THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 1, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--No, I do not think that he (Mr. Gladstone) is
hedging; from his personal standpoint, he knows that his only chance
of coming in is to get over the Irish, and then to get over his own
party. Waiting games may suit others, but he cannot wait, and
already considers that he has been out for very long. He thought so
a week after Salisbury came in, and at once commenced with the Irish.
This, I should imagine, is his game. On the Address, he will
endeavour to put the Tories in a minority, with or without the Irish.
He then expects to be called upon to form a Government. He will at
once begin to enter privately into terms with the Irish. These terms
will be much the same sort of thing as I wrote in the _Times_, or
non-appearance at all in the Imperial Parliament, after the manner of
Canada. If he cannot make terms, it may be that his desire for
office will lead him to come in, but if he is to be believed, he will
not. What will then be the position? He cannot well dissolve, so
there must inevitably be a Palmerston-Hartington Government, whilst
the Radicals would be split up, some going for the Irish, others
against. This, it seems to me, means the destruction of the Radical
Party for many a year. Mr. Gladstone knows that he is too big an
individuality to be the head of a Coalition Government, moreover he
has burnt his ships.
Suppose, on the other hand, the Conservatives dissolve at once, after
Mr. Gladstone has pronounced in favour of Home {305} Rule. On what
cry should we go to the country, if not on Home Rule? Evidently
those opposed to it would give the preference to the Conservatives,
for they one and all would have put their foot down, whilst we should
be tainted with the unholy thing, even if we had made a Jonah of Mr.
Gladstone. So long as the Irish question is not settled, the Tories
must have the pull in the country, and the Radicals must remain
discredited and disunited.
This being so, is it not worth while to take the other course? It is
by no means certain that we should be beaten at an election. Mr.
Gladstone is still a power. The Irish have votes which would turn
several places. The electors may be divided into people who think
about the question of Ireland, and those who don't. For the latter a
"cow" might be invented, whilst many of the former would say that as
one English party has gone for Home Rule, it must come, and if so as
speedily as possible.
The real enemies of the Radicals are the Whigs, and they are
essentially your enemies. It is a mistake to undervalue them. They
have always managed to jockey the Radicals. They hang together; they
have, through Grosvenor, the machine; they dominate in Clubs and in
the formation of Cabinets. They may ally themselves with you _re_
Ireland, but this will be for their benefit, not yours. Nothing
would give them greater pleasure than to betray you with a kiss, for
you are their permanent bogey. Once you are out of the way, and the
sheep of Panurge, _i.e._, the vast majority of the Liberal M.P.s,
would be boxed up in their fold. At every election we should have
shilly-shally talk, very vague and apparently meaning much, followed
by half-hearted measures.
All this is why I still hold that the Radical game is to go with Mr.
Gladstone on Irish matters, and to use him in order to shunt them
and, if possible, the Whigs--not that this course is not full of
danger, but that it seems to me to present less danger than any
other.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, Jan. 3, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--The more I look at the thing, the less I like
it. Whatever we do we shall be smashed for a {306} certainty. The
question is whether it is better to be smashed with Mr. Gladstone and
the Parnellites or without them.
I believe the anti-Irish feeling is very strong with our best
friends--the respectable artisans and the non-Conformists.
One thing I am clear about. If we are to give way it must be by
getting rid of Ireland altogether, and by some such scheme as this.
Call Ireland a protected state. England's responsibility to be
confined exclusively to protecting the country against foreign
aggression.
England's authority to be confined exclusively to the measures
necessary to secure that Ireland shall not be a _point d'appui_ for a
foreign country.
The financial question to be settled by a fixed annual payment to
cover:
1. Ireland's share of the Debt.
2. A sinking fund to extinguish it in fifty years.
3. The cost of the military garrison.
_Query_: Should we hold the customs till this Debt is extinguished,
or find some other security for payment?
In order to gild the pill for the English sympathisers with
Protestant and landowning minorities:
Ireland to be endowed with a Constitution--the elements to be:
1. A Governor with power to dissolve Parliament--no veto.
2. A Senate, probably elected but with some qualifications to secure
a moderately Conservative Assembly.
3. A House of Commons.
To meet the prejudices of English manufacturers and workmen, a
Commercial treaty pledging Ireland not to impose duties on English
manufactures. (Bounties might be left open.)
In this case Ireland could have no foreign relations. It is
impossible to allow her to communicate direct any more than Australia
and Canada. But this was a great source of complaint by Irish
patriots in the time of Grattan's Parliament.
The difficulties of any plan are almost insurmountable, but the worst
of all plans would be one which kept the Irishmen at Westminster
while they had their own Parliament in Dublin.
{307}
I end as I began. We shall be smashed because the country is not
prepared for Home Rule.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 4, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I think your scheme an excellent one; only
Ireland is so wretchedly poor a country, that it will not pay its
contribution; that, however, is a detail.
I am perfectly certain that Mr. Gladstone is determined to go on, and
that any idea of a Whig cum Radical demonstration to induce him to
keep quiet will not avail. Rosebery writes, "He is boiling over with
the subject," and you know how, when once an idea gets hold of his
mind, it ferments; as Hawarden said in a recent letter, he is
determined to stand or fall by it.
I suspect that this scheme is passing through his ingenuous mind. To
get in by the Irish vote, then to ask the Conservatives to consult
with him as to a plan. The Irish, however, are quite cute enough not
to help him in, until, one way or another, they are secured against
this.
I have just received this from Churchill:
"The Queen's Speech will be delivered on the 21st. No mention of
Home Rule. What a blessing it would be if we could get rid of the
Whigs and the Irish at one coup. But I am afraid that this will be
impossible, and that the former as usual will knock under."
--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to the "Times"_ (_Extract_)
REFORM CLUB, Jan. 2, 1886.
You, sir, possibly have not been brought closely in contact with the
Irish leaders. I have; and more practical, sensible, I may indeed
say, more moderate men, when not under the influence of temporary
excitement, I never came across.... I have indeed been greatly
struck with their largeness and broadness of view, which contrasts
advantageously with our supercilious mode of treating political
opponents who have not the advantage of {308} being Anglo-Saxons, our
insularity, and our want of facility to grasp new ideas, or to
realise the necessity of adapting ourselves to circumstances, as
Bunsen--one of our great admirers--said, what most struck him during
his residence here was "the deficiency of the method of handling
ideas in this blessed island."--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.[1]
To the Editor of the _Times_.
_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere_
INDIA OFFICE, Jan. 7, 1886.
DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I should be delighted to dine with you on the 12th
or 15th, if that would be convenient and agreeable to you. I think
Joe is quite right to walk warily. After all, if the G.O.M. goes a
mucker it may be a good thing for everybody. He has always disturbed
the equilibrium of parties and done no good to any one except
himself. However, you will probably think me prejudiced.--Yours ever,
RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 7, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Churchill will come on the 15th if that suits
you. Is there any other Conservative or Liberal you would like?
I suspect that Mr. Gladstone will not give the necessary pledges to
the Irish. They have an idea that he might get in by their votes,
and then try to make terms with the Conservatives, and bring in a
milk and water measure. He talks of faith in him. Singularly enough
they have not that amount which they ought to have.
There is also the possibility that they will take a bird in the hand
from the Conservatives--in the form of some local county measure,
which would strengthen them in Ireland, and which would give them
leverage.
If this be so, how about a resolution in their favour--somewhat {309}
vague--which would win them over to us in case of an election, and
which would not be carried?--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Jan. 7, 1886.
MY DEAR L.,--I am afraid I badly repay all your letters. I greatly
fear that Chamberlain's tone shows that even if he accepts the
proposals in principle, he will help the Whigs to make Mr. Gladstone
minimise them, and thus they may prove inacceptable to Ireland. Then
it will be the Land Act misery over again, or rather your party would
not be let in by us to pass a maimed measure, and so the Tories would
reap the profit of our dissensions. _Beati possidentes!_ However, I
think when your men get blooded by a few skirmishes with the Tories,
they will be willing enough to patch things up to turn them out.
With regard to Morley's point about the Veto, I recognise that the
bigger powers we get the more natural would be your desire for some
guarantee against their abuse--the better the Parliament, the more
effective the Veto. As the scientist would say, you want it
increased according to the square of the power. A Governor-General,
I think, would meet this, and, for my part, I think it would capture
or render quiescent a lot of the loyalists if he were a prince. A
few Royal levees and some judicious jobs would probably bring most of
these gentry round in a short time.
Your letters have been admirable, and I am sure have done good,
though none of us could write to the _Times_ or acknowledge it in any
way. Moreover, except through extracts in the _Express_, none of us
see it here. A single copy of any newspaper from across the Channel
does not enter the office of _United Ireland_! However, as we are
not your rulers this is no crime.
The usual stuff I see is being talked about Home Rule leading to
separation, and how the American-Irish would not accept the
settlement, nor the Fenians. The fellow who writes as "an old
Fenian" in the _St. James' Gazette_, extracts from which I have seen,
is Dick Piggott, late of the _Irishman_ newspaper, who swindled {310}
every Fenian Fund he could milk, and whom the boys would not touch
with the tongs. I undertake to say that if a suitable Home Rule
scheme be proposed, though Parnell said he could offer no guarantees,
that we could call a National Convention to ratify it, and therefore
could treat as a traitor every one who afterwards opposed it, or did
not loyally abide thereby. Moreover, terrible as are the
American-Irish in English eyes, I believe--and I have visited and
spoken at every big city from New York to San Francisco, and from
Galveston on the Mexican Gulf to Montreal in Canada--that we could
summon a representative Convention in Chicago, including the Clan na
Gael, the ancient Order, and the Rossa crowd which would endorse the
settlement and thereby effectually dry up the well-springs of
revolutionary agitation. But to do this we must get no sham vestry,
but an assembly that would gratify the national pride of the Celtic
race. Our people in America will only be too glad to be allowed to
mind their own business, and many of the wealthy among them will come
back and settle down here, investing their capital and teaching the
people the industries they have learnt abroad. The mass of them are
as Conservative as any in the world, and when I told a crowded
meeting the night of the Chicago Convention in 1881--referring to
wild advice that had been offered--"that the Irish leaders were no
more to be bought by American dollars than by English gold," the
sentiment was cheered to the echo and was mutilated accordingly in
the report of the _Irish World_.
However, this is running a long way ahead of events, and this idea of
mine is not one that I have yet broached to my colleagues.
I expect to be over on Tuesday, but hope to be allowed to run back
then till the 21st, as I suppose we shall have nothing to do in the
interval. I don't suppose we shall make up our minds as to whether
we shall move an amendment to the Address, till after we hear it
read. Even then this, I presume, would depend as to whether a _modus
vivendi_ with you was arrived at, for if the Tories are in earnest
with their threat to dissolve, the best tactics would be to have no
Irish Debate and to cook their goose on a side issue--Egypt, Burmah,
or what-not.--Truly yours,
T. M. HEALY.
{311}
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, Jan. 8, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--The 15th will suit me. Many thanks. I fancy
Randolph Churchill will be more talkative if we are alone, unless you
know any one whom he likes to meet. I leave it entirely in your
hands.
Mr. Gladstone has asked me to meet him on Tuesday. Perhaps he may be
explicit, but I am not sanguine.
If the Irish are ready to give the Tories a chance, by all means let
us wait and see results.
I could not support any resolution at present. If it were vague, the
Irish would not thank us--if it were definite, I doubt if it would be
good policy to vote with it.
We are sure to have an opportunity on the Local Government Bill--if
we desire to take advantage of it.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 9, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I had a letter from Healy yesterday. So far as
I understand the matter, things are in this position.
Mr. Gladstone is in his tent. He will do nothing until the Address.
He then, I think, inclines to an understanding with the Irish, for
this is a _sine qua non_ of his coming in.
Healy says that the Irish will decide nothing until the Address.
They will not aid in turning out the Tories unless there is a
specific understanding as to what Mr. Gladstone's Bill is to be. If
such arrangement be satisfactory, they will agree to vote them out on
Burmah, Egypt, or anything else, so as to render it difficult for the
Tories to dissolve. They perceive the difficulties of Mr.
Gladstone's position and are just now in a yielding mood, but beyond
a certain point they cannot go, as their own people would turn
against them.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
{312}
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 12, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I have just got a long letter from Herbert
Gladstone. So far as I can make out, Mr. Gladstone has in reality
abandoned none of his projects. But he is cornered by the fact that
the Irish will not aid him to get in without very definite assurances.
Healy writes to say that he will be here on Thursday, and that
nothing has been decided as to the course of the Irish. He
suggests--if some agreement can be come to--saying not one word on
Home Rule, but turning the Government out upon a bye issue, Egypt,
Burmah, or anything. I have written to ask whether the following
plan would be assented to:
(1) Turn out Government on bye issue. (2) Have some sort of
temporary scheme for governing Ireland. (3) Appoint some sort of
dilatory Commission. (4) Bring in Bill next year. I have explained
that this would only be possible if Mr. Gladstone could, in some way
or other, make it clear to the Irish what the Bill is to be, and also
that he would stand or fall on it.
This would give time to educate public opinion, and to have good
Bills on English subjects, whilst it would render it impossible for
the Conservatives to dissolve.
I don't know whether I could get the Irish to assent--supposing that
Mr. Gladstone does--but I should be sanguine of doing so. They have
now so arranged their party that practically Healy, O'Brien,
Harrington, and Parnell can do precisely what they like. Parnell I
put last, because he will agree to the decisions of the other
three.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_P.S._--I write this, because I shall not be able to explain it to
you this evening before Randolph Churchill.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 15, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I should have been delighted to {313} dine with
you on the 31st, but I have already asked some people to dine with me
on that day.
Harcourt favoured me during an hour yesterday with his views. They
are vague and misty. He has got it into his head that the Government
mean a Coercion Bill. If they are wise, I should think that they
would bring one in, and thus split up the Liberals at once.
Mr. Gladstone is evidently meditating some coup on his own account,
and to retire in a blaze of Irish fire-works. He does not want to
wait, but if he acts, he holds that he must act at once. He is by no
means in a good humour with his late colleagues.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Jan. 15, 1886.
MY DEAR MR. L.,--Herbert Gladstone is totally wrong about me. I
neither saw nor heard from nor communicated with Churchill or any
member of the Government since the House rose--I except the Irish law
officers whom I meet daily in Court, but whom I never exchange a word
with on politics. I am now just of the same opinion I always held,
but I don't see what we can do till your party move. It would play
the devil with us were we to put the Liberals into office and then
have them to turn round on us, by proposing a settlement we could not
accept. We cannot buy a pig in a poke. You may say we could turn
them out at a minute's notice. That seems very easy on paper by
counting parties, but if we are going to play this game successfully
the fewer ministries we turn out the better, as any naked exhibition
of our power in a gratuitous way would be sure to get you a majority
if you dissolved on that issue. No, we prefer instead of having to
put you out, not to let you get in, until there's a straightforward
arrangement made. At least this is what seems to me to be
commonsense. I know nothing of the Tory plans. Of course, if they
are fools enough to play your hand by proposing coercion our hands
may be forced--I only write on the assumption that they have sense.
What I say is let Mr. Gladstone satisfy Parnell and the whole thing
is settled. {314} Was it from Grosvenor's experience and anecdotes
of the Irish party that the Duke of Westminster called us
_debauchees_? Were we too lax in our attendance on Parliament to
please Lord Richard--prowling round St. John's Wood, when we ought to
have been braking his coach? So we must please our fastidious
censors by arranging that the new party will sit up of nights in the
House, instead of sporting about town as His Grace suggests the old
one did. Shall be over on Thursday.
T. M. HEALY.
_Mr. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_
DUBLIN, Jan. 17, 1886.
MY DEAR L.,--I don't think I could say anything fresh until Thursday,
when I shall go fully into matters with you. I quite feel the
difficulties of Mr. Gladstone's position and think our party fully
appreciate them, and would even strain points to obviate them, if
this can well be done by men in our straits. However, I would point
out that on his side we have had nothing but a repudiation of the
principles attributed to him by the "Revelations," and this, _plus_
good intentions, is not sufficient ground for eighty-six men to
consult and decide on. If no communication is made to Parnell, as I
think it ought to be, for our meeting, we shall probably let things
drift and do nothing. I would have preferred all along not to have
been the repository of any views held by your Leaders, lest it might
be supposed I was trenching on the prerogatives of Parnell's
position, and now I think the time has come--if he is to be
approached at all for some communication to reach him otherwise than
through me. If I can be shown any honourable basis, on which we
could vote your party into power, I shall rejoice and will press my
views strongly on our men.--Faithfully yours,
T. M. HEALY.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 22, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I send this to you by hand, {315} because if
you are inclined to go on with the plan you suggested, it will be
necessary to act.
Parnell is quite ready--without prejudice--that is to say, he says
that he does not absolutely assent, but thinks that he will, which
you know, with him--who is more hesitating than Fabius--means that he
will. His lieutenants agree--although he does not know this.
But he says that, admitting that Mr. Gladstone can give no pledges,
he must know two things:
1. That Mr. Gladstone, if called upon by the Queen to form a
Government, will form one, _i.e._, if Goschen, Hartington, etc.,
decline to join, that he will not throw up the sponge, for, with
considerable point, he says that he prefers the Conservatives to a
Hartington Government, supported by the Moderate Liberals and
Conservatives, and you as a Radical. Such a Government he might not
be able to turn out, and it might remain master of the situation.
2. He wants an understanding that if Mr. Gladstone comes in he will
act on his speech, and at once bring in his scheme for the Government
of Ireland.
I saw Herbert Gladstone, and he is to explain these two demands to
his father.
Herbert Gladstone says that his father would take office without
Hartington, but that his main difficulty is the Peers. He hopes that
he will be able to get over this difficulty very soon.
I have replied that at any moment the Irish may break out, and that
if once we get to Procedure we shall all fall to pieces, and that the
determination of the Irish to fight against Procedure will very soon
make us too.
I begged J. Collings to put off his amendment, and told him that
perhaps I might get him some votes. Randolph Churchill tried to
bring the general debate to an end last night, but this we stopped,
and Sexton moved the adjournment.
Grosvenor asked me how long the debate would last? I said the Irish
meant to keep it up. He said that he did not want them to. I said
that they were not asking him whether he did or not, but that he was
asking me now long it would last. He told me that he would prevent
the G.O.M. ever going for Home Rule, and then spoke about the Party.
He said, "You or _Truth_ {316} are making a great mistake. You
assume that the Radicals constitute the majority of the Liberal
Party, but really the Whigs do." I asked him what would happen if
the G.O.M. were to retire; he replied, a Whig Administration under
Hartington with you--that you and the Radicals would soon perceive
that you were not masters of the situation, etc.
I, of course, did not tell him about Collings's amendment, but it
will be very difficult to get him to whip for it, and you will have
to put your foot down about it. Parnell agrees, if they are to be
bought off, that the Irish shall appear not to take much interest in
the matter, but to vote up before the Whigs know what is to occur.
Parnell is more than reasonable. In his present mood, he is all for
a fair scheme. His two _sine qua nons_ are, that there should be an
Assembly called a Parliament for local matters, and that he should
have the Police. He says that it would be absolutely impossible for
him to keep down the Fenians without this, and that he is fully
determined not to accept the responsibility. About the veto, etc.,
he will make concessions, and give any guarantees that are required.
He made a most conciliatory speech last night. Before making it he
said, "There shall not be one word in it to which any one can
object." He is very anxious to know about your feeling on the matter
of Mr. Gladstone's plans.
With regard to Ireland, he says that the people really cannot pay
their rents in some places, and that he is certain that if nothing be
done there will be rows in a few weeks. But he is doing all that he
can to keep things quiet, and next week he will dissolve some of the
most bumptious of the Local Branch Leagues.
I told Herbert Gladstone that you had suggested to me the Collings
amendment.[2] Could you not see Mr. Gladstone and push the matter?
I also told Herbert Gladstone that Grosvenor was not to be trusted.
I shall, I suppose, see you in the House this afternoon. Never shall
we have a better chance, but if we do not use our chances, they will
disappear.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
{317}
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., Feb. 15, 1886.[3]
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--... As regards out future policy I can say
nothing at present, but I think that a closer inspection of the
difficulties in the way has brought Mr. Gladstone nearer to me than
he was when he first came to London. If Parnell is impracticable my
hope is that we may all agree to give way to the Tories and let them
do the coercion which will then be necessary. They will be supported
for this purpose by a clear majority in the country and probably in
the House. As for passing Home Rule resolutions at the present time,
I utterly disbelieve in its possibility.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_[4]
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, March 31, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--There would be much joy in the Radical heaven
if things could be hit off with you, and they would all be ready to
put Elijah's mantle on you if they could come to some agreement as to
this damned Irish question.
The feeling is, I think, this: they are in favour of Home Rule, and
do not particularly care about details, provided that the scheme
settles the matter. They do not love the Irish, but hate them, and
would give them Home Rule on the Gladstone or Canada pattern to get
rid of them. Home Rule, therefore, whatever the Whigs may say, will
be carried. They are dead against any employment of English credit
for the Irish landlords or Irish tenants. This--whatever the detail
of Mr. Gladstone's plan may be--will be lost.
I rather suspect that the revered G.O.M. is playing a game; he is
bound to Spencer, therefore he is to bring in his Land Bill. But, if
it meets with disapproval, is it likely that he will throw {318} up
the Home Rule sponge for the sake of Spencer and the Irish landlords?
Will he not rather say that it is a detail of a great project, and
not an essential one?
Now, just see what would be the position if we could act with you on
these lines? The Whigs would be cleared out. If Gladstone is
beaten, we would soon upset a Hartington cum Conservative Government.
We might have grandiose revolutions--giving cows to agriculturists,
and free breakfast tables to artisans. We should be against Tories,
Whigs, and Lords. With you to the front we should win at an
election, or if not at once, later on. There never was such an
opportunity to establish a Radical party, and to carry all before it.
Is it worth while wrecking this beautiful future, for the sake of
some minor details about Irish Government? You may depend upon it,
that the Irish, if not granted Gladstone's Home Rule, will never
assent to anything else. Coercion would follow, and this would give
power to the Tory Whigs for years. For my part, I would coerce the
Irish, grant them Home Rule, or do anything with them, in order to
make the Radical programme possible. Ireland is but a pawn in the
game. If they make fools of themselves when left to themselves, it
would be easy to treat them as the North did the South, rule by the
sword, and suppress all representation.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
REFORM CLUB, April 7, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Any number of Radicals expressed their hope
this afternoon in the House that you would see your way to approve of
Mr. Gladstone's amended Bill. They are all most anxious that you
should be the Elisha of the aged Elijah, and aid in getting this
Irish question out of the way.
I believe that the old Parliamentary Hand means to throw out that, on
details, discussion can take place in Committee. The line, I hear,
on Excise and Customs is: Do you want the Irish Members? if not, you
must give them Excise and Customs; if you do, this is not necessary.
I was asked to sound Parnell a couple of days ago about {319}
annexing Belfast and the adjacent country to England. I did not see
him, but I learnt that he is strongly against it. The project is, I
think, now abandoned, for the Scotch seem likely to go straight
without it, and the Belfast people do not want it.
To the best of my belief the real number that Hartington has got is
sixty. We cannot make out about Ponsonby calling on Hartington,
unless the Queen is anticipating events, and sounding him about what
she must do, if asked to dissolve. Randolph tells me that Lord
Salisbury called upon him to settle details about the debate. I
doubt whether this is precisely true.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., April 8, 1886.[5]
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--Nothing would give me greater pleasure than, to
come back to the fold. Unfortunately I am told to-day on the highest
authority that the scheme to be proposed to-night will not meet the
main objections which led to my resignation. I am very sorry, as I
was and am in the most conciliatory mood.--Yours very truly,
J. L. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, April 15, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Some friends of yours are urging that there
should be an interview between you and Mr. Gladstone. They asked me
what I thought? I said that it was doubtful whether this would lead
to much beyond vague talk by Mr. Gladstone.
You objected to (1) Members being excluded, (2) Magistrates not being
appointed by England, (3) Excise and Customs. No. 3 is given up.
No. 1 is an open question, which is practically yielded. There
remains, therefore, only No. 2. As regards the two Orders, I presume
that Mr. Gladstone alluded to them, when he said that he did not
himself deem guarantees necessary. {320} There is no reason
therefore why we should not throw them out in Committee, or if they
pass, and there is a Radical majority in Parliament later on,
reconsider the matter. So the Bill has been remodelled on your
pattern.
As regards the Land Bill,[6] I hear that Lord Spencer says that if it
is thrown out in the House of Commons, he will not complain. Mr.
Gladstone therefore avoids trouble by bringing it in, and as the
Conservatives cannot well vote for it, I am sure that we can throw it
out on the Second Reading.
Your coming over would ensure the passing of the Irish Government
Bill; it would go to the Lords. Then Queen, Lords, and Whigs would
be on one side, and the Radicals on the other. Mr. Gladstone must
soon come to an end. You would be our leader. The Whigs would be
hopelessly bogged. Radicalism would be triumphant. Does not this
tempt you? It really does seem such a pity with the promised land
before us, that we should wander off into the wilderness, on account
of small differences of detail. There is no scheme which the mind of
man could contrive that would not be open to criticism. A better one
than that of Mr. Gladstone is conceivable, but show me how any body
of men would be found to agree upon any other scheme? There is
nothing more easy than Constitution making, except criticising the
Constitutions made by others, and there always are, and always will
be, a number of people to go against any scheme.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., April 17, 1886.
No. 1.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I really made a great effort last night to come
to an arrangement, and whether it is successful or not depends now on
Mr. Gladstone's inclination to meet me half way--rather perhaps I
should say it depends upon the action of yourself and other Radical
members who agree with my views and are in a position to bring
sufficient pressure to bear upon the Whigs to make reconciliation a
certainty.
{321}
I am quite convinced, from the information that reaches me, that
unless some such reconciliation is effected the Liberal party will be
hopelessly divided at the general election.
The majority will very likely go with the party machinery and with
Mr. Gladstone, but a sufficient number will stand aloof to make
success impossible.
We cannot leave the matter uncertain till after the 2nd reading. I
know enough of Parliamentary tactics to be sure that in that case we
shall get nothing, but be beaten in detail on every division. All I
ask is that Mr. Gladstone should give some sufficient assurance that
he will consent--first, to the retention of the Irish representation
at Westminster on its present footing according to population, and at
the same time the maintenance of Imperial control over Imperial
taxation in Ireland; and secondly, that he should be willing to
abandon all the so-called safeguards in connection with the
Constitution of the new legislative body in Dublin.
You can get this assurance if you like, and the matter is therefore
in your hands.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, April 17, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I made it quite clear and distinct both to
Herbert Gladstone and to Arnold Morley what you wanted, after seeing
you. Herbert is to tackle his father on the subject. I have no
doubt that we can arrange the matter. Arnold Morley would hold that,
anyhow, you would vote for the Bill. I said that this was not quite
so certain, and that your proposal was a reasonable one. Herbert
Gladstone said that his father did not in the least undervalue your
support, and considered that your present attitude was paralysing the
party outside Parliament. Some friends of yours were getting up a
memorandum to Mr. Gladstone about the Bill, asking him to promise
this and that. Do pray stop them. If once we get to memorandums we
shall have counter ones from the Whigs, and they put Mr. Gladstone in
a hole.
Herbert Gladstone says that the real _bona fide_ difficulty of his
father is, that he cannot devise a scheme. Could you not let {322}
me have one? This would settle this nonsense. How would it be if
proxies were allowed in respect to the Irish?--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_P.S._--What day is your meeting at Birmingham?
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., April 17, 1886.
No. 2.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--Since writing you I have received your card. It
is necessary that I should say that nothing will induce me to vote
for the second reading, unless I get some assurance of Mr.
Gladstone's willingness to maintain the Irish representation. I do
not think there is any practical difficulty in the way greater than,
or as great as, the difficulties already attempted to be overcome in
the Bill. I am told that Morley stands in the way of a
reconciliation as he considers himself pledged by his Chelmsford
speech to the exclusion of the Irish members from Westminster.
As regards the memorandum, I understand that it is only to the Whips
for their information, and not for Mr. Gladstone. I think it may
safely be allowed to go on. I believe a number of the Whips would be
quite willing to sign it and to accept the compromise.
My meeting at Birmingham is on Wednesday. I will try and maintain a
conciliatory attitude, but the position becomes increasingly
difficult. I am bothered out of my life to attend Radical meetings
in different parts of the country. I have already received
invitations from Manchester, Rochdale, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Woolwich,
and other places.
I need not say that I do not want to start on a campaign unless it is
absolutely necessary.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 19, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I write you a line to catch the post. Herbert
Gladstone told me that he had talked with his {323} father on the
matter last Saturday. The difficulty of Mr. Gladstone seems to be
this: he has no great objection himself to the Irish Members sitting
here. But he does not like to consult his Cabinet, for fear of
resignations, and does not like to give a pledge without consulting
them. He considers that he has already said a good deal in his
speeches to show how open his mind is.
Now, would it not be possible for us all to vote for the Second
Reading, and to announce that we shall go for the Members sitting in
Committee? It is true that we risk being beaten. But, according to
the Whips--and so far as I can make it out they are correct--there is
a majority for the Bill on the Second Reading. In the main the
Members will vote for the principle of Home Rule on the Second
Reading, however opposed they may be to certain details. The
estimate is that this majority will be from fifteen to twenty. As a
rule, however, doubtfuls gravitate into the party fold, so it
possibly will be more. It cannot, however, be sufficiently large to
make the Government independent of us in Committee. We shall be the
masters of the situation, and Mr. Gladstone will completely bleed to
death instead of being murdered by us, for the odds are that the Bill
will never come out of Committee.
I venture, therefore, to think that, seeing the difficulties of Mr.
Gladstone giving any specific pledge, seeing the tone of Members, and
seeing the objections to going against the vast majority of Radicals
and with the Whigs, it would be well to rest satisfied, if Mr.
Gladstone will distinctly agree to leave the matter an open question.
I think that we can get a majority of Radicals both on the "Member"
question and on the "Order" question. The course I propose seems to
be the best practically.
We have a meeting at the St. James's Hall, on Thursday, at which I am
to take the Chair. The Resolution is conceived in the above spirit,
and I have already had rows with some of the Members who are to
attend, because they say it looks like knocking under to Chamberlain.
It assents to Second Reading, but trusts that the measure will be
modified in a democratic sense in Committee. This we shall carry.
I do not myself believe in Morley's resignation, nor indeed in
Harcourt's. It is possible, however, that the Lord Chancellor will
be firm, though I understand that he likes his salary. {324}
Supposing that you voted against the Second Reading with ten
followers. This would be a tactical fiasco. If, however, you
carried all the Radicals with you--or almost all--in Committee, this
would be a tactical success, whilst the Radicals would be delighted
with your acting with them on the first, and would act with you on
the second. Had we begun sooner, I think that we could have got up a
pronouncement against the Bill, if the point were not yielded. But
most of the Radicals have now compromised themselves.
I talked to Hartington and some of the Whigs this evening. They
seemed to me rather down-hearted. I suspect that they are not
getting the support that they anticipated. This is always the case
with a big cave.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 19, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Your letters will go to Mr. Gladstone this
evening. If he is wise he will make terms about the Members sitting.
I hear that he was very much put out about your speech, and no one
dared to speak to him before he left for Hawarden.
John Morley is going to speak on Wednesday. He will be conciliatory,
and say, "If a plan can be devised, etc."
Mr. Gladstone should ask you for your plan, as he says that he cannot
make one.
I don't well see how he can promise to go against the guarantees. He
has already said that they are inserted for weaker brethren. They
will, if retained, and if we vote against them, keep the Irish on our
side.
Don't forget that if you do not get what you want, there is still the
Third Reading.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 20, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--You will see our resolution in the _Daily News_
of to-day. Do you see your way to write me a little {325} letter, in
reply to a supposed one from me asking you what you think of the
resolution and expressing a hope that the Radical party will be
united, etc. It would not do if you were to say that you should vote
against the Second Reading, but could you not blink this--say
something about the principle of the Bill being the principle of
justice, and that in Committee the Radicals must unite to insist upon
the admission of Members and the abrogation of the orders. If you
could not absolutely do this, you might leave it vague, allowing some
to think that you will vote for the Second Reading and others to
think that you will not.
I am writing to Dilke to ask him if he can see his way to write a
similar letter.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, April 21, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--The Resolution which you send me, and which is
to be proposed at your meeting to-morrow night, seems well designed
to unite the Radical party. We are all fortunately agreed that the
principle of Home Rule in some shape or another must be accepted, and
we only differ, if at all, as to the methods by which it is to be
carried into effect. For myself, I firmly believe that Home Rule may
be conceded in such a form as to join the three Kingdoms more closely
together. On the other hand, I fear that the effect of the Bill in
its present shape would be to bring about absolute separation at no
distant date. I hope the Government may see its way to accept the
modifications which Radicals advocate, and if any assurance to this
effect is given I shall gladly support the Second Reading in the hope
that minor improvements may be effected in it.--I am, yours truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, April 22, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--My speech last night will show you {326} where I
am. I cannot say that I am surprised at the desire of the friends of
the Government that objectors should accept the Second Reading and
reserve their opposition for the Committee stage; but the advice is
too transparent and cannot possibly be accepted.
I do not believe there is really the least difficulty in allowing the
Irish Members to come to Westminster and there to vote only on
questions which are not referred to them at Dublin. John Morley's
difficulties are childish and perfectly insignificant as compared
with the difficulties which Mr. Gladstone has already surmounted in
the preparation of his Bill.
Bradford election shows what will be the end of it all. In spite of
the large Irish vote now transferred to the Liberal candidate the
majority of 1500 has dwindled to half that number! I am being
bullied to attend Radical meetings in all parts of the country, but
at present I have replied that I am not willing to undertake anything
in the nature of a campaign against Gladstone. At the same time I am
pressing all my correspondents to try to bring about an arrangement
by mutual concession. I confess I am not very sanguine of
success.--Believe me, yours truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, April 24, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I cannot authorise the change you suggest in my
letter, which I only wrote as you asked me for it, without much idea
that it would be useful.
I think the chance of any reunion is very slight. I certainly could
not agree to vote for the second reading without preliminary
assurances as to retention of the Irish representation.
I have no doubt that the result of my action will involve temporary
unpopularity with the Radical party, but they will probably want my
help again at some future time, and will then exhibit as short a
memory and as little consistency as they are doing now on the
question of Irish Government.
{327}
In the meantime the honour of leading a party so uncertain appears to
me less clear than it did some months ago.--Believe me, yours very
truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Sir Charles Dilke_
POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 24, 1886.
MY DEAR DILKE,--Chamberlain sent me a letter for the St. James's Hall
meeting, but it came too late. It would not, however, have helped
matters, for he sticks to the phrase "the Government accepts." I had
a letter from him this morning, much in the same tone, also one from
Morley, who says that Chamberlain's speech is an attempt to coerce
the Government, and that they won't stand coercion.
I have been trying to get Chamberlain to agree to vote for the Second
Reading, on condition that the Government makes the admission of
Irish in Parliament a _bona fide_ open question, on which the House
may vote without official leading and without the Whips telling. If
he would do so, this would reconcile these two babies. I really
don't see how Gladstone can accept modifications, before Committee,
urged in this _sic volo sic jubes_ style. Could you suggest from
Chamberlain (as from yourself) that he might be satisfied with the
open question. He says that he would be beaten in Committee. But I
don't see this--and even if it were so, he would have many
opportunities hereafter to get back his friends, the Irish, if he
really wants them. The great point is to find some _modus vivendi_
which would keep the Radicals together, and to this he ought to
subordinate much, instead of making difficulties. The Radicals do
not take his point about the objections to fight in Committee, and
there will be a row about his bullying the G.O.M. On so big an
issue, his position is untenable--the Whig one is more reasonable.
If only once a negotiation could be started upon the open question
basis, Mr. Gladstone would manage to dodge him into voting for the
Second Reading, and this is all that is wanted in Chamberlain's own
interest.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
{328}
_Sir Charles Dilke to Mr. Labouchere_
PYRFORD, WOKING (undated).
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--It looks as though the Second Reading will be
rejected, and, if Mr. Gladstone appeals to the constituencies, it
will, I fancy, be a rout. But I quite agree as to the great
importance of patching up the fued between Chamberlain and Mr.
Gladstone, for the sake of everybody and everything, and I shall
continue to do all I can in that sense. I had a letter from
Chamberlain as to Ireland on Saturday to which I replied. I think my
reply will bring another, and on that I can try again in your
sense.--Yours,
CHAS. W. DILKE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 24, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Naturally the Radical Associations want to hear
you, for even so humble an individual as I am gets a dozen letters
every morning asking me to go to meetings at all sorts of places.
I think that the feeling in the country is this:
They regard the principle of the Bill to be a Domestic Legislation
for Ireland. The Radicals are in the main opposed to "orders" and to
exclusion of Irish. They do not like the idea of Radicals voting
with the Whigs and Tories against the principle, and the view that it
would be impossible for successful opposition to take place in
Committee against the "orders" and the "admission" is too complicated
for their understandings. In fact they don't want a Party division
to be spoilt, and wish to humble the Tories and the Whigs.
Morley writes to me to-day to say that your speech means coercion. I
have replied that in all things there must be a give and take.
I am sure that if you can get an assurance that the question of the
admission is to be a _bona fide_ open one, that we should win on
it--assuming that the Conservatives go for it. Such an arrangement
avoids the necessity of either side marching under the harrow.
{329}
Once the question left open, in the interval between the Second
Reading and Committee, we could get up a strong agitation for the
"admission," whilst no one would be opposing us, and you would have
all the credit of the alteration.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, April 30, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I think that you must now see that the Irish
Bills in their present form are doomed.
I have a list of 111 Liberals pledged against Second Reading. Of
these I know of 59 who have publicly communicated their intentions to
their constituents. I believe most of the rest are safe, but, making
all allowances for desertions, there is not much chance of forcing
the Second Reading through.
I know of many men who are pledged like yourself to vote for
amendments in Committee, and some who are pledged to vote against
Second Reading if the amendments are not carried.
The Land Bill has no friends at all.
It is difficult to say what my own following as distinguished from
Hartington's is, but I reckon that something like fifty would vote
for Second Reading, if my amendments were conceded.
It is time that a final decision was taken. The fight is growing
hotter every day and the division of the party will be irretrievable
if the controversy is pushed much further. I am not surprised at the
action of the Caucuses. I know them pretty well, and they consist of
the most active and thoroughgoing partisans. But it is the men who
stay away who turn elections, and there will be a larger abstention
on this Irish question than we have ever had before in the history of
the Liberal party.
I believe the issue is in the hands of Radicals like yourself. If
you exert the necessary pressure the Bills may be recast. Much has
been done by their introduction. The Party as a whole has accepted
their principle of Home Rule, and we might come to an agreement about
the details. But this will be out {330} of the question if we go
into opposite lobbies on the Second Reading.
There is no necessity to withdraw the Bill at once. If the
Government will give the necessary assurance of amendments to retain
Irish Representation and Imperial control of taxation, we might carry
Second Reading and then the Bills could be committed _pro forma_ for
the necessary changes, or withdrawn for the session.
All our people would be delighted at the postponement of the
dissolution, and in the interval we might kiss and be friends. I do
not suppose the Chief will listen to this, but I have thought it
right to make one more effort before the battle is finally
engaged--Yours truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, May 1, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I have been doing my best to get some sort of
_modus vivendi_ in which the honours of war would be divided.
I had a letter from Morley yesterday in which he promised to be most
conciliatory at Glasgow. He said:
"I don't think there is a pin of difference between you and me as to
the desirableness of passing the Second Reading at almost any cost.
But Chamberlain wants us to go down on our knees, and this cannot be
done for the money."
He had previously suggested to me what he said, I see, at Glasgow
about the Irish Members coming back in three years. I replied that
this might possibly form a basis, but that it must in this case be
understood that they came back without any further legislature on the
subject. To this he demurred, but I think that he would not make
difficulties.
I do not dispute your figures, but I would point out to you that some
of your fifty can be manipulated. As a rule a big cave does not hold
together. Some of its Members in the end take refuge in voting for a
Party Bill, and give as a pretext some {331} phrase used by the
Minister for having done so, and in the G.O.M. you have a past master
in these sort of catching phrases.
I was brought up in diplomacy. When two countries send each other
their ultimatums, a third country desirous of peace proposes
something between the two, and peace is made upon its adoption by the
belligerents.
I have been suggesting that Mr. Gladstone should agree to leave the
question an open one, the word "open" being understood to signify
that the Whips do not tell, and that every one--Ministers
included--should be allowed to vote as they please. I don't well see
how the G.O.M. could go further. Although we may call it a detail,
the exclusion of Irish Members is really a fundamental principle in
the Bill, and were he absolutely to agree to change it, this would
be, as Morley says, going down on his knees to you who, whether right
or wrong, are the head centre of the Radical minority, and not of the
majority. Would you, yourself, eat humble pie to this extent?
Moreover, I think that, if he had to submit this proposal to his
Cabinet, there would be suspicions, and the Cabinet just now can
hardly stand another split.
I have never gathered that Mr. Gladstone himself is opposed to the
retention of the Irish. All that he says is, "The problem is a
difficult one: show me a good plan and I have no objection to adopt
it."
There is another way of meeting you, but I don't know whether Mr.
Gladstone would accept it. It is this. Leave matters as they now
are with respect to the Irish Members, by eliminating all clauses
excluding them. Their position would thus be left to future
legislation on the subject. They would in this case sit as they are,
and vote upon Imperial and English local issues until the entire
question is treated in a separate Bill.
A third plan might be that of John Morley's, to exclude them for
three years, and for them at the end to come back as they are now,
unless any alteration during the interval be legislatively made in
their position.
Parnell is very much opposed to the retention. He puts his
opposition upon the difficulty of getting Irishmen to come over. He
asks whether there are to be two separate elections, or only {332}
one. In the first case, he complains of the expense and of the
difficulty of finding men, in the second he asks how men can sit and
vote in both Parliaments when they are both sitting at the same time.
Do pray be conciliatory in the matter, and be satisfied with the
substance. If the "open question" were granted, I am sure that you
would have a majority of Radicals, who agree with you in the main,
but think that they ought to regard the Second Reading at the
conservation of the principle of a domestic Legislature for Ireland.
After all, a General Election with a Radical split would either give
Mr. Gladstone a majority against you, or would end in a Conservative
victory, neither of which would be a gain to you.
I take Brand's constituents of Stroud, and the constituency of
Ipswich as specimens of public feeling, for I have been at both of
them this week.
At Stroud we had a meeting. The Whigs did not attend. Winterbotham
took the chair. He announced that he should vote against the Bill.
There were groans and "three cheers for Gladstone." I went for the
Bill, but explained that it was desirable that the Irish Members
should be retained, and that this was your view. There were shouts
of "let him vote with Gladstone on the Second Reading." At the end
some overzealous ass proposed "three cheers for Brand." This was met
with a chorus of howls and groans. I enquired later on what was the
real position, and was told that all the Radicals were against Brand,
but that there would be no use calling upon him to resign, as about
five hundred Whigs would stick to him, and these with the
Conservatives would secure his return.
At Ipswich the meeting was entirely for the Second Reading. I
praised up Collins, etc. They cheered his name, but whilst dead
against the Land Bill, went for the other Bill, and did not seem to
care much for details. Two of the County Members spoke. They had
been returned--mainly through Collins's exertions--but they told me
that the agricultural labourers wanted the question settled, and did
not care much how it was settled.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
{333}
_P.S._--You have never let me have your "plan" in reply to the
observation, that the idea is good in theory, but that the practical
difficulties are insuperable.
_Telegram, Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere_
HAWARDEN, May 1, 1886.
Herbert Gladstone expected from Scotland to-night letter from me to
Midlothian will shortly appear.[7]
GLADSTONE.
LABOUCHERE,
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, S.W.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, May 1, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I have just got this telegram. If Mr.
Gladstone has not told you that he is going to write his letter,
don't please let it out. I sent him yesterday your figures as to the
division, and preached as strongly as I could conciliation, telling
him that some sort of give-and-take _modus vivendi_ should be arrived
at, otherwise the Bill might be lost.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, May 3, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Mr. Gladstone has your ultimatumest of
ultimatums. My impression is that he will assent. I had a talk with
Morley this morning, and knocked it well into his head that the
question, as you say, is to be or not to be as regards the Bill.
{334}
The decision will depend very much upon the figures. Of course they
don't take yours _au pied de la lettre_, but they evidently are
thoroughly uncomfortable about them. They admit that the feeling
throughout the country is in favour of the Irish remaining. Harcourt
blustered fearfully in the Cabinet about his intentions. Perhaps it
might be well if you were to write him a letter. If we can bring
about an arrangement, it will be a great thing for the party--put
aside the Bill.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 3, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I am pretty sure now that your terms will be
accepted.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 3, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Since writing to you Arnold Morley asked me to
come into his room. He said that he had been shown your letter, and
wished to ask me whether I thought that the terms were the lowest
that you would take. I said "Yes," that I thought they were. Was I
quite certain that you would not vote for the bill if there were no
concession? Quite certain. Was it to be understood that you would
vote for it if Mr. Gladstone said that the Government would support
or bring in a clause granting representation to Ireland, leaving it
for Committee to say how many constituted representation? I said,
that I understood this, but that he had better consult your letter.
I see that there would be a row at once if Mr. Gladstone were to go
into details, so I should think that it would be better to leave them
alone. I told him that moreover Members (one had) had told me that
they would only vote for the Bill if you were satisfied, and that he
must perceive that the Radicals were in favour of the Irish remaining
here. He admitted this, and {335} promised to explain this to Mr.
Gladstone; he had, he said, in fact represented this to him ten days
ago, only then your terms were not so limited as now.
Perhaps it might be well if you would write me a line (not in answer
to this, or as though I had written to you) urging a speedy
settlement--for Mr. Gladstone is apt to wait for something to turn up
to his advantage.
His letter to his electors is good clap-trap.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
BIRMINGHAM, May 4, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--My list alters every day as I receive further
reports from my correspondents. I have only had notice of two
deserters, and the total figures now stand as follows:
Promised against, 133
Absolutely pledged, 84
I have not heard anything from Mr. Gladstone, but have written to
Harcourt as you suggest. I am unable to make more of Mr. Gladstone's
manifesto than of many other of his public utterances, but I note one
point with satisfaction. He says in effect that the retention of
Irish members is a mere detail: to me it is vital, but if it is only
a detail to him surely there is no excuse for his not publicly giving
way.--Believe me, yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, May 4, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I have a number of enquiries as to what I am
going to do. I thought I had made it all clear in my speeches, but I
reply to every one that I shall certainly vote against Second Reading
unless I can get satisfactory assurances beforehand; and that I will
not vote for Second Reading unless I know that the Government will
keep the Irish Representation {336} on its present footing. That
means, of course, either 103 members or a reduction according to
population. Any other representation would be illogical and absurd.
The interest of Ireland in Imperial questions is in proportion to
population and not to her share of total taxation. It might be in
proportion to her share of the taxation for _Imperial_ objects.
Surely the best plan would be to accept your suggestion and for the
Government to agree to drop the clauses about Representation at
Westminster, leaving it an open question for Committee whether there
should be any reduction, or any restriction on their liberty of
speaking and voting on non-Imperial subjects.
But will not Mr. Gladstone be content to secure the affirmation of
the principle by Second Reading, vote, and then commit the Bill _pro
forma_ for amendments or withdraw it for the session?
If anything is to be done it should be at once, otherwise I doubt if,
even with my assistance, the Second Reading can be carried. The
opposition is more numerous than I supposed, and is growing.--Yours
very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
In a previous letter I have sent you my latest figures.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 6, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Morley would have agreed to leave out the
clause. Mr. Gladstone would not. He has elaborated some alternative
scheme, which is to come before the Cabinet to-morrow.
From your personal standpoint I should say "take it." It will be a
substantial concession, and will be made to you. If you do not, very
possibly several of your followers will accept it.
I really don't believe that you will get more. It will fully
recognise the paramount character of the Imperial Parliament, enable
Irish to vote on taxation, Imperial matters, etc., and I doubt
whether the feeling is in favour of their voting on English issues.
Anyhow, you get your principle recognised. The Bill, if it passes
here, will be thrown out in the Lords. We shall go to {337} the
country, not on details of any Bill, but on a domestic legislature
for Ireland, and many things may happen before next year.--Yours
truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_P.S._--Don't say anything about this yet, for it is not definite,
and won't be until to-morrow's Cabinet.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 7, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--The Cabinet yesterday was not a formal one;
there is to be one to-morrow. Some, I understand, are in favour of
cutting out the clause respecting the exclusion of the Irish, and
leaving the matter to future legislation--others suggest alternative
schemes. Of this I am certain, it may be that terms will not be
agreed to before the discussion on the Second Reading, but, provided
that the Bill cannot be carried without you and your friends, the
point will be yielded. I regard therefore the matter as done, so
don't pray act as though it were not. Any one takes a certain time
to make grimaces before he consumes his humble pie, and does not gulp
it down, so long as he has any hope of being able to avoid doing
so.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, May 8, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I have just been reporting progress at Downing
Street. Wolverton, who was there, quite agreed that if you want
ninety Irish, you ought to have them; and, in fact, the simplest
thing is to leave the lot as they are.
It was admitted that the Bill would require modifications, if the
Irish are to sit. Objection was taken to our collecting all revenues
on the score that the presence of the hated Saxon throughout the
country would put the backs of the Irish up.
You will perhaps remember that Parnell entirely objects to the amount
of the quota, and so, by showing him that he will lose by the whisky
system, we might get him to unite in insisting upon an alteration.
{338}
The idea of Herschell--which I put forward as mine, and said that you
did not seem to object--took. If they can hit it off in the Cabinet
by four o'clock, they are to let me know, and I will send you a
telegram.
Things being as they are, I go to Hastings, with _Thérèse Raquin_ to
read in the train, with the hope that we are again a happy family.
Don't with Herschell make it too clear that the food on which our
friends are browsing is humble pie. The substance is everything, and
no sooner will it be known that you mean to vote for the Second
Reading, and that Mr. Gladstone knocks the bottom out of his tub as
regards the exclusion of the Irish, than the Tories and the Whigs
will point the moral.
I read out the words which Mr. Gladstone was to use in his speech.
"What then are the modifications?" they asked. I said that as he was
not wanted to specify them, they ought to rest and be happy with the
phrase. I said that all that I had written down was in no sort of
way binding on you, and, so far as you were concerned, was
non-existing, and that they were to be treated as my own pious
opinions.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_P.S._--I said that I gathered that you would not be in this
afternoon, but to-morrow morning.
_Telegram, Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
May 8, 1886.
Stansfield who was in train says all went right at meeting this
afternoon Herschell not there thought to be out of town if you do not
hear from him this is why.
LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Arnold Morley to Mr. Labouchere_
12 DOWNING STREET, S.W., May 8, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--Herschell had to leave town before the end of
the Cabinet, and on his return on Monday he will be sitting in the
House of Lords.
Perhaps later on it may be arranged.
{339}
Would you or would you not telegraph to him to explain his not
coming?--Yours truly,
ARNOLD MORLEY.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
Sunday, May 9, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--On coming back here from Hastings, I have found
this letter from Arnold Morley. I think that the "cave in" is
complete, and if you only seize the first opportunity to accentuate
it and to recognise it, your triumph will be complete--details are,
comparatively speaking, unimportant. If you get into a discussion
about them you lose your triumph. You went for "full
representation," and, as I understand it, you get it. At the meeting
at Hastings a speaker alluded to you--dead silence. The man next me
said, "A few months ago they would have all cheered." When I spoke I
said that I thought Mr. Gladstone would agree to Irish
Representatives, in which case I thought that you would vote for
Second Reading upon which the audience cheered again and again. This
shows how the cat jumps even in a place like Hastings, which is not
very Radical.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Sunday, May 9,1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Morley has just been here. He don't want you
to be told more than that you will be satisfied. I told him that I
had seen you, and had said generally that you were mistaken in
supposing that the Cabinet did not intend to yield, and that I had
gathered from you that if they did, you would probably vote for the
Second Reading. They are, I find, in some trouble about their
definite statement about the third point--the right of the Irish to
come here by requisition of the Dublin Parliament on all Imperial
matters. They are prepared to elaborate some plan for them to
legislate--or to have the power to legislate--upon such matters, but
they have not yet themselves made out the plan to their satisfaction,
nor can they agree as to what is Imperial and what is not. Mr.
Gladstone therefore will {340} be rather guarded on this head, but he
will (says Morley) make it quite clear that they accept the
principle, and they _bona fide_ are prepared to give it effect. They
are, moreover, rather afraid of being too definite, because they have
not seen nor heard anything from Parnell, and will not have the
opportunity to do so before the debate commences. They assert that
practically representation and taxation involve pretty well all
Imperial measures--and this is to a great extent the fact, for the
Crown declares war, makes treaties, etc. Anyhow they are quite ready
to meet you on this, and if you think that Mr. Gladstone's words are
too vague, or can suggest any others, Herschell will consult with
you. Morley says that they are not going to take the debate next
week, _de die in diem_. So if needed, anything can be cleared up on
Tuesday. But he, of course, is anxious that you should declare your
acceptance of the Bill as soon as possible.
I finally told him to impress upon his great chief, that he must be
clear. I really think that they are fully prepared to satisfy
you.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., Sunday.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--What does your letter mean? It seems to me that
you are being bamboozled by the old Parliamentary hand. Both Mr.
Gladstone and Herbert Gladstone told people yesterday that they were
not going to give way.
I am not going to leave the matter to Committee; unless the
assurances to-morrow are precise and definite, I shall certainly vote
against the Second Reading.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Monday, May 10, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Morley did not leave until one o'clock this
morning, when I had a letter posted to you. I think that I put it
perhaps too strongly about the "On Imperial matters," but I had been
fighting for the exact words, and was cross {341} about their not
being precisely as I understood they were to be. Morley vowed that
they would be. I said that they were not. Practically they are. I
really do believe that they have not got a definition of "imperial,"
and they only do not want to bind themselves to the Irish Parliament
being obliged to _demand_ representation. I said "peace and war."
Morley replied, "this belongs to the Crown, and is raised by
supplies." I suggested "a commercial reciprocity treaty." He
replied, "this too is in the hands of the Crown, and is raised by a
change in taxation."
I do not think that there is any _mala fides_, but a desire to avoid
hostile criticism, on "what is Imperial." Morley vowed to me again
and again that there was no intention to dodge, and that having given
up the principle they asked for nothing better than to make it full.
I suggested, "all questions not excluded by the Bill." He replied,
"state what questions, not involved in taxation, you mean, and show
where one does not overlap the other."
As regards the Committee, they still hold to it, and this will cover
most of the questions.
Please think this over, and if you can suggest any definite line of
demarcation, and will give it me in the House, I will let Mr.
Gladstone have it before he speaks.
My last words to Morley were: "Chamberlain is quite fair on his side:
he has a natural distrust of the old Parliamentary hand, and will not
be humbugged. He no doubt will not quarrel over mere words, but he
must have the substance. Knock this well into Mr. Gladstone's head."
I write you this, because, thinking it over, I may have exaggerated a
thing in which there is nothing important.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, May 10, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I gave Arnold Morley three questions to take to
Mr. Gladstone.
1. Would he propose the retention of Irish Members for all questions
of taxation?
2. Would they come here like English Members?
{342}
3. Would taxation include everything which was involved in Imperial
taxation affecting them?
He answered "yes" to all, but said that in regard to taxation he had
suddenly thought that the tea tax is renewed every year, and that he
had not put this before the Cabinet, but he personally had no sort of
objection to their voting on it, and did not suppose that the Cabinet
had.
I suggested that Herschell should see you. He writes to say that he
will be engaged all Tuesday and suggests Wednesday.
I have told them--which they all know--that the speech has produced
the most deplorable effect, and that you are quite right in being
indignant; and that unless they definitely make up their minds to
explain everything satisfactorily, the Bill is lost. This they admit.
I am urging on them to agree to introduce themselves a clause about
"other Imperial matters," and I tell them that unless they are frank
and yield on such points it is utterly vain to hope to win over you
or any one else.
The funny thing is that Mr. Gladstone has walked off under the
conviction that his speech was most satisfactory.--Yours,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Telegram, Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 11, 1886.
I think they are quite conscious of their mistake, and ready to
capitulate along the line. Would it not be possible to see the
emissary to-morrow or Thursday?
LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., May 11, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--In the remarkable speech of the Prime Minister
last night,[8] nothing impressed me more than the passages in which
he spoke of the advantages of public declarations in the House of
Commons as contrasted with the inconvenience of underground
negotiations carried on elsewhere.
{343}
Under all circumstances you will, I am sure, approve my decision not
to enter on any further private discussions of the proposals of the
Government.
If they have any fresh modifications to suggest, I hope they will
state them in the House, when I am sure they will receive the most
favourable consideration from all who, like myself, deeply regret the
differences of opinion which have arisen in the Liberal Party.
I am engaged all Wednesday, but this is of no consequence, as in the
present position of matters no good could come of any private
interview.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
Mr. Labouchere appends a note to this letter as follows:
"This is in reply to a letter I wrote Chamberlain last night to say
that he would do well to keep quiet, as probably Herschel, would see
him on Wednesday--not having been able to see him last Saturday."
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
TWICKENHAM, May 17, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--If I speak to-day or to-morrow, I shall say
nothing about negotiations.
This is, I think, about what occurred. Mr. Gladstone was ready to
yield and bring in the "Imperial matters" Clause before the Saturday
Cabinet. At the Cabinet he was asked whether he had elaborated such
a clause, which previously he had said was impossible to devise. He
had to admit that he had not, and so a lot of asses, some of whom did
not understand the exact point, and the necessity of sticking to any
agreement, talked on until it was time for them all to go away.
On Sunday, when I first saw Arnold Morley after receiving your note,
he vowed that it was all agreed to, and as I told you I wrote down
the three points in his presence. When he came in the evening, after
having sent to Mr. Gladstone, he explained that it was impossible
absolutely to say that Mr. Gladstone would pledge himself to bring in
the Third Clause, because he had not framed any Clause, and could not
give a definite promise until he knew whether he could frame it. I
urged him not to leave {344} Mr. Gladstone until he had framed it,
and there was a Cabinet on Monday. Still it was not framed. Hence
Mr. Gladstone's extraordinary shilly-shally speech. They all
perceived what fools they had been, except those who were anxious
that no agreement should be come to with you (notably Harcourt who is
playing for the succession), and it was hoped that Herschell would be
able to smooth down matters. There was to be a Cabinet on Thursday,
and I think the Clause would have been framed, only by this time they
did not see why they should yield, if concession would not ensure the
Bill, and Mr. Gladstone (as usual) thought that time should be taken
to see how things developed themselves.
In the House, as you know, there is a feeling that the Bill should be
read as a declaration of the principle of "a local legislature," and
nothing more. Mr. Gladstone has not said a word about this. It
would be a bitter pill, and he is just now in a prophetic state of
belief that, if he dissolves, he will carry everything before him.
What the Constituencies will do, neither you, nor he, nor any one
else can predicate. It may be that with the Irish vote, the desire
to settle, the belief in him, and the notion that he has been treated
ungenerously, he will win. My impression is that we shall be much as
we are, except that the Tories will be strengthened at the expense of
the Liberal and Radical seceders.
Now, I put this to you for my private information. It is no proposal
from Government. They hold that you are irreconcilable, and are
sulking. Supposing that he would withdraw the Bill after Second
Reading, could you have a better and a bigger triumph? Read
Salisbury's speech. Does this look like real union? Randolph is
used to promise privately, but Salisbury has a vague idea of honour,
and so he explains what such promises are worth.
Of course I don't know what Hartington promises.[9] But {345} does
he love you? No. The Whigs are all running about boasting how they
have you in their toils.
You may believe me or not, but I really do want to see a way to a
reconciliation, because I want you to be our leader. A
reconciliation is still possible on the basis of withdrawing the Bill
after reading it a second time. To withdraw it before would be too
much humble pie, and Mr. Gladstone sees--and no doubt you do--that
this would ruin him. Moreover, the man has some feeling in the
matter.
Supposing that you were to announce on Thursday that the Government
must withdraw after Second Reading. If Mr. Gladstone was to do this,
afterwards, he would be knocking under completely, and yet almost all
the Radicals (except Illingworth and Co.) would endorse your
suggestion.
By autumn many things may happen. Mr. Gladstone would have brought
in a Bill, he would have withdrawn it on your demand, and you may
depend on it, he never would bring in one again in the same shape,
but one satisfactory to Radicals and unsatisfactory to Whigs and
Conservatives.
This therefore seems to me far better than discussing concessions,
whilst from your own standpoint I emphatically say that it is better
for you than to go to the country against Mr. Gladstone, against what
is called the party, and with such a lot as Salisbury and the Whigs,
who regard you as the devil incarnate. Let the latter gravitate to
the Tories.
There is also this: sentiment is a factor in politics. The notion
that you are in any way acting ungenerously to Mr. Gladstone renders,
or will render, the Radicals rabid against you, and after all they
are the only persons who agree with you in politics, or who have any
real idea of being _your party_.
I write this for your _private eye_. I shall not say to any one that
I have written to you.
If, however, you hold to the idea of the Second Reading and the
withdrawal, I would work in that direction.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_P.S._--Your Ulster fervour does not wash. They are utter humbugs,
these worthy Orangemen.
{346}
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., May 17, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I have never doubted your sincere desire to
bring about an arrangement. I do not intend to make any allusion in
public to the negotiations. I blame no one for their failure--there
were misunderstandings on both sides. But I cannot conceive how Mr.
Gladstone could have supposed that the terms of his speech were
calculated to meet the objections taken. As regards the present
situation I am pledged now to vote against the Second Reading, and I
must do so, whatever may be said as to subsequent withdrawal.
Our friends feel--and I think they are right--that they cannot treat
a vote for Second Reading of a Bill as though it were only an
abstract resolution.
I admit the truth of nearly all that you say as to the prospects of
the party. No man can foretell the results of the General Election,
but I expect with you that the Tories will gain. I think they will
gain chiefly at the expense of the supporters of the Bill, but in
this I may be mistaken.
I cannot struggle against the torrent of lies and slanders directed
against my personal action. I can only say that I have been, I
believe, more anxious for reconciliation that any one of my followers
or present allies. I have not to my knowledge said a single bitter
word about Mr. Gladstone, or expressed either in private or in public
anything but respect for him and belief in his absolute sincerity.
Yet in spite of this the supporters of the Government are more bitter
against me than against any one else.
For the present I shall maintain the same reserve, and shall not
attempt reprisals; but if the discussion goes on much longer on the
same terms I suppose I shall have to defend myself and to say what I
think of some of those gentlemen who, having swallowed their own
principles and professions, are indignant with me because my
digestion is less accommodating.
I have an enormous correspondence, some of it hostile, but most of it
friendly. The breach in the party is widening, and in a short time
it will be beyond repair.
All I can say is that I have done all in my power to heal {347}
it--short of giving up my conscientious convictions and assenting to
measures which I believe are totally wrong. I have not the least
feeling against Mr. Gladstone; he is sincere in all that he is
doing--but I cannot think favourably of many of those who are loud in
his support, but who to my certain knowledge are as much opposed to
his Bills in their hearts as I am myself.--Yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_P.S._--Salisbury's speech is as bad as anything can be.[10]
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
TRUTH BUILDINGS, CARTERET STREET,
QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, S.W.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Herschell and one or two others were to meet
(or possibly have met) to-day to decide upon what proposals were to
be submitted to you. But I will let them have your letter. If the
G.O.M. loses his Bill, it will be from not having been able to be
clear for five minutes in his seventy-seven years,--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
Tuesday--or rather Wednesday Morning, May 25, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I am pretty certain that unless wiser counsels
prevail, Mr. Gladstone will not consent to withdraw the Clause.
Childers, who has been doing all that he can to induce him to do so,
finds that the Cabinet (so far as they have an opinion) are against
it, and Mr. Gladstone strongly so. Morley vows that he would rather
die, and that sort of thing. I cannot find that they have any valid
reason for this, but so it is.
Mr. Gladstone will, I think, in as plain words as possible (if he can
be plain for a few minutes), fall back upon the programme {348} that
we were negotiating, and say that he will so modify the Bill in
Committee that it will give the Irish Representation here on Imperial
matters, and he seems to have a notion floating in his brain of
announcing that if the Second Reading be passed he will either
withdraw or defer the Bill.
The notion seems to be that the Liberal opponents may be put down at
100, and that this will reduce them to 70; these calculations,
however, are evidently upon exceedingly vague data.
It is pretty clear that a number of the opponents do not like the
idea of a dissolution, and that they are very anxious for an
arrangement. It is therefore quite possible that they will come in
upon some such basis.
Do pray think the matter over, and consider whether it is not worth
your while taking these assurances as a concession to you. Of course
it is not certain that they will be definite, but you might insist
upon their being made definite in the House of Commons.
I think that it is a proof of astounding weakness not giving up the
Clause. These people can never make up their minds either to fight
or to make peace. The G.O.M. has a natural love of shilly-shally,
and those around him encourage him in this for their own purposes.
My own belief is that they don't want you to vote for the Bill, and
that you would spoil their game if you did. The G.O.M. cannot last,
and if only you would rally you would be certain of the mantle,
whereas with Goschen and Hartington you never possibly can get
on.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, The Derby Day, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--If you can agree to anything less than the
excision of the twenty-fourth Clause, and consider that it would be
useful to let Mr. Gladstone know this, could you write me a letter
stating your views? This I could let Mr. Gladstone have to-morrow
morning, as a letter to me and _not intended_ for him to see, with
the understanding that it is for his {349} private reading and not
for his Cabinet. It might probably lead him to go farther than he
otherwise would in his concessions. He, no doubt, wants to pass his
Bill, and although he believes that he would sweep the country at an
election, he must in his calmer moments know that he may possibly not
do so. But I am certain that there are men in the Cabinet who,
whilst pretending to be in favour of conciliation, are doing all they
can to prevent it--some arbitrarily, and some because their private
ambitions point to your being forced into a position of antagonism.
I do not think that Mr. Gladstone will be likely to change in regard
to the Cabinet decision respecting the twenty-fourth Clause. The
point therefore is to find some other mode of ensuring what is
practically a surrender in respect to Irish representation here. The
excision of the Clause is the simple and direct method, but when did
our venerable friend ever take the direct method? If, however, he
_clearly_, _distinctly_, and _definitely_ pledges himself to
introduce a Clause having the same object as the excision, and to
incorporate it in his Bill, the result is the same, although the road
may not be quite as straight. He might easily be parried in the
House by your saying, "I understand the Prime Minister to, etc.,
etc.," and then you might fairly say that you have got precisely what
you want, and thus bear off the honours of war. You have never
publicly insisted upon the particular mode by means of which the
desired end is to be attained.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Wednesday.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I have just got your note and have privately
let Mr. Gladstone know your position. I have suggested this, that if
he intends to insert a Clause giving the Irish Representation, he
must necessarily withdraw the twenty-fourth, and that consequently he
can use the word "withdraw," which might get over the difficulty.
But whether he will do this, I don't know. Except that the Cabinet
would not hear of the withdrawal, and leaving matters as they are in
regard to {350} Irish Representation until future Legislation, they
seem to have left him a free hand.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
Thursday, May 26, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--There is no doubt about the prorogation. It
was settled last night, much against the wishes of some, who regard
it as too much of a surrender. I have been urging that Fowler, who
is to speak after some Conservative who has got the adjournment for
to-morrow, should translate from one hour of Gladstonese into five
minutes of English. The absurd objection to this is (as yet) that he
is not in the Cabinet. My impression is that most of the Radicals
will return to the fold. They don't like a dissolution, with a
Liberal enemy against them. This is all very well for you, but the
fry will go to the wall in these localities. Some of the Scotch have
also come in.
After all, if Mr. Gladstone withdraws his Bill and agrees to bring in
another, in which Clause twenty-four is to be reversed--the exclusion
being inclusion--he does more than withdraw the clause, and the
prorogation was really only decided on by Mr. Gladstone in order to
give you full satisfaction. Caine, I hear, says that he never will
vote for the Bill--probably not, considering the influence of the
Cavendishes at Barrow. If he did, he would not get in.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
May 29, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I think that I have arranged for a written
antidote which will appear on Monday to the "responsible frivolity"
of our loquacious and indiscreet friend. I am not yet quite sure
whether it is arranged, so please don't say anything to _any one_
about it, or, if it appears, say that I had anything to do with it.
_He_ insists that he said in the House exactly what {351} he had said
at the Meeting.[11] Reading his speech, it is difficult to pin him
to any particular passage--the only thing that can be said is that he
used phrases, which might cover a wider principle than "a domestic
Legislature for Irish affairs." I was asked to put on paper my
objections to the speech.
I took these points: (1.) that he made a vote cover a general
recognition of the Bill; (2.) that he studiously limited all
"reconstruction" to a particular point; (3.) that he implied, and
almost stated that the Bill was to be introduced, and made no clear
offer to consider the whole subject of the details which were to give
effect to the principle of his domestic Legislature principle, and
did not say that he would consider any suggestions offered to him by
leading persons in the Liberal Party.
These are, in point of fact, your criticisms, not mine.
_He_ was astounded at any one not finding all this in his speech, but
I said that, surprising as this might be, no one friend or foe had
found anything of the kind.
It seems to me that the real object of all should be to tide over the
present conjunction, and to leave everything "without prejudice" for
this autumn Session. The public do not know the object of their
adoration as we do. He is still their fetish, and they regard any
doubt of his divine character as sacrilege.
I should have thought that Henry James' idea of not voting would have
suited both you and Hartington. It certainly is the most logical
outcome of the position. He says that the Bill is a mere declaration
of principle. You say that it may be more. He offers to withdraw
the Bill, after the principle has been ratified by a vote. You
cannot quite believe him in anything beyond that the Bill will be
withdrawn. This being so, if all of you were to agree to leave him
and his principle to find their level in the House of Commons--to say
that you are for a domestic legislature, and therefore cannot vote
for the Bill, but that you are not for more, and therefore that you
cannot vote for a Bill which may involve more. I think that this
would put you quite right with the Radicals, and leave you a free
hand, although it may {352} be doubtful whether the Whigs, who go
against principle and details, would be quite so wise to accept this
solution.
If, however, the Whigs do vote, and if you and your people abstain,
it is not quite certain that we should carry the Bill; in which case
the outcry would be against the abstainers, and they would be cursed
for precipitating a dissolution against the idol.
According to the Whips, Saunders has again got salvation. Half of
these people are like women, who are pleased to keep up the "I will"
and "I won't" as long as possible in order to be counted. Generally
this ends in "I will."
Akers Douglas told the Whips last night that the debate was not to
end before Thursday; they could not quite make out whether this was
official or not.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 5, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--At the desire of a large number of Radical
Members of Parliament, I write to make an appeal to you with regard
to your attitude upon the Government for Ireland Bill. They are all
of them amongst your warmest admirers, and they have always looked to
you as the leader of their phase of political thought. They
advocated your "unauthorised programme" at the last General Election,
and they have persistently defended you against the attacks and
aspersions of all who have denounced you and your views upon
political or social issues. With much that you have said upon the
Irish Bill they agree, and they think that they have a right to ask
you to give a fair consideration to any request that they may make to
you in order to maintain the union which they are anxious should
exist between you and them. In your speech upon the Second Reading
of the Bill, you said that you were in favour of the principles of a
separate domestic Legislature for Ireland, with due reservations, but
that you did not consider that Mr. Gladstone had made it sufficiently
clear that voting for the Bill would mean nothing but a recognition
of this principle, and would leave its supporters absolute
independence of judgment with regard to the new Bill that he might
introduce in an autumn {353} Session. I think that he has met this
objection in his letter to Mr. Moulton that has been published
to-day. We think, therefore, that perhaps you could not respond to
our wishes, and either vote for the Bill or--if you could not go so
far as this--abstain from voting. The issue of the division on
Monday is, we believe, entirely in your hands. Should the Bill be
lost there will be a General Election at once, which will disturb the
trade and commerce of the country; and it will take place at a time
which, as no doubt you are aware, will be the worst period of the
year for the Radicals, owing to the Registration Laws now in force.
It is impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that a General
Election, without you on our side, may lead to a Whig-Tory, or
Tory-Whig Government, which would relegate to the dim and distant
future all those measures which you and we so ardently desire may
become law. Under these circumstances is it too much for us to ask
you to make an effort to avert all these contingencies? When
Achilles returned to his tent, the Greeks were defeated. What would
it have been had Achilles lent the weight of his arm to the Trojans?
I fully recognise how conciliatory your attitude has been, and how
anxiously you have sought to see your way from disruption during all
the discussions which I have had with you. I still cannot help
hoping that, in view of the distant assurances of Mr. Gladstone in
his letter to Mr. Moulton, and in view of the wishes of so many of
your warmest admirers in the House of Commons, you will see your way
to defer to the request which, through me, they make to you.--Yours
truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
June 5, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This letter is really written at the desire of
a lot of Radicals. They were pestering me all last evening.
The position is this: 316 pledged for, 136 pledged against, leaving
out the Speaker and those absent; there are about 26 not absolutely
pledged on either side, or inclined to reconsider their pledges. We
have got some to promise to abstain or to follow the Maker Pease in
voting for the Bill. But we have not yet enough, and so far as I can
see at present the Bill is lost.
{354}
The issue therefore really depends upon you. Surely it would be well
to stave it off by saving the Bill. Much may happen before autumn.
We may lose the G.O.M., who has a very collapsed look. Anyhow, if he
does bring in _his_ Bill again, it will never pass in the autumn, but
will be lost by a large majority.
I am really writing to you without speaking to any one of the
Government, nor at the suggestion of the Government. You might yield
very gracefully to the Radicals, and I make the letter an appeal
_forma pauperis_. Were you to do so, you would become the most
popular man in England, with all who are honestly your political
adherents, for I need not say that the Whigs and Tories are not
likely to adore you for long. It would be delicious to spring a
correspondence on the Government and the public on Monday morning. I
am going down to Twickenham this afternoon until Monday. If you
think it any good I would meet you anywhere before going.
This occurred to me yesterday. Mr. Gladstone might adjourn the
debate till some day in the autumn Session, and then carry it on,
after stating all the changes he will make in his Bill. The
difficulty of this is, that he vows that it is against all
Parliamentary rule to legislate after the Approbation Act. I don't
know whether he could meet this by votes on account. Then, too, is
it certain that he would have a majority? If however you approve of
this, I would again suggest it.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_
40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., June 5, 1886.
MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I thank you for your letter of this morning, and
sincerely appreciate the spirit in which it is written, but
especially your recognition that my attitude has been conciliatory
throughout these unfortunate differences, and that I have been at all
times most anxious to prevent the disruption of the Liberal Party.
You do not give me the names of the friends on whose behalf you
write, and who now urge me to vote in favour of the Second Reading of
a Bill with many of my objections to which they themselves agree. I
do not know therefore whether or no they {355} have already pledged
themselves to take the course which you urge upon me, but I assume
that this is the case as I have not myself received any
communications in the same sense from any of those who have declared
their inability to support the Second Reading.
I am unable to accept your reference to my speech as quite accurate,
but I adhere on every point to the words of the original report. I
quite admit that Mr. Gladstone has given ample assurance that he will
not hold any member who may vote for the Second Reading as committed
thereby to a similar vote for the Second Reading of the Bill when
reintroduced in October, but the question still remains whether such
members will not be obliged to take this course in order to preserve
their own logical consistency.
Up to the present time Mr. Gladstone has given no indication whatever
that the Bill to be presented in October will be materially different
from the Bill now before the House. On the contrary, he has
distinctly stated that he will not depart from the main outlines of
the present measure. It is, however, to the main outlines of the
present Bill that the opposition of my friends and myself has been
directed, and it appears to me that we should be stultifying
ourselves if we were to abstain at the last moment from giving effect
to our conscientious convictions. We are ready to accept as a
principle the expediency of establishing some kind of legislative
authority in Ireland subject to the conditions which Mr. Gladstone
himself has laid down, but we honestly believe that none of these
conditions are satisfactorily secured by the plan which has been
placed before us. I share your apprehension as to the General
Election at the present time; but the responsibility for this must, I
think, rest with those who will have brought in and forced to a
division a Bill which, in the words of Mr. Bright, "not twenty
members outside the Irish party would support if Mr. Gladstone's
great authority were withdrawn from it."--I am, yours very truly,
J. CHAMBERLAIN.
_P.S._--As I understand that many Radical members are cognisant of
your letter, I propose to send it together with my reply for
publication in the _Times_.
{356}
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 5, 1886.
MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Yes, I thought of publishing if you were to
agree--but if not--I rather think it would not conduce to the Second
Reading. It might even if you said that you would advise others to
abstain, or something of that sort. The G.O.M. will die rather than
withdraw his Bill, but he might perhaps be induced to adjourn the
debate until autumn, if you were to suggest this. I am off to
Twickenham, as I have Palto and Ellen Terry coming down, who (thank
God) probably have never heard of the infernal Bill. Randolph is, I
believe, coming, but I suppose it is no use asking you to join such
frivolous society. My conviction is that the Radicals are damned for
years if we are defeated to-morrow.
If you can write anything comforting, and send it here tomorrow
morning, I will tell some one here to bring it down at once to Pope's
Villa.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
[1] The _Times_, January 4, 1886.
[2]It was upon this Amendment that Lord Salisbury's Government was
defeated.
[3] The lull in Mr. Labouchere's correspondence is accounted for by
the fact that Lord Salisbury's Government, finding itself in a
minority of 79 on the early morning of January 27, resigned, and, on
February 26, Mr. Gladstone became Prime Minister for the third time.
Mr. Chamberlain became President of the Local Government Board.
[4] Mr. Chamberlain had resigned his post in the Cabinet on March 16.
[5] On April 8 Mr. Gladstone moved the first reading of the Home Rule
Bill.
[6] Land Bill introduced and the First Reading on April 16.
[7] On May 3, a manifesto was issued from Mr. Gladstone in which he
intimated that the Land Bill was no longer to be an essential article
of the Liberal faith, and that, in the Home Rule Bill, all questions
of detail were subsidiary. The only important thing was to support
the principle of establishing a Legislative Body in Dublin empowered
to make laws for Irish as distinguished from Imperial affairs.
[8] Motion made for Second Reading of Home Rule Bill and amendment,
on May 10th.
[9] On May 14th, a meeting summoned by Lord Hartington met at
Devonshire House, at which Mr. Chamberlain was present. It was
calculated at this meeting that the "dissenting Liberals" would
amount to something over one hundred. The important point of the
meeting was that Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Hartington agreed, for the
time, to act together and to vote against the Second Reading.
[10] Mr. Chamberlain was probably referring to Lord Salisbury's
speech of May 15th, in which he suggested that the Irish belonged to
the races incapable of self-government, such as--the Hottentots!
[11] On May 27th Mr. Gladstone held a meeting of Liberals at the
Foreign Office, when, in a conciliatory speech, he declared that the
Government desired, by a vote on the Second Reading, no more than to
establish the _principle_ of a measure, which was to give Home Rule
to Ireland.
{357}