Dilke
Page 46
17 It would also be well to have in mind at this point the thesis which was powerfully argued by Henry Harrison (1867–1954) in his previously cited Parnell, Joseph Chamberlain and Mr. Garvin. Harrison believed that in 1889, after the exposure as forgeries of The Times letters implicating Parnell in the Phoenix Park murders, Chamberlain found it essential to destroy the Irish leader, and played a decisive part in instigating O’Shea to start the divorce proceedings which achieved precisely this result. If Harrison’s views are accepted (and he adduces much evidence in their support) there develops a temptation to treat Chamberlain with the suspicion which normally falls upon someone who has I cen present at the scene of an unsolved murder and is later found committing an almost exactly similar crime. Even if the lowest view is taken of Chamberlain’s character, however, it is more probable that his knowledge of the Dilke case (and of Parnell’s long-standing relations with Mrs. O’Shea) suggested to him a possible line of attack than that he was attempting to repeat his success in destroying a rival by acting against an enemy.
18 Bodley, of course, contradicts himself when he suggests both that it was in Chamberlain’s interest to smash Dilke, and that Dilke suffered because Lady Salisbury and many others welcomed his downfall as a weakening of Chamberlain.
1 Over a period of many years Gladstone tried to devote one evening a week to walks through the West End, interviewing prostitutes and trying to reclaim them. It was a work obviously open to misunderstanding. (See Magnus op. cit. 106-110.)
2 His denial of “adultery” with Mrs. Crawford, which was all that was directly put to him, was formally correct.
1 According to Mr. Guy Deghy’s recent book on the history of Romano’s restaurant (Paradise in the Strand), habitués of that establishment amused themselves by giving renderings of this verse in several languages. The French and the Latin versions he gives as follows:
Mâitre Dilke a renversé le lait
En l’apportant à Chelsea,
Les journaux disent que Charlie est gai,
Tant soit peu arceur
Ce noble representant
De tout ce qui est bon à Chelsea
A fait sortir le chat,
Le méchant chat,
Du Gladstone sac.
Effundit Carolus domum reportans
Lac Dilkus media procax suburra
Hunc salsum putat, urbs virum, et facetum,
Eheu! nobilis hic patron us omnis
quodcunque est mediae boni suburrae,
Felem perdidit, improbam, ecce felem,
Grandaevis foculis diu retentam.
2 Prior to the establishment of the London County Council in 1889 the Chelsea vestry was the only local government authority for that part of the metropolis. Its powers were restricted in 1889 and it was swept away ten years later when the metropolitan boroughs were established.
3 James had become a Liberal Unionist by this time. The fact underlined the indirectness of Dilke’s relations with his leader.
4 An old inn in the centre of the Forest, which was a traditional meeting-place, and which Dilke was later to make his headquarters on many constituency visits.
5 A local mining problem.
1 Chamberlain had written to Dilke on March 31st, 1892: “My prediction is that unless the Gladstonians give up the idea of a separate Parliament (I do not say extended local government) they will not attain power—though they may attain office—for this generation. There is a bold prophecy for you—but it is my sincere opinion.” (D.P. 43889, 87.)
2 Labouchere had the corner seat, but unlike Dilke he never appeared at prayers in order to claim it in the accepted way. Sydney Gedge, Conservative member for Walsall, discovered how this was arranged. Dilke interrupted his devotions not only to slip a card into the back of his own seat, which was allowed, but also to slip another, on Labouchere’s behalf, into the back of the next, which was not. Gedge drew the attention of the House to this, but secured no support for his objection. (Algar Thorold, The Life of Henry Labouchere, p. 477.)
3 Hyndman’s letters were not always full of obvious revolutionary content. In August, 1896, he wrote protesting against the appointment of Sir Edward Monson as British Ambassador in Paris on the grounds of his poverty, his failure to pay his bills, and the bad company which he had kept in Vienna.
4 Deakin (1856–1919) had a political position closely in tune with Dilke’s own. He was an advanced but undogmatic Liberal. He rejected free trade (Dilke as an Englishman did not follow him in this, but had much sympathy for the Australian protectionist viewpoint); he wanted effective imperial defence; and he returned to office as Commonwealth Prime Minister in 1905 by forming an alliance with the Australian Labour party.
5 1868–1947. Secretary of State for War from 191a until Asquith replaced him at the time of the Curragh mutiny in the spring of 1914. Later Lord Mottistone.
6 Between Campbell-Bannerman and Dilke there existed a strong mutual antipathy. A fair indication of one aspect of it is given by a letter which Campbell-Bannerman wrote to Herbert Gladstone on January 5th, 1900, after Dilke had tabled an amendment to the Address. “I do not think Citizen Dilke’s amendment covers the ground,” the letter ran. “It is admirably fitted as a peg on which to hang up for public admiration the intimate knowledge of the facts possessed by the originator—but that is not our sole object.” (Spender, Life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Vol. I, p. 369.)
7 1853–1938. Military correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, 1882–92, and of the Morning Post, 1895 1914. Chichele Professor of Military History at Oxford from 1909.
8 In 1916 Lord Knollys (as he had then become) wrote to Miss Gertrude Tuckwell requesting that this letter should not be published in the biography of Dilke on which she was working. “I do not think that it would be quite fair to the memory of King Edward,” he argued, “that the line which he took in private in regard to Sir Charles’ case should be made public when the majority of people (I imagine I am correct in saying this) adopted a totally different attitude.” (D.P. 43967, 271.) It is difficult to believe that the letter would have been very damaging forty years ago, and it is clearly not so to-day.
1 Minister at the Baptist Chapel in Praed Street, Paddington, President of the Baptist World Alliance, and at the time the recognised leader of militant Nonconformity in England.
2 J. W. Hills, Conservative M.P. for Durham City.
This electronic edition published in 2011 by Bloomsbury Reader
Bloomsbury Reader is a division of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 50 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3DP
Copyright © Roy Jenkins 1958, 1965
First published 1958 by Collins as Sir Charles Dilke: A Victorian Tragedy
The moral right of the author has been asserted
All rights reserved
You may not copy, distribute, transmit, reproduce or otherwise
make available this publication (or any part of it) in any form, or by any means
(including without limitation electronic, digital, optical, mechanical, photocopying,
printing, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of the
publisher. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages
ISBN: 9781448200498
eISBN: 9781448201815
Visit www.bloomsburyreader.com to find out more about our authors and their books
You will find extracts, author interviews, author events and you can sign up for
newsletters to be the first to hear about our latest releases and special offers
ilter: grayscale(100%); filter: grayscale(100%); " class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons">share