Chapter XII: The Split in the Liberal Party (1)

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 1, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--No, I do not think that he (Mr. Gladstone) is hedging; from his personal standpoint, he knows that his only chance of coming in is to get over the Irish, and then to get over his own party. Waiting games may suit others, but he cannot wait, and already considers that he has been out for very long. He thought so a week after Salisbury came in, and at once commenced with the Irish.

This, I should imagine, is his game. On the Address, he will endeavour to put the Tories in a minority, with or without the Irish. He then expects to be called upon to form a Government. He will at once begin to enter privately into terms with the Irish. These terms will be much the same sort of thing as I wrote in the _Times_, or non-appearance at all in the Imperial Parliament, after the manner of Canada. If he cannot make terms, it may be that his desire for office will lead him to come in, but if he is to be believed, he will not. What will then be the position? He cannot well dissolve, so there must inevitably be a Palmerston-Hartington Government, whilst the Radicals would be split up, some going for the Irish, others against. This, it seems to me, means the destruction of the Radical Party for many a year. Mr. Gladstone knows that he is too big an individuality to be the head of a Coalition Government, moreover he has burnt his ships.

Suppose, on the other hand, the Conservatives dissolve at once, after Mr. Gladstone has pronounced in favour of Home {305} Rule. On what cry should we go to the country, if not on Home Rule? Evidently those opposed to it would give the preference to the Conservatives, for they one and all would have put their foot down, whilst we should be tainted with the unholy thing, even if we had made a Jonah of Mr. Gladstone. So long as the Irish question is not settled, the Tories must have the pull in the country, and the Radicals must remain discredited and disunited.

This being so, is it not worth while to take the other course? It is by no means certain that we should be beaten at an election. Mr. Gladstone is still a power. The Irish have votes which would turn several places. The electors may be divided into people who think about the question of Ireland, and those who don't. For the latter a "cow" might be invented, whilst many of the former would say that as one English party has gone for Home Rule, it must come, and if so as speedily as possible.

The real enemies of the Radicals are the Whigs, and they are essentially your enemies. It is a mistake to undervalue them. They have always managed to jockey the Radicals. They hang together; they have, through Grosvenor, the machine; they dominate in Clubs and in the formation of Cabinets. They may ally themselves with you _re_ Ireland, but this will be for their benefit, not yours. Nothing would give them greater pleasure than to betray you with a kiss, for you are their permanent bogey. Once you are out of the way, and the sheep of Panurge, _i.e._, the vast majority of the Liberal M.P.s, would be boxed up in their fold. At every election we should have shilly-shally talk, very vague and apparently meaning much, followed by half-hearted measures.

All this is why I still hold that the Radical game is to go with Mr. Gladstone on Irish matters, and to use him in order to shunt them and, if possible, the Whigs--not that this course is not full of danger, but that it seems to me to present less danger than any other.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, Jan. 3, 1886.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--The more I look at the thing, the less I like it. Whatever we do we shall be smashed for a {306} certainty. The question is whether it is better to be smashed with Mr. Gladstone and the Parnellites or without them.

I believe the anti-Irish feeling is very strong with our best friends--the respectable artisans and the non-Conformists.

One thing I am clear about. If we are to give way it must be by getting rid of Ireland altogether, and by some such scheme as this.

Call Ireland a protected state. England's responsibility to be confined exclusively to protecting the country against foreign aggression.

England's authority to be confined exclusively to the measures necessary to secure that Ireland shall not be a _point d'appui_ for a foreign country.

The financial question to be settled by a fixed annual payment to cover:

1. Ireland's share of the Debt.

2. A sinking fund to extinguish it in fifty years.

3. The cost of the military garrison.

_Query_: Should we hold the customs till this Debt is extinguished, or find some other security for payment?

In order to gild the pill for the English sympathisers with Protestant and landowning minorities:

Ireland to be endowed with a Constitution--the elements to be:

1. A Governor with power to dissolve Parliament--no veto.

2. A Senate, probably elected but with some qualifications to secure a moderately Conservative Assembly.

3. A House of Commons.

To meet the prejudices of English manufacturers and workmen, a Commercial treaty pledging Ireland not to impose duties on English manufactures. (Bounties might be left open.)

In this case Ireland could have no foreign relations. It is impossible to allow her to communicate direct any more than Australia and Canada. But this was a great source of complaint by Irish patriots in the time of Grattan's Parliament.

The difficulties of any plan are almost insurmountable, but the worst of all plans would be one which kept the Irishmen at Westminster while they had their own Parliament in Dublin.

{307}

I end as I began. We shall be smashed because the country is not prepared for Home Rule.--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 4, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I think your scheme an excellent one; only Ireland is so wretchedly poor a country, that it will not pay its contribution; that, however, is a detail.

I am perfectly certain that Mr. Gladstone is determined to go on, and that any idea of a Whig cum Radical demonstration to induce him to keep quiet will not avail. Rosebery writes, "He is boiling over with the subject," and you know how, when once an idea gets hold of his mind, it ferments; as Hawarden said in a recent letter, he is determined to stand or fall by it.

I suspect that this scheme is passing through his ingenuous mind. To get in by the Irish vote, then to ask the Conservatives to consult with him as to a plan. The Irish, however, are quite cute enough not to help him in, until, one way or another, they are secured against this.

I have just received this from Churchill:

"The Queen's Speech will be delivered on the 21st. No mention of Home Rule. What a blessing it would be if we could get rid of the Whigs and the Irish at one coup. But I am afraid that this will be impossible, and that the former as usual will knock under."

--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Labouchere to the "Times"_ (_Extract_)

REFORM CLUB, Jan. 2, 1886.

You, sir, possibly have not been brought closely in contact with the Irish leaders. I have; and more practical, sensible, I may indeed say, more moderate men, when not under the influence of temporary excitement, I never came across.... I have indeed been greatly struck with their largeness and broadness of view, which contrasts advantageously with our supercilious mode of treating political opponents who have not the advantage of {308} being Anglo-Saxons, our insularity, and our want of facility to grasp new ideas, or to realise the necessity of adapting ourselves to circumstances, as Bunsen--one of our great admirers--said, what most struck him during his residence here was "the deficiency of the method of handling ideas in this blessed island."--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.[1]

To the Editor of the _Times_.

_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere_

INDIA OFFICE, Jan. 7, 1886.

DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I should be delighted to dine with you on the 12th or 15th, if that would be convenient and agreeable to you. I think Joe is quite right to walk warily. After all, if the G.O.M. goes a mucker it may be a good thing for everybody. He has always disturbed the equilibrium of parties and done no good to any one except himself. However, you will probably think me prejudiced.--Yours ever,

RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 7, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Churchill will come on the 15th if that suits you. Is there any other Conservative or Liberal you would like?

I suspect that Mr. Gladstone will not give the necessary pledges to the Irish. They have an idea that he might get in by their votes, and then try to make terms with the Conservatives, and bring in a milk and water measure. He talks of faith in him. Singularly enough they have not that amount which they ought to have.

There is also the possibility that they will take a bird in the hand from the Conservatives--in the form of some local county measure, which would strengthen them in Ireland, and which would give them leverage.

If this be so, how about a resolution in their favour--somewhat {309} vague--which would win them over to us in case of an election, and which would not be carried?--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Jan. 7, 1886.

MY DEAR L.,--I am afraid I badly repay all your letters. I greatly fear that Chamberlain's tone shows that even if he accepts the proposals in principle, he will help the Whigs to make Mr. Gladstone minimise them, and thus they may prove inacceptable to Ireland. Then it will be the Land Act misery over again, or rather your party would not be let in by us to pass a maimed measure, and so the Tories would reap the profit of our dissensions. _Beati possidentes!_ However, I think when your men get blooded by a few skirmishes with the Tories, they will be willing enough to patch things up to turn them out. With regard to Morley's point about the Veto, I recognise that the bigger powers we get the more natural would be your desire for some guarantee against their abuse--the better the Parliament, the more effective the Veto. As the scientist would say, you want it increased according to the square of the power. A Governor-General, I think, would meet this, and, for my part, I think it would capture or render quiescent a lot of the loyalists if he were a prince. A few Royal levees and some judicious jobs would probably bring most of these gentry round in a short time.

Your letters have been admirable, and I am sure have done good, though none of us could write to the _Times_ or acknowledge it in any way. Moreover, except through extracts in the _Express_, none of us see it here. A single copy of any newspaper from across the Channel does not enter the office of _United Ireland_! However, as we are not your rulers this is no crime.

The usual stuff I see is being talked about Home Rule leading to separation, and how the American-Irish would not accept the settlement, nor the Fenians. The fellow who writes as "an old Fenian" in the _St. James' Gazette_, extracts from which I have seen, is Dick Piggott, late of the _Irishman_ newspaper, who swindled {310} every Fenian Fund he could milk, and whom the boys would not touch with the tongs. I undertake to say that if a suitable Home Rule scheme be proposed, though Parnell said he could offer no guarantees, that we could call a National Convention to ratify it, and therefore could treat as a traitor every one who afterwards opposed it, or did not loyally abide thereby. Moreover, terrible as are the American-Irish in English eyes, I believe--and I have visited and spoken at every big city from New York to San Francisco, and from Galveston on the Mexican Gulf to Montreal in Canada--that we could summon a representative Convention in Chicago, including the Clan na Gael, the ancient Order, and the Rossa crowd which would endorse the settlement and thereby effectually dry up the well-springs of revolutionary agitation. But to do this we must get no sham vestry, but an assembly that would gratify the national pride of the Celtic race. Our people in America will only be too glad to be allowed to mind their own business, and many of the wealthy among them will come back and settle down here, investing their capital and teaching the people the industries they have learnt abroad. The mass of them are as Conservative as any in the world, and when I told a crowded meeting the night of the Chicago Convention in 1881--referring to wild advice that had been offered--"that the Irish leaders were no more to be bought by American dollars than by English gold," the sentiment was cheered to the echo and was mutilated accordingly in the report of the _Irish World_.

However, this is running a long way ahead of events, and this idea of mine is not one that I have yet broached to my colleagues.

I expect to be over on Tuesday, but hope to be allowed to run back then till the 21st, as I suppose we shall have nothing to do in the interval. I don't suppose we shall make up our minds as to whether we shall move an amendment to the Address, till after we hear it read. Even then this, I presume, would depend as to whether a _modus vivendi_ with you was arrived at, for if the Tories are in earnest with their threat to dissolve, the best tactics would be to have no Irish Debate and to cook their goose on a side issue--Egypt, Burmah, or what-not.--Truly yours,

T. M. HEALY.

{311}

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, Jan. 8, 1886.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--The 15th will suit me. Many thanks. I fancy Randolph Churchill will be more talkative if we are alone, unless you know any one whom he likes to meet. I leave it entirely in your hands.

Mr. Gladstone has asked me to meet him on Tuesday. Perhaps he may be explicit, but I am not sanguine.

If the Irish are ready to give the Tories a chance, by all means let us wait and see results.

I could not support any resolution at present. If it were vague, the Irish would not thank us--if it were definite, I doubt if it would be good policy to vote with it.

We are sure to have an opportunity on the Local Government Bill--if we desire to take advantage of it.--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 9, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I had a letter from Healy yesterday. So far as I understand the matter, things are in this position.

Mr. Gladstone is in his tent. He will do nothing until the Address. He then, I think, inclines to an understanding with the Irish, for this is a _sine qua non_ of his coming in.

Healy says that the Irish will decide nothing until the Address. They will not aid in turning out the Tories unless there is a specific understanding as to what Mr. Gladstone's Bill is to be. If such arrangement be satisfactory, they will agree to vote them out on Burmah, Egypt, or anything else, so as to render it difficult for the Tories to dissolve. They perceive the difficulties of Mr. Gladstone's position and are just now in a yielding mood, but beyond a certain point they cannot go, as their own people would turn against them.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

{312}

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 12, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I have just got a long letter from Herbert Gladstone. So far as I can make out, Mr. Gladstone has in reality abandoned none of his projects. But he is cornered by the fact that the Irish will not aid him to get in without very definite assurances.

Healy writes to say that he will be here on Thursday, and that nothing has been decided as to the course of the Irish. He suggests--if some agreement can be come to--saying not one word on Home Rule, but turning the Government out upon a bye issue, Egypt, Burmah, or anything. I have written to ask whether the following plan would be assented to:

(1) Turn out Government on bye issue. (2) Have some sort of temporary scheme for governing Ireland. (3) Appoint some sort of dilatory Commission. (4) Bring in Bill next year. I have explained that this would only be possible if Mr. Gladstone could, in some way or other, make it clear to the Irish what the Bill is to be, and also that he would stand or fall on it.

This would give time to educate public opinion, and to have good Bills on English subjects, whilst it would render it impossible for the Conservatives to dissolve.

I don't know whether I could get the Irish to assent--supposing that Mr. Gladstone does--but I should be sanguine of doing so. They have now so arranged their party that practically Healy, O'Brien, Harrington, and Parnell can do precisely what they like. Parnell I put last, because he will agree to the decisions of the other three.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_P.S._--I write this, because I shall not be able to explain it to you this evening before Randolph Churchill.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 15, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I should have been delighted to {313} dine with you on the 31st, but I have already asked some people to dine with me on that day.

Harcourt favoured me during an hour yesterday with his views. They are vague and misty. He has got it into his head that the Government mean a Coercion Bill. If they are wise, I should think that they would bring one in, and thus split up the Liberals at once.

Mr. Gladstone is evidently meditating some coup on his own account, and to retire in a blaze of Irish fire-works. He does not want to wait, but if he acts, he holds that he must act at once. He is by no means in a good humour with his late colleagues.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Jan. 15, 1886.

MY DEAR MR. L.,--Herbert Gladstone is totally wrong about me. I neither saw nor heard from nor communicated with Churchill or any member of the Government since the House rose--I except the Irish law officers whom I meet daily in Court, but whom I never exchange a word with on politics. I am now just of the same opinion I always held, but I don't see what we can do till your party move. It would play the devil with us were we to put the Liberals into office and then have them to turn round on us, by proposing a settlement we could not accept. We cannot buy a pig in a poke. You may say we could turn them out at a minute's notice. That seems very easy on paper by counting parties, but if we are going to play this game successfully the fewer ministries we turn out the better, as any naked exhibition of our power in a gratuitous way would be sure to get you a majority if you dissolved on that issue. No, we prefer instead of having to put you out, not to let you get in, until there's a straightforward arrangement made. At least this is what seems to me to be commonsense. I know nothing of the Tory plans. Of course, if they are fools enough to play your hand by proposing coercion our hands may be forced--I only write on the assumption that they have sense. What I say is let Mr. Gladstone satisfy Parnell and the whole thing is settled. {314} Was it from Grosvenor's experience and anecdotes of the Irish party that the Duke of Westminster called us _debauchees_? Were we too lax in our attendance on Parliament to please Lord Richard--prowling round St. John's Wood, when we ought to have been braking his coach? So we must please our fastidious censors by arranging that the new party will sit up of nights in the House, instead of sporting about town as His Grace suggests the old one did. Shall be over on Thursday.

T. M. HEALY.

_Mr. Healy to Mr. Labouchere_

DUBLIN, Jan. 17, 1886.

MY DEAR L.,--I don't think I could say anything fresh until Thursday, when I shall go fully into matters with you. I quite feel the difficulties of Mr. Gladstone's position and think our party fully appreciate them, and would even strain points to obviate them, if this can well be done by men in our straits. However, I would point out that on his side we have had nothing but a repudiation of the principles attributed to him by the "Revelations," and this, _plus_ good intentions, is not sufficient ground for eighty-six men to consult and decide on. If no communication is made to Parnell, as I think it ought to be, for our meeting, we shall probably let things drift and do nothing. I would have preferred all along not to have been the repository of any views held by your Leaders, lest it might be supposed I was trenching on the prerogatives of Parnell's position, and now I think the time has come--if he is to be approached at all for some communication to reach him otherwise than through me. If I can be shown any honourable basis, on which we could vote your party into power, I shall rejoice and will press my views strongly on our men.--Faithfully yours,

T. M. HEALY.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, Jan. 22, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I send this to you by hand, {315} because if you are inclined to go on with the plan you suggested, it will be necessary to act.

Parnell is quite ready--without prejudice--that is to say, he says that he does not absolutely assent, but thinks that he will, which you know, with him--who is more hesitating than Fabius--means that he will. His lieutenants agree--although he does not know this.

But he says that, admitting that Mr. Gladstone can give no pledges, he must know two things:

1. That Mr. Gladstone, if called upon by the Queen to form a Government, will form one, _i.e._, if Goschen, Hartington, etc., decline to join, that he will not throw up the sponge, for, with considerable point, he says that he prefers the Conservatives to a Hartington Government, supported by the Moderate Liberals and Conservatives, and you as a Radical. Such a Government he might not be able to turn out, and it might remain master of the situation.

2. He wants an understanding that if Mr. Gladstone comes in he will act on his speech, and at once bring in his scheme for the Government of Ireland.

I saw Herbert Gladstone, and he is to explain these two demands to his father.

Herbert Gladstone says that his father would take office without Hartington, but that his main difficulty is the Peers. He hopes that he will be able to get over this difficulty very soon.

I have replied that at any moment the Irish may break out, and that if once we get to Procedure we shall all fall to pieces, and that the determination of the Irish to fight against Procedure will very soon make us too.

I begged J. Collings to put off his amendment, and told him that perhaps I might get him some votes. Randolph Churchill tried to bring the general debate to an end last night, but this we stopped, and Sexton moved the adjournment.

Grosvenor asked me how long the debate would last? I said the Irish meant to keep it up. He said that he did not want them to. I said that they were not asking him whether he did or not, but that he was asking me now long it would last. He told me that he would prevent the G.O.M. ever going for Home Rule, and then spoke about the Party. He said, "You or _Truth_ {316} are making a great mistake. You assume that the Radicals constitute the majority of the Liberal Party, but really the Whigs do." I asked him what would happen if the G.O.M. were to retire; he replied, a Whig Administration under Hartington with you--that you and the Radicals would soon perceive that you were not masters of the situation, etc.

I, of course, did not tell him about Collings's amendment, but it will be very difficult to get him to whip for it, and you will have to put your foot down about it. Parnell agrees, if they are to be bought off, that the Irish shall appear not to take much interest in the matter, but to vote up before the Whigs know what is to occur.

Parnell is more than reasonable. In his present mood, he is all for a fair scheme. His two _sine qua nons_ are, that there should be an Assembly called a Parliament for local matters, and that he should have the Police. He says that it would be absolutely impossible for him to keep down the Fenians without this, and that he is fully determined not to accept the responsibility. About the veto, etc., he will make concessions, and give any guarantees that are required.

He made a most conciliatory speech last night. Before making it he said, "There shall not be one word in it to which any one can object." He is very anxious to know about your feeling on the matter of Mr. Gladstone's plans.

With regard to Ireland, he says that the people really cannot pay their rents in some places, and that he is certain that if nothing be done there will be rows in a few weeks. But he is doing all that he can to keep things quiet, and next week he will dissolve some of the most bumptious of the Local Branch Leagues.

I told Herbert Gladstone that you had suggested to me the Collings amendment.[2] Could you not see Mr. Gladstone and push the matter? I also told Herbert Gladstone that Grosvenor was not to be trusted.

I shall, I suppose, see you in the House this afternoon. Never shall we have a better chance, but if we do not use our chances, they will disappear.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

{317}

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., Feb. 15, 1886.[3]

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--... As regards out future policy I can say nothing at present, but I think that a closer inspection of the difficulties in the way has brought Mr. Gladstone nearer to me than he was when he first came to London. If Parnell is impracticable my hope is that we may all agree to give way to the Tories and let them do the coercion which will then be necessary. They will be supported for this purpose by a clear majority in the country and probably in the House. As for passing Home Rule resolutions at the present time, I utterly disbelieve in its possibility.--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_[4]

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, March 31, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--There would be much joy in the Radical heaven if things could be hit off with you, and they would all be ready to put Elijah's mantle on you if they could come to some agreement as to this damned Irish question.

The feeling is, I think, this: they are in favour of Home Rule, and do not particularly care about details, provided that the scheme settles the matter. They do not love the Irish, but hate them, and would give them Home Rule on the Gladstone or Canada pattern to get rid of them. Home Rule, therefore, whatever the Whigs may say, will be carried. They are dead against any employment of English credit for the Irish landlords or Irish tenants. This--whatever the detail of Mr. Gladstone's plan may be--will be lost.

I rather suspect that the revered G.O.M. is playing a game; he is bound to Spencer, therefore he is to bring in his Land Bill. But, if it meets with disapproval, is it likely that he will throw {318} up the Home Rule sponge for the sake of Spencer and the Irish landlords? Will he not rather say that it is a detail of a great project, and not an essential one?

Now, just see what would be the position if we could act with you on these lines? The Whigs would be cleared out. If Gladstone is beaten, we would soon upset a Hartington cum Conservative Government. We might have grandiose revolutions--giving cows to agriculturists, and free breakfast tables to artisans. We should be against Tories, Whigs, and Lords. With you to the front we should win at an election, or if not at once, later on. There never was such an opportunity to establish a Radical party, and to carry all before it. Is it worth while wrecking this beautiful future, for the sake of some minor details about Irish Government? You may depend upon it, that the Irish, if not granted Gladstone's Home Rule, will never assent to anything else. Coercion would follow, and this would give power to the Tory Whigs for years. For my part, I would coerce the Irish, grant them Home Rule, or do anything with them, in order to make the Radical programme possible. Ireland is but a pawn in the game. If they make fools of themselves when left to themselves, it would be easy to treat them as the North did the South, rule by the sword, and suppress all representation.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

REFORM CLUB, April 7, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Any number of Radicals expressed their hope this afternoon in the House that you would see your way to approve of Mr. Gladstone's amended Bill. They are all most anxious that you should be the Elisha of the aged Elijah, and aid in getting this Irish question out of the way.

I believe that the old Parliamentary Hand means to throw out that, on details, discussion can take place in Committee. The line, I hear, on Excise and Customs is: Do you want the Irish Members? if not, you must give them Excise and Customs; if you do, this is not necessary.

I was asked to sound Parnell a couple of days ago about {319} annexing Belfast and the adjacent country to England. I did not see him, but I learnt that he is strongly against it. The project is, I think, now abandoned, for the Scotch seem likely to go straight without it, and the Belfast people do not want it.

To the best of my belief the real number that Hartington has got is sixty. We cannot make out about Ponsonby calling on Hartington, unless the Queen is anticipating events, and sounding him about what she must do, if asked to dissolve. Randolph tells me that Lord Salisbury called upon him to settle details about the debate. I doubt whether this is precisely true.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., April 8, 1886.[5]

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--Nothing would give me greater pleasure than, to come back to the fold. Unfortunately I am told to-day on the highest authority that the scheme to be proposed to-night will not meet the main objections which led to my resignation. I am very sorry, as I was and am in the most conciliatory mood.--Yours very truly,

J. L. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, April 15, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Some friends of yours are urging that there should be an interview between you and Mr. Gladstone. They asked me what I thought? I said that it was doubtful whether this would lead to much beyond vague talk by Mr. Gladstone.

You objected to (1) Members being excluded, (2) Magistrates not being appointed by England, (3) Excise and Customs. No. 3 is given up. No. 1 is an open question, which is practically yielded. There remains, therefore, only No. 2. As regards the two Orders, I presume that Mr. Gladstone alluded to them, when he said that he did not himself deem guarantees necessary. {320} There is no reason therefore why we should not throw them out in Committee, or if they pass, and there is a Radical majority in Parliament later on, reconsider the matter. So the Bill has been remodelled on your pattern.

As regards the Land Bill,[6] I hear that Lord Spencer says that if it is thrown out in the House of Commons, he will not complain. Mr. Gladstone therefore avoids trouble by bringing it in, and as the Conservatives cannot well vote for it, I am sure that we can throw it out on the Second Reading.

Your coming over would ensure the passing of the Irish Government Bill; it would go to the Lords. Then Queen, Lords, and Whigs would be on one side, and the Radicals on the other. Mr. Gladstone must soon come to an end. You would be our leader. The Whigs would be hopelessly bogged. Radicalism would be triumphant. Does not this tempt you? It really does seem such a pity with the promised land before us, that we should wander off into the wilderness, on account of small differences of detail. There is no scheme which the mind of man could contrive that would not be open to criticism. A better one than that of Mr. Gladstone is conceivable, but show me how any body of men would be found to agree upon any other scheme? There is nothing more easy than Constitution making, except criticising the Constitutions made by others, and there always are, and always will be, a number of people to go against any scheme.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., April 17, 1886.

No. 1.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I really made a great effort last night to come to an arrangement, and whether it is successful or not depends now on Mr. Gladstone's inclination to meet me half way--rather perhaps I should say it depends upon the action of yourself and other Radical members who agree with my views and are in a position to bring sufficient pressure to bear upon the Whigs to make reconciliation a certainty.

{321}

I am quite convinced, from the information that reaches me, that unless some such reconciliation is effected the Liberal party will be hopelessly divided at the general election.

The majority will very likely go with the party machinery and with Mr. Gladstone, but a sufficient number will stand aloof to make success impossible.

We cannot leave the matter uncertain till after the 2nd reading. I know enough of Parliamentary tactics to be sure that in that case we shall get nothing, but be beaten in detail on every division. All I ask is that Mr. Gladstone should give some sufficient assurance that he will consent--first, to the retention of the Irish representation at Westminster on its present footing according to population, and at the same time the maintenance of Imperial control over Imperial taxation in Ireland; and secondly, that he should be willing to abandon all the so-called safeguards in connection with the Constitution of the new legislative body in Dublin.

You can get this assurance if you like, and the matter is therefore in your hands.--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, April 17, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I made it quite clear and distinct both to Herbert Gladstone and to Arnold Morley what you wanted, after seeing you. Herbert is to tackle his father on the subject. I have no doubt that we can arrange the matter. Arnold Morley would hold that, anyhow, you would vote for the Bill. I said that this was not quite so certain, and that your proposal was a reasonable one. Herbert Gladstone said that his father did not in the least undervalue your support, and considered that your present attitude was paralysing the party outside Parliament. Some friends of yours were getting up a memorandum to Mr. Gladstone about the Bill, asking him to promise this and that. Do pray stop them. If once we get to memorandums we shall have counter ones from the Whigs, and they put Mr. Gladstone in a hole.

Herbert Gladstone says that the real _bona fide_ difficulty of his father is, that he cannot devise a scheme. Could you not let {322} me have one? This would settle this nonsense. How would it be if proxies were allowed in respect to the Irish?--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_P.S._--What day is your meeting at Birmingham?

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

40 PRINCE'S GARDENS, S.W., April 17, 1886.

No. 2.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--Since writing you I have received your card. It is necessary that I should say that nothing will induce me to vote for the second reading, unless I get some assurance of Mr. Gladstone's willingness to maintain the Irish representation. I do not think there is any practical difficulty in the way greater than, or as great as, the difficulties already attempted to be overcome in the Bill. I am told that Morley stands in the way of a reconciliation as he considers himself pledged by his Chelmsford speech to the exclusion of the Irish members from Westminster.

As regards the memorandum, I understand that it is only to the Whips for their information, and not for Mr. Gladstone. I think it may safely be allowed to go on. I believe a number of the Whips would be quite willing to sign it and to accept the compromise.

My meeting at Birmingham is on Wednesday. I will try and maintain a conciliatory attitude, but the position becomes increasingly difficult. I am bothered out of my life to attend Radical meetings in different parts of the country. I have already received invitations from Manchester, Rochdale, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Woolwich, and other places.

I need not say that I do not want to start on a campaign unless it is absolutely necessary.--Yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 19, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--I write you a line to catch the post. Herbert Gladstone told me that he had talked with his {323} father on the matter last Saturday. The difficulty of Mr. Gladstone seems to be this: he has no great objection himself to the Irish Members sitting here. But he does not like to consult his Cabinet, for fear of resignations, and does not like to give a pledge without consulting them. He considers that he has already said a good deal in his speeches to show how open his mind is.

Now, would it not be possible for us all to vote for the Second Reading, and to announce that we shall go for the Members sitting in Committee? It is true that we risk being beaten. But, according to the Whips--and so far as I can make it out they are correct--there is a majority for the Bill on the Second Reading. In the main the Members will vote for the principle of Home Rule on the Second Reading, however opposed they may be to certain details. The estimate is that this majority will be from fifteen to twenty. As a rule, however, doubtfuls gravitate into the party fold, so it possibly will be more. It cannot, however, be sufficiently large to make the Government independent of us in Committee. We shall be the masters of the situation, and Mr. Gladstone will completely bleed to death instead of being murdered by us, for the odds are that the Bill will never come out of Committee.

I venture, therefore, to think that, seeing the difficulties of Mr. Gladstone giving any specific pledge, seeing the tone of Members, and seeing the objections to going against the vast majority of Radicals and with the Whigs, it would be well to rest satisfied, if Mr. Gladstone will distinctly agree to leave the matter an open question. I think that we can get a majority of Radicals both on the "Member" question and on the "Order" question. The course I propose seems to be the best practically.

We have a meeting at the St. James's Hall, on Thursday, at which I am to take the Chair. The Resolution is conceived in the above spirit, and I have already had rows with some of the Members who are to attend, because they say it looks like knocking under to Chamberlain. It assents to Second Reading, but trusts that the measure will be modified in a democratic sense in Committee. This we shall carry.

I do not myself believe in Morley's resignation, nor indeed in Harcourt's. It is possible, however, that the Lord Chancellor will be firm, though I understand that he likes his salary. {324} Supposing that you voted against the Second Reading with ten followers. This would be a tactical fiasco. If, however, you carried all the Radicals with you--or almost all--in Committee, this would be a tactical success, whilst the Radicals would be delighted with your acting with them on the first, and would act with you on the second. Had we begun sooner, I think that we could have got up a pronouncement against the Bill, if the point were not yielded. But most of the Radicals have now compromised themselves.

I talked to Hartington and some of the Whigs this evening. They seemed to me rather down-hearted. I suspect that they are not getting the support that they anticipated. This is always the case with a big cave.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 19, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Your letters will go to Mr. Gladstone this evening. If he is wise he will make terms about the Members sitting. I hear that he was very much put out about your speech, and no one dared to speak to him before he left for Hawarden.

John Morley is going to speak on Wednesday. He will be conciliatory, and say, "If a plan can be devised, etc."

Mr. Gladstone should ask you for your plan, as he says that he cannot make one.

I don't well see how he can promise to go against the guarantees. He has already said that they are inserted for weaker brethren. They will, if retained, and if we vote against them, keep the Irish on our side.

Don't forget that if you do not get what you want, there is still the Third Reading.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 20, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--You will see our resolution in the _Daily News_ of to-day. Do you see your way to write me a little {325} letter, in reply to a supposed one from me asking you what you think of the resolution and expressing a hope that the Radical party will be united, etc. It would not do if you were to say that you should vote against the Second Reading, but could you not blink this--say something about the principle of the Bill being the principle of justice, and that in Committee the Radicals must unite to insist upon the admission of Members and the abrogation of the orders. If you could not absolutely do this, you might leave it vague, allowing some to think that you will vote for the Second Reading and others to think that you will not.

I am writing to Dilke to ask him if he can see his way to write a similar letter.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, April 21, 1886.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--The Resolution which you send me, and which is to be proposed at your meeting to-morrow night, seems well designed to unite the Radical party. We are all fortunately agreed that the principle of Home Rule in some shape or another must be accepted, and we only differ, if at all, as to the methods by which it is to be carried into effect. For myself, I firmly believe that Home Rule may be conceded in such a form as to join the three Kingdoms more closely together. On the other hand, I fear that the effect of the Bill in its present shape would be to bring about absolute separation at no distant date. I hope the Government may see its way to accept the modifications which Radicals advocate, and if any assurance to this effect is given I shall gladly support the Second Reading in the hope that minor improvements may be effected in it.--I am, yours truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, April 22, 1886.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--My speech last night will show you {326} where I am. I cannot say that I am surprised at the desire of the friends of the Government that objectors should accept the Second Reading and reserve their opposition for the Committee stage; but the advice is too transparent and cannot possibly be accepted.

I do not believe there is really the least difficulty in allowing the Irish Members to come to Westminster and there to vote only on questions which are not referred to them at Dublin. John Morley's difficulties are childish and perfectly insignificant as compared with the difficulties which Mr. Gladstone has already surmounted in the preparation of his Bill.

Bradford election shows what will be the end of it all. In spite of the large Irish vote now transferred to the Liberal candidate the majority of 1500 has dwindled to half that number! I am being bullied to attend Radical meetings in all parts of the country, but at present I have replied that I am not willing to undertake anything in the nature of a campaign against Gladstone. At the same time I am pressing all my correspondents to try to bring about an arrangement by mutual concession. I confess I am not very sanguine of success.--Believe me, yours truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, April 24, 1886.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I cannot authorise the change you suggest in my letter, which I only wrote as you asked me for it, without much idea that it would be useful.

I think the chance of any reunion is very slight. I certainly could not agree to vote for the second reading without preliminary assurances as to retention of the Irish representation.

I have no doubt that the result of my action will involve temporary unpopularity with the Radical party, but they will probably want my help again at some future time, and will then exhibit as short a memory and as little consistency as they are doing now on the question of Irish Government.

{327}

In the meantime the honour of leading a party so uncertain appears to me less clear than it did some months ago.--Believe me, yours very truly,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

_Mr. Labouchere to Sir Charles Dilke_

POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 24, 1886.

MY DEAR DILKE,--Chamberlain sent me a letter for the St. James's Hall meeting, but it came too late. It would not, however, have helped matters, for he sticks to the phrase "the Government accepts." I had a letter from him this morning, much in the same tone, also one from Morley, who says that Chamberlain's speech is an attempt to coerce the Government, and that they won't stand coercion.

I have been trying to get Chamberlain to agree to vote for the Second Reading, on condition that the Government makes the admission of Irish in Parliament a _bona fide_ open question, on which the House may vote without official leading and without the Whips telling. If he would do so, this would reconcile these two babies. I really don't see how Gladstone can accept modifications, before Committee, urged in this _sic volo sic jubes_ style. Could you suggest from Chamberlain (as from yourself) that he might be satisfied with the open question. He says that he would be beaten in Committee. But I don't see this--and even if it were so, he would have many opportunities hereafter to get back his friends, the Irish, if he really wants them. The great point is to find some _modus vivendi_ which would keep the Radicals together, and to this he ought to subordinate much, instead of making difficulties. The Radicals do not take his point about the objections to fight in Committee, and there will be a row about his bullying the G.O.M. On so big an issue, his position is untenable--the Whig one is more reasonable. If only once a negotiation could be started upon the open question basis, Mr. Gladstone would manage to dodge him into voting for the Second Reading, and this is all that is wanted in Chamberlain's own interest.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

{328}

_Sir Charles Dilke to Mr. Labouchere_

PYRFORD, WOKING (undated).

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--It looks as though the Second Reading will be rejected, and, if Mr. Gladstone appeals to the constituencies, it will, I fancy, be a rout. But I quite agree as to the great importance of patching up the fued between Chamberlain and Mr. Gladstone, for the sake of everybody and everything, and I shall continue to do all I can in that sense. I had a letter from Chamberlain as to Ireland on Saturday to which I replied. I think my reply will bring another, and on that I can try again in your sense.--Yours,

CHAS. W. DILKE.

_Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_

POPE'S VILLA, TWICKENHAM, April 24, 1886.

MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Naturally the Radical Associations want to hear you, for even so humble an individual as I am gets a dozen letters every morning asking me to go to meetings at all sorts of places.

I think that the feeling in the country is this:

They regard the principle of the Bill to be a Domestic Legislation for Ireland. The Radicals are in the main opposed to "orders" and to exclusion of Irish. They do not like the idea of Radicals voting with the Whigs and Tories against the principle, and the view that it would be impossible for successful opposition to take place in Committee against the "orders" and the "admission" is too complicated for their understandings. In fact they don't want a Party division to be spoilt, and wish to humble the Tories and the Whigs.

Morley writes to me to-day to say that your speech means coercion. I have replied that in all things there must be a give and take.

I am sure that if you can get an assurance that the question of the admission is to be a _bona fide_ open one, that we should win on it--assuming that the Conservatives go for it. Such an arrangement avoids the necessity of either side marching under the harrow.

{329}

Once the question left open, in the interval between the Second Reading and Committee, we could get up a strong agitation for the "admission," whilst no one would be opposing us, and you would have all the credit of the alteration.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

_Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere_

HIGHBURY, MOOR GREEN,
BIRMINGHAM, April 30, 1886.

MY DEAR LABOUCHERE,--I think that you must now see that the Irish Bills in their present form are doomed.

I have a list of 111 Liberals pledged against Second Reading. Of these I know of 59 who have publicly communicated their intentions to their constituents. I believe most of the rest are safe, but, making all allowances for desertions, there is not much chance of forcing the Second Reading through.

I know of many men who are pledged like yourself to vote for amendments in Committee, and some who are pledged to vote against Second Reading if the amendments are not carried.

The Land Bill has no friends at all.

It is difficult to say what my own following as distinguished from Hartington's is, but I reckon that something like fifty would vote for Second Reading, if my amendments were conceded.

It is time that a final decision was taken. The fight is growing hotter every day and the division of the party will be irretrievable if the controversy is pushed much further. I am not surprised at the action of the Caucuses. I know them pretty well, and they consist of the most active and thoroughgoing partisans. But it is the men who stay away who turn elections, and there will be a larger abstention on this Irish question than we have ever had before in the history of the Liberal party.