PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS
(1866-1869)
Being asked on some occasion, "Why do men enter Parliament?" Mr.
Labouchere replied: "Some of them enter Parliament because they have
been local Bulls of Bashan, and consider that in the localities where
they have roared, and pawed the ground, they will be even more
important than heretofore; some because they want to be peers,
baronets, and knights; some because they have a fad to air; some
because they want to have a try at climbing the greasy pole of
office; some because they have heard that the House of Commons is the
best club in London; some because they delude themselves that they
are orators; some for want of anything better to do; some because
they want to make a bit out of company promoting; and some because
they have a vague notion that they are going to benefit their country
by their devotion to legislative business." He frankly confessed,
however, that none of the above considerations had influenced him in
his own decision to enter upon a parliamentary life. Curiosity had
been his inducement in the first place, and secondly, a conviction
that the House would benefit considerably from contact with so sound
a Radical as himself.
In the autumn of the year that he left the Diplomatic Service, it was
suggested to Mr. Labouchere by several {75} friends that he should
come forward as a candidate in the next General Election for the
borough of New Windsor. There was already another Liberal in the
field--Mr. Flower of Stratford-on-Avon. Labouchere decided to confer
with him on the subject. They met, accordingly, at the Reform Club,
Labouchere having been previously warned by the Town Clerk of
Windsor, Mr. Darvill, to act quite independently of Flower, as he was
in the hands of agents, in whom the leading men of the place had
little confidence. Mr. Labouchere describes in his own words the
upshot of the interview: "We met at the Reform Club, in the presence
of Mr. Grant (one of Flower's agents) and Mr. Darvill, junior. As,
however, both of us evidently thought that only one Liberal could be
returned at Windsor, and as each of us intended to be that Liberal,
we separated without coming to any arrangement to act together."[1]
Labouchere then went abroad, returning to England in January for a
fortnight, during which time he gave a dinner at Windsor, held a
public meeting, and identified himself as much as it was possible to
do, in so short a time, with the local interests of the borough. In
May, 1865, Mr. Flower retired from the candidature, because he felt
that his agents, Grant and Dunn, had compromised him by corrupt
practices. As these gentlemen had hired as many as twenty public
houses for committee rooms, a number ludicrously out of proportion to
the size of the constituency, he acted wisely in doing so. He
informed Labouchere of his decision. Mr. Darvill also wrote,
recommending Labouchere to return to England, and if he really
intended to stand for Windsor, to take some steps for insuring his
return by appointing agents, and taking the usual preliminary
precautions.
To continue the narrative in Mr. Labouchere's own words: "Sir Henry
Hoare, a day or two after my return to England, called upon me to
tell me that he had been in communication with Mr. Darvill, and that
as Mr. Darvill {76} had told me he thought that, if two Liberal
candidates acted firmly together, both might be returned, he came to
propose to me to make common cause with him. The next day we called
together on Mr. Durrant, a London solicitor, who had acted for Sir
Henry Hoare, and we begged him to go down to Windsor, and after
seeing the principal Liberals, to report to us the state of affairs.
This he did. He told us Mr. Flower had engaged twenty committee
rooms--a number which was clearly too great, and he recommended us to
take on nine of them. We sent him down to Windsor again to arrange
about the committee rooms and about taking on agents, and he, in
conjunction with Mr. Last, retained the usual Liberal agents, who
were the same as had been engaged by Mr. Flower. It was distinctly
understood at the same time, that we only took on nine committee
rooms. Mr. Flower, after, I believe, a long correspondence with Mr.
Cleave, agreed to pay for the eleven committee rooms which he had
engaged. Sir Henry Hoare and I were both returned as members for
Windsor."
It was an unfortunate action, however, on the part of the two Liberal
candidates to make use of the same agents who had compromised Mr.
Flower, and it cost them their seats. The election took place in
November, 1865, and the result of the poll was as follows:
Sir Henry Hoare 324 votes
Mr. Labouchere 323 "
Mr. Vansittart (Cons.) 291 "
Col. Vyse (Cons.) 261 "
On April 26, 1866, the chairman of a select committee,[2] appointed
to try the merits of the petition against the return {77} of Sir
Henry Hoare and Mr. Labouchere for the borough of New Windsor, on the
grounds that it was obtained by means of bribery, treating, and undue
influence, announced that the committee had arrived at the following
determination:
"That Sir Henry Ainslie Hoare is not duly elected a burgess to serve
in the present parliament for the borough of New Windsor. That Henry
Labouchere, Esq., is not duly elected to serve in the present
parliament for the borough of New Windsor. That Sir Henry Ainslie
Hoare is, by his agents, guilty of bribery. That it has been proved
that various acts of bribery have been committed by the agents of the
sitting members by the engagement of an excessive number of public
houses in which it was proved that none of the legitimate business of
the election was transacted, and for which sums varying from £10 to
£20 were paid. That it has not been proved that such acts were
committed with the knowledge or consent of the said Sir Henry Hoare
and the said Henry Labouchere, Esq. That the committee have no
reason to believe that bribery and corruption extensively prevailed
at the last election for the borough of New Windsor."
The committee had sat for six days before the above decision was
arrived at, and many were the entertaining encounters between the
defendants' counsel, the great Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, and the
witnesses for the petitioners. One of the latter explained that he
had voted for the Conservatives because Mr. Vansittart was a "very
nice old man." Under cross-examination it was elicited with
difficulty that Mr. Vansittart had not given his wife and daughter
each a new dress. Being further pressed, he announced that he could
prove it. "How?" questioned the counsel. "I haven't got no wife nor
no daughter," complained the witness. A charge of presenting a silk
gown to the wife of one of the electors was preferred against Henry
Labouchere. He did not deny having done so. "The lady in question,"
he explained, "was extremely good-looking, and I have {78} frequently
noticed that a present of finery is a simple way to win the female
heart. I regret that, in the particular case, I was unsuccessful,
but, good God, you do not insinuate for a moment, do you, that I
intended her husband to know anything about the affair?"
The line of defence taken up by Labouchere will easily be seen by
reading the letter he sent to the _Times_ the day after the committee
had reached their decision. I give it in full, with the exception of
some sentences that have already been quoted:
ALBANY, April 26.
SIR,--In an article to-day on the recent decision of the Election
Committees, you allude to the case of Windsor.
As your observations tend to lead those who read them to form the
conclusion that my late constituents are somewhat corrupt, in justice
to them, I should feel obliged to you to allow me to say a few words
in their defence. It may be useful to future candidates to know on
what grounds Sir Henry Hoare and I have been unseated....
We were petitioned against on the usual charges of bribery and
intimidation. To the charges of direct bribery and indirectly
bribing by the promise of work we replied, I believe, to the
satisfaction of the Committee. The case of the petitioners rested
upon the charge that we had engaged too many committee rooms.
The Committee unseated us because: "It had been proved that acts of
bribery had been committed by the engagement, by the agents of the
sitting members, of an excessive number of public houses, in which it
was proved that none of the legitimate business of the election was
transacted, and for which sums varying from £10 to £20 were paid.
That it has not been proved that such acts were committed with the
knowledge or consent of the said Sir Henry Hoare and the said Henry
Labouchere."
Now this decision must have been come to on the supposition that Sir
Henry Hoare and I were responsible for the eleven committee rooms,
paid for by Mr. Flower, because we both swore that the nine committee
rooms were taken with "knowledge and consent." The Committee
consequently must have concluded either that Mr. Flower, Mr. Durrant,
Sir H. Hoare, and myself {79} were guilty of perjury in swearing that
the payment by Mr. Flower was _bona fide_, or that Sir H. Hoare and
I, in taking on agents in May, became responsible for what these
agents had done in the interests of a third party during the winter.
Our case rested on the fact that "none of the legitimate business of
the election" was transacted in Mr. Flower's public houses, and that
if a bill with the words "Committee Rooms" was hung over any room in
Mr. Flower's public houses it was because the publicans considered
they would advertise their own political principles by showing that
they had been engaged by a Liberal candidate who had retired. Every
one knows that, if an electioneering bill over a public house is an
advertisement for a candidate, it is also an advertisement for the
public house, and that publicans like it to be supposed that they
belong to one or other of the parties during a contested election.
As a matter of fact some of Mr. Flower's publicans did not vote for
me.
I may then fairly state that my late colleague and I were unseated
because one of our agents had been concerned, months before he became
our agent, in taking public houses in undue numbers for Mr. Flower.
Now, sir, I would venture to call the attention of the Legislature to
the new and strange principle of jurisprudence on which the decision
of the Windsor Election Committee has been based. I do so in the
interests of all candidates, for, as far as I am concerned, I have
unfortunately no appeal against the decision.
It is sufficiently difficult to prevent over zealous committee men
and agents from compromising their candidate during the election;
but, if he is to be retrospectively responsible for all their
previous acts, I venture to say that no candidate can expect to hold
his seat against a petition. Were the retrospective responsibility
introduced into the procedure of courts of law no man would be safe.
I might, sir, to-morrow have the advantage of making your
acquaintance. Some days later I might take a servant whom you had
formerly employed. Ought I to be hung if it were subsequently shown
that you and the servant had murdered some one last January in
London, while I was in Italy?
Were I still a member of the Legislature, I should myself point out
the necessity of a reform in the composition of election {80}
committees. As an elector of Westminster, I shall, through my
representative, Capt. Grosvenor, present a petition to the House of
Commons praying that some alteration be made in the present system,
and that a properly qualified judge be added to every committee to
explain the elementary principles of jurisprudence to
well-intentioned gentlemen who know nothing about them.[3]--I am,
Sir, Your obedient servant,
H. LABOUCHERE.
A number of extremely interesting letters appeared in the _Times_, on
the subject of the New Windsor Election Petition, one other, only, of
which I shall quote, as it puts the case for Mr. Labouchere and his
colleagues in a perfectly clear light. It runs as follows:
SIR,--My name having prominently appeared in the proceeding before
the Election Committee in this case, and in communications made to
you by Sir Henry Hoare and Mr. Labouchere, complaining of the
decision of the committee, I trust you will not refuse me an
opportunity of corroborating their statements. I may say, as a
prelude, that the agents had the most distinct directions to do
nothing in contradiction of the statutes relating to the election of
members to serve in Parliament, and I proved, in evidence, my written
instructions to that effect.
Sir Henry Hoare and Mr. Labouchere, being aware that Mr. Flower had
retired by reason of his belief that he had been compromised by his
agents, were most anxious to avoid becoming in any way identified
with their proceedings; and, as regards the public houses, which had
been taken on his behalf, the late members entirely repudiated, both
personally, and through me, having anything whatever to do with them.
No one had authority to hire committee rooms but Mr. Last, the head
agent at Windsor, and no complaint is made in the Committee's Report
in respect of the nine houses engaged by him. Not a shilling has, to
my knowledge or belief, been paid, or promised on account, of what I
may, for brevity, call "Mr. Flower's public houses"; so that, in
fact, these houses were {81} neither hired by, paid for, nor used by
the late members or their agents.
The unseating, therefore, of the late members for New Windsor upon
the grounds stated in the Report of the Committee is, I venture to
suggest, unprecedented in the annals of election petitions, and
affords just ground for complaint, and for giving, in future cases
some appeal, where there may be a similar miscarriage of
justice.[4]--I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,
G. J. DURRANT.
Henry Labouchere made his maiden speech during the six months that he
was member for New Windsor. It was upon an uninteresting and
complicated subject--namely, the inadequacy of our Neutrality Law to
enable us to fulfil our international obligations towards foreign
countries. The debate, begun in February, continued well into the
March of 1866. Labouchere made his speech on the 22nd of February.
During the course of it he said that, having passed ten years in the
Diplomatic Service, he had given some consideration to the subject of
International Law, which had led him to believe that, from defects
and inefficiency, our Neutrality Law was fraught not only with future
danger to ourselves, but was calculated to prevent us from acting
justly towards our Allies. He quoted, in support of his argument,
the relations of England with the United States of America, the
sympathy of America with Fenianism, and our loss of commerce with
America.[5] On March 7 he voted in favour of the Church Rates
Abolition Bill, which was read for the second time on that day and
committed.
Of course he was very funny on the subject of the election at New
Windsor. He was fond of relating how it was that he first became an
M.P. "I had to kiss the babies," he said, "pay compliments to their
mothers, and explain the beauties of Liberalism to their fathers, who
never could be got to say how they would vote. On the day of the
election everything {82} turned upon half a dozen votes. I remember
one Tory went out to fish in a punt, and the boatman who accompanied
him was induced to keep him well out in the middle of the river,
until the polling hour had passed. Another aged and decrepid Tory
was kept in the house by having cabs run at him whenever he tried to
issue from his door. Finally the Liberals won the day. On this the
Tories petitioned. The committee decided that there had been no
bribery, but unseated my colleague and myself because they thought
that we had hired an excessive number of committee rooms."
And again: "One man at this election amused me. He hung about
outside my committee room, and whenever he saw me he wrung my hand.
On my first interview with this patriot, he informed me that, at an
early hour of the morning, he had personated Dr. Cumming, and had
voted for me as that divine. Each time I saw him during the day, he
said that he had been personating some one, and always a clergyman.
I remonstrated with him but uselessly."
The playwright, Herman Merivale, tells an anecdote about Henry
Labouchere, in connection with the Windsor election, which it is very
probable he heard from the whilom member himself. "Lord Taunton,"
writes Merivale, "uncle and precursor of our more famous Labby, is
fabled to have lived in a general state of alarm at the strange
proclivities of that unchastened heir, who has furnished the world
with more amusing stories of a curious humour than any public man of
his time. It is said that when Lord Taunton heard that his nephew
contemplated public life, and proposed to stand for one of the county
divisions in the district, he was much pleased at such a sign of
grace, and asked if he could do anything for him. 'Really I think
not,' replied the younger Henry, 'but I don't know. If you would put
on your peer's robes, and walk arm-in-arm with me down the High
Street of Windsor, it might have a good effect."[6]
Another opportunity soon occurred for Labouchere to {83} re-enter the
House of Commons. On the death of Mr. Robert Hanbury, one of the
members for Middlesex, he presented himself to the electors, and was
returned without opposition, on April 16, 1867. An extract from his
address to the electors, dated March 29, is not without interest, as
in it he unblushingly gives expression to the democratic principles
to which he remained so faithful throughout his career. "Should you
do me the honour," he said, "to return me to Parliament, it would be
my first duty to co-operate with those who desire to effect the
passage of an honest and straightforward measure of reform--such a
measure as would prove to the large body of artisans and working men,
whom I hold to be entitled to the franchise, that the House of
Commons is not afraid of the people, nor averse to the free extension
of political privileges, nor disposed to deny to the intelligent
operatives a share in the government of the country to whose burdens
they are called upon to contribute. If the Reform Bill proposed by
the Tory Ministry is not capable of adaptation to such an end, I
should not hesitate to give my adherence to any cause which may seem
the most calculated to attain the desired object."[7]
While he was member for Middlesex, Labouchere was assiduous in his
parliamentary duties. He spoke frequently and to the point, on such
subjects as the "Expenses of Voters,"[8] on "the Sale of Liquor on
Sundays Bill"[9] (a characteristically amusing speech), on "Licences"
(Brewers'),[10] on the "Military Knights of Windsor attending
Church,"[11] on "Appeals in the House of Lords."[12] He objected to
a vote to complete the sum of £2135 for building new Embassy houses
in Madrid and Paris,[13] and offered some practical suggestions as to
the building (or buying) of new Embassy buildings at Therapia.[14]
{84}
In short, he was an active and useful member. The speeches which
have been most frequently quoted are the ones which he made on May
14, protesting against a vote of £137,524, for the upkeep of the
Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds,[15] and his two speeches on the
Public Schools Bill.[16] In the former he asserted that it was
unjust and quite illogical to prohibit the entrance of cabs into Hyde
Park. Most of his friends, he announced, were not in a position to
keep their own carriages, yet they passionately longed to drive about
in the haunts of fashion. He himself suffered cruelly under the same
longing and disability, and such an exclusion, he explained, was
quite incompatible with the spirit of Liberalism. He referred to the
regulations concerning the public parks of Vienna and Paris to show
that the prejudice against hired vehicles was entirely British and
snobbish.
On another occasion, Mr. Lowe had moved a clause to the effect that
boys educated at public schools should be examined once a year, by an
Inspector of Education, in simple reading, writing, and arithmetic,
and that a report as to their attainments should be laid before
Parliament.
On this Labouchere made an excellent speech. In the course of it, he
said that he hoped Mr. Lowe's clause would be pressed to a division,
because it was evident that most pupils at public schools did not
know as much as an average charity boy. Complaint had been made that
the whole time of public school boys was taken up by the study of
Latin and Greek, but, as a matter of fact, they learned very little
of these languages. An ordinarily educated German could converse
with a foreigner in Latin, if the two had no other language in
common, but how many Englishmen carried from a public school
sufficient Latin to do this? He confessed that he himself, although
he might be able to translate some half a dozen words of Latin, was
wholly unable to translate a sentence of Greek, although he had
studied those languages for years at a public school. He complained
that this {85} ignorance was the fault of a system, and the
misfortune of those who were obliged to undergo it.
Mr. Labouchere used to relate the following reminiscence of the days
when he was member for Middlesex: "It is a curious fact--such is the
irony of fate--that these dues (the Middlesex Coal Dues) were once
prolonged owing to me. About twenty years ago, I was member for
Middlesex. A Bill was brought forward to prolong the dues in order
to borrow the money for certain Metropolitan improvements. Now the
dues are collected from the inhabitants, not only of the metropolis,
but of all Middlesex. My constituents wanted the bridges over the
Thames and the Lea, beyond the Metropolitan area, to be freed. So I
persistently opposed the Bill by much talking, by amendments, and
other such devices (for although blocking had not been invented,
obstruction was even then not without its resources). This led to
negotiation, and it was finally agreed that the prolongation should
be for a still longer period than was proposed by the Bill, in order
that money should also be borrowed to free the bridges."[17]
Lord Derby's administration, under which Labouchere had become one of
the Liberal members for Middlesex, was succeeded by the first
administration of Mr. Disraeli. In December, 1868, the General
Election took place, by which Mr. Gladstone, in his turn, was put,
for the first time, at the head of Queen Victoria's Government. Mr.
Labouchere presented himself for re-election at Middlesex in
November. It was at first thought that both the sitting members,
himself and Lord Enfield, would have a quiet "walk-over." The
Conservatives, however, were determined to put forward at least one
candidate, and they selected Lord George Hamilton, the third son of
the Duke of Abercorn.
On November 2, both Henry Labouchere and Lord Enfield issued their
addresses, Lord Enfield appealing to his electors on grounds no more
vital than that he had {86} represented Middlesex in Parliament for
the last eleven years, and Mr. Labouchere because he frankly avowed
himself in favour of the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in
Ireland as being likely to strengthen the establishment of the Church
of England in the sister isle, and, to quote verbatim from his
speech: "I shall," he said, "oppose the proposal which was made last
year by the Government of Mr. Disraeli to endow a Roman Catholic
university. While I respect the sincere convictions of my Roman
Catholic countrymen and desire that their religious convictions
should not subject them either to civil or political
disqualification, I do not think that their Church or their
educational establishments should have any portion of the revenues
now enjoyed by the established Church." He went on to say: "Since a
Conservative Government has been in power the public departments have
vied with each other in extravagance. The efforts of private members
in which I have joined have proved ineffectual to check the waste.
The sooner Mr. Gladstone is in office the better for the
taxpayer."[18]
The two Liberal candidates made public speeches to their electors on
the same day that they issued their addresses. Labouchere made his
in the British Schools at Brentford, and the points on which he
argued were the disestablishment of the Irish Church and the waste of
public money. The selection of Lord George Hamilton as the
Conservative candidate gave him an opportunity of making some
extremely annoying remarks. He referred to him as "a young gentleman
who had lately joined the army--an unfledged ensign who was getting
on with the goose step and preparing himself for the onerous duties
connected with the Horse Guards," and other taunting remarks of a
similar nature.
The embryo M.P., on November 9, stung to madness by Labouchere's
witticisms, boldly announced himself as his opponent in particular.
He hotly denied that his father had received annually for many years
a large sum of money from {87} the State and then had been made a
duke for his kindness in having accepted it. The Conservative
meeting at which the young guardsman spoke would have been a decided
political success had it not been for the zeal of the gentleman who
seconded the vote of confidence. He remarked that, ever since the
day when King John had signed the Magna Charta, the people of this
country had been indebted to the aristocracy for all the liberties
enjoyed in the Empire. Storms of groans and hisses met his
well-meant remark, and though the vote of confidence was passed, the
show of hands was manifestly against it.[19]
But the real interest of the election was centred in the personal
quarrel between the Liberal candidates, which resulted in a Tory
being returned for Middlesex. They appeared each to be possessed
with an ungovernable hatred for the other, which was extremely
prejudicial to their cause. The occasion of their public rupture was
a dispute over the selection of electioneering agents, and by
November 12 the attitude of the belligerents had become so extremely
abusive that an important conference of Liberals from all parts of
Middlesex had to be convened to consider the disunited state of their
interest, more especially as it related to the relative bearing of
the candidates towards each other.
Whereupon Labouchere and Enfield each addressed a public meeting and
gave their separate versions of the quarrel. The delight of the
Tories was excessive, and they did all they could to foment the
affair. The _Times_ rose to unaccustomed heights of irony in a
leading article occasioned by the following not exactly conciliatory
letter addressed by Labouchere to its editor:
SIR,--In the interests of the party Lord Enfield and I would do well
to adjourn the discussion of all personal differences until after the
Election. Lord Enfield had distinctly refused to unite before those
differences arose; our discussion therefore has nothing to do with
our political disunion.
{88}
The constituency wish our union, I wish it too--but personal
relations need not be renewed. Lord Enfield considers himself and
Lord George Hamilton to be what he is pleased to call "scions of a
noble stock." I am a man of the middle class. He considers himself
my superior. Let us agree to differ on this point.--Yours truly,
HENRY LABOUCHERE.
"It is fortunate," remarked the _Times_, "that the Liberal majority
bids fair to be a large one, for otherwise the future historians of
Great Britain might have a somewhat undignified episode to narrate in
the electioneering contest of 1868, between the two great parties of
the State. If the Liberals and the Conservatives happened to be
running each other so closely that one seat more or less might
determine the policy of the new Parliament, the Middlesex election
would probably have an odd part to play in British annals. Every
reader of Liberal imagination can easily conjure up for himself a
picture of the calamities that might, under evil stars, overtake this
country if the Liberals found themselves not strong enough to carry
out their present programme, and the Irish Church were left still
standing, with Ireland, as the natural result of so much anxious and
fruitless agitation, more discontented than ever. Let him then
suppose that all these imagined misfortunes had to be borne in
consequence of his party having lost a seat for Middlesex, because
Lord Enfield objects 'on personal grounds' to Mr. Labouchere! Lord
Chesterfield has told us that great events are really due to much
smaller causes than historians, with a duly jealous regard for the
dignity of their profession, dare admit. The Liberal majority in the
next Parliament might, if it so happened, be lost and the programme
of national policy at a critical moment reversed because Mr.
Labouchere has called Lord Enfield 'a sneak,' and Lord Enfield
objects to Mr. Labouchere's want of blue blood! We doubt whether
Gibbon himself could give the proper professional air of historical
dignity to such an episode {89} in the decline and fall of Great
Britain as this. According to the first report of this squabble we
read, Lord Enfield distinctly refused to meet Mr. Labouchere, while
Mr. Labouchere, after showing that he had hitherto all along
conducted himself as a very model of meekness, bearing endless snubs
and rebuffs from his haughty adversary for the public good, suddenly
turned round and insisted that he would 'fight single-handed' without
any reference to his brother Liberal. It appears that, if the
Liberals work properly, the Conservative candidate, despite all the
advantages of high birth and impetuous youth, ought to be beaten, but
that otherwise he has a chance of success. It would be too bad if a
Liberal seat were thus endangered, and we trust Lord Enfield will
accept Mr. Labouchere's compromise, and console himself by reflecting
that he can still object as strenuously as ever to his plebeian
adversary in private."[20]
Lord Enfield protested angrily in the next day's _Times_ against the
accusation of having referred to himself as a "scion of a noble
house," and, oddly enough, his letter appeared just below one sent to
the paper by the Committee of the Reform Club:
THE REFORM CLUB, _Monday Evening_.
The Committee of the Reform Club having, in consequence of the
suggestions which have been made to them, taken into consideration
the differences between Lord Enfield and myself, and having expressed
an opinion that it is due to Lord Enfield that I should withdraw
certain offensive expressions which I used concerning him, and that I
should now express my regret for having used them, and, as I am now
informed by the Committee that they have ascertained from Lord
Enfield that he had no intention of doubting my word, as I imagined
he did, on the occasion I referred to, I have no hesitation in at
once acting on the advice of the Committee.
H. LABOUCHERE.
{90}
A patch was thus temporarily placed over the breach, for the benefit
of the public, but the electors of Middlesex had no delusions on the
subject.
The meeting for the nomination of candidates at Brentford was a rowdy
affair, the proceedings being of a most disorderly nature. The
re-election of Lord Enfield was proposed and the proposition was
received with groans and hisses. Then Labouchere's re-election was
proposed. At that point the disorder became uncontrollable. The
interruption had commenced with the appearance of a band of roughs,
wearing the Conservative card in their hats, who began to hoot and
groan at the Liberal speakers. After this had gone on for a few
minutes, another band, not quite so numerous, but of the same low
class, poured into the square, bearing the Liberal cards on their
hats. The two rival factions severally hooted the speaker on the
opposite side. The roughs who were first in the field (the
Conservatives had engaged a band of a hundred roughs, seven of whom
were known to be prize-fighters) then began to hustle the others, and
had nearly borne them out of the square, when the police made a
charge upon them, but without using their staves, and for a moment
restored order. The same disorderly conduct was, however, renewed
and several fights took place under the eyes of the sheriffs. The
crowd swayed to and fro, and the din and uproar was so continuous and
incessant that the rest of the proceedings had to be carried on in
dumb show. When the sheriff called for a show of hands for Lord
Enfield every hand on the right of a line drawn from the centre of
the hustings was held up. For Mr. Labouchere about the same number
seemed to go up. For Lord George Hamilton all the hands on the left
of the line went up. The numbers seemed pretty nearly divided. It
at first appeared that Mr. Labouchere had the show of hands, and the
sheriffs had, it was believed, decided, or were about to decide, in
his favour, when it was pointed out to them that many Conservatives
had held up their hands for Lord Enfield, while, on the other hand,
all the {91} Liberals had held up both their hands for Mr.
Labouchere. The sheriffs, after consultation, accordingly declared
that the show of hands was in favour of Lord Enfield and Lord George
Hamilton.
The election took place on November 24, and the result of the poll
was as follows:
Lord George Hamilton 7638 votes
Lord Enfield 6387 "
Mr. Labouchere 6297 "
Before the declaration of the poll, two cabs with placards of "Plump
for Enfield" were seen in the streets, which were followed by others
bearing "Plump for Labouchere." This was believed to have been a
ruse of the enemy, but there were some who thought it was a joke of
Labouchere's. He however vehemently denied any knowledge of it.
There was huge excitement at the official declaration of the poll.
Henry Labouchere, "the real Liberal candidate," as he was called, had
been met by his friends at Kew Bridge, who had accompanied him to the
meeting. He was evidently the favourite,[21] and the populace took
out his horses and insisted upon dragging his carriage through the
town. Enfield was hissed and hooted. Labouchere made a dignified
speech, in which he referred to the practical disenfranchisement of
Middlesex, by its election of a Conservative and a Liberal, and he
insisted strongly and ably upon the necessity of organisation in all
electioneering work.
Mr. Labouchere published the following absurd reminiscence of this
election in an early number of _Truth_: "A candidate knows very
little of the details of his election, but, so far as I could make
out, dead men played a very important part, on both sides, in this
contest between Lord George and me. No sooner were the booths open
than men long {92} removed from party strife rose from their graves,
and hurriedly voted either for him or for me."[22]
An amusing episode of the Middlesex election of 1868 was the mistake
which the supporters of Mr. Labouchere made in mistaking Mr. Henry
Irving for their defeated candidate. Mr. Labouchere himself related
the story some sixteen years later, when there was a report current
that the famous actor was about to offer himself as a parliamentary
candidate. "Irving did once appear upon the hustings," he said, "and
it was in this wise. I was the defeated candidate at a Middlesex
election. Those were the days of hustings and displays, and it was
the fashion for each candidate to go down to Brentford in a carriage
and four to thank his supporters. On the morning of the day when I
had to perform this function, Irving called upon me, and I invited
him to accompany me. Down we drove. I made an inaudible speech to a
mob, and we re-entered our carriage to return to London. In a large
constituency like Middlesex, few know the candidates by sight.
Irving felt it his duty to assume a _mine de circonstance_. He
folded his arms, pressed his hat over his brows, and was every inch
the baffled politician--defeated, sad, but yet sternly resigned to
his fate. In this character he was so impressive that the crowd came
to the conclusion that he was the defeated candidate. So woebegone,
and so solemnly dignified, did he look that they were overcome with
emotion, and, to show their sympathy, they took the horses out of the
carriage and dragged it back to London. When they left us, I got up
to thank them, but this did not dispel the illusion. 'Poor fellow,'
I heard them say, as they watched Irving, 'his feelings are too much
for him,' and they patted him, shook hands with him, and thanked
him."[23]
A _Times_ leader of November 30 made the following comments on the
Middlesex election: "In Middlesex, the minority has been allowed not
only a representative, but a {93} place at the head of the poll, by
the selection of two Liberal candidates, almost avowedly in
competition, and with some unexplained circumstance of personal
antagonism. Though it is likely enough many of the votes have been
split between the two successful candidates, it is evident on the
face of the return that a better selected pair of Liberal candidates
might have carried both seats. Few persons will quarrel with a
result which gives one of the most important minorities in the
kingdom a voice in Parliament, but the result is a fluke rather than
the consequence of a sound intention or of a wise provision of law."
At the General Election of 1874, Mr. Labouchere made another attempt
to enter the House of Commons. He first offered himself at
Southwark, but, as he was one of six Liberal candidates, he withdrew,
and presented himself for election at Nottingham. At Nottingham also
there was a superfluity of Liberal candidates, but two of these, Mr.
Labouchere and Mr. Laycock, would probably have got in, had it not
been for the determined antagonism of Mr. Heath, the Labour
candidate, to Mr. Labouchere. It was also asserted by the leading
Liberals of the place that the seats were lost, because Mr.
Labouchere's advanced Radicalism scandalised the Liberal supporters.
Be that as it may, the result of the election was that two
Conservatives were returned for Nottingham. Mr. Labouchere was as
usual philosophical upon the subject of his unsuccessful election:
"When one is in," he said, "one wants to be out, and when one is out,
one wants to be in. La Bruyère says that no married people ever pass
a week without wishing, at least once, that they were unmarried, and
so I suspect it is with most M.P.'s."
There were many amusing stories about Mr. Labouchere current at this
time. One of the best that appeared in the Nottingham papers during
the election was the following: "He went to a fancy dress ball in
London, wearing diplomatic uniform, and on presenting himself at the
door, he was refused admission by a policeman. 'Why?' said {94} Mr.
Labouchere. 'Because no one is allowed here in a diplomatic
uniform,' said the 'bobby.' 'Confound your impudence,' growled the
ex-member for Middlesex, 'I will go in.' 'Not in diplomatic dress,
no one's to pass here in diplomatic togs,' repeated Mr. Bluebottle;
'my order is to watch this door for that special purpose.' 'What's
your name, scoundrel?' yelled the financial editor of the _World_;
'my name is Labouchere, and I will enter.' 'And mine,' rejoined the
amateur policeman, 'is Lionel Brough.' They walked upstairs
arm-in-arm together."
[1] _Times_, April 27, 1866.
[2] The committee was composed as follows: Mr. John Tomlinson Hibbert
(Chairman), Mr. Robert Dalglish, Mr. Arthur Wellesley Peel, Hon.
Fredk. Stanley, and Major Waterhouse. It sat for six days. The
counsel for the petitioners were: Mr. W. H. Cooke, Q.C., Mr.
Matthews, and Mr. Campbell Bruce. For the defendants: Mr. Serjeant
Ballantine and Mr. Biron.
[3] _Times_, April 27, 1866.
[4] _Times_, April 27, 1866.
[5] _Hansard_, vol. 181, s. 3.
[6] Herman Merivale, _Bar, Stage, and Platform_.
[7] _Times_, April 2, 1867.
[8] _Times_, July 5, 1867.
[9] _Times_, March 19, 1868.
[10] _Times_, March 25, 1868.
[11] _Times_, June 24, 1868.
[12] _Times_, May 29, 1868.
[13] _Times_, May 1, 1868.
[14] _Times_, April 21, 1868.
[15] _Times_, May 15, 1868.
[16] _Times_, June 17 and 24, 1868.
[17] _Truth_, November 25, 1886.
[18] _Times_, November 3, 1868.
[19] _Times_, November 10, 1868.
[20] _Times_, November 14, 1868.
[21] _Times_, November 27, 1868.
[22] _Truth_, April, 1878.
[23] _Truth_, April 24, 1884.
{95}