
duals and classes or the paramount interests of the Empire — then,
he doubted whether they would allow their representatives to refuse
the chance that was afforded them. While Mr. Chamberlain worked
in his usual fashion addressing meetings of various kinds here, there,
and everywhere, the peers too emerged farther from their seclusion
and delivered themselves in public of brilliant and immemorial sayings
in defence of the union of the Empire. Lord Salisbury compared his
own twenty years of resolute government with that of Mr. Glad-
stone's " when he imprisoned a thousand men without trial for a
political object." Lord Hartington effectively combated Mr. Glad-
stone's statement that for the previous fifteen years he had expressed
no disapproval of Home Rule.
"What," asked he, "had been the attitude of Mr. Gladstone to
his followers and his Cabinet ? To his Irish Secretary had he com-
municated any inclination to accept the system ? And why, if such
inclination existed, had he appointed to the post of Irish Secretary
Mr. Forster, who had been prominently opposed to Mr. Butt's
Home Rule Bill ? If, indeed, Mr. Gladstone had for this lengthy
period been harbouring the belief that Home Rule was the remedy for
Irish disaffection, he was guilty of great responsibility in having
silently acquiesced in the arguments of his colleagues who were in
favour of resistance to the measure. Lord Spencer dilated on the
Land Purchase policy of the Government, and Mr. Morley discussed
the exclusion of the Irish members from the English Parliament,
while Mr. Gladstone at Mid- Lothian, Manchester, and Liverpool in
defence of his measure poured out rivers of words with skill and con-
viction that would have roused the envy of Demosthenes.
v/Mr. Chamberlain proceeded in his usual plain-speaking, lucid
108
m
General Election
fashion, propounding his antagonism to the bill as it had been
elaborated by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell, but still adhering to
the principles of the party to which (when the smoke of battle should
have passed away, and these principles were more clearly seen) he
hoped again to belong.
One of the greatest days of his life was that prior to election,
when he addressed an enthusiastic crowd of sympathisers and ad-
vxinirers, and frankly put before them the harassing features of his
new position. He called on his supporters to remember that this
moment was an unexampled crisis in our national history ; it was
necessary to choose, to examine, and to decide. It was one thing " to
grant the wishes and to meet the requirements of the Irish people,"
another " to drop on your knees to conspirators in America." To-
day^Jiej-eminded them, the British democracy was on its trial. The
brilliant traditions of the past were theirs ; theirs, too, the honour of 1
defending their country. " Your action," he said, " is being watched I
with the keenest interest by every dependency — in every quarter of /
the vast dominion that your ancestors have established." He went/
on to describe -how in India and the Colonies some hundreds of/
millions of men — men acknowledging the sway of England, not alond
for the display of force she was enabled to make, but for the bravery!
boldness, and endurance with which they accredited her — thesi
millions of men were watching the upshot of the proposal that
excited the alarm of the friends and the sinister interest of the foes
of England.
" These two islands," he said, " have always played a great part
in the "history of the worTcT Again ana again. 6UUiiiiilbeTgdrover-
mair4if»r| rrmfrnntrrf-TTTth difficulties and danger, they have held
their own against a world in arms ; proudly, stubbornly, they have
resisted their enemies, and scattered them as chaff before the wind.
Well, if now you are going to yield to the threat of obstruction and
agitation, to tremble at the thought of responsibility, or shrink from
the duty cast on you ; if you are willing to wash your hands of your
obligations, if you will desert those who trust to vour loyalty and
yourhonour, if British courage and pluck are dead within vour
hparf<^~"tf~yuu affe going to qt^an fre/prfl *h^ daprwr Qf the assassin
an<3-_thf> threats °f rnnsniratnrg anH rpheJs — then. IsaV. indeed the
sceptre of dominion will have passed from our grasp, and this great
Empire will perish witTi the loss ot the qualities that have hitnerto
sustained it ! "
As may be imagined, the audience rose in a body, wildly cheer-
ing this man who, himself having stated his hatred of coercion, had
found himself a victim of a more subtle, more deadly, form of the
thing organised against him by his erstwhile political friends. These
109
Life of Chamberlain
people had heard the bitter accusations and taunts and sneers that
had been flung at him from all sides ; they had wondered perhaps,
and wavered perhaps, but, after all, British of bone and lovers of
fairplay, they had come to reason that this man, against whom a
multitude spent its sticks and its stones, must have something in
him — some marvellous stuff that should so attract opprobrium, yet
endure stoutly in the face of all. They saw all this, and said to
themselves, Here is a man of men ; we back him to the last ! So,
after all, Mr. Chamberlain was set up by the very force of the
animus that went to knock him down. By the sheer ferocity of the
torrent that would have wrecked a frailer craft, he, strong and ad-
venturous of heart, was kept afloat. After all, then, he may count
himself the debtor of his enemies !
It became daily more clear that it would be the Ministerialists
and not the Liberal-Unionists who would have to fight tooth and
nail for their seats. The Unionists gathered together all that was
best of the Liberal party, and the country owed them a debt of
gratitude for having maintained their stand so staunchly in face
of pressure and difficulty, and averted a national calamity. Lord
Hartington by his conspicuous courage in leading the Opposition to
the bill, Mr. Goschen by his unflagging energy and powerful criti-
cisms, Sir Henry James's unselfish patriotism, Mr. Trevelyan's fine
courage, Mr. Bright's weighty arguments, and Mr. Chamberlain's
cautious and unassailable tactics that brought about the happiest
results, were matters that excited the admiration of all save those
absolutely bound over to the bill.
Five of the Liberal- Unionists that stood for Birmingham were
elected without opposition, the two members who decided to stand
as Gladstonians were successfully routed, and finally Mr. Chamberlain
and his supporters enjoyed the triumph of cheering seven Unionist
members to victory.
By the end of July the elections were over. The figures stood
thus : —
Tories ..... 316
Liberal-Unionists ... 78
Total against Home Rule . 394
Liberals . . . .191
Nationalists .... 85
Total for Home Rule . 276
It will thus be seen that the Unionist majority numbered 118,
and that the optimism of the Secretary of the Liberal Federation
had led his leader towards destruction. Still the Grand Old Man
gallantly kept his head up, and said in his grandest manner :
"There is nothing in the recent defeat to abate the hopes or to
no
Life of Chamberlain
modify the anticipations of those who desire to meet the wants and
wishes of Ireland."
On the 3oth of July Mr. Gladstone had his final audience of the
Queen ; and soon after Lord Salisbury held a conference with
Lord Hartington with a view to forming a Government. But the
Whig leader was averse from coalition, preferring only to act in
concert with the Tories so long as their line of action was in accord
with his own.
There were many reasons why the idea of the coalition sug-
gested by Lord Salisbury appeared to be impracticable. Lord
Hartington, to begin with, had too small a following to balance
the Tories in the event of his becoming Prime Minister, and the
Tory majority could scarcely be expected to appreciate a leader
who so lately had been associated with the Opposition. Again, in
view of the fact that Lord Hartington, Lord Salisbury, and Mr.
Chamberlain only a few months since had been actively engaged in
attacking each other at party meetings, it seemed impossible for
them on so short a notice to sink their differences of character and
conviction, and agree together to let bygones be bygones. The
action of time could alone be relied on to smooth the numberless
ruts that had been formed by the wheels of political machinery in
the last election ; so both sides acted with masterly discretion,
giving and taking just so much as necessary for the Imperial
cause which had brought them together, yet agreeing to differ in
such minor matters as had previously separated them.
A Conservative Ministry was then formed. Lord Iddesleigh
became Foreign Secretary ; Mr. W. H. Smith, Secretary for War ;
Sir M. Hicks Beach filled the post of Irish Secretary ; and Lord
George Hamilton that of First Lord of the Admiralty ; Lord
Randolph Churchill was promoted to the Chancellorship of the
Exchequer and Leadership of the House of Commons ; and Mr.
H. Matthews, Q.C., was chosen as Home Secretary.
Parliament met on the 5th of August, on which date a meeting
was held at Devonshire House. Here Lord Hartington clearly
defined his position by announcing that the reunion of the Liberal
party depended solely on the question of Home Rule being done
away with. Until that consummation was achieved, there was no
chance of effecting any compromise.
Mr. Chamberlain agreed to regard the necessity for supporting
Lord Salisbury to ensure the defeat of Mr. Gladstone's project, but
he leaned towards some form, vague and shadowy, of reconciliation.
He as ever was in sympathy with the Irish measure ; he had still
a lingering hope • thar something might be accomplished for Ireland
which would bring the old party together again.
112
o
General Election
Lord Salisbury, in his turn, at the Carlton Club described the
nature of the overtures made to Lord Hartington, and stated that
after a short session for purposes of supply Parliament should be
prorogued until the following year. Elsewhere (at the Mansion
House) he said his party came back as a bearer from the people of
the country of a mandate irrevocably deciding the question which
had wrecked the peace of the neighbouring island : the question of
an Independent Government for Ireland had been referred to the
only tribunal that could determine it with authority — determine it
without appeal. By this it is evident that Lord Salisbury believed
that Home Rule had received a death-blow. In effect the measure
was simply scotched !
Meanwhile the National Liberal Federation was keeping itself
warm with the calculation that the electoral figures were more satis-
factory than the result of the polls, and that 1,338,718 votes had
been recorded for Home Rule, while 1,416,472 were given against
it. They issued an address to the effect that the Liberal party,
having committed itself to the work of effecting a union between
England and Ireland on the basis of the concession • of the right of
self-government to the Irish people, would never relinquish their
efforts till the goal was reached. The Irish question occupied, they
averred, the foremost place in the politics of the day, and no Govern-
ment nor Parliament could afford to ignore it. No progress till that
subject was settled could be looked for, nor would it be possible
for the Conservatives "to indulge in a congenial inactivity while
such problem remained unsolved." It was one of the unfinished
questions that had no respect for the repose of nations !
VOL. n. 113 H
CHAPTER III
1.— CONSERVATIVES IN POWER, 1886-87 — PLAN OF CAMPAIGN-
RESIGNATION OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL— THE ROUND
TABLE CONFERENCE— THE CRIMES BILL, MARCH 1887 — MR.
GOSCHEN LEADS THE WAY
WHEN the Queen's Speech was delivered
August) little allusion was made to the Home
Rule Bill, and none to Belfast riots that had re-
cently caused considerable trouble in Ireland. But
a Commission was to be appointed to inquire into
the resources of the island ; and soon Sir Redvers Buller was to
visit the scene to investigate the nature of the outrages that had
taken place and devise a remedy. On the 24th of August the
debate was enlivened by Mr. Parnell, who moved an amendment
showing the loss sustained by the farmers owing to the fall in
the price of Irish produce, and the resulting inability to pay the
required rent. He further announced that he had merely supported
Lord Ashbourne's Act so long as he had believed the Tories would
back it by a Home Rule Bill, and added that now the State could
not be guaranteed from loss under the Act.
Mr. Gladstone excused himself from taking part in the division
on the plea of awaiting the report of the commission on rents,
but Mr. Chamberlain came into collision with the Irish leader and
defended the Government's refusal of his proposals. Thereupon
came a torrent of abuse from the Irish quarter — a torrent that caused
many that might not otherwise have been in sympathy with Mr.
Chamberlain to become firm upholders of him.
Mr. Parnell then turned his attention to a Tenants Relief Bill,
which occupied the remainder of the session. He made three
propositions: — The abatement of rents fixed prior to 1885, pro-
vided tenants who could not pay in full were ready to pay half the
amount and arrears ; that leaseholders should enjoy the benefits of
the Act of 1 88 1 ; and that the proceedings for recovery of rent should
be suspended on the payment of half the rent and arrears. But the
Nationalists by their methods had estranged even their well-wishers,
and partly owing to this cause and to the hostile attitude of Lord
Hartington (who showed that under the provisions of the bill the
114
Conservatives in Power
payment of just rent would be practically suspended in Ireland), and
the definite assertion of Sir Michael Hicks Beach that he would
never consent to the government of Ireland by "a policy of black-
mail," the bill was rejected by 297 votes to 202. As a result of
this rejection an agrarian war was threatened by the Irishmen, and
CHAMBERLAIN PASHA;
OR THE SULTAN OF TURKEY'S LATEST CONVERT.
(From Punch, Nov. 20, 1886. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punch*}
promptly in September the plan of campaign was started by Mr.
W. O'Brien and Mr. Dillon, without the sanction of Mr. Parnell,
however, who at the time was "sick unto death." The idea was,
that if the landlords should refuse to make required reductions the
tenants should refuse to pay, these "strikers" being supported in
the interim by money provided by local men and the League in
Dublin. After this an amendment was made to the effect that the
Life of Chamberlain
tenants should offer fair rents, which, if refused, should be banked,
while a managing committee by fair means or foul should bring the
landlords to terms. The system of arranging affairs disgusted not
only the Tories and Unionists, but many of the Gladstonians, and
not a few of the sympathisers with Home Rule began to harden
their hearts.
Finally the Irish Government proceeded against the authors of
the plan, which was by now creating much havoc in all parts of the
country, and Mr. Dillon was warned that in default of finding
sureties for his good behaviour he would be committed to prison.
But Mr. Dillon's violence increased rather than diminished, and
finally he, together with his colleagues, were lodged in gaol, their
cash and ledgers being confiscated.
Mr. Chamberlain, who was abroad, and evidently longing to
reunite himself to his old friends, proposed that the two sections
of the Liberal party should discuss the question of concessions to
Ireland, but his suggestion was received with little warmth. Lord
Hartington maintained his stern attitude regarding the mutinous
crew, and at a meeting which took place at Willis's Rooms em-
phasised the necessity of keeping up the alliance between the Liberal-
Unionists and Conservatives.
The end of 1886 was marked by the somewhat astonishing
resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill, an action which caused
Mr. Chamberlain considerable concern. The Tory Democrat, as
we have seen, was the connecting link between the late Radical
leader and Lord Salisbury's party, and with his departure Mr.
Chamberlain began to fear a retrograde movement, which would
carry the Government back to old habits of strait -waistcoated
Conservatism, and lead to proposals " that no consistent Liberal
would be able to accept." It was fear of this prospect that made
him propose what was known as the Round Table Conference.
The Liberals, he said, were in accord on ninety-nine points of their
programme and disagreed solely on one. He therefore declared
his belief that almost any three men, leaders of the Liberal party,
seated round a table and coming together in a spirit of compromise
and conciliation would be able to effect some scheme for the restora-
tion of the party amity, and though the Home Rule Bill was impos-
sible some solution might yet be found in the question of Irish
land. But Mr. Chamberlain deceived himself. His proposition
was accepted it is true, and in January 1887 the conference was
held. He and Sir George Trevelyan represented the Dissentients,
Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Morley the Home Rulers, while
Lord Herschell acted in the capacity of umpire.
Mr. Chamberlain at the outset was optimistic. Speaking at
116
Life of Chamberlain
Harwich on the 22nd of January he said : "I am well aware that
even if we are as successful as we hope in bringing about a common
agreement among ourselves, our task will be but half accomplished
unless we have the sanction and approval of others more influential
than we. But," he declared, "it is a prospect that does not dis-
courage me. I am not hopeless of an appeal to the patriotism of
our statesmen. Has not this question of Ireland been long enough
the sport of parties, a playground for British politicians and for
Irish agitators? May it not be possible to arrange even now a
national settlement of what is after all a national difficulty?" He
went on to make a suggestion on the lines of Mr. Justin McCarthy's
idea, by which the relations between Ireland and the Imperial
Parliament might be modelled on the plan of the Canadian provinces
and parliaments.
The whole month was spent in honest but impossible efforts to
adjust the differences of the parties, and then in February things
were brought to a crisis by the following letter addressed by Mr.
Chamberlain to the Baptist : —
" The cause of Welsh Disestablishment has made a great advance in recent
years, and there are now very few Liberals, and not many Tories, who believe
that the connection between Church and State in the Principality can be much
longer maintained.
" In a Nonconformist newspaper it is unnecessary to argue in favour of the
great principle of religious equality which is everywhere slowly undermining
the fabric of ecclesiastical privilege. This principle is fatal to all State
Churches, and it will surely be applied to the Church of England and the
Church of Scotland, as well as to the Church in Wales. But undoubtedly in
Wales the grievance is more serious, the sentiment of the people on the subject
is more unanimous, and the anomalies of the present arrangement are more
striking and more irritating than elsewhere. Wales, therefore, has the first
claim on the sympathy and the support of Liberals in its efforts to free itself from
a burden which recent events, and especially the tithe agitation, have shown
to be almost intolerable to the vast majority of its population.
" Unfortunately, at the very moment when the prospects of redress seem
to be most favourable it has been overshadowed and darkened by the sudden
introduction of a new subject of political contention, whose settlement may be
long delayed, but to which we are now told everything, including the just and
pressing demands of ' poor little Wales,' must give way. Poor little -Wales
indeed if this be true, and if its people accept this summary dismissal of their
claims.
"In 1885 the Principality sent twenty-eight members, and in 1886 twenty-
three members out of thirty as supporters of Mr. Gladstone. It was a remark-
able demonstration of loyalty and confidence, of which the great leader of the
Liberal party has good reason to be proud. But what was its exact meaning ?
If the Welsh constituencies intended to show their approval of Mr. Gladstone's
Irish policy, and to support his contention that no legislation for Scotland or
Wales could be undertaken, or even contemplated, until the Irish question had
118
1
I
>,
i
3
3 i
O .5
~ §
Life of Chamberlain
been settled on his lines, then they have no right whatever to complain of the
delay of their hopes, and they must wait patiently until the country has changed
its mind, and is prepared to hand over the minority in Ireland to the tender
mercies of Mr. Parnell and the Irish League. The conversion of the country to
the justice of such a surrender may be, and probably will be, slow and protracted.
It may take ten or twenty years, or may even never be accomplished; but
whether the process occupies a generation or a century, ' poor little Wales '
must wait until Mr. Parnell is satisfied and Mr. Gladstone's policy adopted.
" They will not wait alone. The crofters of Scotland and the agricultural
labourers of England will keep them company. Thirty-two millions of people
must go without much-needed legislation because three millions are disloyal,
while nearly 600 members of the Imperial Parliament will be reduced to
forced inactivity because some eighty delegates, representing the policy and
receiving the pay of the Chicago Convention, are determined to obstruct all
business until their demands have been conceded.
" Is it possible that the Nonconformists of Wales are prepared to accept
such a situation ? They have hitherto supported, without much examination,
the Irish bills of Mr. Gladstone, apparently under the impression that by so
doing they would arrive more quickly at the realisation of their own hopes.
They will soon learn, if they have not learned already, that the policy which
was to hasten the redress they seek is really the one insuperable obstacle in its
way. So long as the majority of the Liberal party is committed to proposals
which a large section of Liberals and Radicals firmly believe to be dangerous
to the best interests of the United Kingdom, unjust to. the majority of the Irish
people, and certain to end in the disruption of the Empire, so long the party
will remain shattered and impotent, and all reform will be indefinitely postponed.
Some of the best friends of the Dissenters and of the most earnest supporters
of Disestablishment are to be found in the ranks of the Liberal-Unionists.
They have hitherto consistently advocated the policy of religious equality.
They have publicly supported it even at a time when the majority of Liberals
were turning the cold shoulder, or were afraid of committing themselves ; yet
the leaders of Welsh dissent have been branding these men as traitors and
deserters, and have thrown all their influence into the scale of those
who have in the past done much to discourage and defeat the aims of the
Liberationists.
" How long is this condition of things to continue, while the State Church
profits by our dissensions? The only wise and prudent course for Welsh
Nonconformists is to press on their leaders the absolute necessity for reuniting
the Liberal party, so that this great instrument may once more be brought to
bear with unimpaired efficiency to secure the reforms on which Liberals are
practically agreed. The plans and methods for settling the Irish question
which have been rejected by the country must be laid aside, and some alterna-
tive must be found which will take account of the objections conscientiously
entertained by so many good and consistent Liberals. The breach which has
been made must be repaired, and this can only be done by conciliatory action,
and not by threats of expulsion or charges of treachery.
" The postponement of Mr. Dillwyn's motion is an incident without serious
importance. No practical result could possibly be expected from it as long as
the party is rent in twain by serious differences on a vital point of Imperial
policy. Let all efforts, then, be directed to removing this cause of conten-
tion. Then no real time will have been lost, and a united party can proceed
1 2O
THE SPIDER AND THE FLY.
[NEW VERSION.]
41 WILL you walk into our parlour?" said the Spider to
the Fly ;
" Tis the cosiest little parlour, friend, that ever you did
spy.
The way into this parlour is quite wide, as you're aware,
And, oh ! we'll do such wondrous things when once we
get you there !
Then, won't you, won't you, won't you, won't you,
Pretty little fly?"
Now, as I've heard, this little fly was young.but wary, too,
And so he thought, I'll mind my eye— the thing may be
a do!
So "No, no!" said that little fly; "kind Sir, that
cannot be,
I've heard what's in your parlour, and I do not wish to
see."
" Then, won't you," &c.
That Spider he was portly, and that Spider he was bland,
And he played the part of siren for an even Older Hand.
:Says he, "Oh, Fly, you must be tired of being on the shelf,
Why don't you just step in awhile, if but to rest yourself?
Then, won't you," &c.
"Our parlour's snugly furnished, for expense we never
spare,
We've such a nice Round Table ; you shall have an
easy chair.
It seems incomplete without you as a sort of settled guest ;
Turn up solitary buzzing now; step in and take a rest.
Now, won't you," &c.
That little Fly looked longingly. Thinks be, "I do
feel tired,
I'm fond of cosy parties, and I like to be admired.
Yet I have a slight suspicion that the thing may bea trap—
I twig something in yon corner — I distrust that fat old
chap.
With his won't you." &c.
So " I'll wait a little longer," to the Spider said the Fly,
As he spread his wings (with friend COL-LINGS), and
fluttered towards the Skye.
But whether he'll come back again, and try that parlour
yet,
Is a thing on which a cautious man would hardly like to
bet.
"Then, won't you, won't you," Ac.
(From Punch, March 19, 1887. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Putuk.)
Life of Chamberlain
immediately to the consideration of the important questions which await
settlement.
" Some of the former leaders of the Liberal party are now engaged in this
necessary work of reconciliation. They require, and they ought to have, the
support and sympathy of all who desire that remedial legislation should be at
once resumed. The issue of the Round Table Conference will decide much
more than the Irish question. It will decide the immediate future of the Liberal
party, and whether or no all Liberal reform is to be indefinitely adjourned."
After the publication of this letter the conference broke down.
Various parties to the " confab " considered that by expressing his
opinion while matters were, so to speak, subjudice, Mr. Chamberlain
had put a stopper on legitimate discussion. Mr. Gladstone declared
that an unexpected obstacle had been presented in the way of any
attempt to sum up the Round Table communications, and proposed
to Sir William Harcourt that the subject should be allowed to stand
over to a more convenient season.
The convenient season has never arrived. Mr. Chamberlain
decided not to return to the Round Table, and in the following
communication, addressed to the Hon. Evelyn Ashley, Unionist
candidate for the Bridgeton division of Glasgow, gave his version
of the abortive transactions : l —
"40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W.,y«^27, 1887.
" MY DEAR ASHLEY, — You will observe that Trevelyan does not deny your
statement that no conclusion was actually arrived at by the conference and that
the Gladstonian members did not agree to any definite proposals. You may
safely challenge Trevelyan to prove that he obtained during the conference, or
from any of its members, any pledge that Mr. Gladstone and his friends were
now prepared to accept any one of the conditions which from time to time have
been laid down as essential by Lord Hartington and myself. No doubt it is
true that the discussions were friendly and pointed to the probability of agree-
ment so far as the members of the conference were concerned. This is con-
firmed by Harcourt's speech, in which he said that the differences disclosed
were ' secondary and few,' while the subjects of agreement were ' great and
many.' This brings us down to the I4th of February, and Trevelyan repeats
and adopts the allegation of the Gladstonians that my letter in the Baptist
newspaper was the cause of the breaking off of the conference. I admit that
this has always been put forward by Harcourt and Morley, but I deny that it
is or can be the true reason. In the first place, my letter was not of a character
to give reasonable cause of offence ; and secondly, even if it were, that would
not justify the Gladstonians in refusing to give the undertaking which would
have reunited the Liberal party, although it might have justified them in
declining further personal communication with myself. In other words, if they
sincerely believed that the conference showed that an agreement for reunion
was possible, it was their duty in the interests of the country and the party,
1 Differing accounts were given by Mr. Morley at Wolverhampton, April 29, 1887 ; by
Sir G. O. Trevelyan in the Times, July 26, 1887 ; and by Sir William Harcourt, February
27, 1889.
122
Life of Chamberlain
and for the settlement of the Irish question, to make their conclusions public,
to state clearly the concessions they were prepared to make, and in this way
to secure the adhesion of the great body of Liberal-Unionists without the least
reference to my individual position or opinion. It is important to note that
Harcourt's speech, from which I have already quoted, in which he spoke in the
most encouraging terms of the state of the negotiations, was made at the
Schnadhorst banquet on the gth of March, twelve days after the publication of
the Baptist letter, which is now alleged to have been the cause of the failure.
My view accordingly is that the Baptist letter was a pretext and an excuse, and
that the real reason for the failure of the negotiations was that in the interval
between their inception and the I4th of February the Gladstonians had come
to the conclusion that they would get their own way without the necessity of
yielding anything to us. Trevelyan goes on to quote a passage from your
speech in which you say that during the month after the I4th of February
no answer came from Sir William Harcourt and Mr. John Morley. Your
statement is true in the sense that no answer came to my demand that they
should state their views and their reply to our representatives. It is the fact
that during the whole of this time an active correspondence was going on
between Harcourt and myself in which I was continually pressing for such a
statement, and Harcourt was as continually putting me off on the ground of
the irritation caused by the Baptist letter, and also on another ground which,
in the course of the correspondence, I was able entirely to dispose of. This
correspondence is marked ' Private,' but I have not the least objection to its
publication if Harcourt agrees. You are mistaken in saying that a letter was
written to Harcourt and Morley with the sanction and consent of Trevelyan.
The correspondence was carried on by myself alone, and it was only on the
9th of March that I was able to communicate the final result to Trevelyan.
I should add that from first to last — that is to say, from the date of the first
meeting of the conference until within the last few weeks — Trevelyan never
wrote to me a single word disapproving of anything which I had publicly
written or stated during the negotiations. He never complained of any
asperity on my part ; on the contrary, I have a letter from him highly ap-
proving the two public speeches which I delivered at Harwich and at Birming-
ham, and which were at the time complained of by Harcourt and Morley. I
am forced, therefore, to the conclusion that his present contention is a mere
afterthought, brought into the controversy in order to justify his extraordinary
change of front. In conclusion, let me summarise the facts of the case as they
appear on the showing both of Trevelyan and myself. The conference met in
order to see how far agreement was possible, and in any case to minimise
differences. The discussion at the conference showed that, as far as its
members were concerned, agreement was not impossible, and that the points of
difference were, in the opinion of Gladstonians, secondary and unimportant.
When, however, in order to bring the matter to a conclusion, it became
necessary for the Gladstonians to state clearly whether, or how far, they were
prepared to meet the wishes of Trevelyan and myself, they refused further
communication on grounds which are clearly inadequate and indefensible.
Their motives must be matter for speculation. It may be that, being only
agents in the matter, they found insuperable difficulties in obtaining the assent
of their principals to the concessions which were necessary to secure reunion ;
or it may be, as I have myself supposed, that the introduction of coercion
changed the position, and filled them with hope that they would secure the
124
OUT OF IT; OR, UP IN SKYE.
" HARK, HARK, THE LARK ! "
(From Punch, April 23, 1887. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punch.)
Life of Chamberlain
breaking up of the Unionist party without being obliged to offer any considera-
tion for this result I should add that, from the first introduction of the Home
Rule Bill, Trevelyan's strongest point of objection was the creation of an Irish
Executive and the surrender of responsibility for law and order to an Irish
Parliament. I defy him to give one tittle of evidence to show that either at the
conference or subsequently he has obtained any assurance that his demands in
this respect will be accepted by Mr. Gladstone. In going over to the Glad-
stonians and accepting a Gladstonian candidature he has therefore absolutely
and unconditionally surrendered the main point for which he sacrificed his
position in the Cabinet and his seat in the House of Commons. You are at
liberty to make any use you please of this letter. — Yours very truly,
"J. CHAMBERLAIN."
By this time Mr. Goschen had accepted the office of Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and thus the first move of the Liberal- Unionists
in a Tory Cabinet was effected. But it was a move in an opposite
quarter to Mr. Chamberlain, for Mr. Goschen and other Liberal-
Unionists of the right Liberal wing grew more in accord with the
Tory Government, as Mr. Chamberlain and the left Liberal wing
(acting now without the cementing influence of Lord Randolph
Churchill) drifted apart.
But in spite of all this the curiously arranged elements contrived to
pull fairly evenly alongside of each other, and indeed, by reason of the
Prime Minister's tact and diplomacy, the Liberal-Unionist and Radical
leaders, shy and suspicious as they were, were thrown into a species
of give and take alliance that caused the second administration of
Lord Salisbury (which had threatened to be but a shaky concern)
to work finally with remarkable smoothness and success. While
these events were taking place — while the Irish were making their
country a scene of ravage and disorder, while politicians were dis-
cussing the pros and cons of Lord Randolph Churchill's resignation
and the probable collapse of Lord Salisbury's Government, while
the Round Table Conference was going forward at Sir William
Harcourt's house — Mr. Chamberlain's future was forming the sub-
ject of excited speculation. Some averred that he had proposed the
conference as a stepping-stone to reconciliation, others prophesied an
entire climb down to the Home Rule plane, while some declared
that he was politically extinct, that in fact between the two stools
he was coming gently but inevitably to the ground.
These reports and rumours affected the object of them not at all.
He clearly made it understood that he was anxious to rejoin his
former friends ; he would do a great deal, concede much to meet
them on the old footing, but there were limits to concession. Un-
less the reasonableness he and his party were prepared to display
was reciprocated by the other side, then on their shoulders would
126
Conservatives in Power
rest the responsibility for such disaster and confusion as would fall
on the Liberal party.
They took this responsibility, and not long after this date the
Gladstonians became hand and glove allies of the Nationalists.
Then the Home Rule question assumed a social as well as a
political shape. The Irish members now became small lions in
certain circles ; they were invited to assist with their roar their
Liberal friends at the election contests — the whilom rebels of the
Land League — the pariahs of Parliament of some twelve months
back were now, according to Mr. O'Brien, darlings of the Liberal
drawing-rooms. " Send us an Irish member," was the stereotyped
order despatched periodically by the provincial Liberal Associations
to the Irish Press Agency in London. " Irishmen who had been in
jail were in special request," says the author of the Life of Charles
Stewart Parnell. " Irish members swarmed in the English con-
stituencies preaching ' peace and goodwill ' ; Liberals overran Ireland
sympathising with the victims of the Castle and glorying in the
heroes of the Plan of Campaign."
In a speech at Bradford (September 1888) Mr. Chamberlain, while
protesting against the assertion that the Unionists had parted with
Mr. Gladstone only on a matter of detail, alluded to the effect of this
singular friendship. "There has been a change which has made it
possible that I (who all my life have been a Radical and have not
changed one of the opinions I have ever expressed) should support
heartily a Government, every member of which, with one exception,
is a Conservative — a change which has made it possible for the
Liberal party to transform themselves into the allies of Mr. Parnell,
to be hand and glove with the men whom three years ago they de-
nounced from every platform as the enemies of this country, and
whose policy and methods they repudiated with scorn and with
indignation." He went on to show that these were the men who
a short time since prayed publicly for the success of the Zulus and
for a Russian war, and asked : " Are you certain that these men
would bear their fair share of the sacrifices which would be
entailed in such an emergency ?"
All this effervescence on the part of the Gladstonians was a
counterblast to the action of the Conservatives and to Mr. Bal-
four's demand for the Crimes Bill.1 Mr. Chamberlain, much as
he had been averse from coercion, had been gradually converted by
the Irishmen's tactics to a belief that the Plan of Campaign must be
met by drastic measures, or the future of Ireland would become a
tale of mutiny and outrage disgraceful to civilisation.
At Birmingham in January, before the bill was proposed, he
1 Mr. Arthur Balfour succeeded Sir M. Hicks Beach as Irish Secretary in March 1887.
127
Life of Chamberlain
criticised the methods of the originators of the Plan of Campaign
and the remarks of certain Radicals who declared it not only a right,
but a duty to disobey a bad law. He characterised their arguments
as inconsistent with true Radical principles. Passive resistance, he
admitted, was justifiable in some cases ; for instance, if Church rates
should be reimposed, he himself would refuse to pay them — he would
permit his goods to be taken into execution. But there were things
he would not do — things such as barricading his house, throwing
hot water on police, shooting at the parson from behind a hedge, or
denouncing the officers of the law who were merely doing their
duty. " To justify violent resistance to a law that one disapproves
is: destructive of all law." No law ever existed which the law-
breakers did not deem bad, he said. While the law existed it must
be respected. If bad it should be amended, but so long as it was
law it must be accepted as the collective expression of society, the
security of the weak against the strong, the safeguard of the few
against the many. He went on to point out that if the law, which
was the highest expression of the democratic theory of equality, were
disregarded, there would remain but anarchy on the one hand and
despotism on the other. He referred to the immediate state of
Ireland, the violence, the open abuse of the law there. It was not,
he showed, either the law of rent or of eviction that was in question
(these he admitted might be amended, made less stringent, more
merciful), but it was the law against assassination, the law against
intimidation, and the law against theft that were continually being
violated. " For this violation there is no excuse." But in spite of
this statement Mr. Chamberlain admitted that he was unprepared to
support such measures as the establishment of martial law, or the
suspension of Habeas Corpus, or any measures for the restriction of
the liberty of the subject. But, if necessary, in order to strengthen
the ordinary law of the country, he was ready to give full considera-
tion to any proposal to achieve the object that might be made. He
then proceeded to back his arguments by quoting Mr. Morley (the
late Chief Secretary for Ireland), who had said : " Murder and out-
rage are not to be allowed in Ireland any more than they are to be
allowed anywhere else. If there is a general attack on property all
along the line it will be resisted. The question is, how you are to
suppress and punish murder and outrage, and how the Government
is to deal with organised attack on property. The answer is, by a
vigorous execution of the law as it stands, and by a regular and
formal alteration of the law if it demands alteration."
None at this time could argue that the law did not need altera-
tion, and consequently when the Crimes Bill was introduced Mr.
Chamberlain admitted the necessity for it. In a speech at Birming-
128
EARL SPENCER
Photo RUSSELT. & Soxs. LONDON.
Conservatives in Power
ham (March 12) he said: "I have no sympathy with outrage and
intimidation ; none with the scoundrels who shoot old men in the
legs, who cut off the hair of young girls and pour pitch on their
heads because they speak to a policeman, who hoot and jeer at the
widow of a man who has been assassinated, and are without mercy
on her sufferings or respect for her sorrow, and who even refuse to
provide or allow to be provided a coffin to contain the murdered
remains. With such men I have no sympathy, and I am perfectly
prepared to do anything that will secure to the law the power of
punishing them for their infamous offences."
On the subject of this bill party feeling fanned itself into new
flame. Mr. Gladstone, with eloquent vehemence, denounced it as
" the worst, the most insulting, the most causeless Coercion Bill ever
submitted to Parliament," and the Nationalists cursed it as the
death-blow to their mischievous and intimidating activities. The
most important features of the Crimes Act were that when a crime
was committed, though none was in custody on charge of committing
the crime, an inquiry on oath might take place ; that trial by jury
might be substituted by trial by magistrate in cases where part was
taken in criminal conspiracy punishable by law, in cases where
violence was used, in cases of riot and unlawful assembly, in cases of
forcibly seizing premises from which tenants had been evicted, inter-
fering with the officers of the law in the discharge of their duty, or
inciting to any of the above offences. The Lord-Lieutenant was
empowered to proclaim disturbed districts and dangerous associa-
tions. The right of appeal was given in cases where the sentence
exceeded a month. The worst feature of all, from the Irish point
of view, was that now the Act had no limit in duration, it would
exist just as long as it was found necessary, and only be suspended
in such districts as had been restored to order.
To the surprise of many who had been inclined to view Mr.
Arthur Balfour as an engaging, easy-going politician, he now
appeared as a man of energy and of singular courage in the most
trying and critical circumstances, and so well did he sustain his
arduous duties in a period of exceptional turmoil, that eventually he
had the triumph of witnessing an almost complete defeat of the
agrarian conspiracies, a defeat for which the subsequent Liberal
Government received much of the credit. Mr. Chamberlain, who
was as yet far from sympathising with the policy of Lord Salisbury's
Government as a whole, reluctantly confessed the value of the
measure. During a short tour in Scotland, whither he had gone
to get at the root of the Crofter Question in which he had been
interesting himself for years, he explained his views and put
before his hearers the position that gave rise to them — the two
VOL. IT. 129 i
Life of Chamberlain
systems of criminal law and procedure that were causing turmoil in
Ireland. You have, he said, on the one hand, the Government of
the Queen (the security for law and order, the protection of the
lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects) ; on the other, the
Government of the League, a government subsidised and guided by
the funds of the Chicago Convention. He told them how, under
one law, the first, the liberties of the country were developed, how
the nation secured its position as the first in the world ; and how,
under the second, they had an unwritten law that contrived to lend
itself to private vengeance and rebellion. Finally, on the one hand,
they found the official and judicial tribunal of the United Kingdom,
with a system built up by generations of intellectual and patriotic
men, so contrived as to protect the innocent ; while on the other
were secret tribunals pursuing their processes by means of masked
assassins, and meting out arbitrarily punishments, fines, torture,
death. It was a case of war between these two forms of govern-
ment, and it behoved the legal Government to suppress the illegal
one unless it was itself prepared to be suppressed.
As may be imagined Mr. Chamberlain grew more and more
unpopular with the Nationalists, and at times his very life was in
danger ; yet he, like Mr. Balfour, maintained a front of fine British
courage, and pursued unflinchingly the duty he had set himself.
At Ayr ( 1 3th April) he described the odious outrages that had made
the Crimes Bill obligatory, and while he descanted on some of the
almost inhuman actions that had taken place, a remarkable scene
occurred. A voice from the multitude cried out : " Watch yourself."
Immediately the place became charged with passion. There
were cries of " Turn him out," and louder calls for the assistance of
the police. But Mr. Chamberlain's composure quelled the uproar.
" Bring the man up here," he said. He then made the individual
an object-lesson to his audience. . " Here," he said, " you have
before you an instance of the demoralisation of politics which has
been caused by the action of the leaders of the Liberal party. I
relate facts that it would be supposed would be listened to even by
opponents with shame and horror. I tell you of assassination, and
here you find a man who says, * Watch yourself.' Has the time come
when political matters cannot be discussed in this country without
hearing threats of assassination ? " He then proceeded on his course,
relating various cases of outrage and disorder which had caused the
Crimes Act to be introduced. " You are told that the Crimes Act
is a bill for the repression of liberty. Liberty to do what ? Liberty
to commit theft? liberty to injure women? liberty to ruin indus-
trious men?" He wound up by showing his audience that since
they must have coercion of or by Moonlighters, it was their duty to
make a choice.
130
V ,
THE BRUMMAGEM OLYMPIANS.
Wonderful performance of "Joe and Jesse " at Birmingham in the presence of Her Majesty, who is said
to have enjoyed the entertainment even more than "Jock and Jenny" at Olympia, Wednesday, March 23.
(From Punch, April 2, 1887. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punch.)
Life of Chamberlain
There is no doubt that in many of these speeches made in
Scotland Mr. Chamberlain displayed unusual acrimony and heat.
But at this time even the well-wishers of Ireland were embarrassed
and were at a loss to know how to defend their friends the Nation-
alists, while these refrained from prosecuting the Times for certain
statements which if untrue constituted a libel.1
It is impossible to trace the various currents of emotion that
extended throughout the political world from the source of the
Times " Parnellism and Crime " revelations. Though it is easy to
be wise after the event, it was not so easy for Conservatives and
Unionists, and even some Home Rulers, to escape the influence of
the narrative of murders and instigations to murders at a time when
atrocities of all kinds were going actively forward in Ireland.
Speeches that would now be read as immoderate and heated utter-
ances were the natural outcome of burning indignation fired by some
passing event united to uncontradicted accusations against Nationalist
leaders. The Conservatives were openly gratified to trace the
Nationalist complicity with crime, to place the whole noisy obstruc-
tive crew on the same level as the violent American adventurers
who were paid to sow the whirlwind ; but not so the Radicals and
Unionists. They were sincerely moved and deeply indignant when
they recalled how lately they had been in sympathy with those
whose advocacy of assassination, or whose indifference to murder, if
nothing worse, contributed to the appalling state of affairs in Ireland.
Mr. Gladstone, on the other hand, maintained that the burden
of proof rested on those who brought the charges. Unless they
could supply evidence to bear the test of investigation, and that
would carry with it at the least a highly rational probability of the
truth, they were then " wanton calumniators, and should be shunned
as pests to society." Sir William Harcourt, Lord Spencer, and Sir
George Trevelyan were of the same opinion, and refused to believe
that in the criminal proceedings any of the Irish members had been
accessories after the fact
II.— 1887— "PARNELLISM AND CRIME"— THE FINAL CLEAVAGE-
MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S ISOLATION— HIS VISIT TO ULSTER
A few days later (April i8th) the Times, which for a month past
had been publishing the " Parnellism and Crime " revelations, gave
publicity to a letter purporting to be written by Mr. Parnell. It ran: —
" DEAR SIR, — I am not surprised at your friend's anger, but he and you
should know that to denounce the murders was the only course open to us.
1 On March 7, 1887, the first of a series of articles, "Parnellism and Crime," was
published in the Times,
132
" Parnellism and Crime "
To do that promptly was plainly our best policy. But you can tell him and
all others concerned that, though I regret the accident of Lord F. Cavendish's
death, I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts. You
are at liberty to show him this, and others whom you can trust also ; but let
not my address be known. He can write to the House of Commons. — Yours
very truly, CHARLES S. PARNELL."
As may be imagined, this remarkable epistle cast a bomb in the
Liberal ranks, and did not improve the position of the Nationalists
with the Tories. All London was agog with the scandal. Society
fermented, then burst with indignation, and it was prophesied that
Home Rule would be " blown to smithereens." So an Irishman
expressed it. Mr. Parnell, however, took the matter composedly,
and explained to the House when he became acquainted with the
fact that a letter bearing his signature was published in the
Times, that he supposed a blank sheet containing his signature
had fallen into hands for which it had not been intended, and
that it had been misused. " When I saw what purported to be
my signature, I saw plainly that it was an audacious and unblushing
fabrication."
He went on to compare his signature with that of the forgery,
and said he could not understand how "the managers of a respon-
sible, and what used to be a respectable, journal could have been so
hoodwinked, so hoaxed, so bamboozled, as to publish such a pro-
duction as that as my signature, my writing." He entered into
various particulars regarding the nature of his own caligraphy and
the flaws in the spurious manuscript, and that done, he made no
further attempt to refute the charges made by the Times.
Consequently, the excitement over the series of articles continued
to simmer, with the result that the whole of the Unionist and
Parnellite parties now lived at daggers drawn — the former accepting
for gospel all the revelations made by the journal, and the latter
accusing their enemies of forging and libelling them for party ends.
Mr. Chamberlain was much incensed by these tactics, and in
various speeches discussed the latest phase of Irish policy with some
heat. On the i5th of April he addressed at Edinburgh a most
turbulent meeting, and his opponents made themselves conspicuous
by a ceaseless uproar. In the town an effigy of the visitor was
erected in a cart — top hat, eyeglass, and coat of patched blue and
white cloth, styled "Joseph's coat of many colours." On one arm
was written, " There's nothing like coercion " ; on the other,
" Would-be successor to the G.O.M." This insulting specimen was
driven along, followed by a hooting and hostile mob.
But Mr. Chamberlain, undisturbed, pursued his course, and at
Inverness, wholly regardless of the demonstrations organised by the
133
Nationalists, proceeded to animadvert on the sensation that had
taken place the night before in the House of Commons.
" There was," he said, " a scene of a character which was absolutely new
to our great assembly, and which, if allowed to continue, will bring it down to
a level lower than has been reached by any other representative assembly.
What happened last night ? Colonel Saunderson, an Irish member, accused
some of the Irish Nationalist members, and accused them truly, of keeping
company with men who are known to be murderers, or men who have connived
at murder. He accused them of that boldly and frankly in the face of the
House of Commons, and thereupon several members flung an accusation — a
violent and brutal accusation — at him across the floor of the House, and one
member who is distinguished for that sort of thing became so violent that he
had to be suspended. ... I think it is high time that the opinion of the people
of Great Britain was made known about these scenes, and about the men who
make them, and that the representatives of the people were informed that
their constituents will not forgive any man who gives them his sanction
or encouragement. The violence of the scenes in the House of Commons,
and the conduct of particular members, is due to the encouragement,
the tacit but sometimes active encouragement, that they sometimes receive
from members, and even from leaders of the Liberal party. I think you will
fully agree with me that the state of matters we have to contemplate is not
very satisfactory. How has it been brought about ? What is the cause of the
differences which have brought us to this pass ? I should say that the cause
is to be found, first, in the method in which the policy has been forced upon
us, and, secondly, in the character of the policy itself. It is to be found in
the method in which this policy was introduced, because the method is
absolutely unparalleled in the history of this country. Never before was it
attempted to settle a great question — an extraordinary and almost revolutionary
proposal — without discussion in the country and without a full knowledge of
it. Take, for instance, the great case of the repeal of the corn laws. Those
laws were repealed almost suddenly by Sir Robert Peel under the pressure of
famine, but the question of the repeal of the corn laws had been discussed
beforehand for years and years in every town and county and village and
hamlet in the three kingdoms ; and before the repeal took place it was perfectly
known that the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom were in
favour of it. Take, again, the cause of education. Our national system of
education was only established by the Imperial Parliament after years — after a
generation^-of discussion upon it. Or take the oldest and greatest of the
reforms with which we are acquainted — the reform of the franchise. For
nearly twenty years we had been discussing the importance, the necessity, and
propriety of extending to the counties the franchise which had already been
enjoyed by the boroughs. And it was not until all the arguments for and
against the proposals were fully known to every man of intelligence in the
kingdom that Mr. Gladstone found himself able, or thought himself justified, in
bringing forward proposals in the House of Commons in order to give legis-
lative effect to these reforms. Why, I ask, was there a change in connection
with this question ? Why was it sought at a moment's notice to force a
revolution upon us ? Why were we not taken into the confidence of our great
leader ? You will recollect that so suddenly was this great matter brought
forward, that within a few months before the bill was introduced into the
"Parnellism and Crime"
House, it was bruited about that there was some change in Mr. Gladstone's
policy. The Daily News, the recognised organ of the Liberal party, com-
pletely contradicted the statement as an infamous libel — an invention of the
Tories — but within a few months of the time that this infamous libel was
written it proved to be true, and this great change had been effected. We
know now what was in the mind of our late leader, and, as I say,
without discussion and consultation we were precipitated into a contro-
versy the evils of which I have attempted to describe. Then, in the
second place, the cause of our differences is to be found in the nature of
the plan which was submitted to us. We were prepared — I think we all of us
were prepared — to make large changes in connection with the government of
Ireland. I myself, at all events, was prepared for the most extensive develop-
ment of local liberties that was consistent with the interests of the Empire. I
stood as a Home Ruler upon that footing twelve years ago, when for the first
time I solicited the suffrages of a constituency, and I have never wavered in
my opinion that it is desirable to increase the local responsibility of Irishmen,
and that such a development of our local institutions would be an education of
which they stand very much in need. But it never entered into my conception
— I could not have believed it possible — that an English statesman, the leader
of the party to which I myself belonged, and whom I loyally followed for so
many years, would be found prepared to press a measure for granting to
Ireland a Parliament which, if not independent, was certain to become
independent in a very short time afterwards. That was not a proposal for
Home Rule ; it was a proposal for separation."
The turmoil and strife of words, suave ironies from the Tories,
reproachful and recriminative sallies between Unionists and Parnel-
lites, continued till June, and the breach between the dissentient
Liberals and their old colleagues became irreparable. Mr. Morley
declared the impossibility of hurrying to reconciliation with the
dissentient friends who were mainly responsible for the disastrous
and shameful policy of coercion in Ireland, and who doggedly,
defiantly, and steadfastly went into the division lobby against
modifications of it, and " in favour of making the bill as drastic as
they can." This from his old friend touched Mr. Chamberlain deeply.
He now fully recognised that any effort to rejoin his late colleagues
would prove futile — that it was indeed the parting of the ways.
His position was far from a happy one. He was off with "the
old friends," the Gladstonians, yet far from "on with the new," the
Tories. With Lord Hartington he was merely in accord on the
broad, simple question of the unity of Great Britain, while with the
Irishmen, who had cultivated for him a wild hatred that drowned
all recollection of his past good service in their cause, there was no
hope of anything but war. Mr. Chamberlain was not one to be
prodded at without defending himself, and on the ist of June
delivered somewhat bitterly certain truths that revived party passion
and perturbation, and proved that between himself and his old
colleagues a very great gulf was fixed.
135
Life of Chamberlain
". . . What," he said, " is the use of making believe in conciliation, when
our opponents give us not the slightest practical proof of it ? Mr. Gladstone
has been appealed to again and again, and Mr. Gladstone has persistently
remained silent I draw my own conclusions from the silence. It is signifi-
cant. But if it is not sufficient, what has been said by some of his principal
supporters, who have been less reticent than himself, is still more significant.
Lord Rosebery spoke the other day at Glasgow. He described Sir George
Trevelyan as a repentant sinner. I do not think that the observation was in
good taste, although it shows the spirit in which these Gladstonian converts
are prepared to welcome their old colleagues back again. But I quote it now
because I infer from it that it is Sir George Trevelyan, and not the Gladstonians
who are assumed to have made concessions. Lord Rosebery went on to say
that the time for reconciliation had not yet arrived, and in this statement he
was confirmed by another distinguished Gladstonian, Mr. John Morley, who
spoke last week at Norwich. I think Mr. John Morley's speech has hardly
received the attention which it deserves. It will be found hereafter to have
marked the turning-point of the controversy. I will not dwell on the personal
part of the speech. I suppose it cannot be avoided in a controversy of this
kind that, as it proceeds, it tends to become more bitter, more irreconcilable.
But Mr. John Morley complained that it was he and his friends who had
reason to object to the conduct of the Liberal-Unionists. He said, ' Concilia-
tion has been offered to us, but it is at the point of the bayonet, with frowning
brows and in tones of thunder.' "
Mr. Chamberlain characterised this assertion as the delirium of
rhetoric, and drew a picture of Sir George Trevelyan on his knees
appealing with outstretched hands and bated breath and whispered
humbleness for peace and union, while Mr. Morley sternly turned
aside, spurning the suppliant, and imitating the meekness of Oliver
Cromwell, while declaring that he was not the man to be bullied
into submission.
" But," he went on, " Mr. Morley said more than that. He said that all
hopes of reunion must be postponed until the Crimes Bill — the Coercion Bill,
as he calls it — had been passed and failed, until we recognised the error and
offence into which we had been betrayed. At its present rate of progress
it will be some time before the Crimes Bill is passed into law, and I venture to
tell Mr. Morley that it will be much longer before either the Liberal-Unionists
or the country accept Sir George Trevelyan's dictum that the game of law and
order is up in Ireland, or Mr. John Morley's own advice to risk a squalid
version of the Thirty Years' War. But this statement of Mr. Morley's means
an indefinite postponement of all efforts at reconciliation, and even then, even
in the dim and distant future to which he is pleased to relegate us, he does not
give us much hope of concession. What does he say ? He picks out from
the four conditions which Lord Hartington has laid down the one on which
there is the greatest unanimity — the one as to which Sir George Trevelyan has
told us he does not believe even twenty Gladstonians would insist upon it — I
mean the question of the retention of Irish representation at Westminster.
Mr. Morley picks this out and tells us that if we are truly repentant, and
provided that it does not mean what it certainly does mean — anything short of
136
" Parnellism and Crime "
the full and complete concession of Irish autonomy, then he and his friends
will be prepared to give to it a careful consideration. When you couple this
frank avowal — for Mr. Morley, I am glad to say, is always frank and plain —
when you couple this frank avowal with his further insinuation that, in asking
Mr. Gladstone to tell us what are the details of the modification which he
proposed to introduce into his measure, we are engaged in a crafty attempt to
set a trap for him, I think you will agree with me that short of a flat refusal to
have anything to do with us, it would be absolutely impossible for Mr. Morley
to put in clearer language the irreconcilable attitude which he and his friends
have determined to adopt towards us. What Lord Hartington said in his
letter was evidently the case. Gladstonian Liberals have made their choice,
they prefer an alliance with the Parnellites to any chance of reconciliation with
their old colleagues and old friends. The men who have surrendered every-
thing to the Irish party and to their American allies now «slam the door in our
faces, and in the faces of all who will not join them in their abject surrender.
I do not know what effect this revelation of the present attitude of the Glad-
stonians may have upon Sir George Trevelyan, but I say that for us our course
is clear. We have to recognise the fact in all seriousness and in all sadness,
that we have been too sanguine in hoping that reflection and discussion would
remove the differences which have arisen. Reflection has not softened in any
way the tone or temper of our past friends — now our bitterest assailants — and
as for discussion, we are not allowed to discuss. In the country discussion be-
comes tumult and violence. It is only in the House of Commons that discussion
proceeds, and there it is protracted until it becomes a factious obstruction. It is
not the Irish question alone which now divides us. That might have been settled ;
upon that an agreement was possible if we had been met in the spirit in which
we offered our advice. I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that there is no
desire for reunion on the part of the Gladstonian Liberals, and that the cleavage
of the ranks of the Liberal party has become complete and irretrievable."
Naturally this carrying of the war into the enemy's camp did
not serve to smooth matters, and Mr. Chamberlain's position in the
political world became as unenviable as can well be imagined. He
made a survey of it, however, with that stoical calm which apper-
tains to the men who know how to wait, and on the I4th of June,
at the dinner of the Liberal Union, he summed up the situation as
he then saw it
He decided that if reunion with the majority involved the
acceptance of the Parnellite yoke, he would prefer to keep his neck
free, to refuse to accept a servitude which had daily become more
galling and intolerable to those who had so hastily accepted it.
Still he did not abandon the hope that the bulk of the Gladstonian
Liberals would before long return to their senses, for their position
could not be a happy one. They were engaged in founding a
church which had no elements of permanence whatever. Theirs
was a sect without a creed.
" They have a religion with no articles, they have a faith, but I defy them
to say what their doctrine is. They profess to be the only orthodox exponents
137
Life of Chamberlain
by apostolic succession of the Liberal party, and in the course of a brief time
they have passed through almost every phase of political heresy. In the brief
space of a few years they have been called upon to oppose coercion and to
support it. They have been required to denounce boycotting as public plunder,
and to defend it as the only perfect redress of an oppressed nationality. They
have denounced the immorality of refusing to pay rent, and they have been
silent when the Plan of Campaign has been proposed. A short time ago they
repudiated Home Rule as tending to the dismemberment of the Empire, and
now we are to assume that they believe that it is the only sure and certain
guarantee of a perfect union. And lastly, they have been taught to denounce
obstruction as the greatest of Parliamentary offences, and then to sit silent
while it was advocated as a sacred duty of a constitutional Opposition. If
that is their past experience, what have they to hope for the future ? The
Home Rule Bill to which they were committed has disappeared — has been
abandoned. . . ."
He went on to say that the Unionists did not want to be
absorbed in the old Toryism — it was a dead creed ; nor did they
intend to surrender to the new Radicalism, which he looked on as
the English imitation of Nihilism, whose only dogma is opposition
to all government and to all authority. But when they had secured
their- position, they would be ready to ally themselves with all
whether they had hitherto called themselves Conservatives, or
Liberals, or Radicals — who accepted their objects, and were pre-
pared to carry these objects out by constitutional methods. In these
circumstances he thought they would have no difficulty in holding
their own against all the forces of obstruction and disorder.
Meanwhile Mr. Balfour was working witrTadamantine resolution
to smash the rebellious conspiracies in Ireland — a task with which
Mr. Chamberlain did not whole-heartedly sympathise. For in-
stance, when it was proposed to proclaim the National League he
failed to support Ministers, feeling doubtless unwilling to move
further in a coercion policy which had never, save in the greatest
emergency, met with his approval. The National League was pro-
claimed in September, and shortly afterwards agitators, including
Mr. William O'Brien and some other Irish members, were thrown
into prison for inciting tenants to resist eviction. The scenes
surrounding this tempestuous period require a volume to them-
selves ; they do not concern Mr. Chamberlain, who indeed, despite
the vindictiveness of the Irish members, despite the disclosures of
the Times, which continued to attract considerable attention and
credence, determined to work for the welfare of Ireland, and to save
her interests from being overshadowed by the feelings of personal
hostility that now existed between himself and the Nationalists.
Since reference has been made to the Times articles, and since
it is impossible to ignore their importance in colouring the political
138
Life of Chamberlain
complexion of the time, a brief summary of the origin of the notable
case and the disposal of it may serve to enlighten those who cannot
wade through the investigations of the Special CommtssJon ap-
pointed a year later to inquire into the charges against Parneffites
made by the great journal.
The story is a complicated one, and can be studied, if desired, in
detail by referring to the report of the proceedings, hot when it is
stated that the three judges sat from the 1 7th of September 1888 to
22nd of November 1889, that four hundred and fifty
examined, and ninety-eight thousand questions were pot to them,
and that one counsel held forth for five; one for seven, and one for
twelve days, and finally that the record of the tribunal fills some
eleven folio volumes, the present abridgment may be considered
merciful
Owing to various private causes, Mr. Parnefl, after disposing of die
question of die fac-simtle letter in the House of Commons, aDowed
the matter to drop. The Times pursued its charges and the pub-
lication of incriminating letters till finally matters came to a head, and
the Irish leader was forced to vindicate his character. Sir Richard
Webster represented the Times, and Sir Charles RussdL Mr. ParnelL
In the course of the investigation h appeared that one Richard Pigott,
professing patriotism and connected with Irish journalism, luviug
arrived in low water, invited purchasers of his services from c<htr
side. With both parties he established some sort of connection
with a view to feathering his own nest. He did feather his nest.
He curried favour with Mr. Forster, who sympathetically gave him
money on account of his " patriotism " and the straits to which he
was reduced. He then attempted to blackmail the Land Leaguers
by threatening to sell documents for publication (mainly "fabri-
cated "), which, savoured as they were by an implrasant peppering
of truth, promised to wreck their cause with sympathisers. Having
failed in his object, he then set to work to collate materials for a
pamphlet called " ParnelBsm Unmasked," for which he found a
ready purchaser. Mr. Houston not only pw!'H?yii the do<.iMimta»
but contracted with the needy vendor to provide further evidence
"connecting the ParneHhe movement with the crime prevalent in
the country." A vista of golden guineas rose up before the
wretched adventurer ; he had only to track die enemies of Parntfl —
Fenians, many of whom longed for die fall of die Irish leader — in
Paris, New York, Lausanne, and extract from diem matter suited
to his purpose. He was not slow in finding politicians to finance
him. Before long mcrnnmatmg letters from Parnefl and Egan Hire,
forthcoming, and were transferred to Mr. Houston, who, fully believ-
I.IC
" Parnellism and Crime "
ing them to be genuine, handed them to the editor of the Times.
For some time the newspaper sniffed at the suspicious morsel,
various persons were consulted, and finally, after an expert in hand-
writing had pronounced the letters to be genuine, they were
purchased and made use of, as we know. A year passed, and
nothing was done till Mr. O'Donnell took proceedings against the
Times. Then Mr. Parnell put his back into the matter, and
proved the letter supposed to be signed by him to be a forgery.
To cut the matter short, a trap was laid for Pigott (October 1888),
and he fell into it The tale of his ingenious misdoings was
extracted from him bit by bit, and before the final humiliation
came he scuttled to Paris and on to Madrid. There he made
the most graceful amende he could ; he put a bullet through his
brain. Behind him he left a confession showing how elaborately
he had manipulated the letter, the main pivot of the charge, and
naturally the Commission found the thing published by the Times
to be a forgery. Thus ended one of the most sensational episodes
of a sensational era. Mr. Parnell became the hero of the hour,
and all who esteem remarkable character, wherever found, were
rejoiced at the upshot of the investigation so far as he was con-
cerned. His compatriots did not, however, come so well out of
the ordeal, for much direct or indirect incitement to crime was
traced home to them, and though it was said that the finding of the
judges related to venial and trivial offences, in the eyes of those who
understood the workings of the Physical Force party which had
given rise to the Crimes Act, the charges assumed a different
aspect. In 1887 the tale of violence and lawlessness was far from
trivial, and when the Times connected the actions of the American
adventurers with the Irish leader and his party in Parliament, things
looked very black — a blackness which did not wholly disappear
because the most damnable blot of all was expunged.
When the Report of the Special Commission came to be
discussed in the House of Commons (i2th March 1890), Mr.
Chamberlain made a forcible speech, in which he showed how
intimately Nationalist members had been in touch with the Physical
Force and Clan-na-Gael conspirators. These last, according to Mr.
Asquith, represented a " friendly society," but certainly their amity
had quaint ways of demonstrating itself, and reminded onlookers of
the old song —
" It's afl very wefl to dissemble your lore,
But why did you kick me dam stairs?"
Mr. Chamberlain's attitude in regard to the matter may be
gauged from his speech.
141
Life of Chamberlain
" The finding of the Court that acquits Mr. Parnell of all connection with
the Invincible conspiracy is a finding of fact. But by what process of reason
can you say that it is legitimate to accept a finding of that kind, and reject a
finding as to the co-operation and assistance which he has received from the
Physical Force party ? They stand on the same footing. They have equal
authority and equal weight, and you must either reject all the findings or
accept them all. There is a much more serious contention, if true. It is said
that these findings related to venial and trivial offences. Let us see what they
are. There are three findings which stand together. The finding that the
respondents invited and obtained the assistance and co-operation of the Physical
Force party ; the finding that there was no denunciation by Mr. Parnell of the
action of the Physical Force party ; and lastly, the finding that Mr. Davitt was
in close and intimate association with the party of violence in America. Is
that a trivial offence ? What was the Physical Force party ? It was a party
whose publicly avowed and professed object was to assassinate public men in
this country, and to lay our chief cities in ruins."
These transactions had been compared with the history of the
agitations which led to the passing of the Reform Act and the
repeal of the Corn Laws, but Mr. Chamberlain declared he found
no parallel to any popular or patriotic movement in the history of
the world. There was no case in which men professing to carry on
a constitutional agitation met their opponents in fair debate, and at
the same time were in close and intimate alliance with men who by
their published newspapers declared that their object was to assas-
sinate those same opponents, and cause injury and ruin to the
countrymen of those so-called constitutional leaders. " Is no repara-
tion due to us, who for months and years were followed by police
even into our homes in order to protect us against the agents of the
friendly society of the hon. member for East Fife?" he asked. He
proceeded to say that to compare action of this kind to the action of
Bright and Cobden was simply an insult to the memory of those
men. . . . After a passage at arms with Mr. T. P. O'Connor, he
discussed the finding of the judges upon the matter. He said : —
" No proof has been given, and we do not believe that there was any inten-
tion on the part of the respondents or any of them to procure any murder, or
murder in general to be committed ; and, further, we believe that even those
of them who have used the most dangerous language did not intend to cause
the perpetration of murder. But while we acquit the respondents of having
directly or intentionally incited to murder, we find that the speeches made in
which land-grabbers and other offenders against the League were denounced
as traitors, and as being as bad as informers — the urging young men to
procure arms, and the dissemination of the newspapers above referred to — had
the effect of causing an excitable peasantry to carry out the laws of the Land
League, even by assassination.
" I do not think," said Mr. Chamberlain, " that that is a judgment which
the House will think errs on the side of severity. But it is impossible that
you can deal with some of these findings and take no notice of the others. It
142
THE MESSENGER OF PEACE.
( With apologies to the Shade of the Author of"Al Aaraf)
[I have read .... that I have come to Ulster to revive religious bigotry, to rekindle the embers of party
strife, and to revive ancient feuds which are now in a fair way to be forgotten. I can assure you that these
are not the objects which I propose to myself. (Laughter.) — Report of Mr. Chamberlain's Speech in Belfast.}
Erirts Guardian Angel sings: —
I came (by the steamer)
Across the wild spray.
No bigot, no dreamer,
To moon time away.
(From Punch, Oct. 22, 1887.
BRIGHT lingers to ponder,
And make tart replies ;
But I come, from yonder,
Drawn down from the skies.
With Jove I am laden,
Peace sits on my brow.
No, sweet Ulster maiden,
My game is not row.
Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punch.)
Life of Chamberlain
is said that the others are of less importance ; there is the dissemination of
newspapers, the indiscriminate defence of prisoners, and the payment of
persons injured in the commission of outrage. But these amount to condona-
tion and connivance, and I say, therefore, that these serious charges, though
less serious than those of which they have been acquitted, which have been
proved against hon. members opposite, cannot be passed over without any
notice being taken of them. But then there is another argument. It is said
that these offences may be proved, but that there is palliation and extenuation
for them. We are told that we ought to take into account the wrongs and
misery of Ireland, and the valuable result in the way of legislation. I am
willing to admit the force of these arguments, but they are outside the present
question. I say that the wrongs and misery of Ireland might have justified
agitation — they did justify agitation — and even might have been an excuse for
insurrection ; but they cannot justify outrage, and it is this that makes the
distinction between the agitation of hon. members opposite and those of
Bright and Cobden. You may have had outbursts of popular agitation, but
never before did you have an organised system of intimidation leading to
crime. I think we are bound to make this protest, and to say that assassina-
tion and outrage of the character described are things which even an injured
people have no right to employ."
Having now traced the tale of " Parnellism and Crime " from
the day in March 1877 — when the letters first appeared, to that in
March 1890, when the Report of the Special Commission was
discussed in the House of Commons — it is possible to appreciate
the cause of the bitterness that underlay most of Mr. Chamberlain's
political pronouncements during these three years, and the strained
relations between himself and the Nationalists.
In October 1887 he paid his long promised visit to Ulster, to
the delight of the Protestants, who welcomed him right royally, and
to the corresponding fury of the Parnellites.
These, resenting the courage that carried him at so critical a
period into their midst, to openly offer his always consistently
expressed sympathy for their chosen foes, determined in some way
or another to make themselves offensive. They cast about them,
and found a good field for operation in America. Their allies over
there could be trusted to put a spoke in the diplomatic wheel that
Mr. Chamberlain, it was reported, would shortly hope to turn
smoothly at Washington. Soon mischief, not only on this, but on
the other side of the Atlantic, was brewing.
Meanwhile Mr. Chamberlain won the hearts of the loyalists.
At Belfast (October n) he put before them that they were unfairly
represented in Parliament, that loyalty provided seventeen members,
and sedition eighty-six, and in Ulster even the loyalists gained only
one more than half the number of seats. He then discussed the
questionable innovation demanded by the majority of the population,
declaring that the minority, the 2,000,000 or so of the people who
144
KT. HON. SIR W. VERNON HARCOURT
photo KUSSKI.L & 8o\s, LOXDOX.
THE GLADSTONE BAIT.
'* As regards Home Rule for Ireland, I may say I am prepared to go as far as Mr. Gladstone's
own words warrant." — Times, Nov. 9.
JOB, the Incomplete Angler (to himself) : " I think I'll catch 'em with this.
The Incomplete Angler singeth : —
It was all very well when afar from the "swim,"
With tackle unready, and plans rather dim,
To go in for splashes and plunges.
Though, whether Lord S-1-sb-ry thought it so well,
I am not quite assured. How the papers did yell
At my whirls and my whisks and wild lunges.
But now on the spot with the fish all about,
The Waltonian role, there is not the least doubt,
Befits a diplomatic angler.
I must not dance war-dances, shy heavy stones,
Or talk in the strident stentorian tones
Of a partisan public-house wrangler.
(From Punch, Nov. 19, 1887. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punch.}
VOL. II. K
Life of Chamberlain
objected to it, comprised in a large degree the wealthier, more
intelligent, and more enterprising of the community. Elsewhere
he descanted on the thorny topic of Home Rule, showing how from
the onset he had fully recognised the loyalists' position, and had
proposed, while a member of Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet, to place
Ulster outside the jurisdiction of the National Council. The Ulster-
men, he told them, had invariably enjoyed his sympathy, and he had
in the matter of religion a fellow-feeling for them, since his whole
life had been spent in combating all forms of religious ascendency
by whatever sect it might be obtained. The claims of Protestant
Ulster had been repeatedly upheld by him, and their loyalty extolled.
He spoke decidedly of the effect of creating a practically inde-
pendent Parliament, and prophesied that such Parliament would in
a short space of time mean the absolute independence of Ireland,
and the severance of all ties with Great Britain. And the great
question of such result would be the effect on the country. Ireland,
he pointed out, needed capital for the development of her resources,
for the completion of her communications, for the encouragement of
industrious farmers. Great Britain possessed that capital. Millions
of money were invested in foreign countries, whose interests British
capital had done so much to promote. If Ireland were tranquil,
with a certain permanent order and security, some of this capital
would naturally be poured into the country. As things were — when
the persons who claimed the future government of Ireland, and
declared that it would be in their hands in a few months, were
doing everything in their power to show the law was only made
to be broken, and that no contract was sacred — as things were,
was it likely, was it reasonable to suppose that capitalists — the most
timid of men — would unbutton their pockets ? No, there could be
no progress in such circumstances, and Mr. Chamberlain maintained
that such agitation, and still more, any practical result of the agita-
tion, was doing much to destroy the credit of Ireland, and to injure
every one of her inhabitants.
146
CHAPTER IV
L— A DIPLOMATIC MISSION, 1887-8 — THE IMPERIALIST NOTE-
KILLING TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE— "THE LAMP TO
LIGHT THE PATH TO THE CONFEDERATION OF THE BRITISH
EMPIRE "
MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S uncomfortable political position
—there were those who declared he was " neither fish,
flesh, fowl, nor good red herring" — was relieved by
a happy turn of events and the ingenious device of
Lord Salisbury. The Prime Minister, in full apprecia-
tion of the powers of his old enemy, and realising the awkwardness
of the anomalous situation occupied by him, found a niche in which
to place him, one that seemed entirely appropriate to Mr. Chamber-
lain's unfailing sagacity. A century-old dispute between Great
Britain and the United States, relating to North American fisheries,
came again on the tapis. The Washington Government agreed to
appoint a new Commission, and the Prime Minister at one and the
same time saw a chance of utilising Mr. Chamberlain's business-like
qualifications and of translating him temporarily from a sphere
which, to use the popular phrase, was getting rather too hot to hold
him. Accordingly Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Lionel Sackville-West,
and Sir Charles Tupper (representing Great Britain) met in Novem-
ber (1887) Secretary Bayard, Mr. Putnam, and Mr. Angell (repre-
senting the United States), and proceeded to seek a solution of the
fisheries difficulty which so long had been stirring up differences
between the two nations. The Commissioners deliberated till
February 1888, when a treaty was signed and a mixed Commission
appointed to delimit the waters of Canada and Newfoundland, where,
according to an ancient treaty, American fishermen were not per-
mitted to take or to dry fish. Mr. Chamberlain proposed a com-
promise. The preserve was limited to three miles in bays and
harbours that did not exceed ten miles in width, and from the low
water-mark in open seas. Permission to land, sell, or replenish
supplies was extended to all fishermen in the event of stress of
weather. They were allowed (on condition that taxes on Canadian
fish products were abandoned by the United States) to buy bait in
Canada. The treaty was signed after certain discussions by
the Legislatures of Canada and Newfoundland, but, in spite of
147
Life of Chamberlain
President Cleveland's approval of its provisions, and as though on
purpose to harass the administration or gain the Irish American
vote, the treaty was rejected by the American Senate. Some de-
clared the rejection was prompted by the desire of Irish partisans
to checkmate Mr. Chamberlain, others averred that the Republican
majority hoped by this means to force the Canadians into a political
and commercial union with America. This contrariness, however,
produced little or no effect, for Mr. Chamberlain and his colleagues
had arranged a modus vivendz, which removed the existing causes
of friction between the two parties, and which has acted conveniently
to this day.
. But in other ways Mr. Chamberlain's travels had left an indelible
mark. While diplomatically engaged he grew fully alive to the
tremendous ties that unite Britons at home with their brothers over
• the seas. He began to view British responsibility from a new
standpoint, and to note that the mother country could no longer
leave her children to be "dragged up," but that they must be
" brought up" consistently with the development of the Imperial
Estate.
His ideas now were merely the natural developments and
growth of the theories of his youth. Then, he strove to alter the
attitude of the State to the people, to force on it the parental duty ;
now he hoped to influence the attitude of the country towards
colonies and dependencies ; to impress on the nation the almost
forgotten axiom that " blood is thicker than water."
During his visit to Canada the envoy attended the annual dinner
of the Toronto Board of Trade (Dec. 30), and there discussed
the commercial interests of the Empire. In the course of his speech
he described how much he had been impressed with the importance
of the destiny that is reserved for the Anglo-Saxon race, which he
viewed as "infallibly destined to be the predominating force in the
future history and civilisation of the world." He, who was once
ranged on the side of the " Little Englanders," went on to show how
dwarfed was patriotism that did not embrace the vigorous young
nations which carried throughout the globe the knowledge of the
English tongue, the love of liberty and law. " We are branches of
one family," he told the company. "In regard to the older and the
younger peoples we could say, 'our past is theirs — their future is
ours.' " He went so far as to declare that there never could be
controversy between members of the English-speaking race that
would not be capable of adjustment. What Canada needed was
the rapid development of her illimitable resources, and to get
population on the land. Then having multiplied producers, there
would follow a vast population of consumers, together with powerful
148
Life of Chamberlain
industries that would prosper "whether there be any tariff or not."
He quoted Matthew Arnold, who had likened Great Britain to a
Titan staggering beneath the burden of the obligations of the
Empire ! " Obligations, forsooth ! We will not lighten them by
cowardly surrender, by mean betrayal of the interests entrusted to
our care." He went on to say that the confederation of Canada
" might be the lamp to light our path to the confederation of the
British Empire."
This speech is remarkable in that it is one of the earliest Imperial
notes struck by the man who was to be the greatest Colonial Secre-
tary of any age ; the first responsible announcements of his personal
acceptance of the obligations of Empire.
In an address delivered to members of the " Order of the Sons
of St. George " (February 29, 1888), in Philadelphia, he referred to the
work that had taken him to America, and to the ties that must for
ever bind Americans and English. (There was good reason for the
warmth of his remarks regarding the two nations, as we shall see
anon !)
" I believe," he said, " that the friendship of unbroken amity between Great
Britain and the United States is the best guarantee for the peace and civilisa-
tion of the world, and it was to promote that object that I came to this country,
accepting at twenty-four hours' notice the difficult and delicate mission with
which I was charged by the Queen. That mission has accomplished its
purpose, and the result of our labours is now submitted to the judgment of the
American people. It is not a mere treaty of fisheries we have made, it is a
treaty of amity and good neighbourhood. Great Britain has held out the right
hand of fellowship to the United States, and I believe that every patriotic
American who can rise above party bias will be in favour of grasping the hand
thus held out. If you want to appreciate the treaty, you must first appreciate
the spirit in which it was submitted, and in which those who negotiated it came
to this work. We do not regard this long-standing difference as a dispute
between hostile or rival nations, but rather as a difference of opinion between
friends mutually anxious to remove every cause of dispute. Under these
circumstances, to speak of concessions which have been made to us, or which
are made by us, as an ignominious surrender on either side, is an abuse of
language. There has been no surrender on either side of anything that it was
honourable to maintain. . . ."
He went on to say that he had been pained at some expressions which
have been publicly used by individuals, and especially by language which he
had seen in the press concerning his country. " We are treated as though we
were a foreign and rival nation," he exclaimed ; " I decline to be considered a
foreigner in the United States ! I feel much as a distinguished American
diplomatist, who once told the Prince of Wales that the world was divided
into three classes, Americans, Englishmen, and foreigners ! I am astonished
at men who boast of an unbroken line of British descent, and who are proud of
the purity of their speech, when I hear them fouling the nest from which they
sprung, and imputing to Englishmen a policy of malignity, duplicity, and an
arbitrary character only existing in their diseased imaginations. . . ."
150
A Diplomatic Mission
Then whimsically he declared that sometimes when he saw
different views presented to the American public by those professing
to be its guides, philosophers, and friends, he was inclined to think
that the time had come when some American Columbus should
undertake the discovery of England ; not the England so frequently
depicted as the dreary, tyrannical, cruel government which is on
the downward road to speedy, well-deserved extinction, but the
England of to-day, the true England, the mother of nations greater
than herself, existing under a popular Government in which all are
represented, and the England which in her glorious maturity wields
the sceptre of dominion over hundreds of millions of contingent
subjects.
On the whole the mission was considered a highly successful
one, and Mr. Chamberlain's part in this matter — his diplomatic
ability and business-like mode of tackling the complicated questions
S^ ' f*
-'connected with international fishery disputes — was highly appreciated
by Lord Salisbury. The Queen was prepared to offer Mr.
Chamberlain recognition of his services, but he preferred to re-
main plain Mr. Chamberlain, and the distinction was courteously
declined.
And now it must be recorded that the envoy while conducting
negotiations and establishing cordial relations in America, accom-
plished a delicate stroke of business on his own account. He made
the acquaintance of a charming lady, the daughter of the Hon. W.
Endicott, Secretary for War in Mr. Cleveland's Administration, and
became engaged to her.
* But nothing was said of the matter, and he returned to Eng-
land in March 1888, to be feted by his constituents, presented with
the freedom of the borough of Birmingham, and inundated with
addresses from all sections of the community.
In one of his speeches he made a review of the situation since
his departure, and described the prospect opening in front of the
hard-working Government. Never, he thought, had their position
been stronger or more firmly established. Domestic legislation in
England and Scotland, and even in Ireland, was proceeding with
steady strides, — a substantial measure of relief had been accorded
to miners, to agricultural labourers, to Irish tenants during the last
session. In Ireland peace and prosperity were slowly returning —
matters would be helped further by the Local Government Bill,
a bill of which any Liberal Minister might be proud.
He represented the political world now as but composed of two
parties — Unionists on the one hand, Parnellites on the other.
Party lines had disappeared ; the old party names might be used,
but they no longer stood for the old party ideas, and that fact the
Life of Chamberlain
country had begun to appreciate. A common danger had united
Liberal and Tory against a common foe, and there existed not two
parties, but one party — a National Party. " A future historian may
write of the bitter controversy that has divided us, that its evils
have cheaply purchased the knowledge that the great majority
of the British nation are proud of the empire, the glorious and
united empire, to which they belong. They are sensible of the
responsibilities which its citizenship entails, and of the privileges
which it confers, and they will never either be tempted or bullied
into their surrender."
Mr. Chamberlain's rdsumJ\va.s no empty boast. A great change
had indeed come over the political climate. The storms across the
water had served to clear the air and relieve the tension between the
conglomerated political parties. Before this there had been consider-
able embarrassment at times on both sides, for, though the Conserva-
tives outnumbered the Gladstone-Parnellite faction, there remained
to be considered a sufficiently large party of dissentient Liberals,
whose vote might at any time become hostile to Ministers. There
were also cliques that adhered to the Hartington wing, and cliques
that held to the Chamberlain wing, not to speak of some few
believers in Mr. Goschen, who, according to Mr. Gladstone,
influenced " next to nobody," yet who served to make the solidifica-
tion of a party no easy achievement. It was only natural, as Mr.
Chamberlain remarked, that at first there should have been a
certain amount of mistrust between those who had been lifelong
opponents. But with time there had come a change ; much of the
distrust had disappeared, and in its place had arisen a real sense
of the advantage of the alliance, and a determination to maintain it.
Of this sense was begotten the virtue of toleration, and the principle
of mutual concession by which the curious groups were enabled
to amalgamate into a solid and serviceable working mass, guided
by a Tory Prime Minister, yet conscious of the deference of that
Minister to the multifarious political prejudices that underlay the
one cardinal policy of depriving Mr. Gladstone of the power to
make himself the instrument of the Parnellites.
In a speech delivered at the beginning of 1888, while Mr. Cham-
berlain was in America, Lord Salisbury had made no secret of the
art used in the handling of the " ribbons " by which he contrived to
make restive leaders and wheelers keep a steady pace along the
ministerial road. He warned the Tories that since the Govern-
ment had no preponderating majority, all measures must necessarily
bear a certain colour of the Unionists who afforded them their
valuable aid. "If for the sake of a great public object, an object
transcending all other objects," he said, "you are maintaining the
152
A Diplomatic Mission
Government on the support of that which is not a coalition but
an alliance, you must not wonder, you must not blame us
if, to a certain extent, the colour of the convictions of the
Unionist Liberals joins with the colour of the Conservative
party in determining the hue of the measures to be sub-
mitted to Parliament. . . ." Governments, he pointed out, were
forced to resign on votes of want of confidence, and whether the
vote was or was not one of confidence depended on whether they
regarded it as a matter of public interest that they should appeal to
the electors or not. "I do not venture to prophesy, but from all
I can see as matters stand, my impression is that we would rather
exercise our discretion in the sense of deferring an appeal to the
electors till the result of our recent measure in Ireland can be more
permanently displayed to the minds of the people."
By this it will be seen that Mr. Chamberlain did not go one
step nearer to the Tories than they advanced towards him. He
was too well versed in the science of politics to forget that it is
useless to dash your head against a brick wall ; he admitted that
" you must take the best thing you can get at a given moment," and
be thankful for it. The best thing he could get in 1888 was the
ear of a Tory Government, partially educated to democracy, and he
took care to pour into that ear sufficient of his social programme
to beneficently colour the legislation of the period between 1887
and 1892.
In return, he came out of his insular groove and gave his
mind to international questions. Incidentally he was awakened to
the vast importance of the opulent youth of the British dominions
over the seas, to the magnificent rights of British motherhood, and
the corresponding responsibilities of it. The eye that had pictured
the capital of the Midlands developing from an " overgrown village,"
now saw as in a vision a transcendent Improvement Scheme — a
gigantic confederation of the Empire, the developed territories of
Great Britain acting as trustees for civilisation for the commerce of
the world. The problems that now presented themselves to the
municipal mind merely took on themselves a newer and larger
dress — the idealist of Little England became the idealist of Great
Britain, and he dreamed of a Greater Britain still. This was the
step he took in return for Tory socialism. The Tory Socialists and
the Radical Imperialists might well have shaken hands on so equit-
able a bargain.
This mind-phase of 1887-8 is diagnosed at length, since it is
desirable to emphasise Mr. Chamberlain's pronouncements, more
particularly that made in Canada, where he spoke of the Confede-
ration of Canada as a possible lamp to light the pathway to the
153
Life of Chamberlain
Confederation of the British Empire. Especially must it be pointed
out that Mr. Chamberlain's Imperialism was the natural emotion
born of experiences gained by acting as Envoy of the British
Government, and not, as his critics aver, a sentiment adroitly
acquired to meet the demands of the post offered to him in 1895.
Undoubtedly he returned home deeply enamoured of the race
to which he belongs ; and added to that sentiment, he mixed the
alloy of commercialism and common-sense, which is politically needful
if dreams are to be made into durable realities. The admixture was
at its best in a speech made at the Devonshire Club on his return
(9th April 1888). After describing the Conservatism he had marked
in America and the success of his mission, he came to the question
of strengthening our possession of our Colonies. At risk of being
charged with being a sentimentalist, he said he could never enter-
tain any policy that would tend to weaken the ties between the
Anglo-Saxon race.
" I feel," he declared, " a natural pride in the restless energy and dauntless
courage which have created this great Empire ; a satisfaction in the constant
evidence which is given us of the affectionate attachment of our fellow-subjects
throughout the world to their old home. It seems to me that it would be
unpatriotic to do anything which would discourage this sentiment — that it
would be cowardly and unworthy to repudiate the obligations and responsi-
bilities which the situation entails upon us."
Then, putting his sentiment on the lowest possible grounds, he
explained that experience teaches us that trade follows the flag, that
even in commercial questions sentiment is a powerful influence on
the question of profit and loss.
" A great part of our population is dependent at the present moment upon
the interchange of commodities with our colonial fellow-subjects, and it is the
duty of every statesman to do all in his power to maintain and increase this
commercial intercourse, and to foster the attachment upon which, to a large
extent, it is founded. We have to watch for opportunities to strengthen the
ties between our colonies and ourselves?
Here was a dominant note in the new key that had been struck,
and from it the Imperial tune flowed serenely out, confident — in-
spiriting ! He hinted at the word Confederation — declared he was
almost afraid to mention it — for that had been declared the fantastic
vision of fools and fanatics : —
" I am well aware that up to the present time no practical scheme of
federation has been submitted or suggested, but I do not think that such a
scheme is impossible. There are two points which have to be prominently
borne in mind. There is the question of commercial union, and the question
of union for defence. I have heard it argued that the Colonies would be very
foolish to allow themselves to become mixed up in our old world policy, and
154
"JOSEPH'S SWEETHEART."
(A Fieldingesque Fragment of a Tale of Love and Loyally. Adapted to the Situation. )
Showing how our Hero rejects with scorn the proffered Title at the hands of Lady Tory Diplomacy, and
clings to the object of his First Love, Dear Democracy.
(From Punch, March 31, 1888. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Putifh.)
Life of Chamberlain
to concern themselves with wars in which they can have no possible interest
or advantage. But I may point to the action of the Colonies not so very long
ago in the case of the Egyptian War, when they exhibited a sentiment which
I think we should all be ready to appreciate on the occasion of a war in which
they certainly had nothing but a sentimental interest. But I will go farther.
I suppose the colonists read history ; and if they do they will know that every
great war in which this country has been engaged since the great French war
at the beginning of the century, and that every dispute which has seriously
threatened our peace, has arisen out of the concerns and interests of one or
other of the Colonies or of the great dependency of India. And under these
circumstances it appears to me that it may be at least as much to the interests
of the Colonies as to those of the Mother Country that we should seek and
find a concerted system of defence."
He went on to explain that the difficulty in the case of com-
mercial union was no doubt much greater, for it was of no use to
expect that our Colonies would abandon their custom duties as their
chief and principal source of revenue.
" It is hardly to be hoped that the protected interests fostered by their
system will willingly surrender the privileges which they now enjoy. All we
can do is to wait until proposals are made to us ; to consider those proposals
when they come with fairness and impartiality, and to accept them if they do
not involve the sacrifice of any important principle or of any interest vital to
our population. Meanwhile we ought not to do anything to discourage the
affection or to repel the patriotic and loyal advances which are made to us by
our fellow-subjects and fellow-kinsmen, who are proud of the glorious tradi-
tions of our country, who share with us our history, our origin, and our
common citizenship in the greatest and freest Empire that the world has
ever known."
II.— 1888-90: STUDYING THE EMPIRE— FOREIGN AND COLONIAL
POLICY— "WHAT SHOULD THEY KNOW OF ENGLAND WHO
ONLY ENGLAND KNOW?"— WHO IS TO BE THE DOMINANT
POWER IN SOUTH AFRICA?— THE OCCUPATION OF EGYPT
AND THE POLICY OF "SCUTTLE"
While Lord Salisbury was bending his mind to the vagaries
of Socialist legislation, Mr. Chamberlain was expanding his to
gauge the importance of the Imperial questions on which the far-
seeing eye of Lord Beaconsfield had been steadily fixed. His visit
to Canada caused him now, as an independent onlooker, to pursue
an inquiry into the political conditions that connected the British
with South Africa and Egypt, and he came to conclusions which
would have startled him had they been expounded by his colleagues
of 1880. The work of colonisation became now a paramount
question with him. Quite naturally the man who had clamoured
for land for the agricultural labourer devoted himself to the possi-
156
Studying the Empire
bility of filling illimitable acres with British emigrants who would
be able to breathe and to enjoy the free light of heaven instead of
swarming into cities to live, packed like herrings in a barrel, till
they perished from slow asphyxiation of mind and constitution.
The trend of his thoughts he revealed while addressing a meet-
ing at the London Chamber of Commerce (May 1888). He
asked how were to be prescribed conditions under which the
work of colonisation should be carried forth, how was to be
determined the protection of natives forming the vast majority of
the population in South Africa, and who, in fact, was to be the
dominant power in that country. Such questions had not then
become party questions, and he believed they could be discussed
fairly all round. All Governments and both parties were equally
responsible for the policy or the want of policy which had hitherto
prevailed, and he firmly believed that all Governments would be
ready as himself to acknowledge their error of judgment. " I beg
you to believe," he said, " that I am not casting any blame upon
any one, and if I were inclined to do so — if blame indeed does
attach — I am here frankly to admit that, so far as my limited
parliamentary life is concerned, I am perhaps as great an offender
as any." Here was a frank and characteristic admission, doing
honour to the courage and brain of the man who made it. He
confessed that the policy of successive Governments for a long
period of time had been the policy of shirking. The concession of
self-government to the Cape Colony, the premature and ill-advised
attempt to secure Confederation, the war with the Transvaal, and
the subsequent retirement from that country, the transfer of the
Basuto people to the Cape Colony, the indifference to the recent
acquisitions on the West Coast by Germany, every one of those
things and many other parts of British policy were all dictated by
the same desire on the part of successive Ministries and successive
Governments — the desire to wash their hands of the whole business.
But even this system had not been consistently and logically carried
out, and it had also been a most conspicuous failure.
". . . If this policy of shirking is to be continued," he said, "do let us
understand what it means, and do let us carry it out to the end. If the British
public have made up their minds that they have no interest in South Africa
beyond the interest in maintaining a naval station at the Cape, if they think
that they can honourably throw off all the obligations which they have con-
tracted to the great populations that have trusted to us, if they think they can
afford to give up the large trade that we enjoy, and the prospect of larger trade
in the future, then let us squarely face the issue. Let us say to all the world
that we intend to retire, that we intend to leave Boers and British and natives
to fight out their quarrels as best they may, and that whatever happens, what-
ever bloodshed and turmoil may be the result, that we will not move a British
157
Life of Chamberlain
soldier nor spend one farthing of British money in order to put things straight.
That, at all events, would be a consistent policy. It would not be a very noble
policy. It might, however, find defenders, although I confess I should be very
sorry to argue for it myself. . . .
" There is only one alternative," he went on, " and that is that we should
frankly accept our obligations and responsibilities. We should maintain
firmly and resolutely our hold over the territories that we have already
acquired, and we should offer freely our protectorate to those friendly chiefs
and people that are stretching out their hands towards us and seeking our
protection and our interference. I have no doubt that a policy of this kind
would enable us with much less risk than has attended the policy we have
hitherto pursued to prescribe the conditions under which in the future this
necessary work of colonisation and civilisation shall go forward. ... By such
a policy alone can we secure the interests of the great majority of the popula-
tion, and justify our position as a nation. . . . We know how many of our
fellow-subjects are even at this moment unemployed. Is there any man in his
senses who believes that the crowded population of these islands would exist
for a single day if we were to cut adrift from the great dependencies which
now look to us for protection and assistance? ... If to-morrow it were
possible, as some people apparently desire, to reduce by the stroke of the pen
the British Empire to the dimensions of the United Kingdom, half at least of
our population would be starved, and at a time when a policy of disintegration
is openly preached by high authorities, it is well to look the consequences
squarely in the face."
The speeches made at this period of his career, immediately
after his tour in America, are vastly interesting as the first
emphatic pronouncements of the Imperial spirit which has lifted
Mr. Chamberlain to the unique position which he now occupies.
Before 1896, when he was discussed by his critics and men called
him a Great Statesman, there were found many to declare that he
was a Great Member of Parliament. After this date such declara-
tion was left for the use of his enemies alone.
In November 1888 Mr. Chamberlain gave himself a~ holiday,
and travelled to New York. Very soon the public was apprised
of his impending marriage, which took place in Grace Church,
Salem. The ceremony was attended by many New York " bigwigs "
from President Cleveland downwards, and the happy couple left
for the Riviera.
On Mr. Chamberlain's return to Birmingham in January 1889
the ardour of his reception was delightful to witness, and the
general nature of his reply to the complimentary addresses received
showed that the scars of conflict had healed, and that he was
rejoiced and deeply touched to find how, through good report and
ill, faith in him had remained unshaken in the hearts of his friends.
After referring to the second treaty it had been his good fortune
to make in America, and describing how he had attempted to
158
Studying the Empire
persuade Mrs. Chamberlain to relinquish her own nationality and
become an Englishwoman, he spoke of himself : —
" I can only say that all the pleasure I have ever felt in political strife, all
the strength that has been given me to pursue it, has been increased by the
sense that has never failed me, that I have had behind me the support of the
people who have known me best, who have made me what I am, whose un-
failing support in every time of difficulty has laid me under a weight of
obligation which I am only too anxious to acknowledge, and which I feel I can
never adequately repay."
Later in the year he went to Egypt, there to study the condition
of the country and the political intricacies of the questions arising
continually between England and France. With tremendous
energy he went into the history of long-lost civilisations, and with
peculiar zest he traced the political events that had led to action
on the part of the Government of Mr. Gladstone of which he had
formed a part. The account of the then state of neglect, corruption,
ignorance, revealed to him how beneficent had been the inter-
vention of Great Britain — how mistaken had been the policy of
" scuttle," to which he had been all too prone to give his consent.
In August 1888 there was a recrudescence of trouble with the
Mahdists, Osman Digna having threatened Suakin. Colonel
Kitchener was engaged in chasing him, and nearly effected his
capture, when finally Osman fortified himself so strongly that
General Grenfell telegraphed for reinforcements. An expedition
was sent out, the battle of Jemaizah was fought, and the dervishes
were completely routed at the point of the bayonet. These opera-
tions were vital if Suakin was to be retained, but regarding them
there were the usual animated discussions in Parliament, some
arguing that the expedition was unnecessary, some that it was
run " on the cheap," some that the Government had no intention
of reconquering the Soudan, others that the policy of fighting and
going away again was foolish and unprofitable in the highest
degree. Mr. Chamberlain's policy was to fight and not to go, to
retain our hold on that we had sacrificed so much to effect.
At Birmingham (March 1890) he told the tale of the occupation
of Egypt, and confessed the blunders he had been guilty of.
"We had told the present Khedive, who had come unexpectedly and
perhaps unwillingly to the seat of power after the forced abdication of his father,
Ismail Pasha, that if he would follow our advice we would maintain his authority.
In the disorder which followed the state of things to which the country had
been reduced by its previous Government, in the confusion which prevailed
and with all kinds of petty and personal ambitions seething all round, a military
insurrection broke out. This insurrection led to disorder at different times
and in different places. There was a massacre of Christians and Europeans
159
Life of Chamberlain
in which many scores, and probably many hundreds, perished ; and it
became absolutely necessary to interfere. Every attempt was made by France
and England to prevent anything in the nature of armed intervention, and
peaceably to settle the difficulties that had arisen. But Arabi Pasha, who was
himself the tool of others less honest even and probably more self-seeking than
himself, had his head turned by the success which followed his first efforts,
and finally he defied the Powers of Europe and began to fortify Alexandria
against the foreign fleets. There were then two alternatives open to us. We
might have retired from the scene altogether ; we might have abandoned the
Khedive, who had depended upon our pledges, and who had wholly followed
the counsel which we had given him. We might have left Egypt to anarchy,
to disorder, to massacre, and we might have allowed all the great European
interests — not merely the interests of the creditors of Egypt, but the interests
of all who had honestly invested capital in industrial enterprises in that
country — to go to ruin. If we were not to do that, the only alternative was by
an armed intervention forcibly to restore order. We decided that our honour
and our duty required us to take the latter course ; but at that moment France,
which had recently undergone a change of Government, suddenly altered its
policy, retired from all share in the business, and threw upon our shoulders
alone the whole responsibility of restoring Egypt once more to its proper place
among the nations of the world. I think that the policy of France was hardly
worthy of a great nation. I think that it was a short-sighted policy, and I
know that it was taken in direct opposition to, and in defiance of, an eloquent
protest by M. Gambetta, who was one of the greatest of French statesmen
and patriots. But when that policy was taken it left to us no alternative.
The duty was cast upon us. We had to go alone or be unworthy of our mission.
We decided to go on and endeavour to carry out the work of regenerating
Egypt. That was the state of things only eight years ago. Those were the
Augean stables which England had to reclaim, and I say to you, after having
inquired into this matter on the spot, after having consulted not merely the
official persons, whether Egyptian or English, but having taken the opportunity
of conversing with every native with whom I could come in contact, and with
representative men who were well able to express their opinions — I say to
you that the state of the fellaheen of Egypt was more miserable than the
condition of any similar peasantry on the face of the earth. Eight years after
what did I find when I went to Egypt ? I found a total change. I found the
finances restored ; I found an equilibrium between revenue and expenditure ;
I found the deficit turned into a surplus, which was being used for the reduc-
tion of taxation, and for the promotion of public works and national education.
And remember that this surplus, which is already a large one, might have
been much larger but for the action of the French, who have refused
their consent to the conversion of the debt, which would have enabled the
interest on a portion of the debt to be reduced, and consequently the burdens
on Egypt to be diminished."
He further related how Courts of Justice had been established
throughout the country, and although perhaps not perfect, yet there
was, at all events in theory, a complete code of equal justice, and
corruption at any rate had almost entirely become extinct. Taxa-
tion had been revised. Payment had been fixed at dates to suit the
1 60
DR. DALE
I'hoto ELLIOTT & FRY. LONDON.
THE CHALLENGE: OR, THE RIVAL CHANTICLEERS.
Grand Old Chanticleer (fortissimo).
CocK-a-doodle-do-o-o ! Cock-a-doodle-do-o-o-o ! ! !
Gather round me, hen-birds all — pretty Partlet crew !
Chorus of " Women's Liberal Federation " Hens.
Cackle! cackle! Grand Old Bird! Where's the fowl
dares tackle
Such prodigious spurs and Leak ? Cackle ! Cackle !
Cackle !
Grand Old Chanticleer.
Ladies, thanks for your response to my stirring clarion.
Fancy there's a business here I alone can carry on.
Fighting Cocks are plentiful, game birds some are
terming 'em,
(From Punch, Nov. 10, 1888. Reproduced
VOL. II.
But I really think you need a change of breeds in
Birmingham.
Brummagem Bantam.
Well, it's like his impudence ! And on my own walk,
too!
But I'll beat the Old Bird yet, and by a long chalk, too !
He talk of Monopoly ? Well, that's really queer ;
He who'd rule all roosts alone, Grand Old Chanticleer !
Well, I'll fight him! As for you, poor Partlet-
Chorus — pooh !
They shall find that two can play at Cock-a-doodle-
do-o-o ! [Makes reaay.
by permission of the Proprietors of Punch.)
L
Studying the Empire
convenience of the peasant class, when the harvest had been
gathered and they were best able to meet obligations. The time
had gone by when the local officials could extort from the peasant
one farthing more than his legal obligation. The corvee forced
labour was gradually reduced during several years, and now it had
been abolished altogether. The army, under Sir Francis Grenfell,
had been made a most efficient machine for the defence of the
country. Conscription had been gradually reduced. The army was
about one-fourth of the number at which it stood in the time of the
late Khedive, and now the men were only taken for short service,
and then returned to their families. During the service they were
well paid, well cared for, and well looked after. The irrigation had
been reviewed and renewed from first to last. New works had
been established. More water had been procured for the purpose,
arrangements having been made to secure an equal distribution of
it. The rich and poor stood exactly on equal terms ; each man,
according to the extent and character of his land, could depend
upon having a proportionate amount of what is truly in Egypt the
water of life, and all of this had been done in seven years.
" I do not say," he went on, " that there is not still a great deal to do ;
but at least you will well understand what a change has been effected in the
condition of the peasantry of Egypt by the operations which have taken place
under the British occupation. One of the Ministers said to me when I was in
Cairo the other day, 'This is not a reform, this is a revolution and a new
birth.'"
He proceeded to make the confession previously referred to,1
and to show that we had now no right to abandon the duty we had
undertaken. The Egyptian people were not able to stand alone,
nor did they wish to stand alone ; they asked for continued support
and assistance, and without it, it was absolutely impossible to secure
their welfare.
" If you were to abandon them your responsibility and obligation would be
followed by an attempt once more to restore the old arbitrary methods and the
old abuses, which in turn would no doubt be followed by anarchy and dis-
order ; and then in time there would be again a foreign intervention, this time
the intervention of some other European country. I have too much confidence
in the public spirit of the country to believe that it will ever neglect a national
duty. A nation is like an individual ; it has duties which it must fulfil or else
it cannot live honoured and respected as a nation, and I hope that, as we have
been singled out for the performance of this great duty, the whole nation,
without distinction of party, will resolve to carry it to a triumphant issue."
1 Vol. i. p. 134.
163
Life of Chamberlain
III. — 1887-92 — CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATION WITH A RADICAL
FLAVOUR— THE UNAUTHORISED PROGRAMME AUTHORISED
By degrees the influence of Mr. Chamberlain became evident —
his alliance with the Government, though said to be only existing
by virtue of the Unionist question, brought forth fruits that were
curiously akin to the seed cast to the winds in the Unauthorised
Programme. The quantities of measures passed during the period
between 1887 and 1892 were more or less conspicuously coloured
with the democratic hue that in earlier days had made the eyes of
the Tories and those of even some of the Liberals blink. Now
the hue was mellowed by judicious compromise to a harmonious
whole that served admirably for the benefit of the masses, yet
brought prodigious credit to Lord Salisbury's Government. Mr.
Chamberlain, before his parliamentary days, had indulged in the
optimistic dream of free education for the multitude ; he had
advocated local government, he had clamoured for free land.
These three items of his programme for improving the condi-
tion of the people he now pressed on the notice of his new
allies, and though they sniffed uneasily they swallowed them.
After all, these were the most practical and the most feasible
subjects to be put forward — subjects that did not jeopardise the
amalgamation that was setting to work to frustrate Irish machina-
tions, and which, moreover, met the crying needs of the poor. There
were other matters, however, that had to be dropped as inappropriate
to the curious nature of the newly cemented alliance between the two
parties — the Disestablishment of the Church question, for instance,
which would have brought about friction and produced no result
save a fresh opening-up of the cracks that threatened the dismem-
berment of the Empire. This danger all members of the "party
realised, and therefore all in the interests of the paramount cause
of unity made remarkable concessions. Here indeed is to be
found the simple solution of what some persist in calling the
mysterious tractability of the Tories, or the unwarrantable in-
consistency of Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain carried with
him the Midlands vote, and in return for the goodly party who
held to their apostle it behoved Lord Salisbury to give ear
to principles he not long since had characterised as those of
the "inveterate cockney." Thus it came to pass that in 1887
the useful and reasonable Coal Mine Regulation Act, the Mer-
chandise Marks Act (which in a measure expressed Mr. Cham-
berlain's Merchant Shipping Scheme that had failed in 1884),
and the Allotments Act (the outcome of Mr. Chamberlains
164
Conservative Legislation
and Mr. Jesse Ceilings' agitations on behalf of the agricultural
labourer and small tenant, and whereby the exodus from village
to city might be arrested) were well met by the Tories, and became
law with little demur. The moderate Conservatives agreed also, if
grudgingly, with the Radical Unionists regarding the bill for the
relief of Irish tenants, whereby they were allowed to bring up
their rents for revision. Mr. Chamberlain supported the matter
with great zeal, adhering always to his principle of working for
Ireland's interests, even when Ireland herself was doing her best
to estrange her supporters. He bargained for further concessions
to tenants, and that all tenants (other than leaseholders in perpetuity)
should benefit by the bill, that bankruptcy clauses should be given
up, and that the revision of rents should operate till a Purchase Bill
should be introduced. His views on a Unionist policy for Ireland
were explained in some articles that originally appeared in the
Birmingham Post, and were published under the auspices of the
National Radical Union. These views he endeavoured to impress
on the Government, and since the practical value of them was
recognised by both the Prime Minister and Mr. Arthur Balfour,
a rough outline of the purport of the articles in question may lead
to an appreciation of the Acts for the amelioration of Irish conditions
which were passed in the 1886-1892 Administration. These articles
suggested a practical solution of the problems arising from Mr.
Gladstone's bills — a solution which should provide a safe policy
for Ireland, and, while preserving the unity of the three kingdoms,
secure such practical reforms and extension of local government as
might be deemed essential to the interests of the disturbed country.
As Mr. Chamberlain in a preface pointed out, after securing the
observance of the law, it was the duty of the Government to
see that such law was just, and in harmony with the sentiments of
the majority of the people. In taking a stand against those who
would weaken and divide a beneficent Empire, he argued that even
at the risk of being called traitors and impostors they (the Liberal-
Unionists) were doing a duty, and holding steadily to the ancient
ways of Liberalism, but at the same time it was also their duty to
consider the causes underlying the dangerous agitations, and to
seek to remove the grievances which originated it. " Does there
exist statesman or politician who is not convinced that the material
causes are economic and agrarian ? " he asked. The great poverty
of the population, their dependence on the land which provided
them with insufficient subsistence, was at the bottom of the difficulty ;
and though perhaps a more enterprising race might have changed
their plight, since the nature of the race could not be changed, the
alternative was to change the conditions. "If," he said, " we con-
165
Life of Chamberlain
tinue to govern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, we must
do for Ireland as much as a patriotic and capable Irish Parliament
would accomplish." He then proceeded to discuss in what ways
the resources of Ireland might be developed by the action of the
State — by means of public works, such as sea fisheries, arterial
drainage, railway consolidation and extension, and by a scheme of
land purchase, and finally by a convenient form of local government.
By Lord Ashbourne's Act landlords and tenants could enter inta
voluntary agreements for the sale and purchase of estates, the cost
of purchase being advanced by the State to the purchaser (repayable
over a term of forty years), and one-fifth of the purchase-money
being left by the landlord in the hands of the Land Commission as
guarantee against failure to pay up instalments by the purchaser.
Parliament had agreed to set aside ,£5,000,000 for advances ta
purchasers, but this amount having been appropriated, unless further
provisions were made no additional transfers could be effected
under the Act. Mr. Chamberlain therefore propounded (28th May
1888) at Birmingham a plan consistent with the proposals that had
appeared in the Birmingham Post.
The proposals were these : —
1. To make the tenant practically the owner of his holding,
subject to an ultimate fixed payment, or land tax, of a moderate
amount, and to conditions which it may be in the interest of the
State to impose, in order to prevent subdivision and the growth of
encumbrances.
2. To give to the present owner of the land its fair capital value
in a security easily marketable at par.
3. To relieve the British taxpayer from all risk of loss.
4. To interpose a local authority as creditor of the tenant, with
direct interest in enforcing payment of any rent or tax which may
be imposed.
5. To make the tenant debtor to an Irish local authority, instead
of to an individual landlord, often an absentee.
6. To secure the proper use of the land, and prevent undue sub-
division, by the action of the local authority, in the interest of the
whole community.
7. To ascertain the true market value of estates as a basis
for compensation, with special regard to the circumstances of each
estate.
8. To secure present relief to the tenant by an immediate
reduction of rent.
9. To relieve congested districts by a rearrangement of the
smaller holdings where these are insufficient to provide means of
existence for a family.
1 66
AN EXHIBITION MATCH
BETWEEN THE BRUMMAGEM BRUISER AND TUB PADDINGTON PET.
ROUND THE FIRST.
A Fragment from Contemporary Fistiana.
*»* * • •
Much interest has of late been excited in sportive
circles, and especially among Corinthian amateurs of
the fistic art, by the doings and sayings — especially the
latter — of the two lads above named.
Two more promising "scrappers" have, perhaps, not
appeared in the pugilistic arena for a considerable period
than the ' ' Brummagem Bruiser " and the ' ' Paddington
Pet."
When the "Cracks" peeled, considerable disparity
in their size was observable, yet by the knowing ones it
was thought that the superior "beef" of the Bruiser
might be more than compensated for by what, in semi-
Byronic phraseology, may be designated the "dancing
devilry" of the indomitable " Pet.'
As they shook hands it was seen that the Brum stood
well over his man, looked longer in the reach, and gave
promise of greater propelling power in the proper quarter.
The cheers for his game little opponent, however, were
vociferous, to an extent indeed which seemed somewhat
to nettle the " Bruiser," who at once let fly with his right,
but was out of distance, and nearly fell with the force of
his own blow. At any rate he appeared to do so.
though thus early in the fight whispers of "barney,"
"kibosh," "a put up job," &c., went surreptitiously
round the ring.
(From Punch, May 4, 1889. Reproduced by permission of the Proprietors of Punch.)
Life of Chamberlain
10. To provide, if necessary, for a fluctuating annual payment,
varying with the price of the principal kinds of produce.1
Mr. Chamberlain expressed his belief that the Irish land
question could never be satisfactorily dealt with till the majority
of the occupiers of the land had been transformed into owners of
the soil tilled by them, and that the time was come for considering
a scheme based on the principle of using Irish credit, and for the
purpose of converting tenants into owners. He thought a growing
expansion of the Ashbourne system of purchase might lead to
transactions as effective as Mr. Gladstone's proposed bill, and far less
dangerous than that measure.
It is impossible here to enter into the complicated arrangements
laid down by Mr. Chamberlain for the complete rectification of
existing grievances in Ireland. Sufficient to say that Mr. Balfour's
bill for the extension of the Ashbourne Act was a great step in
advance, as it empowered the Irish Executive to assist tenants
to purchase their holdings by an advance of .£5,000,000. Mr.
Madden (Solicitor-General for Ireland), in introducing the bill,
expatiated on its durability, and explained the signal success that
had attended Lord Ashbourne's Act. In regard to this measure,
Mr. Chamberlain declared there was " nothing like it in the whole
history of the land legislation of the world," but naturally there were
found plenty of cavillers to differ from him on principle. Even-
tually, after discussions that would fill a chapter, the bill was passed
on the 2Qth of November 1888.
Prior to that date the Local Government Bill, which has been
described as the "piece de resistance of the Ministerial programme,"
was introduced (March 19, 1888) by Mr. Ritchie, whose conserva-
tism had ever a frankly Radical flavour. The powers of the new
County Councils were very much in accord with Mr. Chamberlain's
early projects which had shocked the Tories when in opposition.
These Councils were to control the police, to levy county rates,
maintain roads, bridges, &c., local institutions — such as schools,
reformatories, lunatic asylums — to test weights and measures and
the adulteration of food, and in conjunction with the sanitary
authorities enforce the Rivers Pollution Act. The Local Govern-
ment Board would surrender its powers in the matter of gas, water,
lighting, locomotion, boundaries, market tolls, and harbours. The
Councils were empowered to enlarge the incidence of the contribu-
tions towards the support of paupers, and advance money to
emigrants. Further authority would be given by the Privy Council
as time and necessity might suggest. District Councils would
subsequently replace the Local Boards. County Councils would
1 " A Unionist Policy for Ireland." Swan, Sonnenschein & Co.
168
Conservative Legislation
accord with the main divisions of counties, and in cases where a
municipal or sanitary district overlapped the line of demarcation,
it would belong to the county owning the bulk of its population.
The counties would be divided equally for electoral purposes, each
division returning one member.
London was to form a distinct county, with its especial Lord-
Lieutenant and Commission of the Peace. The Board of Works
was to be done away with. The control of the police would rest
with the Home Office ; the civic functions would remain as they
were, though certain administrative duties would be handed over to
the County Council. Large cities, such as Birmingham, Leeds,
Sheffield, &c., were to become counties, and those owning over
10,000 inhabitants would be entitled to the management of their
•own police. Further useful provisions were made and approved,
but one clause, a licensing clause, aroused the temperance cham-
pions, who promptly made war on what was called the Public
House Endowment clause, and defeated it The original idea was
to issue beer and spirit licences by means of committees of the
councils, who would be empowered to refuse renewals and enforce
Sunday closing. In the event of non-renewal, compensation was to
be given, and the funds for such compensation were to be obtained
by raising the licence duties 20 per cent. It was this last sugges-
tion that kindled the ire of the temperance party, some of them
putting forward that the suppression of each public house would
cost some ,£3000, and that altogether under the bill the recognition
of the clause of the licence holders would involve the expenditure of
.£200,000,000.
This bill was treated by many as the death-knell of the Tory
regime ; they bemoaned the destruction of the influence of the country
gentleman in local affairs, declaring it to have been incorrupt and
inexpensive. Their antagonists, on the other hand, rejoiced in the
removal of methods which they did not hesitate to denounce as
cheap and nasty. There was something to be said on both sides,
and consequently when the bill came into force, and squire and
parson either took their places as part of the progressive ma-
chinery or were ousted in cases where their services were not held
in esteem, some form of substantial reform was arrived at.
Meanwhile the Parnell inquiry was going forward, and little by
little, as the hateful tale of Pigott came to light, a revulsion of feeling
in favour of the Irish leader began to pass like a wave over the face
of society. Though Pigott's iniquity was proven at the time of his
suicide in 1889, the report of the Commission was not made to the
Crown till the I3th of February 1890. The result of the acquittal
of the great Irishman caused a fluctuation in political circles which
169
Life of Chamberlain
contributed to the revival of confidence in the Gladstonians, and a
further rapprochement between the grand old man and the grand
young one, which, unhappily for the last, was to be of short duration.1
For the time being the sentiment of cordiality arising from a
sentiment of sympathy for the Irish, together with dissensions
among the Unionists, threatened disastrous consequences when
electoral decisions came to be settled. Rumour of pending trouble
was found in the defeats at Kennington and Rochester, and the
vacancy created by the death of John Bright was not filled without
considerable excitement. Mr. T. A. Bright, the son of the late
member, came forward as the Liberal-Unionist candidate, but the
Conservatives who were under-represented at Birmingham clamoured
to nominate Lord Randolph Churchill as representative of the
coalition. Finally, Lord Randolph was prevailed on to make
way, and Mr. Bright completely routed the Gladstonian candidate.
Passages at arms continued, however, between Lord Randolph and
Mr. Chamberlain, the former twitting the latter with being de-
pendent now on the goodwill of the Birmingham Conservatives, " a •
party kept by the caucus and the genius of Mr. Schnadhorst in a
state of intolerable subjection," while Mr. Chamberlain returned the
compliment by likening Lord Randolph's policy to crazy patch-
work— " socialism from Mr. Burns and Mr. Hyndman, local option
from Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Egyptian policy from Mr. Illingworth,
metropolitan reform from Professor Stuart, and Irish policy from
Mr. John Morley."
In 1891 another great feature of Mr. Chamberlain's "young
dream," as it was called, Free Education, came triumphantly to the
fore. Though the Tories had been very free in their denunciation
of the system, they could produce but windy jeremiads against the
solid fact that it was tyrannous almost to force a man to send his
offspring to school and then wring from him fees for that which he
would have preferred to do without. The State assumed an obliga-
tion, the Radicals argued ; it was the duty of the State to see that
it maintained authority with as little despotism as possible. Fathers
of middle-class families growled. They did not see why they*
should be charged with the cost of the education of children of many
persons who could afford to pay for it ; but on the other hand it was
argued that it was better in some cases that even the undeserving
should share in the profit than that the deserving should be deprived
of a valuable stepping-stone to self-support. Lord Salisbury was
won over. Having gone so far on the road to free education —
"assisted" education he delicately termed it, so as to avoid too start-
1 Proceedings in the Divorce Court were followed by the political desertion of Mr..
Parnell by his friends, and by his untimely death (October 6, 1891).
170
Conservative Legislation
ling a title — he thought it diplomatically advisable to "go the whole
hog," as the saying is. The Radicals would be salved, the country
would have cause to be grateful for the innovation, the Birmingham
Unionists in a body would support a Ministry that conceded a point
on which they had laid some stress. It was decided the Govern-
ment would come to terms provided the voluntary schools were not
menaced, for, as Lord Salisbury explained, the destruction of
denominational schools in the interests of free education was a
move to be deprecated — indeed to be viewed as a curse rather
than a blessing.
In this opinion Mr. Chamberlain had no share. His theory of a
system of education was built up on his early experiences where
religious knowledge had been imparted by private means, and he him-
self had gladly assisted in providing such moral instruction as the
poor of his community required. Still, now that he saw before him
one of his ideals on the verge of becoming a fact, he, like Lord
Salisbury, was ready to overlook all excrescences in the way of
objection, and proceeded to effect a compromise which both believed
would be advantageous to the moral health of the nation and to the
solidity of the party. Mr. Chamberlain personally adhered to his
Nonconformist leaning towards purely secular free education, but
the unity of the anti-separation party was of such cardinal import-
ance, fthat, at the risk of offending Nonconformist friends, of being
called traitor or turncoat by them, he accepted what it was possible
to get rather than run the risk of getting nothing at all.
Speaking on this subject in 1890, he said : —
"Free education is essentially a Birmingham question. Free education
was first raised into practical politics by Mr. Dixon, and by the Education
League in 1870, and since then free education has remained one of the prime
objects of every educationist and of every true Radical. I must say that when
the Liberal Government were in power the question had very scant support
from the official chiefs; and, as you know, it has no place at all in the
authorised programme. But now that it has been taken up by a Conservative
Government there is no restraining its importance to these gentlemen. They
are ready to turn out the Government at once because it will not do in twenty-
four hours what, when they had the opportunity, they refused to do at all.
I am a practical man, and as one of those with whom this question of free
education has been, I might almost say, the main object of my public and political
life, I prefer to trust to the promise of the Government in power rather than
to the new-fledged enthusiasm of an Opposition which has shown itself per-
fectly ready to play with this question in order to catch votes, but which would
undoubtedly be put aside if the party came into power and had to deal with its
Irish programme. And I am confirmed in my preference when I think of the
spirit in which the Opposition have approached the question. They do not
come to it as educationists like Mr. Dixon ; they come to it as partisans. They
do not love free education for its own sake, but they adopt it because they
171
Life of Chamberlain
believe that by its means they can destroy or injure the voluntary schools.
Sydney Smith said that the Puritans hated bear-baiting, not because it gave
pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators ; and in the
same way I would say that the Gladstonians love free education, not because
it is good for the children, but because they think it would be bad for the
Church. . . .
" I think, however, that even in the brief survey which I have taken of the
field of politics, you will have been impressed with the magnitude and the
importance of the work which is still left for us to do. We, as Liberal-
Unionists, are associated to carry out this work on the old Liberal lines. We
recognise, as our leaders in the past, Russell and Cobden, and Mill and Bright,
it never entered into their minds that politics could be divorced from morality,
and we, their followers, also share their conviction that no nation can be truly
great, and no people can be happy, whose statesmen found themselves upon
such an ignoble conception of public duty. . . .
" Mr. Dixon has expressed a hope that I might be spared to render you
.a quarter of a century of public service. If I may date the beginning of the
service from the time when I entered the Town Council, already the greater
portion of it has expired. It is now nearly twenty years ago since I com-
menced my apprenticeship to public life in the Town Council of Birmingham.
Long before that I had gained my Liberalism from the traditions of your city ;
and it will be my pride when I lay down my armour that I have endeavoured
to maintain those traditions in their integrity. I am always happy to be
Among you, happy to be with my own people, but I am especially happy in
this, that I think Birmingham never stood higher than it does at the present
time. When, a few years ago, Liberals throughout the country were hesitating
between measures and men, hesitating to follow an old and revered leader who
had gone astray on an untried path, then Birmingham stood firm, and the
influence of Birmingham was widely felt throughout the country. We have to
maintain the fortress and the flag of Liberalism, and I believe that we have the
spirit of our predecessors, and I hope that we have the ability to do it. We
have to maintain the ancient traditions against the novelties which have been
imported from the Convention of Chicago. I do not like these principles of
expediency. I do not like to treat national politics apart from morality. I
sometimes think that the Gladstonians are getting to the condition of that
negro congregation for which a substitute minister was appointed, who, before
he was called upon to preach, went into the vestry and spoke to the pastor,
and asked him if he had any counsel to give him ; and the old man said,
4 Well, nothing particular, but if I was you I should touch very lightly on the
Ten Commandments.' Against the condition to which the new Liberalism has
reduced itself I hope that Birmingham will continue to protest, and as long as
I have health, and you are willing to accept my services, I need not say that
they will always be at your disposal."
The bill was received with favour. To make up for the payment
by parents a grant of ten shillings a head was made, and this sum
proving inadequate, further aid was granted to the Voluntary
Schools (1896) and to such Board Schools as were unable to meet
the strain upon their resources.
Mr. Chamberlain, at Birmingham in April 1891, expressed opinions
172
Conservative Legislation
regarding denominational schools which accounted practically for
the relaxation of his antagonism, and the compromise he made with
the Tory party in respect to them. To upset the system would, he
estimated, cost some ^40,000, ooo, and this in itself was sufficient
excuse for his abandonment of his earlier entirely secular ambition.
But his mind remained the same, and if the money had been forth-
coming he would have organised an ideal system of national instruc-
tion independent of all creeds, and absolutely utilitarian in all its
branches.
It is impossible here to enter into Mr. Balfour's extremely
complicated Irish Land Purchase Bill, the particulars of which he
explained at length on the 24th of March 1890. Lord Salisbury
declared that the bill would create a peasant proprietary which was-
naturally a law-abiding class. The Duke of Argyll commended
the measure, Mr. Parnell received it with qualified approval, and
Mr. Chamberlain complained that the principle of local control was
not carried far enough. Mr. Labouchere, Mr. M or ley, Mr. Sexton,
Mr. Knox, Mr. Healy clamoured for amendments, some of which
were defeated and some accepted. The third reading took place
on the 1 4th of July 1891, when it was generally acknowledged that
the scheme possessed many merits.
During the autumn of 1891 Mr. Chamberlain put forth more of
his pet projects, and endeavoured to show that the Government
should now deal with the creation of district and parish councils,
and take in hand the matter of artisans' and labourers' dwellings.
He also mooted the subject of old age pensions, which he con-
sidered as the development of the "ransom" theory that had so
startled the public in 1885. His plan was to promote first a volun-
tary system, then a deduction of a farthing per shilling from wage-
earners of ^i a week, to which the State would contribute an
identical sum, thus providing some five shillings a week to each
person on attaining the age of sixty years.
Further elaborations of this scheme he propounded in an article
in the National Review (February 1892). He proposed that every
person under the age of twenty should invest in a savings bank five
pounds, to be supplemented by three times the amount by the
State. To this "nest-egg," as it were, the insurer should add £>\
for forty years. In consideration of this arrangement the insurer
was to receive at the age of sixty-five, five shillings a week, or in the
event of death the sum would be transferred to a representative.
The scheme has remained in embryo in consequence of Mr.
Chamberlain having been practically removed from the sphere of
purely domestic politics.
In December Lord Hartington succeeded his father as Duke of
173
Life of Chamberlain
Devonshire, and his place as leader of the Liberal-Unionists in the
House of Commons was taken by Mr. Chamberlain. This ad-
venturous spirit lost no time in issuing a manifesto suggesting that
Welsh Dissenters who should vote for a Gladstonian at the next
election would be effecting the postponement of Welsh disestablish-
ment and land reform, a declaration that drove the Tories into
renewed quakings.
Mr. Chaplin's Agricultural Holdings Act (February 22, 1892)
was the outcome also of Mr. Chamberlain's agrarian projects.
The bill was an experiment for the purpose of benefiting the
yeoman class and linking them to rural life. It was proposed that
the County Council should borrow from the Public Works Loan
Commission for the purchase of land to be subsequently divided
into holdings. A fourth of the money was to be paid, another
fourth to be secured by a perpetual rentcharge, the remainder to
be paid by instalments. The County Council might, if landlord
and tenant desired, advance three-quarters of the funds for the
purchase of the holding. Mr. Jesse Collings suggested a valuable
amendment, which was accepted, and no further opposition was
offered. It may be as well to note that this experiment and the
allotment system have neither of them been entirely successful, nor
have they fulfilled certain hopes cherished by their promoters. The
exodus from the villages continues, and some persons are of opinion
that the free education movement and the agrarian policy of
the Radicals cannot be made to work in double harness. The
natural result of education is to draw to the desk those who have
hitherto been employed in manual labour, and until some means
can be found of profitably using mental labour in conjunction with
agrarian development, an excellent enterprise must be worked in a
half-hearted way. Better results will doubtless be obtained when
the violence of cheap foreign competition is reduced, and farmers,
labourers, small tradesmen, and the like will gain sufficient to
encourage them to invest their savings in the manner proposed by
their well-wishers.
Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour were agreed that so soon as
the Crimes Act should have done its work in Ireland, remedial
legislation should be proceeded with. In 1890 Mr. Balfour, who
in the pursuit of his coercion policy had proved himself as adamant
against the execrations of the Opposition, decided to visit Ireland
and ascertain for himself the true condition of affairs. This decision
was a memorable act of courage on the part of a Minister, for he had
been called "bloody" and "base" and "brutal," and Mr. Gladstone
had vehemently likened him to Bomba, the Neapolitan king,
who some thirty years before had loaded prisoners with chains,
174
Conservative Legislation
separating them only on payment of money from murderers and
criminals.
Under Mr. Balfour's regime prison discipline had gone little
further than to keep " Mr. O'Brien struggling for his clothes, and
Mr. Harrington mourning for his moustache," yet in spite of the
fury occasioned by his policy, Mr. Balfour pursued his investigations
in the seething country, interviewed parish priests, and found out
native grievances, and determined so soon as the people were fit
for it to bring forward a Local Government Bill, that should give
the nation control over its intimate affairs. This project seemed
to become feasible in 1892. Before that date Lord Salisbury had
intended to dissolve Parliament, but Mr. Chamberlain had strongly
desired the introduction of the Local Government scheme, which
embodied his original outline for National Councils. How Ministers
could have hoped for the success of this measure at such a time it is
difficult to say. The Gladstonians were daily growing in power,
and the mind of the country had been agitated first by the pros and
cons of the Parnell Commission, then by wrangles with France, Ger-
many, and Portugal about spheres of influence in Africa, differences
with America regarding the Behring Sea Fisheries, shilly-shallyings
in regard to Egypt, and various misfortunes, such as the disaster at
Manipur and the failure of the Sugar Bounty Convention. Added to
this, the result of the elections for the London County Council
(which had been contested on party lines) were ominous, and
everything pointed to a change of political feeling throughout the
country. The bill itself was received, Mr. Balfour said, with
"howls of stupid invective." Mr. O'Brien during the debate held it
up to derision, and offered to " swop " it for a dissolution, a suggestion
which Mr. Chamberlain jumped at as a Liberal offer to which he
called the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Balfour was
also goaded into the sarcastic admission that the measure was
scarcely equal to the Crimes Act 1 The tale of the progress of this
unfortunate measure it is unnecessary to enlarge on — sufficient to
say that it never reached Committee, and on the Qth of June its
abandonment was formally announced by Mr. Balfour.
Before passing on to the General Election which followed,
note may be made of various minor measures which were carried
during the preceding years — the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
Act (1889) has been productive of immense good in regions where
persons are sunk too deep in degradation to recognise the first
duties of humanity, and indeed occasionally in higher circles where
some abnormal twist of mind has caused parents to make undue
use of their authority. The Housing of the Working Classes Act
(1890) served to assist the local authorities in acquiring land or
175
Life of Chamberlain
habitations for the labouring classes, while empowering them to check
the wilful indifference of owners to sanitary conditions. Various
other socialistic measures, such as the Police Pensions Act (1890)
and the useful and humane Factory and Workshops Act (1891),
may be ascribed to the influence of the Unionists' legislators. Those
who have taken the pains to read Mr. Chamberlain's doctrines as
expounded between 1883 and 1885 will readily observe the con-
sistency with which these doctrines were sustained and nourished
in an atmosphere distinctly unfavourable to them. And the wonder
is, not that some of his early ambitions were nipped, but that any
should not only have survived, but flourished and flowered in a
frigid Tory zone.
Not content to rest on his laurels — the steps he had gained with
his new allies — Mr. Chamberlain further developed his schemes of
reform, and published them in the Nineteenth Century (Nov. 1902)
for the socialistic education of all who were inclined to profit by
them. He looked indeed to the Tory party for further concessions
regarding labour questions, and in his article expounded exactly what
he required. The Conservatives thought his demands what is vulgarly
called " rather a large order," and shrugged their shoulders. Some,
the antiquated among them, hinted that Lord Salisbury and Mr.
Balfour were " being led by the nose," but these last not being Little
Englanders, had learned to think Continentally, and were inclined to-
follow a line of policy which found an example in Germany, whose
State Socialism (as invented by Bismarck) has succeeded in render-
ing what — comparatively — may be called an infant Empire into a
very formidable competitor in the European ring.
Mr. Chamberlain's new programme was an extension of the
" unauthorised " one. He suggested : —
1. Legislative enforcement of proposals for shortening the hours
of work for miners and others engaged in dangerous and specially
laborious employments.
2. Local enforcement of trade regulations for the earlier closing
of shops.
3. Establishment of tribunals of arbitration in trade disputes.
4. Compensation for injuries received in the course of employ-
ment, and to widows and children in case of death, whenever such
injuries or death are not caused by the fault of the person killed or
injured.
5. Old-age pensions for the deserving poor.
6. Limitation and control of pauper immigration.
7. Increased powers and facilities to local authorities to make
town improvements, and prepare for the better housing of the
working-classes.
176
KT. HON. W. K. FORSTER
Plioto ELLIOTT & FRV. LOXDOX.
Conservative Legislation
8. Power to local authorities to advance money and to afford
facilities to the working-classes to become the owners of their own
houses.
He took the opportunity to eulogise Tory aptness in dealing
with social problems, saying that in social questions the Tories had
been always more progressive than the Liberals, and that the Con-
servative leaders, in their latest legislation, had only gone back
to the old Tory traditions. Almost all the legislation dealing with
labour questions had been initiated by Tory statesmen, and most of
it had been passed by Tory Governments. The Factory and Work-
shop Acts, the Mines' Regulation Act, Merchant Shipping legislation,
the Acts relating to sanitation, artisans' dwellings, land purchase,
allotments and small holdings, and free education, were all Conserva-
tive measures, and it was therefore historically inaccurate to describe
the Tory party as opposed to socialistic legislation. This was no mere
compliment arranged, as some declared, for the purpose of buttering
down those who had conceded points to preserve the new alliance.
It may be remembered that in July 1885, speaking of Tory trans-
formation, Mr. Chamberlain said much the same thing from an
opposition standpoint: "They have bettered my instructions, they
have given effect to my opinions, they have stolen my ideas ; but I
forgive them the theft in gratitude for the stimulus they have given
to the Radical programme, and for the lesson they have taught to
the weak-kneed Liberals and to the timid politicians who strained
at the Radical gnat and now find themselves obliged to swallow the
Tory camel."
VOL. IT. 177
CHAPTER V
I.— GENERAL ELECTION, 1892— MR. GLADSTONE'S FOURTH ADMINIS-
TRATION—THE HOME RULE BILL AGAIN— THE GUILLOTINE
—FREE FIGHT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
M
E AN WHILE, fighting tooth and nail, both parties
had contested the political ground for a good
three weeks — during June and July. The Liberal-
Unionists exceeded all others in activity, the Duke
of Devonshire vigorously supporting Lord Salisbury's
foreign policy, while Mr. Chamberlain took care to ward off the
enemy from his stronghold. His seat was contested by Mr. Corrie
Grant, who secured only 1879 votes, as against 6297. Thus it was
proved that whatever else might befall the Tory-Unionist combina-
tion, Mr. Chamberlain's personal popularity was more than sustained.
Mr. Austen Chamberlain, whose political ability has not yet been
alluded to and whose light is apt to become paled in the presence
of his brilliant father, was again returned for East Worcestershire,
the constituency in which his home is situated. The Unionists, though
fortunate in Birmingham, suffered dismally elsewhere, and when the
struggle was ended it was found they numbered 47, while the Con-
servatives numbered 268. There were at last 274 Gladstonians
backed by 81 Nationalists, therefore Mr. Gladstone prepared in
pathetic triumph to return to the scene of his activities — to the re-
construction of his Home Rule Bill, of which some had foretold no
resurrection.
Mr. Chamberlain meanwhile determined still to adhere to his
party in name and to maintain an organisation separate from the
Conservatives in being, if identical in interests. The Midlands
Liberal-Unionist Association was founded by him in order to main-
tain his independent position, in clearly defined antagonism to Liberal-
ism as pursued under the immediate Gladstone regime. Though he
had no desire to rejoin the Liberals he was still averse from amal-
gamating entirely with the Tories, and for this reason recruited
under the new banner only such persons as had never formed part
of any Conservative Association, and might be relied on not to
" sink themselves " in the predominant mass.
Lord Salisbury had decided not to resign, but to await the
verdict of the House of Commons. Parliament met in August, and
178
General Election
in due time Mr. Asquith having risen " respectfully to represent to
your Majesty that confidence is not reposed in your Majesty's
present advisers," a division was taken amid growing excitement,
and the Gladstonians were discovered to have secured a majority
of forty (350 — 310).
But prior to the division a spirited encounter took place between
members of the Opposition and Mr. Chamberlain. One of these
had twitted the Tories with having taken in hand their advanced
legislation in order to conciliate "a small and dwindling band of
dissentient Liberals." Dwindling was an aggressive word and it
struck home, for the Unionists, as said before, numbered now only
forty-seven. Mr. Chamberlain fired up, and Mr. Healy with con-
siderable hardihood endeavoured to suppress him. Mr. Chamberlain
at once "polished him off." "Whenever it is desired to exhibit
personal discourtesy towards any man " a significant pause — "or
any woman " another pause more emphatic than the first — "the
honourable and learned member always presents himself to accom-
plish it." The allusion was prompted by remembrance of an attack
made by Mr. Healy on the lady for whom Mr. Parnell had sacrificed
his career — an attack entirely inconsistent with far-famed Irish
chivalry.
Mr. Chamberlain having dealt this thrust to an accompaniment
of cheers from the Conservatives, went on to show that it was the
duty of the Opposition leaders to unfold their policy and set forth
particulars of their domestic programme. He expressed a hope
that Lord Rosebery would be entrusted with foreign affairs, other-
wise we might be startled by preparations for the evacuation of
Egypt. He commented on the silence of the Welsh members and
that of the Labour members — and as for the Independent Labour
Party — well, he said he would believe in it when he saw it. As
regards Home Rule there seemed to be some discrepancy of opinion.
Mr. Labouchere, who was presumably preparing for office, proposed
to shelve it indefinitely, while Sir George Trevelyan had at one
period refused to sanction it till all constitutional methods had been
exhausted. Here was a strange state of things, and he wondered
how the Irish party approved of having two Cabinet Ministers who
would endeavour to prevent the Liberal party from becoming a
Home Rule party. He then pointed out that if the new Govern-
ment should keep faith with England it must break faith with the
Nationalists. He ended by urging the Gladstonites to reconsider
their impossible position — to no longer allow legislation to be made
" ducks and drakes of" to oblige the Irishmen.
After a week the Veteran had formed his fourth Cabinet. He
took on himself the duties of First Lord of the Treasury and Lord
'79
Life of Chamberlain
Privy Seal. Again Mr. John Morley was at his elbow as Irish
Secretary. Lord Herschell was Lord Chancellor, and Sir William
Harcourt — who had stewed in "Parnellite juice" till many political
cooks said he had been "done brown" — remained as Chancellor
of the Exchequer. Sir G. Trevelyan was back again meekly
in the fold as Secretary for Scotland. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman,
as before, was Secretary for War. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre was Irish
Commissioner of Works. Lord Rosebery, whom Mr. Labouchere
characterised as a "Tory watchdog," and who fortunately set
his face against the policy of scuttle in Egypt, reigned at the
Foreign Office, and Lord Ripon at the Colonial Office, while
Lord Kimberley acted as Secretary for India and President of
the Council. Mr. Arthur Ackland became Vice-President of the
Council, and Mr. Asquith rose into prominence as Home Secretary.
The post of First Lord of the Admiralty was held by Lord Spencer.
Mr. Mundella became President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Bryce
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Fowler President of
the Local Government Board, and Mr. Arnold Morley Postmaster-
General. Mr. Labouchere, who was not appointed, as had been
expected, to this last office, revealed in Truth his differences with
Mr. Gladstone, and proceeded to make his journal conspicuously
in demand by reason of the characteristic candour with which he
discussed the new Ministry.
Of the Irish there were seventy-two anti-Parnellites — the men
who had forsaken their leader in his downfall, and nine Parnellites,
followers of Mr. Redmond. The former were ready to meet the
Gladstonians half-way, on the principle that half a loaf is better than
no bread. The latter stuck manfully to the bargain, the Home
Rule bait that had been dangled before their eyes during the long
interim of Tory government. Nothing much in regard to Ireland
was accomplished, however, during 1892. Mr. Morley went to
Dublin and devotedly exerted himself to sweep away the remaining
clauses of the Crimes Act. He effected also the release of four
prisoners who had pleaded guilty to the murder of Inspector
Martin, and promptly their compatriots by way of evincing their
appreciation exploded a bomb straight under his windows !
The new Parliament had been prorogued soon after the change
of Ministry, and not till 1893 did they receive the report of the
Evicted Tenants Commission (gazetted in October) formed for the
purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants.
Mr. Chamberlain was not slow to jeer at the pathetic inactivity
of Mr. Gladstone's Government, save in the matter of " stuffing "
the Local Board in Ireland with partisan nominees. In regard to
the Home Rule BiU the motto of the Government seemed to be
1 80
General Election
only Irish need apply, and the anti-Parnellites were apparently
the select advisers. He admitted that even such compromises
as had been proposed were now inadmissible to him. Though
the forthcoming Home Rule Bill might provide for the reten-
tion of the Irish members, it was valueless. He would never
subscribe to a policy which, beginning with the betrayal of the
interests of the Loyalists, would end by the betrayal of the interests
of the Empire.
Much had occurred since the question of Home Rule for Ireland
had been first discussed, and now the word embraced far more than
amity and sympathy for Ireland. It barely cloaked active hostility
to England, which might at any time — in time of war particularly —
become dangerous. Mr. Chamberlain's experience in the United
States had shown him the ingenious shapes that hostility might
assume — his excursion into Canada had impressed on him the
importance of a defensive alliance, inspired him with a dream of the
Confederation of the British Empire, and left him with the deter-
mination to concede not a jot nor a tittle to any who should propose
to defer the promotion of closer relations between all parts of the
Queen's dominions.
Parliament met on the i$th of January 1893. The Queen's
Speech made allusion to foreign politics, which showed that with
Lord Cromer in Egypt and Lord Rosebery in England the nation
might be at ease regarding the occupation of Egypt. A Commis-
x sioner was appointed to report on the state of affairs in Uganda, and
Ireland was said to be progressing favourably. The principal measure
was described as designed to " content the Irish people, secure relief
to Parliament, and furnish additional security to the strength and
union of the Empire." Various articles of the Newcastle pro-
gramme were put forth, most of which died a natural death, and
were duly mourned by the authors. Two measures of the twelve
mentioned in the Queen's Speech were subsequently passed — the
Parish Councils Act, and Railway Servants (Hours of Labour)
Act.
The Home Rule Bill was resuscitated on the i3th of February
II in a scene of almost as intense excitement as that which- had
ij witnessed its introduction. So great was the desire not to miss a
renewal of the scenes of April and June 1886, that people actually
knocked each other down in the scramble for seats, and staid
members of Parliament appeared to have taken leave of their senses.
The Peers outvied the Commons in disorder, and their behaviour
was so rampagious that an extra force of police had to be employed
to, keep them in order!
The bill, in deference to objections from all sides which had
181
Life of Chamberlain
been pressed on the notice of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Morley, had
now assumed a somewhat different form.
An Irish Legislature was to be established. It was to be com-
posed of a Council and Assembly, empowered to make laws on Irish
affairs.
Supreme authority would remain with the Imperial Parliament,
who reserved the right of decision in all matters connected with the
Crown, peace and war, dignities and titles, the law regarding
treason and aliens, and that concerning external trade.
Religious or personal freedom could not be interfered with.
A Viceroy, nominated by the Crown for six years, would have
a Cabinet (an Executive Committee of the Irish Privy Council),
and have the power to veto bills on the advice of such Cabinet,
yet subject to the instruction of the Crown. The office would be
subject to no religious disabilities. The Council (members of which
would sit for eight years) would consist of forty-eight members,
elected by voters rated at over £20 a year.
The Assembly would consist of 103 members, returned for five
years.
The validity of an Irish Act might be questioned by the Viceroy
or the Secretary of State.
The determination would rest with the Privy Council.
The Irish Constabulary were eventually to be superseded by
local police.
And now came the much discussed clause. The Irish members
were to remain at Westminster, but they were to vote on no
question relating to Great Britain or taxation not levied in Ireland.
Some ,£2,500,000 was to be Ireland's contribution to Imperial
purposes, while on the credit side was placed some ,£5,500,000 — the
.£5,000,000 for the expenses of civil government, the surplus for
the starting of the Irish Exchequer.
Though the bill was changed, Mr. Chamberlain's attitude
remained the same. He was avowedly hostile; indeed, he practi-
cally led the army of opposition. He would look at it from one
standpoint only — the point of Imperial Unity. He drew attention
again to the geographical position that precluded Ireland from
benefits such as those enjoyed by the self-governing colonies, and
questioned whether an Irish Parliament sitting in Dublin would come
to our aid in the event of war. She would owe a debt to England,
but would she not also owe a debt to France and to America?
If we were at war with these countries, on which side would Ireland
be ? As for the abandonment of Ulster, for whom no effective safe-
guards were provided, he denounced it as a national crime. " Never
in the history of the world has a risk so tremendous been undertaken
182
General Election
with such light-hearted indifference to its possible consequences."
Thus the " fighting debater " went on, his attacks growing in
strength and pungency from day to day.
Outside the House he was as antagonistic as within it. At
Birmingham, in April, he made what has been called the speech of
his life. " We cannot exist as we have existed in the past, or as
we exist at present, if we disperse the unity of Parliament, the
power of the Executive, the responsibility that now rests on the
Imperial Parliament. ... It may please Mr. Gladstone in a spirit
of abasement, as a conscience-stricken penitent, to wrap himself
round in a white sheet, to proclaim to the civilised world the injury
which England has done to Ireland. It may please him to offer to
break off a piece of our Imperial structure, and to hand it over
to the Nationalists as an atoning gift ; but we, the responsible
citizens of to-day, are conscious of no such guilt, and will take part
in no such ceremony of surrender. "
On nth May the Prime Minister made memorable retaliation.
His declamation, "prolific of all the resources of the actor's art,"
was one of the most remarkable performances of his career.
He pointed a deprecatory finger at his formidable adversary,
and in dramatic tones warned the Irish to beware of him, to watch
the fowler who would inveigle them into his snare. Most effec-
tively, but unnecessarily, he explained Mr. Chamberlain's purpose,
declaring his policy to be none other than a policy of obstruction.
Which it was.
Mr. Chamberlain looked on the bill " as a happy-go-lucky way
of breaking up an old Constitution," and under the title " A Bill for
Weakening Great Britain," again discussed its aspects in the
Nineteenth Century (April 1893). He showed all along, as he had
shown in the House, that " Ireland for the Irish may be very
plausible, but England for the English is better."
The lengthy debate on the much threshed out Home Rule Bill
is of little interest now save for the passages at arms between Mr.
Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain, which became daily more and
more spirited and personal. Mr. Chamberlain, goaded by the
Irishmen, grew bitter and scornful, Mr. Gladstone irate, and finally
" ferocious." Mr. Chamberlain, it must be admitted, lashed merci-
lessly at his adversary. Besides attacking the bill in all quarters,
he alluded to the Irish members as "the men who pull the strings
of the Prime Minister of England. Under the threats of his Irish
master, under the pressure of his least experienced supporters, he
comes here to move a resolution that is contrary to all the principles
of his public life." He went on to show that the Government was
afraid to submit the details of the bill to the people, from whom its
183
Life of Chamberlain
defects were carefully hidden, and that they were ready to sell the
Empire by private treaty so long as the Irish were satisfied.
Naturally the thermometer went up. Debates grew hotter and
hotter, and little progress was made. Mr. Labouchere ingeniously
suggested that time would be saved if the Ministerialists talked less,
leaving the solos for Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Morley, and Sir William
Harcourt. In a few days he presumed the Unionists would grow
weary of having no one to fight, and some advance would be made.
The damming principle was attempted, but the result of the restraint
was an increased tendency to explosion on the part of some
members of the House. Progress was finally enforced by the intro-
duction of Mr. Gladstone's guillotine system, or closure by compart-
ment, a system originated in the early Crimes Bill days, when,
as Mr. Balfour humorously remarked, Mr. Gladstone had closured
every one who happened to disagree with him. This summary
method of plugging the free fountains of argument had a further
fatal effect on tempers whose irascibility was by no means on the
decrease. By now the encounters between Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Chamberlain had lost their scientific cunning ; the parliamentary
carte and tierce of tongues if more animated had become less dis-
creet, less dainty in its deadliness.
On the 1 2th July Mr. Gladstone admitted there were incon-
veniences in relation to the in-and-out arrangement regarding Irish
members at Westminster, and thereupon arose a brisk engagement,
during which the Prime Minister declared that the question of the
Irish members' presence at Westminster was not a vital one — it
was a matter which should be directed by the judgment of the
country. Thereupon Mr. Chamberlain promptly snapped —
" . . . How do they intend to take the free judgment of the
country? Are we at last enabled to hope that the Government
have in contemplation an immediate dissolution ? No announce-
ment would give us greater satisfaction." At this lunge sounds of
rapture came from the Unionist and Conservative ranks. Mr.
Chamberlain informed them that nothing of the kind was contem-
plated. " But," he said, " if the opinion of the country is not to be
taken in the only way in which its present opinion can be freely
and fully expressed, the only alternative is to take the opinion of
the representatives of the country. My right hon. friend has said on
more than one occasion — I gave him chapter and verse for it — that
in this question of the retention of the Irish members the British
people were to have a determining voice."
Promptly Mr. Gladstone defended himself: " I said as soon as
they got a determining voice — when there were 590 of them, includ-
ing Irishmen."
184
General Election
Mr. Chamberlain thereupon returned : " We will test that at
once. The right hon. gentleman says Great Britain is to have the
determining voice in this Parliament because its representatives
have a majority in the House. The other night we took a division
upon the question whether all the Irish members are to be excluded
from this House ? There was a majority against our amendment
of thirty-one. That was a majority of the House as expressed in
the ordinary way by a division ; but of British members— of
English, Scotch, and Welsh members — there was a majority of
twenty-nine in favour of that amendment. The opinion of Great
Britain was unmistakably expressed on that occasion by the repre-
sentatives of Great Britain, and if my right hon. friend sticks to
what he said in the country on more than one occasion, he is bound
in honour to give force to that pledge. My right hon. friend went
on to say that these are questions of minor importance. He com-
plained of the quotation of the leader of the Opposition, and said
the alternatives which we have been discussing were not the minor
considerations to which he referred. He is certainly mistaken."
He then quoted Mr. Gladstone's words : —
" I think that other sections of opinion will appear, and de-
fenders of various interests will arise, that are not dreamt of ; and
the substitution of a system of representation giving greater scope
to varieties of opinion for one that gives little or no scope to the
exhibition of such variety will greatly diminish the likelihood of the
inconveniences of any such combination as that I have referred to.
In any case, what we have felt throughout is this — that whatever
plan you adopt it is our duty to confess any possible inconvenience
attending that plan. We have a paramount object in view of such
Imperial weight and importance that none of these minor considera-
tions ought to be allowed to influence our course." Having sent
his shaft home, Mr. Chamberlain proceeded : "If the English
language means anything, these minor considerations refer to con-
siderations previously stated, and that is to say, the inconveniences
attending the three several courses ; and one of these inconveniences
was pointed out by himself — that under this system our ordinary
parliamentary practice would be interfered with, and there would
be constant intrigues between the Government of the day and the
delegation from Ireland."
Mr. Gladstone here stated that he never said "intrigues"; he
said " possible danger." Whereupon Mr. Chamberlain retorted :
"I do not understand the heat with which my right hon. friend
repudiated the interpretation put on his words by the leader of the
Opposition. At all events, my right hon. friend admits the possi-
bility of a state of things which would be absolutely destructive of
185
Life of Chamberlain
all the best traditions of our parliamentary life ; and he says that it
is a minor consideration when contrasted with the passing of a
Home Rule Bill. My right hon. friend went on to say : ' When
was the non-retention of the Irish members a principle of our
policy ? It never was a capital article in that policy that either in-
clusion or exclusion should be a determining point of our policy.'
On the last occasion when he introduced this amendment he made
a statement to a similar effect He said : ' We have undoubtedly
given pledges, which we cannot ignore, to the country in regard to
the retention of members. We are pledged to adopt the retention
of members in some form.' And he said further : 'I do not
think we have ever given a pledge as to the manner in which they
shall come back, as to the purposes for which they shall come back,
or as to the powers which they shall have in this House.' But that
is not the case. He has given a definite pledge, to which I wish to
hold him. Speaking in Manchester on June 25, 1886, after the
Home Rule Bill had been defeated, when he was declaring what
was to be the future policy of himself and of his party, he referred
to this question of the retention of the Irish members. He
admitted that the Government would be willing to consider the
possibility of their retention, and he said : ' I will not be a party to
a legislative body to manage Irish concerns and at the same time
to having Irish members in London acting and voting on English
and Scotch questions.' That is a distinct pledge, which has been
so understood in the country, and the views expressed by my right
hon. friend have been expressed by almost every man on that
bench. They have formed the subject of speeches which have
been delivered by many members to their constituencies, and I
cannot understand how, in face of a pledge of that kind, the
Government can now call upon the Committee to adopt this
great change. We are asked at a moment's notice, only a
few hours before the closure, which will prevent any adequate
debate, to accept a proposal which is at variance with the
original bill. It is not the bill which passed the first and second
reading which we have now to consider. The bill has been
changed in its most vital points. There were two cardinal
matters which any Government had to face in dealing with this
matter. There was, in the first place, the effect of any scheme of
Home Rule upon our Constitution. There was, secondly, the
question of what price the British electors were to be asked to pay
for the advantage of conferring Home Rule on the Irish people.
In regard to both these points great changes have been made in
the bill at the last moment, and we begin to understand why they
have been delayed so long. The tactics which have prevailed
1 86
General Election
throughout the whole course of these discussions from 1885 down
to the present day have been the same, and they are unworthy of
the Government. We know how Home Rule was introduced to
the people of this country ; how kites were sent up to test how the
wind was blowing ; how straws were set floating to see the direction
of the currents. The country was treated like a timid horse. It
was brought up to the stream and allowed to smell it, and then
when it was found that opinions were hardened, then the endeavour
was made to rush the bill through in a hurry. Now, precisely the
same treatment is meted out to the supporters of the Government
I do not believe that they were consulted before these changes
were introduced, for if they had been consulted I do not think that
there would be twenty of them who would have supported such a
proposal as that now before them. If any one disputes that, I will
refer him to the Chief Secretary. He said at Newcastle that this
was a proposal which would weaken the Legislature in Ireland,
which would demoralise the Legislature in Great Britain, and that
he. did not believe there were twenty members in the House of
Commons who would vote for it." After this skilful home-thrust
Mr. Chamberlain said that " for weeks there appeared statements
in the papers indicating a change of front by the Government, but
when they were asked whether there was any truth in these state-
ments, or whether it was their intention to stand by their original
proposals or vary them, they have always evaded the questions or
refused to answer them." To this Mr. Gladstone replied by a
telling " Hear, hear." Quickly Mr. Chamberlain retorted : " My
right hon. friend says ' Hear, hear.' He thinks that is a proper
treatment for the House of Commons ! "
" I perfectly understood the purpose of the questions of my
right hon. friend, and I was determined to defeat it," returned
Mr. Gladstone, amid the cheers of his admirers.
Mr. Chamberlain resumed : " Yes, he was determined to defeat
it ; but how? By allowing the House of Commons and the country
to be deceived. I am very glad that at all events now the policy
of the Government is unmasked and that we have got a clear issue,
the issue that the House of Commons will have to decide — crippled
and paralysed, it is true, by the closure — but, after all, it will be
able to decide, although it will be impossible to discuss details of
these proposals. The issue is whether the interests of Great
Britain are to be controlled by delegates from Ireland nominated
by priests, elected by illiterates, and subsidised by the enemies of
this country. Upon that issue we shall appeal confidently to the
verdict of the country — for that verdict which you are striving to
delay, but from which you cannot escape."
187
Life of Chamberlain
here was another brisk skirmish over Ireland's contribution to
the Imperial Exchequer when Mr. Chamberlain put himself to the
pains to prove that, according to the Government plan, Ireland
would pay some ,£800,000 per annum less than her due, and a still
sharper verbal duel when the Prime Minister with unwonted
rancour attacked his adversary in terms which stimulated the spirits
of the Nationalists and rejoiced the hearts of Ministers. He
said that "his right hon. friend had examined the subject in the
same* spirit of exaggeration and hostility which had invariably
marked his investigation of any portion of the plan of the Govern-
ment. . . ." He then described him, amid laughter and cheers, as
the Devil's Advocate. "The peculiar function of this gentleman,"
he explained, " was to go through the career of the proposed saint,
to seize and magnify even human failing or error, to misconstrue
everything that was capable of misconstruction, and when the able and
ingenious devil's advocate had, like his right hon. friend, his heart in
the cause, then it became reasonably certain to the satisfaction of
impartial and dispassionate men that everything had been said against
the candidate for spiritual honours that could possibly be said, and
not only so, but a great deal more than could be sustained."
This speech has been described as not creditable to the Prime
Minister and derogatory to Parliament. Many, however, declare
that it was rather the force of Mr. Gladstone's effective utterance,
than the importance of the thing said that was the cause of offence.
Naturally Mr. Chamberlain's fighting instinct was whetted — natur-
ally he decided to return a quid pro quo for what he characterised
as a " ferocious " speech. Never backward in repartee, he accepted
with alacrity the gauntlet that the veteran had savagely j thrown
down. Bitter and brilliant was his reply made on the 27th (made
a few moments before the hour appointed for the application of the
guillotine) to an accompaniment of cheers and counter-cheers which
pointed each pungent remark. The hands of the clock were
travelling towards ten when Mr. Chamberlain said : " And now we
have come to the last scene of what I think I may call this dis-
creditable farce to which the Government have reduced the pro-
ceedings of the Mother of Parliaments. . . ." He went on to jeer
at the'sycophant attitude of the Grand Old Man's disciples, declaring
that the bill had been changed in its most vital features, and yet
it had always been found perfect by hon. members below the
Treasury Bench. "The Prime Minister calls 'black,' and they
say 'It is good.' The Prime Minister calls 'white,' and they say
* It is better.' It is always the voice of a god. Never since the
time of Herod has there been such slavish adulation." The last
words were lost — a voice drowned them.
1 88
General Election
" Judas ! " cried some one in the crowd.
The word was spat out. Then, quick as thunderclap after the
flash burst forth a storm of sound, deafening, confused, a typhoon
unprecedented in the equatorial atmosphere of the House of Com-
mons. Mr. Chamberlain still standing essayed to make himself
heard, but on all sides the shout went up: "Judas!" "Pro-
gress ! " commingled with infuriated calls on the chairman's atten-
tion. Mr. Mellor, helpless with concern and dismay, affected
not to have heard the offending epithet, or made an effort to ignore
it, but finally, however, so great was the commotion, he was pre-
vailed on to take it down.
Meanwhile the floor of the House was growing crowded with
members amused, curious, indignant, according to their political
proclivities, but all arguing, inquiring, or explaining, and none able
to hear another by reason of the buzz of the ever-increasing excite-
ment. Some "sanguinary adjectives" contrived to be audible, and
in the • foreground, in face of a member on the front Opposition
bench, was to be seen Mr. Logan, who, with warlike gesticulations,
had crossed the floor. He then sat himself plump in the seat
usually occupied by Mr. Balfour, and aggressively close to Mr.
Carson. The next moment the disputant was seized by the collar
from behind, Mr. Hayes Fisher having hit on this means of re-
moving him from the Conservative neighbourhood. The signal
was instantly followed by a rush to the rescue made by certain
Irishmen who — they afterwards explained — were prompted by the
blessed zeal of the peacemaker. At the same time came a corre-
sponding advance of certain young bloods of the Opposition —
gallants determined not to be behind-hand in any activity that might
be brewing. In less than a minute the opposing squadrons had
charged, and a confused tangle of undignified humanity — brawling
and struggling and spluttering — occupied the floor of the House.
The long worn-out dam of emotion had burst ! The guillotine
might clip tongues, but arms and legs were still free ! Hammer
and tongs went the makers of the nation's laws ; hat smashing, coat
rending, fists scientifically and unscientifically cuffing to right and to
left, determined to make their mark somehow — anyhow — on oppo-
sition noses, while the melfe was enhanced by the advent of sundry
well-meaning and pacific personages who, in the endeavour to stem
the tide of conflict, were caught up nolens volens, spun round and
round in the whirlpool, and thus forced into an offensive and de-
fensive activity as grotesque as it was unseemly.
" A disgrace to the nation," stormed some.
"A first-rate rehearsal for a Dublin Parliament," jeered others.
For a good twenty minutes the disorderly rampage proceeded ;
189
Life of Chamberlain
proceeded to a chorus of hisses and boos from the gallery, and vehe-
ment indistinguishable remonstrances from the more staid members
of the House, till, finally, the Chairman, nerveless and despairing,
sent for the Speaker.
Of this crisis no distinct or determined impression can be
recorded. In the black panting vortex, the white waistcoat —
rent in twain — of Sir George Sitwell, the auburn locks of Mr.
Redmond dodging assailants, the energetic fists of Colonel Saun-
derson pounding right and left on the principle of "wherever
you see a head hit it," Mr. Bowles and Mr. Healy engaged in
animated combat, young Tories lunging here, there, and everywhere,
and meek and purple visaged old gentlemen (who had left their
seats with the intention of entering the division lobby) struggling
with sorry success to protect cranium and centre-piece — such were
the main features of the ignoble picture left on the retina !
Meanwhile the two prime factors of the stir — the two who had
acted the part of fuse to the explosion — watched with pallid faces
the remarkable scene ; Mr. Chamberlain, the cries of Judas ringing
in his ears, Mr. Gladstone facing in his hoary age the words
" Traitor ! You are the cause of this," which were hurled at him
from many throats. Both statesmen looked on at the unparalleled
tornado with scarce concealed emotion. Mr. Chamberlain waited —
an apology was due to him — and presently when the Speaker ap-
peared and with admirable firmness sustained the dignity of the
House, it was forthcoming. With his advent, the battle magically
subsided : the ringleaders slunk to cover, as it were. Then it
behoved the chief delinquents humbly to cry peccavi, and absolution
having been pronounced, the House was restored to a superficially
equable frame of mind. But a more un-English scene has never
been witnessed within the walls of Westminster !
The third reading of the bill (September i, 1893) was carried by
301 against 267. Excluding the Irish there was an adverse majority
of 23. Taking England and Wales alone the majority against the
bill was 48. But the Lords promptly threw out the bill, only 41 of
their number being in its favour. The result was a foregone conclu-
sion, and the country took the rejection of the measure apathetically,
though the Liberals indulged in fervid tirades against the tyranny
of the Lords. The Irish question was played out — people pro-
nounced themselves sick of it— and the Lords were looked on as
deliverers of the nation from a blight that had threatened, like
locusts, to leave the mind of the country a wilderness.
190
The Social Programme
II.— THE SOCIAL PROGRAMME, 1893-4— " PEGGING OUT CLAIMS
FOR POSTERITY"— THE NEW RADICALS— A DINNER WITH THE
EDGBASTON CONSERVATIVES
Mr. Chamberlain meanwhile stuck firm to the study of social
problems, writing many articles,1 which may be referred to by
those interested in the origin of measures which have been looked
at as examples of State Socialism. But outside this field his large
mind was finding fresh food for contemplation. His visit to Egypt
had drawn his attention to Africa, and events had caused him to
become spokesman in the affairs of Uganda. In January 1893
Sir Gerald Portal, H.M. representative at Zanzibar, was appointed
to inquire into the course to be pursued by Mr. Gladstone's Govern-
ment. The question arose whether the British East Africa Company,
in spite of the state of anarchy there, should stick to the terms of
a treaty made with the King, or retire and avoid responsibilities
that were growing harassing. In March, in connection with this
expedition, Mr. Labouchere as a matter of principle moved a
reduction of £5000 in the estimates, and Mr. Chamberlain
promptly advanced arguments, which showed first the impassable
barrier that now existed between him and his quondam friends ;
and second, how slowly and surely his mind was evolving the
principles of Imperialism, which some declare were merely assumed
as a convenient uniform to suit the dignity of Colonial Secretary.
" I confess," he said on the 2Oth of March, " that when I listened to my
two honourable friends (Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Storey) I thought that their
primary object was to show to the Committee the difference between Liberals
in office and Liberals out of office, between Liberals above the gangway and
Liberals below the gangway; and I certainly think they proved that while
Liberals above the gangway are extremely latitudinarian in their acceptance
of Liberal principles, Liberals below the gangway remain rigidly sectarian as
long, at all events, as there is no prospect of their being transferred above the
gangway. That is no doubt an extremely interesting question, but it is one
on which I think a stranger, an outsider like myself who has been excom-
municated from the congregation, has really very little right to offer an
opinion ! " This caused a good deal of merriment ; then he went on : "I
do not like to interfere in domestic squabbles. I know the proverb which
says ' It is wrong to put your finger between the bark and the tree/ and
therefore I shall leave my hon. friends to settle this private question with my
right hon. friends upon the Government bench."
He then proceeded to talk of Radicals and Radicals, of some
who were not opposed to the expansion of the Empire. Mr.
Storey said he was not prepared to spend money on wild expedi-
1 See Chronological Table.
191
Life of Chamberlain
tions that might be spent on the slums, whereupon Mr. Chamberlain
proceeded to ask him how he reconciled his intense sympathy with
the poor "with the vote which purposed on Friday night to
spend some ,£300,000 a year in paying members of Parliament,
who do not live in slums, and who do not want to be paid."
He then went on to discuss the policy of expansion, of which he
had of late become peculiarly impressed.
" Does my hon. friend believe, if it were not for the gigantic foreign trade
that has been created by this policy of expansion, that we could subsist in this
country in any kind of way — I do not say in luxury, but in the condition in
which, at the present, part of our population lives ? Does he think that we
could support in these small islands forty millions of people without the trade
by which a great part of our population earns its living — a trade which has
been brought to us by our ancestors, who in centuries past did not shrink from
making sacrifices of blood and treasure, and who were not ashamed — if I may
borrow the expression which has been referred to more than once to-night —
to peg out claims for posterity ? Are we, who enjoy the advantages of the
sacrifices which they made, to be meaner than those who preceded us ? Are
we to sacrifice that which those who went before have gained for us ? "
He thought that if the doors by which new trade was to be
admitted were closed, we must then keep the population stationary,
and said that the claims that our ancestors had pegged out were
not in their time more promising than those proposed to be marked
out by the present generation.
" This is not a question of Uganda only, but we are asked to reverse our
whole policy in Africa — a policy which has been upheld by the vast majority
of this country — and to relinquish the vast advantages which have accrued to
us by treaties and engagements with foreign States, and to secure which our
country has made sacrifices, in the belief that we were in return getting a
quid pro quo. That quid pro quo we are now asked to sacrifice, and are asked
to give up all share in what has been called the partition of Africa. . . ."
He described it as a curious fact, and one which he had never
been able to explain, that we of all the nations in the world were
the only one which had been able to carry out the work of colonisa-
tion without cost to ourselves. He took the case of France, which
had been ruling for so many years in Algeria at a cost to the
French exchequer of large sums annually.
The same thing, he showed, applied to Tunis, to the German
possessions in Abyssinia, and also the foreign possessions of Italy.
Rule was an expensive luxury. Except in the case of Spain, in the
early discovery of America, this was the case with the possessions
of all foreign countries ; they had not been able to carry out their
colonisation permanently without expense to their subjects. It
was necessary to look this matter in the face, and to be prepared
192
The Social Programme
for some such sacrifice of life and money as was needful for the
starting of such enterprises.
We should not consider life so sacred that it may not be
sacrificed to save life, he declared ; both life and money might be
sacrificed if we could see before us a prospect of good and ulti-
mate reward. This country, by large majorities, had expressed
its conviction that it was our duty to take our share in the work of
civilisation in Africa. Therefore we were not prepared to sympa-
thise with those who counted a cost which, in the long run, would
prove to be well expended.
In the matter of Uganda our honour was pledged, and whatever
might be thought of the matter, it was too late to go back. The
Government, of course, were in a state of suspense. They always
were in a state of suspense, he parenthesised ; and they had his
profound sympathy for endeavouring, as usual, to ride two horses,
and to promote two different policies.
But in Uganda they could not go back if they would. By a
charter, giving to a company certain powers, not only was the
company entrusted with discretion, but distinct pressure was put
upon it to go forward and to prevent other countries from coming
in and taking possession of territories which were within the sphere
of British influence. Rightly or wrongly, the company yielded to
that pressure of public opinion — they went forward, and broke up
such government as there was in Uganda, broke up the authority
of those who were held to be chiefs among the people — and the
British came in at a cost which was trifling in comparison with
the results achieved. We had, he said, secured for Uganda the
pax Britannica, which has been so beneficial in India. What
existed in Uganda prior to that date were anarchy and civil war
of the worst kind. Had we not been there thousands, and perhaps
hundreds of thousands, of people would have been cruelly massacred ;
and after the victory of one party, what remained of the other
would have been cruelly tortured. Captain Lugard was on the
spot, and at this juncture he undertook a work of the highest
responsibility. In the subsequent confusion, 400 lives at the out-
side were sacrificed — a deplorable fact ; but that sacrifice cheaply
purchased the peace, the pacification, and temporary civilisation
which followed. But for the presence of the English, long before
now the people would have been at each other's throats.
"You gave a charter to the company; you have never disavowed them,"
he declared, "and now you cannot leave that country whatever it cost you,
if it cost you another expedition. You are bound at all costs to fulfil the
obligations of this country, to maintain the faith of this country to the people
to whom it is pledged. What would happen if you left ? Would not the
VOL. II. 193 N
Life of Chamberlain
Protestants, Catholics, and Mohammedans be at one another's throats? and
would there not be a massacre almost unparalleled in the history of Africa ?
And who would suffer most ? Those who have been our allies ; they are the
people whom we have disarmed, and who would now fall an easy prey to their
enemies. I do not think my hon. friend contemplated such an abandonment
as that. He was quite ready to protest against any further extension of the
Empire. But we are dealing now with what has taken place and cannot be
recalled ; and I say it would be a greater disgrace than ever befell England if
you were to retire from a country whose prosperity and the lives of whose
people depend absolutely upon your continuance of the hold you have upon
them."
He went on to show that in the duty of protection it was
unworthy of the British to count the cost — that it was impossible
to say, " If it will cost ^10 we may protect their lives, but if it will
cost a million we had better keep the money in our pockets." The
cost of the matter had been ludicrously exaggerated. All the
evidence went to show that the peace of Uganda and of the neigh-
bouring countries could be secured at a comparatively small ex-
penditure. The climate of the place was excellent, the country could
produce almost anything, and the sole difficulty lay in the want
of transport. "How," he asked, "could we expect the commerce
of Uganda to thrive when the cost of traffic between that country
and the coast amounts to nearly ^200 per ton ? " But what would
have been said about the cost of carriage to the North-West of
Canada a hundred years ago ? Until the North- West of Canada
Railway was constructed, there was scarcely any trade in those
great dominions of Canada, and he maintained that the prospects
of Uganda were quite equal to those of the North- West of Canada
fifty years ago.
By this it will be seen that Mr. Chamberlain was already keenly
interested in the development of the resources of the Empire, and
that the wisdom of the policy of Imperial expansion had forced itself
upon him. In the same year he said at Birmingham that it was the
duty of the country to take every opportunity of extending foreign
trade and developing it, and of securing new markets, which were
also free markets, for the introduction of our goods. We were land^-
lords of a great estate, and it was the duty of a landlord to develop
his estate. What was the good of our having a country like Uganda,
which would grow almost anything, and which was — as regarded a
considerable portion of it — capable of receiving British inhabitants,
if we would neither give to that country nor to those who would
colonise it the opportunities that were necessary to the purpose ?
All this trade depended on the existence of satisfactory methods of
communication. Without that, how could it be expected that trade
would be created ? And he gave the cost of bringing the produc-
194
The Social Programme
tions of Uganda to the coast. He said that in his opinion it was
a wise course for the Government to use British capital and credit
in order to create an instrument of trade in all those new and
important countries, and he firmly believed that in doing so they
would not only give immediate impetus to British trade and industry
in the manufacture of machinery, but — although they might lay out
their money for a few years, which in the history of a nation counted
as nothing — they would sooner or later earn, directly or indirectly,
a large reward.
At another time, in discussing the question of the unemployed,
a question just then painfully pleading for solution, he advanced the
policy of Imperial expansion as the alternative to that of municipal
workshops, which would not give more work to bootmakers, and
might probably take away that which the bootmakers at present
secured.
" What you want to do," he said, " is not to change the shop in which the
boots are made, but to increase the demand for boots. If you can get some
new demand for boots, not only those who are now working but those out of
employment may find employment. That should be our great object. In
addition to the special point before me, you must remember that, speaking
generally, the great cure for this difficulty of want of employment is to find
new markets. We are pressed out of the old markets — out of the neutral markets
which used to be supplied by Great Britain — by foreign competition. At the
same time, foreign Governments absolutely exclude our goods from their own
markets, and unless we can increase the markets which are under our control,
or find new ones, this question of want of employment, already a very serious
one, will become one of the greatest possible magnitude, and I see the gravest
reasons for anxiety as to the complications which may possibly ensue. I put the
matter before you in these general terms; but I beg you, when you hear
criticisms upon the conduct of this Government or of that, of this commander
or of that commander, in expanding the British Empire, I beg you to bear in
mind that it is not a Jingo question — which sometimes you are induced to
believe — it is not a question of unreasonable aggression, but it is really a
question of continuing to do that which the English people have always done,
to extend their markets and relations with the waste places of the earth ; and
unless that is done, and done continuously, I am certain that, grave as are
the evils now, we shall have at no distant time to meet much more serious
consequences."
He returned to this theme in 1894 (January 22), pointing out
that the remedy was not to be found in the establishment of muni-
cipal workshops or the limitations of the hours of labour, but in the
development and extension of the free markets for British manu-
factures. He created much merriment by saying that he refused
to be called a Jingo. None, he said, could be called a Jingo for
believing it his duty to uphold the dominion and Empire we now
possessed. England was entirely unable to support her population,
195
Life of Chamberlain
•which was maintained by the assistance of foreign trade ; it was
therefore necessary to secure new markets. If things were left to
the Little Englanders they would refrain from taking legitimate
opportunities to extend the Empire. Indeed, it was doubtful whether
they would be at the pains to preserve even the heritage our
ancestors had bequeathed to us. He pointed out that what Uganda
wanted was merely what Birmingham had — an improvement scheme
— and gave examples to show that India would never have been
developed as it has been save by the enterprise of the Government
Private individuals could not, and must not, be relied on to provide
the railroads — the arteries and life-blood — without which countries
languish and die. He wished, he said, to look beyond the mere
palliatives for immediate distress, and to promote the establishment
of a trade that might, for generations to come, afford employment
to the working population of the country.
On the 3<Dth of January 1894 a somewhat unusual event took
place. Mr. Chamberlain, whose life had been spent in combating
the Conservatives in Birmingham, was now a guest at their Club.
No better proof of the smoothing of the surface of political
relations can be found than this exchange of courtesy, and Mr.
Chamberlain's speeches on that day and the one preceding it proved
how entirely in many ways he was advancing to meet the views of
his allies. He discussed the new Radicals as distinct from the old,
describing the first as never contented unless they could render
others uncomfortable. Their affection for the Home Rule Bill
was only surpassed by their hatred of the Protestant and British
minority in Ulster. Their interest in temperance took the form of
an endeavour to ruin the publicans ; their advocacy of compensation
for workmen was tempered by the wish to injure the employer ; and
even their love for parish councils was conditional on their hostility
to the Church. Elsewhere, later in the year, he declared that their
ambition was to bring everything to the level of uniformity ; a very
different ambition to that of the old Radicals, whose aim it had been
to lift and benefit those who were minded yet unable to lift them-
selves. According to the new school, the vagrant and feckless and
dissolute would share alike with the hard-working and honest. He
condemned collectivism as a principle of confiscation which spared
neither capital of the rich nor savings of the poor. There were
further evidences of his growing sympathy with and support of the
party of his adoption, for when criticising the claims made by the
Liberal Government to be the originators of the free education
movement he referred to the contests of 1870 (showed how Mr.
Gladstone, far from supporting the Birmingham Education League,
had assisted Mr. Forster to defy it), and also to his " unauthorised
196
Resignation of Mr. Gladstone
programme" of 1885, and the many F's which formed the basis of
it ; thus demonstrating clearly how poorly his ideal project had fared
till it had been taken up by the Conservatives.
III.— RESIGNATION OF MR. GLADSTONE, MARCH 3, 1894— THE
EARL OF ROSEBERY AS PRIME MINISTER— A "TOTTERING
ADMINISTRATION "
Early in March 1894 Mr. Gladstone resigned, and was replaced
by the Earl of Rosebery. Then was sounded the knell of Home
Rule, though its spirit had passed a considerable time before. On
the 6th of October 1891 Mr. Parnell breathed his last, and
gradually the hopes of Ireland perished. The rousing clarion note
was dumb, stilled for ever, for Mr. Parnell's loss could never be
repaired. He was a patriot, true to his country, sincere and single
in motive, skilful in action, and firm in resolve, and Great Britain,
however opinions regarding him may differ, was the poorer by a
Man. When Mr. Gladstone retired from the political stage, the
Home Rule question, which he had set on foot, " exclusively at
the call of Ireland," remained unanswered. The great voice was
silenced, that call was now merely an echo — a memory. The echo,
the memory Lord Rosebery accepted, though he was never at
heart a Home Ruler. The Union of 1800 he considered not only
as an inevitable but a great act of statesmanship, but he had no
enthusiasm for the principle. For him it was no matter of
fanaticism, of sentiment, or of history as it had been with others.
With Mr. Parnell it had been a question of life and death, with
Mr. Gladstone it became a question of power, with Lord Rosebery
it was merely a question of policy. So by degrees the lamp of
Erin flickered out. Lord Rosebery, it is true, declared that with
Mr. Gladstone's departure there would be no change of measures,
merely of men, but the Parnellites sniffed uneasily when he went so
far as to advocate beside Home Rule for Ireland some similar
arrangement in respect to Wales and Scotland. This looked to
them like postponement sine die. Mr. John Morley assured them
there was no intention to hang up the bill. Mr. Chamberlain,
however, looked on the matter as shelved. He detected in Lord
Rosebery's attitude a reflection of his own, and commented on the
fact that the new Prime Minister differed from the old in that Mr.
Gladstone succeeded in convincing himself the more he tried to
convince others, while Lord Rosebery was not convinced, nor did
he think it necessary that others should be convinced. Presently
Lord Rosebery retaliated by pointing out the inconsistencies of
Mr. Chamberlain to his Radical-Unionist friends in Birmingham,
inconsistencies regarding the House of Lords, the Church, the
197
Life of Chamberlain
Registration Bill, and Local Veto. On various occasions Mr,
Chamberlain defended himself, re-expressed (Liverpool, 5th Sep-
tember) his ideas regarding the co-operation of Conservative and
Radical ideals which have been quoted earlier. He showed how
perfectly compatible were the old Tory traditions with his own
theory of Radicalism. As for the House of Lords, he had attacked
them once, and was ready to attack them again, in cases where they
resisted rather than protected the rights -of the majority of the
people. Still, he admitted later on the need of a Second Chamber
to save the country from dependence on a majority in the House
of Commons, one which perchance might not even be a British
majority, but one subsidised by foreigners.
In the matter of social legislation Mr. Chamberlain's position
was an exceedingly difficult one. As champion of the Unionists,
and fighting debater against Home Rule, he stood on definite
ground, but in relation to social measures, some of which had
grown from seeds of his own planting, his attitude had to be
regulated by the spirit of compromise that had acted as a potent
cement to the alliance of Conservatives and Radical- Unionists. For
instance, though he was ever in sympathy with the principle of
providing for the compensation of workmen for injuries received
in the pursuance of their duty, when the Employers' Liability
Bill came to be discussed he supported Lord Dudley's amend-
ment, which provided freedom for master and men to adhere to-
existing satisfactory contracts for the settlement of compensation
in the event of injury or death. But policy apart, the bill Mr.
Chamberlain considered faulty in many respects. He had always
admitted that the provision for compensation for injury was one of
the first duties of trade, in exactly the same way as provision for
wounds or death incurred in its service in respect to soldiers
and sailors is one of the duties of the State. Though this bill
proposed to make the employer liable not only for any accident
that might be caused by his own negligence or the negligence of
persons whom he had directly appointed, but for any accident
caused by the negligence of the fellow-workman of a workman
employed, Mr. Chamberlain declared it did not go far enough. He
argued that compensation should be afforded not merely for accident
in the event of negligence, but accident pure and simple ; the great
object being to offer pecuniary help to a man who happened to be
injured in the pursuance of his employment, or to his family in the
event of his death in the same circumstances. A man who chanced to
be injured by some unexplained accident — otherwise the act of God —
was, he thought, quite as much entitled to assistance as any other man.
Again, though he had ever been in favour of Welsh Disestab-
198
Resignation of Mr. Gladstone
lishment, he and some fifteen Liberal-Unionists decided to abstain
from voting for Mr. Asquith's bill. As a fair reason for not sup-
porting the measure, he showed there was no definite majority in
favour of it, and that in regard of all the Government programme
people voted for one thing because it embraced another. The
Welsh voted for Home Rule because they hoped to get Disestab-
lishment, the teetotallers voted for Disestablishment because they
wanted Local Veto, and the Labour Party voted for anything that
might ensure the Eight Hours' Day.
But he stuck to his personal opinion in the matter, and declared
that Welsh Disestablishment must inevitably come. It was merely
a question of securing to the Welsh Church generous terms. That
done, he believed that it would rise to a position of usefulness and
influence never before enjoyed. His attitude in the matter was
defined in a speech made at Durham on the 1 6th of October 1 894.
In regard to the Local Veto Bill, it was merely the nature of
the temperance legislation that he fought about. He still harped
on his Gothenburg System as applied to England, but adhered to
his theory that the licensed victualler should be compensated for the
loss of his trade.
At Birmingham, and again at Heywood (November 22, 1894),
he put forward his new programme, which contained his old ideas
in a less extravagant dress. He proposed moderate temperance
reform, sanitary improvements effected by extension of the Artisans
Dwellings Acts, advances of money to enable workmen to purchase
their holdings, the creation of tribunals of arbitration, and compen-
sation for injury. In all these matters most of the Conservatives,
though not enthusiastic, met him reasonably. Lord Salisbury was
of opinion that the idea of enabling workmen to become owners
of their holdings could but act locally, while some sections of the
Conservative force wagged their heads, and acidly wondered what
the country was coming to !
Reports gradually got abroad that a split might shortly be ex-
pected in the Unionist party, reports that were assiduously circulated
by disappointed Tories whose wish was father to the thought.
But these rumours were quickly dispersed by the statements of
both Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour (April 26, 1895). The first
expressed himself and his party as most grateful for the disinterested
and straightforward loyalty with which Mr. Chamberlain had devoted
his " great authority " and " splendid powers" to the service of their
common cause, while the last declared that it was unnecessary to
contradict statements that disagreement had arisen between him-
self and Mr. Chamberlain, for never had any man been so loyally
supported as he had been by the Unionist leader, and never was their
199
Life of Chamberlain
relationship more cordial than at the present time. Mr. Chamber-
lain expressed reciprocal sentiments on the 22nd May, repeated his
early doubts as to thfe success of the union, and said that, even had
it involved the sacrifice of reform for a time, the sacrifice would
have been excusable in view of the necessity to protect the country
from the danger that menaced it. Fortunately such sacrifice had
been unnecessary ; and he proceeded to show that the reforms
secured by the combined forces in the years 1886-92 compared
satisfactorily with those effected by all previous Governments.
The session of 1895 was chiefly occupied with an effort to secure
Welsh Disestablishment, and in a display of animus against the Lords,
who, it was hoped, might be induced to commit suicide or vote for
their own extinction. Two measures out of the eleven mentioned
in the Queen's Speech of 1894 were passed — Equalisation of Rates
in London, and Local Government, Scotland.
On the 2ist of June 1895 Lord Rosebery's "tottering" Ad-
ministration came to an end, much to the relief of the chief, for
whose army of malcontents he was found either too fast or too slow.
The Government, after an uneasy fifteen months, was defeated by
/a majority of seven for not having kept the army properly supplied
with cordite. Very shortly the country was again in the throes of
a General Election, and the following effective placard, exhibited at
Inverness, purposed succinctly to sum up the activities of the Glad-
stone-Rosebery Administration : —
WHAT THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE DONE SINCE 1892.
1892.
Came into Office.
Made Peers.
Made Promises.
1893.
Home Rule Fiasco.
Made more Peers.
Made more Promises.
1894.
Passed a Local Government Act.
Increased the Death Duties.
Won the Derby.
Lost their Leader.
Made more Peers.
Made more Promises.
1895-
Again won the Derby.
Made still more Peers.
Made still more Promises.
Resigned.
TOTAL.
I Act, 2 Derbys.
15 Peers.
Promises innumerable.
Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON 6* Co.
Edinburgh and London
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
DA Creswicke, Louis
56$ The life of the Right
C4C8 Honourable Joseph Chamberlain
v.2
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11