LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
MR. HAWKSLE Y AND MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE ." SPEOTATOIL'l
Sin,—I shall be .glad to know when and where I made the allegation mentioned by you in the Spectator of October 19th. It does not do to make a serious and offensive, as well as idiotic, charge against a man, and hedge it by inserting the words, "if we are not mistaken."—I am, Sir, ezc.,
14 Hyde Park Gardens, W.
BOURCHIER F. HAWKSLEY.
[In our issue of October 6th of last year we expressed our belief that the story of the Member sitting with letters in his • pocket, ready to read them if Mr. Chamberlain attacked Mr. Rhodes, was a myth, and declared that we should be much sur- prised if the alleged Member ever" materialised." On this Mr. .Labouchere commented in Truth of October 11th, 1900, as follows:—" I am glad to be able to surprise the Spectator by at once materialising this Member. He was neither a disembodied spirit, nor a cock, nor a bull, but Mr. Abel Thomas, Q.C. ; and the fact that . he had the letters of Mr. Hawksley in his pocket, with instructions from that gentleman to read them, in the event of Mr. Chamberlain supporting in the House the charge of dishonourable conduct to which Mr. Chamberlain bad assented as a Member of the Raid Committee a few days previously, was known to the Members around me, and to the best of my belief to the majority of the Members present." We are not aware that Mr. Hawksley ever contradicted this specific statement by Mr. Labouchere, which he repeated a fortnight later,—i.e., in the issue of October 25th. Last week, writing from memory, we said that Mr. Hawksley, if we were . not mistaken, "alleged that on a certain occasion he' instructed' • a Liberal Member of Parliament (said by Mr. Labouchere to have been Mr. Abel Thomas) to read certain letters in the House of Commons in defence of Mr. Rhodes should • Mr. Rhodes be attacked by Mr. Chamberlain." We regret to have fallen into an error in the matter. We should • have said that Mr. Labouchere alleged that Mr. Hawksley instructed the Member. Now, however, Mr. Hawksley's letter to us—its intemperateness of expression does not concern us- . makes it clear that the whole 'story, as we said last year, is a delusion, and that no such incident ever occurred. For any one to assert otherwise after Mr. Hawksley's letter would be equiva- lent to saying that his letter, to us merely means that we cannot prove that he ever said he instructed a Member of Parliament. To write as he writes, if the story were true in fact, would obviously be most misleading and disingenuous. We may, therefore, conclude that the story is a myth, and that tbe gross mountain of malignant gossip raised thereon in order to injure Mr. Chamberlain is without foundation. Mr. Hawksley has already acknowledged that no threats had ever been used, and that Mr. Chamberlain was quite unaware that any letters had been handed to any one to read. Now we reach the further stage, and find that there were not only no threats but no letters to read and nobody appointed to read them. We are heartily glad that the legend should have thus at last received its quietus.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
