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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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 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 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?
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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
When Mr. Gladstone's Government was defeated on June 9 by 341 votes to 311, the Prime Minister immediately dissolved Parliament, and the General Election was over before the end of July, the Unionist majority being 118. Mr. Gladstone resigned on July 12, before the final returns were sent in, and, when Parliament met again in August, Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Lord Londonderry, Viceroy. The second great Home Rule battle had been fought and lost.
Of course Irish affairs immediately occupied Parliament, but on September 21 the Land Bill, introduced by Parnell, and upon which, he warned the House, the peace of Ireland depended, was rejected by a majority of 95 votes. On October 23, the Plan of Campaign was launched and furiously denounced by the Conservatives in the House of Commons and on every platform throughout the country. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach resigned the Chief Secretaryship on account of his failing eyesight, and was replaced by Mr. Balfour. The first Parliament that met in 1887 was given notice of two measures for Ireland—a Coercion Bill to be introduced in the House of Commons and a Land Bill in the House of Lords. The Coercion Bill was the most stringent of its kind ever introduced. It abridged and destroyed the constitutional liberties of the people of Ireland and created new offences. It withdrew the protection of juries, and gave full powers to resident magistrates of dealing with cases of intimidation and of holding public meetings against the will of the executive. It was proposed, moreover, that the measure should be a permanent one, and not restricted to one or a limited number of years.[1]
Two extraordinary events occurred in that year, in both of which Mr. Labouchere played an important part. They both had their indirect origin in the coercive measures which Mr. Balfour succeeded in passing through the House. The first took place during the spring, when the Times, in order to strengthen the hands of the Government, in their remorseless warfare on Irish liberties, published, during the course of a series of articles called "Parnellism and Crime," the facsimile of a letter supposed to have been written by Mr. Parnell to Mr. Patrick Egan in 1882, referring brutally to the Phœnix Park murders. The letter was contained in the fourth article of the series. The reader will easily perceive from the following short extracts the spirit in which these articles were conceived: "Be the ultimate goal of these men (the Parnellites) what it will, they are content to march towards it in company with murderers. Murderers provide their funds, murderers share their inmost counsels, murderers have gone forth from the League[2] offices to set their bloody work afoot, and have presently returned to consult the 'constitutional leaders' on the advancement of the cause," occurred in the first article. The third article declared that "even now" the Parnellite conspiracy was controlled by dynamiters and assassins, and proceeded thus: "We have seen how the infernal fabric arose 'like an exhalation' to the sound of murderous oratory; how assassins guarded it about, and enforced the high decrees of the secret conclave within by the ballot and the knife. Of that conclave to-day, three sit in the Imperial Parliament, four are fugitives from the law." The first series of the articles finished up with this appeal: "Men of England! These are the foul and dastardly methods by which the National League and the Parnellites have established their terrorism over a large portion of Ireland. Will you refuse the Government the powers which will enable these cowardly miscreants to be punished, and which will give protection to the millions of honest and loyal people in Ireland?"
It is very certain that all Liberal Unionists, and even a few of the more educated Tory statesmen, realised that the articles were merely theatrical appeals to the contracted imaginations of those armchair politicians, whose ways of influencing voters in rural districts were all powerful, but it was not to be expected that the man in the street could understand them as such. On him they made a profound impression.
The first article appeared on March 7, the second on the 14th, and the third on the 18th. On the 22nd Mr. Balfour gave notice of his Coercion Bill. "Parnellism and Crime" had prepared the way for him. The Bill was read for the first time in the beginning of April, and on the last day of the debate on the Second Reading, April 18, the Times published its pièce de résistance—what has since become known as "the facsimile letter." It ran as follows:
15/5/82.
DEAR SIR,—I am not surprised at your friend's anger, but he and you should know that to denounce the murders was the only course open to us. To do that promptly was plainly our best policy. But you can tell him and all others concerned that though I regret the accident of Lord F. Cavendish's death, I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts. You are at liberty to show him this, and others whom you can trust also, but let not my address be known. He can write to House of Commons.—Yours very truly,
CHAS. S. PARNELL.
I have before me the photograph of the facsimile letter, used in the Parnell Commission, and also the letters received by Mr. Labouchere at different times from the Irish leader, and it seems incredible, on comparing the general style and caligraphy of the former with the latter, how the Times agents and Mr. Soames could have been deceived for one moment; but I must not anticipate in this place the verdict of the Commission on the forgery, in the obtaining of which Mr. Labouchere played such a characteristic part. The whole of England was indignant when the issue of the Times containing the facsimile letter appeared on their breakfast tables, and even comparatively tender-hearted persons began to think seriously that no treatment of Ireland by the English could be savage enough to avenge the cold-hearted, calculating cruelty of Parnell.
Mr. Balfour's Coercion Bill had not, however, yet become law, and the Times continued its popular articles, which were greedily devoured by the public, the body of the second and third series consisting for the most part of an accumulation of evidence to prove that, in the year of the Land League, the conspirators had succeeded in getting the American Clan na Gael and the Irish Parliamentary party into line. It did its work so well that, by the 8th of July, when the Coercion Bill passed its Third Reading, under which, subsequently, fully one-third of the Nationalist members charged in its columns were put into prison, there were very few English people outside the Radical faction who did not think that Ireland had got no more than her deserts.
It was, in the dénouement of the series of events, following upon the publication of Mr. Parnell's supposed letter, that Mr. Labouchere played such an important part, and, as it was nearly two years before the mystery was completely unravelled, the story of the forged letter must now be left, so as to take up in chronological order the second event of 1887 in which Mr. Labouchere was vitally concerned.
Mr. Labouchere kept himself well in touch with what was going on in Ireland, and the following detailed letter that he received from Mr. T. M. Healy towards the end of 1886, gave him a vivid picture of the state of things there during the first half year of the Conservative Government, and assisted him much in the line of policy he consistently followed then and throughout the ensuing years:
The country is really perfectly quiet, and the misfortune is that the Tories are reaping the benefit of Gladstone's policy, and will, of course, claim the credit for their "resolute Government." Moreover, they are putting all kinds of pressure on the landlords to grant abatements. Buller is Soudanizing Kerry à la Gordon, and giving the slave-drivers no quarter, so that with the stoppage of evictions there, moonlighting is coming to an end and the people believe that Buller won't let them be turned out of their cabins. He has a good man with him as Sec.—Col. Turner—who was aide to Aberdeen during the late Viceroyalty. Turner is a staunch Radical and Home Ruler who sympathizes with the poor, and we know very well that the brake has been put on against the local Bimbashis. They are cursing Buller heartily, and yesterday he had to issue an official contradiction of the undoubted truth that he is obstructing evictions by refusing police. There are more ways of killing a dog than choking him with butter. How they would storm against Liberals if any such officer were sent to Kerry to override the law, and how they denounced Morley for exercising the dispensing power, because of a few sympathetic sentences. What I am afraid of in all this is that the tenants nowhere are getting a clear receipt, and that they will afterwards be pressed for the balances unless there is an Arrears Act. Probably the Tories meditate muddling away the rest of the Church surplus in benefactions to the landlords to recompense their benevolence. Of course only the September rents are due yet, and September and March are much less frequent gale months with us than November and May. The November rents will be soon demanded, and then we shall really know what the landlords will do. I think they will surrender, for if they don't they won't be paid. Every one of them is sick of the fight. Their retainers and bailiffs who made a profit out of evictions, and the attorneys who promoted them for the costs, have not been paid for a long time as they used long ago, and like a stranded vessel on the rocks it is only a question of the fierceness of the gale how soon the entire system will go to pieces. They were in much better blood for fighting in '81 and what have those of them got who stood out? Desolate farms that no one will touch, while the sight of emergency occupants no longer terrifies the tenants, who know that they are costing the master three times the rent and that their labours are as profitless as a locust's. These fellows are the riffraff of the towns who idle away their time in the next public-house or play cards with the police sent to protect them. They burn everything that will light for firing, and their occupation of the premises is about as husbandman-like as that of a party of Uhlans. Such is the prospect for the gentry who refuse abatements, and as they know the people have not got money, I believe they will make a virtue of necessity. Then the Government are known to be against them, and they cannot appeal from their own friends to the Liberals, so what are they to do? They distrust Churchill completely, and believe he is capable of anything. If, however, they hold out we shall have warm work. I have refrained from addressing agrarian meetings so far, though Dillon and O'Brien have gone on the warpath, because it is not clear to me yet what is the best line to take, and besides I think Parnell should give the note, so that nobody may get above concert pitch. What Parnell's views are I don't know, and he is the man on the horse. The consciousness of the people that they have Gladstone on their side would in any case, I think, take all the uglier sting out of the agitation, now that they feel a settlement to be only a matter of time. It is very hard for any one to advise them when the responsibility is directly on Parnell, but if he intervened popular opinion would blaze like a prairie fire.
Thanks for your enquiry about my return to the House. There are now three Irish vacancies, but I don't feel anxious to go in now that I am out of the hurly-burby. It is a heavy monetary loss to me, still, if it seemed my duty, I would stand again. O'Brien hates Parliament and vows he won't go back, but if he would consent so should I. The English have no idea what a beastly nuisance it is, giving up your work in order to live in London, and then to be blackguarded as hirelings and assassins for our pains. I cannot think that there is much chance of turning out Randolph for a long time to come. Even if we could win over Chamberlain, he has few followers, and Hartington could still give the Ministry a majority. I think the pair of them are trying to kill Gladstone, and that this is quite as much a purpose of their policy as to prevent Home Rule. I feel sure that no modifications of the late Bill that we could agree to would induce either of them to come over.
In a Parliamentary sense Mr. Gladstone is a better life than Hartington, as when the Duke of Devonshire dies his influence will abate, and his followers in the House cannot be so well kept together. Joseph and he hate each other too much to agree on anything else than disagreeing with Gladstone, so that I cannot see any land ahead just yet. I fear there is nothing for it but to trust to the chapter of accidents. Cloture cannot, if carried, do us much harm. If used to promote coercion then you will have outrages and, for aught I know, dynamite once more in the ascendant, so that while they may get rid of the pain in one part of the system the disease will break out somewhere else. Every one here wants peace, and the wisdom of Gladstone's policy is more manifest to me every day. There is an entire change in the temper of the people, and it would even take some pretty rough Toryism to make them take to their old ways again.
If the present Government were wise they would take advantage of this frame of mind, but there is little prospect of their doing so.
In the monster demonstration which took place in Hyde Park, after the reading of the Coercion Bill for the first time, Mr. Labouchere had been one of the group of eloquent orators, including Mr. Michael Davitt, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Hunter, and Professor James Stuart, who, from a long semi-circle of pavilions, had led upwards of a quarter million demonstrators, poured out from the Radical Clubs and Associations of London, in protest against the tyrannical methods contemplated by the Government. A short extract from the speech of Mr. Baggallay, made in the House of Commons on April 14, gives an interesting little picture of Mr. Labouchere on the occasion of the demonstration: "I see the member for Northampton in his place," he said; "I am glad to see him back again after his short holiday, a holiday which I was sorry to see that he himself had cut short by unnecessarily making his appearance on a waggon in Hyde Park. May I be allowed to tell him that I was in Hyde Park also, although I was not in a waggon. I am prepared to admit that the crowd there was orderly. It has been asserted that there were a great many rowdies present. No doubt there were, but, for a Bank holiday, and for Hyde Park on a fine day, I think the congregation assembled there was fairly respectable. But, sir, what did they go there for? A great many were out for a holiday, but I believe that a very large number went there in order to see the leader of the Liberal party, or rather the real leader of the Radical party. I was asked over and over again, 'Where's Labby?' There can be no doubt that the point of attraction was the platform at which the member for Northampton presided. The language Mr. Labouchere used in reference to this Coercion Bill was not perhaps quite so moderate as it might have been. He told his audience that the policy of the Government was like the ruffianism of Bill Sikes, and he added that if the Bill became law he hoped Irishmen would resist it." (Mr. Labouchere: "Hear, Hear!") "I do not know if Mr. Labouchere is prepared to repeat those words in the House—(Mr. Labouchere: "Most unquestionably I repeat them.)"[3] And so on.