BOOKS.
HENRY LABOUCHERE.* THE greatest compliment which the public can pay to an -author is to read his books. It cannot be doubted that this -compliment will be paid to Mr. Thorold. Even making due allowance for the apocryphal nature of some of the reminis- cences recorded by Mr. Thorold, the life of a man so many- sided as Henry Labouchere affords every element for the .achievement of ephemeral biographical fame.
He comes well out of the most severe and certain test which can be applied to the private character of any man. Those who knew him best loved him most. He seems to have been _a devoted husband, an affectionate father, and a good friend. He often did many kindly acts, such, for instance, as interest- ing himself deeply about the children of the forger Pigott, whom he tracked down with remorseless but perfectly justi- fable assiduity. These traits of his character should be borne in mind, but his public life, which alone can give him any permanent claim to renown, must be judged by his public acts.
Mr. Bennett, who knew him well, says that be was a man of " real genius." Whatever definition be given to that much-discussed word, its application to Labouchere will hardly be accepted by any save those whose minds are influenced by the ties of warm personal friendship. It is singularly inapplicable if, as a somewhat prosaie statesman would have had us believe, genius consists in an illimitable power for taking trouble. For, in truth, if ever there was a man who "was everything by starts and nothing long," it was Henry Labouchere. He lay under the curse of Reuben. When Mr. Bennett says that "he quickly grew tired of every- thing he took in band," the remark helps us more than any ether portion of the appreciation given of Labouchere's character to understand why, in spite of his undoubted talent and moral courage of a kind, he was, if not a failure, at best but a mediocre success as a politician. Men of this type attract momentary attention by their brilliancy or eccen- tricity, but they are not amongst those who make history, or even amongst those who leave behind them any durable monument of their work in life. The most lasting title to posthumous fame to which Labouchere can lay claim probably
• The Life of Henry I,a6oueb.ere. By ilgir Labouchere Thorold. London: 4austable sal Co. [18s.]
is that, as a journalist, he dragged a number of contemptible swindlers from the biding-places in which they had lurked and effectively warned the public against their proceedings. It is perhaps somewhat to be regretted that the opportunity was never afforded to him of passing from the stage of criticism to that of action. The Queen would not accept him as a Cabinet Minister, and it cannot be doubted that her Majesty's decision was dictated by a very keen and correct appreciation of character; for apart from the reason alleged by Mr. Gladstone —that Labouchere was the proprietor of Truth—there would have been something, to say at least, highly incongruous in having appointed a man to be an adviser of the Crown, who, as his later actions proved, had very strange ideas of his duty as a citizen. He explained to Mr. Krager, on the eve of the South African War, how by "a little
ilf ul management" he would be able to "give Master Joe another fall." Mr. Bright objected to the Crimean
War quite as strongly as Labouchere did to that in South Africa, but no one would have suspected him of advising Prince lifenschikoff privately how the diplomacy of Lord Palmerston might best be defeated. The result of the Queen's very natural objection was that Labouchere remained a free-lance to the end of his days, and was thus never able to learn by actual experience that to the man in office the ques- tion of how human beings can be governed presents itself in a very different light from that which he has previously conceived when in opposition. It should be added that, as a critic, Labouchere spared himself as little as he spared others. He appears to have been imbued with the idea, which is a pose often adopted by men of a cynical turn of mind, of represent- ing his own character to the outside world as much worse than it really was. For instance, writing of his youth, he said, "I was an abominable and useless liar."
Apart from the personality of the man, the main interest in Labouchere's biography consists in the fact that the candour of his biographer has thrown a vivid searchlight on the inner working of our Parliamentary institutions. It is useless to bewail the evils of the party system. Representa- tive government cannot be carried on without party, and party naturally begets those "underground negotiations" conducted by Lobby politicians, of which Mr. Gladstone spoke with some scorn, and which appear to have been eventually deprecated by Mr. Chamberlain. Labouchere, in spite of the active part which he took in parliamentary discussions, never really rose above the dignity of a Lobby politician. In the Lobby he was in his element. Sir Henry Lucy, who can speak with high authority on this point, says, "His real influence was exercised beyond the range of the Speaker's eye. Nothing pleased him more than being engaged in the Lobby, the smoking-room, or a remote corner of the corridors, working out some little plot." Although, however, it is impossible to get rid of the by-products of the party system, it is well that the public should at times get an insight into its inner working, and thus be placed on their guard against any too ready acceptance of the views advanced by extreme political partisans.
Lord Acton, in his "Advice to Persons about to Write History," lays down as a principle of universal application that "no public character has ever stood the revelation of private utterances and correspondence." In the lives of two eminent men—the late Duke of Devonshire and Lord Lyons— which have recently been published, practical illustrations have been afforded of the fact that this verdict errs somewhat on the side of severity. It would be more just and more correct to say that the conduct of no individual, whether engaged in a public or in any other career, can fairly be judged by a few °biter dicta let fall in the course of conversa- tion or correspondence. " Hanc veniam petimusqne damusque vicissim." This preliminary observation should be constantly borne in mind in considering the very interesting corre- spondence between Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Labouchere on the occasion of the split in the Liberal Party which occurred in 1886. In forming a matured opinion on the negotiations which took place at that time, care should be taken not to attach undue importance to any casual expression used in letters which were not intended for publication, and which were written during the storm and stress of an acute political crisis. The broad features of the views entertained by the negotiators should be considered rather than the language used in the expression of those views.
Starting from this general principle, it is clear that the attitude taken up by the two parties to the correspondence presents a striking contrast. At the outset they had much in common. Both were fervent Radicals. Both were strong party politicians. A moralist may perhaps be saddened by the reflection that a common animosity tends, perhaps more than anything else, to cement a political alliance; but, how- ever regrettable it may appear, history has abundantly proved the accuracy of the fact. In the case now under consideration, this bond of union was not wanting. Labouchere overflowed with hatred for the Whigs, and Mr. Chamberlain, unconscious that in a near future lie was to co-operate heartily with poli- ticians of the most orthodox Whig type, yielded a ready response to the political chord which Labouchere never ceased to touch, and intimated that "he hated the Whigs more than the Tories." In spite, however, of the identity of sentiment and opinion which existed on many points, the two politicians in reality approached the question of Home Rule in Ireland from wholly different standpoints.
Labouchere was not a Home Ruler by conviction. In the early stages of the controversy he had expressed an opinion that Union between Great Britain and Ireland was "absolutely necessary for the well-being of both countries"; and at a later stage when, in writing to the Times, he belauded "the large- ness and broadness of view" of the Irish leaders, he was simultaneously but privately expressing the opinion that "the Irish idea of patriotism is to serve the country at a good salary, and to get places for cousins, &c." But under the stress of party exigencies be soon asked himself the question, "If the Irish wish for Home Rule why should they not have it ?" The reason why he changed his opinion was that he wished to destroy the House of Lords and the Church, and generally to carry into execution an extreme democratic pro- gramme. To attain these objects he was prepared to sacrifice every other consideration. "For my part," he wrote to Mr. Chamberlain, "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." As to the interests of the outlying portions of the British Empire, they were not to be considered for one moment. He warmly welcomed a suggestion made by Mr. Healy that the way to deal with the Tory Government was "to cook their goose on a side issue—Egypt, Burma, or what not." He appeared scarcely able to conceive that any politician could be animated by other feelings than personal ambition or party rancour. He constantly dangled before Mr. Chamberlain's eyes the brilliant prospect which, as leader of an ultra-Radical Party, lay before him if only "this damned Irish question" could be settled. As for Mr. Gladstone, Labouchere was willing enough at public meetings to dwell on "his noble heart and that sort of trash," but in reality he held that "the basis of Mr. Gladstone's action was an almost insane desire to come into office." With respect to Mr. Gladstone's views upon the Home Rule Bill, considered on its own merits, all he could admit was that "the man has some feeling in the matter."
Far different was the attitude of Mr. Chamberlain. He was naturally very unwilling to break up the Liberal Party, but be held that the continued representation of Ireland at Westminster was a matter of such vital importance as to rank above party interests. To this view he steadfastly adhered throughout the whole of the discussion. It was in vain that prospects alluring to his personal ambition were held out to him. In vain was he adjured by Labouchere to "leave it vague, allowing some to think that you will vote for the Second Reading and others to think that you will not." In vain was it suggested, through the medium of Sir Charles Dilke, that "Mr. Gladstone should manage to dodge him (Mr. Chamberlain) into voting for the Second Reading." In vain did one Qf the greatest masters of casuistry that the world has ever known urge that "the retention of Irish members was a mere detaiL" All these manceuvres and specious arguments were brushed aside. Mr. Chamberlain stood firm, and, in company with the great Whig leader whose general principles had formerly been so abhorrent to him, he, for the time being at all events, succeeded in preserving the unity of the British Empire.
From that time forth the breach between the two whilom coadjutors was irremediable" Labouchere saw that the democratic paradise which lie had hoped would be reached was unattainable. "In the pages of Truth, in the Reform Club, in the Lobby of the House of Commons, he constantly held forth, to all who would read or listen, on the 'crimes' of the man who had divided the Liberal Party against itself." Such a man was even worse than the hated Whig. "Nothing was too bad for 'Joe.'" But in spite of these tirades, and independently of the merits of the Home Rule question, it is impossible to read the correspondence now published by Mr. Thorold without coming to the cenclusion that, whether Mr. Chamberlain was right or wrong in his opinions, his conduct throughout the negotiations was dignified, consistent, and patriotic. Mr. Labouchere, on the other hand, never rose above the level of a wirepuller. His action constitutes in reality an unconscious but withering satire upon the party
Previous page
