CHAPTER XI

IN OPPOSITION

(JUNE, 1885--DECEMBER, 1885)

Mr. Labouchere was not only a zealous friend and advocate of the Irish members in Parliament, but a variety of circumstances conspired with his own aptitudes to constitute him an unofficial ambassador between conflicting parties in the House, and, in particular, between the Liberal Cabinet and the Nationalist leader. "His real influence," wrote Sir Henry Lucy recently, "was exercised beyond the range of the Speaker's eye. Nothing pleased him more than being engaged in the lobby, the smoking-room,[1] or a remote corner of the corridors, working out some little plot. By conviction a thorough Radical, such was the catholicity of his nature that he was on terms of personal intimacy with leaders of every section of party, not excepting those who sat on the Treasury Bench. He was one of the few men--perhaps the only man--whom Parnell treated with an approach to confidence. He watched the growth of the Fourth Party with something like paternal interest. Lord Randolph Churchill and he were inseparable. In these various episodes and connections he delighted to play the part of the friendly broker."[2] In this way, far more effectively than by formal speech or resolution, though here too {251} he was untiring in the fight, he was able to use what is called "the personal factor in politics." And in his case the personal factor was no light weight. His extreme opinions, in which he had never wavered since the days when, as a young man, he had scornfully declined the succession to his uncle's peerage, secured him the confidence both of the Irish and of the left wing of the Liberals, while, by birth, education, and habit of life, he was the welcome intimate of men who sat on the other side of the House. Eton, Trinity, and the diplomatic service were an unusual training for an ultra-Radical and gave an attractive flavour of sacrilege to his views. No one appreciated this circumstance more than he did himself, and certainly no one could have put it out to better interest.

On June 8, 1885, a coalition of Tories and Irish defeated the Government by a majority of twelve. The occasion was an amendment moved by Sir Michael Hicks Beach during the second reading of the Budget Bill, condemning the increase of beer and spirit duties proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The combination between the Opposition and the Irish was due to information having been given by one of the Opposition leaders to the Irish party to the effect that the Tories, if returned to power, would not renew the Coercion Act, which would automatically expire in the following August.[3] Mr. Gladstone resigned the next day, and, after some delay, Lord Salisbury accepted office and formed his first administration. The new Viceroy, Lord Carnarvon, following the precedents of Lord Mulgrave in 1837 and Lord Clarendon in 1850, himself made the declaration of the Irish policy of the new Government. That policy was a complete renunciation of coercion. Ireland was to be governed by the ordinary law of the land. "My Lords, I do not believe that with honesty and single-mindedness of purpose on one hand, and with the willingness of the Irish people on the other, it is hopeless to look for some satisfactory {252} solution of this terrible question. My Lords, these I believe to be the views and opinions of my colleagues." The "honesty and single-mindedness" of this piece of tactics were severely criticised by Mr. Chamberlain. "A strategic movement of that kind executed in opposition to the notorious convictions of the men who effected it, carried out for party purposes and party purposes alone, is the most flagrant instance of political dishonesty this country has ever known."

The Irish party were much impressed by the advances of the Conservatives, and when Lord Carnarvon arranged to meet Parnell in conversation on Irish affairs, in the course of which they discussed whether "some plan of constituting a Parliament in Dublin, short of the repeal of the Union, might not be devised and prove acceptable to Ireland,"[4] Parnell may be excused for having thought that salvation was to come from the Tories. Mr. Gladstone had not yet pronounced himself. The Liberal Government had imprisoned the Irish leader; its record in Ireland, with the exception of the Arrears Bill, was summed up in the word coercion. Liberal politicians were naturally upset at the new turn of events. Mr. Healy had written on May 25 to Mr. Labouchere saying that "apart from coercion, it was the policy of the Irish party to equalise all Liberals and Tories as much as possible _pour nous faire valoir_, so that the matter will have to be looked at by us apart from the renewal of coercion, though of course, I imagine, if we thought we could trust the Liberals to avoid obnoxious legislation and to stick to reform, we should support them strongly. But how can we have any guarantee of the kind?" Mr. Healy continues further on in the letter: "I think a little time in the cool of Opposition would do your party a world of good.... If we supported your party next time, the Lords would throw out or render worthless any Bill the Commons passed, and time has proved that the Whigs won't face the Lords. If that institution were abolished we should be great fools not {253} to be friendlier with the Liberals, but they are almost powerless to help us, even if they were sincere, so long as the Lords are all-powerful." In a letter to Mr. Labouchere, dated July 18, Mr. Chamberlain made the following significant statement as to his feeling in the matter:

The present attitude of the Irish leaders is not at all encouraging to Radicals. They take no account whatever of our difficulties or of the extent to which we have, in the past, supported Irish claims, and now that a Tory Government is in office they are ready to accept from them with joy and gratitude the merest crumbs of consolation, while they reject with scorn and contumely the offers of further legislation which we have made. I think, under these circumstances, we must stand aside for the present. The Irish Members "must stew in their juice" with the Tories until they find out their mistake. Whether the support of the Radicals will still be forthcoming is a question. My information from the country satisfies me that further concessions to Irish opinion are not at all popular even with our Radical constituents, and, under all the circumstances, I am not unwilling to keep silence for a time and await the course of events.

The Parnellites, as I understand, cannot count upon two things:

First, on holding the balance after the next General Election. I am convinced that they are mistaken, and we shall have a majority over them and the Tories combined.

Secondly, they believe in the readiness of the Tories, under the stress of party exigency, to make concessions to them in the shape of Home Rule and otherwise, which even the Radicals are not prepared to agree to. In this, also, I am convinced they are mistaken. To whatever lengths Randolph Churchill may be willing to go, his party will not follow him so far, and, sooner or later, the Parnellites will find that they have been sold. I believe the experience will be a healthy one for them and for us.

The situation appealed strongly to Mr. Labouchere, and he took up the part of the "friendly broker" with zest. {254} On July 22, he saw Mr. Healy and wrote the following account of his interview to Mr. Chamberlain:

Healy favoured me to his views during three hours to-day. I told him that we were sure to win without the Irish, but that if he and his friends wished for any sort of Home Rule, he must understand that his only chance was to ally himself with the Radicals and to support you. I said that I had tried to impress this upon Parnell, but that he talked rubbish about Grattan's Parliament, and seemed to me to be thoroughly impractical. Healy said that Parnell in his heart cared little for the Irish, particularly since a mob ill-treated him in 1880. He regretted to be obliged to admit that personal feeling actuated his leader's policy at times, but Parnell felt his dignity offended by his arrest and his present feeling was revenge on Gladstone and Forster.

I suggested a rebellion. But he said that this was impossible because the present policy of all Irishmen was hanging together, for they attributed all their troubles to divided councils. He said that Parnell is very astute. He generally finds out which way the feeling is amongst his followers before he suggests anything, but, in one or two cases, he has put his foot down, when he obtained his way.

I asked him about Davitt. He laughed at the idea of his being of any use to the Liberals. He is a very difficult man, he said, and a trouble to Parnell, who would like him to go against us openly, for this would smash him; he cares neither for Tories nor Radicals. If Parnell joined the latter he would coquette with the former and vice versa.

As regards the present situation he said that there never was anything which could be called a treaty with the Conservatives, but that there was an understanding that, if they helped the Tories to turn out the late Government, and generally supported them during the remainder of the Session, there was to be no coercion. "Churchill talks to us vaguely about Home Rule, but we do not pay much attention to this. We are now paying our debt that we have incurred." According to present arrangements, the Party is to put out a manifesto calling upon all Irish in England to vote solid for the Conservative candidates. This policy was adopted, he continued, in order to hold the balance. {255} I went into figures to show him that we should win without the Irish, and said that the balance policy would only end in their tying themselves to a corpse.

He admitted that this was possible, and said that personally his sympathies were with the Radicals, but that it was impossible to trust the Liberal party, and to hope that the Liberal party could do anything even if they wished to, owing to the House of Lords. "No alliance," I said, "is worth anything which is not based upon mutual interest. We shall win at the election, but we shall have to count with the Whigs. The English electors will be indignant at your conduct, and we shall naturally take our revenge on you for your supporting the Tories. Now, if you would join us, we should be strong enough to hold our own against Whigs and Tories. We want your votes in the House of Commons; you will find that you will do nothing without ours. What do you say to Chamberlain's scheme of Home Rule in the _Fortnightly_? He said: "... there are ... some things that I object to in it, but Chamberlain could not carry it. Even if he got it through the House of Commons, the Lords would throw it out."[5]

Well, we went on discussing. At last he said: "Can we have any assurance that Chamberlain's scheme would be one on which a Radical or Liberal Ministry would stand or fall? Will Gladstone declare for it?" "What would you do if you could be certain of a big scheme forming part of the Liberal platform?" I asked. "Our party really is guided by about six men. What we decide," he said, "the others accept. I would propose that we do not compromise ourselves with the Tories, that we should issue no manifesto, leaving Irish electors to vote as they like. When the plan is put forth in the next Parliament, we should have to say that it does not go far enough, etc., but it might merely be a dummy opposition. Whether I could carry this I don't know, but I think that I could." ... Finally he said that he would be back at the commencement of August, and that, if any arrangement could be made, he would do his best to further it.

There are two points in your scheme that he wants modified, and these I will explain to you when I see you at the House, and {256} you have a moment's spare time. He told me to tell you that those who wished that you should be ill received in Ireland would not have their way, and that you may count on a perfectly friendly reception.

This letter is long, but I thought that you would like to know Healy's ideas, as he is by far the most honest and ablest of the Irishmen.... It is all very well expecting to win the elections, but the Irish vote is an important factor, and if only we could square the eighty Irish in the House, and turn them into your supporters, Whigs and Tories would be dished. Certainly there is no love lost between the Allies. W. O'Brien, Healy told me, declines to speak to any of them, regarding them as intriguers with whom they are allied because of the Coercion Acts.

Mr. Healy wrote again to Mr. Labouchere on August 2, and his letter concluded with the following decisive words: "Of course, however, I should be bound by the majority, and would steadfastly carry out Parnell's policy, whatever it is declared by the Party to be."

On August 11, Parliament was prorogued and politicians soon began the campaign in the constituencies with a view to the General Election, which was to take place in November. Lord Salisbury had made the first bid for the Irish vote in a speech at the Mansion House on July 29, in which he defended Carnarvon's policy as the logical outcome of the Franchise Act of 1884. On August 24, Parnell made a very important speech at Dublin, in which he said that the Irish platform would consist of one plank only--legislative independence. The English press was roused to vehement denunciation. The _Times_ said that an Irish Parliament was "impossible." The _Standard_ besought Whigs and Tories "to present a firm uncompromising front to the rebel chief." The _Daily Telegraph_ hoped that the House of Commons would not be seduced or terrified into surrender. The _Manchester Guardian_ declared that Englishmen would "condemn or punish any party or any public man who attempted to walk in the path traced by Mr. Parnell." {257} The _Leeds Mercury_ did not think the question of an Irish Parliament worth discussing; while the _Daily News_ felt that Great Britain could only be saved from the tyranny of Mr. Parnell by a "strong administration composed of advanced Liberals."[6] The right wing of the Liberals, represented by Lord Hartington, and the left by Mr. Chamberlain, both protested. Hartington, speaking on August 2, referred to Parnell's manifesto as "so fatal and mischievous a proposal." Mr. Chamberlain, speaking at Warrington in the early days of September, said very definitely: "Speaking for myself, I say that if these and these alone are the terms on which Mr. Parnell's support is to be obtained, I will not enter into competition for it." The veteran leader, for the moment, was silent, having retired for repose and meditation to Norway. But though he said nothing himself, he stimulated others to speak. Mr. Barry O'Brien was approached in August by a well-known English publicist, who begged him to write some articles on the Irish question of a "historical and dispassionate nature." The publicist made this request "at the suggestion of a great man--in fact a very great man." The very great man was Mr. Gladstone. The first article was published in November under the title of "Irish Wrongs and English Remedies." On September 18 Mr. Gladstone issued the famous Hawarden Manifesto admitting the necessity for Home Rule.

Mr. Labouchere was busy all the autumn trying to get at the various shades of opinion prevalent among the Irish members. Michael Davitt was often a thorn in Parnell's side, and the following letter he wrote to Mr. Labouchere on October 9 is very interesting as indicating clearly the way in which the two patriots often came into collision:

There is a general impression among the rank and file of Irish Nationalists that the G.O.M. will come nearest to Parnell's demand. There is no English statesman more admired by the {258} mass of the people, notwithstanding what _United Ireland_ and platform speakers may say to the contrary. But the priests and bishops would rather have the Tory party attempt the solution of the Home Rule problem, owing to the fact of the Conservatives being in favour of Denominational Education. Men like Healy, strange to say, are also pro-Tory in this respect, as they fear that if Chamberlain and his party become dominant, the Radical or democratic element in the Irish Nationalist movement will be able to settle the Land question on more advanced lines than those of the Parliamentary party. In fact we have Tory Nationalists and democratic Nationalists in our ranks, and the latter would like to see men like Chamberlain, Morley, and yourself in a position to arrange the Anglo-Irish difficulty. Parnell's attitude on Protection is absurd. If we had a National Assembly in Dublin to-morrow, he could not carry a measure in favour of Protection. Three-fourths of our people live by agriculture, and these want to export their surplus produce, and would, beyond doubt, be in favour of Free Trade. Since Parnell's Arklow speech I have more than once attacked Protection, and, in his recent Wicklow pronouncement, he considerably modified his views on the question. How singular that the volunteers in Grattan's time demanded Free Trade from England, and that England squelched our manufactures by--Protection!

I wish to Heaven Chamberlain had not made that Warrington "30 to 4" speech of his. He has played into the hands of the Tory Nationalists.

Have you read my suggestions about a possible _modus vivendi_ between England and Ireland in the concluding chapter of my book? Parnell took his One Chamber idea from it. There is no room for a Custom House in my simple plan, and the Irish people would jump at such a scheme of self-government, while every soldier now in Ireland might be removed without any danger to the integrity of the Empire, if such a plan of settlement were adopted....

No more vivid light can be thrown on Mr. Labouchere's political activities at this period than is derived from his letters. He was in communication with all parties. The {259} following selection from his correspondence illustrates the delicacy and importance of the negotiations with which he was concerned. The most interesting of these letters are undoubtedly those exchanged between himself and Mr. Chamberlain. In them we see clearly enough what was the main interest of Mr. Labouchere's life at this time. I have already pointed out how completely he subordinated all other political questions to his wide-reaching plans for the Radicalisation first of the Liberal party and secondly of the country. Irish or Egyptian or South African politics were but pawns in his game. In this correspondence we see how that dominant interest came to be identified in his mind with Mr. Chamberlain himself. His frank admiration of and political devotion to Mr. Chamberlain may be read between the lines of all his letters. A note that may almost be called pathetic creeps into the later letters, when he has realised at last that his glorious schemes are going to be frustrated by the man on whom he had so completely relied for their success. The dramatic quality of some of the letters is intense. The angel wrestles with Jacob and knows it is in vain.

_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Oct. 15, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--A number of us had a long chat with Parnell on Saturday, and he seems quite confident that whether Liberals or Tories get in, Home Rule will be granted. I quite agree that, if the Tories get in with our votes and are kept in by our help, they will come to terms, but I am not at all so sure that if the Liberals get in they would have the courage (even if they had the will--did we oppose them) to face the question.

It is no use discussing our attitude from any other than the expediency standpoint. We have to make the best fight we can for a small country, and clearly, if we could put the Tories in and hold them dependent on us, that is our game. With the House of Lords behind them and our help, they could play ducks {260} and drakes with the Union, were they so minded. I confess, however, I am so ignorant of the English campaign that I don't find myself able to speculate on the outcome of the ballot box, but I can hardly believe that there is much prospect of the Liberals being beaten. What you have not touched upon in any letter to me is the point which always ghosts me--if the Liberals bring in a bold scheme how will they overcome the House of Lords? You must remember that the Tories would then raise the anti-Irish cry and the Lords would be in no unpopular position in rejecting a scheme which they would allege meant dismemberment. Of course, if the Liberals then promised to dissolve, it is hard to believe that with our support they would not win, but it must be remembered that Liberals are not united in our favour, and though Mr. Gladstone could keep them together, yet men like Hartington and Harcourt would secretly sympathise with the Tories, and would certainly not show enthusiasm in rallying the constituencies on an Irish cry. I don't believe a bit in principle being of any account with English parties. Look at the way Chamberlain spoke of Ireland when he was baulked of coming over. Read--to take a minor creature--Osborne Morgan's speeches. Mr. Gladstone is the only one who has shown no bitterness and has kept the controversy in what the Germans call the _heitern regionen wo die reinen formen wohnen_. Of course I admit that we have given great cause for bitterness, but I maintain that we could not have fought successfully in any other style, whereas the English, with their bayonets to rely on, need not grudge us Billingsgate--though certainly we have not been allowed the exclusive use of this feeble weapon.

I was glad to read Childers' speech, which produced an excellent impression here by its moderation and practicalness. With regard to a plan, Parnell asked Sexton and myself to try and draw up something, but we were so busy--that without a good library, which we have not here, easily available, the task is appalling. Parnell's idea is to abolish the Lord Lieutenancy, strike a financial balance between the two countries, giving, as our Imperial quota, an average on ten years' returns of Irish contributions with the cost of ruling Ireland deducted. This would get rid of the Irish Parliament voting or refusing supplies, as the sum would be a fixed one, and if we did not pay it we could {261} very easily be compelled. He would be for retaining the Irish members at Westminster, and I suppose there would not be much trouble in the arrangement being made in that case, that they should be summoned by the Speaker to debate affairs which he declared Imperial or Irish, and in the English Legislature taking them at a particular period of the Session for the sake of convenience. I think we should have full power over everything here except the Army and the Navy, as I cannot see what other interest England has here. If we pay her a due taxation, what possible care of hers is it how else we order our affairs? As for the minority, the Protestants would soon realise they were safe with the Catholics (and they would be the pets of our people). Let there be, by all means, every guarantee given for their protection however. If the Tories come in they would give us Protection, I am sure, but would stipulate for terms for the landlords.--Faithfully yours,

T. M. HEALY.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Oct. 18, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Just before the end of the Session Herbert Gladstone came to me, and asked me to endeavour to arrange some sort of _modus vivendi_ with the Irish. His father, he said, required time, if any joint action was to be taken in the next Parliament, to gain over the Whigs, and he was determined not to lead unless he had a united party behind him. I told Herbert Gladstone that I was convinced that Parnell, for various reasons, did not want an arrangement and that he would prefer to remain an irreconcilable, but that it might be possible to influence him through Healy and others. So I sent to Healy, who came over to England. Healy explained that personally he was strongly in favour of an arrangement, but that any one going against Parnell would be nowhere just now, because the Irish had got it into their heads that union was strength. But he promised to do all that he could. Then I went abroad. On my return Herbert wrote to ask what had been done. Healy replied that a Committee consisting of Sexton, T. P. O'Connor, etc., had been appointed to look into federations generally, and {262} to report thereon, but that Parnell hardly spoke to his followers upon political matters, beyond such as concerned the Irish elections, and he went into various details as to what he thought would prove satisfactory. This letter I sent to Hawarden, and got back a letter stating the views of the G.O.M., the phrase being always "I" or "I think my father" as had been agreed. The G.O.M. says that he is disposed to grant the fullest Home Rule etc., but that he does not think it is desirable to formulate a scheme before the elections, and he again presses for the Irish minimum. I have sent this to Healy. Evidently the game of the G.O.M. is to endeavour to unite the Party on Irish Legislation, and to make that his _cheval de bataille_; but he says that he will do nothing unless he can get some assurance that the Irish will in the main back him up. I don't think that they will, but, with such strange creatures, there is no knowing.

I spent yesterday morning with our friend Randolph. He says that the Conservatives count upon 280 returns in their favour, and that if they get anything like this they will not resign, and they hope to remain in office for two or three years, owing to the coalition between the Whigs, the Irish, and the Radicals. He says that Hartington, who up to now has been very guarded in his observations, now in private denounces you, and vows that he will not stand it. In his (Randolph's) opinion, he will withdraw from politics. If he does not, Randolph anticipates that the outcome will be an Aberdeen Ministry. Randolph looks very ill, though he says that he is pretty well. He is taking digitalis for his heart, and says that he is certain that the late hours in the House of Commons will knock him up....

What is the real feeling in the country I do not know, but I have in the last fortnight attended some of the meetings of the nonentities who are contesting the Metropolitan Constituencies, and here you are first and the rest nowhere. The Whigs seem to have disappeared entirely. My impression is that they have all gone over to the Conservatives, and that the Whig leaders are--if the country is to be judged by the metropolis--entirely without followers. When you allude to Goschen there are groans, when you allude to Hartington there is silence; and you have to get up a cheer for the G.O.M. by dwelling upon his noble heart and that sort of trash. I think, however, that {263} the Conservatives will gain more seats in London than we anticipate.

By the way, I do not think that the alliance of Randolph with the Irish is going on very smoothly. He complained to me that it was impossible to trust Parnell, and that the Maamtrasna business had been sprung as a surprise. Before the Conservatives came in, Parnell told me that he would support the Conservatives on no Coercion Bill, a scheme for buying out the landlords, and money expended in further works. No sooner were they in than he told me that the feeling in Ireland was so strong for Home Rule that it must be pushed forward. My own experience of Parnell is that he never makes a bargain without intending to get out of it, and that he has either a natural love of treachery, or considers that promises are not binding when made to a Saxon....

Would it not be possible to have one grand Bill for local government in both islands, and settling the difference between local and Imperial Sessions. It might be made so as to oblige English Conservatives to oppose it in their own interests, and sufficiently strong to make it difficult for the Irish to reject it on the second reading?--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Oct. 20, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--Thanks for your most interesting letter, which confirms my suspicions as to the intentions of our great chief. I was led to them in the first instance by the speeches of H. G. at Leeds--he is generally inspired, I think. Mr. G. himself was cautious with me at Hawarden, though he did not conceal that his present interest was in the Irish question, and he seemed to think that a policy for dealing with it might be found which would unite us all and which would necessarily throw into the background those minor points of difference about the schools and small holdings which threaten to drive the Whigs into the arms of the Tories or into retirement. But I agree with you that the _modus vivendi_ cannot be found. First, because all Liberals are getting weary of making concessions to Parnell, {264} and will not stand much more of it, and secondly, because Parnell cannot be depended on to keep any bargain. I believe, therefore, that Mr. G.'s plans will come to naught.

I hope Randolph Churchill is all out in his calculations. I do not give the Tories more than 200. Of course the future depends on the result of the Elections, but my impression is that Hartington will yield, grumbling as usual, but still yielding.

The effect of the campaign I have just completed has surprised me. I really had no idea at first of giving more than a "friendly lead" to candidates in the new constituencies. The idiotic opposition of the Whigs and the abuse of the Tories has turned my gentle hint into a great national policy--and now it must be forced on at all hazards. The majority of new County candidates are pledged to it--ditto Scotch members, ditto London. In Lancashire it is not so strong, as there are signs of rebellion in the constituencies against the half-hearted orders of the local Caucus.

I fear we cannot run English and Irish Local Government in one Bill--the present conditions are so absolutely dissimilar--but we will consider this again, if we have the opportunity. I am glad to say there is a good chance that Goschen will be defeated at Edinburgh. The working men are dead against him.

On the whole I am satisfied with the outlook. The first difficulty is to find fellow-workers: the rank and file are all right, but there is an awful lack of Generals, and even of non-commissioned officers.--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Oct. 20, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I send you enclosed to look at.[7] I have forwarded copy to Healy. Evidently the G.O.M. is getting a little anxious about the Election, and is now trying to persuade the Parnellites that they must try and get pledges from the Conservatives, because he knows that they cannot. As he says, the Land question is the difficulty, because he is not prepared to admit that its regulation in Ireland is involved in {265} Local Government, and that it in no way affects the integrity of the Empire, whether land in Kilkenny belongs to this man or that. I have pointed out to Healy that the difficulty might perhaps be turned by supporting your plan of compulsory purchase by local authorities in both islands, and I have explained to him the meaning of a fair price--viz. such an amount as would give the landlord the same net income in consols or Government bonds, as he gets now from his land, or ought to get, and I have urged upon him that if such a Bill were passed, and if there were Home Rule in Ireland, the Irish might surely make things so uncomfortable to the landlords that they would be glad to clear out for very little.

Would it not be a good plan to have one grand Bill, coupling together local self-government here, and Home Rule in Ireland? We should in that way get the Irish votes for England, and if the portions of the Bill really do give substantial Home Rule in Ireland, I greatly doubt whether the Irish would venture to vote against the second reading. They might develop their views and swagger in Committee. If this Bill were coupled with another on your lines respecting land, the two questions could be solved, or your purchase claims might form part of the Bill. At the bottom of the difficulty is the G.O.M. He still hankers first after the Whigs, and is not sound on the land question..., and is bent upon that difficult task of making oil and water combine. Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Oct. 23, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--My last letter has partly anticipated yours of 21st. I return H. G.'s communication. He has apparently his father's capacity for mystification, for I cannot possibly make out what he is really driving at.

Does he imagine that the Tories can be committed beforehand to support a small Liberal majority in some scheme of advanced Local Govt.?

He must be an _ingenuus puer_. For my part I believe in leaving the Irishmen to "stew in their own juice." My proposal is the {266} maximum that English Radicals will stand and a great deal more than the Whigs will accept. It had practically been agreed to by Parnell, and yet he threw it over at the last moment. It is impossible to depend on him and it is much better policy now to play the waiting game. If Randolph is right we shall be the better for not being pledged.

I am sure, however, that he is wrong, but even then we shall be much stronger in negotiation when we have a majority at our backs.

If the G.O.M. were ill-advised enough to propose a separate Parliament, he will find very little support from any section of the party.--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Nov. 12, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This is the last communication from Healy, which he wants sent to the G.O.M. So I send it through the usual channel. After saying that he will do his best for Lefevre, he says:

"It is very difficult for us to adopt a piecemeal policy, although it certainly is the intention to issue instructions that in regard to half a dozen Liberals, they shall be supported at all hazards, but so far as I can gather the working of Parnell's mind up to the present, it is not certain that he will go against the Liberals bald-headed, if at all. T. P. O'Connor is strong for supporting the Tories. If we could have an understanding with the leaders, it would settle this and every other question. It seems to me curious that we are now to be asked to define our demands, on a question on which English Statesmen do not need much instruction, seeing that in 1881, when the agrarian question was certainly complicated, nobody dreamed of asking our opinion, but on the contrary the beauty of the measure was that it was supposed to be disapproved by the Nationalists. I cannot, therefore, help feeling that this demand for a plan from us is simply a desire for our discomfort, and the profit of the English. If there is really earnestness in the Liberal {267} Party next Session (should they be in a majority) to settle the Irish question, I do not think they will find us unreasonable. God knows it is time we were at peace, but if they insist on forcing on us a Bill, which we denounce, and which we shall wreck in the working, the contest between the two countries will grow more aggravated than ever. Spencer and Forster were hit a thousand times more than Trevelyan, and yet they never went pushing about, spitting gall as he has done. The G.O.M. is the father of them all, and I do urge him to develop a little the lines of his first speech which I have just read."

And then he goes into a puff of the G.O.M.'s Article against Darwin, which, it seems, delights the Roman Catholics.

Could you not give them a few smooth words in a speech, particularly in regard to land. They have taken it into their silly heads that you are now their enemy, and as they have eighty votes it is just as well to clear this illusion away.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Nov. 16, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This is the proposal to the Irish, which I forward.[8] It is in reply to Healy's last communication. You will see that the question of the land etc., being under the control of the Irish Chamber, is shirked.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Nov. 22, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--You see, Parnell has gone against the Liberals. I felt certain he would. He has been playing with those around him and has intentionally deceived some of his own friends. I really think he will force us all, Radicals and {268} Liberals, to reject all arrangements with him. If we had a good Speaker with dictatorial powers he could stop Irish obstruction and P.'s power in Ireland would be shaken as soon as the people saw he was impotent in Parliament.

We are having a much harder fight than we expected. I think we shall win all our seats here, but it is a hard pull. The Tories are very confident and are regaining courage in the counties. My hope is that the labourers will lie courageously--promise to the Tories and vote for us....--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Nov. 25, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--That undaunted sportsman the G.O.M. is still hankering after the Irish and his general scheme of pacification. I get a letter from Rosebery every day, asking for this and that information. I have written to say that if the Liberals get a majority, it may be possible to negotiate, but that at present it is a mere waste of time to try anything.

We have been losing for a very clear reason. You put forward a good Radical programme. This would have taken. But no sooner had you put it forward than Hartington and others denounced it. Then the G.O.M. proposed that any question should be shunted to the dim and distant future, and that all should unite to bring him back to power, with a Coalition Ministry--in fact the old game which had already resulted in shilly shally. I think the inhabitants of towns have shown their wisdom in preferring even the Conservatives to this. I want to find the people on our side, who are against disestablishment. Some Peers and leaders are, but the masses go for it. They are simply sulky at being told that everything must knock under to Peers and Whigs. This is how I read the elections. Our only hope now is in the "cow," and here too I am afraid that the Whigs will have thrown cold water on all enthusiasm. I am not myself particularly sorry at what is occurring. A year or two of opposition will be far better--from the Radical standpoint--than a Cabinet with a Whig majority in it. With all the elements of disintegration, we surely shall {269} be able to render Conservative legislation impossible, and to force on a dissolution very soon, when your Caucus must come out with a clear and definite programme. Milk may be good for babes, but Whig milk will not do for electors. The Whigs have dished themselves, thank God. Even Gladstone's name goes for little at public meetings. Yours is the only one which makes any one stand up and cheer.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 1, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I quite agree with you. But would it not be well to make it clear that the Election was run on the Whig and not on the Tory Programme?[9]

I should imagine that the Irish will come round. The aim of the Conservatives will be to keep in a short time with their aid, then to quarrel with them, and to seek to hold their own against the Irish and the Radicals by a combination with the Whigs. This scheme Randolph Churchill explained to me a short time ago. If G.O.M. still hankers after an alliance with the Irish, it may be possible to arrange one, which would cause a split between him and his Whig friends. He was always wanting to know as soon as possible what could be effected, because he said that he wanted time to gain over some of his late colleagues.

I am not the least surprised at results. Putting aside the Irish vote and bad times, was it likely that there would be great enthusiasm for a cause, which was explained to be to relegate everything of importance to the dim distant future, and to unite in order to bring back to power the old lot, with all their doubts and hesitations, under a leader who was always implying, without meaning it, that he meant to retire?--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

SIGN MANSIONS, BRIGHTON, Dec. 3, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This afternoon I got a telegram {270} from Randolph to say he was coming down, and I have had him here all the evening.

He says (but don't have it from me) that, if a vote of want of confidence is not proposed, they will adjourn for three weeks after the Speaker is chosen. If they have a majority with the Irish, he says that they are inclined to throw their Speaker as a sop to the Irish, and evidently he has a scheme in his head to get Hicks-Beach elected Speaker, and to take his place himself.

He told me that he had given in a memorandum to Lord Salisbury about the state of parties in the House of Commons, in which he puts down Hartington as worth 200 votes, and you for the balance. They intend to give a _non possumus_ to all proposals for Home Rule, and they expect to be supported by Hartington, even if the G.O.M. goes for Home Rule. Salisbury is ready to resign the Premiership to Hartington if necessary, and the new Party is to be called the "Coalition Party." It appears that the G.O.M. (but this I have vowed not to tell) has given in to the Queen a scheme of Home Rule, with a sort of Irish President at the head, who is to be deposed by the Queen and Council, if necessary.

Should they not be turned out, they will at once start a discussion on Procedure.

Is not the cow working wonders for us? Next time we must have an urban cow.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 4, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,-- ... The "urban cow" is the great difficulty. I put my money on free schools, but, judging by London, the electors do not care much about it.

Things are going better for us. I was forced to speak yesterday at Leicester, and you will see I had a dig at the Whigs. I will drive the knife in on the 17th.

Surely Hartington will not be such a fool as to make a coalition. If he is inclined that way I should be happy to give him a lift. It would be the making of the Radical party.

If the Tories go against Peel they will irritate Hartington and the Moderates. I don't care a straw either way.

{271}

I should warmly support any proposals for amendment of Procedure which gave more power to the majority.--Yours truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_P.S._--We must keep the Tories in for some time. If R. Churchill will not play the fool, I certainly should not be inclined to prefer a weak Liberal or Coalition Government to a weak Tory one. His best policy is to leave us to deal with the Whigs and not to compel us to unite the party against the Tories.--Yours,

J.C.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 7, 1885.

DEAR LABOUCHERE,-- ... The G.O.M. is very anxious to come in again. I am not, and I think we must sit on his Irish proposals. It will require a careful steering to keep the Radical boat head to the wind.--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

Foljambe is out, for which I am devoutly thankful. There goes another Moderate Liberal and Hartington's speech did not help him. I hope E. Cavendish will go too. He is not safe.

_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Dec. 7, 1885.

MY DEAR L.,--Thanks for your postings. As far as I can make out your party will be in a minority of 5 or 6 when all is over a couple of days hence. We shall have 86 in our party. I have not seen Parnell for over a fortnight and know nothing of his mind except that I think it significant he should have told his interviewer that he expected Home Rule from the Liberals. This, of course may have been a hint to prick up Salisbury, and it remains to be seen how it will work. But in my opinion we have no course but to turn out the Tories. Eighteen of their men are Irish, who would oppose tooth and nail every concession to us, and as they would vote against their own party on H. R. (supposing "Barkis is willing") that would count 36 against {272} them, which, of course, would hardly be made up to them by Liberal votes, as your party, with three or four exceptions, would stand coldly aside and rejoice to see them and us, combined, put in a minority. Looking at the matter in the most cynical manner, therefore, I don't see what P. can do but put out the Conservatives. With us you would have such an immense majority that you could spare the desertion of a score of rats amongst the Whigs, while many of the Borough Conservatives who owe their seats to us might abstain from a H. R. division.

As to the means of putting them out, I assume, if we were agreed as to terms, that it would be easy to move an amendment to the Address which we could support. Whether this should have relation directly to Ireland is a matter for the strategists of your party to consider, as while it would suit our book perfectly it might not rally all your men and might lead to inconvenient debate. It would, however, look odd in us, after denouncing you so bitterly, to put you in straightway on some by-issue, not in relation to self-government, and, moreover, as we should be strictly "dark horses" as to which side we should support, an Irish amendment would have the advantage of extracting from ministers certain expressions or promises in order to fetch us, which could be made great capital out of afterwards by you. Without having thought deeply on the strategical aspect of the situation, it occurs to me that the best thing would be to have an understanding with the Liberals and "play" the Government for a few weeks with the Irish fly to see would it rise, without actually landing them. Both you and we would then get time to see their programme and how their party swallowed it--so as to corner them afterwards.

It is clear no scheme of Home Rule can be carried through the Lords without a dissolution, and then, with our help, you could have a majority of 200 over the Tories. But we should have a good registration of Voters' Bill passed first and some amendments of the Ballot Act. I think your people should at once get into touch with Parnell. He went to England this morning and should be seen by some one from your side. I agree with you that Mr. Gladstone alone can settle the Irish question. He is the only man with head and heart for the task, and the only man who can reduce to decency the contemptible cads who so largely {273} composed the last Liberal party. I thank God that so many of the howlers and gloaters over our sufferings have met their fate at the polls.--Yours,

T. M. HEALY.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

BRIGHTON, Dec. 8, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I have just got a letter from Herbert Gladstone, which I have sent on to Healy.[10]...

I have replied that it is very questionable whether any sort of arrangement can be come to with Parnell, but that, if so, it will be necessary for "Herbert" to explain precisely "logical issues and solid facts"--or, in other words, to let us have the maximum of concession.

I doubt Parnell agreeing to any scheme which "Herbert" may propose, their views are so divergent. But suppose that he does --would it not be well to use the G.O.M. to settle this question and get it out of the way. If he agrees with Parnell, he will not agree long with his Whig friends. So soon as the Irish question is over, something might be done to separate the Whigs entirely from the Radicals--or at least something to cause the G.O.M. to begin those ten years of probation which he requires before meeting his Maker.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Dec. 10, 1885.

MY DEAR L.,--Better try, would a letter to Parnell at 9 Palace Chambers, Westminster, find him, and ask him to make an appointment with you. There is no necessity to refer him to the correspondence that has taken place, but tell what you feel in a position to say on behalf of your party leaders. He must see that Gladstone must come in if we are to get anything, and the only thing I see to be settled is the ritual to be observed in {274} bowing the Government out. I presume he will move an amendment to the Address, unless he has some satisfactory pledge from Salisbury, which I don't believe, and I don't believe in the power of Salisbury or anybody else to throw dust in Parnell's eyes. "Hard cash"[11] or a Catholic University won't bait the Tory hook for us to swallow. I'm for the whole hog or none. I think it would be important if we could have some understanding as to the procedure, we, in the opinion of your leaders, should adopt as to the terms of an amendment to the Address. They might prefer it should be one they could speak on and not support, or both support and speak on. The latter seems most convenient in case it is thought better to turn the Government out immediately, so as to allow of the re-election of the new Ministers. My view, however, is (and it is not a strong one, because I have not heard the arguments contra) that it would be better to keep the Tories in a little for the reasons previously given, and also for the additional one that once they accept our help they will all be tarred with the Irish brush, and cannot afterwards complain of your party accepting an alliance by which they are not ashamed to profit. "Sour Grapes" would then be a complete answer to them in opposition.

The stupidity of men like Harcourt calling us "Fenians" is inconceivable. Personally I should not object to the epithet, which I regard by no means an ignoble one, but I can well forecast the use Churchill would make of it in opposition with Sir William in power by grace of the "Fenian" vote. "The Gods themselves fight in vain against stupidity."

If you exercise any control over the _Daily News_, it ought to keep your party straight by purging it of the rancour of defeat. Swear at us in private as much as you like, but avoid flinging bricks of the boomerang make. The _Daily News_ calling the Anglo-Irish voters "clots of turbid intrigue" must have cost you a trifle at the polls. We can slang you _de droit_ because we are powerless and irresponsible, but a governing body shall go "all delicately marching in most pellucid air." Excuse the philosophy!--Yours,

T. M. HEALY.

{275}

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S. W., Dec. 11, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--There is much in what you say, but the fear is that anything like a bargain with the Irish would be resented by the English and Scotch workmen and that a Tory-Whig Coalition appealing to their prejudices against a Radical-Parnellite alliance would carry all before them then. This is a real danger. I am convinced, from personal observation, that the workmen will not stand much more in the way of Irish conciliation or concessions to Parnell.

I am clear that we had better bide our time and rub the Tories' noses well in the mess they have made. Till the 16th.--Yours,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Parnell to Mr. Labouchere_

IRISH PARLIAMENTARY OFFICES,

LONDON, S. W., Dec. 17, 1885.

DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I have only just opened your letters, as I have not been in London for some time. I will try and give you notice the next time I am in town, but my present impression is that it would be better to await events, and see what attitude the two English Parties may take towards each other at the commencement of the new Parliament.--Yours sincerely,

CHAS. S. PARNELL.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S MANSIONS, ST. JAMES'S PARK, Dec. 19, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I wrote to Hawarden in the sense we agreed on respecting your views--keeping, however, a good deal to the vague.

Yesterday morning came a letter from Parnell. Had only just received my letter, was passing through London, would say when he was coming back. Dilatory as usual. In the afternoon Healy arrived. He stayed six hours.

The sum of all amounted to this:

{276}

Parnell is half mad. We always act without him. He accepts this position; if he did not we should overlook him. Do not trouble yourself about him. Dillon, M'Carthy, O'Brien, Harrington, and I settle everything. When we agree, no one can disagree. We are all for an arrangement with the G.O.M. on terms. We are forming a "Cabinet." We shall choose it. We shall pass what we like in this Cabinet. We have never yet let out any secret. The Kilmainham revelations were let out by Forster and O'Shea.

_Terms_.--G.O.M.'s plan.

_Details_.--We agree to nomination for two Parliaments or five years; we like it, for we want to hold our own against Fenians. Protestant religious bodies may, if wished, elect representatives.

On contracts, we would agree to an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

We would agree to any landlord having the right to sell his land to Irish State on valuation by present Commissioners, provided that all value of tenants' improvements were deducted. We do not go so far in land matters as Chamberlain--certainly not further.

On veto. We could not accept the veto of the Imperial Parliament. This is the corner-stone of independence in the minds of Irishmen. Several plans were suggested--two-thirds majority, etc. I think something might be worked out by means of a sound Privy Council.

We would assent to reasonable amendments by the Lords, but we should ask to be consulted.

We have no objection to a Prince. This would be a great sop to the "Loyalists."

Of course we must have the Police. We would reduce them to 3000--there are too many.

We claim to pay a quota--to raise this quota as we like; there is no fear of Protection. Parnell and some Belfast manufacturers are the only Protectionists in Ireland. Perhaps, however, we might give bounties for a time. If we did, we should pay them, not you.

If Bill thrown out in Lords, an Autumn Session; if thrown out again, to be brought in again in 1886, unless Mr. Gladstone prefers a dissolution.

{277}

No Procedure resolutions until Home Rule settled.

There are only three Judges to whom we object. One is old and deaf and wants to retire, another is dying (Lawson).

If terms agreed to, never to come out that there were negotiations. We would regard ourselves as members of the Liberal party; occasionally indulge like you Radicals in a wild-cat vote, but vote with Liberals on all Parliamentary issues.

I have sent this with a lot more details to Hawarden.

Rosebery writes to tell me that the "revelations" are well received in Scotland, and that there will be no difficulty there.[12]

Do pray think how very advantageous it will be to get rid of these Irish.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, ST. JAMES'S PARK, Sunday, Dec. 21, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Healy came again to-day, and he tells me that the whole gang are now ready to accept the terms--provided that they are the terms. He stands absolutely against an Imperial Parliament veto and says that it is impossible.

I proposed this:

A Royal Prince--a sort of King Log.

The reorganisation of the Irish Privy Council on a fair and reasonable basis.

The veto to be the Governor acting by the advice of the Privy Council--_i.e._, of a majority.

The Governor to be changed on petition of two-thirds of the Assembly.

He thinks that this would do, and I have sent it to Hawarden.

Healy has seen Parnell, and, without speaking to him about negotiations, he came to the conclusion that there will be no opposition there.

The Conservatives, I hear, have it in consideration to submit the Queen's Speech immediately, and to put up one of their men {278} to propose a vote of confidence, if there be no amendment on our side.

I asked Healy what the Irish would do then? He said, "If nothing is settled, walk out probably." "Then?" I asked. "Go with the Conservatives and turn out the Liberals."

But it seems to me that, without being sure of the support of the Irish, Mr. Gladstone could hardly take office.

If so, what then? Hartington?

Hartington is cuts with Churchill. He says that he has insulted him in his speeches, and that he will never speak to him again.

Churchill told me a few weeks ago that the Conservatives were determined to dissolve, if Home Rule were attempted, in order to protect the House of Lords. Would they have the courage to dissolve at once? Are they not rather calculating on Mr. Gladstone not being able to form a Government, and either coming back with the Whigs, or dissolving on the ground of a deadlock?

How the revelation came out was this:

Herbert Gladstone told Reed of the Leeds paper his father's views. Reed told Mudford. Could this have been stupidity, or was it intentional by order of Papa?

The _Pall Mall_ of yesterday was directly inspired from Hawarden. The channel was Norman. Certainly the ways of Mr. Gladstone are rather more mysterious than those of the Heathen Chinee. My reading of it is that he is simply insane to come in.... The Irish are suspicious of him, and intend to have things clear before they support him. Parnell says that he has a way of getting people to agree with him by the enunciation of generalities, but that when he has got what he wants, his general principles are not carried out as might have been anticipated. This is so true that I could not deny myself the pleasure of letting him know it. In this case, he will have to be a good deal more definite, if he is to count on the Irish.

My own conviction is that if the Irish get Home Rule, they will--with the exception of the land question--surprise us by their conservatism. Their first thing will be to pass some sort of very drastic legislation against the Fenians.

What the next step will be, I don't exactly know. The Irish too want to know.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

{279}

_Lord Randolph Churchill to Lord Salisbury_

INDIA OFFICE, Dec. 22, 1885.

... Now I have a great deal to tell you. Labouchere came to see me this morning. He asked me our intentions. I gave him the following information. I can rely upon him:

(l) That there would be no motion for adjournment after the 12th, but that business would be immediately proceeded with after three or four days' swearing. On this he said that, if we liked to go out on a motion for adjournment, he thought the other side might accommodate us. I told him that such an ineffably silly idea had never entered our heads. Then he told me that he had been asked whether he could ascertain if a certain statement as to a Tory Home Rule measure which appeared recently in the _Dublin Daily Express_ was Ashbourne's measure, and if the Tories meant to say "Aye" or "No" to Home Rule; to which I replied that it had never crossed the mind of any member of the Government to dream even of departing from an absolute unqualified "No," and that all statements as to Ashbourne's plan were merely the folly of the _Daily News_. Then I was very much upset, for he proceeded to tell me that, on Sunday week last, Lord Carnarvon had met Justin M'Carthy, and had confided to him that he was in favour of Home Rule in some shape, but that his colleagues and his party were not ready, and asked whether Justin M'Carthy's party would agree to an enquiry, which he thought there was a chance of the Government agreeing to, and which would educate his colleagues and his party if granted and carried through. I was consternated, but replied that such a statement was an obvious lie; but, between ourselves, I fear it is not--perhaps not even an exaggeration or a misrepresentation. Justin M'Carthy is on the staff of the _Daily News_. Labouchere is one of the proprietors, and I cannot imagine any motive for his inventing such a statement. If it is true, Lord Carnarvon has played the devil. Then I told Labouchere that if the G.O.M. announced any Home Rule project, or indicated any such project and, by so doing, placed the Government in a minority, resignation was not the only course; but that there was another alternative which might even be announced in debate, and the announcement of which might complete the squandering {280} of the Liberal party, and that his friend at Hawarden had better not omit altogether that card from his calculations as to his opponents' hands. Lastly, I communicated to him that, even if the Government went out and Gladstone introduced a Home Rule Bill, I should not hesitate, if other circumstances were favourable, to agitate Ulster even to resistance beyond constitutional limits; that Lancashire would follow Ulster, and would lead England; and that he was at liberty to communicate this fact to the G.O.M.[13]

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 22, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I got a long letter from Hawarden this morning. The substance is, "Let the Irish get a positive assurance from the Conservatives that they will do nothing, and his tongue will be free." This I send to Healy.

I have been spending the morning with Churchill. His plan is this. Queen's Speech at once--in address an expression of confidence. Liberals to draw G.O.M., Churchill to get up and say that obviously he intends to propose Home Rule. If so, adverse vote will be followed by dissolution. Will they dare to do this? Churchill says that they will, and that I might privately tell Mr. Gladstone this.

He vowed that Brett had given Parnell a written statement from Mr. Gladstone.

Healy told me to ask whether there were any direct negotiations with Parnell.

Hawarden replies: "There are no negotiations going on between Parnell and my father, who has constantly from the first, declared, etc., etc."

Who are we to believe? Mr. Gladstone, as we know, has a very magnificent conscience, but he will finish by being too clever by half, if he tries to play Healy off against Parnell, who, as I told you, is not much more than a figurehead.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

{281}

_P.S._--Churchill says that they hear that Goschen has been playing a double game--that to win over Hartington he became a Balaam.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 23, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Has this occurred to you? The Whigs evidently will not stand Mr. Gladstone's proposals. If you therefore were to rally to them, you would clear the nest of these nuisances, and, as Mr. Gladstone cannot last very long, become the leader of the Opposition or of the Government--a consummation that we all want.

I think that the Customs matter would not be a _sine qua non_.

Imperial matters would be few. We are against wars. The main Imperial question would be for extra money--in case of wars. In the main the Irish would be with us--their views about land are much yours--I should fancy therefore that, provided we have a clear distinction between local and imperial affairs, we should soon be the very best of friends.

That Mr. Gladstone will go on, I think pretty certain, because--excellent and good man as he is--he sees that his only chance is, to get the Irish. He is now engaged in a game of dodging. He has invented as usual a "principle"--that he can go into no details until he officially knows that the Government will do nothing. The object is to get the Irish on generalities. They, however, are quite up to this, and even supposing that they were to vote with us, they would at once turn him out, if he were to play pranks. I do not quite therefore see how he could come in without some sort of secret understanding with them.

Now, what would satisfy them?

On customs, as I have said, there would be no great difficulty.

Ditto on protection to minorities.

Remains the veto.

They are anxious to get over it, but cannot accept the Imperial Parliament. Would it be to our advantage that they should? We should be continually having rows in Parliament about their Acts.

When I saw Healy on Sunday I suggested this:

{282}

A King Log in the person of a Member of the Royal Family. The veto to be exercised by King Log with the consent of his Privy Council.

The Privy Council to be entirely reorganised, or the present lot to be swamped by men--not ultras, but of moderate character.

Things would then work out by some of the Irish Ministers being made Privy Councillors.

This he said the Irish would accept.

Now, with such a plan, with nominated Members for five years, and with representation of Protestant Synods and such like bodies, would there be much fear?

What the Irish are afraid of are the Fenians. This is why they snap at nominated Members, although they may perhaps openly protest.

If I can get hold of Morley, I will have a talk with him; he is, I think, of a secretive nature.

Suppose that the worst occurs--an immediate dissolution--the rural cow would still do its work, for it might be put that the Tories are really dissolving not for Ireland but to prevent the cow being given. On other urban cows Mr. Gladstone would be very much in your hands, for to get into power, I really believe that he would not only give up Ireland, but Mrs. Gladstone and Herbert.

Churchill is going to Ireland. It is an old promise, he says, to go for Christmas to Fitzgibbon, and nothing to do with politics. Did I tell you that when I said that I knew that Carnarvon had been intriguing with Archbishop Walsh, he said that Walsh was a very ambitious man, and would not long remain under Parnell, and that Carnarvon had tried to square the Education question with him?

Let us even suppose that we are beaten at the elections. There would a Tory-Whig Government. How long would it last?

Hartington seems to be on bad terms all round. Churchill tells me that he (Hartington) declines to meet him or speak to him on the score of his speeches. Evidently he is confederating with Goschen, and probably Forster will become a third in the triumvirate? They do not strike me as precisely the men who will ever act with you, unless you knock under to them.

{283}

It is by no means certain that we should be beaten at an election. Mr. Gladstone is still a power. Rosebery says that the Scotch are all right. The Irish vote has turned and will turn many elections. Our cards, therefore, if boldly and well played, are by no means such as would warrant the hands being thrown up.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_P.S._--Is Churchill reckoning with his party when he talks about an immediate dissolution? How will its Members like being sent back to their Constituents? Many are hard up.

_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Dec. 23, 1885.

MY DEAR L.,--Thanks for your views. If Churchill and his lot want to stay in, in order to thwart us and Mr. Gladstone, then I say, by all means, let them have a few months office, and let us give them--well--purgatory for a bit and see how they take it. It seems to me that opinion is not quite ripe enough yet amongst your party to swallow strong meat. I therefore think a while in the cold would teach them whether Mr. Gladstone was wiser than the tuppence ha-penny intelligence of his rank and file. What the God-fearing Radical evidently wants is a course of Tory slaughter abroad, and sixpence on the income tax, and we are just the boys to help them to it. Opinion here in loyalist circles seems to take it for granted that Gladstone needs a check from his own party, and I confess it has somewhat the aspect of it. So it seems to me we shall have to turn round and "educate" the Liberal party, since they won't allow the greatest man they ever had to do so. A pretty mess they will be in, unless they seize this opportunity under his leadership of consolidating their party. I should like to know what would become of them without Gladstone? You would have Chamberlain and Hartington cutting each other's throats and the Tories standing laughing by, profiting by your divisions! And what should we be doing? You may be sure whatever was worst for the Liberal party. You may dissolve fifty times, but until you dissolve us out of existence, there we'll be, a thorn--aye, a bayonet in your sides. Here we were with the chance of getting all Ireland {284} round to some moderate scheme that would end for ever the feud between the two countries, and now it appears that some gentlemen who were born yesterday, and couldn't tell the difference between a Moonlighter and an Orangeman, propose to spoil the whole thing--and in the interest of the "Empire" forsooth. I venture to think that the statesman who had the boldness to think out some proposition for the pacification of this island--small as it is--is the best friend the Empire has had for many a long day! My heart is sick when I read the extracts telegraphed from the English papers to think these are the idiots we have to deal with and to argue with. It is almost a justification of O'Donovan Rossa. They have Moses and the Prophets, but they want a sign from Heaven. Of course, I know there are ten thousand difficult details to be settled, but these men don't want to settle anything. They have some party dodge to serve, and Ireland is their happy hunting ground. Let them take care that the quarrel is not a poisoned morsel for their dogs. Churchill babbles of coming over to rouse the Orangemen! _Je lui promets des emotions_. He had better bring Gorst with him to rally the "re-actionary Ulster members." If these men think as well as talk this blague, England is very lucky in her rulers.

But to quit apostrophe (which you must pardon) what are we to do? Can we expect Mr. Gladstone to bear the battle on his single shield? Is it not plain that if we plunge into Home Rule plans just now before your intelligent public apply their enlightened minds to it we shall get far less than what we should get by waiting and worrying you for a few years? We are all young, and though British saws won't bear me out, you are a very fickle and unstable people, while ours has the tenacity of 700 years to carry us through. We can wait awhile and see who gets the worst of it, and if we are beaten in our time--well, there are plenty of young men and young women in Ireland to breed future difficulties for you. Some of us thought as Nationalists we were making a great sacrifice in being willing to give up our ideals, but the spirit in which we are met shows how much our surrender is appreciated by the individuals who subscribed for cartridges for the Hungarians, Italians, and Poles. The curse of being the sport of your two parties is in itself the best argument for the necessity of Home Rule.

{285}

As for Churchill, a great deal of what he told you I take to be bluff--told for the purposes of intimidation. I don't believe they'd dissolve, and if they are so inclined we ought not to give them the chance but help them over the stile, in order to trip them up at some better opportunity. When we beat them a few times, say on their estimates, and worry them on adjournments and motions, they will be in a much less heroic mood than they are now. Slow poison is a better medicine for them than the happy dispatch! By hanging on their skirts for a few weeks, snubbing them and humiliating them at every opportunity, they will be in a much more reasonable frame of mind than they are now, and meantime perhaps your young lions could be reduced to reason and your old ones have their claws trimmed. It is no good talking about the details of Home Rule, when the very mention of the word gives half the Liberal party the shivers. The men that won't take Mr. Gladstone for a leader to-day will have to take Mr. Parnell to-morrow, for assuredly things cannot rest as they are. Mr. Gladstone's enemies just now are England's and Ireland's worst enemies also. He alone can settle the question moderately and satisfactorily, yet he is assailed by his own party as if he were some reckless junior acting not from the ripeness of knowledge and sagacity, but through some adolescent's lust of untasted power! Your party ought to get up an altar to Mundella and put his long nose in the tabernacle. It is sweet to know that he has controlled the education of British youth.

A happy Christmas to you, my dear Labouchere.

T. M. HEALY.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN, BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 23, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--Surely Randolph's policy will not work. A dissolution within a few weeks of the General Election would be very unpopular and indeed unjustifiable, unless the whole Liberal party followed Mr. Gladstone in a Home Rule proposal. But it is clear he will be left in the lurch, if he proposes it, by the majority of the party, and in these circumstances {286} a dissolution would not help the Tories, and would probably unite the Liberals under Hartington--while Mr. Gladstone would retire.

I should have thought the Tory game would have been to go out and to leave Mr. Gladstone to form a Government if he can.

Unless he repudiates Home Rule this would be impossible, while if he does repudiate it he would have the Irish against him and could not get on for a month.

I shall be in London on the 4th January, and could dine with you to meet Randolph on that evening--if convenient.

I shall not be up again till the 11th. Have they finally settled to go straight on with the address and without any adjournment?--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere_

INDIA OFFICE, Dec. 24, 1885.

DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I am engaged to be at Hatfield on the 4th. That compared morally with your proposed "festin" will be as Heaven is to Hell, but my sinful spirit will sigh regretfully after Hell. I am making enquiries as to your letter which you suggested to me yesterday, but have not yet received a reply.

I thought over Justin M'Carthy's story about Carnarvon. It must be a lie, for on Sunday last the latter was in London. He came over on the Friday previous for the Cabinets on the following Monday and Tuesday.--Yours ever,

RANDOLPH S. C.

_P.S._--The weak point of your accusation in this week's _Truth_ of treachery on the part of the Government is that the announcement of Gladstone's having written a letter to the Queen first appeared in _The Daily News_![14]

Now we are not likely to take Mr. Hill[15] as our confidant.

{287}

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 24, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Churchill writes:

"I am engaged to be at Hatfield on the 4th. That, compared with the society of you and 'Joe,' ought to be as Heaven is to Hell, but my sinful spirit sighs regretfully after Hell."

They go on without adjournment, estimating that the swearing can be done in three or four days.

Rosebery writes to say that he has heard nothing from Hawarden since he wrote urging silence, a suggestion which he supposed was not appreciated. All I know, he says, is that Mr. Gladstone is devilish in earnest about the matter.

Supposing that the Radicals went against Home Rule, the fight with the Irish would be long. Don't you think that the country would think that it would be better fought by the Conservatives than by the Radicals? They would--with pleasure--make it last long. It would be like the French wars to Pitt.

I saw Harcourt yesterday. He told me that he had been to see you, and seemed to me sitting on the fence. "What I am thinking of," he said, "is that if the Irish found that they could get nothing, they would resort again to dynamite." I told him that I thought that _his_ life would not be worth a week's purchase. Was there ever such a timorous Sambo?

Henry Oppenheim tells me that Hartington dined with him a few days ago, and that so far as he could make out he seemed inclined to stand by Mr. Gladstone.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN, BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 24, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I do not think the Irish proposals are possible. If they refuse control of Imperial Parliament, there is really nothing left but separation. A hybrid arrangement with nominations, Privy Councils, etc., would not stand {288} examination and would be a perpetual source of friction and further trouble.

I do not believe in their Conservative legislation. They mean it, but the American Fenians would be too strong for them.

There is much fascination in your suggestion of Radical policy, especially in the chance of dishing the Whigs whom I hate more than the Tories.

But it won't do. English opinion is set strongly against Home Rule and the Radical party might be permanently (_i.e._ for our time) discredited by a concession on this point.

We must "lie low" and watch--avoiding positive committal as far as possible.

Did I tell you that the G.O.M. thanked me for my last speech?

I doubt if he has made up his own mind yet or formulated any definite scheme.

He has several times repeated the phrase "supremacy of Parliament."

I am informed on good authority--the best in fact--that there is no truth in the statement that he has submitted a statement to the Queen. As Randolph is quite wrong about this, he must be taken as a doubtful authority in other matters also.

I suppose that if he is going to Ireland he will not be back in time for dinner on the 4th.--Yours ever,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, ST. JAMES'S PARK, Christmas Day, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This is Churchill's statement about the Queen. When they came in they were told that there was a Home Rule scheme of Mr. Gladstone's and it was shown to Salisbury. I suspect that it is true, for no sooner was Mr. Gladstone out than Herbert began--on the ground that his father wanted exactly to know the Irish minimum, in order to have time to treat the matter with his friends.

I place as the basis of Mr. Gladstone's action an almost insane desire to come into office. Now he knows that so far as _he_ is {289} concerned, this can only be done by squaring the Irish. At 76 a waiting policy may be a patriotic one, but it is one of personal effacement. This is not precisely the line of our revered leader.

Randolph says he is only going to Ireland, as he has done on previous years, to pass Christmas with Fitzgibbon.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_P.S._--Healy and I have elaborated a letter containing the Irish minimum.

_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere_

INDIA OFFICE, Dec. 25, 1885.

DEAR LABOUCHERE,--My correspondent with whom you thought you might correspond with advantage does not wish now to be drawn.

_Very Private_. G.O.M. has written what is described to me as a "marvellous letter" to Arthur Balfour, to the effect that he thinks "it will be a public calamity if this great question should fall into the line of party conflict," and saying that he desires the question should be settled by the present Government. He be damned!--Yours ever,

RANDOLPH S. C.

_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Xmas, 1885.

MY DEAR L.,--It may be that Brett is the go-between, and therefore that Gladstone could use the views of others to head off Parnell. Now as I believe we should speak with one voice and chime the same note, I don't think it would be well for me to say anything at present beyond thanking you for all your kindness. I mean anything to any one but yourself. Harcourt's views quite interest me, and he is quite right, for if our people are disappointed after the visions held out to them, they cannot be held in. This country could easily be made ungovernable so far as the collection of rent or legal process is concerned, and the obstructors would find they were not dealing with playboys but {290} with resolute men. It is because I am for peace and feel the necessity for it that I am willing to accept any reasonable settlement, as things could not go on as they are for very long. If prices next year are as bad as this the country will not be habitable in any case for rackrenters.

I can hardly believe the Tories would dissolve if your party shows itself united. It is on your divided counsels they reckon. If a big vote goes against them it will knock the bottom out of their mutterings. Besides supposing the dissolution goes against them, they must count the cost. Defeat would mean the instant carrying of any schemes Gladstone liked to put forward and no nonsense from the Lords. The Peers could not reject it, and if they did and Gladstone threatened to dissolve against their existence--_bon soir_! I am firmer therefore in my opinion that Randolph's talk was mere funkee-funkee, a train laid to explode in Hawarden, and I shall be surprised if it goes off.

Your fellows will never realise the price they will be willing to pay us until they see the Market opened and a wretched minority sitting and smiling across the floor from the seats they themselves should recline on! Their teeth won't begin to water till the 12th Jan. Therefore I believe a waiting game is our game, for surely it is of as much consequence to your men that they should govern England as it is to ours that they should govern Ireland? The fact that Parnell's reserve is so provoking to the English is his best justification in our minds. Chamberlain's point about whether the Imperial Ministry which enjoyed the confidence of the English on Home affairs should resign if defeated by our help on foreign questions is a poser. It seems to me the federal idea cannot work unless you too have a local and an Imperial Parliament.--Yours,

T. M. HEALY.

_Mr. Labouchere to "The Times"_[16]

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, S.W., Dec. 26, 1885.

"WHAT THE PARNELLITES WOULD ACCEPT."

SIR,--During the last Parliament I voted frequently with the Irish members against the Government. I did so because I was {291} opposed to exceptional measures of coercion, and believed that the remedy for Irish wrongs consisted in allowing Ireland to manage her own affairs, subject to full guarantee being given for the maintenance of the integrity of the Empire. In this view it would appear that I was only in advance by a year or two of the opinions of many Liberals and Radicals and of some Conservatives.

Owing to the course of action which I pursued, I was thrown into personal and friendly relations with many of the Irish and Parliamentary party, which relations I have maintained, and I think I am able to form a pretty accurate estimate of their views. First, however, I will say with your permission a word respecting Irish opinion, and the position, so far as I can judge it, of the Irish political leaders. Among those of them opposed to the present state of things the majority are not separatists, some because they are in favour of the Union with the British Isles, others because they are aware that separation is practically impossible. Those who aspire to separation are an infinitesimal minority, and they subordinate their opinions to those of their colleagues.

Throughout Ireland a passionate desire for Home Rule is entertained by all with the exception of the landlords, the officials, and the Orangemen. A good many of the landlords are disposed, however, to rally to it, while the area over which the Orangemen hold sway is growing smaller and smaller every year. Many of the Presbyterians of Ulster have already thrown in their lot with the Home Rulers. There is now but one single northern Irish county left which does not return a Parnellite--viz. Antrim. In four Ulster counties--Monaghan, Cavan, Donegal, and Fermanaugh--no one but Parnellites have been chosen. The desire for Home Rule is irrespective of any wish to alter the land system, although this wish is an important factor in Irish feeling. Agriculture is almost the only industry in Ireland, and one reason why the landlords are disliked is that, with some few exceptions, they have set themselves in antagonism to the aspirations of the nation for Home Rule. The Land Act has disappointed and dissatisfied every one, for, while the landlords declare that their property has been confiscated, the farmers cry out that their property--_i.e._ their improvements, have been handed over to be rented for the landlords' benefit in the teeth {292} of the Healy clause. It is hopeless to suppose that an Imperial Parliament, composed of a majority of gentlemen, who know very little about the real merits of the case, can settle this great question, at which it has been tinkering for generations, and I, as an Englishman, object to have my time taken up in discussing it any more, and trying to accommodate the differences between Irish renters and Irish rentees. Mr. Chamberlain has rightly objected to the Imperial Exchequer being saddled with purchase money to be paid to the landlords, and I think our duty to them would be performed if we were to insist, in any settlement of the Irish question, that they shall be entitled to call on the Irish treasury for a fair price for their estates whenever they want to sell them, due regard being had to the tenants' statutably recognised ownership of his improvements. Thus the landlords, if they object to live in an island, the inhabitants of which enjoy the advantage of self-government, would be able to leave it with the equivalent for their land in their pockets in hard cash. With their departure the police difficulty would disappear, and with it the necessity of England paying £1,500,000 per annum for the Royal Irish Constabulary, although the Irish insist that they only require a force of ¼ this size, and are willing to pay for it themselves.

Speaking generally, and if the land system were satisfactorily settled, it may be said that the Irish are not Radicals in one sense of the word. Their habit of thought is Conservative. They are, like the French, somewhat too inclined to look and state interference in everything. Their tendency is, as M. Guizot said of the French, to fall into a division between administrators and administered. Their hostility to law is not to law abstractedly, but to the law as presenting what they regard as an alien ascendency. I am inclined to think that, had they a Parliament of their own, they would surprise us by their Conservative legislation.

Apart from the Nationalists, who form the great bulk of the nation, are the Fenians. They are comparatively speaking few in number. Their strength consists in being able to tell the Irish that Home Rule never will be granted, and that Ireland must either separate from us, or be ruled by us in local as well as in Imperial affairs.

{293}

That the Nationalists have to a certain extent acted with the Fenians is true. But could they do otherwise? They had to fight against a common opponent. Between a Nationalist and a Fenian there is as much difference as between the most moderate Whig Squire who sat in last Parliament on the Liberal benches and me. Yet we both voted frequently together against the Conservatives. The Nationalists are the Girondists, the Fenians are the Jacobins. Like the Girondists they make common cause against a common enemy. (_He carries on this simile lengthily._) Mr. Parnell and his political friends have substituted constitutional agitation for lawless and revolutionary agitation. He has only succeeded in this by persuading his countrymen that his action will result in success. If he be doomed to failure, the Fenians will once more gain the upper hand in Ireland.

The _Times_ has more than once suggested that the Irish Parliamentary party should state precisely what they want. They want a Parliament. How possibly can they be expected to say officially to what limitations and to what restrictions they would submit for the sake of a definite settlement before some responsible English statesman, with a strong following at his back, is prepared to give them a Parliament? They would indeed be fools were they to make such a tactical blunder. In any negotiation of which I have ever read, bases are agreed on before either party--and certainly before the weaker party--specifies details.

I think, however, I am not far wrong in saying the following scheme would be accepted:

1. Representation in the Imperial Parliament upon Imperial matters alone. This would require a hard and fast definition as to what is Imperial and what is local, together with, as in the United States, some legal tribunal of appeal.

The Army, the Navy, the protection of the British Isles, and the commercial and political relations with foreign nations would be regarded as Imperial matters, and probably there would be no insuperable difficulty--if it were deemed expedient--in arranging a Customs Union, such as that of the German Zollverein before the German Empire came into existence, leaving it to the Irish to foster their industries, if they please, by means of bounties. There would be an Imperial budget, which would be submitted each year to the Imperial Parliament with the Irish {294} sitting in it. Each country would contribute its quota according to population and property. If more were required, the proportions would be maintained. Each island would raise its quota as it best pleased.

2. The Government of Ireland--a Viceroy, a Privy Council, a Representative Assembly, Ministers.

(1) The Viceroy--a member of the Royal family, with a salary of £25,000 per annum.

(2) The Privy Council.--The present Privy Council consists of about fifty individuals, all of them anti-Nationalists, and some of them virulently so. The Council would have to be reorganised. This might be done by nominating 100 new Councillors, men of moderate views, but who would frankly accept the arrangement and endeavour to give practical effect to it. The Council would gradually be increased by the admission of the Irish Ministers.

(3) House of Representatives.--Its members would be elected as with us according to population. As a concession, however, it would be agreed that one-fourth of the members might be nominated, either during two Parliaments or for five years.

(4) Ministers.--They would be selected from the Parliamentary majority as with us. The Viceroy would call upon the leader of the majority to form a Cabinet. He would, however, retain the constitutional right of the Queen to dissolve.

3. The Veto.--This would be reserved to the Viceroy, with the consent of his Privy Council. Of one thing I am absolutely certain. It is that no arrangement is possible which would give the veto to the Imperial Parliament. The Irish object to this, because they consider that it would convert their assembly into a mere debating Society. We--although we seem just now enamoured with it--should soon find that all legislation in England would soon be brought again to a standstill, as we should be perpetually debating Irish bills. The Irish would also object to the Queen exercising the veto by the advice of her Council, for, practically, this would mean the veto of those representing the majority in the English Parliament. The Privy Council is, unfortunately, historically odious in Ireland. But were it recast, it is probable that the Irish would not object to the Veto which I have suggested.

{295}

4. Protection of Minorities.--They would already be protected by the veto, by the nominated members and by the Orangemen, who would return a considerable contingent; but the Irish would go even further than this.

(1) No contract existing or entered into could be set aside by Irish legislation. In the event of any one feeling himself aggrieved in this matter, he might appeal to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

(2) Any Landlord would have the right to insist upon his land being bought by the Irish state on the estimate of its value, by the Land Judges, due consideration being taken of tenants' improvements.

5. The Army in Ireland and the Fortresses would be under the orders of the Imperial Ministry, much as is the case in the United States of America.

I am far from saying that the Irish, if left to draw up the settlement, would insert these conditions. Many of them savour of tutelage and distrust. But I am pretty certain that, although in discussion they might claim more, they would, if they could not get more, accept this scheme with an honest intention to make it workable. Less they would not accept, and for a very good reason. If their leaders are to be responsible for the peace, tranquillity, and prosperity of Ireland, they must have full powers to act, and the scheme of Government must in the main be acceptable to the majority of the governed.

At present we have arrived at a Parliamentary deadlock. No measure dealing with Ireland can be passed in the existing House of Commons without the aid of the Irish contingent. If a Coalition Government were to succeed in passing, either in this Parliament or a subsequent Parliament, a half-hearted measure, the Irish would decline to accept it. They would simply refuse to act on it, and thus confusion would become worse confounded. Experience has proved that any proposal not to count on the Irish vote is outside the area of practical politics. Experience has also shown that the rival political parties will not subordinate their differences to any anti-Irish policy. Such schemes are like the kiss of peace of the French Assembly during the French Revolution. They sound all very well but last about half an hour.

{296}

We have then to decide whether we will try the experiment of federalisation under the restrictions for the unity of the Empire, and the protection of the minority in Ireland such as I have roughly indicated; or whether we will embark in a career of what practically amounts to war between the two islands.

Many Conservatives are excellent citizens, others are party men. The latter would probably not object to the latter alternative. It would unquestionably have the effect of the French wars in the days of George III. They, I fully admit, would be better able to carry out a system of repression than the Radicals. They therefore would in the main hold office. Domestic reforms would be neglected, the Radical chariot would stand still. You, Sir, I apprehend, are not a Radical, and though you may not be influenced by this arrest of the chariot, you would not regret the _propter hoc_. But it ought to lead any Radical to pause and reflect.

I did not show myself a fanatical worshipper of Mr. Gladstone during the last Parliament, in fact I must have voted against him as often as I voted for him. In my address to my constituents I said that I should raise my voice against any Administration, no matter what it be called, that lags on the path of progress or that falls into error. My constituents have been good enough to leave it to me to decide what is lagging and what is error. If the Conservatives will at once bring in a Bill dealing with Ireland in the manner I have indicated they shall have my vote as far as that Bill is concerned. But I gather that they have determined to oppose a _non possumus_ to all such demands and not to go beyond including Irish in any general scheme for local Government in both islands.

I turn therefore to Mr. Gladstone. His public utterances lead me to believe that he is prepared to sacrifice his well-earned ease, and to endeavour to settle the question in a manner satisfactory to us and to the Irish. His experience is vast, his patriotism is undoubted, his tactical skill is unrivalled. I would suggest therefore that we should give him full powers to treat for us with the Irish, and that we should support him in any arrangement which meets with his sanction. The Irish have always had a {297} sneaking affection for him; they will recognise that he has to count with English public opinion, and they will concede far more to him than to any other negotiator that we might select. I have seen that Lord Hartington and Mr. Forster have pronounced against Home Rule, and that the former is negotiating with Mr. Goschen. Lord Hartington generally pronounces against a measure as a preliminary to accepting it; I do not therefore ascribe much importance to his declaration. Mr. Forster, during the last Parliament, distinguished himself by uttering, in season and out of season, gibes and sarcasms against his former colleagues. Mr. Goschen, a man of great ability and honesty, could not find one English Liberal Constituency to return him, and sits in Parliament by the good favour of the Edinburgh Conservatives. With all respect therefore to the two gentlemen, I hardly think that the Liberals will accept a policy from them. If we are to judge by what happened in the last Parliament they have no followers.... Let Mr. Gladstone then boldly declare himself for a well considered measure of Home Rule....

H. LABOUCHERE.[17]

To the Editor of the _Times_.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 26, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Hawarden writes:...[18]

This is rather my plan--commerce would fall within the province of Imperial matters--religion, too, might; taxation is a little more difficult, for it would require much definition.[19]

{298}

Will the Irish trust Mr. Gladstone, and go with the Liberals on general assurances? They may, and they may not; they are very suspicious. Were I they, I should, and then upset him if he dodged later on.

Anyhow, I think that we may take it that Mr. Gladstone is determined to have a try at Irish legislation if he gets the chance, and the fact that the Irish can at any time stop him in his career will lead him to go great lengths.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere_

2 CONNAUGHT PLACE, W., Dec. 26, 1885.

DEAR LABOUCHERE,--You have definitely captured the G.O.M. and I wish you joy of him. He has written another letter to A. Balfour, intimating, I understand, without overmuch qualification, that if Government do not take up Home Rule he will.

It is no use your writing to Lord Salisbury. The Prime Minister cannot disclose the intentions of the Government except in the ordinary course when Parliament meets.

I shall look forward to Monday's _Times_.--Yours ever,

RANDOLPH S. C.

I think Joe had much better join us. He is the only man on your side who combines ability with common sense.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 26, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--The G.O.M. is sulking in his tent. No one can get a word from him--he has not replied to letters from Hartington, Rosebery, and myself.

Further consideration convinces me that no scheme on the lines of Rosebery's proposal is worth attention.

There is only one way of giving _bona fide_ Home Rule, which is the adoption of the American Constitution:

{299}

1. Separate legislation for England, Scotland, Wales, and possibly Ulster. The three other Irish Provinces might combine.

2. Imperial legislation at Westminster for foreign and Colonial affairs, Army, Navy, Post Office, and Customs.

3. A Supreme Court to arbitrate on respective limits of authority.

Of course the House of Lords would go. I do not suppose the five Legislations could stand a second Chamber apiece.

Each would have its own Ministry responsible to itself.

There is a scheme for you. It is the only one which is compatible with any sort of Imperial unity, and once established it might work without friction.

Radicals would have no particular reason to object to it, and if Mr. Gladstone is ready to propose it--well and good!

But I am sick of the vague generalities of John Morley and the _Daily News_, and I am not going to swallow Separation with my eyes shut; Let us know what you are doing.

The best thing for us all is to keep the Tories in a little longer. Let them bear the first brunt of the situation created by the state of Ireland and the disappointment of the Nationalists. But how the devil is this to be managed? If the Irishmen choose they can turn the Government out at any moment. Can you not persuade them that it is clearly to their interest to keep them in for one session--while Mr. Gladstone is preparing public opinions?--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 27, 1885.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I thought the scheme alleged to have been submitted to the Queen was one of recent date.

If the rumour refers only to the time of the late Government, there is not much in it. Mr. Gladstone had no scheme then--only the vaguest ideas as to the necessity of doing something.

It is pretty evident that whatever else he may do to "crown his career" he will break up the Liberal party.

His proposal about veto is a transparent fraud. It could not last as an effective control for a single Parliament. I wish {300} some one would start the idea of a Federal Constitution like the United States. I do not believe people are prepared for this solution yet, but it is the only possible form of Home Rule. It is that or nothing.

In my opinion Mr. Gladstone cannot carry his or any other scheme just now, and if the Irishmen force the pace the only result will be a dissolution and the Tories in a working majority.

Let them refuse to put the Tories out just yet unless Mr. Gladstone publicly declares himself. If they were to put the Tories out to-morrow, and then turn on the Liberals in a month, they would secure only a strong Coalition both in the House and the country for resistance to all Irish claims.

I believe the true policy for every one except Mr. Gladstone is to "wait and see."--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 28, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--If I might venture to criticise--you assume that the Conservatives and the Irish would both act as you wish. Neither would. The Conservatives are sharp enough to decline to retain power in order to be discredited warming-pans, and the Irish must demonstrate, now that they have carried the country.

Writing to Hawarden, I have hinted at your views, and asked whether a below the gangway amendment would be accepted, stating generally that the Irish question must be dealt with. If the G.O.M. and if you were to vote for this, we should still be beaten. The party would not have pledged itself to it as a party; the Irish would be satisfied, and if on some issue in a month or two we had an election, we should get the Irish vote.

I should say myself that it would be far better not to have the Irish at Westminster at all; this would meet the conundrum of an Imperial and an English Ministry. As a statistical fact, Ireland does not now contribute much more than the cost of her civil Government to the Imperial Exchequer. Let her contribute nothing, or some fixed sum for armaments (which she probably {301} would not pay). She would be like the Dominion. We should hold the country through the army and the fortresses, and if she tried to separate, we should suspend the Constitution. But as a matter of fact, she would not try. The Irish "idea of patriotism is to serve the country at a good salary, and to get places for cousins, etc. You would see that Irish politics would become a perpetual vestry fight for the spoil.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Dec. 30, 1885.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--This is the last from Hawarden, which I transmit to Healy. The "channel" is in reply to a letter from Healy saying that if Mr. Gladstone prefers other channels, he (Healy) must take leave to withdraw. It is all very well, but Parnell will not be such a fool as to show his hand for the benefit of Mr. Gladstone....[20]

_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Dec. 30, 1885.

MY DEAR L.,--I have been in the country holidaying. The statistics you want I think could be got from Col. Nolan's return, which alas shows that you profit £3,000,000 per annum out of us. I speak from memory. Go to Smith in the House of Commons' Library, and ask him to find it out for you. He can get you this and any other statistical facts you need. But some thirty years ago your people dropped showing a separate Irish account and bulked the whole thing in order to diddle us, and {302} therefore it is net easy to reckon the figures out. O'Neill Daunt, however, can supply everything you can't get elsewhere. I think Randolph must have pulled the longbow rather taut to you in every way. I don't believe anything he has been saying. As to Chamberlain he must be crazy to write that way to Morley. Give the G.O.M. power and he could form a Cabinet in a week minus Joe, and the Gates of Birmingham should not prevail against it (it is "Hell" in the original). Your letter ought to do much good. You greatly improved it. It has been quoted into all the Irish papers and commented on. I am glad it appeared, but of course, I know nothing of the genesis. I agree with you about representation in the Imperial Parliament. Your people seem to shy at it, and it would be better for us not to have it, unless your side insists. Still there will be many Irishmen loath to surrender all representation, but they cannot have everything. I don't think Fottrell can physic Chamberlain's disease. He's going to be a Mugwump. I wish him joy of the profession. His chance was to be first Lieutenant to the G.O.M. _cum jure suc_, and he is going to degenerate into a kind of small Forster species of Sorehead. I note what you say about our papers. Like Brer Rabbit we ought to "lay low" just now. Small wonder if Gladstone should be intimidated into minimising coercion. The Heathen rage very furiously against him. I mistrust Grosvenor's influence on Hawarden. If the old man was ten years younger, I'd be for keeping in the Tories till we got County Boards out of them in order to chasten your party in the cold winds of opposition. Our people won't have any fraud of a Bill made for the Whigs to swallow. We shall be reasonable, but so must your party. We can wait, for we are used to it. Your party leaders represent personal ambition, and are in more of a hurry.--Faithfully yours,

T. M. HEALY.

_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Dec. 31, 1885.

MY DEAR L.,--I return H. Gladstone's letter which I regard as most important. I am very glad to think Gladstone is not being intimidated out of his position by the pitiless storm beating {303} upon him. I agree that nothing satisfactory can be done until the House meets, and we shall then have a week before the Address is read, and our party will have met, and we shall know its mind, while personal communications will have become possible amongst the Liberal leaders also. I think Chamberlain is ruining himself. If Gladstone sticks to his text he can easily form a Cabinet without him or the Mugwumps, and then where will they be? Trevelyan's speech to-day is very bad too, but they are all ciphers until Gladstone puts his one before their noughts.

I have your letters safely and will return all your former enclosures to-night. I am not writing this from my house or I'd send them with this. I have kept copies of nothing and burn your letters, as the police could always find a pretext here to walk in on you and read your billets-doux.--Faithfully yours,

T. M. HEALY.

[1] The present Strangers' Dining-room.

[2] Sir Henry Lucy, _Sixty Years in the Wilderness_, vol. ii.

[3] Morley, _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii.

[4] Barry O'Brien, _Life of Parnell_.

[5] Mr. Healy wrote an attack on Mr. Chamberlain's article, as soon as it appeared, in _United Ireland_, under the title of "Queen's Bench Home Rule."

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

[7] The enclosure was letter from Mr. Herbert Gladstone dated October 18.

[8] The proposal was contained in a letter from Mr. Herbert Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere, which Mr. Labouchere quoted in full for Mr. Chamberlain's information. It enumerated six conditions as the basis of a settlement of the Irish Government question.

[9] The election ran from Nov. 23 to Dec. 19. The result was that 333 Liberals were returned, 251 Conservatives, and 86 Parnellites.

[10] Mr. Labouchere quotes the greater part of a letter from Mr. Herbert Gladstone, dated Dec. 7, in which Mr. Herbert Gladstone urges the all importance of the Irish question, and the necessity of ascertaining the plans of the Irish leaders.

[11] The term "hard cash" is quoted from the letter of Dec. 7, from Mr. Herbert Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere, already referred to (see note page 273).

[12] Statement as to Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Scheme was published in the _Leeds Mercury_ and the _Standard_ on December 17, and in the _Times_ and other London papers of December 18.

[13] Winston Spencer Churchill, _Lord Randolph Churchill_, vol. ii.

[14] In _Truth_ of December 24, Mr. Labouchere commented on his own assertion that a letter Mr. Gladstone had written to the Queen was communicated by her to Lord Salisbury, who, in his turn, communicated some of its contents to the _Standard_.

[15] Editor of the _Daily News_ from 1868 till 1886.

[16] _Times_, Dec. 28, 1885.

[17] An old Radical M. P. writes criticising this letter: "Mr. Labouchere has never been regarded by us as a Radical at all, but as a Separatist, and we have always profoundly distrusted his advice upon the few occasions on which it was possible to regard it as serious."--_Times_, Jan. 4, 1886.

[18] Mr. Labouchere here quotes a letter he had received from Mr. Herbert Gladstone, stating Mr. Gladstone's determination not to formulate any scheme which might be taken as a bribe for Irish support, nor to shift from his position, before the Government had spoken, or the Irish party had, in public, terminated their alliance and put the Tories in a minority of 250 to 330.

[19] Mr. Gladstone's idea of a veto was that it might be exercised by the Crown on ordinary matters on the advice of an Irish Minister, but, on certain questions, _e.g._ religion or commerce, perhaps taxation, by the Imperial Ministry.

[20] Mr. Labouchere here quotes in full a letter from Mr. Herbert Gladstone to himself, stating that, if communications have to take place with the Irish party, only one channel will be recognized, viz. Parnell. But he adds he does not think there is any chance of bringing their party to the scratch before Parliament meets, because of the insufficiency of the knowledge they possess to enable them to decide on any action, before the Address debate is actually in progress. He also points out how impossible it would be for Mr. Gladstone to adopt Mr. Chamberlain's policy of waiting, and adds that if the Liberal Party chooses to break up over an Irish Parliament it cannot be helped.

{304}