CHAPTER VIII

LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND

1881-1883

When Lord Cowper, the Irish Viceroy, under the influence of the Chief Secretary, Mr. Forster, represented to Mr. Gladstone in the early autumn of 1880 the necessity of coercive measures for the government of Ireland, he found the Prime Minister profoundly opposed to departure from the ordinary law. The Viceroy was pressed to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act by every agent, every landlord, every magistrate in the country. The number of outrages against life and property had increased _pari passu_ with the number of evictions. The Land League, which had been formed, under the presidency of Parnell, the preceding year, had taken up the cause of the evicted tenants and, by establishing the elaborate system of persecution, named after its first victim, Lord Mayo's English agent, Captain Boycott, rendered it almost impossible to let farms from which a tenant had been evicted. When, on September 25, Lord Mountmorres, a poor man with a small estate, who could really not afford to reduce his rents, was murdered, such was the popular detestation of the murdered man that the owner of the nearest house refused shelter to the corpse, no hearse could be obtained to convey it to the grave, and the family had to fly to England. The maiming of cattle, a {166} method of reprisal constantly adopted by evicted tenants, further contributed to inflame English opinion, both in and out of Ireland, against the Nationalist party, who were held responsible by the man in the street for everything that was going on. Mr. Bright was still more opposed than Mr. Gladstone to the repeal of the Habeas Corpus, and so was Mr. Chamberlain, who had joined the Government as President of the Board of Trade. Before giving way to Mr. Forster, the Cabinet determined to use the ordinary methods of law, and prosecuted the heads of the Land League for "conspiring to prevent the payment of rent, resist the process of eviction, and obstruct the letting of surrendered farms." The public announcement of the prosecution in no way intimidated the Land League. The prosecution, although announced on November 3, did not, on account of legal delays, begin until after Christmas. Disorder at once became more rampant and outrages more frequent. On November 23, Cowper wrote again to Mr. Gladstone, threatening his resignation in the following January, if he were not given fuller powers. On December 12, he made his last appeal, urging that Parliament should be immediately summoned. Mr. Gladstone yielded the very day before the trial of the Land League began in Dublin, and summoned Parliament for January 6, 1881.

On the first night of the session Mr. Forster gave notice of the introduction of Bills for the protection of life and property in Ireland. But the Irish members had taken the phrase in the Queen's Speech that "additional powers are required by the Irish Government for the protection of life and property," as a declaration of war, and commenced the policy of obstruction of which they were afterwards to make so powerful a weapon. They succeeded in protracting the debate on the Address for eleven days.

Forster's case was a very simple one. The Land League was supreme, and its power must be crippled. This could only be done by extending the range of the executive. With {167} the suspension of Habeas Corpus the authors of the outrages, who were known to the police, could be arrested and the course of justice would not be interfered with by corrupt evidence. It was the point of view of the official responsible for public order, that and nothing more. Mr. Parnell's view pierced the surface facts of the case. The League did nothing but organise and express the public opinion of Ireland. The Government's policy was simply one of coercion, that is, of violence. Although it was admitted that wrongs were endured, the Government's policy did not include any method of redressing those wrongs. Eviction of tenants who could not possibly pay their rent through no fault of their own was palpable injustice. Let that injustice be put an end to, and outrages would soon cease. It was clearly the duty of the representatives of Ireland to put every difficulty in the way of the passing of such a measure as the Chief Secretary's.

At this stage of his career Mr. Labouchere was not a Home Ruler. In his first speech to his electors at Northampton,[1] he had said: "I really have not understood myself what Home Rule means. I should be exceedingly sorry to see the Union between Great Britain and Ireland done away with. I think it is absolutely necessary for the well-being of both countries, but I am myself in favour of as much local government, not only in Ireland, but in all parts of England as possible." He was voicing the views of Mr. Chamberlain, whose trumpet from the beginning had set forth no uncertain sound, for the member for Birmingham was then, and remained, unalterably opposed to the separation of the two kingdoms, and to the institution of an Independent Parliament in Dublin.

On January 27, Forster's Bill for the Protection of Life and Property in Ireland having been introduced three days previously, Mr. Labouchere, speaking in favour of an amendment introduced in his name to the effect "that no Bill for {168} the Protection of Life and Property in Ireland will be satisfactory which does not include protection to the tenant in cases where it can be shown, to the satisfaction of a Court of Justice, that the tenant's rent is excessive or that he is unable, owing to temporary circumstances, to pay it," said that, while he was a genuine supporter of the Prime Minister, he did not intend to rain down blessings on that gentleman's head that evening. He found himself occupying a singular position. He was returned there as a Radical by a very advanced constituency, and, to his surprise, he found himself almost alone with his colleague as an advocate of Conservatism in the real, though not in the party, sense of the word. He was there to defend the Habeas Corpus. He was ready to admit that Englishmen had many virtues, but they were somewhat intolerant, and they were curiously intolerant when any country under their rule ventured to have the same virtues as themselves. There was nothing they valued so highly as self-government, and yet, when Ireland asked for self-government in local matters, they regarded the demand as something monstrous and intolerable. The Chief Secretary had urged that the Bill must be passed as quickly as possible on account of outrages! He must remember that there were such things as standing orders, and that honourable gentlemen opposite would be able to delay the Bill for a considerable time.... It was taking a really too Arcadian view of human nature to suppose that honourable gentlemen opposite would not use--or even misuse--every standing order of the House to prevent the passing of such a Bill. The right honourable gentleman seemed to have thought, in pleading urgency, that the Irish members would act like the "dilly, dilly ducks" which came to be killed when they were called. The reports of the outrages had come from magistrates most of whom were landowners, and from police constables; and they knew in England how to judge of constables' evidence. (Oh! oh!) He quoted a return. "Injured persons were Margaret Lydon, Patrick Whalem, and {169} Bridget Whalem. It appeared that: A dispute arose about the possession of a small plot of ground, and John Lydon assaulted the injured persons. Yet, in the very next case, John Lydon appeared as the injured person, because he was assaulted as the time of the above dispute by his own wife. This was obviously a little domestic difference between a husband and his spouse, yet it was converted into two separate outrages. As regarded cattle maiming, it was no new thing. Dean Swift jeered at his countrymen on the subject. 'Did they, like Don Quixote, look on a flock of sheep as an army?'" Labouchere wound up his speech, after pointing out the danger of the Chief Secretary's "hideous doctrine of constructive treason" and animadverting on the idea of making use of secret informers, whom he regarded as "the lowest, vilest, and most contemptible of the human race," by stating that the purpose of the Bill was not to suppress outrages or exclusive dealing, but solely to enable landlords to collect their rents.[2] Mr. Serjeant Simon retorted in his defence of the Bill, not quite unjustly perhaps, that Mr. Labouchere's speech had been more facetious than fair, more humorous than consistent. Certainly the John Lydon mixed outrage was a hardly representative specimen of the statistics before the House. The O'Donoghue, on the other hand, had listened to the speech with great pleasure, and felt sure it would be received with satisfaction by a larger circle outside the constituency of Northampton when public opinion in England and Scotland came to be enlightened on this subject. Labouchere continued to argue against the Bill in Committee in every imaginable way. Much of his argument was mere heckling of Mr. Forster. He was always a little inclined to confuse the floor of the House with the hustings, a state of mind which sometimes deprived his speeches of the persuasive value that their argumentative ability deserved. Every now and then he made a crushing point against the Government. {170} "The Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt)," he said, "had incited a prejudice against the Land League by quoting what the Fenians had done in America. He had read a speech from a Mr. Devoy, an American Fenian, to the effect that he had contemplated blowing up the entire Government of this country, most of the towns in this country and the capital, and, is this monster, the Home Secretary had asked, to be allowed to say these things without protest? He had pointed out the terrible consequences of this speech: how a certain Patrick Stewart immediately subscribed the sum of one dollar that these intentions might be carried out.... Such men as Redpath (another American Fenian) and Devoy, the Right Honourable gentleman told them, would 'come over to Ireland, and the Bill is intended for those gentlemen.' Surely," pursued Mr. Labouchere blandly, "the Right Honourable gentleman was an eminent authority on international law and must be aware that, if these Americans were to come over to Ireland, and if they were to be taken up on mere suspicion and put in prison for eighteen months without being told, or without their Minister in England being told, for what they were put in prison, we should get, and rightly too, into considerable difficulty with the American Government. (Sir William Harcourt: No!) The Right Honourable gentleman said no. Perhaps he meant that he would get us out of the difficulty. But would it not have been better to have brought in an Aliens Bill than to suspend the Habeas Corpus in Ireland? It was a strange thing to suspend the Habeas Corpus in Ireland, because an American had made a speech in America."[3] This characteristic speech is a very good specimen of Labouchere's method in attack. His manner was one of irresponsible persiflage, stinging and exasperating those of his opponents whom it failed to amuse,[4] his matter both sound and serious. It would have been difficult to have summed up {171} Forster's Bill better than Labouchere did in the following list of "Alleged advantages and real disadvantages of the Bill." (1) Alleged advantages: (_a_) it would drive a certain number of crazy Fenians out of Ireland. (_b_) It would lead to the imprisonment of certain village ruffians who probably deserve it. (_c_) It would enable landlords to collect their rents. (2) Disadvantages: (_a_) It would do away with the useful action of the Land League. (_b_) It would enable the landlords not only to collect their rents from men who could pay them, but also to evict from their small holdings men who could not--the very thing the Land League had been preventing. (_c_) It would alienate all classes in Ireland from the English connection. (_d_) It would substitute secret societies for the open society called the Land League. (_e_) The Government would be playing into the hands of the Fenians, who would acquire an influence they did not then possess. Certainly it would have been difficult to prophesy more accurately what were the actual consequences of the passing of the Coercion Bill. He concluded his speech on this occasion by warning the Irish members not to persevere in a policy of obstruction, both on account of the prejudice it created against them and on account of the excellence of their cause. Let that cause be stated fairly and honestly to the English people--let it be allowed to stand on its own merits. He believed many people in England were already very much inclined to take the same view as many Irishmen on Irish matters. There were many points on which the democracy of England and Ireland ought to unite. He therefore hoped that honourable gentlemen opposite would not be carried away by the irritation of the moment. He hated the Coercion Bill as much as they did, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the Liberals, not the Conservatives, had done the best for Ireland, and he wound up with a eulogy in this connection of the "two patron saints of my political calendar"--Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright.[5]

{172}

The Arms Bill--or the Peace Preservation Bill, as it was called--by which the Coercion Bill was promptly followed, was another target for Mr. Labouchere's darts. He pointed out the suspicious nature of the support given by the Opposition to the Government, which delayed the introduction of Liberal legislation for England and widened the breach between the Liberal party and the Irish.

Perhaps the most serious and immediate consequence of the Coercion Act was the arrest of Parnell, which took place on October 13. This event, which caused frenzied joy in England, was one of Forster's worst mistakes in Ireland. The Land League at once issued a "No rent" manifesto. It was signed by Parnell, Dillon, Sexton, and Brennan, who were all in Kilmainham Gaol, and Egan, the treasurer of the League at Paris. Forster, not sorry to be able to do so, retorted by proclaiming the League an illegal association, the legality of which proceeding was doubtful, according to Lord Eversley. It had been impossible to convict the League of a violation of the law and the Coercion Act contained no clause authorising its suppression. On the other hand, the "No rent" manifesto was also an obvious blunder. The clergy denounced it from every altar in Ireland, as indeed they could hardly help doing, and only in the west, where large bodies of the poorer tenants were already refusing to pay their rents without deduction, did it take effect. The agrarian war was consequently intensified, and English opinion greatly incensed. The local heads of the League were arrested all over the disturbed areas, and the Coercion Act pressed into the service of landlords to enable them to collect their rents, no matter how excessive they might be. Evictions were naturally multiplied. Most serious consequence of all--and directly traceable to the ill-advised arrest of Parnell and the leaders of the Land League--secret societies, with their inevitable accompaniment of crime and outrage, began to take the place of open and, at least relatively, constitutional agitation. Parnell {173} had been asked by an admirer, who would take his place in case of his arrest. "Captain Moonlight will take my place," was his grim reply. Captain Moonlight did so. During the months preceding the passing of the Coercion Act there were seven homicides, twenty-one cases of firing at the person, and sixty-two of firing into dwellings.

The work of the suppressed Land League was carried on by the Ladies' Land League under the presidency of Parnell's sister. The ladies, if they did not actually stimulate crime, did little to suppress it. When Parnell eventually emerged from Kilmainham, he was furious with them, both on account of their policy and their extravagance. Outrages had increased, and they had spent £70,000 during the seven months of his incarceration!

The Coercion Act had evidently failed to produce the results expected. Nevertheless, Forster and Lord Cowper could think of nothing but more coercion. Gladstone refused to accede to their proposals. He had never liked coercion himself, and his hands were strengthened by the support of Chamberlain in the Cabinet, who was energetically backed in the press by John Morley, then editing the _Pall Mall Gazette_. Meanwhile Parnell, realising that his prolonged detention at Kilmainham was damaging his cause, entered into negotiations with the Government by means of Captain O'Shea; and although Mr. Gladstone was, no doubt, literally truthful in denying the existence of any formal "treaty," an understanding was reached between the Government and the Irish leader. The main source of unrest and disorder in the country was, according to Parnell, the smaller tenants, some 100,000 in number, who were utterly unable to pay the arrears of rent due from them, and were, in consequence, liable at any moment to eviction. The Government must deal in a generous and statesmanlike way with the lot of these unhappy people. Parnell, if free to resume an effective leadership, would be able to do much to curb the criminal forces set in motion by the secret societies. {174} On May 2, Parnell and his companions were released from Kilmainham, and Forster and Lord Cowper at once resigned.

Forster made his statement in the House on May 4. It was to the effect that the state of the country did not justify the release of Parnell without a new Coercion Act. Just as he had uttered the following words, "There are two warrants which I signed in regard to the member for the City of Cork--" Parnell entered the House. It was a dramatic scene. Deafening cheers broke from the Irish benches, drowning Forster's voice and preventing the conclusion of the sentence from being heard. Parnell quickly surveyed the situation, and, bowing to the Speaker, passed "with head erect and measured tread to his place, the victor of the House."

Mr. Gladstone answered Forster, saying that the circumstances which had warranted Parnell's arrest no longer existed, and that "he had an assurance that if the Government dealt with the arrears question, the three members released would range themselves on the side of law and order." Parnell then intervened, saying that he had in no way suggested any bargain with the Prime Minister, but that there could be no doubt that a settlement of the arrears question would have an enormous effect in the restoration of law and order, and would take away the last excuse for outrage.

Irish prospects had not looked brighter in the House for many a year, but, unfortunately, only two days after the memorable afternoon on which Mr. Gladstone dissociated himself from his sometime Irish Minister and threw himself into Parnell's arms, England was horrified by a terrible tragedy. Lord Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish had been appointed to the vacant offices of Lord Cowper and Mr. Forster. The new Chief Secretary and Mr. Burke, permanent Under-Secretary, were murdered close to the Vice-regal Lodge in Phœnix Park, on the evening following Lord Spencer's state entry into Dublin. Mr. O'Brien, in his _Life of Parnell_, says that "Cavendish was killed simply {175} through the accident of his being with Mr. Burke, whose death was the real object of the assassins."[6] No one was more overwhelmed by the tragedy than Parnell himself. "How can I," he said, "carry on a public agitation if I am stabbed in the back in this way?"

The House met on the 8th, and Parnell made a short, straightforward speech, condemning the outrages in unqualified terms. He also expressed the fear that the Government would feel themselves obliged, under the circumstances, to revert to coercion. His fear was justified, and on May 11, the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt, introduced a Crimes Bill, based on previous suggestions of Lord Cowper.

It is easy to see now that this proceeding was a mistake. It should have been evident to any unbiassed observer that, far from Parnell and the League being responsible for outrages, whether agrarian or political, it was during the imprisonment of Parnell and after the dissolution of the League that they increased and finally led up to the tragedy of Phœnix Park. But the Government had to count with English opinion, which was exasperated by the murder of Burke and Cavendish almost to the point of hysteria. To most English people Ireland was little more than a geographical expression; in so far as it connoted anything else, it bored and disgusted them. Parnell indicated the true inwardness of Mr. Gladstone's altered attitude in a speech on May 20, in which he said: "I regret that the event in Phœnix Park has prevented him (Mr. Gladstone) continuing the course of conciliation that we had expected from him. I regret that, owing to the exigencies of his party, of his position in the country, he has felt himself compelled to turn from that course of conciliation and concession into the horrible paths of coercion."

Labouchere took Mr. Parnell's view of the situation, and argued with much zest against the worst features of the Crimes Bill. Speaking on May 18, on the second reading, {176} he said that it was clear from the fact that the House was now asked to pass a remedial measure (the Arrears Bill) and a Coercion Bill that the former policy of the Government had been a failure.

But the present Coercion Bill erred precisely in the same direction that the other had done, because it was not aimed solely at outrage, but was directed at honourable members sitting opposite. In fact he (Mr. Labouchere) could see the trail of the honourable member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and of his policy in this measure. The Government ought to try to get the majority of the Irish people on their side to fight with them against outrage. Was this Bill likely to enlist the sympathies of the Irish members? Mr. Labouchere expressed the principle of his objection to the Bill by saying that as long as political and criminal elements were mixed up in the Bill he could not vote for it. He objected particularly to the following features. The "intimidation clause" went too far, being directed against boycotting, which, although it had its bad features, was, as a system of exclusive trading, legitimate. He considered it "monstrous" that the authorities should have power to detain any person out after sunset. He objected to the clause dealing with the press, and he thought that three years was too long a period for the Bill to remain in force. Who could say who might be Lord-Lieutenant in three years? He could not imagine anything more horrible than that, say, the right honourable gentleman the member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) should be invested with the powers of the Bill. The consequence would perhaps be, that if the Prime Minister went over to Ireland, he would be arrested and put into prison. His admiration for the Prime Minister was increasing, but all his colleagues were not as well minded as himself. There seemed to be two currents in the cabinet-- some members who desired to do all they could for Ireland being baulked by those of their colleagues called Whigs.[7] {177} Mr. Labouchere worked out of Parliament, as well as in, for the improvement of the Bill. He was incessantly negotiating both with the Government and the Irish leaders to defeat what he felt to be its impossible features and to modify the remaining ones in the direction of conciliation. He had written two days before the speech just mentioned to Mr. Chamberlain as follows:

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, May 16, 1882.

DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I enclose Bill with Healy's amendments. He says that what he means in the suggested changes in the Intimidation Clause is, that only a person who actually threatens a person with injury should come under the provisions of the Bill. What he objects to is constructive intimidation.

I went through the Bill thus amended with Parnell. He agrees with them in the main, but would like to have the opinion of a lawyer with regard to them. Like Healy, his chief objection is to constructive intimidation. He says that if the Government will meet him and his party in the conciliatory spirit of the amendments, he will promise that the opposition to the Bill shall be conducted on honest Parliamentary lines, and that there shall be no abstention. He specially urges that the Bill shall only be in operation until the close of next session; he puts this on two grounds: (1) That the Tories may possibly come in at the end of that time. (2) That he may be able to advise the Irish to be quiet in the hopes of no renewal of the Bill.

He says that he is in a very difficult position between the Government and the secret societies. The latter, he says, are more numerous than are supposed; that most of those connected with them only wish to be let alone, but that he greatly fears that if they are disgusted they will commit outrages. The late murders, he seems to think, were, when agrarian, the acts of men who had a grudge against a particular individual, and, when political, the acts of skirmishers from America. I really think that he is most anxious to be able to support the Government; he fully admits that a Bill is necessary on account of English opinion, but he does not wish to have it applied to himself, and he doubts whether it will be really effectual against the outrage mongers.

{178}

Healy goes so far as to say that if the Prime Minister or you were to administer the Bill it would do no harm, and that he is not greatly afraid of it in the hands of Lord Spencer, but that it would be a monstrous weapon of oppression in the hands of Jim Lowther. I am sure that with conciliation you can now, for the first time, get the Parnellites on your side.

This letter Mr. Chamberlain sent to Mr. Gladstone, promising to bring the draft of the Bill to the House that afternoon.

Mr. Labouchere continued to Mr. Chamberlain on the following day:

He (Healy) points out that even the Conservative newspapers are against the Newspaper Clause, and he wants it made applicable only to newspapers printed out of Ireland. With regard to the Search Clause, he will make a fight for nominative warrants, and he also wants an amendment securing an indemnity in case of injury done to property by the searchers. He points out that there ought to be a right of appeal from the County Court Judge to the Queen's Bench. With respect to the Intimidation Clause, he seems to approve of cutting out the definition clause, but is very anxious for some restriction in the terms of the clause, so that there may be no crime of constructive intimidation.

There is to be a private meeting at one to-morrow of himself, Parnell, T. P. O'Connor, and Sexton. He will say to them that he thinks that Government will agree to the County Court Judges and to the period of the Bill being shortened. He will, however, before the meeting, go further into details as regards the position with Parnell. He is most desirous that there should be no plea for saying that there is a bargain of any kind. I have told him that, in the Prime Minister, they have a friend, but that they must take into consideration his position as the leader of a Government where possibly all are not as well disposed, and as the head of a country where there is a popular outcry for stringent measures.

On May 22, he wrote again, after a further interview with Parnell:

{179}

This is about the sum total of what Parnell took an hour to tell me. He does not in the least complain of you, and really is most anxious to get on with the Government if possible. He wants me to let him know as soon as possible to-morrow whether he is to consider that there is to be no concession.

Parnell says: That the Arrears Bill has been very well received in Ireland, and that, if it be followed by one making certain modifications of no very important character in the Land Bill, he is convinced that the situation will greatly improve, provided that concessions be made in the Coercion Bill.

He suggests that the Coercion and the Arrears Bill move forward _pari passu_, and that only small progress be made with the Coercion Bill before Whitsuntide, in order to give time for the passions to cool, and for persons to see by experience that the condition of Ireland is not so bad as is supposed.

If urgency is to be voted on the Coercion Bill, he asks that it should be voted by a simple majority, and that it should be stated that it will be used whenever any Legislative measures in regard to Ireland are brought forward during the Session and obstructed by the Conservatives.

He greatly regrets the speech of Davitt, but says that he (Davitt) has no intention to go to Ireland, and that his land scheme is a little fad of his own.

He says that he is most anxious for a _modus vivendi_, and believes that if the present opportunity for establishing one be let pass, it is not likely to recur. He and his friends, he says, are incurring the serious risk of assassination in their efforts to bring it about, and he thinks that his suggestions ought to be judged on their merits, but that, with the Coercion Act as it is, there will be so much anger and ill-feeling in Ireland, that all alliance with the Liberal party will be impossible.

He points out, not as a matter of bargain, but as a fact, that the Liberals may--if only there be concessions on the Coercion Bill, and a few modifications in the Land Bill--count on the Irish vote, as against the Conservatives, and suggests that this will make the Government absolutely safe, even though there be Whig defections.

Mr. Labouchere continued, as will be seen by the following {180} letters to Mr. Chamberlain, to press the views of the Irish leaders upon the Government.

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 3, 1882.

DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--We have done our best during your absence to hold our own against Harcourt. The only important issue yet raised has been the exclusion of treason and treason felony from the Bill.

On Thursday I went to Grosvenor from Parnell to ask that the debate should be adjourned. Gladstone said that Parnell ought to consider that after Harcourt's "no surrender" speech the Government would not be able to give in the next day, and that the division if taken would be larger on Thursday than on Friday, and that the matter might be reconsidered in Report. I said that if Government would give any private assurance, or if Gladstone would say in the House, that the exclusion would be favourably considered on Report, he could have the division at once. This latter he was afraid to do, for Harcourt, as sulky as a bear, was glaring at him. He therefore agreed to consent "with regret" to the adjournment. When, however, Parnell moved it, our idiots and the Conservatives shouted so loudly "no," that a division had to be taken. Then Healy moved it, on which Gladstone did hint at the Report, but said nothing definite, except that it would be impossible to consult at once with the Irish Executive. The next day, Grosvenor wrote to me to say that he spoke without prejudice and held out no hope, but would I call "Parnell's attention to one sentence in one of Gladstone's concluding speeches, which was to the effect that it was impossible to call the attention of the Irish Government to the question of omitting treason and treason felony, between last night and this day, and therefore it would be better to bring up the question again on Report. Please ask Parnell to consider this fact."

On Friday morning the Irish held a meeting, and they agreed to keep what they did secret, decided that if treason were retained, at least treason felony should be eliminated.

On the House meeting Trevelyan tackled me, and said: "I am opposed to the insertion of treason and treason felony, and {181} I am disposed to make large concessions. You know that I am a person of strong will. I now understand the Bill, and you will see how I shall act."

Grosvenor also said that I need not believe him, as he quite agreed with me, but that Harcourt was the difficulty. I asked him whether he would agree that if Lord Spencer said that treason and treason felony were not needed, they should be struck out on Report. He replied that the onus could not be thrown on Spencer, but that it must be the act of the Cabinet.

So after seeing Parnell it was agreed that the division should be taken at 7.30.

Why Parnell is making such a fight over this, and will make a fight over the Intimidation Clause, is that unless concession be made, he will find it difficult to hold his own. Egan, he says, wants to carry on the agitation from Paris, in which case it will be illegal; he wants to carry it on in Dublin, in which case it will be legal. If concessions are made he will have his way; if not, Egan will remain the master in Paris.

Grosvenor quite admits that it is most desirable to aid Parnell to remain leader.

Parnell says:

"I ask, in order to put an end definitely to the land agitation: that a clause should be introduced into the Arrears Bill, allowing small tenants in the Land Court to pay on Griffiths' valuation until their cases are decided: that there should be an expansion of the Bright Clauses next year if not this; and that a Royal Commission be appointed to keep the agricultural labourers quiet by taking evidence. Then I propose to ask for a fair and reasonable measure of local self-government, such as an English Government can grant," and he assures me that in all questions between me and the Conservatives and the Liberals, the latter shall have the Irish vote. I believe that he is perfectly sincere, and that he is thoroughly frightened by threats of assassination; indeed he told me that he never went about without a revolver in his pocket, and even then did not feel safe.

I write you all this for your private information, as you may wish to know the exact situation at present.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

{182}

REFORM CLUB, June 8, 1882.

DEAR CHAMBERLAIN--Parnell says that it is absolutely necessary that something should be understood, and that if no concession be made on the Intimidation Clause, he considers that things revert to where they were under the Forster regime, and that they will fight until urgency is voted and then fight on urgency until a _coup d'état_ is carried out. Allowing for some exaggeration, a simple consideration of his position towards his party shows that this programme is necessarily forced upon him.

Surely we have a right to see the clause as Government will agree to it, before passing a portion of it.

I believe that this would be agreed to: that intimidation shall mean any threats, etc., to violence, any boycotting which involves danger such, for instance, as a doctor refusing to attend a sick man, or a refusal to supply the necessaries of life, and any specific act that is set out in the Bill, but _nothing more_.

C. Russell, Bryce, and Davy are trying their hands at this and hope to be able to frame a clause on these lines. You will no doubt see that, if something cannot be done to-morrow, the fat will be in the fire. Would it not therefore be well to leave the clause until the other clauses are passed, and then bring it on?--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 9, 1882.

DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I wrote you a line in a great hurry last night, but after the House had adjourned I again saw Parnell.

He is most anxious that Mr. Gladstone should not think that obstruction arises from any ill-feeling towards him, and that he does not, in his own interests, wish it to be thought that anything in the nature of a bargain is to be made.

But he wants Mr. Gladstone to know facts. He says that there are two sections in the Land League. The funds of the League are at Paris, where a large sum is invested in securities. Egan wishes to trench on these securities, but Parnell and Davitt have been able to stop this, and at present nothing is expended but the weekly contributions. Egan and his section of the League are furious at the idea of the League being converted into a moderate tenant right Association, with its headquarters {183} in Dublin. This he desires. Every day the ultras of his party are telling him that nothing is gained by conciliation. If the Bill is to be passed in its present shape, he declares that neither he nor his friends can have anything to do with a moderate policy, and, as they absolutely decline to associate themselves with Egan and his desperate courses, they must withdraw.

The result, he says, will be that the Fenians will be masters of the situation, that they will have funds, and that there will be assassinations and outrages all over Ireland. So soon as he withdraws, he considers that his own life will not be worth a day's purchase.

If he is able to head the tenant right Association, he considers that he can crush out the Fenians--more especially if something is done in the Arrears Bill to meet the difficulty of the small tenants, who are waiting for their cases to be decided on in the Land Courts, being evicted, before their cases come on, for non-payment of excessive rents. If nothing be done in this matter, and if he be allowed to have his tenant right Association, this he says will be his great difficulty next winter. He wishes Mr. Gladstone to observe that Davitt has not made any speeches in Ireland, and he says that he obtained this pledge from him in order to show the result of conciliation. He disagrees entirely with Davitt's "nationalisation" of land scheme, and says that the Irish tenants do not themselves desire it.

He again suggests whether it would not be possible to insert limitations in the Intimidation Clause? And he would suggest that, if possible, it would be desirable to leave the clause as it stands, without any definition section, and to say that, as there is no desire to prevent an orderly and legal tenant right Association, additions will be made to the clause on Report, defining all this.

As regards the tribunal, he hopes that Mr. Gladstone will agree to a proviso, making the Court consist of a magistrate and a barrister. This he thinks will render it more easy to accept the intimidation clause with the limitations that he suggests, for many of the resident magistrates are half-pay captains, who have been appointed by interest, and who are hand in glove with the landlords, and some of them are certain to act foolishly.

If this be accepted, if unlawful associations are made there {184} which the Lord Lieutenant declares to be unlawful; if it be made a crime to not attend an unlawful assembly, but to riot at, or to refuse to retire if called upon to do so from an unlawful assembly, I do not think that he attaches very great importance to the duration of the Act, although he still says that he does, but he would be satisfied if the duration of the Act were for three years with the proviso that the Lord Lieutenant has to prolong it (if it is prolonged) by a proclamation at the end of each year. He is anxious for this, because he thinks that he could do much for the cause of law and order, if he were able to point out that possibly the Act would not run for the whole three years, if the Irish are quiet and peaceable.

His main anxiety at the present moment seems to be, that Mr. Gladstone should understand the position of the Land League and of its leaders. He wishes most sincerely to fight with the Government against all outrages, and he complains that his good intentions are met every moment by a _non possumus_ of lawyers, who seem to regard it as a matter of _amour propre_ not to listen to him, and he says (and I am sure he believes it) that the result will be murders and outrages which will end in martial law.--Yours truly, H. LABOUCHERE.

P.S.--With regard to supply, he says that he thinks it a little hard, that he should be asked not to obstruct one Bill, because the Conservatives will obstruct another, and he suggests that Supply might be taken before the Report on the Bill now under discussion, with some sort of understanding that the Irish would not put down notices on going into Committee of Supply. But on this matter, he says that he is certain that if Mr. Gladstone will fairly look into his suggestions, he will see their force, and he still hopes that all obstruction, etc., etc., may be avoided.

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 10, 1882.

DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--As it seems to be understood that Harcourt had stated in the House his readiness to accept the amendment which I gave you yesterday, Healy has put it down.

As regards "unlawful," which was negatived last night, I explained to Healy that it was impossible to make the limitation on account of legal and technical difficulties, and he fully accepted this explanation.

{185}

With regard to the two limitations which stand in Parnell's name, and which they ask for, I told Healy that the wording of the limitations could not be used, as it would have a bad effect to say in an Act that the non-payment of rent is not an offence. To this he assented, and is quite ready to accept any words, taken from the Act of '75 or from anywhere else, which will cover the limitations. Would it not be as well to have the words ready, and to let Parnell have them, or at least to be ready with the substituted words when Parnell's amendment comes on?

There is a clause about exclusive dealing. When the suggestions which I submitted to you were being discussed by Parnell and Healy, they were very anxious to include Davy's amendment in regard to exclusive dealing, substituting for "dealing with"--"buying," by which they would have excluded a refusal to buy from Boycotting. I got them to say that this was not to be pressed if Government declined to accept the amendment, so I did not trouble you with it. Late last evening Parnell wanted to insist on it, so I appealed to Healy. He said that they were bound not to insist on more than had been submitted to you, as this would not be honourable, and therefore all trouble on this head is avoided.

Of course they will in the House divide on some amendment in regard to exclusive dealing, as a protest, and they may make one or two speeches, but there will be no obstruction, and I see no reason why the Bill should not be through Committee (notwithstanding Goschen's gloomy prognostications) in a few days.

It would, I think, very much tend to aid matters if Harcourt could in the course of discussion state, that in all cases a barrister will sit with a residential magistrate. He has already said that there will be an appeal to Quarter Sessions, which in Ireland means an appeal to the County Court Judge. But some of the residential magistrates are very foolish persons, and all are regarded as men in the landlords' camp.

Also, is it not possible to arrive at some clear definition as to what is an unlawful association? Parnell says that it is left now to any residential magistrate to decide the matter. He suggests that only such associations shall be unlawful, for the purpose of the Act, which are proclaimed as such by the Lord Lieutenant. {186} But provided that there be a clear definition, he does not care for any particular wording.

Parnell and Healy request me to say that they are very grateful to Mr. Gladstone for meeting them half-way, and they seem only now anxious about "treason felony." As Herschell told me that he thinks everything necessary will be covered by the word "treason," I hope that this matter will also be settled satisfactorily.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

P.S.--Parnell would not like any one but you and Mr. Gladstone to know about his dispute with Egan, and the embargo on the League funds, except in a very general way.

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, June 24, 1882.

DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I saw Parnell, and spoke to him as you wished.

His answer is practically this:

"I acknowledge that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain have acted fairly, and so far as I can I should always be ready to meet their wishes. But I deny that we have obtained the concessions that we expected. I am not prepared to go back to Ireland and engage in bringing the agitation within constitutional limits, on the mere chance of Lord Spencer not arresting me. The Fenians want one thing: the Ladies' League another: the people in Paris (Egan) another: and I another. Therefore I shall limit my action to Parliament and leave the Government and the Fenians to fight it out in Ireland. The Cabinet do not seem to realise that the Crimes Bill is a very complex one, and very loosely drawn up. There has been no obstruction in the proper sense of the word, although I admit that the Irish have repeated again and again the same arguments on amendments. But this I cannot help, unless I tell them that they will get something by holding their tongues. When the Conservatives threatened obstruction on Procedure, this was met by telling them that the majority resolution would not be pressed if they would facilitate business. Why should not the same arrangement be made with us? Let us know what amendments will be accepted in future. I am most anxious to carry out what I understood was the contemplated policy when I was released from {187} Kilmainham, and to work with the Government in bringing the active phase of Irish agitation to a close. But this I cannot do if I am suspected of ulterior objects, and if I cannot show that something is gained for my party."

He then suggested that if the Government would take their November Session for alterations in the Land Act, he would do his best to facilitate business now in regard to the Crimes, and the Arrears Bill, and the Procedure Resolutions, provided that the majority Resolution were maintained.

I asked him what he really wanted under the term of alterations in the Land Act?

He said: "To go back to the system of reductions in rent which was acted on before the Stuart Donleathcase, and to extend the Bright clauses in the sense of W. H. Smith's resolution."

Finally, I again urged him to remember what Mr. Gladstone and you had done for him already, and to see whether he could not manage to bring the Committee Stage of the Bill to an end within a reasonable time.

On Monday, Sexton proposes to cut Chaplin out by bringing forward a resolution about the suspects. Parnell says that this is absolutely necessary, because he and his friends are blamed for only caring for their own release. But Sexton will say that he only does this, because it is a choice between his resolution and Chaplin's, and there will be no talking to hinder the Government from getting their money, or with the object of obstructing.

I have got to go to Northampton on Monday, so I shall not be in the House until late.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

When the Crimes Act was finally passed, Mr. Labouchere expressed himself in _Truth_ as follows:

When Mr. Parnell was released from Kilmainham, it was understood that the Land Act would be amended, that evictions would be stopped by an Arrears Bill, and that the leaders of the land movement would be permitted to agitate within fair legal limits in favour of the political and social changes desired by their countrymen. Had this understanding been carried out, the breach between the Parnellites and the Liberals would have been healed.

{188}

Mr. Forster was the first to perceive that as a result of a _modus vivendi_ he would have to disappear with his policy of coercion. He therefore resigned, in the hope that this would render it impossible to carry out the Kilmainham compact. Then followed the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish. The horror which this created was skilfully used by the Whigs in the Cabinet, and they succeeded in promoting a Bill, not so much aimed at outrages as at the Kilmainham compact. This Bill is a complete codification of arbitrary rule. It places the lives, liberties, and property of the Irish in the hands of the Executive, and seeks to suppress every species of political agitation.

Unfortunately, Mr. Trevelyan was awaiting his re-election when it was introduced, and it was left to Sir William Harcourt to carry it through the House of Commons. Of course, as Sir William is the head-centre of the Whigs, he delighted in his task. Not only did he refuse every modification of the Bill, except those which were rendered absolutely necessary by the absurd way in which it was drawn, but almost every day he envenomed discussion by transpontine outbursts against the Irish members. I do not blame him. I blame no one who plays his cards to his own best advantage. This is human nature. Sir William knew that if the English Radicals and the Irish were allied, he and his Whigs would lose all influence, whilst of Ireland he knew absolutely nothing.

The result, therefore, has been that the Whigs triumph, and that several weeks have been wasted in passing a Bill which will do nothing to hinder outrages, but which will simply increase the ill-feeling between England and Ireland.

If the leaders of the land movement are wise, they will not endeavour to hold meetings. They should declare that public meeting has been rendered impossible by the Crimes Act; and they should, as an act of charity, collect funds to aid all who have been evicted, no matter from what cause, and thus band the Irish tenants together in a friendly society. At the same time, they should devote all their energies to increase their numbers in the next Parliament, and they should submit test questions to every Liberal standing for an English constituency where there are Irish voters, and make these votes dependent upon the manner in which the questions are answered. If Mr. Parnell can {189} hold the balance in Parliament between the rival aspirants for the Treasury Bench, he may be certain that any just demand that he may make will be granted. The democracy of England and Ireland, with Mr. Gladstone at their head, would make short work of Conservative and Whig obstructive trash. The landlords in Ireland and the Whigs in England stand in the way of peace and tranquillity in the former island, and of mutual good feeling in both.[8]

To quote Mr. Labouchere's views on Ireland during the dark and gloomy period which followed the introduction of the Prevention of Crimes Bill is to quote Mr. Chamberlain's, for, as is seen by their constant correspondence, the two were one in their views on Irish discontent. Mr. Chamberlain made a speech at Swansea in February, 1883, in which he asked his audience how long they supposed Englishmen with their free institutions would tolerate the existence of an Irish Poland so near to their own shores. Was separation the only alternative? He thought not. Separation, in his opinion, would "jeopardise the security of this country, and would be fatal to the prosperity and happiness of Ireland." He, like Labouchere, was prepared to relax the bond, even by conceding what was then known as Home Rule, which would not include an independent Parliament or a separate executive.[9]

However, in 1883 and 1884, Englishmen had other things to occupy their minds than the rights and wrongs of Ireland. In order to follow the political career of Mr. Labouchere we must for a time leave the Irish question and consider "the policy of Gladstone's Government in Egypt."

[1] _Northampton Mercury_, March 27, 1880.

[2] _Hansard_, Jan. 27, 1881, vol. 257.

[3] _Hansard_, Feb. 25, 1881, vol. 258.

[4] To their credit, be it said, they generally were amused.

[5] _Hansard_. Feb. 25, 1881, vol. 258.

[6] R. Barry O'Brien, _Life of Parnell_.

[7] _Hansard_, May 14, 1881.

[8] _Truth_, July 6, 1882.

[9] S. H. Jeyes, _Mr. Chamberlain_.

{190}