CHAS. S. PARNELL.

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain

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

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

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

The sum of all amounted to this:

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

Terms.—G.O.M.'s plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Procedure resolutions until Home Rule settled.

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

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

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

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

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

H. LABOUCHERE.

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain

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

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

I proposed this:

A Royal Prince—a sort of King Log.

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

The veto to be the Governor acting by the advice of the Privy Council—i.e., of a majority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If so, what then? Hartington?

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

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

How the revelation came out was this:

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

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

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

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

H. LABOUCHERE.

Lord Randolph Churchill to Lord Salisbury

INDIA OFFICE, Dec. 22, 1885.

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

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

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H. LABOUCHERE.

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

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain

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

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

I think that the Customs matter would not be a sine qua non.

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

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

Now, what would satisfy them?

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

Ditto on protection to minorities.

Remains the veto.

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

When I saw Healy on Sunday I suggested this:

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

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

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

This he said the Irish would accept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H. LABOUCHERE.

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

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere

DUBLIN, Dec. 23, 1885.

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

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

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

A happy Christmas to you, my dear Labouchere.

T. M. HEALY.

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere

INDIA OFFICE, Dec. 24, 1885.

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

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

RANDOLPH S. C.

P.S.—The weak point of your accusation in this week's Truth of treachery on the part of the Government is that the announcement of Gladstone's having written a letter to the Queen first appeared in The Daily News![14]

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

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain

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

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,—Churchill writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

H. LABOUCHERE.

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain

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

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

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

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

H. LABOUCHERE.

P.S.—Healy and I have elaborated a letter containing the Irish minimum.

Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere

INDIA OFFICE, Dec. 25, 1885.

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

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

RANDOLPH S. C.

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere

DUBLIN, Xmas, 1885.

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

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

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

T. M. HEALY.

Mr. Labouchere to "The Times"[16]

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

"WHAT THE PARNELLITES WOULD ACCEPT."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H. LABOUCHERE.[17]

To the Editor of the Times.

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain

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

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

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

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

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

H. LABOUCHERE.

Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere

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

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

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

I shall look forward to Monday's Times.—Yours ever,

RANDOLPH S. C.

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

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere

BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 26, 1885.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each would have its own Ministry responsible to itself.

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

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

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

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

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere

HIGHBURY, BIRMINGHAM, Dec. 27, 1885.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain

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

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

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

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

H. LABOUCHERE.

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain

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

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

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere

DUBLIN, Dec. 30, 1885.

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

T. M. HEALY.

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere

DUBLIN, Dec. 31, 1885.

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

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

T. M. HEALY.

[1] The present Strangers' Dining-room.

[2] Sir Henry Lucy, Sixty Years in the Wilderness, vol. ii.

[3] Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. iii.

[4] Barry O'Brien, Life of Parnell.

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

[6] Barry O'Brien, Life of Parnell.

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

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

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

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

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

[12] Statement as to Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Scheme was published in the Leeds Mercury and the Standard on December 17, and in the Times and other London papers of December 18.

[13] Winston Spencer Churchill, Lord Randolph Churchill, vol. ii.

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

[15] Editor of the Daily News from 1868 till 1886.

[16] Times, Dec. 28, 1885.

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

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