IN OPPOSITION
(JUNE, 1885--DECEMBER, 1885)
Mr. Labouchere was not only a zealous friend and advocate of the
Irish members in Parliament, but a variety of circumstances conspired
with his own aptitudes to constitute him an unofficial ambassador
between conflicting parties in the House, and, in particular, between
the Liberal Cabinet and the Nationalist leader. "His real
influence," wrote Sir Henry Lucy recently, "was exercised beyond the
range of the Speaker's eye. Nothing pleased him more than being
engaged in the lobby, the smoking-room,[1] or a remote corner of the
corridors, working out some little plot. By conviction a thorough
Radical, such was the catholicity of his nature that he was on terms
of personal intimacy with leaders of every section of party, not
excepting those who sat on the Treasury Bench. He was one of the few
men--perhaps the only man--whom Parnell treated with an approach to
confidence. He watched the growth of the Fourth Party with something
like paternal interest. Lord Randolph Churchill and he were
inseparable. In these various episodes and connections he delighted
to play the part of the friendly broker."[2] In this way, far more
effectively than by formal speech or resolution, though here too
{251} he was untiring in the fight, he was able to use what is called
"the personal factor in politics." And in his case the personal
factor was no light weight. His extreme opinions, in which he had
never wavered since the days when, as a young man, he had scornfully
declined the succession to his uncle's peerage, secured him the
confidence both of the Irish and of the left wing of the Liberals,
while, by birth, education, and habit of life, he was the welcome
intimate of men who sat on the other side of the House. Eton,
Trinity, and the diplomatic service were an unusual training for an
ultra-Radical and gave an attractive flavour of sacrilege to his
views. No one appreciated this circumstance more than he did
himself, and certainly no one could have put it out to better
interest.
On June 8, 1885, a coalition of Tories and Irish defeated the
Government by a majority of twelve. The occasion was an amendment
moved by Sir Michael Hicks Beach during the second reading of the
Budget Bill, condemning the increase of beer and spirit duties
proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The combination between
the Opposition and the Irish was due to information having been given
by one of the Opposition leaders to the Irish party to the effect
that the Tories, if returned to power, would not renew the Coercion
Act, which would automatically expire in the following August.[3]
Mr. Gladstone resigned the next day, and, after some delay, Lord
Salisbury accepted office and formed his first administration. The
new Viceroy, Lord Carnarvon, following the precedents of Lord
Mulgrave in 1837 and Lord Clarendon in 1850, himself made the
declaration of the Irish policy of the new Government. That policy
was a complete renunciation of coercion. Ireland was to be governed
by the ordinary law of the land. "My Lords, I do not believe that
with honesty and single-mindedness of purpose on one hand, and with
the willingness of the Irish people on the other, it is hopeless to
look for some satisfactory {252} solution of this terrible question.
My Lords, these I believe to be the views and opinions of my
colleagues." The "honesty and single-mindedness" of this piece of
tactics were severely criticised by Mr. Chamberlain. "A strategic
movement of that kind executed in opposition to the notorious
convictions of the men who effected it, carried out for party
purposes and party purposes alone, is the most flagrant instance of
political dishonesty this country has ever known."
The Irish party were much impressed by the advances of the
Conservatives, and when Lord Carnarvon arranged to meet Parnell in
conversation on Irish affairs, in the course of which they discussed
whether "some plan of constituting a Parliament in Dublin, short of
the repeal of the Union, might not be devised and prove acceptable to
Ireland,"[4] Parnell may be excused for having thought that salvation
was to come from the Tories. Mr. Gladstone had not yet pronounced
himself. The Liberal Government had imprisoned the Irish leader; its
record in Ireland, with the exception of the Arrears Bill, was summed
up in the word coercion. Liberal politicians were naturally upset at
the new turn of events. Mr. Healy had written on May 25 to Mr.
Labouchere saying that "apart from coercion, it was the policy of the
Irish party to equalise all Liberals and Tories as much as possible
_pour nous faire valoir_, so that the matter will have to be looked
at by us apart from the renewal of coercion, though of course, I
imagine, if we thought we could trust the Liberals to avoid obnoxious
legislation and to stick to reform, we should support them strongly.
But how can we have any guarantee of the kind?" Mr. Healy continues
further on in the letter: "I think a little time in the cool of
Opposition would do your party a world of good.... If we supported
your party next time, the Lords would throw out or render worthless
any Bill the Commons passed, and time has proved that the Whigs won't
face the Lords. If that institution were abolished we should be
great fools not {253} to be friendlier with the Liberals, but they
are almost powerless to help us, even if they were sincere, so long
as the Lords are all-powerful." In a letter to Mr. Labouchere, dated
July 18, Mr. Chamberlain made the following significant statement as
to his feeling in the matter:
The present attitude of the Irish leaders is not at all encouraging
to Radicals. They take no account whatever of our difficulties or of
the extent to which we have, in the past, supported Irish claims, and
now that a Tory Government is in office they are ready to accept from
them with joy and gratitude the merest crumbs of consolation, while
they reject with scorn and contumely the offers of further
legislation which we have made. I think, under these circumstances,
we must stand aside for the present. The Irish Members "must stew in
their juice" with the Tories until they find out their mistake.
Whether the support of the Radicals will still be forthcoming is a
question. My information from the country satisfies me that further
concessions to Irish opinion are not at all popular even with our
Radical constituents, and, under all the circumstances, I am not
unwilling to keep silence for a time and await the course of events.
The Parnellites, as I understand, cannot count upon two things:
First, on holding the balance after the next General Election. I am
convinced that they are mistaken, and we shall have a majority over
them and the Tories combined.
Secondly, they believe in the readiness of the Tories, under the
stress of party exigency, to make concessions to them in the shape of
Home Rule and otherwise, which even the Radicals are not prepared to
agree to. In this, also, I am convinced they are mistaken. To
whatever lengths Randolph Churchill may be willing to go, his party
will not follow him so far, and, sooner or later, the Parnellites
will find that they have been sold. I believe the experience will be
a healthy one for them and for us.
The situation appealed strongly to Mr. Labouchere, and he took up the
part of the "friendly broker" with zest. {254} On July 22, he saw
Mr. Healy and wrote the following account of his interview to Mr.
Chamberlain:
Healy favoured me to his views during three hours to-day. I told him
that we were sure to win without the Irish, but that if he and his
friends wished for any sort of Home Rule, he must understand that his
only chance was to ally himself with the Radicals and to support you.
I said that I had tried to impress this upon Parnell, but that he
talked rubbish about Grattan's Parliament, and seemed to me to be
thoroughly impractical. Healy said that Parnell in his heart cared
little for the Irish, particularly since a mob ill-treated him in
1880. He regretted to be obliged to admit that personal feeling
actuated his leader's policy at times, but Parnell felt his dignity
offended by his arrest and his present feeling was revenge on
Gladstone and Forster.
I suggested a rebellion. But he said that this was impossible
because the present policy of all Irishmen was hanging together, for
they attributed all their troubles to divided councils. He said that
Parnell is very astute. He generally finds out which way the feeling
is amongst his followers before he suggests anything, but, in one or
two cases, he has put his foot down, when he obtained his way.
I asked him about Davitt. He laughed at the idea of his being of any
use to the Liberals. He is a very difficult man, he said, and a
trouble to Parnell, who would like him to go against us openly, for
this would smash him; he cares neither for Tories nor Radicals. If
Parnell joined the latter he would coquette with the former and vice
versa.
As regards the present situation he said that there never was
anything which could be called a treaty with the Conservatives, but
that there was an understanding that, if they helped the Tories to
turn out the late Government, and generally supported them during the
remainder of the Session, there was to be no coercion. "Churchill
talks to us vaguely about Home Rule, but we do not pay much attention
to this. We are now paying our debt that we have incurred."
According to present arrangements, the Party is to put out a
manifesto calling upon all Irish in England to vote solid for the
Conservative candidates. This policy was adopted, he continued, in
order to hold the balance. {255} I went into figures to show him
that we should win without the Irish, and said that the balance
policy would only end in their tying themselves to a corpse.
He admitted that this was possible, and said that personally his
sympathies were with the Radicals, but that it was impossible to
trust the Liberal party, and to hope that the Liberal party could do
anything even if they wished to, owing to the House of Lords. "No
alliance," I said, "is worth anything which is not based upon mutual
interest. We shall win at the election, but we shall have to count
with the Whigs. The English electors will be indignant at your
conduct, and we shall naturally take our revenge on you for your
supporting the Tories. Now, if you would join us, we should be
strong enough to hold our own against Whigs and Tories. We want your
votes in the House of Commons; you will find that you will do nothing
without ours. What do you say to Chamberlain's scheme of Home Rule
in the _Fortnightly_? He said: "... there are ... some things that I
object to in it, but Chamberlain could not carry it. Even if he got
it through the House of Commons, the Lords would throw it out."[5]
Well, we went on discussing. At last he said: "Can we have any
assurance that Chamberlain's scheme would be one on which a Radical
or Liberal Ministry would stand or fall? Will Gladstone declare for
it?" "What would you do if you could be certain of a big scheme
forming part of the Liberal platform?" I asked. "Our party really is
guided by about six men. What we decide," he said, "the others
accept. I would propose that we do not compromise ourselves with the
Tories, that we should issue no manifesto, leaving Irish electors to
vote as they like. When the plan is put forth in the next
Parliament, we should have to say that it does not go far enough,
etc., but it might merely be a dummy opposition. Whether I could
carry this I don't know, but I think that I could." ... Finally he
said that he would be back at the commencement of August, and that,
if any arrangement could be made, he would do his best to further it.
There are two points in your scheme that he wants modified, and these
I will explain to you when I see you at the House, and {256} you have
a moment's spare time. He told me to tell you that those who wished
that you should be ill received in Ireland would not have their way,
and that you may count on a perfectly friendly reception.
This letter is long, but I thought that you would like to know
Healy's ideas, as he is by far the most honest and ablest of the
Irishmen.... It is all very well expecting to win the elections, but
the Irish vote is an important factor, and if only we could square
the eighty Irish in the House, and turn them into your supporters,
Whigs and Tories would be dished. Certainly there is no love lost
between the Allies. W. O'Brien, Healy told me, declines to speak to
any of them, regarding them as intriguers with whom they are allied
because of the Coercion Acts.
Mr. Healy wrote again to Mr. Labouchere on August 2, and his letter
concluded with the following decisive words: "Of course, however, I
should be bound by the majority, and would steadfastly carry out
Parnell's policy, whatever it is declared by the Party to be."
On August 11, Parliament was prorogued and politicians soon began the
campaign in the constituencies with a view to the General Election,
which was to take place in November. Lord Salisbury had made the
first bid for the Irish vote in a speech at the Mansion House on July
29, in which he defended Carnarvon's policy as the logical outcome of
the Franchise Act of 1884. On August 24, Parnell made a very
important speech at Dublin, in which he said that the Irish platform
would consist of one plank only--legislative independence. The
English press was roused to vehement denunciation. The _Times_ said
that an Irish Parliament was "impossible." The _Standard_ besought
Whigs and Tories "to present a firm uncompromising front to the rebel
chief." The _Daily Telegraph_ hoped that the House of Commons would
not be seduced or terrified into surrender. The _Manchester
Guardian_ declared that Englishmen would "condemn or punish any party
or any public man who attempted to walk in the path traced by Mr.
Parnell." {257} The _Leeds Mercury_ did not think the question of an
Irish Parliament worth discussing; while the _Daily News_ felt that
Great Britain could only be saved from the tyranny of Mr. Parnell by
a "strong administration composed of advanced Liberals."[6] The
right wing of the Liberals, represented by Lord Hartington, and the
left by Mr. Chamberlain, both protested. Hartington, speaking on
August 2, referred to Parnell's manifesto as "so fatal and
mischievous a proposal." Mr. Chamberlain, speaking at Warrington in
the early days of September, said very definitely: "Speaking for
myself, I say that if these and these alone are the terms on which
Mr. Parnell's support is to be obtained, I will not enter into
competition for it." The veteran leader, for the moment, was silent,
having retired for repose and meditation to Norway. But though he
said nothing himself, he stimulated others to speak. Mr. Barry
O'Brien was approached in August by a well-known English publicist,
who begged him to write some articles on the Irish question of a
"historical and dispassionate nature." The publicist made this
request "at the suggestion of a great man--in fact a very great man."
The very great man was Mr. Gladstone. The first article was
published in November under the title of "Irish Wrongs and English
Remedies." On September 18 Mr. Gladstone issued the famous Hawarden
Manifesto admitting the necessity for Home Rule.
Mr. Labouchere was busy all the autumn trying to get at the various
shades of opinion prevalent among the Irish members. Michael Davitt
was often a thorn in Parnell's side, and the following letter he
wrote to Mr. Labouchere on October 9 is very interesting as
indicating clearly the way in which the two patriots often came into
collision:
There is a general impression among the rank and file of Irish
Nationalists that the G.O.M. will come nearest to Parnell's demand.
There is no English statesman more admired by the {258} mass of the
people, notwithstanding what _United Ireland_ and platform speakers
may say to the contrary. But the priests and bishops would rather
have the Tory party attempt the solution of the Home Rule problem,
owing to the fact of the Conservatives being in favour of
Denominational Education. Men like Healy, strange to say, are also
pro-Tory in this respect, as they fear that if Chamberlain and his
party become dominant, the Radical or democratic element in the Irish
Nationalist movement will be able to settle the Land question on more
advanced lines than those of the Parliamentary party. In fact we
have Tory Nationalists and democratic Nationalists in our ranks, and
the latter would like to see men like Chamberlain, Morley, and
yourself in a position to arrange the Anglo-Irish difficulty.
Parnell's attitude on Protection is absurd. If we had a National
Assembly in Dublin to-morrow, he could not carry a measure in favour
of Protection. Three-fourths of our people live by agriculture, and
these want to export their surplus produce, and would, beyond doubt,
be in favour of Free Trade. Since Parnell's Arklow speech I have
more than once attacked Protection, and, in his recent Wicklow
pronouncement, he considerably modified his views on the question.
How singular that the volunteers in Grattan's time demanded Free
Trade from England, and that England squelched our manufactures
by--Protection!
I wish to Heaven Chamberlain had not made that Warrington "30 to 4"
speech of his. He has played into the hands of the Tory Nationalists.
Have you read my suggestions about a possible _modus vivendi_ between
England and Ireland in the concluding chapter of my book? Parnell
took his One Chamber idea from it. There is no room for a Custom
House in my simple plan, and the Irish people would jump at such a
scheme of self-government, while every soldier now in Ireland might
be removed without any danger to the integrity of the Empire, if such
a plan of settlement were adopted....
No more vivid light can be thrown on Mr. Labouchere's political
activities at this period than is derived from his letters. He was
in communication with all parties. The {259} following selection
from his correspondence illustrates the delicacy and importance of
the negotiations with which he was concerned. The most interesting
of these letters are undoubtedly those exchanged between himself and
Mr. Chamberlain. In them we see clearly enough what was the main
interest of Mr. Labouchere's life at this time. I have already
pointed out how completely he subordinated all other political
questions to his wide-reaching plans for the Radicalisation first of
the Liberal party and secondly of the country. Irish or Egyptian or
South African politics were but pawns in his game. In this
correspondence we see how that dominant interest came to be
identified in his mind with Mr. Chamberlain himself. His frank
admiration of and political devotion to Mr. Chamberlain may be read
between the lines of all his letters. A note that may almost be
called pathetic creeps into the later letters, when he has realised
at last that his glorious schemes are going to be frustrated by the
man on whom he had so completely relied for their success. The
dramatic quality of some of the letters is intense. The angel
wrestles with Jacob and knows it is in vain.
_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Oct. 15, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--A number of us had a long chat with Parnell on
Saturday, and he seems quite confident that whether Liberals or
Tories get in, Home Rule will be granted. I quite agree that, if the
Tories get in with our votes and are kept in by our help, they will
come to terms, but I am not at all so sure that if the Liberals get
in they would have the courage (even if they had the will--did we
oppose them) to face the question.
It is no use discussing our attitude from any other than the
expediency standpoint. We have to make the best fight we can for a
small country, and clearly, if we could put the Tories in and hold
them dependent on us, that is our game. With the House of Lords
behind them and our help, they could play ducks {260} and drakes with
the Union, were they so minded. I confess, however, I am so ignorant
of the English campaign that I don't find myself able to speculate on
the outcome of the ballot box, but I can hardly believe that there is
much prospect of the Liberals being beaten. What you have not
touched upon in any letter to me is the point which always ghosts
me--if the Liberals bring in a bold scheme how will they overcome the
House of Lords? You must remember that the Tories would then raise
the anti-Irish cry and the Lords would be in no unpopular position in
rejecting a scheme which they would allege meant dismemberment. Of
course, if the Liberals then promised to dissolve, it is hard to
believe that with our support they would not win, but it must be
remembered that Liberals are not united in our favour, and though Mr.
Gladstone could keep them together, yet men like Hartington and
Harcourt would secretly sympathise with the Tories, and would
certainly not show enthusiasm in rallying the constituencies on an
Irish cry. I don't believe a bit in principle being of any account
with English parties. Look at the way Chamberlain spoke of Ireland
when he was baulked of coming over. Read--to take a minor
creature--Osborne Morgan's speeches. Mr. Gladstone is the only one
who has shown no bitterness and has kept the controversy in what the
Germans call the _heitern regionen wo die reinen formen wohnen_. Of
course I admit that we have given great cause for bitterness, but I
maintain that we could not have fought successfully in any other
style, whereas the English, with their bayonets to rely on, need not
grudge us Billingsgate--though certainly we have not been allowed the
exclusive use of this feeble weapon.
I was glad to read Childers' speech, which produced an excellent
impression here by its moderation and practicalness. With regard to
a plan, Parnell asked Sexton and myself to try and draw up something,
but we were so busy--that without a good library, which we have not
here, easily available, the task is appalling. Parnell's idea is to
abolish the Lord Lieutenancy, strike a financial balance between the
two countries, giving, as our Imperial quota, an average on ten
years' returns of Irish contributions with the cost of ruling Ireland
deducted. This would get rid of the Irish Parliament voting or
refusing supplies, as the sum would be a fixed one, and if we did not
pay it we could {261} very easily be compelled. He would be for
retaining the Irish members at Westminster, and I suppose there would
not be much trouble in the arrangement being made in that case, that
they should be summoned by the Speaker to debate affairs which he
declared Imperial or Irish, and in the English Legislature taking
them at a particular period of the Session for the sake of
convenience. I think we should have full power over everything here
except the Army and the Navy, as I cannot see what other interest
England has here. If we pay her a due taxation, what possible care
of hers is it how else we order our affairs? As for the minority,
the Protestants would soon realise they were safe with the Catholics
(and they would be the pets of our people). Let there be, by all
means, every guarantee given for their protection however. If the
Tories come in they would give us Protection, I am sure, but would
stipulate for terms for the landlords.--Faithfully yours,
T. M. HEALY.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Oct. 18, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Just before the end of the Session Herbert
Gladstone came to me, and asked me to endeavour to arrange some sort
of _modus vivendi_ with the Irish. His father, he said, required
time, if any joint action was to be taken in the next Parliament, to
gain over the Whigs, and he was determined not to lead unless he had
a united party behind him. I told Herbert Gladstone that I was
convinced that Parnell, for various reasons, did not want an
arrangement and that he would prefer to remain an irreconcilable, but
that it might be possible to influence him through Healy and others.
So I sent to Healy, who came over to England. Healy explained that
personally he was strongly in favour of an arrangement, but that any
one going against Parnell would be nowhere just now, because the
Irish had got it into their heads that union was strength. But he
promised to do all that he could. Then I went abroad. On my return
Herbert wrote to ask what had been done. Healy replied that a
Committee consisting of Sexton, T. P. O'Connor, etc., had been
appointed to look into federations generally, and {262} to report
thereon, but that Parnell hardly spoke to his followers upon
political matters, beyond such as concerned the Irish elections, and
he went into various details as to what he thought would prove
satisfactory. This letter I sent to Hawarden, and got back a letter
stating the views of the G.O.M., the phrase being always "I" or "I
think my father" as had been agreed. The G.O.M. says that he is
disposed to grant the fullest Home Rule etc., but that he does not
think it is desirable to formulate a scheme before the elections, and
he again presses for the Irish minimum. I have sent this to Healy.
Evidently the game of the G.O.M. is to endeavour to unite the Party
on Irish Legislation, and to make that his _cheval de bataille_; but
he says that he will do nothing unless he can get some assurance that
the Irish will in the main back him up. I don't think that they
will, but, with such strange creatures, there is no knowing.
I spent yesterday morning with our friend Randolph. He says that the
Conservatives count upon 280 returns in their favour, and that if
they get anything like this they will not resign, and they hope to
remain in office for two or three years, owing to the coalition
between the Whigs, the Irish, and the Radicals. He says that
Hartington, who up to now has been very guarded in his observations,
now in private denounces you, and vows that he will not stand it. In
his (Randolph's) opinion, he will withdraw from politics. If he does
not, Randolph anticipates that the outcome will be an Aberdeen
Ministry. Randolph looks very ill, though he says that he is pretty
well. He is taking digitalis for his heart, and says that he is
certain that the late hours in the House of Commons will knock him
up....
What is the real feeling in the country I do not know, but I have in
the last fortnight attended some of the meetings of the nonentities
who are contesting the Metropolitan Constituencies, and here you are
first and the rest nowhere. The Whigs seem to have disappeared
entirely. My impression is that they have all gone over to the
Conservatives, and that the Whig leaders are--if the country is to be
judged by the metropolis--entirely without followers. When you
allude to Goschen there are groans, when you allude to Hartington
there is silence; and you have to get up a cheer for the G.O.M. by
dwelling upon his noble heart and that sort of trash. I think,
however, that {263} the Conservatives will gain more seats in London
than we anticipate.
By the way, I do not think that the alliance of Randolph with the
Irish is going on very smoothly. He complained to me that it was
impossible to trust Parnell, and that the Maamtrasna business had
been sprung as a surprise. Before the Conservatives came in, Parnell
told me that he would support the Conservatives on no Coercion Bill,
a scheme for buying out the landlords, and money expended in further
works. No sooner were they in than he told me that the feeling in
Ireland was so strong for Home Rule that it must be pushed forward.
My own experience of Parnell is that he never makes a bargain without
intending to get out of it, and that he has either a natural love of
treachery, or considers that promises are not binding when made to a
Saxon....
Would it not be possible to have one grand Bill for local government
in both islands, and settling the difference between local and
Imperial Sessions. It might be made so as to oblige English
Conservatives to oppose it in their own interests, and sufficiently
strong to make it difficult for the Irish to reject it on the second
reading?--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Oct. 20, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--Thanks for your most interesting letter, which
confirms my suspicions as to the intentions of our great chief. I
was led to them in the first instance by the speeches of H. G. at
Leeds--he is generally inspired, I think. Mr. G. himself was
cautious with me at Hawarden, though he did not conceal that his
present interest was in the Irish question, and he seemed to think
that a policy for dealing with it might be found which would unite us
all and which would necessarily throw into the background those minor
points of difference about the schools and small holdings which
threaten to drive the Whigs into the arms of the Tories or into
retirement. But I agree with you that the _modus vivendi_ cannot be
found. First, because all Liberals are getting weary of making
concessions to Parnell, {264} and will not stand much more of it, and
secondly, because Parnell cannot be depended on to keep any bargain.
I believe, therefore, that Mr. G.'s plans will come to naught.
I hope Randolph Churchill is all out in his calculations. I do not
give the Tories more than 200. Of course the future depends on the
result of the Elections, but my impression is that Hartington will
yield, grumbling as usual, but still yielding.
The effect of the campaign I have just completed has surprised me. I
really had no idea at first of giving more than a "friendly lead" to
candidates in the new constituencies. The idiotic opposition of the
Whigs and the abuse of the Tories has turned my gentle hint into a
great national policy--and now it must be forced on at all hazards.
The majority of new County candidates are pledged to it--ditto Scotch
members, ditto London. In Lancashire it is not so strong, as there
are signs of rebellion in the constituencies against the half-hearted
orders of the local Caucus.
I fear we cannot run English and Irish Local Government in one
Bill--the present conditions are so absolutely dissimilar--but we
will consider this again, if we have the opportunity. I am glad to
say there is a good chance that Goschen will be defeated at
Edinburgh. The working men are dead against him.
On the whole I am satisfied with the outlook. The first difficulty
is to find fellow-workers: the rank and file are all right, but there
is an awful lack of Generals, and even of non-commissioned
officers.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Oct. 20, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I send you enclosed to look at.[7] I have
forwarded copy to Healy. Evidently the G.O.M. is getting a little
anxious about the Election, and is now trying to persuade the
Parnellites that they must try and get pledges from the
Conservatives, because he knows that they cannot. As he says, the
Land question is the difficulty, because he is not prepared to admit
that its regulation in Ireland is involved in {265} Local Government,
and that it in no way affects the integrity of the Empire, whether
land in Kilkenny belongs to this man or that. I have pointed out to
Healy that the difficulty might perhaps be turned by supporting your
plan of compulsory purchase by local authorities in both islands, and
I have explained to him the meaning of a fair price--viz. such an
amount as would give the landlord the same net income in consols or
Government bonds, as he gets now from his land, or ought to get, and
I have urged upon him that if such a Bill were passed, and if there
were Home Rule in Ireland, the Irish might surely make things so
uncomfortable to the landlords that they would be glad to clear out
for very little.
Would it not be a good plan to have one grand Bill, coupling together
local self-government here, and Home Rule in Ireland? We should in
that way get the Irish votes for England, and if the portions of the
Bill really do give substantial Home Rule in Ireland, I greatly doubt
whether the Irish would venture to vote against the second reading.
They might develop their views and swagger in Committee. If this
Bill were coupled with another on your lines respecting land, the two
questions could be solved, or your purchase claims might form part of
the Bill. At the bottom of the difficulty is the G.O.M. He still
hankers first after the Whigs, and is not sound on the land
question..., and is bent upon that difficult task of making oil and
water combine. Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Oct. 23, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--My last letter has partly anticipated yours of
21st. I return H. G.'s communication. He has apparently his
father's capacity for mystification, for I cannot possibly make out
what he is really driving at.
Does he imagine that the Tories can be committed beforehand to
support a small Liberal majority in some scheme of advanced Local
Govt.?
He must be an _ingenuus puer_. For my part I believe in leaving the
Irishmen to "stew in their own juice." My proposal is the {266}
maximum that English Radicals will stand and a great deal more than
the Whigs will accept. It had practically been agreed to by Parnell,
and yet he threw it over at the last moment. It is impossible to
depend on him and it is much better policy now to play the waiting
game. If Randolph is right we shall be the better for not being
pledged.
I am sure, however, that he is wrong, but even then we shall be much
stronger in negotiation when we have a majority at our backs.
If the G.O.M. were ill-advised enough to propose a separate
Parliament, he will find very little support from any section of the
party.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Nov. 12, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This is the last communication from Healy,
which he wants sent to the G.O.M. So I send it through the usual
channel. After saying that he will do his best for Lefevre, he says:
"It is very difficult for us to adopt a piecemeal policy, although it
certainly is the intention to issue instructions that in regard to
half a dozen Liberals, they shall be supported at all hazards, but so
far as I can gather the working of Parnell's mind up to the present,
it is not certain that he will go against the Liberals bald-headed,
if at all. T. P. O'Connor is strong for supporting the Tories. If
we could have an understanding with the leaders, it would settle this
and every other question. It seems to me curious that we are now to
be asked to define our demands, on a question on which English
Statesmen do not need much instruction, seeing that in 1881, when the
agrarian question was certainly complicated, nobody dreamed of asking
our opinion, but on the contrary the beauty of the measure was that
it was supposed to be disapproved by the Nationalists. I cannot,
therefore, help feeling that this demand for a plan from us is simply
a desire for our discomfort, and the profit of the English. If there
is really earnestness in the Liberal {267} Party next Session (should
they be in a majority) to settle the Irish question, I do not think
they will find us unreasonable. God knows it is time we were at
peace, but if they insist on forcing on us a Bill, which we denounce,
and which we shall wreck in the working, the contest between the two
countries will grow more aggravated than ever. Spencer and Forster
were hit a thousand times more than Trevelyan, and yet they never
went pushing about, spitting gall as he has done. The G.O.M. is the
father of them all, and I do urge him to develop a little the lines
of his first speech which I have just read."
And then he goes into a puff of the G.O.M.'s Article against Darwin,
which, it seems, delights the Roman Catholics.
Could you not give them a few smooth words in a speech, particularly
in regard to land. They have taken it into their silly heads that
you are now their enemy, and as they have eighty votes it is just as
well to clear this illusion away.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Nov. 16, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This is the proposal to the Irish, which I
forward.[8] It is in reply to Healy's last communication. You will
see that the question of the land etc., being under the control of
the Irish Chamber, is shirked.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Nov. 22, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--You see, Parnell has gone against the Liberals.
I felt certain he would. He has been playing with those around him
and has intentionally deceived some of his own friends. I really
think he will force us all, Radicals and {268} Liberals, to reject
all arrangements with him. If we had a good Speaker with dictatorial
powers he could stop Irish obstruction and P.'s power in Ireland
would be shaken as soon as the people saw he was impotent in
Parliament.
We are having a much harder fight than we expected. I think we shall
win all our seats here, but it is a hard pull. The Tories are very
confident and are regaining courage in the counties. My hope is that
the labourers will lie courageously--promise to the Tories and vote
for us....--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Nov. 25, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--That undaunted sportsman the G.O.M. is still
hankering after the Irish and his general scheme of pacification. I
get a letter from Rosebery every day, asking for this and that
information. I have written to say that if the Liberals get a
majority, it may be possible to negotiate, but that at present it is
a mere waste of time to try anything.
We have been losing for a very clear reason. You put forward a good
Radical programme. This would have taken. But no sooner had you put
it forward than Hartington and others denounced it. Then the G.O.M.
proposed that any question should be shunted to the dim and distant
future, and that all should unite to bring him back to power, with a
Coalition Ministry--in fact the old game which had already resulted
in shilly shally. I think the inhabitants of towns have shown their
wisdom in preferring even the Conservatives to this. I want to find
the people on our side, who are against disestablishment. Some Peers
and leaders are, but the masses go for it. They are simply sulky at
being told that everything must knock under to Peers and Whigs. This
is how I read the elections. Our only hope now is in the "cow," and
here too I am afraid that the Whigs will have thrown cold water on
all enthusiasm. I am not myself particularly sorry at what is
occurring. A year or two of opposition will be far better--from the
Radical standpoint--than a Cabinet with a Whig majority in it. With
all the elements of disintegration, we surely shall {269} be able to
render Conservative legislation impossible, and to force on a
dissolution very soon, when your Caucus must come out with a clear
and definite programme. Milk may be good for babes, but Whig milk
will not do for electors. The Whigs have dished themselves, thank
God. Even Gladstone's name goes for little at public meetings.
Yours is the only one which makes any one stand up and cheer.--Yours
truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 1, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I quite agree with you. But would it not be
well to make it clear that the Election was run on the Whig and not
on the Tory Programme?[9]
I should imagine that the Irish will come round. The aim of the
Conservatives will be to keep in a short time with their aid, then to
quarrel with them, and to seek to hold their own against the Irish
and the Radicals by a combination with the Whigs. This scheme
Randolph Churchill explained to me a short time ago. If G.O.M. still
hankers after an alliance with the Irish, it may be possible to
arrange one, which would cause a split between him and his Whig
friends. He was always wanting to know as soon as possible what
could be effected, because he said that he wanted time to gain over
some of his late colleagues.
I am not the least surprised at results. Putting aside the Irish
vote and bad times, was it likely that there would be great
enthusiasm for a cause, which was explained to be to relegate
everything of importance to the dim distant future, and to unite in
order to bring back to power the old lot, with all their doubts and
hesitations, under a leader who was always implying, without meaning
it, that he meant to retire?--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
SIGN MANSIONS, BRIGHTON, Dec. 3, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This afternoon I got a telegram {270} from
Randolph to say he was coming down, and I have had him here all the
evening.
He says (but don't have it from me) that, if a vote of want of
confidence is not proposed, they will adjourn for three weeks after
the Speaker is chosen. If they have a majority with the Irish, he
says that they are inclined to throw their Speaker as a sop to the
Irish, and evidently he has a scheme in his head to get Hicks-Beach
elected Speaker, and to take his place himself.
He told me that he had given in a memorandum to Lord Salisbury about
the state of parties in the House of Commons, in which he puts down
Hartington as worth 200 votes, and you for the balance. They intend
to give a _non possumus_ to all proposals for Home Rule, and they
expect to be supported by Hartington, even if the G.O.M. goes for
Home Rule. Salisbury is ready to resign the Premiership to
Hartington if necessary, and the new Party is to be called the
"Coalition Party." It appears that the G.O.M. (but this I have vowed
not to tell) has given in to the Queen a scheme of Home Rule, with a
sort of Irish President at the head, who is to be deposed by the
Queen and Council, if necessary.
Should they not be turned out, they will at once start a discussion
on Procedure.
Is not the cow working wonders for us? Next time we must have an
urban cow.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 4, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,-- ... The "urban cow" is the great difficulty. I
put my money on free schools, but, judging by London, the electors do
not care much about it.
Things are going better for us. I was forced to speak yesterday at
Leicester, and you will see I had a dig at the Whigs. I will drive
the knife in on the 17th.
Surely Hartington will not be such a fool as to make a coalition. If
he is inclined that way I should be happy to give him a lift. It
would be the making of the Radical party.
If the Tories go against Peel they will irritate Hartington and the
Moderates. I don't care a straw either way.
{271}
I should warmly support any proposals for amendment of Procedure
which gave more power to the majority.--Yours truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_P.S._--We must keep the Tories in for some time. If R. Churchill
will not play the fool, I certainly should not be inclined to prefer
a weak Liberal or Coalition Government to a weak Tory one. His best
policy is to leave us to deal with the Whigs and not to compel us to
unite the party against the Tories.--Yours,
J.C.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 7, 1885.
DEAR LABOUCHERE,-- ... The G.O.M. is very anxious to come in again.
I am not, and I think we must sit on his Irish proposals. It will
require a careful steering to keep the Radical boat head to the
wind.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
Foljambe is out, for which I am devoutly thankful. There goes
another Moderate Liberal and Hartington's speech did not help him. I
hope E. Cavendish will go too. He is not safe.
_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Dec. 7, 1885.
MY DEAR L.,--Thanks for your postings. As far as I can make out your
party will be in a minority of 5 or 6 when all is over a couple of
days hence. We shall have 86 in our party. I have not seen Parnell
for over a fortnight and know nothing of his mind except that I think
it significant he should have told his interviewer that he expected
Home Rule from the Liberals. This, of course may have been a hint to
prick up Salisbury, and it remains to be seen how it will work. But
in my opinion we have no course but to turn out the Tories. Eighteen
of their men are Irish, who would oppose tooth and nail every
concession to us, and as they would vote against their own party on
H. R. (supposing "Barkis is willing") that would count 36 against
{272} them, which, of course, would hardly be made up to them by
Liberal votes, as your party, with three or four exceptions, would
stand coldly aside and rejoice to see them and us, combined, put in a
minority. Looking at the matter in the most cynical manner,
therefore, I don't see what P. can do but put out the Conservatives.
With us you would have such an immense majority that you could spare
the desertion of a score of rats amongst the Whigs, while many of the
Borough Conservatives who owe their seats to us might abstain from a
H. R. division.
As to the means of putting them out, I assume, if we were agreed as
to terms, that it would be easy to move an amendment to the Address
which we could support. Whether this should have relation directly
to Ireland is a matter for the strategists of your party to consider,
as while it would suit our book perfectly it might not rally all your
men and might lead to inconvenient debate. It would, however, look
odd in us, after denouncing you so bitterly, to put you in
straightway on some by-issue, not in relation to self-government,
and, moreover, as we should be strictly "dark horses" as to which
side we should support, an Irish amendment would have the advantage
of extracting from ministers certain expressions or promises in order
to fetch us, which could be made great capital out of afterwards by
you. Without having thought deeply on the strategical aspect of the
situation, it occurs to me that the best thing would be to have an
understanding with the Liberals and "play" the Government for a few
weeks with the Irish fly to see would it rise, without actually
landing them. Both you and we would then get time to see their
programme and how their party swallowed it--so as to corner them
afterwards.
It is clear no scheme of Home Rule can be carried through the Lords
without a dissolution, and then, with our help, you could have a
majority of 200 over the Tories. But we should have a good
registration of Voters' Bill passed first and some amendments of the
Ballot Act. I think your people should at once get into touch with
Parnell. He went to England this morning and should be seen by some
one from your side. I agree with you that Mr. Gladstone alone can
settle the Irish question. He is the only man with head and heart
for the task, and the only man who can reduce to decency the
contemptible cads who so largely {273} composed the last Liberal
party. I thank God that so many of the howlers and gloaters over our
sufferings have met their fate at the polls.--Yours,
T. M. HEALY.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
BRIGHTON, Dec. 8, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I have just got a letter from Herbert
Gladstone, which I have sent on to Healy.[10]...
I have replied that it is very questionable whether any sort of
arrangement can be come to with Parnell, but that, if so, it will be
necessary for "Herbert" to explain precisely "logical issues and
solid facts"--or, in other words, to let us have the maximum of
concession.
I doubt Parnell agreeing to any scheme which "Herbert" may propose,
their views are so divergent. But suppose that he does --would it
not be well to use the G.O.M. to settle this question and get it out
of the way. If he agrees with Parnell, he will not agree long with
his Whig friends. So soon as the Irish question is over, something
might be done to separate the Whigs entirely from the Radicals--or at
least something to cause the G.O.M. to begin those ten years of
probation which he requires before meeting his Maker.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Dec. 10, 1885.
MY DEAR L.,--Better try, would a letter to Parnell at 9 Palace
Chambers, Westminster, find him, and ask him to make an appointment
with you. There is no necessity to refer him to the correspondence
that has taken place, but tell what you feel in a position to say on
behalf of your party leaders. He must see that Gladstone must come
in if we are to get anything, and the only thing I see to be settled
is the ritual to be observed in {274} bowing the Government out. I
presume he will move an amendment to the Address, unless he has some
satisfactory pledge from Salisbury, which I don't believe, and I
don't believe in the power of Salisbury or anybody else to throw dust
in Parnell's eyes. "Hard cash"[11] or a Catholic University won't
bait the Tory hook for us to swallow. I'm for the whole hog or none.
I think it would be important if we could have some understanding as
to the procedure, we, in the opinion of your leaders, should adopt as
to the terms of an amendment to the Address. They might prefer it
should be one they could speak on and not support, or both support
and speak on. The latter seems most convenient in case it is thought
better to turn the Government out immediately, so as to allow of the
re-election of the new Ministers. My view, however, is (and it is
not a strong one, because I have not heard the arguments contra) that
it would be better to keep the Tories in a little for the reasons
previously given, and also for the additional one that once they
accept our help they will all be tarred with the Irish brush, and
cannot afterwards complain of your party accepting an alliance by
which they are not ashamed to profit. "Sour Grapes" would then be a
complete answer to them in opposition.
The stupidity of men like Harcourt calling us "Fenians" is
inconceivable. Personally I should not object to the epithet, which
I regard by no means an ignoble one, but I can well forecast the use
Churchill would make of it in opposition with Sir William in power by
grace of the "Fenian" vote. "The Gods themselves fight in vain
against stupidity."
If you exercise any control over the _Daily News_, it ought to keep
your party straight by purging it of the rancour of defeat. Swear at
us in private as much as you like, but avoid flinging bricks of the
boomerang make. The _Daily News_ calling the Anglo-Irish voters
"clots of turbid intrigue" must have cost you a trifle at the polls.
We can slang you _de droit_ because we are powerless and
irresponsible, but a governing body shall go "all delicately marching
in most pellucid air." Excuse the philosophy!--Yours,
T. M. HEALY.
{275}
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S. W., Dec. 11, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--There is much in what you say, but the fear is
that anything like a bargain with the Irish would be resented by the
English and Scotch workmen and that a Tory-Whig Coalition appealing
to their prejudices against a Radical-Parnellite alliance would carry
all before them then. This is a real danger. I am convinced, from
personal observation, that the workmen will not stand much more in
the way of Irish conciliation or concessions to Parnell.
I am clear that we had better bide our time and rub the Tories' noses
well in the mess they have made. Till the 16th.--Yours,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Parnell to Mr. Labouchere_
IRISH PARLIAMENTARY OFFICES,
LONDON, S. W., Dec. 17, 1885.
DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I have only just opened your letters, as I have not
been in London for some time. I will try and give you notice the
next time I am in town, but my present impression is that it would be
better to await events, and see what attitude the two English Parties
may take towards each other at the commencement of the new
Parliament.--Yours sincerely,
CHAS. S. PARNELL.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S MANSIONS,
ST. JAMES'S PARK, Dec. 19, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I wrote to Hawarden in the sense we agreed on
respecting your views--keeping, however, a good deal to the vague.
Yesterday morning came a letter from Parnell. Had only just received
my letter, was passing through London, would say when he was coming
back. Dilatory as usual. In the afternoon Healy arrived. He stayed
six hours.
The sum of all amounted to this:
{276}
Parnell is half mad. We always act without him. He accepts this
position; if he did not we should overlook him. Do not trouble
yourself about him. Dillon, M'Carthy, O'Brien, Harrington, and I
settle everything. When we agree, no one can disagree. We are all
for an arrangement with the G.O.M. on terms. We are forming a
"Cabinet." We shall choose it. We shall pass what we like in this
Cabinet. We have never yet let out any secret. The Kilmainham
revelations were let out by Forster and O'Shea.
_Terms_.--G.O.M.'s plan.
_Details_.--We agree to nomination for two Parliaments or five years;
we like it, for we want to hold our own against Fenians. Protestant
religious bodies may, if wished, elect representatives.
On contracts, we would agree to an appeal to the Judicial Committee
of the House of Lords.
We would agree to any landlord having the right to sell his land to
Irish State on valuation by present Commissioners, provided that all
value of tenants' improvements were deducted. We do not go so far in
land matters as Chamberlain--certainly not further.
On veto. We could not accept the veto of the Imperial Parliament.
This is the corner-stone of independence in the minds of Irishmen.
Several plans were suggested--two-thirds majority, etc. I think
something might be worked out by means of a sound Privy Council.
We would assent to reasonable amendments by the Lords, but we should
ask to be consulted.
We have no objection to a Prince. This would be a great sop to the
"Loyalists."
Of course we must have the Police. We would reduce them to
3000--there are too many.
We claim to pay a quota--to raise this quota as we like; there is no
fear of Protection. Parnell and some Belfast manufacturers are the
only Protectionists in Ireland. Perhaps, however, we might give
bounties for a time. If we did, we should pay them, not you.
If Bill thrown out in Lords, an Autumn Session; if thrown out again,
to be brought in again in 1886, unless Mr. Gladstone prefers a
dissolution.
{277}
No Procedure resolutions until Home Rule settled.
There are only three Judges to whom we object. One is old and deaf
and wants to retire, another is dying (Lawson).
If terms agreed to, never to come out that there were negotiations.
We would regard ourselves as members of the Liberal party;
occasionally indulge like you Radicals in a wild-cat vote, but vote
with Liberals on all Parliamentary issues.
I have sent this with a lot more details to Hawarden.
Rosebery writes to tell me that the "revelations" are well received
in Scotland, and that there will be no difficulty there.[12]
Do pray think how very advantageous it will be to get rid of these
Irish.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, ST. JAMES'S PARK,
Sunday, Dec. 21, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Healy came again to-day, and he tells me that
the whole gang are now ready to accept the terms--provided that they
are the terms. He stands absolutely against an Imperial Parliament
veto and says that it is impossible.
I proposed this:
A Royal Prince--a sort of King Log.
The reorganisation of the Irish Privy Council on a fair and
reasonable basis.
The veto to be the Governor acting by the advice of the Privy
Council--_i.e._, of a majority.
The Governor to be changed on petition of two-thirds of the Assembly.
He thinks that this would do, and I have sent it to Hawarden.
Healy has seen Parnell, and, without speaking to him about
negotiations, he came to the conclusion that there will be no
opposition there.
The Conservatives, I hear, have it in consideration to submit the
Queen's Speech immediately, and to put up one of their men {278} to
propose a vote of confidence, if there be no amendment on our side.
I asked Healy what the Irish would do then? He said, "If nothing is
settled, walk out probably." "Then?" I asked. "Go with the
Conservatives and turn out the Liberals."
But it seems to me that, without being sure of the support of the
Irish, Mr. Gladstone could hardly take office.
If so, what then? Hartington?
Hartington is cuts with Churchill. He says that he has insulted him
in his speeches, and that he will never speak to him again.
Churchill told me a few weeks ago that the Conservatives were
determined to dissolve, if Home Rule were attempted, in order to
protect the House of Lords. Would they have the courage to dissolve
at once? Are they not rather calculating on Mr. Gladstone not being
able to form a Government, and either coming back with the Whigs, or
dissolving on the ground of a deadlock?
How the revelation came out was this:
Herbert Gladstone told Reed of the Leeds paper his father's views.
Reed told Mudford. Could this have been stupidity, or was it
intentional by order of Papa?
The _Pall Mall_ of yesterday was directly inspired from Hawarden.
The channel was Norman. Certainly the ways of Mr. Gladstone are
rather more mysterious than those of the Heathen Chinee. My reading
of it is that he is simply insane to come in.... The Irish are
suspicious of him, and intend to have things clear before they
support him. Parnell says that he has a way of getting people to
agree with him by the enunciation of generalities, but that when he
has got what he wants, his general principles are not carried out as
might have been anticipated. This is so true that I could not deny
myself the pleasure of letting him know it. In this case, he will
have to be a good deal more definite, if he is to count on the Irish.
My own conviction is that if the Irish get Home Rule, they will--with
the exception of the land question--surprise us by their
conservatism. Their first thing will be to pass some sort of very
drastic legislation against the Fenians.
What the next step will be, I don't exactly know. The Irish too want
to know.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
{279}
_Lord Randolph Churchill to Lord Salisbury_
INDIA OFFICE, Dec. 22, 1885.
... Now I have a great deal to tell you. Labouchere came to see me
this morning. He asked me our intentions. I gave him the following
information. I can rely upon him:
(l) That there would be no motion for adjournment after the 12th, but
that business would be immediately proceeded with after three or four
days' swearing. On this he said that, if we liked to go out on a
motion for adjournment, he thought the other side might accommodate
us. I told him that such an ineffably silly idea had never entered
our heads. Then he told me that he had been asked whether he could
ascertain if a certain statement as to a Tory Home Rule measure which
appeared recently in the _Dublin Daily Express_ was Ashbourne's
measure, and if the Tories meant to say "Aye" or "No" to Home Rule;
to which I replied that it had never crossed the mind of any member
of the Government to dream even of departing from an absolute
unqualified "No," and that all statements as to Ashbourne's plan were
merely the folly of the _Daily News_. Then I was very much upset,
for he proceeded to tell me that, on Sunday week last, Lord Carnarvon
had met Justin M'Carthy, and had confided to him that he was in
favour of Home Rule in some shape, but that his colleagues and his
party were not ready, and asked whether Justin M'Carthy's party would
agree to an enquiry, which he thought there was a chance of the
Government agreeing to, and which would educate his colleagues and
his party if granted and carried through. I was consternated, but
replied that such a statement was an obvious lie; but, between
ourselves, I fear it is not--perhaps not even an exaggeration or a
misrepresentation. Justin M'Carthy is on the staff of the _Daily
News_. Labouchere is one of the proprietors, and I cannot imagine
any motive for his inventing such a statement. If it is true, Lord
Carnarvon has played the devil. Then I told Labouchere that if the
G.O.M. announced any Home Rule project, or indicated any such project
and, by so doing, placed the Government in a minority, resignation
was not the only course; but that there was another alternative which
might even be announced in debate, and the announcement of which
might complete the squandering {280} of the Liberal party, and that
his friend at Hawarden had better not omit altogether that card from
his calculations as to his opponents' hands. Lastly, I communicated
to him that, even if the Government went out and Gladstone introduced
a Home Rule Bill, I should not hesitate, if other circumstances were
favourable, to agitate Ulster even to resistance beyond
constitutional limits; that Lancashire would follow Ulster, and would
lead England; and that he was at liberty to communicate this fact to
the G.O.M.[13]
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE,
Dec. 22, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I got a long letter from Hawarden this morning.
The substance is, "Let the Irish get a positive assurance from the
Conservatives that they will do nothing, and his tongue will be
free." This I send to Healy.
I have been spending the morning with Churchill. His plan is this.
Queen's Speech at once--in address an expression of confidence.
Liberals to draw G.O.M., Churchill to get up and say that obviously
he intends to propose Home Rule. If so, adverse vote will be
followed by dissolution. Will they dare to do this? Churchill says
that they will, and that I might privately tell Mr. Gladstone this.
He vowed that Brett had given Parnell a written statement from Mr.
Gladstone.
Healy told me to ask whether there were any direct negotiations with
Parnell.
Hawarden replies: "There are no negotiations going on between Parnell
and my father, who has constantly from the first, declared, etc.,
etc."
Who are we to believe? Mr. Gladstone, as we know, has a very
magnificent conscience, but he will finish by being too clever by
half, if he tries to play Healy off against Parnell, who, as I told
you, is not much more than a figurehead.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
{281}
_P.S._--Churchill says that they hear that Goschen has been playing a
double game--that to win over Hartington he became a Balaam.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 23, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Has this occurred to you? The Whigs evidently
will not stand Mr. Gladstone's proposals. If you therefore were to
rally to them, you would clear the nest of these nuisances, and, as
Mr. Gladstone cannot last very long, become the leader of the
Opposition or of the Government--a consummation that we all want.
I think that the Customs matter would not be a _sine qua non_.
Imperial matters would be few. We are against wars. The main
Imperial question would be for extra money--in case of wars. In the
main the Irish would be with us--their views about land are much
yours--I should fancy therefore that, provided we have a clear
distinction between local and imperial affairs, we should soon be the
very best of friends.
That Mr. Gladstone will go on, I think pretty certain,
because--excellent and good man as he is--he sees that his only
chance is, to get the Irish. He is now engaged in a game of dodging.
He has invented as usual a "principle"--that he can go into no
details until he officially knows that the Government will do
nothing. The object is to get the Irish on generalities. They,
however, are quite up to this, and even supposing that they were to
vote with us, they would at once turn him out, if he were to play
pranks. I do not quite therefore see how he could come in without
some sort of secret understanding with them.
Now, what would satisfy them?
On customs, as I have said, there would be no great difficulty.
Ditto on protection to minorities.
Remains the veto.
They are anxious to get over it, but cannot accept the Imperial
Parliament. Would it be to our advantage that they should? We
should be continually having rows in Parliament about their Acts.
When I saw Healy on Sunday I suggested this:
{282}
A King Log in the person of a Member of the Royal Family. The veto
to be exercised by King Log with the consent of his Privy Council.
The Privy Council to be entirely reorganised, or the present lot to
be swamped by men--not ultras, but of moderate character.
Things would then work out by some of the Irish Ministers being made
Privy Councillors.
This he said the Irish would accept.
Now, with such a plan, with nominated Members for five years, and
with representation of Protestant Synods and such like bodies, would
there be much fear?
What the Irish are afraid of are the Fenians. This is why they snap
at nominated Members, although they may perhaps openly protest.
If I can get hold of Morley, I will have a talk with him; he is, I
think, of a secretive nature.
Suppose that the worst occurs--an immediate dissolution--the rural
cow would still do its work, for it might be put that the Tories are
really dissolving not for Ireland but to prevent the cow being given.
On other urban cows Mr. Gladstone would be very much in your hands,
for to get into power, I really believe that he would not only give
up Ireland, but Mrs. Gladstone and Herbert.
Churchill is going to Ireland. It is an old promise, he says, to go
for Christmas to Fitzgibbon, and nothing to do with politics. Did I
tell you that when I said that I knew that Carnarvon had been
intriguing with Archbishop Walsh, he said that Walsh was a very
ambitious man, and would not long remain under Parnell, and that
Carnarvon had tried to square the Education question with him?
Let us even suppose that we are beaten at the elections. There would
a Tory-Whig Government. How long would it last?
Hartington seems to be on bad terms all round. Churchill tells me
that he (Hartington) declines to meet him or speak to him on the
score of his speeches. Evidently he is confederating with Goschen,
and probably Forster will become a third in the triumvirate? They do
not strike me as precisely the men who will ever act with you, unless
you knock under to them.
{283}
It is by no means certain that we should be beaten at an election.
Mr. Gladstone is still a power. Rosebery says that the Scotch are
all right. The Irish vote has turned and will turn many elections.
Our cards, therefore, if boldly and well played, are by no means such
as would warrant the hands being thrown up.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_P.S._--Is Churchill reckoning with his party when he talks about an
immediate dissolution? How will its Members like being sent back to
their Constituents? Many are hard up.
_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Dec. 23, 1885.
MY DEAR L.,--Thanks for your views. If Churchill and his lot want to
stay in, in order to thwart us and Mr. Gladstone, then I say, by all
means, let them have a few months office, and let us give
them--well--purgatory for a bit and see how they take it. It seems
to me that opinion is not quite ripe enough yet amongst your party to
swallow strong meat. I therefore think a while in the cold would
teach them whether Mr. Gladstone was wiser than the tuppence ha-penny
intelligence of his rank and file. What the God-fearing Radical
evidently wants is a course of Tory slaughter abroad, and sixpence on
the income tax, and we are just the boys to help them to it. Opinion
here in loyalist circles seems to take it for granted that Gladstone
needs a check from his own party, and I confess it has somewhat the
aspect of it. So it seems to me we shall have to turn round and
"educate" the Liberal party, since they won't allow the greatest man
they ever had to do so. A pretty mess they will be in, unless they
seize this opportunity under his leadership of consolidating their
party. I should like to know what would become of them without
Gladstone? You would have Chamberlain and Hartington cutting each
other's throats and the Tories standing laughing by, profiting by
your divisions! And what should we be doing? You may be sure
whatever was worst for the Liberal party. You may dissolve fifty
times, but until you dissolve us out of existence, there we'll be, a
thorn--aye, a bayonet in your sides. Here we were with the chance of
getting all Ireland {284} round to some moderate scheme that would
end for ever the feud between the two countries, and now it appears
that some gentlemen who were born yesterday, and couldn't tell the
difference between a Moonlighter and an Orangeman, propose to spoil
the whole thing--and in the interest of the "Empire" forsooth. I
venture to think that the statesman who had the boldness to think out
some proposition for the pacification of this island--small as it
is--is the best friend the Empire has had for many a long day! My
heart is sick when I read the extracts telegraphed from the English
papers to think these are the idiots we have to deal with and to
argue with. It is almost a justification of O'Donovan Rossa. They
have Moses and the Prophets, but they want a sign from Heaven. Of
course, I know there are ten thousand difficult details to be
settled, but these men don't want to settle anything. They have some
party dodge to serve, and Ireland is their happy hunting ground. Let
them take care that the quarrel is not a poisoned morsel for their
dogs. Churchill babbles of coming over to rouse the Orangemen! _Je
lui promets des emotions_. He had better bring Gorst with him to
rally the "re-actionary Ulster members." If these men think as well
as talk this blague, England is very lucky in her rulers.
But to quit apostrophe (which you must pardon) what are we to do?
Can we expect Mr. Gladstone to bear the battle on his single shield?
Is it not plain that if we plunge into Home Rule plans just now
before your intelligent public apply their enlightened minds to it we
shall get far less than what we should get by waiting and worrying
you for a few years? We are all young, and though British saws won't
bear me out, you are a very fickle and unstable people, while ours
has the tenacity of 700 years to carry us through. We can wait
awhile and see who gets the worst of it, and if we are beaten in our
time--well, there are plenty of young men and young women in Ireland
to breed future difficulties for you. Some of us thought as
Nationalists we were making a great sacrifice in being willing to
give up our ideals, but the spirit in which we are met shows how much
our surrender is appreciated by the individuals who subscribed for
cartridges for the Hungarians, Italians, and Poles. The curse of
being the sport of your two parties is in itself the best argument
for the necessity of Home Rule.
{285}
As for Churchill, a great deal of what he told you I take to be
bluff--told for the purposes of intimidation. I don't believe they'd
dissolve, and if they are so inclined we ought not to give them the
chance but help them over the stile, in order to trip them up at some
better opportunity. When we beat them a few times, say on their
estimates, and worry them on adjournments and motions, they will be
in a much less heroic mood than they are now. Slow poison is a
better medicine for them than the happy dispatch! By hanging on
their skirts for a few weeks, snubbing them and humiliating them at
every opportunity, they will be in a much more reasonable frame of
mind than they are now, and meantime perhaps your young lions could
be reduced to reason and your old ones have their claws trimmed. It
is no good talking about the details of Home Rule, when the very
mention of the word gives half the Liberal party the shivers. The
men that won't take Mr. Gladstone for a leader to-day will have to
take Mr. Parnell to-morrow, for assuredly things cannot rest as they
are. Mr. Gladstone's enemies just now are England's and Ireland's
worst enemies also. He alone can settle the question moderately and
satisfactorily, yet he is assailed by his own party as if he were
some reckless junior acting not from the ripeness of knowledge and
sagacity, but through some adolescent's lust of untasted power! Your
party ought to get up an altar to Mundella and put his long nose in
the tabernacle. It is sweet to know that he has controlled the
education of British youth.
A happy Christmas to you, my dear Labouchere.
T. M. HEALY.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 23, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--Surely Randolph's policy will not work. A
dissolution within a few weeks of the General Election would be very
unpopular and indeed unjustifiable, unless the whole Liberal party
followed Mr. Gladstone in a Home Rule proposal. But it is clear he
will be left in the lurch, if he proposes it, by the majority of the
party, and in these circumstances {286} a dissolution would not help
the Tories, and would probably unite the Liberals under
Hartington--while Mr. Gladstone would retire.
I should have thought the Tory game would have been to go out and to
leave Mr. Gladstone to form a Government if he can.
Unless he repudiates Home Rule this would be impossible, while if he
does repudiate it he would have the Irish against him and could not
get on for a month.
I shall be in London on the 4th January, and could dine with you to
meet Randolph on that evening--if convenient.
I shall not be up again till the 11th. Have they finally settled to
go straight on with the address and without any adjournment?--Yours
very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere_
INDIA OFFICE, Dec. 24, 1885.
DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I am engaged to be at Hatfield on the 4th. That
compared morally with your proposed "festin" will be as Heaven is to
Hell, but my sinful spirit will sigh regretfully after Hell. I am
making enquiries as to your letter which you suggested to me
yesterday, but have not yet received a reply.
I thought over Justin M'Carthy's story about Carnarvon. It must be a
lie, for on Sunday last the latter was in London. He came over on
the Friday previous for the Cabinets on the following Monday and
Tuesday.--Yours ever,
RANDOLPH S. C.
_P.S._--The weak point of your accusation in this week's _Truth_ of
treachery on the part of the Government is that the announcement of
Gladstone's having written a letter to the Queen first appeared in
_The Daily News_![14]
Now we are not likely to take Mr. Hill[15] as our confidant.
{287}
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 24, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Churchill writes:
"I am engaged to be at Hatfield on the 4th. That, compared with the
society of you and 'Joe,' ought to be as Heaven is to Hell, but my
sinful spirit sighs regretfully after Hell."
They go on without adjournment, estimating that the swearing can be
done in three or four days.
Rosebery writes to say that he has heard nothing from Hawarden since
he wrote urging silence, a suggestion which he supposed was not
appreciated. All I know, he says, is that Mr. Gladstone is devilish
in earnest about the matter.
Supposing that the Radicals went against Home Rule, the fight with
the Irish would be long. Don't you think that the country would
think that it would be better fought by the Conservatives than by the
Radicals? They would--with pleasure--make it last long. It would be
like the French wars to Pitt.
I saw Harcourt yesterday. He told me that he had been to see you,
and seemed to me sitting on the fence. "What I am thinking of," he
said, "is that if the Irish found that they could get nothing, they
would resort again to dynamite." I told him that I thought that
_his_ life would not be worth a week's purchase. Was there ever such
a timorous Sambo?
Henry Oppenheim tells me that Hartington dined with him a few days
ago, and that so far as he could make out he seemed inclined to stand
by Mr. Gladstone.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 24, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I do not think the Irish proposals are possible.
If they refuse control of Imperial Parliament, there is really
nothing left but separation. A hybrid arrangement with nominations,
Privy Councils, etc., would not stand {288} examination and would be
a perpetual source of friction and further trouble.
I do not believe in their Conservative legislation. They mean it,
but the American Fenians would be too strong for them.
There is much fascination in your suggestion of Radical policy,
especially in the chance of dishing the Whigs whom I hate more than
the Tories.
But it won't do. English opinion is set strongly against Home Rule
and the Radical party might be permanently (_i.e._ for our time)
discredited by a concession on this point.
We must "lie low" and watch--avoiding positive committal as far as
possible.
Did I tell you that the G.O.M. thanked me for my last speech?
I doubt if he has made up his own mind yet or formulated any definite
scheme.
He has several times repeated the phrase "supremacy of Parliament."
I am informed on good authority--the best in fact--that there is no
truth in the statement that he has submitted a statement to the
Queen. As Randolph is quite wrong about this, he must be taken as a
doubtful authority in other matters also.
I suppose that if he is going to Ireland he will not be back in time
for dinner on the 4th.--Yours ever,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, ST. JAMES'S PARK,
Christmas Day, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This is Churchill's statement about the Queen.
When they came in they were told that there was a Home Rule scheme of
Mr. Gladstone's and it was shown to Salisbury. I suspect that it is
true, for no sooner was Mr. Gladstone out than Herbert began--on the
ground that his father wanted exactly to know the Irish minimum, in
order to have time to treat the matter with his friends.
I place as the basis of Mr. Gladstone's action an almost insane
desire to come into office. Now he knows that so far as _he_ is
{289} concerned, this can only be done by squaring the Irish. At 76
a waiting policy may be a patriotic one, but it is one of personal
effacement. This is not precisely the line of our revered leader.
Randolph says he is only going to Ireland, as he has done on previous
years, to pass Christmas with Fitzgibbon.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_P.S._--Healy and I have elaborated a letter containing the Irish
minimum.
_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere_
INDIA OFFICE, Dec. 25, 1885.
DEAR LABOUCHERE,--My correspondent with whom you thought you might
correspond with advantage does not wish now to be drawn.
_Very Private_. G.O.M. has written what is described to me as a
"marvellous letter" to Arthur Balfour, to the effect that he thinks
"it will be a public calamity if this great question should fall into
the line of party conflict," and saying that he desires the question
should be settled by the present Government. He be damned!--Yours
ever,
RANDOLPH S. C.
_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Xmas, 1885.
MY DEAR L.,--It may be that Brett is the go-between, and therefore
that Gladstone could use the views of others to head off Parnell.
Now as I believe we should speak with one voice and chime the same
note, I don't think it would be well for me to say anything at
present beyond thanking you for all your kindness. I mean anything
to any one but yourself. Harcourt's views quite interest me, and he
is quite right, for if our people are disappointed after the visions
held out to them, they cannot be held in. This country could easily
be made ungovernable so far as the collection of rent or legal
process is concerned, and the obstructors would find they were not
dealing with playboys but {290} with resolute men. It is because I
am for peace and feel the necessity for it that I am willing to
accept any reasonable settlement, as things could not go on as they
are for very long. If prices next year are as bad as this the
country will not be habitable in any case for rackrenters.
I can hardly believe the Tories would dissolve if your party shows
itself united. It is on your divided counsels they reckon. If a big
vote goes against them it will knock the bottom out of their
mutterings. Besides supposing the dissolution goes against them,
they must count the cost. Defeat would mean the instant carrying of
any schemes Gladstone liked to put forward and no nonsense from the
Lords. The Peers could not reject it, and if they did and Gladstone
threatened to dissolve against their existence--_bon soir_! I am
firmer therefore in my opinion that Randolph's talk was mere
funkee-funkee, a train laid to explode in Hawarden, and I shall be
surprised if it goes off.
Your fellows will never realise the price they will be willing to pay
us until they see the Market opened and a wretched minority sitting
and smiling across the floor from the seats they themselves should
recline on! Their teeth won't begin to water till the 12th Jan.
Therefore I believe a waiting game is our game, for surely it is of
as much consequence to your men that they should govern England as it
is to ours that they should govern Ireland? The fact that Parnell's
reserve is so provoking to the English is his best justification in
our minds. Chamberlain's point about whether the Imperial Ministry
which enjoyed the confidence of the English on Home affairs should
resign if defeated by our help on foreign questions is a poser. It
seems to me the federal idea cannot work unless you too have a local
and an Imperial Parliament.--Yours,
T. M. HEALY.
_Mr. Labouchere to "The Times"_[16]
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, S.W., Dec. 26, 1885.
"WHAT THE PARNELLITES WOULD ACCEPT."
SIR,--During the last Parliament I voted frequently with the Irish
members against the Government. I did so because I was {291} opposed
to exceptional measures of coercion, and believed that the remedy for
Irish wrongs consisted in allowing Ireland to manage her own affairs,
subject to full guarantee being given for the maintenance of the
integrity of the Empire. In this view it would appear that I was
only in advance by a year or two of the opinions of many Liberals and
Radicals and of some Conservatives.
Owing to the course of action which I pursued, I was thrown into
personal and friendly relations with many of the Irish and
Parliamentary party, which relations I have maintained, and I think I
am able to form a pretty accurate estimate of their views. First,
however, I will say with your permission a word respecting Irish
opinion, and the position, so far as I can judge it, of the Irish
political leaders. Among those of them opposed to the present state
of things the majority are not separatists, some because they are in
favour of the Union with the British Isles, others because they are
aware that separation is practically impossible. Those who aspire to
separation are an infinitesimal minority, and they subordinate their
opinions to those of their colleagues.
Throughout Ireland a passionate desire for Home Rule is entertained
by all with the exception of the landlords, the officials, and the
Orangemen. A good many of the landlords are disposed, however, to
rally to it, while the area over which the Orangemen hold sway is
growing smaller and smaller every year. Many of the Presbyterians of
Ulster have already thrown in their lot with the Home Rulers. There
is now but one single northern Irish county left which does not
return a Parnellite--viz. Antrim. In four Ulster counties--Monaghan,
Cavan, Donegal, and Fermanaugh--no one but Parnellites have been
chosen. The desire for Home Rule is irrespective of any wish to
alter the land system, although this wish is an important factor in
Irish feeling. Agriculture is almost the only industry in Ireland,
and one reason why the landlords are disliked is that, with some few
exceptions, they have set themselves in antagonism to the aspirations
of the nation for Home Rule. The Land Act has disappointed and
dissatisfied every one, for, while the landlords declare that their
property has been confiscated, the farmers cry out that their
property--_i.e._ their improvements, have been handed over to be
rented for the landlords' benefit in the teeth {292} of the Healy
clause. It is hopeless to suppose that an Imperial Parliament,
composed of a majority of gentlemen, who know very little about the
real merits of the case, can settle this great question, at which it
has been tinkering for generations, and I, as an Englishman, object
to have my time taken up in discussing it any more, and trying to
accommodate the differences between Irish renters and Irish rentees.
Mr. Chamberlain has rightly objected to the Imperial Exchequer being
saddled with purchase money to be paid to the landlords, and I think
our duty to them would be performed if we were to insist, in any
settlement of the Irish question, that they shall be entitled to call
on the Irish treasury for a fair price for their estates whenever
they want to sell them, due regard being had to the tenants'
statutably recognised ownership of his improvements. Thus the
landlords, if they object to live in an island, the inhabitants of
which enjoy the advantage of self-government, would be able to leave
it with the equivalent for their land in their pockets in hard cash.
With their departure the police difficulty would disappear, and with
it the necessity of England paying £1,500,000 per annum for the Royal
Irish Constabulary, although the Irish insist that they only require
a force of ¼ this size, and are willing to pay for it themselves.
Speaking generally, and if the land system were satisfactorily
settled, it may be said that the Irish are not Radicals in one sense
of the word. Their habit of thought is Conservative. They are, like
the French, somewhat too inclined to look and state interference in
everything. Their tendency is, as M. Guizot said of the French, to
fall into a division between administrators and administered. Their
hostility to law is not to law abstractedly, but to the law as
presenting what they regard as an alien ascendency. I am inclined to
think that, had they a Parliament of their own, they would surprise
us by their Conservative legislation.
Apart from the Nationalists, who form the great bulk of the nation,
are the Fenians. They are comparatively speaking few in number.
Their strength consists in being able to tell the Irish that Home
Rule never will be granted, and that Ireland must either separate
from us, or be ruled by us in local as well as in Imperial affairs.
{293}
That the Nationalists have to a certain extent acted with the Fenians
is true. But could they do otherwise? They had to fight against a
common opponent. Between a Nationalist and a Fenian there is as much
difference as between the most moderate Whig Squire who sat in last
Parliament on the Liberal benches and me. Yet we both voted
frequently together against the Conservatives. The Nationalists are
the Girondists, the Fenians are the Jacobins. Like the Girondists
they make common cause against a common enemy. (_He carries on this
simile lengthily._) Mr. Parnell and his political friends have
substituted constitutional agitation for lawless and revolutionary
agitation. He has only succeeded in this by persuading his
countrymen that his action will result in success. If he be doomed
to failure, the Fenians will once more gain the upper hand in Ireland.
The _Times_ has more than once suggested that the Irish Parliamentary
party should state precisely what they want. They want a Parliament.
How possibly can they be expected to say officially to what
limitations and to what restrictions they would submit for the sake
of a definite settlement before some responsible English statesman,
with a strong following at his back, is prepared to give them a
Parliament? They would indeed be fools were they to make such a
tactical blunder. In any negotiation of which I have ever read,
bases are agreed on before either party--and certainly before the
weaker party--specifies details.
I think, however, I am not far wrong in saying the following scheme
would be accepted:
1. Representation in the Imperial Parliament upon Imperial matters
alone. This would require a hard and fast definition as to what is
Imperial and what is local, together with, as in the United States,
some legal tribunal of appeal.
The Army, the Navy, the protection of the British Isles, and the
commercial and political relations with foreign nations would be
regarded as Imperial matters, and probably there would be no
insuperable difficulty--if it were deemed expedient--in arranging a
Customs Union, such as that of the German Zollverein before the
German Empire came into existence, leaving it to the Irish to foster
their industries, if they please, by means of bounties. There would
be an Imperial budget, which would be submitted each year to the
Imperial Parliament with the Irish {294} sitting in it. Each country
would contribute its quota according to population and property. If
more were required, the proportions would be maintained. Each island
would raise its quota as it best pleased.
2. The Government of Ireland--a Viceroy, a Privy Council, a
Representative Assembly, Ministers.
(1) The Viceroy--a member of the Royal family, with a salary of
£25,000 per annum.
(2) The Privy Council.--The present Privy Council consists of about
fifty individuals, all of them anti-Nationalists, and some of them
virulently so. The Council would have to be reorganised. This might
be done by nominating 100 new Councillors, men of moderate views, but
who would frankly accept the arrangement and endeavour to give
practical effect to it. The Council would gradually be increased by
the admission of the Irish Ministers.
(3) House of Representatives.--Its members would be elected as with
us according to population. As a concession, however, it would be
agreed that one-fourth of the members might be nominated, either
during two Parliaments or for five years.
(4) Ministers.--They would be selected from the Parliamentary
majority as with us. The Viceroy would call upon the leader of the
majority to form a Cabinet. He would, however, retain the
constitutional right of the Queen to dissolve.
3. The Veto.--This would be reserved to the Viceroy, with the consent
of his Privy Council. Of one thing I am absolutely certain. It is
that no arrangement is possible which would give the veto to the
Imperial Parliament. The Irish object to this, because they consider
that it would convert their assembly into a mere debating Society.
We--although we seem just now enamoured with it--should soon find
that all legislation in England would soon be brought again to a
standstill, as we should be perpetually debating Irish bills. The
Irish would also object to the Queen exercising the veto by the
advice of her Council, for, practically, this would mean the veto of
those representing the majority in the English Parliament. The Privy
Council is, unfortunately, historically odious in Ireland. But were
it recast, it is probable that the Irish would not object to the Veto
which I have suggested.
{295}
4. Protection of Minorities.--They would already be protected by the
veto, by the nominated members and by the Orangemen, who would return
a considerable contingent; but the Irish would go even further than
this.
(1) No contract existing or entered into could be set aside by Irish
legislation. In the event of any one feeling himself aggrieved in
this matter, he might appeal to the Judicial Committee of the House
of Lords.
(2) Any Landlord would have the right to insist upon his land being
bought by the Irish state on the estimate of its value, by the Land
Judges, due consideration being taken of tenants' improvements.
5. The Army in Ireland and the Fortresses would be under the orders
of the Imperial Ministry, much as is the case in the United States of
America.
I am far from saying that the Irish, if left to draw up the
settlement, would insert these conditions. Many of them savour of
tutelage and distrust. But I am pretty certain that, although in
discussion they might claim more, they would, if they could not get
more, accept this scheme with an honest intention to make it
workable. Less they would not accept, and for a very good reason.
If their leaders are to be responsible for the peace, tranquillity,
and prosperity of Ireland, they must have full powers to act, and the
scheme of Government must in the main be acceptable to the majority
of the governed.
At present we have arrived at a Parliamentary deadlock. No measure
dealing with Ireland can be passed in the existing House of Commons
without the aid of the Irish contingent. If a Coalition Government
were to succeed in passing, either in this Parliament or a subsequent
Parliament, a half-hearted measure, the Irish would decline to accept
it. They would simply refuse to act on it, and thus confusion would
become worse confounded. Experience has proved that any proposal not
to count on the Irish vote is outside the area of practical politics.
Experience has also shown that the rival political parties will not
subordinate their differences to any anti-Irish policy. Such schemes
are like the kiss of peace of the French Assembly during the French
Revolution. They sound all very well but last about half an hour.
{296}
We have then to decide whether we will try the experiment of
federalisation under the restrictions for the unity of the Empire,
and the protection of the minority in Ireland such as I have roughly
indicated; or whether we will embark in a career of what practically
amounts to war between the two islands.
Many Conservatives are excellent citizens, others are party men. The
latter would probably not object to the latter alternative. It would
unquestionably have the effect of the French wars in the days of
George III. They, I fully admit, would be better able to carry out a
system of repression than the Radicals. They therefore would in the
main hold office. Domestic reforms would be neglected, the Radical
chariot would stand still. You, Sir, I apprehend, are not a Radical,
and though you may not be influenced by this arrest of the chariot,
you would not regret the _propter hoc_. But it ought to lead any
Radical to pause and reflect.
I did not show myself a fanatical worshipper of Mr. Gladstone during
the last Parliament, in fact I must have voted against him as often
as I voted for him. In my address to my constituents I said that I
should raise my voice against any Administration, no matter what it
be called, that lags on the path of progress or that falls into
error. My constituents have been good enough to leave it to me to
decide what is lagging and what is error. If the Conservatives will
at once bring in a Bill dealing with Ireland in the manner I have
indicated they shall have my vote as far as that Bill is concerned.
But I gather that they have determined to oppose a _non possumus_ to
all such demands and not to go beyond including Irish in any general
scheme for local Government in both islands.
I turn therefore to Mr. Gladstone. His public utterances lead me to
believe that he is prepared to sacrifice his well-earned ease, and to
endeavour to settle the question in a manner satisfactory to us and
to the Irish. His experience is vast, his patriotism is undoubted,
his tactical skill is unrivalled. I would suggest therefore that we
should give him full powers to treat for us with the Irish, and that
we should support him in any arrangement which meets with his
sanction. The Irish have always had a {297} sneaking affection for
him; they will recognise that he has to count with English public
opinion, and they will concede far more to him than to any other
negotiator that we might select. I have seen that Lord Hartington
and Mr. Forster have pronounced against Home Rule, and that the
former is negotiating with Mr. Goschen. Lord Hartington generally
pronounces against a measure as a preliminary to accepting it; I do
not therefore ascribe much importance to his declaration. Mr.
Forster, during the last Parliament, distinguished himself by
uttering, in season and out of season, gibes and sarcasms against his
former colleagues. Mr. Goschen, a man of great ability and honesty,
could not find one English Liberal Constituency to return him, and
sits in Parliament by the good favour of the Edinburgh Conservatives.
With all respect therefore to the two gentlemen, I hardly think that
the Liberals will accept a policy from them. If we are to judge by
what happened in the last Parliament they have no followers.... Let
Mr. Gladstone then boldly declare himself for a well considered
measure of Home Rule....
H. LABOUCHERE.[17]
To the Editor of the _Times_.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 26, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Hawarden writes:...[18]
This is rather my plan--commerce would fall within the province of
Imperial matters--religion, too, might; taxation is a little more
difficult, for it would require much definition.[19]
{298}
Will the Irish trust Mr. Gladstone, and go with the Liberals on
general assurances? They may, and they may not; they are very
suspicious. Were I they, I should, and then upset him if he dodged
later on.
Anyhow, I think that we may take it that Mr. Gladstone is determined
to have a try at Irish legislation if he gets the chance, and the
fact that the Irish can at any time stop him in his career will lead
him to go great lengths.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere_
2 CONNAUGHT PLACE, W., Dec. 26, 1885.
DEAR LABOUCHERE,--You have definitely captured the G.O.M. and I wish
you joy of him. He has written another letter to A. Balfour,
intimating, I understand, without overmuch qualification, that if
Government do not take up Home Rule he will.
It is no use your writing to Lord Salisbury. The Prime Minister
cannot disclose the intentions of the Government except in the
ordinary course when Parliament meets.
I shall look forward to Monday's _Times_.--Yours ever,
RANDOLPH S. C.
I think Joe had much better join us. He is the only man on your side
who combines ability with common sense.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 26, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--The G.O.M. is sulking in his tent. No one can
get a word from him--he has not replied to letters from Hartington,
Rosebery, and myself.
Further consideration convinces me that no scheme on the lines of
Rosebery's proposal is worth attention.
There is only one way of giving _bona fide_ Home Rule, which is the
adoption of the American Constitution:
{299}
1. Separate legislation for England, Scotland, Wales, and possibly
Ulster. The three other Irish Provinces might combine.
2. Imperial legislation at Westminster for foreign and Colonial
affairs, Army, Navy, Post Office, and Customs.
3. A Supreme Court to arbitrate on respective limits of authority.
Of course the House of Lords would go. I do not suppose the five
Legislations could stand a second Chamber apiece.
Each would have its own Ministry responsible to itself.
There is a scheme for you. It is the only one which is compatible
with any sort of Imperial unity, and once established it might work
without friction.
Radicals would have no particular reason to object to it, and if Mr.
Gladstone is ready to propose it--well and good!
But I am sick of the vague generalities of John Morley and the _Daily
News_, and I am not going to swallow Separation with my eyes shut;
Let us know what you are doing.
The best thing for us all is to keep the Tories in a little longer.
Let them bear the first brunt of the situation created by the state
of Ireland and the disappointment of the Nationalists. But how the
devil is this to be managed? If the Irishmen choose they can turn
the Government out at any moment. Can you not persuade them that it
is clearly to their interest to keep them in for one session--while
Mr. Gladstone is preparing public opinions?--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 27, 1885.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I thought the scheme alleged to have been
submitted to the Queen was one of recent date.
If the rumour refers only to the time of the late Government, there
is not much in it. Mr. Gladstone had no scheme then--only the
vaguest ideas as to the necessity of doing something.
It is pretty evident that whatever else he may do to "crown his
career" he will break up the Liberal party.
His proposal about veto is a transparent fraud. It could not last as
an effective control for a single Parliament. I wish {300} some one
would start the idea of a Federal Constitution like the United
States. I do not believe people are prepared for this solution yet,
but it is the only possible form of Home Rule. It is that or nothing.
In my opinion Mr. Gladstone cannot carry his or any other scheme just
now, and if the Irishmen force the pace the only result will be a
dissolution and the Tories in a working majority.
Let them refuse to put the Tories out just yet unless Mr. Gladstone
publicly declares himself. If they were to put the Tories out
to-morrow, and then turn on the Liberals in a month, they would
secure only a strong Coalition both in the House and the country for
resistance to all Irish claims.
I believe the true policy for every one except Mr. Gladstone is to
"wait and see."--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 28, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--If I might venture to criticise--you assume
that the Conservatives and the Irish would both act as you wish.
Neither would. The Conservatives are sharp enough to decline to
retain power in order to be discredited warming-pans, and the Irish
must demonstrate, now that they have carried the country.
Writing to Hawarden, I have hinted at your views, and asked whether a
below the gangway amendment would be accepted, stating generally that
the Irish question must be dealt with. If the G.O.M. and if you were
to vote for this, we should still be beaten. The party would not
have pledged itself to it as a party; the Irish would be satisfied,
and if on some issue in a month or two we had an election, we should
get the Irish vote.
I should say myself that it would be far better not to have the Irish
at Westminster at all; this would meet the conundrum of an Imperial
and an English Ministry. As a statistical fact, Ireland does not now
contribute much more than the cost of her civil Government to the
Imperial Exchequer. Let her contribute nothing, or some fixed sum
for armaments (which she probably {301} would not pay). She would be
like the Dominion. We should hold the country through the army and
the fortresses, and if she tried to separate, we should suspend the
Constitution. But as a matter of fact, she would not try. The Irish
"idea of patriotism is to serve the country at a good salary, and to
get places for cousins, etc. You would see that Irish politics would
become a perpetual vestry fight for the spoil.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 30, 1885.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This is the last from Hawarden, which I
transmit to Healy. The "channel" is in reply to a letter from Healy
saying that if Mr. Gladstone prefers other channels, he (Healy) must
take leave to withdraw. It is all very well, but Parnell will not be
such a fool as to show his hand for the benefit of Mr.
Gladstone....[20]
_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Dec. 30, 1885.
MY DEAR L.,--I have been in the country holidaying. The statistics
you want I think could be got from Col. Nolan's return, which alas
shows that you profit £3,000,000 per annum out of us. I speak from
memory. Go to Smith in the House of Commons' Library, and ask him to
find it out for you. He can get you this and any other statistical
facts you need. But some thirty years ago your people dropped
showing a separate Irish account and bulked the whole thing in order
to diddle us, and {302} therefore it is net easy to reckon the
figures out. O'Neill Daunt, however, can supply everything you can't
get elsewhere. I think Randolph must have pulled the longbow rather
taut to you in every way. I don't believe anything he has been
saying. As to Chamberlain he must be crazy to write that way to
Morley. Give the G.O.M. power and he could form a Cabinet in a week
minus Joe, and the Gates of Birmingham should not prevail against it
(it is "Hell" in the original). Your letter ought to do much good.
You greatly improved it. It has been quoted into all the Irish
papers and commented on. I am glad it appeared, but of course, I
know nothing of the genesis. I agree with you about representation
in the Imperial Parliament. Your people seem to shy at it, and it
would be better for us not to have it, unless your side insists.
Still there will be many Irishmen loath to surrender all
representation, but they cannot have everything. I don't think
Fottrell can physic Chamberlain's disease. He's going to be a
Mugwump. I wish him joy of the profession. His chance was to be
first Lieutenant to the G.O.M. _cum jure suc_, and he is going to
degenerate into a kind of small Forster species of Sorehead. I note
what you say about our papers. Like Brer Rabbit we ought to "lay
low" just now. Small wonder if Gladstone should be intimidated into
minimising coercion. The Heathen rage very furiously against him. I
mistrust Grosvenor's influence on Hawarden. If the old man was ten
years younger, I'd be for keeping in the Tories till we got County
Boards out of them in order to chasten your party in the cold winds
of opposition. Our people won't have any fraud of a Bill made for
the Whigs to swallow. We shall be reasonable, but so must your
party. We can wait, for we are used to it. Your party leaders
represent personal ambition, and are in more of a hurry.--Faithfully
yours,
T. M. HEALY.
_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Dec. 31, 1885.
MY DEAR L.,--I return H. Gladstone's letter which I regard as most
important. I am very glad to think Gladstone is not being
intimidated out of his position by the pitiless storm beating {303}
upon him. I agree that nothing satisfactory can be done until the
House meets, and we shall then have a week before the Address is
read, and our party will have met, and we shall know its mind, while
personal communications will have become possible amongst the Liberal
leaders also. I think Chamberlain is ruining himself. If Gladstone
sticks to his text he can easily form a Cabinet without him or the
Mugwumps, and then where will they be? Trevelyan's speech to-day is
very bad too, but they are all ciphers until Gladstone puts his one
before their noughts.
I have your letters safely and will return all your former enclosures
to-night. I am not writing this from my house or I'd send them with
this. I have kept copies of nothing and burn your letters, as the
police could always find a pretext here to walk in on you and read
your billets-doux.--Faithfully yours,
T. M. HEALY.
[1] The present Strangers' Dining-room.
[2] Sir Henry Lucy, _Sixty Years in the Wilderness_, vol. ii.
[3] Morley, _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii.
[4] Barry O'Brien, _Life of Parnell_.
[5] Mr. Healy wrote an attack on Mr. Chamberlain's article, as soon
as it appeared, in _United Ireland_, under the title of "Queen's
Bench Home Rule."
[6] Barry O'Brien, _Life of Parnell_.
[7] The enclosure was letter from Mr. Herbert Gladstone dated October
18.
[8] The proposal was contained in a letter from Mr. Herbert Gladstone
to Mr. Labouchere, which Mr. Labouchere quoted in full for Mr.
Chamberlain's information. It enumerated six conditions as the basis
of a settlement of the Irish Government question.
[9] The election ran from Nov. 23 to Dec. 19. The result was that
333 Liberals were returned, 251 Conservatives, and 86 Parnellites.
[10] Mr. Labouchere quotes the greater part of a letter from Mr.
Herbert Gladstone, dated Dec. 7, in which Mr. Herbert Gladstone urges
the all importance of the Irish question, and the necessity of
ascertaining the plans of the Irish leaders.
[11] The term "hard cash" is quoted from the letter of Dec. 7, from
Mr. Herbert Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere, already referred to (see
note page 273).
[12] Statement as to Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Scheme was published
in the _Leeds Mercury_ and the _Standard_ on December 17, and in the
_Times_ and other London papers of December 18.
[13] Winston Spencer Churchill, _Lord Randolph Churchill_, vol. ii.
[14] In _Truth_ of December 24, Mr. Labouchere commented on his own
assertion that a letter Mr. Gladstone had written to the Queen was
communicated by her to Lord Salisbury, who, in his turn, communicated
some of its contents to the _Standard_.
[15] Editor of the _Daily News_ from 1868 till 1886.
[16] _Times_, Dec. 28, 1885.
[17] An old Radical M. P. writes criticising this letter: "Mr.
Labouchere has never been regarded by us as a Radical at all, but as
a Separatist, and we have always profoundly distrusted his advice
upon the few occasions on which it was possible to regard it as
serious."--_Times_, Jan. 4, 1886.
[18] Mr. Labouchere here quotes a letter he had received from Mr.
Herbert Gladstone, stating Mr. Gladstone's determination not to
formulate any scheme which might be taken as a bribe for Irish
support, nor to shift from his position, before the Government had
spoken, or the Irish party had, in public, terminated their alliance
and put the Tories in a minority of 250 to 330.
[19] Mr. Gladstone's idea of a veto was that it might be exercised by
the Crown on ordinary matters on the advice of an Irish Minister,
but, on certain questions, _e.g._ religion or commerce, perhaps
taxation, by the Imperial Ministry.
[20] Mr. Labouchere here quotes in full a letter from Mr. Herbert
Gladstone to himself, stating that, if communications have to take
place with the Irish party, only one channel will be recognized, viz.
Parnell. But he adds he does not think there is any chance of
bringing their party to the scratch before Parliament meets, because
of the insufficiency of the knowledge they possess to enable them to
decide on any action, before the Address debate is actually in
progress. He also points out how impossible it would be for Mr.
Gladstone to adopt Mr. Chamberlain's policy of waiting, and adds that
if the Liberal Party chooses to break up over an Irish Parliament it
cannot be helped.
{304}