MR. LABOUCHERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CABINET
There is no doubt about the fact that Mr. Labouchere was always at
his best when he was in Opposition. This characteristic was not
peculiar to him, but was shared by Sir William Harcourt, and, in a
marked degree, by Lord Randolph Churchill. During the six years of
Lord Salisbury's second administration (August, 1886-August, 1892),
he stood out prominently as a man of ability and independent courage
in what was an extremely weak and inefficient Opposition. Always
true to his Radical principles, he protested ably whenever the
questions of Civil Service estimates were to the fore--the expenses
incurred in the removal or restoration of diplomatic and consular
buildings, or in the organisation of missions and embassies to
foreign countries, all the involved expenditure that is comprehended
under the term, so mysterious to the lay mind, of "miscellaneous
legal buildings," in the upkeep of the royal parks and palaces. The
annual expenditure for the warming and lighting of Kew Palace
especially aroused his ire. He had, he said, hunted for the building
and at last perceived over an iron gate a tumble down,
depressed-looking house in which he could not imagine that anyone
less insane than George III. in his later years could be expected to
wish to reside, and if there were any such, they might, at least,
warm and light themselves without any application to the British
taxpayer. As for Kensington Palace, to vote an annual sum for its
{410} maintenance was merely dropping water into a bottomless well.
It was dilapidated and useless. Why not pull it down or turn it into
a large restaurant--an investment which would certainly pay--and put
money into the taxpayer's pockets for a change? Of course he should
advocate that only temperance drinks should be sold upon the
premises, but even with that restriction a profit would be certain.
Then he would attack the extravagance of the House of Commons. Oil
lamps in the committee rooms! Were Ministers a species of patron
saints before whom perpetual lamps had to be kept burning in order to
secure their favours? Electric light had been installed in the
House, and yet the annual sum spent on oil lamps was undiminished.
Perhaps, replied the long-suffering Mr. Plunkett, after the
expenditure on oil had been ruthlessly gone into and shown to be
superfluous, the hon. member for Northampton will soon be a Minister
himself and will then know the awkwardness of attending in the House
from three in the afternoon to one in the morning and having to turn
up or down an oil lamp every time he went from one room to another.
In short, Mr. Labouchere's obstructionary tactics were magnificent.
His speeches on the Triple Alliance were marked by an intimate
knowledge of European politics acquired by a long and sympathetic
frequentation of the best politicians in Europe and as different as
possible from the accumulation of facts out of text-books which
formed the mental equipment on the subject of many of his colleagues.
The point of departure of his first speech on the Triple Alliance was
a statement made in the Italian Parliament on May 14, 1891, by a
deputy named Chiala to the effect that the Italian position was now
secure by land and sea, English interests being identical with
Italian. On June 2, 1891, he asked Sir James Fergusson whether
special undertakings were entered into in 1887 between England and
Italy of such importance as to justify Signor Chiala's remark, which
had met with no challenge in the Italian Chamber, and he spoke {411}
with characteristic eloquence both then and on July 9, against the
renewal of the Triple Alliance, which obliged England, he said, to
side with Italy against France, under the pretext of maintaining the
status quo in the Mediterranean. Mr. Gladstone wrote him the
following letter on the subject:
HAWARDEN CASTLE, CHESTER, July 11, 1891.
DEAR MR. LABOUCHERE,--So far as I can understand I think you have
left the question of the Triple Alliance and our relation to it
standing well in itself and well for us. If ever there was a
complication from which England ought to stand absolutely aloof it is
this. I would take for a proof apart from all others the astounding
letter of Mr. Stead in yesterday's _Pall Mall Gazette_, who founds an
European policy on the isolation of France still perhaps at the head
of continental civilisation. I fear with you that Salisbury has
given virtual pledges for himself which in all likelihood he will
never even be called upon to redeem, and which Parliament and members
of Parliament may with perfect propriety object to his redeeming.
What a little surprises me is that the Italians should not better
understand the frailty of the foundation on which I fear they have
built their hopes.
In the _Daily News_ yesterday Mr. White says the alliance was first
concluded in 1882. If so it was certainly without our approbation, I
think without our knowledge.--Yours faithfully,
W. E. GLADSTONE.
In Mr. Labouchere's attacks on Lord Salisbury's Foreign Office
administration, he found many of the opportunities which he loved of
pouring ridicule upon the whole institution of diplomacy. He told
the Committee, during the discussion on the Foreign Office vote, how
the service is recruited. A friend of his, he said, who reached the
top of his profession, presented himself for examination. Of the
questions put before him he could answer none, being completely
ignorant of the subjects upon which they were supposed to test him.
Great was his surprise when the results of the examination {412} were
made known. He found himself not only passed but at the top of the
list of candidates. "How can these things be?" he asked the examiner
when he next met him. "Well," replied the great man, "we saw you
knew nothing, but your manner was so free from constraint under what
to some people would have been embarrassing circumstances, that we
decided: 'That's the very man to make a diplomatist,' and so we
passed you." That this little anecdote was introduced to the notice
of Sir James Fergusson as a prelude to Mr. Labouchere's bland
explanation that, according to his personal experience,
Under-Secretaries for Foreign Affairs and members of the diplomatic
body generally were of all men the most ignorant, did not rob it of
any of its sting. Across the Channel, Mr. Labouchere's abilities,
where foreign politics were concerned, were rated at their true
value. In February, 1892, the _Voltaire_ published a long article
dealing with the personality of this "remarkable man" and his
knowledge of European affairs, which concluded with these words: "Mr.
Labouchere is one of those grand Englishmen who do credit both to the
party which they defend and to the party which they condescend to
attack. Moreover, shortly he will be a member of the Cabinet, and
Mr. Gladstone depends on his co-operation to finish the last struggle
with the dying Tory party."
That Mr. Labouchere's name was not included in Mr. Gladstone's
Cabinet of 1892 was an omission that struck not only European
politicians but the public of England, both Conservative and Radical,
as curious. Mr. Gladstone, who had intended him to have one of the
most important offices in the Cabinet (not the Post Office, as has
been so often asserted), was himself taken aback, and so much so that
when he was made aware that the Queen would object to Mr.
Labouchere's name being submitted to her, he went the length of
privately asking Mr. Labouchere to write him a letter stating that he
should not accept office were it offered to him. Had Mr. Labouchere
been under the necessity of {413} wishing to improve his political
position in the country, there is no doubt that this would have been
his opportunity for doing so. Such a course of action would have
appeared to the superficial observer to fit in with his Radical
principles, and he could have pretended to his followers that he
considered his power greater below the gangway than on the pedestal
of office, and (a matter, however, which was of supreme indifference
to him) his enemies could not have pointed the finger of scorn at
him. Incidentally, too, Mr. Gladstone would have been saved from an
imputation of ingratitude to a follower who had stood by him, through
thick and thin, to win the cause that the Grand Old Man had nearest
his heart, to wit, Home Rule for Ireland, and a follower, who,
throughout a long and original political career, had never once
failed towards his leader in any detail of the minutiæ that went to
make up the etiquette of political intercourse in the last century.
But, as Mr. Labouchere explained to a near relative at the time, he
couldn't stand the humbug of the suggestion, and he would, moreover,
have been pledged to support the Ministry. Besides, that the Queen
should have objected to him was not a surprise. Nobody was able to
appreciate better than himself, with his tolerant view of human
nature, the fact that tastes differ, and to realise more fully that,
in so far as personal feelings went, he might very easily be a
_persona ingrata_ where Court favour was concerned. "So that the
good ship _Democracy_ sails prosperously into Joppa," he wrote at the
time, "I care not whether my berth is in the officers' quarters or in
the forecastle. Jones or Jonah it is all the same to me, and if I
thought that my being thrown overboard would render the success of
the voyage more certain, overboard I would go with pleasure--all the
more as I can swim." But, in his surmise as to why the Queen had
objected to him he was mistaken, and he did not know the real reason
until several years afterwards. He imagined it was because he had so
persistently protested against the Royal grants, whenever {414} they
had appeared to him excessive.[1] It is difficult to see why Mr.
Gladstone, _having told him as much as he did_, did not tell him
more--to wit, the actual facts. It would have been perfectly
straightforward and perfectly consistent, and the explanation was one
that Mr. Labouchere could have accepted with dignity, and all
appearance of a slight put upon an eminent politician, by treating
him as a nobody to be passed over without any kind of justification,
would have been avoided. The fact of Mr. Labouchere's being the
proprietor of and "chief writer" in _Truth_ was the ground of the
Queen's objection, and if my readers have followed the course of this
biography with care, they will very easily be able to imagine how
early, and also how very reasonably, the Queen's dislike to the
publication had taken root.
Mr. Labouchere's jest about Mr. Gladstone laying upon Providence the
responsibility of always placing the ace of trumps up his sleeve was
a good one. In one of his private letters I find the quip worded a
little more pungently. "Who cannot refrain," he says, referring to
the then Prime Minister, "from perpetually bringing an ace down his
sleeve, even when he has only to play fair to win the trick."
Clearly in the case of the exclusion of Mr. Labouchere from his
Cabinet, Mr. Gladstone had only to play a simple and straightforward
game for the trick to be his. In fact, it was his with the Queen.
There was no necessity for any further ruse, and the matter would
have ended.
{415}
Mr. Labouchere, still in the dark about the reason of the slight put
upon him, replied thus to one of his supporters at Northampton, who
questioned him as to the fact that he was not included in the
Cabinet. He seems to have made an effort to put the matter as well
as he could for his leader:
5 OLD PALACE YARD, Aug. 19, 1892.
DEAR MR. TONSLEY,--The Queen expressed so strong a feeling against me
as one of her Ministers that, as I understand it, Mr. Gladstone did
not think it desirable to submit my name to her.--Yours truly,
HENRY LABOUCHERE.
The following correspondence ensued. In reading it, it must always
be borne in mind that Mr. Labouchere did not at that time know the
precise grounds upon which he had been excluded from the Cabinet:
_Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere_
HAWARDEN CASTLE, Aug. 22, 1892.
DEAR MR. LABOUCHERE,--My attention has been called to a letter
addressed by you to Mr. Tonsley, and printed in the _Times_ of
to-day, and I have to assure you that the understanding which has
been conveyed to you is not correct. I am alone responsible for
recommendations submitted to Her Majesty respecting the tenure of
political office, or of the absence of such recommendation in any
given instance. I was aware of the high position you had created for
yourself in the House of Commons and of the presumption which would
naturally arise that your name could not fail to be considered on any
occasion when a Government had to be formed. I gave accordingly my
best consideration to the subject, and I arrived at the conclusion
that there were incidents in your case which, while they testified to
your energy and influence, were in no degree disparaging to your
honour, but which appeared to me to render it unfit that I should ask
your leave to submit your name to Her Majesty for a political {416}
office which would involve your becoming a servant of the
Crown.--Believe me very faithfully yours,
W. E. GLADSTONE.
_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Gladstone_
5 OLD PALACE YARD, Aug. 23, 1892.
DEAR MR. GLADSTONE,--I beg to acknowledge your letter of yesterday's
date, and to thank you for its kindly tone towards myself. I had
been away from home, and only got it when it was too late to alter
anything that I had written for this week's _Truth_ upon the matter,
as the paper goes to press on Tuesday at 12 o'clock. I feel sure
that you will recognise that I have never asked you--directly or
indirectly--for any post in your administration. I should indeed not
have alluded publicly to the the matter, owing to its personal
character, had it not been that the newspapers were discussing why I
was not asked to become a member of your administration, the
implication being that I had urged "claims," and that I resented
their being ignored. I fully perceive the difficulty of your
position, and, whilst I cannot admit that the Sovereign has a right
to impose any veto on the Prime Minister that she has selected in the
choice of his colleagues, I admire your chivalry in covering the
Royal action by assuming the constitutional responsibility of a
proceeding, in regard to which I must ask you to allow me to retain
the conviction that you were not a free agent.
With respect to myself, it is a matter of absolute unimportance that
I am not a servant of the Crown, or--as we Radicals should put it--an
Executive servant of the Nation. The precedent, however, is a
dangerous one, as circumstances might occur in which the Royal
ostracism of some particular person from the public service might
impair the efficiency of a Liberal Ministry representing views not in
accordance with Court opinion. Of this there is no danger in the
present case. My personality is too insignificant to have any
influence on public affairs, and I am--if I may be allowed to say
so--far too stalwart a Radical not to support an administration which
I trust will secure to us Home Rule in Ireland; true non-intervention
abroad; and many democratic reforms in the United Kingdom. My only
regret {417} is that the Liberal party has not seen its way to
include many other and more drastic reforms in its programme, notably
the abolition of the House of Lords and the Disendowment and
Disestablishment of the Church of England.
It will always be a source of pride to me that you thought me worthy
of being one of your colleagues, and that, in regard to the incidents
which rendered it impossible for you to act in accordance with this
flattering opinion, you consider that they testify to my energy and
influence, and are in no way disparaging to my honour.
With the sincerest hope that you may long be preserved as the
People's Minister, I have the honour to be yours most faithfully,
H. LABOUCHERE.
_Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere_
HAWARDEN CASTLE, Aug. 25, 1892.
DEAR MR. LABOUCHERE,--I cannot hesitate to answer your appeal. At no
time and in no form have I had from you any signification of a desire
for office. You do me personally more than justice. My note to you
is nothing more nor less than a true and succinct statement of the
facts as well as the constitutional doctrine which applies to them.
I quite agree with you that men in office are the political servants
of the country, as well as of the Crown. There are incidents
attaching to them in each aspect, and I mentioned the capacity which
alone touched the case before me.--Believe me very faithfully yours,
W. E. GLADSTONE.
It would be idle to deny that the fact of not being in the Cabinet
was, temporarily, a very great disappointment to Mr. Labouchere.
Faithful Northampton forwarded to him, through the Executive of their
Liberal Association, the following resolution, the sentiment and
kindly feeling of which was appreciated to the full by Northampton's
member: "That this Executive records its warmest praise for the
brilliant defences of democracy put forth by the senior member {418}
for Northampton, and rejoices at his fealty to the ties of party,
notwithstanding the personal affront of unrequited services; and,
further, it is more than satisfied that, by this tactical error, he
continues free to serve the cause of the people, in which in the past
he has so signally distinguished himself." It was to Northampton
that Mr. Labouchere frankly expressed where the real sting of his
treatment by his party lay: "Mr. Gladstone handsomely testified," he
said, "that I had never asked for office. It is, however, one thing
not to desire office, and another thing to be stigmatised as a
political leper unfitted for it owing to incidents which, while
testifying to my energy and influence are in no way disparaging to my
honour."[2]
Mr. Labouchere spent his summer holiday as usual at Cadenabbia, and
his mind soon resumed its equable habit of thought. The return of
Sir Charles Dilke to the House of Commons had been a genuine pleasure
to him, and he was in constant correspondence with him during his
holiday, which he extended some weeks beyond its usual limits. His
letters dealt largely with the, to him, all-absorbing subject of the
renewal of the Triple Alliance.
"Notwithstanding," he wrote on September 17, "the excitement about
the Italian workmen in France (which has now cooled down) I very much
doubt whether the King will be able for long to keep going the Triple
Alliance. The customs Union with Austria has not been a success, and
the taxes are so enormous that there must come a crash. The
Socialists and the Anarchists are joined by many who simply want to
live, and who put down the heavy taxation and the want of a market to
the policy of the Government. As for the Army, it is not worth much,
as they have depleted the line regiments of good men in order to form
a few crack regiments. If the French were to play their cards well,
they might soon force the King into a friendly understanding. I
{419} wonder when Parliament will meet next year, if it sits until
Xmas. I suspect that our revered leader is angling to be able to get
south in January and possibly February. If he can he will dodge
every question except H.R."
Another sentence from a letter to the same correspondent I cannot
resist quoting. It is so easy to picture how very much he must have
enjoyed reading the German and Italian papers to which he refers, for
the details of the great Italian statesman's policy were almost like
spelling-book knowledge to him. "I have been amused," he wrote on
September 10, "at the comments of the German and Italian papers upon
Mr. Gladstone's declaration that Cavour would have been for Irish
Home Rule." Here is another charming letter written from Cadenabbia:
"A man who is owned by a dog has a troublous time. I am owned by a
child, who is owned by a dog. I have a daughter. This daughter
insisted on my buying her a puppy which she saw in the arms of some
dog stealer when we were at Homburg. My advice to parents is, Never
allow your parental feelings to lead you to buy your daughter a dog,
and then to travel about with daughter and dog. This puppy is the
bane of my existence. Railroad companies do not issue through
tickets for dogs. The unfortunate traveller has to jump out every
hour or so to buy a fresh ticket. I tried to hide the beast away
without a ticket, but it always betrayed me by barking when the guard
looked in. I tried to leave it at a station, but the creature (who
adds blind fidelity to its other objectionable qualities) always
turned up before the train started, affectionately barking and
wagging its tail. The puppy, being an infant, is often sick,
generally at the most undesirable moments for this sort of thing to
happen. When it is not sick it is either hungry or thirsty, and it
is very particular about its food. I find bones surreptitiously
secreted in my pockets. I am told that they are for the puppy, and
if I throw them away I am regarded as a heartless monster. Yesterday
he ate a portion of my sponge. I did not interfere with him, for I
had heard {420} that sponges were fatal to dogs. It disagreed with
him, but alas, he recovered. I take him out with me in boats, in the
hope that he will leap into the lake, but he sticks to the boat. I
am reduced to such a condition on account of this cur that I
sympathise with Bill Sikes in his objection to being followed
everywhere by his faithful dog. Am I doomed, I ask, to be for ever
pestered with this animal? Will he never be lost, will he never be
run over, will he recover from the distemper if fortune favours me by
his having this malady? Never, I repeat, buy your daughter a dog,
and travel with daughter and dog."[3]
Mr. Labouchere did not return to London before the middle of October.
The question of foreign affairs interested him unceasingly throughout
Mr. Gladstone's fourth administration. When the composition of Mr.
Gladstone's Cabinet had been published in the continental papers,
many comments had been made upon the appointment of Lord Rosebery to
be Foreign Secretary, and the _Temps_ published a pointed leading
article on the subject. It declared that Lord Rosebery was regarded
by many persons as the incarnation of Imperialism and Chauvinism, but
it went on to reassure its readers by saying that after all, as Mr.
Gladstone would be so occupied with his Home Rule scheme and minor
social questions, the hankerings of the Foreign Office after national
glory would be suppressed. In any case, it added, Mr. Labouchere
will, if necessary, criticise and protest against dangerous ardour.
The subject of Uganda occupied the English Parliament early in 1903,
and Mr. Labouchere moved an amendment to the Address to the effect
that he hoped that the Commissioner sent by Her Majesty to Uganda
would effect the evacuation of that country by the British South
African Company without any further Imperial responsibility being
incurred. He gave an account of how the treaty with the King of
Uganda had been obtained, culled from Captain Lugard's own report.
Captain Lugard {421} arrived in the country, he said, with a
considerable force of Zanzibaris with breech-loaders and two Maxim
guns. A warm discussion arose on many points. Some of the chiefs
were for signing, but the King held back and giggled and fooled. He
demanded time. "I replied," reported Lugard, "by rapping the table
and speaking loudly, and said he must sign now. I threatened to
leave the next day if he did not, and possibly to go to his enemies.
I pointed out to him that he had lost the southern half of his
kingdom to the Germans by his delay, and that he would lose more if
he delayed now. He was, I think, scared at my manner, and trembled
very violently." ... And so on. The speech was one of remarkable
power. Although it covers over ten pages of _Hansard_, the reader's
interest does not flag for an instant. It was replied to by the
Prime Minister with appreciation and vigour.
On February 13 Mr. Gladstone introduced his Home Rule Bill,[4] and
the speech Mr. Labouchere made during the debate is his last
utterance on the subject that I shall quote. He was true to his
great leader to the very end, although that end had been extended to
a date far beyond the period that might reasonably have been
expected. It was a remarkable fact, said Mr. Labouchere, that in
1886 they were told that Home Rule would ruin Ireland and the proof
was that securities had gone down. They were now told that Home Rule
would ruin Ireland because securities had gone up! As a matter of
fact, balances at savings banks had gone up because of certain Land
Acts and Rent Acts, by which a good deal of money which used to go
into the landlord's pockets now went into the savings bank.... A
matter like the Home Rule scheme was necessarily very complicated.
They had two islands, one a large one and one a small one. The {422}
object of the Bill was to enable them to produce such a state of
things as would enable them to have a local Parliament in Ireland
dealing alone with Irish matters, and a Parliament in England dealing
with British local matters, and also with Imperial matters. It was
very much like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. He
quite agreed that the angles of the peg would remain. They could not
get the fit geometrically perfect, but the great object was to get
the best fit they could under the circumstances. It must always be
remembered in this matter of Home Rule that they had to choose
between two alternatives. After the Bill of 1886 the Unionists went
before the country saying that there was a third course, that of some
species of local government. When they got into power where was the
third course? It entirely disappeared.... The Duke of Devonshire
had tried to terrify them the other night about the House of Lords,
that the House was going to defend the liberties of the United
Kingdom by running counter to the will of the people. For his part,
he had never been strongly in favour of an assembly like the House of
Lords. He could not understand why some six hundred gentlemen should
interfere with the decisions of the representatives of the people.
If they did they would find that additional force would be given to
the intention of the democracy to put an end to their existence.[5]
It is interesting to note that in this, his last Parliament, the
Prime Minister himself was converted to Mr. Labouchere's views on the
Upper Chamber. When his Home Rule Bill was thrown out by the Lords,
and his Parish Councils Bill maimed and emasculated, he came to the
conclusion that there was a decisive case against the House of Lords.
"Upon the whole, he argued," says Lord Morley, "it was not too much
to say for practical purposes the Lords had destroyed the work of the
House of Commons, unexampled as that work was in the time and pains
bestowed upon it. 'I suggested dissolution to my colleagues in
London, where half {423} or more than half the Cabinet were found at
the moment. I received by telegraph a hopelessly adverse reply.'
Reluctantly he let the idea drop, always maintaining, however, that a
signal opportunity had been lost."[6]
In spite of Mr. Labouchere's activity during the winter of 1892-3 his
health was not good. He suffered from constant colds and coughs, and
his throat, too, was troublesome. The desire for change was upon
him, and his mind went back to the happy days of his youth in
America. He would have liked to be made Minister at Washington. The
idea had occurred to him at Cadenabbia when some American friends had
suggested to him how popular such an appointment would be on the
other side of the Atlantic. The climate would have suited him, and,
above all, the friction which was so inevitable between him and the
Cabinet would have been avoided. Washington was quite removed from
any of those quarters of the globe where Mr. Labouchere's and Lord
Rosebery's foreign policy might possibly come into collision. But
his desire was not to be fulfilled. Perhaps naturally, Lord Rosebery
thought that his appointment to such an important post would look
rather as if he were trying to get rid of a formidable opponent, or
at least as if he were trying to bribe him into silence. His refusal
to grant Mr. Labouchere's request was unqualified, and Mr. Labouchere
acknowledged the repulse, with his usual philosophic calm.
"However," he wrote to Lord Rosebery, on December 8, 1892, "as the
matter rests with you, and as you are averse to the suggestion, I can
only say that all is for the best in the best of worlds."
Mr. Gladstone resigned the Premiership on March 3, 1894, and Lord
Rosebery became Prime Minister. The life of the Liberal Government
was short, and Mr. Labouchere soon found himself again in his native
air of Opposition, when his old interest in Parliamentary matters
revived. It was a matter of common knowledge that Mr. Labouchere was
strongly opposed to the Premiership of Lord Rosebery, as {424} anyone
possessed of his strong Radical nature was bound to be, but that he
had anything to do with the snap division which ended Lord Rosebery's
Ministry[7] is clearly contradicted by an interview which was
published in the _Globe_ on the very day after the fall of the
Ministry. The _Globe_ correspondent found Mr. Labouchere in the
highest spirits smoking his "eternal cigarette" in his study at Old
Palace Yard. "What do you think of the present condition of things?"
he asked.
"Well," replied Mr. Labouchere, "I have only just become aware of
what happened. I was sitting on the terrace yesterday evening just
about seven with Sir William Harcourt, who was joking about the
quietness of things, and saying it was a dull day without a crisis,
when the division bell rang. I said, 'Great Heavens! What's that
for? I want to get home to dinner.' With that I rushed into the
division with Sir William, and really didn't know what it was
about--you know you can get into the Lobby now direct by a special
door. Well, having recorded my vote I hurried off to the theatre,
and didn't wait to enter the House. Of course, if I had known what
was going to happen I should have waited to see the row. I heard
nothing of the affair until this morning, when I read it here," added
Mr. Labouchere, pointing to the newspaper beside him.
"I see," said the interviewer, "that you voted with the Government?"
"Oh yes. I want less cartridges--not more, and anything in that
direction gets my support. As far as I could see it was only a
rag-tag division."
"Do you mean one of those dinner-time snatches, like your House of
Lords amendment?"[8]
"Oh no, not even as good as that; just the swing of the pendulum."[9]
{425}
The question on South Africa was soon to agitate England, and all
matters of lesser interest must be left now to show the impassioned
part which Mr. Labouchere played in an affair which cannot be said
even to-day to have found its final solution.
[1] The following paragraph from one of Mr. Labouchere's Draft
Reports, composed when he was member of a committee to investigate
the whole question of Royal grants in 1891, shows how reasonable this
surmise was:
"In conclusion, your Committee desires to record its emphatic
opinion, that the cost of the maintenance of the Members of the Royal
Family is already so great, that under no circumstances should it be
increased. In its opinion, a majority of Her Majesty's subjects
regard the present cost of Royalty as excessive, and it deems it,
therefore, most undesirable to prejudice any decisions that may be
taken in regard to this cost, when the entire subject will come under
the cognisance of Parliament, by granting, either directly or
indirectly, allowances or annuities to any of the grandchildren of
the Sovereign."
[2] Letter to Mr. Fredk. Covington, Chairman of the Northampton
Liberal and Radical Association, Sept. 13, 1892.
[3] _Truth_, September, 1892.
[4] The first reading took place on Feb. 20. It was passed through
Committee on July 27. After a scene of uproar it passed the House of
Commons on Sept. 2, by a majority of 34. It was thrown out by the
Lords on Sept. 9, by a majority of 378.
[5] _Hansard_, Feb. 16, 1893, vol. viii., Series 4.
[6] Morley, _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii.
[7] The Government was defeated on the night of June 21, 1895, upon a
vote taken in Committee on the Army Estimates.
[8] _The Globe_, June 22, 1895.
[9] On March 13, 1894, Mr. Labouchere had moved an amendment to the
Address, praying the Queen to withdraw the power of the Lords to veto
Bills. The division was called during the dinner hour, when the
House was comparatively empty, and the Government were found to be in
a minority of 2. Sir William Harcourt, who reproved Mr. Labouchere
for the levity with which he approached a great constitutional
question, got out of the dilemma by moving a new Address.
{426}