LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND
1881-1883
When Lord Cowper, the Irish Viceroy, under the influence of the Chief
Secretary, Mr. Forster, represented to Mr. Gladstone in the early
autumn of 1880 the necessity of coercive measures for the government
of Ireland, he found the Prime Minister profoundly opposed to
departure from the ordinary law. The Viceroy was pressed to suspend
the Habeas Corpus Act by every agent, every landlord, every
magistrate in the country. The number of outrages against life and
property had increased _pari passu_ with the number of evictions.
The Land League, which had been formed, under the presidency of
Parnell, the preceding year, had taken up the cause of the evicted
tenants and, by establishing the elaborate system of persecution,
named after its first victim, Lord Mayo's English agent, Captain
Boycott, rendered it almost impossible to let farms from which a
tenant had been evicted. When, on September 25, Lord Mountmorres, a
poor man with a small estate, who could really not afford to reduce
his rents, was murdered, such was the popular detestation of the
murdered man that the owner of the nearest house refused shelter to
the corpse, no hearse could be obtained to convey it to the grave,
and the family had to fly to England. The maiming of cattle, a {166}
method of reprisal constantly adopted by evicted tenants, further
contributed to inflame English opinion, both in and out of Ireland,
against the Nationalist party, who were held responsible by the man
in the street for everything that was going on. Mr. Bright was still
more opposed than Mr. Gladstone to the repeal of the Habeas Corpus,
and so was Mr. Chamberlain, who had joined the Government as
President of the Board of Trade. Before giving way to Mr. Forster,
the Cabinet determined to use the ordinary methods of law, and
prosecuted the heads of the Land League for "conspiring to prevent
the payment of rent, resist the process of eviction, and obstruct the
letting of surrendered farms." The public announcement of the
prosecution in no way intimidated the Land League. The prosecution,
although announced on November 3, did not, on account of legal
delays, begin until after Christmas. Disorder at once became more
rampant and outrages more frequent. On November 23, Cowper wrote
again to Mr. Gladstone, threatening his resignation in the following
January, if he were not given fuller powers. On December 12, he made
his last appeal, urging that Parliament should be immediately
summoned. Mr. Gladstone yielded the very day before the trial of the
Land League began in Dublin, and summoned Parliament for January 6,
1881.
On the first night of the session Mr. Forster gave notice of the
introduction of Bills for the protection of life and property in
Ireland. But the Irish members had taken the phrase in the Queen's
Speech that "additional powers are required by the Irish Government
for the protection of life and property," as a declaration of war,
and commenced the policy of obstruction of which they were afterwards
to make so powerful a weapon. They succeeded in protracting the
debate on the Address for eleven days.
Forster's case was a very simple one. The Land League was supreme,
and its power must be crippled. This could only be done by extending
the range of the executive. With {167} the suspension of Habeas
Corpus the authors of the outrages, who were known to the police,
could be arrested and the course of justice would not be interfered
with by corrupt evidence. It was the point of view of the official
responsible for public order, that and nothing more. Mr. Parnell's
view pierced the surface facts of the case. The League did nothing
but organise and express the public opinion of Ireland. The
Government's policy was simply one of coercion, that is, of violence.
Although it was admitted that wrongs were endured, the Government's
policy did not include any method of redressing those wrongs.
Eviction of tenants who could not possibly pay their rent through no
fault of their own was palpable injustice. Let that injustice be put
an end to, and outrages would soon cease. It was clearly the duty of
the representatives of Ireland to put every difficulty in the way of
the passing of such a measure as the Chief Secretary's.
At this stage of his career Mr. Labouchere was not a Home Ruler. In
his first speech to his electors at Northampton,[1] he had said: "I
really have not understood myself what Home Rule means. I should be
exceedingly sorry to see the Union between Great Britain and Ireland
done away with. I think it is absolutely necessary for the
well-being of both countries, but I am myself in favour of as much
local government, not only in Ireland, but in all parts of England as
possible." He was voicing the views of Mr. Chamberlain, whose
trumpet from the beginning had set forth no uncertain sound, for the
member for Birmingham was then, and remained, unalterably opposed to
the separation of the two kingdoms, and to the institution of an
Independent Parliament in Dublin.
On January 27, Forster's Bill for the Protection of Life and Property
in Ireland having been introduced three days previously, Mr.
Labouchere, speaking in favour of an amendment introduced in his name
to the effect "that no Bill for {168} the Protection of Life and
Property in Ireland will be satisfactory which does not include
protection to the tenant in cases where it can be shown, to the
satisfaction of a Court of Justice, that the tenant's rent is
excessive or that he is unable, owing to temporary circumstances, to
pay it," said that, while he was a genuine supporter of the Prime
Minister, he did not intend to rain down blessings on that
gentleman's head that evening. He found himself occupying a singular
position. He was returned there as a Radical by a very advanced
constituency, and, to his surprise, he found himself almost alone
with his colleague as an advocate of Conservatism in the real, though
not in the party, sense of the word. He was there to defend the
Habeas Corpus. He was ready to admit that Englishmen had many
virtues, but they were somewhat intolerant, and they were curiously
intolerant when any country under their rule ventured to have the
same virtues as themselves. There was nothing they valued so highly
as self-government, and yet, when Ireland asked for self-government
in local matters, they regarded the demand as something monstrous and
intolerable. The Chief Secretary had urged that the Bill must be
passed as quickly as possible on account of outrages! He must
remember that there were such things as standing orders, and that
honourable gentlemen opposite would be able to delay the Bill for a
considerable time.... It was taking a really too Arcadian view of
human nature to suppose that honourable gentlemen opposite would not
use--or even misuse--every standing order of the House to prevent the
passing of such a Bill. The right honourable gentleman seemed to
have thought, in pleading urgency, that the Irish members would act
like the "dilly, dilly ducks" which came to be killed when they were
called. The reports of the outrages had come from magistrates most
of whom were landowners, and from police constables; and they knew in
England how to judge of constables' evidence. (Oh! oh!) He quoted a
return. "Injured persons were Margaret Lydon, Patrick Whalem, and
{169} Bridget Whalem. It appeared that: A dispute arose about the
possession of a small plot of ground, and John Lydon assaulted the
injured persons. Yet, in the very next case, John Lydon appeared as
the injured person, because he was assaulted as the time of the above
dispute by his own wife. This was obviously a little domestic
difference between a husband and his spouse, yet it was converted
into two separate outrages. As regarded cattle maiming, it was no
new thing. Dean Swift jeered at his countrymen on the subject. 'Did
they, like Don Quixote, look on a flock of sheep as an army?'"
Labouchere wound up his speech, after pointing out the danger of the
Chief Secretary's "hideous doctrine of constructive treason" and
animadverting on the idea of making use of secret informers, whom he
regarded as "the lowest, vilest, and most contemptible of the human
race," by stating that the purpose of the Bill was not to suppress
outrages or exclusive dealing, but solely to enable landlords to
collect their rents.[2] Mr. Serjeant Simon retorted in his defence
of the Bill, not quite unjustly perhaps, that Mr. Labouchere's speech
had been more facetious than fair, more humorous than consistent.
Certainly the John Lydon mixed outrage was a hardly representative
specimen of the statistics before the House. The O'Donoghue, on the
other hand, had listened to the speech with great pleasure, and felt
sure it would be received with satisfaction by a larger circle
outside the constituency of Northampton when public opinion in
England and Scotland came to be enlightened on this subject.
Labouchere continued to argue against the Bill in Committee in every
imaginable way. Much of his argument was mere heckling of Mr.
Forster. He was always a little inclined to confuse the floor of the
House with the hustings, a state of mind which sometimes deprived his
speeches of the persuasive value that their argumentative ability
deserved. Every now and then he made a crushing point against the
Government. {170} "The Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt)," he
said, "had incited a prejudice against the Land League by quoting
what the Fenians had done in America. He had read a speech from a
Mr. Devoy, an American Fenian, to the effect that he had contemplated
blowing up the entire Government of this country, most of the towns
in this country and the capital, and, is this monster, the Home
Secretary had asked, to be allowed to say these things without
protest? He had pointed out the terrible consequences of this
speech: how a certain Patrick Stewart immediately subscribed the sum
of one dollar that these intentions might be carried out.... Such
men as Redpath (another American Fenian) and Devoy, the Right
Honourable gentleman told them, would 'come over to Ireland, and the
Bill is intended for those gentlemen.' Surely," pursued Mr.
Labouchere blandly, "the Right Honourable gentleman was an eminent
authority on international law and must be aware that, if these
Americans were to come over to Ireland, and if they were to be taken
up on mere suspicion and put in prison for eighteen months without
being told, or without their Minister in England being told, for what
they were put in prison, we should get, and rightly too, into
considerable difficulty with the American Government. (Sir William
Harcourt: No!) The Right Honourable gentleman said no. Perhaps he
meant that he would get us out of the difficulty. But would it not
have been better to have brought in an Aliens Bill than to suspend
the Habeas Corpus in Ireland? It was a strange thing to suspend the
Habeas Corpus in Ireland, because an American had made a speech in
America."[3] This characteristic speech is a very good specimen of
Labouchere's method in attack. His manner was one of irresponsible
persiflage, stinging and exasperating those of his opponents whom it
failed to amuse,[4] his matter both sound and serious. It would have
been difficult to have summed up {171} Forster's Bill better than
Labouchere did in the following list of "Alleged advantages and real
disadvantages of the Bill." (1) Alleged advantages: (_a_) it would
drive a certain number of crazy Fenians out of Ireland. (_b_) It
would lead to the imprisonment of certain village ruffians who
probably deserve it. (_c_) It would enable landlords to collect
their rents. (2) Disadvantages: (_a_) It would do away with the
useful action of the Land League. (_b_) It would enable the
landlords not only to collect their rents from men who could pay
them, but also to evict from their small holdings men who could
not--the very thing the Land League had been preventing. (_c_) It
would alienate all classes in Ireland from the English connection.
(_d_) It would substitute secret societies for the open society
called the Land League. (_e_) The Government would be playing into
the hands of the Fenians, who would acquire an influence they did not
then possess. Certainly it would have been difficult to prophesy
more accurately what were the actual consequences of the passing of
the Coercion Bill. He concluded his speech on this occasion by
warning the Irish members not to persevere in a policy of
obstruction, both on account of the prejudice it created against them
and on account of the excellence of their cause. Let that cause be
stated fairly and honestly to the English people--let it be allowed
to stand on its own merits. He believed many people in England were
already very much inclined to take the same view as many Irishmen on
Irish matters. There were many points on which the democracy of
England and Ireland ought to unite. He therefore hoped that
honourable gentlemen opposite would not be carried away by the
irritation of the moment. He hated the Coercion Bill as much as they
did, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the Liberals,
not the Conservatives, had done the best for Ireland, and he wound up
with a eulogy in this connection of the "two patron saints of my
political calendar"--Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright.[5]
{172}
The Arms Bill--or the Peace Preservation Bill, as it was called--by
which the Coercion Bill was promptly followed, was another target for
Mr. Labouchere's darts. He pointed out the suspicious nature of the
support given by the Opposition to the Government, which delayed the
introduction of Liberal legislation for England and widened the
breach between the Liberal party and the Irish.
Perhaps the most serious and immediate consequence of the Coercion
Act was the arrest of Parnell, which took place on October 13. This
event, which caused frenzied joy in England, was one of Forster's
worst mistakes in Ireland. The Land League at once issued a "No
rent" manifesto. It was signed by Parnell, Dillon, Sexton, and
Brennan, who were all in Kilmainham Gaol, and Egan, the treasurer of
the League at Paris. Forster, not sorry to be able to do so,
retorted by proclaiming the League an illegal association, the
legality of which proceeding was doubtful, according to Lord
Eversley. It had been impossible to convict the League of a
violation of the law and the Coercion Act contained no clause
authorising its suppression. On the other hand, the "No rent"
manifesto was also an obvious blunder. The clergy denounced it from
every altar in Ireland, as indeed they could hardly help doing, and
only in the west, where large bodies of the poorer tenants were
already refusing to pay their rents without deduction, did it take
effect. The agrarian war was consequently intensified, and English
opinion greatly incensed. The local heads of the League were
arrested all over the disturbed areas, and the Coercion Act pressed
into the service of landlords to enable them to collect their rents,
no matter how excessive they might be. Evictions were naturally
multiplied. Most serious consequence of all--and directly traceable
to the ill-advised arrest of Parnell and the leaders of the Land
League--secret societies, with their inevitable accompaniment of
crime and outrage, began to take the place of open and, at least
relatively, constitutional agitation. Parnell {173} had been asked
by an admirer, who would take his place in case of his arrest.
"Captain Moonlight will take my place," was his grim reply. Captain
Moonlight did so. During the months preceding the passing of the
Coercion Act there were seven homicides, twenty-one cases of firing
at the person, and sixty-two of firing into dwellings.
The work of the suppressed Land League was carried on by the Ladies'
Land League under the presidency of Parnell's sister. The ladies, if
they did not actually stimulate crime, did little to suppress it.
When Parnell eventually emerged from Kilmainham, he was furious with
them, both on account of their policy and their extravagance.
Outrages had increased, and they had spent £70,000 during the seven
months of his incarceration!
The Coercion Act had evidently failed to produce the results
expected. Nevertheless, Forster and Lord Cowper could think of
nothing but more coercion. Gladstone refused to accede to their
proposals. He had never liked coercion himself, and his hands were
strengthened by the support of Chamberlain in the Cabinet, who was
energetically backed in the press by John Morley, then editing the
_Pall Mall Gazette_. Meanwhile Parnell, realising that his prolonged
detention at Kilmainham was damaging his cause, entered into
negotiations with the Government by means of Captain O'Shea; and
although Mr. Gladstone was, no doubt, literally truthful in denying
the existence of any formal "treaty," an understanding was reached
between the Government and the Irish leader. The main source of
unrest and disorder in the country was, according to Parnell, the
smaller tenants, some 100,000 in number, who were utterly unable to
pay the arrears of rent due from them, and were, in consequence,
liable at any moment to eviction. The Government must deal in a
generous and statesmanlike way with the lot of these unhappy people.
Parnell, if free to resume an effective leadership, would be able to
do much to curb the criminal forces set in motion by the secret
societies. {174} On May 2, Parnell and his companions were released
from Kilmainham, and Forster and Lord Cowper at once resigned.
Forster made his statement in the House on May 4. It was to the
effect that the state of the country did not justify the release of
Parnell without a new Coercion Act. Just as he had uttered the
following words, "There are two warrants which I signed in regard to
the member for the City of Cork--" Parnell entered the House. It was
a dramatic scene. Deafening cheers broke from the Irish benches,
drowning Forster's voice and preventing the conclusion of the
sentence from being heard. Parnell quickly surveyed the situation,
and, bowing to the Speaker, passed "with head erect and measured
tread to his place, the victor of the House."
Mr. Gladstone answered Forster, saying that the circumstances which
had warranted Parnell's arrest no longer existed, and that "he had an
assurance that if the Government dealt with the arrears question, the
three members released would range themselves on the side of law and
order." Parnell then intervened, saying that he had in no way
suggested any bargain with the Prime Minister, but that there could
be no doubt that a settlement of the arrears question would have an
enormous effect in the restoration of law and order, and would take
away the last excuse for outrage.
Irish prospects had not looked brighter in the House for many a year,
but, unfortunately, only two days after the memorable afternoon on
which Mr. Gladstone dissociated himself from his sometime Irish
Minister and threw himself into Parnell's arms, England was horrified
by a terrible tragedy. Lord Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish had
been appointed to the vacant offices of Lord Cowper and Mr. Forster.
The new Chief Secretary and Mr. Burke, permanent Under-Secretary,
were murdered close to the Vice-regal Lodge in Phœnix Park, on the
evening following Lord Spencer's state entry into Dublin. Mr.
O'Brien, in his _Life of Parnell_, says that "Cavendish was killed
simply {175} through the accident of his being with Mr. Burke, whose
death was the real object of the assassins."[6] No one was more
overwhelmed by the tragedy than Parnell himself. "How can I," he
said, "carry on a public agitation if I am stabbed in the back in
this way?"
The House met on the 8th, and Parnell made a short, straightforward
speech, condemning the outrages in unqualified terms. He also
expressed the fear that the Government would feel themselves obliged,
under the circumstances, to revert to coercion. His fear was
justified, and on May 11, the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt,
introduced a Crimes Bill, based on previous suggestions of Lord
Cowper.
It is easy to see now that this proceeding was a mistake. It should
have been evident to any unbiassed observer that, far from Parnell
and the League being responsible for outrages, whether agrarian or
political, it was during the imprisonment of Parnell and after the
dissolution of the League that they increased and finally led up to
the tragedy of Phœnix Park. But the Government had to count with
English opinion, which was exasperated by the murder of Burke and
Cavendish almost to the point of hysteria. To most English people
Ireland was little more than a geographical expression; in so far as
it connoted anything else, it bored and disgusted them. Parnell
indicated the true inwardness of Mr. Gladstone's altered attitude in
a speech on May 20, in which he said: "I regret that the event in
Phœnix Park has prevented him (Mr. Gladstone) continuing the
course of conciliation that we had expected from him. I regret that,
owing to the exigencies of his party, of his position in the country,
he has felt himself compelled to turn from that course of
conciliation and concession into the horrible paths of coercion."
Labouchere took Mr. Parnell's view of the situation, and argued with
much zest against the worst features of the Crimes Bill. Speaking on
May 18, on the second reading, {176} he said that it was clear from
the fact that the House was now asked to pass a remedial measure (the
Arrears Bill) and a Coercion Bill that the former policy of the
Government had been a failure.
But the present Coercion Bill erred precisely in the same direction
that the other had done, because it was not aimed solely at outrage,
but was directed at honourable members sitting opposite. In fact he
(Mr. Labouchere) could see the trail of the honourable member for
Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and of his policy in this measure. The
Government ought to try to get the majority of the Irish people on
their side to fight with them against outrage. Was this Bill likely
to enlist the sympathies of the Irish members? Mr. Labouchere
expressed the principle of his objection to the Bill by saying that
as long as political and criminal elements were mixed up in the Bill
he could not vote for it. He objected particularly to the following
features. The "intimidation clause" went too far, being directed
against boycotting, which, although it had its bad features, was, as
a system of exclusive trading, legitimate. He considered it
"monstrous" that the authorities should have power to detain any
person out after sunset. He objected to the clause dealing with the
press, and he thought that three years was too long a period for the
Bill to remain in force. Who could say who might be Lord-Lieutenant
in three years? He could not imagine anything more horrible than
that, say, the right honourable gentleman the member for North
Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) should be invested with the powers of
the Bill. The consequence would perhaps be, that if the Prime
Minister went over to Ireland, he would be arrested and put into
prison. His admiration for the Prime Minister was increasing, but
all his colleagues were not as well minded as himself. There seemed
to be two currents in the cabinet-- some members who desired to do
all they could for Ireland being baulked by those of their colleagues
called Whigs.[7] {177} Mr. Labouchere worked out of Parliament, as
well as in, for the improvement of the Bill. He was incessantly
negotiating both with the Government and the Irish leaders to defeat
what he felt to be its impossible features and to modify the
remaining ones in the direction of conciliation. He had written two
days before the speech just mentioned to Mr. Chamberlain as follows:
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, May 16, 1882.
DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I enclose Bill with Healy's amendments. He says
that what he means in the suggested changes in the Intimidation
Clause is, that only a person who actually threatens a person with
injury should come under the provisions of the Bill. What he objects
to is constructive intimidation.
I went through the Bill thus amended with Parnell. He agrees with
them in the main, but would like to have the opinion of a lawyer with
regard to them. Like Healy, his chief objection is to constructive
intimidation. He says that if the Government will meet him and his
party in the conciliatory spirit of the amendments, he will promise
that the opposition to the Bill shall be conducted on honest
Parliamentary lines, and that there shall be no abstention. He
specially urges that the Bill shall only be in operation until the
close of next session; he puts this on two grounds: (1) That the
Tories may possibly come in at the end of that time. (2) That he may
be able to advise the Irish to be quiet in the hopes of no renewal of
the Bill.
He says that he is in a very difficult position between the
Government and the secret societies. The latter, he says, are more
numerous than are supposed; that most of those connected with them
only wish to be let alone, but that he greatly fears that if they are
disgusted they will commit outrages. The late murders, he seems to
think, were, when agrarian, the acts of men who had a grudge against
a particular individual, and, when political, the acts of skirmishers
from America. I really think that he is most anxious to be able to
support the Government; he fully admits that a Bill is necessary on
account of English opinion, but he does not wish to have it applied
to himself, and he doubts whether it will be really effectual against
the outrage mongers.
{178}
Healy goes so far as to say that if the Prime Minister or you were to
administer the Bill it would do no harm, and that he is not greatly
afraid of it in the hands of Lord Spencer, but that it would be a
monstrous weapon of oppression in the hands of Jim Lowther. I am
sure that with conciliation you can now, for the first time, get the
Parnellites on your side.
This letter Mr. Chamberlain sent to Mr. Gladstone, promising to bring
the draft of the Bill to the House that afternoon.
Mr. Labouchere continued to Mr. Chamberlain on the following day:
He (Healy) points out that even the Conservative newspapers are
against the Newspaper Clause, and he wants it made applicable only to
newspapers printed out of Ireland. With regard to the Search Clause,
he will make a fight for nominative warrants, and he also wants an
amendment securing an indemnity in case of injury done to property by
the searchers. He points out that there ought to be a right of
appeal from the County Court Judge to the Queen's Bench. With
respect to the Intimidation Clause, he seems to approve of cutting
out the definition clause, but is very anxious for some restriction
in the terms of the clause, so that there may be no crime of
constructive intimidation.
There is to be a private meeting at one to-morrow of himself,
Parnell, T. P. O'Connor, and Sexton. He will say to them that he
thinks that Government will agree to the County Court Judges and to
the period of the Bill being shortened. He will, however, before the
meeting, go further into details as regards the position with
Parnell. He is most desirous that there should be no plea for saying
that there is a bargain of any kind. I have told him that, in the
Prime Minister, they have a friend, but that they must take into
consideration his position as the leader of a Government where
possibly all are not as well disposed, and as the head of a country
where there is a popular outcry for stringent measures.
On May 22, he wrote again, after a further interview with Parnell:
{179}
This is about the sum total of what Parnell took an hour to tell me.
He does not in the least complain of you, and really is most anxious
to get on with the Government if possible. He wants me to let him
know as soon as possible to-morrow whether he is to consider that
there is to be no concession.
Parnell says: That the Arrears Bill has been very well received in
Ireland, and that, if it be followed by one making certain
modifications of no very important character in the Land Bill, he is
convinced that the situation will greatly improve, provided that
concessions be made in the Coercion Bill.
He suggests that the Coercion and the Arrears Bill move forward _pari
passu_, and that only small progress be made with the Coercion Bill
before Whitsuntide, in order to give time for the passions to cool,
and for persons to see by experience that the condition of Ireland is
not so bad as is supposed.
If urgency is to be voted on the Coercion Bill, he asks that it
should be voted by a simple majority, and that it should be stated
that it will be used whenever any Legislative measures in regard to
Ireland are brought forward during the Session and obstructed by the
Conservatives.
He greatly regrets the speech of Davitt, but says that he (Davitt)
has no intention to go to Ireland, and that his land scheme is a
little fad of his own.
He says that he is most anxious for a _modus vivendi_, and believes
that if the present opportunity for establishing one be let pass, it
is not likely to recur. He and his friends, he says, are incurring
the serious risk of assassination in their efforts to bring it about,
and he thinks that his suggestions ought to be judged on their
merits, but that, with the Coercion Act as it is, there will be so
much anger and ill-feeling in Ireland, that all alliance with the
Liberal party will be impossible.
He points out, not as a matter of bargain, but as a fact, that the
Liberals may--if only there be concessions on the Coercion Bill, and
a few modifications in the Land Bill--count on the Irish vote, as
against the Conservatives, and suggests that this will make the
Government absolutely safe, even though there be Whig defections.
Mr. Labouchere continued, as will be seen by the following {180}
letters to Mr. Chamberlain, to press the views of the Irish leaders
upon the Government.
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 3, 1882.
DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--We have done our best during your absence to hold
our own against Harcourt. The only important issue yet raised has
been the exclusion of treason and treason felony from the Bill.
On Thursday I went to Grosvenor from Parnell to ask that the debate
should be adjourned. Gladstone said that Parnell ought to consider
that after Harcourt's "no surrender" speech the Government would not
be able to give in the next day, and that the division if taken would
be larger on Thursday than on Friday, and that the matter might be
reconsidered in Report. I said that if Government would give any
private assurance, or if Gladstone would say in the House, that the
exclusion would be favourably considered on Report, he could have the
division at once. This latter he was afraid to do, for Harcourt, as
sulky as a bear, was glaring at him. He therefore agreed to consent
"with regret" to the adjournment. When, however, Parnell moved it,
our idiots and the Conservatives shouted so loudly "no," that a
division had to be taken. Then Healy moved it, on which Gladstone
did hint at the Report, but said nothing definite, except that it
would be impossible to consult at once with the Irish Executive. The
next day, Grosvenor wrote to me to say that he spoke without
prejudice and held out no hope, but would I call "Parnell's attention
to one sentence in one of Gladstone's concluding speeches, which was
to the effect that it was impossible to call the attention of the
Irish Government to the question of omitting treason and treason
felony, between last night and this day, and therefore it would be
better to bring up the question again on Report. Please ask Parnell
to consider this fact."
On Friday morning the Irish held a meeting, and they agreed to keep
what they did secret, decided that if treason were retained, at least
treason felony should be eliminated.
On the House meeting Trevelyan tackled me, and said: "I am opposed to
the insertion of treason and treason felony, and {181} I am disposed
to make large concessions. You know that I am a person of strong
will. I now understand the Bill, and you will see how I shall act."
Grosvenor also said that I need not believe him, as he quite agreed
with me, but that Harcourt was the difficulty. I asked him whether
he would agree that if Lord Spencer said that treason and treason
felony were not needed, they should be struck out on Report. He
replied that the onus could not be thrown on Spencer, but that it
must be the act of the Cabinet.
So after seeing Parnell it was agreed that the division should be
taken at 7.30.
Why Parnell is making such a fight over this, and will make a fight
over the Intimidation Clause, is that unless concession be made, he
will find it difficult to hold his own. Egan, he says, wants to
carry on the agitation from Paris, in which case it will be illegal;
he wants to carry it on in Dublin, in which case it will be legal.
If concessions are made he will have his way; if not, Egan will
remain the master in Paris.
Grosvenor quite admits that it is most desirable to aid Parnell to
remain leader.
Parnell says:
"I ask, in order to put an end definitely to the land agitation: that
a clause should be introduced into the Arrears Bill, allowing small
tenants in the Land Court to pay on Griffiths' valuation until their
cases are decided: that there should be an expansion of the Bright
Clauses next year if not this; and that a Royal Commission be
appointed to keep the agricultural labourers quiet by taking
evidence. Then I propose to ask for a fair and reasonable measure of
local self-government, such as an English Government can grant," and
he assures me that in all questions between me and the Conservatives
and the Liberals, the latter shall have the Irish vote. I believe
that he is perfectly sincere, and that he is thoroughly frightened by
threats of assassination; indeed he told me that he never went about
without a revolver in his pocket, and even then did not feel safe.
I write you all this for your private information, as you may wish to
know the exact situation at present.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
{182}
REFORM CLUB, June 8, 1882.
DEAR CHAMBERLAIN--Parnell says that it is absolutely necessary that
something should be understood, and that if no concession be made on
the Intimidation Clause, he considers that things revert to where
they were under the Forster regime, and that they will fight until
urgency is voted and then fight on urgency until a _coup d'état_ is
carried out. Allowing for some exaggeration, a simple consideration
of his position towards his party shows that this programme is
necessarily forced upon him.
Surely we have a right to see the clause as Government will agree to
it, before passing a portion of it.
I believe that this would be agreed to: that intimidation shall mean
any threats, etc., to violence, any boycotting which involves danger
such, for instance, as a doctor refusing to attend a sick man, or a
refusal to supply the necessaries of life, and any specific act that
is set out in the Bill, but _nothing more_.
C. Russell, Bryce, and Davy are trying their hands at this and hope
to be able to frame a clause on these lines. You will no doubt see
that, if something cannot be done to-morrow, the fat will be in the
fire. Would it not therefore be well to leave the clause until the
other clauses are passed, and then bring it on?--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 9, 1882.
DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I wrote you a line in a great hurry last night,
but after the House had adjourned I again saw Parnell.
He is most anxious that Mr. Gladstone should not think that
obstruction arises from any ill-feeling towards him, and that he does
not, in his own interests, wish it to be thought that anything in the
nature of a bargain is to be made.
But he wants Mr. Gladstone to know facts. He says that there are two
sections in the Land League. The funds of the League are at Paris,
where a large sum is invested in securities. Egan wishes to trench
on these securities, but Parnell and Davitt have been able to stop
this, and at present nothing is expended but the weekly
contributions. Egan and his section of the League are furious at the
idea of the League being converted into a moderate tenant right
Association, with its headquarters {183} in Dublin. This he desires.
Every day the ultras of his party are telling him that nothing is
gained by conciliation. If the Bill is to be passed in its present
shape, he declares that neither he nor his friends can have anything
to do with a moderate policy, and, as they absolutely decline to
associate themselves with Egan and his desperate courses, they must
withdraw.
The result, he says, will be that the Fenians will be masters of the
situation, that they will have funds, and that there will be
assassinations and outrages all over Ireland. So soon as he
withdraws, he considers that his own life will not be worth a day's
purchase.
If he is able to head the tenant right Association, he considers that
he can crush out the Fenians--more especially if something is done in
the Arrears Bill to meet the difficulty of the small tenants, who are
waiting for their cases to be decided on in the Land Courts, being
evicted, before their cases come on, for non-payment of excessive
rents. If nothing be done in this matter, and if he be allowed to
have his tenant right Association, this he says will be his great
difficulty next winter. He wishes Mr. Gladstone to observe that
Davitt has not made any speeches in Ireland, and he says that he
obtained this pledge from him in order to show the result of
conciliation. He disagrees entirely with Davitt's "nationalisation"
of land scheme, and says that the Irish tenants do not themselves
desire it.
He again suggests whether it would not be possible to insert
limitations in the Intimidation Clause? And he would suggest that,
if possible, it would be desirable to leave the clause as it stands,
without any definition section, and to say that, as there is no
desire to prevent an orderly and legal tenant right Association,
additions will be made to the clause on Report, defining all this.
As regards the tribunal, he hopes that Mr. Gladstone will agree to a
proviso, making the Court consist of a magistrate and a barrister.
This he thinks will render it more easy to accept the intimidation
clause with the limitations that he suggests, for many of the
resident magistrates are half-pay captains, who have been appointed
by interest, and who are hand in glove with the landlords, and some
of them are certain to act foolishly.
If this be accepted, if unlawful associations are made there {184}
which the Lord Lieutenant declares to be unlawful; if it be made a
crime to not attend an unlawful assembly, but to riot at, or to
refuse to retire if called upon to do so from an unlawful assembly, I
do not think that he attaches very great importance to the duration
of the Act, although he still says that he does, but he would be
satisfied if the duration of the Act were for three years with the
proviso that the Lord Lieutenant has to prolong it (if it is
prolonged) by a proclamation at the end of each year. He is anxious
for this, because he thinks that he could do much for the cause of
law and order, if he were able to point out that possibly the Act
would not run for the whole three years, if the Irish are quiet and
peaceable.
His main anxiety at the present moment seems to be, that Mr.
Gladstone should understand the position of the Land League and of
its leaders. He wishes most sincerely to fight with the Government
against all outrages, and he complains that his good intentions are
met every moment by a _non possumus_ of lawyers, who seem to regard
it as a matter of _amour propre_ not to listen to him, and he says
(and I am sure he believes it) that the result will be murders and
outrages which will end in martial law.--Yours truly, H. LABOUCHERE.
P.S.--With regard to supply, he says that he thinks it a little hard,
that he should be asked not to obstruct one Bill, because the
Conservatives will obstruct another, and he suggests that Supply
might be taken before the Report on the Bill now under discussion,
with some sort of understanding that the Irish would not put down
notices on going into Committee of Supply. But on this matter, he
says that he is certain that if Mr. Gladstone will fairly look into
his suggestions, he will see their force, and he still hopes that all
obstruction, etc., etc., may be avoided.
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 10, 1882.
DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--As it seems to be understood that Harcourt had
stated in the House his readiness to accept the amendment which I
gave you yesterday, Healy has put it down.
As regards "unlawful," which was negatived last night, I explained to
Healy that it was impossible to make the limitation on account of
legal and technical difficulties, and he fully accepted this
explanation.
{185}
With regard to the two limitations which stand in Parnell's name, and
which they ask for, I told Healy that the wording of the limitations
could not be used, as it would have a bad effect to say in an Act
that the non-payment of rent is not an offence. To this he assented,
and is quite ready to accept any words, taken from the Act of '75 or
from anywhere else, which will cover the limitations. Would it not
be as well to have the words ready, and to let Parnell have them, or
at least to be ready with the substituted words when Parnell's
amendment comes on?
There is a clause about exclusive dealing. When the suggestions
which I submitted to you were being discussed by Parnell and Healy,
they were very anxious to include Davy's amendment in regard to
exclusive dealing, substituting for "dealing with"--"buying," by
which they would have excluded a refusal to buy from Boycotting. I
got them to say that this was not to be pressed if Government
declined to accept the amendment, so I did not trouble you with it.
Late last evening Parnell wanted to insist on it, so I appealed to
Healy. He said that they were bound not to insist on more than had
been submitted to you, as this would not be honourable, and therefore
all trouble on this head is avoided.
Of course they will in the House divide on some amendment in regard
to exclusive dealing, as a protest, and they may make one or two
speeches, but there will be no obstruction, and I see no reason why
the Bill should not be through Committee (notwithstanding Goschen's
gloomy prognostications) in a few days.
It would, I think, very much tend to aid matters if Harcourt could in
the course of discussion state, that in all cases a barrister will
sit with a residential magistrate. He has already said that there
will be an appeal to Quarter Sessions, which in Ireland means an
appeal to the County Court Judge. But some of the residential
magistrates are very foolish persons, and all are regarded as men in
the landlords' camp.
Also, is it not possible to arrive at some clear definition as to
what is an unlawful association? Parnell says that it is left now to
any residential magistrate to decide the matter. He suggests that
only such associations shall be unlawful, for the purpose of the Act,
which are proclaimed as such by the Lord Lieutenant. {186} But
provided that there be a clear definition, he does not care for any
particular wording.
Parnell and Healy request me to say that they are very grateful to
Mr. Gladstone for meeting them half-way, and they seem only now
anxious about "treason felony." As Herschell told me that he thinks
everything necessary will be covered by the word "treason," I hope
that this matter will also be settled satisfactorily.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
P.S.--Parnell would not like any one but you and Mr. Gladstone to
know about his dispute with Egan, and the embargo on the League
funds, except in a very general way.
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 24, 1882.
DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I saw Parnell, and spoke to him as you wished.
His answer is practically this:
"I acknowledge that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain have acted
fairly, and so far as I can I should always be ready to meet their
wishes. But I deny that we have obtained the concessions that we
expected. I am not prepared to go back to Ireland and engage in
bringing the agitation within constitutional limits, on the mere
chance of Lord Spencer not arresting me. The Fenians want one thing:
the Ladies' League another: the people in Paris (Egan) another: and I
another. Therefore I shall limit my action to Parliament and leave
the Government and the Fenians to fight it out in Ireland. The
Cabinet do not seem to realise that the Crimes Bill is a very complex
one, and very loosely drawn up. There has been no obstruction in the
proper sense of the word, although I admit that the Irish have
repeated again and again the same arguments on amendments. But this
I cannot help, unless I tell them that they will get something by
holding their tongues. When the Conservatives threatened obstruction
on Procedure, this was met by telling them that the majority
resolution would not be pressed if they would facilitate business.
Why should not the same arrangement be made with us? Let us know
what amendments will be accepted in future. I am most anxious to
carry out what I understood was the contemplated policy when I was
released from {187} Kilmainham, and to work with the Government in
bringing the active phase of Irish agitation to a close. But this I
cannot do if I am suspected of ulterior objects, and if I cannot show
that something is gained for my party."
He then suggested that if the Government would take their November
Session for alterations in the Land Act, he would do his best to
facilitate business now in regard to the Crimes, and the Arrears
Bill, and the Procedure Resolutions, provided that the majority
Resolution were maintained.
I asked him what he really wanted under the term of alterations in
the Land Act?
He said: "To go back to the system of reductions in rent which was
acted on before the Stuart Donleathcase, and to extend the Bright
clauses in the sense of W. H. Smith's resolution."
Finally, I again urged him to remember what Mr. Gladstone and you had
done for him already, and to see whether he could not manage to bring
the Committee Stage of the Bill to an end within a reasonable time.
On Monday, Sexton proposes to cut Chaplin out by bringing forward a
resolution about the suspects. Parnell says that this is absolutely
necessary, because he and his friends are blamed for only caring for
their own release. But Sexton will say that he only does this,
because it is a choice between his resolution and Chaplin's, and
there will be no talking to hinder the Government from getting their
money, or with the object of obstructing.
I have got to go to Northampton on Monday, so I shall not be in the
House until late.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
When the Crimes Act was finally passed, Mr. Labouchere expressed
himself in _Truth_ as follows:
When Mr. Parnell was released from Kilmainham, it was understood that
the Land Act would be amended, that evictions would be stopped by an
Arrears Bill, and that the leaders of the land movement would be
permitted to agitate within fair legal limits in favour of the
political and social changes desired by their countrymen. Had this
understanding been carried out, the breach between the Parnellites
and the Liberals would have been healed.
{188}
Mr. Forster was the first to perceive that as a result of a _modus
vivendi_ he would have to disappear with his policy of coercion. He
therefore resigned, in the hope that this would render it impossible
to carry out the Kilmainham compact. Then followed the murder of
Lord Frederick Cavendish. The horror which this created was
skilfully used by the Whigs in the Cabinet, and they succeeded in
promoting a Bill, not so much aimed at outrages as at the Kilmainham
compact. This Bill is a complete codification of arbitrary rule. It
places the lives, liberties, and property of the Irish in the hands
of the Executive, and seeks to suppress every species of political
agitation.
Unfortunately, Mr. Trevelyan was awaiting his re-election when it was
introduced, and it was left to Sir William Harcourt to carry it
through the House of Commons. Of course, as Sir William is the
head-centre of the Whigs, he delighted in his task. Not only did he
refuse every modification of the Bill, except those which were
rendered absolutely necessary by the absurd way in which it was
drawn, but almost every day he envenomed discussion by transpontine
outbursts against the Irish members. I do not blame him. I blame no
one who plays his cards to his own best advantage. This is human
nature. Sir William knew that if the English Radicals and the Irish
were allied, he and his Whigs would lose all influence, whilst of
Ireland he knew absolutely nothing.
The result, therefore, has been that the Whigs triumph, and that
several weeks have been wasted in passing a Bill which will do
nothing to hinder outrages, but which will simply increase the
ill-feeling between England and Ireland.
If the leaders of the land movement are wise, they will not endeavour
to hold meetings. They should declare that public meeting has been
rendered impossible by the Crimes Act; and they should, as an act of
charity, collect funds to aid all who have been evicted, no matter
from what cause, and thus band the Irish tenants together in a
friendly society. At the same time, they should devote all their
energies to increase their numbers in the next Parliament, and they
should submit test questions to every Liberal standing for an English
constituency where there are Irish voters, and make these votes
dependent upon the manner in which the questions are answered. If
Mr. Parnell can {189} hold the balance in Parliament between the
rival aspirants for the Treasury Bench, he may be certain that any
just demand that he may make will be granted. The democracy of
England and Ireland, with Mr. Gladstone at their head, would make
short work of Conservative and Whig obstructive trash. The landlords
in Ireland and the Whigs in England stand in the way of peace and
tranquillity in the former island, and of mutual good feeling in
both.[8]
To quote Mr. Labouchere's views on Ireland during the dark and gloomy
period which followed the introduction of the Prevention of Crimes
Bill is to quote Mr. Chamberlain's, for, as is seen by their constant
correspondence, the two were one in their views on Irish discontent.
Mr. Chamberlain made a speech at Swansea in February, 1883, in which
he asked his audience how long they supposed Englishmen with their
free institutions would tolerate the existence of an Irish Poland so
near to their own shores. Was separation the only alternative? He
thought not. Separation, in his opinion, would "jeopardise the
security of this country, and would be fatal to the prosperity and
happiness of Ireland." He, like Labouchere, was prepared to relax
the bond, even by conceding what was then known as Home Rule, which
would not include an independent Parliament or a separate
executive.[9]
However, in 1883 and 1884, Englishmen had other things to occupy
their minds than the rights and wrongs of Ireland. In order to
follow the political career of Mr. Labouchere we must for a time
leave the Irish question and consider "the policy of Gladstone's
Government in Egypt."
[1] _Northampton Mercury_, March 27, 1880.
[2] _Hansard_, Jan. 27, 1881, vol. 257.
[3] _Hansard_, Feb. 25, 1881, vol. 258.
[4] To their credit, be it said, they generally were amused.
[5] _Hansard_. Feb. 25, 1881, vol. 258.
[6] R. Barry O'Brien, _Life of Parnell_.
[7] _Hansard_, May 14, 1881.
[8] _Truth_, July 6, 1882.
[9] S. H. Jeyes, _Mr. Chamberlain_.
{190}