[Frontispiece: Henry Labouchere]
THE LIFE OF
HENRY LABOUCHERE
BY
ALGAR LABOUCHERE THOROLD
AUTHOR OF
"SIX MASTERS IN DISILLUSION," ETC.
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
NEW YORK AND LONDON
The Knickerbocker Press
1913
COPYRIGHT, 1913
BY
ALGAR LABOUCHERE THOROLD
The Knickerbocker Press, New York
To
MY COUSIN
MARY DOROTHEA
(MARCHESA DI RUDINI)
IN MEMORY OF MANY HAPPY DAYS AT
VILLA CRISTINA
_Oct. 15, 1913._
{v}
PREFACE
It would be unfair both to the reader and to the subject of this
memoir to let this book go forth without a word of introduction. The
lot of Henry Labouchere, who was born in the reign of William IV. and
lived to see George V. on the throne, was cast during a period of
European development as important, perhaps, as any that modern
history records. For certainly the most significant, if not the most
salient, fact in the history of modern Europe is that democratisation
of England which, in spite of many set-backs and obstacles, has at
length been, in principle at all events, definitely achieved. To-day
we are all democrats, Tories and Radicals alike. In that process,
the full significance of which has still to unfold itself, Mr.
Labouchere played a striking and original part. It was not always a
successful one, but it was always played honestly, daringly, and,
above all, characteristically. Although a convinced, and in spite of
himself, if one may say so, even an enthusiastic Radical, no
politician was ever less of a party man. His loyalty was given to
principles, not men, and some of his bitterest attacks both in
Parliament and in the press were reserved for Radical Ministries
that, according to his lights, were untrue to their profession. He
was also, what is not so common in politics, a thoroughly
disinterested man. He sought neither office nor honour.
Circumstances placed him beyond the need of money, and just as no
personal feelings could ever blind him to political shortcomings in
his leaders, so the strongest and most vehemently expressed
disapproval of his opponents {vi} frequently went with a marked
attachment to their persons, and the strange thing is that he
succeeded in convincing both sides of the House of the genuineness of
this emotionally disinterested attitude.
The opinions of Englishmen are rarely disinterested, and it should
never be forgotten that Henry Labouchere was, in fact, a Frenchman.
French by birth, he remained, to the day of his death, French in his
method of formation of opinion, in his outlook on life, in the
peculiar quality of his wit. It was this that enabled, or rather
obliged, him to take that curiously detached view of English ideals
which was at times so disconcerting even to those who thought that
they understood him. Ideals, he held, were only entitled to respect
when translated into material currency. "How much £ s. d. does he
believe in what he says?" he would ask concerning some fervid
prophet. And if convinced that the requisite materialisation had
occurred, he would accept the prophet as one more strange and amusing
phenomenon in a strange and amusing universe. It would have never
occurred to him that because the prophet was sincere he was right.
That was a matter for reason. He once observed to me, in his
whimsical way, of a colleague, that the mere denial of the existence
of God did not entitle a man's opinion to be taken without scrutiny
on matters of greater importance. No "mere" Englishman could have
said that. That essential foreignness rendered him hard of
comprehension even to those who sympathised with his aims. For
instance, he was a Radical, as sincere and convinced a Radical as the
late Mr. Stead, but in a very different way. His Radicalism was
based on Reason. It represented Reason applied to that particular
department of human affairs called Politics, and so applied, one may
add, in spite of the irrationality of most of the men called Radical
politicians. English Radicalism, on the other hand, rests mainly on
humanitarian sentimentalism. The _religion du clocher_ of feudal
England has been largely replaced by a rival cult, the {vii}
hysterical excesses of which found in him a scathing critic. He did
not resent the hereditary principle in government because it was
unjust, but because it was absurd, and when he fought some concrete
instance of injustice, as he was constantly doing, the emotional
aspect of the case made little, if any, appeal to him. He disliked
injustice on rational and, as it were, æsthetic grounds. He had no
passionate love of virtue, public or private; he thought it, on the
whole, a sound investment, but then even sound investments sometimes
go wrong. In his personal outlook on things he was as completely
non-religious as a man could be. He was not anti-religious. He
fully recognised the utility of religious belief in others, perhaps
even in society at large, and he based this recognition not so much
on the hardness of men's hearts as on the thickness of their heads.
But personally he, Henry Labouchere, took no interest whatever in the
matter. In philosophy he was a strict agnostic, owning Hume, for
whom he had the greatest admiration, and the Kant of the _Critique of
Pure Reason_, as his masters. And he was remarkably well read in the
works of those philosophers.
He was constitutionally suspicious of strong feelings or enthusiasm
of any kind. All sensible people smoked, he used to say, in order to
protect themselves against such disturbing factors. He loathed every
kind of humbug. He did not, however, disdain it as a weapon. During
the General Election of 1905 the Tories made a party cry of Tariff
Reform; he calmly observed one day, throwing down his paper: "Well,
of course I think we are right, but whether we are or not, we've got
all the bunkum on our side."
In his personal relations with others he was very sociable and
courteous, retaining even in old age the fine manners of an earlier
generation. He was immensely kind-hearted, and suffered fools, if
not gladly, at least with politeness and equanimity. His love for
children is well known. There was nothing he enjoyed more than
giving children's parties, {viii} and on these occasions would take
any amount of personal trouble to ensure the pleasure of his little
friends. My earliest recollection of him is, as a child of eight or
so, sitting on his knee drinking in the most fascinating and horrible
tales of the Siege of Paris, which he would tell me by the hour. And
almost my last recollection is of his interest in a Christmas tree
prepared for my own children on the very day on which he took to his
bed for the last time.
These traits make up a character more familiar in France than
elsewhere. In his political ideas he resembled Clémenceau more
nearly than any English statesman, and in general habit of mind he
was a direct descendant of Voltaire. In character he was more like
Fontenelle. He had Fontenelle's moral scepticism, his personal
confidence in reason qualified by his distrust of most people's
reasoning powers, and his profound sense of the dangers of
enthusiasm. People called him a cynic; and, if that somewhat vague
term denotes one who attempts to discount the emotional factor in
judgment, who endeavours to see the bare facts in as dry and
objective a light as possible, a cynic he was. But he was a
kind-hearted, even an affectionate cynic. It was not easy to win his
regard, but, if you succeeded in winning it, you were sure of it.
His own feelings he never expressed; this was not because he had
none, but because of the exaggerated _pudeur_ which he felt on the
subject of the emotions. There was something both ridiculous and
indecent to his mind in even the most restrained exhibition of
affection. Briefly, he may be said to have worn a fig-leaf over his
heart.
A word or two as to the method and scope of this book. In order to
give a full and detailed account of the whole of Labouchere's career,
it would have been necessary to write at least a dozen volumes; some
sort of selection imposed itself. I have endeavoured to concentrate
my own (and I hope my readers') attention on Labouchere himself.
There is a danger which lurks for the biographer of a public man lest
the environment of his hero--the narrative of the events {ix} in
which he played a part--should hang too loosely to his figure. There
is also the danger that the frame, so to speak, should not be given
its due value in the portrait. In order to appreciate the part
played in public affairs by an individual, it is necessary to
understand what is going on. As this book has been written for the
general public, I have felt it desirable to retell certain episodes
in modern politics, in which Mr. Labouchere played an important part,
in greater detail than would have been necessary had I been writing
for politicians. In such retelling I claim no originality. I have
followed standard authorities, and the point of view of my narrative
has been, to a great extent, that of Mr. Labouchere himself,
although, when I have come to the conclusion that that point of view
was mistaken, I have not hesitated to say so. In this way I hope
that the reader may be enabled to see the inevitability of much of
Labouchere's political action, which at the time, looked at
piecemeal, may have appeared gratuitously mischievous.
I feel I ought to call the reader's attention to the fact that if Mr.
Labouchere's many-sided life is considered as a whole, his political
proceedings represent but a small part of his activity. He had lived
an average lifetime before he seriously took up political work, and
genuine as his principles undoubtedly were, still politics were never
really more to him than a means of self-expression and, it must be
said, amusement. He loved watching the spectacle of life, and he
came to find in the game of politics a sort of concentrated version
of life as a whole. This feeling, the strongest perhaps that he
possessed, combined with a passion to enter as an effective cause
into the spectacle he loved, was responsible for his political
incarnation. And he had a certain half-perverse, half-childish love
of mischief which he was not always at pains to restrain, and which
found in the intrigues of parties and groups abundant scope for
exercise. It could not have found so much scope elsewhere, and was
the motive power of much of his political action, particularly
towards {x} the end of his time in Parliament. After his retirement
indeed, when politics had literally become nothing but a game to him,
he would watch the cards as they fell with complete detachment from
party views: "I wish I was entering politics now as a young Tory
blood," was a frequent comment on public events during his last years.
Of course, he had his own way of putting things, which was not that
of other people, and this brings me to the part in life as to which
both friends and foes are agreed that he achieved complete success.
Whatever else he was or was not, everybody is agreed that he was the
greatest English wit since Sheridan. His gently modulated voice had
a good deal to do with his conversational success, and the bland
quiet manner with which the most startling remarks would be
accompanied gave them weight, if not point. Still, even in cold
print many of his sayings and appreciations will live as long as men
laugh from intellectual motives. "I do not mind Mr. Gladstone always
having an ace up his sleeve, but I do object to his always saying
that Providence put it there," is a dictum which will not soon be
forgotten. That observation, gently drawled out one evening in the
lobby of the House of Commons, is a specimen of hundreds. I am
persuaded that originally he had no intention of being witty, but
supposed his quips and paradoxes to represent the bare facts
expressed with the greatest economy of language. It is certain that
no one was more surprised than he at the entertainment people found
in the _Letters of a Besieged Resident_. He soon discovered his
reputation for wit and deliberately made use of it, both as a shield
and as a weapon of defence. It also served another purpose. There
was a strong tendency to indolence in him that was gratified by his
success in turning off awkward or puzzling questions with some witty
or irrelevant remark. If this analysis is correct, it throws light
on the nature of his wit, which consisted largely in a naïve and
shameless revelation of the _Secret de Polichinelle_. For he said
what every one thought but didn't {xi} dare say. The originality of
his mind really consisted in the complete absence in his case of
those conventional superstructures which imprison most of us. When
he replied to some one who asked him if he liked Mme. X----, "Oh yes,
I like her well enough, but I shouldn't mind if she dropped down dead
in front of me on the carpet," he was only saying what many of us
think but would never dream of saying even to ourselves of some of
our friends.
It is a commonplace of moralists to say that human nature is full of
contradictions. A subtler critic of man than the mere moralist would
add that much of men's time is spent in smoothing out, or, at all
events, conciliating, these contradictions. We choose a possible
type of humanity--Aristotle, or some other Greek, gave an exhaustive
list of them--and see ourselves in the part we have selected.
According to our imaginative power and our strength of will we
succeed more or less in playing that part at least for social
purposes. Years pass and the mask grows to the face, as in the case
of Mr. Beerbohm's _Happy Hypocrite_, and our friends and
acquaintances cease in time to distinguish between our pose and our
character. But there are moments when the mask cracks and close
observers have their surprises.
Mr. Labouchere gave up early in life any consecutive attempt to make
himself appear different to his real nature. A fragment of an early
diary which I have utilised does indeed discuss the possibilities of
success to the writer, and criticises, in scathing terms,
achievements up-to-date. But this document, interesting and amusing
as it is, is itself but a piece of boyish introspectiveness. In
point of fact he was a terribly sincere person, partly from pride and
partly from indolence. Had he been willing to condescend to
insincerity, he would have been too lazy to do so for long. Here,
then, was an additional stumbling-block. It is easy enough to
understand a pose, or even a succession of poses, but a person who
says neither more nor less than exactly what he means, {xii} and
means exactly what he says, not because he thinks he ought to do so,
or wishes to be understood as doing so, but because so, and not
otherwise, his nature spontaneously expresses itself, is, in our
present social state, almost unintelligible. What saved him under
these circumstances from becoming a "prophet" was the pliability of
intelligence that enabled him to understand other people and the
sense of humour that enabled him to enjoy them.
I have selected from the voluminous correspondence put at my disposal
only those letters which throw most light on Mr. Labouchere's state
of mind and the part he played in political events with which he was
connected.
I have to thank my many relatives and friends who have allowed me to
make use of their letters from Mr. Labouchere, and also my cousin, M.
Georges Labouchère, for communicating the result of his researches on
the life of my great-grandfather. Among old friends of Mr.
Labouchere, who have given me personal reminiscences of him, I have
especially to thank Mrs. Emily Crawford, Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, Lord
Welby, Sir Audley Gosling, and Mr. Robert Bennett, the editor of
_Truth_, whose help has been invaluable in the narrative of Mr.
Labouchere's founding of _Truth_ and of its subsequent fortunes.
Most of all, my thanks are due to Mr. Thomas Hart Davies, without
whose constant sympathy and assistance this biography could not have
been written.
ALGAR L. THOROLD.
12 CATHERINE STREET, WESTMINSTER.
August 15, 1913.
{xiii}
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY
The Huguenots of Orthez--Youth of Pierre-César--Exile--The Dutch
counting-house--A double ruff and a bid for a bride--Napoleon and
peace--Fouché--The French agent---Ouvrard--The wrath of Cæsar--The
French loan--Residence in England--Lord Taunton--Mr. John Labouchere
CHAPTER II
CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH
(1831-1853)
Birth of Henry Labouchere--Early education--His first _mot_--Eton
days--The young pugilist--The toper--Views on fagging--Trinity
College, Cambridge--Insubordination--Suspension--His defence--He
lives at a London tavern--Severe judgment of himself--Travels with a
bear-leader--Wiesbaden--Voyage to Mexico--Gambling and good
resolutions--Letter to his tutor
CHAPTER III
TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY
(1853-1864)
Travels in Mexico--In love--The Chippeway Indians--In New York--His
American sympathies--His views on American education--On American
diplomats--On American girls--Becomes attaché at Washington--Mr.
Crampton--Gambling again--The Irish patriot--Views on diplomatic
negotiations--At Munich--Stockholm--Frankfort--Bismarck at
Frankfort--Similarity of their opinions {xiv} about diplomacy--His
popularity at Frankfort--Petersburg--In love again--His opinion of
Russians--Anecdotes--Dresden--Economical family at Marburg--Republic
of Parana--Revolution in Florence--Constantinople--His stories about
Lord Dalling--Close of diplomatic career--Mrs. Crawford's estimate of
his character and remarks on his diplomatic career--_Memoir of Henry
Labouchere_, by Wilfrid Scawen Blunt
CHAPTER IV
PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS
(1866-1869)
Why men enter Parliament--New Windsor--His agreement with Sir Henry
Hoare--Imprudent choice of agents--Election--Is unseated on
petition--Repartee before Special Commission--His line of defence in
the _Times_--Another letter on the subject--His maiden
Speech--Reminiscences of the Windsor election--Anecdote about Lord
Taunton--Becomes member for Middlesex--His speeches in the
House--General Election of 1868--Lord George Hamilton--His quarrel
with Lord Enfield--The _Times_ on the quarrel--Nomination of
candidates--Conservative rowdies--the poll--Dignified speech--Absurd
reminiscence--Henry Irving at Brentford--General Election of 1874--Is
defeated at Nottingham
CHAPTER V
JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE
(1864-1880)
His connection with the _Daily News_--He buys a share--Manager of the
Queen's Theatre--_Time and the Hour_--_Dearer than
Life_--Contretemps--Financial loss--Poor opinion of artists--A
Bohemian--His knowledge of London--Edmund Yates tells how he came on
the staff of the _World_--His city articles--Trial of Abbott at the
Guild Hall--A calculator--Labouchere and Grenville Murray--He leaves
the staff of the _World_--Journey with Mr. Bellew--Adventure with
Dumas père--With Dumas fils--His visit to Newgate--Sensations as a
man about to be hanged--Remarks about the Claimant--Immense
popularity of _Truth_--The Lying Club in Co. Durham
{xv}
CHAPTER VI
THE BESIEGED RESIDENT
(September, 1870-February, 1871)
He replaces Mr. Crawford as correspondent--Mrs. Crawford's
impressions of him--Chaos at the Post Office--Immediate events
leading up to the siege--His account of how the news of Sedan was
received in Paris--The Prussians at Versailles--How he got his
letters to London--Ennui--Letter to his mother--Theatrical behaviour
of the Parisians--Further letters to his mother--His wardrobe--His
hat--The _Gaulois_--New Year's address to the Prussians--His opinion
of French journalists--His estimate of General Trochu--Meals during
the siege--Castor and Pollux--Another letter to his mother--The leg
of mutton and the sentimental Prussian soldier--His departure from
Paris--How he behaved when under fire
CHAPTER VII
LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH
The General Election of 1880--The "Radical" colleague--A faithful
constituency--Mr. Bradlaugh and the oath--A House divided against
itself--Labouchere's views on religion--His support of
Bradlaugh--Unscrupulous use of the _affaire_ Bradlaugh by the
Opposition--Victory of Mr. Bradlaugh--His upright character and final
popularity in the House--Mr. Gladstone's tribute--Mr. Labouchere on
his colleague--The parallel of Wilkes
CHAPTER VIII
LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND
(1880-1883)
Ireland in 1880--The Land League--Outrages--Lord Cowper and Mr.
Forster demand suppression of Habeas Corpus--Mr. Gladstone's
hesitation--He yields under threat of Lord Cowper's
resignation--Introduction by Forster of Bills for the Protection of
Life and Property in Ireland, January, 1881--Labouchere's Irish
views--Not at first a Home Ruler--Labouchere criticises Forster's
measure in the House--The arrest of Parnell--His liberation--The
"understanding" with Mr. Gladstone--Murder of Lord Frederick
Cavendish and Mr. Burke--Renewed coercion opposed by Mr.
Labouchere--He negotiates between the Government and Irish {xvi}
leaders in order to modify the Coercion Bill--Correspondence with Mr.
Chamberlain--Interviews with Mr. Parnell--Identity of his Irish
policy with that of Mr. Chamberlain
CHAPTER IX
LABOUCHERE AND MR. GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY
Mr. Gladstone and Egypt--A legacy from Disraeli--Cyprus and the
Berlin Congress--The "Comedy of the Liars"--The Anglo-French
Condominium--Ismail--Nubar and Sir Rivers Wilson--Sir Evelyn
Baring--Deposition of Ismail--Khedive Tewfik--Revolt--Arabi
Pasha--Mr. Wilfrid Blunt--Labouchere and Egypt--Labouchere drops his
burden of Egyptian bonds--A letter to Sir Charles Dilke--Labouchere
and military occupation--The Egyptian Government and the debt--The
champions of Arabi--Speeches in the House--The Soudan--General
Gordon--Correspondence between Labouchere and Chamberlain; between
Labouchere and Mr. Blunt--Letters from Arabi to Mr. Labouchere--A
later letter to Mr. Blunt
CHAPTER X
HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM
Labouchere's political attitude--His faith in Chamberlain--Despair at
Chamberlain's secession--His article in the _Fortnightly_, 1884--The
Radical creed--The House of Lords and the Crown--The Church--The Land
Laws--The Royal Family--Female suffrage--Whigs more to be detested
than Tories
CHAPTER XI
IN OPPOSITION
(June, 1885-December, 1885)
Sir Henry Lucy on Labouchere--"The friendly broker"--Lord Salisbury's
First Administration--Irish and Tories--Labouchere, Healy, and
Chamberlain--The General Election--The Midlothian manifesto--A letter
from Mr. Davitt--From Mr. Parnell and Lord Randolph
Churchill--Letters from Mr. Healy--Labouchere's letter to the _Times_
about Home Rule--Correspondence between Mr. Labouchere and Mr.
Chamberlain
{xvii}
CHAPTER XII
THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY
Legislators in correspondence--Further letters from Mr. Chamberlain
and Mr. Healy--Resignation of Mr. Chamberlain--Labouchere's efforts
to reconcile Mr. Chamberlain with the Cabinet--His disappointment
CHAPTER XIII
SOME CONSEQUENCES OF BALFOUR's COERCION POLICY
Lord Salisbury's Second Administration--The new Coercion
Bill--"Parnellism and Crime"--The facsimile letter--Mr. Healy on the
condition of Ireland--Radical demonstration in Hyde Park--Mr.
Labouchere on a waggon--He goes to Michelstown--The famous
meeting--He describes the meeting in the House--Lord Randolph
Churchill's criticism--_Truth_ on the Michelstown murders--More
incriminating letters--Mr. Labouchere enters the lists--The Parnell
Commission--Correspondence with Pigott--First
interview--Correspondence with Irishmen in America--Letter from
Patrick Egan--Letters from Parnell--Pigott and the Attorney-General
CHAPTER XIV
COLLAPSE OF PIGOTT
Lord Russell's cross-examination of Pigott--The disappearance of
Pigott--His confession to Mr. Labouchere--Mr. Lewis returns the
confession--The Commission hears from Pigott--He sends the
confession, under cover, to Mr. Shannon--The confession read out in
court--Mr. Labouchere in the witness-box--Mr. Sala describes the
scene at 24 Grosvenor Gardens--Pigott's end--Mr. Labouchere's
compassion for his orphans--Letter from Dr. Walsh--Mr. Labouchere and
Primrose dames--Trying to hoax Labby
CHAPTER XV
MR. LABOUCHERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CABINET
Speeches on the Triple Alliance--He is not in the Cabinet--Queen
Victoria's objection to the editor of _Truth_--Mr. Gladstone's
correspondence with Mr. Labouchere--The indignation of
Northampton--Mr. Labouchere's desire to be appointed Ambassador at
Washington--Another disappointment for him
{xviii}
CHAPTER XVI
THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA
The Jameson Raid and the South African War--Mr. Labouchere on the
Jameson Raid Commission
CHAPTER XVII
LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM
Mr. Labouchere on Socialism--Discussion with Mr. Hyndman
CHAPTER XVIII
MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST
Mr. Labouchere as Journalist and Litigant--Narrative of _Truth_
CHAPTER XIX
THE CLOSING YEARS
Retirement from Parliament--Farewell to Electors--Some
correspondence--Last days
INDEX
{xix}
ILLUSTRATIONS
RIGHT HON. HENRY LABOUCHERE, P.C. ... Frontispiece
From a photograph by Messrs. Brogi of Florence, taken in 1905 at
Villa Cristina, Florence.
FACSIMILE LETTER SENT BY BALLOON POST
THE LIFE OF
HENRY LABOUCHERE
{1}
THE LIFE OF LABOUCHERE
CHAPTER I
THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY
Some forty miles south of Bayonne, on the right bank of the Gave,
lies the little town of Orthez, the ancient capital of Béarn. Famous
for the obstinacy of its resistance to the apostolic spirit of Louis
XIV. and the excellence of its manufactured cloth, Orthez was further
distinguished during the Wars of Religion by the possession of a
Protestant university founded by Jeanne d'Albret in which Theodore
Beza was professor. In 1664, the most Christian King sent his
intendant Foucault to deal with the nest of heretics. Foucault did
not waste time in theological subtleties, but gave the inhabitants
twenty days in which to conform under penalty of a dragonnade. They
did so unanimously, but there still remain more Protestants in Orthez
than in any other town of Béarn.
Among the cloth merchants of Orthez none were more distinguished than
the Labouchères. According to the Frères Haag, the compilers of _La
France Protestante_, their name should be Barrier de Labouchère, the
patronymic which they came to adopt being in reality the name of a
property in the possession of the family. The earliest known
ancestor of the Labouchères seems to have been a {2} certain Jean
Guyon Barrier, who married in 1621 one Catherine de la Broue.
Pierre-César, the founder of the British branch of the family and the
grandfather of the subject of this memoir, was born at The Hague in
1772. He was the second son of Matthieu Labouchère and
Marie-Madeleine Molière. His father, who, in consequence of the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes, had been sent to England for his
education, had subsequently settled in Holland. Pierre-César was
sent at the age of thirteen to learn his uncle Pierre's business at
Nantes,[1] where he remained until 1790, at which date he entered the
house of Hope at Amsterdam as French clerk. In this humble position
he laid the foundations of the great fortune and financial career
which were to be his. The rise of the young French clerk was rapid.
In six years he was a partner in the house of Hope and had married
Dorothy, sister of Alexander Baring, who had become a partner in the
Dutch firm at the same time as his French brother-in-law. The
well-known story of the clever ruse by which Pierre-César won the
hand of his bride and also his partnership in the house of Hope was
told to the present writer some twenty years ago by the Rev.
Alexander Baring[2] as follows:
Pierre-César was sent by Mr. John Hope to England to see Sir Francis
Baring on some business, and fell in love with Sir Francis's third
daughter Dorothy. Before leaving England he asked Sir Francis to
permit him to become engaged to his daughter. Sir Francis refused.
Pierre-César then said: "Would it make any difference to your
decision if you knew that Mr. Hope was about to take me into
partnership?" Sir Francis unhesitatingly admitted that {3} it would.
Pierre-César then went back to Holland and suggested to Mr. Hope that
he might be taken into partnership. On Mr. Hope discouraging the
idea, he said: "Would it make any difference to your decision if you
knew that I was engaged to the daughter of Sir Francis Baring?" Mr.
Hope replied, "Certainly." Whereupon the wily clerk said: "Well, I
am engaged to Miss Dorothy Baring." That very day he was able to
write to Sir Francis announcing the news of his admission to
partnership in the house of Hope, and in the same letter he claimed
the hand of his bride.[3]
The following picture of Pierre-César by a contemporary is
interesting. The writer was Vincent Nolte, for many years a clerk in
the house of Hope at Amsterdam. "Mr. Labouchère was at that time but
twenty-two, yet ere long assumed the highly respectable position of
head of the firm, the first in the world, and studied the manners of
a French courtier previous to the Revolution: these he soon made so
thoroughly his own, that they seemed to be a part of his own nature.
He made a point of distinguishing himself in everything he undertook
by a certain perfection, and carried this feeling so far that, on
account of the untractable lack of elasticity of his body and a want
of ear for music which nature had denied him, he for eighteen years
deemed it necessary to take dancing-lessons, because he saw that
others surpassed him in the graceful accomplishment. It was almost
painful to see him dance. The old school required, in the French
quadrille, some _entrechats_ and one or two pirouettes, and the delay
they occasioned him always threw him out of time. I have often seen
the old gentleman, already more than fifty, return from a quadrille
covered with perspiration. Properly speaking, he had no refined
education, understood but very {4} little of the fine arts, and,
notwithstanding his shrewdness and quickness of perception, possessed
no natural powers of wit, and consequently was all the more eager to
steal the humour of other people. He once repeated to myself as a
witty remark of his own to one of his clerks, the celebrated answer
of De Sartines, a former chief of the French police, to one of his
subordinates who asked for an increase of pay in the following words:
'You do not give me enough--still I must live!' The reply he got
was: 'I do not perceive the necessity of that!' Now, so hard-hearted
a response was altogether foreign to Mr. Labouchère's disposition, as
he was a man of most excellent and generous feeling. He had,
assuredly, without intention, fallen into the singular habit of
speaking his mother-tongue--the French--with an almost English
intonation, and English with a strong French accent. But he was most
of all remarkable for the chivalric idea of honour in mercantile
transactions, which he constantly evinced, and which I never, during
my whole life, met with elsewhere, in the same degree, however
numerous may have been the high-minded and honourable merchants with
whom I have been thrown in contact. He fully possessed what the
French call _des idées chevaleresques_."[4]
In 1800 Pierre-César re-established himself for a time in England,
whither Hope's had been temporarily transferred after the invasion of
Holland by Pichegru. A few years later he became involved in an
interesting and delicate political negotiation.
In April, 1810, Napoleon, whose marriage with Marie Louise had filled
him with peaceful aspirations, surveyed the world that he had
conquered and decided that, for the moment, he had conquered enough.
To consolidate his empire and his dependencies, peace was necessary.
The only obstacle to peace was England--England who had never bowed
before his eagles and only grudgingly admitted his {5} existence.
Negotiation with England was imperative, but how to negotiate, and by
what means? What had he to offer Mr. Pitt? A substantial argument
presented itself in the condition of Holland. Louis Buonaparte had
disappointed his autocratic brother as an allied sovereign, and it
was the Emperor's intention to remove him from the Dutch throne and
unite the whole of the Netherlands to the Empire. This course could
not fail to be disagreeable to the English, who would then be flanked
by the French on two sides. So it occurred to Napoleon that, by
leaving Holland her independence, he would be giving England a
substantial _quid pro quo_ for the withdrawal of British troops from
the Peninsula. Evidently, however, he could not himself directly
open negotiations. Not only would such action lower his prestige,
but it was doubtful whether those infernal islanders would consent to
treat with him. The negotiations had to be opened by way of Holland.
King Louis' Government must not appear in it. There were prudent men
of affairs there who could be trusted with the delicate task. Louis
was delighted with the idea. He would retain his estate as an
independent sovereign, the commerce of Europe would once more
circulate freely to the replenishment of his subjects' coffers, and
his terrible brother's ambitions would be effectively circumscribed.
Fouché, who, unknown to the Emperor, had already sent a private agent
to London to discuss with the British Cabinet possible conditions of
peace, entered enthusiastically into the project and designated
Pierre-César as in every way the most suitable person to be entrusted
with the affair. His position in the world of business as a partner
of Hope in Amsterdam and of Baring in London was of the highest, and
his father-in-law, Sir Francis Baring, who had been one of the
principal directors of "John Company," was an intimate friend of
Wellesley, the English Foreign Secretary, with whom he had spent some
time in India.
Labouchère was to present himself informally to Wellesley, {6} not as
an envoy of the King of Holland and still less as the mouthpiece of
Napoleon, but in the names of Roell, Van Der Heim, and Mollerus,
three Dutch statesmen who professed to have been initiated by their
King into all the secrets of the French Cabinet. He was to explain
to the English Foreign Secretary that the marriage of Napoleon had
altered his position and had caused him to desire the peace of Europe
as a necessary condition of the consolidation of his Empire, and
that, in order to induce the English Government to abandon
hostilities, he was prepared to forego his intention of uniting
Holland to his dominions. The Dutch Cabinet, aware of the Emperor's
views, had hastened to open informal communications in order at one
stroke to secure the peace of Europe and to retain the independence
of their country. All having been arranged, Labouchère crossed from
Brielle to Yarmouth and posted to London on his secret mission.
As a matter of fact the moment was not well chosen for its success.
After the retirement, on the Catholic question, of Grenville and
Grey, who had continued the Fox-Pitt coalition, the old Duke of
Portland, who had been Home Secretary in Mr. Pitt's first Government,
became Prime Minister. He maintained his power with difficulty:
Canning and Castlereagh, respectively Home Secretary and Foreign
Minister, quarrelled, left the Cabinet in order to fight a duel, and
did not return to it. Lord Chatham did not survive the results of
the expedition to Walcheren, and shortly afterwards Portland himself
died. Mr. Perceval and Lord Wellesley were the most important
persons left in the Cabinet. Perceval, who had been Portland's
Chancellor of the Exchequer, kissed hands as Prime Minister on
December 2, 1809, and Wellesley took the place of Bathurst as Foreign
Secretary. Perceval was a clever lawyer and a bitter and prejudiced
Tory; Wellesley's hereditary politics were qualified by suave
manners, an enlightened spirit, and an unusual talent for clear and
eloquent statement. Less passionate than Perceval, he had not the
Prime Minister's influence {7} with the party, but he enjoyed an
immense reputation in the country which was daily increased by the
news of his brother's gallant deeds at the front. The position of
the Government, in spite of their parliamentary majority, was not
very strong. They held their power by that most uncertain
tenure--success in arms.
The opposition, led by Grenville and Grey, rejoiced in the avowed
favour of the Prince of Wales, whom an accident, such was the state
of the King's health, might any day call to the regency, and even to
the throne. The Prince had openly declared himself against the war,
and the leaders of the opposition argued forcibly, in and out of
season, against its continuance. The militarism of the country was
not, however, to be checked in this way. The news of one victory
outweighed much argument. But news was not always of victories.
Forty thousand English troops had been forced to retire before
Antwerp, with a loss of fifteen thousand from death and disease.
This calamity more than balanced the victory of Talavera. Perceval
stuck to his war policy with blind and furious determination. He no
doubt felt that his one chance of retaining office was to do so.
Wellesley, on the other hand, in spite of the glory won by his family
through the war, was open to reason on the subject. He had already
received politely Captain Fagan, a high officer in Condé's army, whom
Fouché had sent over on his own responsibility to feel the way toward
conditions of peace. He had received him politely, but had answered
him evasively to the effect that the King's Government was by no
means bent on continuing the war at _all_ costs, but would gladly
entertain proposals of peace if they were advanced by responsible,
fully accredited agents and were compatible with the honour of the
two nations. Labouchère was unable to get anything more definite out
of him. But Wellesley, reserved with the French agent, opened
himself more fully to his old friend Sir Francis Baring. To him he
explained that no member of the Cabinet believed in Napoleon's good
{8} faith. He personally saw nothing in Labouchère's mission but a
trap laid for English public opinion by the supreme adventurer, and
judged that nothing was to be gained by playing into his hand.
Moreover, the Government would never abandon Spain to Joseph or
Sicily to Murat, and would in no circumstances consent to the loss of
Malta. The fullest preliminary assurances on these points were the
_sine qua non_ of any successful negotiation.
Sir Francis Baring, who was a sagacious man, communicated this
conversation, together with his personal comments thereon, to
Labouchère. It was evident, he said, that England had grown
accustomed to the war, and would not abandon it except under the
stress of a reverse impossible to predict, and that the nation would
never lose all they had fought for in the Peninsula by yielding Spain
to a Buonaparte prince. He suggested, without any official
authority, an arrangement which, leaving Malta to England, would give
Naples to Murat, Sicily to the Neapolitan Bourbons, and would restore
Spain to Ferdinand, save for the provinces on the French side of the
Ebro, which might be given to Napoleon as an indemnity for the
expenses of the war. Convinced that nothing further was to be
obtained in London, Labouchère returned to Holland and sent to King
Louis at Paris the meagre results of his mission. Unfortunately,
Napoleon was as well accustomed to war as England. As soon as he had
received Labouchère's reply, he gave up the notion of using Holland
as a weapon against England and determined to settle his affairs with
his brother independently of the general situation. Nevertheless, he
did not wish to entirely let fall the indirect relations on which
Labouchère had entered with the English Cabinet, and sent him a reply
to be transmitted through Sir Francis Baring to Lord Wellesley. The
Emperor's reply was perhaps more statesmanlike than might have been
expected. If England was accustomed to the war, the French were even
more in their element on the battlefield. France was victorious,
rich, prosperous, obliged, {9} no doubt, to pay a high price for
sugar and coffee, but not reduced to the point of doing without those
luxuries. She could support the situation for a long time yet. If,
in these conditions, he thought of peace, it was because in the new
position created by his marriage with an Austrian archduchess he was
anxious to terminate the struggle between the old order and the new.
As for the kingdoms he had created, it was not to be thought that he
would sacrifice any of them. Never would he dethrone his brothers
Joseph, Murat, Louis, and Jerome. But the destinies of Portugal and
Sicily were still in suspense; these two countries, Hanover, the
Hanseatic cities, and the Spanish colonies might still be dealt with.
In any case, it might be possible to mitigate the horrors of war. He
had been obliged to reply by the decrees of Berlin and Milan to the
orders-in-council issued by the British Cabinet, and the sea had been
converted into a stage for violence of every description. This state
of things was perhaps more dangerous for England than for France,
since an Anglo-American war might easily result. If the English
Government agreed with these appreciations they had but to relax
their laws of blockade. France would follow suit, Holland and the
Hanseatic towns would retain their independence, the sea would be
opened to neutrals, the war would lose some of its bitterness, and,
possibly, in time a complete understanding between the two nations
might be reached. Such was Napoleon's, on the whole, judicious
reply, and on these terms, and on these terms only, was Labouchère
authorised to make any further attempts at negotiation.
But Napoleon counted without Fouché. That brilliant and unscrupulous
person, who had been recently raised to the important Ministry of
Police with the title of Duc d'Otrante, was a peace fanatic. In
every day that the war continued he saw danger to the Empire. The
failure of the Labouchère mission, in which he no doubt felt his
self-love wounded, since he had himself indicated the envoy,
disappointed him profoundly. He determined to bring about {10} peace
himself, and relied on his success to justify himself in the
Emperor's eyes. It would have been a dangerous thing to do under any
government: it was a piece of insanity under a master so absolute, so
vigilant, as Napoleon. He accordingly sent one Ouvrard to Amsterdam
to urge Labouchère to reopen negotiations with the British Cabinet on
conditions much more favourable to England than the Emperor had made.
Labouchère naturally thought that Fouché once more represented
Napoleon, and recommenced negotiations on a basis much more
satisfactory to English policy. The basis was different indeed.
According to Ouvrard, the Emperor would modify his views on Sicily,
Spain, the Spanish colonies, Portugal, and Holland; he was earnestly
desirous of peace, and he shared the hostility of the British Cabinet
to the Americans. In order to give Labouchère more credit with
Wellesley, Fouché offered to give up to him a mysterious personage
called Baron Kolli, an English police agent, who had been visiting
Valencay to arrange the escape of Ferdinand. Kolli had been arrested
by the French troops who had charge of the imprisoned King. The
arrest had been considered an important event by the Cabinet of St.
Cloud. To all this Ouvrard added a good deal of his own, and
Labouchère could not do otherwise than believe what he was told.
Accordingly he reopened negotiations by letter with Wellesley.[5]
In the following month, Napoleon, who was making one of his tours of
personal inspection in the Netherlands, discussed the Labouchère
negotiations with his brother Louis at Antwerp. By a curious chance
he had caught sight on his journey of Ouvrard, who was on his way
from Amsterdam to Paris. The Emperor's promptness of mind had at
once suggested to him that Ouvrard, who enjoyed the favour of Fouché
and had business relations with Labouchère, was probably mixing
himself up in what did not concern him, {11} perhaps giving advice
which was not wanted, or trying to float some speculation on the
probabilities of peace. With the presentiment of his genius he at
once forbade Labouchère to have any relations with Ouvrard and
ordered him to send immediately all the correspondence that had been
exchanged between Amsterdam and London to the King. Labouchère at
once communicated all his own letters and those he had received from
London.
The blow fell on June 2 at St. Cloud, where the Emperor, the day
after his return from Holland, convoked a Council of Ministers to
meet him. Fouché, in charge of the most important portfolio of the
imperial Cabinet, was naturally present. Napoleon turned and rent
him. What was Ouvrard doing in Holland? Had Fouché sent him there?
Was he or was he not an accomplice of this preposterous intrigue?
Fouché, surprised and upset by this sudden and unexpected attack,
could find nothing better to say than that Ouvrard was a busybody who
was always mixing himself up in other people's business and that it
was wiser to pay no attention to anything he might say. The astute
personage must indeed have been upset to attempt to "pay" Napoleon
with such words. Ouvrard and his papers were at once seized, the
mission being entrusted not to Fouché, who as Minister of the Police
would naturally have received such an order, but to Sazary, an
aide-de-camp whom the Emperor had made Duc de Rovigo and in whom he
had complete confidence. Ouvrard's papers revealed at once the
extent to which the intrigue had been pushed and of Fouché's
complicity. The next day Fouché was dismissed from the Ministry of
Police, where he was succeeded by Rovigo, and appointed Governor of
Rome. When Napoleon had anything to do he did it quickly.
He did not rest there, however. He was determined to get to the _fin
fond_ of these singular negotiations. Ouvrard, kept in prison, was
constantly examined, and Labouchère was summoned to Paris and ordered
to bring all the papers {12} still in his hands. It appeared, from a
comparison of these with those already seized, that Labouchère had
acted in perfectly good faith, and the whole responsibility rested
with Fouché and Ouvrard. Fouché's disgrace was complete. As soon as
the Emperor discovered the episode of the Fagan mission he turned
once more on the luckless minister and demanded all the papers
relative to that affair. Fouché replied that they were of no
importance and that he had burned them. Napoleon, on hearing this,
gave way to one of his appalling exhibitions of rage, took away from
Fouché the governorship of Rome, and exiled him to Aix in Provence.
So ended this curious affair in which Pierre-César Labouchère had
served his country faithfully and intelligently to the extent which
circumstances permitted. Some years later he was to serve his
country perhaps more signally, and certainly more effectively.
When in 1817 France was beginning the task of reconstruction, the
principal difficulty in the way of the ministers of Louis XVIII. was
the very serious financial situation. By the treaty of November 20
of the preceding year, the country was pledged to pay to foreigners
no less than seven hundred million francs in money in the course of
five years, with an additional sum of a hundred and thirty million
for the pay of the 150,000 foreign troops which occupied the country.
There were also numerous debts, both at home and abroad, the payment
of which had been guaranteed by the treaties of 1814 and 1815. The
ordinary revenue was useless to meet such heavy charges, and
extraordinary taxation, in the state of the country, would have spelt
ruin. It was necessary to have recourse to credit. But how to
obtain a loan? France was not in a state which could inspire
financiers with much confidence. In these circumstances Messrs.
Labouchère and Baring once more placed themselves at the service of
the French Government. They purchased nearly twenty-seven million
francs' worth of government five per cent. _rente_, and thus restored
French {13} credit. Their action was, no doubt, not purely
disinterested, as they bought the _rente_ at an average price of
56.50 and obtained an interest of nine per cent. on their money.
Still, the difficulty of the moment was to find anybody to do it at
any price.[6] A private journal of the period, kept by the husband
of a niece of Sir Francis Baring, consequently a first cousin by
marriage of Mme. Pierre-César Labouchère, gives the following account
of the transaction:[7] "The 'Alliance Loan' of the Barings at Paris
in 1816 probably doubled his (Pierre-César's) fortune, and he soon
after quitted business, and settled altogether in England, living at
Hylands, a property he bought in Essex, and in Hamilton Place, where
his home was frequented by many distinguished people and
diplomatists."
Two sons were born to Pierre-César and Dorothy Labouchère. The
elder, Henry, was born in 1798, and made for himself a social and
political career of decided distinction, as a Whig of the old school,
a certain primness and conventionality of character enabling him to
perform the part successfully in private as in public life. He took
a first-class in classics at Oxford, and in 1832 found himself a Lord
of the Admiralty. He became subsequently Vice-President of the Board
of Trade, Under-Secretary to the Colonies, President of the Board of
Trade, Chief Secretary of Ireland, Secretary of State for the
Colonies, and was raised to the peerage in 1859, when he assumed the
title of Baron Taunton, choosing the name of the borough he had
represented in Parliament for thirty years. It was at Taunton in
1835 that he opposed and defeated Dizzy by a majority of a hundred
and seventy, when, on his appointment as Master of the Mint under
Lord Melbourne, he offered himself to his constituents for
re-election. His primness and {14} conventionality found on this
occasion an admirable foil in the manner and appearance of his
opponent, who was "very showily attired in a bottle-green frock coat,
a waistcoat of the most extravagant pattern, the front of which was
almost covered with glittering chains, and in fancy pattern
pantaloons." The judicious electors of Taunton preferred Mr.
Labouchere's more solid qualities.
Lord Taunton died very suddenly on July 13, 1869. He was twice
married, first to Frances, daughter of Sir Thomas Baring,[8] and
secondly to Lady Mary Howard, a daughter of Lord Carlisle. He left
no sons. Consequently the bulk of his fortune descended to his
brother John Labouchere's eldest son Henry, the future member for
Northampton and editor of _Truth_.
The younger Henry Labouchere's earliest recollections carried him
back to his childish visits to his grandfather in Hamilton Place,
where Prince Talleyrand, then Ambassador to the Court of St. James
(1830-34), was a frequent visitor. "I have always taken a special
interest in Talleyrand," he wrote when he was sixty, "because he gave
me when a child a very gorgeous box of dominoes."[9]
The elder Henry Labouchere does not seem at first sight to have
shared any traits with his nephew and namesake. The only point on
which they may be said to have agreed was their love for America.
Lord Taunton as a young man travelled much in the United States with
Lord Derby, and he had important business interests there as well as
in South America, arising out of the commercial enterprises of the
{15} house of Hope. He acquired in the course of his travels a
strong liking for American institutions and a genuine affection for
the American people, a feeling which, as we shall see, was shared by
his nephew.
Mr. John Labouchere predeceased Lord Taunton by six years, and it was
often presumed by persons who knew the family but slightly that the
younger Henry Labouchere was the son of Lord Taunton, which mistake
gave the young wit the opportunity of making one of his best-known
repartees. On one occasion a gentleman, to whom Henry was introduced
for the first time, opened the conversation by remarking: "I have
just heard your father make an admirable speech in the House of
Lords." "The House of Lords!" replied Mr. Labouchere, assuming an
air of intense interest, "well, I always _have_ wondered where my
father went to when he died."
[1] Presumably Uncle Pierre had conformed and stuck to it.
[2] The portraits of Pierre-César Labouchère and Dorothy his wife,
now in my possession, were then at Farnham Castle, and Mr. Baring was
visiting my father, the then Bishop of Winchester, when he related to
me this anecdote of my great-grandparents.
[3] The story is confirmed by the Hon. Francis Henry Baring. Mr. F.
H. Baring was told it by the late Thomas Charles Baring, M.P., the
son of the Bishop of Durham. Mr. T. C. Baring was for many years a
partner in Baring Bros., where he probably heard the story. Sir
Henry Lucy, in his _More Passages by the Way_, mentions that Mr.
Labouchere himself believed the story to be true.
[4] Vincent Nolte, _Fifty Years in Both Hemispheres_. American
translation, 1854.
[5] Thiers, _Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire_; Louis Madelin,
_Fouché_. See also _Times_, March 16, 1811, for the English account.
[6] _Histoire de Mon Temps: Mémoires du Chancelier Pasquier_,
publiées par le Duc d'Audriffet-Pasquier, 1789-1830.
[7] The journal was written by Mr. T. L. Mallet, who married Lucy,
daughter of Charles Baring. I am indebted for the extract to Lord
Northbrook.
[8] Yet another link between the Laboucheres and the Barings was
forged by the marriage, in 1837, of Lady Taunton's sister, Emily
Baring, to Mrs. John Labouchere's brother, the Rev. William Maxwell
Du Pre. His sister, Caroline Du Pre, became the wife of the Rev.
Spenser Thornton, who was a grandson of Godfrey Thornton by Jane his
wife, a daughter of an influential director of the French hospital,
Stephen Peter Godin, whose family note-book was published in the
January number of the _Genealogist_ (_The Labouchère Pedigree_, by
Henry Wagner, F.S.A., 1913).
[9] _Truth_, March 19, 1891.
{16}