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