MR. HAWKSLEY AND MR. CHAMBERLAIN. [Ts THE EDITOR OP THE
"SPECTATOR."] note you regret having fallen into an error in attributing to me a statement I never made. You do not. appear to appreciate the gravity of a suggestion that a man has used his professional knowledge for political purposes. "Mr. Hawksley, if we are not mistaken, while a Liberal candidate, alleged," &e.,—that is, you charge that for political ends I mentioned a client's business, and disclosed what somebody says I found it necessary to do in the interest of the client. I call this a "serious and offensive" charge. Further, you do not appear to appreciate that it is "idiotic' to charge a Man, whether a professional man or not, with in- sulting a Member of Parliament, whether a barrister or not by presuming to instruct him to do something in the House of Commons. I altogether repudiate and disclaim the wholly groundless and unjustifiable construction you place upon my' letter. I am not responsible for the gossip of a society papers and I am not going to be drawn by you into a disclosure Of my professional business. I should have thought it fairly obvious that the note I sent you last week was not written for publication, but I take no exception to your having printed it._ I shall be obliged if you will insert this on Saturday.—
[We desire to make the following observations on Mr. Hawksley's new communication :— (1) Mr. Hawksley by his astonishing second letter shows
that his first letter to us was not, after all, meant to con- vey what it seemed to convey,---i.e., a contradiction of the
story in regard to Mr. Chamberlain with which it dealt. Yet we venture to say that such a contradiction was what the majority of our readers, in common with ourselves, felt it must be intended to convey.
(2) If Mr. Hawksley is angry with any one for the use of the word " instruct " in regard to a Member of Parliament, it must be with Mr. Labouchere and not with us. It was Mr. Labouchere who first used the word. If it was so offensively inaccurate, why did not Mr. Hawksley contradict Mr. Labouchere's original statement, which he does not deny was brought to his notice?
(3) Mr. Hawksley's original letter was addressed to the editor in the usual way and was not marked private, and we therefore presumed that it was meant for publication. We can assure hrin that we had no desire to publish such an effusion. We did so merelkto avoid giving Mr. Hawksley an opportunity to declare that we-iefused to allow him to correct an error of fact.
(4) Further, we beg leave to remind Mr. Hawksley of the following telegram which he sent to Mr. Stanhope last year during the Election. We reprint it from the Westminster Gazette of October 3rd, 1900. "My contri- bution in your controversy with Mr. Chamberlain was limited to the statement that he knew nothing of the steps I had taken in the interests of my clients in view of the House of Commons' debate in July, 1897. I must beg you to make this clear.—HAWIISLEY." Mr. Stanhope in comment on this said :—" Mr. Hawksley acknowledges that he did take certain steps in view of the debate. That is one step forward. I said that certain letters were entrusted to a Member of the House of Commons, and Mr. Hawksley practically admits it"
After quoting this teb-gram in one of its notes the Westmin- ster Gazette made the following comments : "It is an extra-
ordinary thing to have a solicitor confessing, without any reserve, that he took certain steps in the House of Commons in the interests of his clients." It certainly is an extraordinary
thing, but it is even more extraordinary to find Mr. Hawksley now writing as -he does in his second letter. We desire also to quote an extract from a speech made by Mr. Hawksley
during the General Election. In a speech at Salford he is reported by the Manchester Guardian of October 1st, 1900, to have said :—
" When Mr. Chamberlain made his speech in July, 1897, he had no reason to suppose that if he said what was not acceptable to those who might be described as representing Mr. Rhodes's interests he would be called to account. He (Mr. Hawksley) did not for one moment suppose that Mr. Chamberlain made his observations under any threat as to what would occur with respect to his statements, whether they were of one character or of another. He did not think it was fair to hit Mr. Chamberlain below the belt by stating that he made his observations under any threat whatever. Nobody, he assumed, knew more than he (the speaker) with regard to the occurrences at the end of July, 1897, and while he had no sympathy with Mr. Chamberlain in his political or Imperialistic views, he did not think it would be right to allow such a statement or suggestion as that to go forth as in any way accurate. The report, in Mr. Hawksley's judgment, was not warranted by the evidence that was adduced, and he thought Mr. Chamberlain was not justified in signing it. At the same time, he believed Mr. Chamberlain was justified in saying what he did in the House of Commons, and that the statement was made under any threat was untrue."
This is, of course, a complete denial of the story that Mr. Chamberlain acted under a threat,—a quite unnecessary denial, for Mr. Chamberlain, whatever mistakes he may have made, is a man whom no one who was not foolish as well as malignant would accuse of yielding to threats. But it also appears to mean that "those who might be described as representing Hr. Rhodes "—presumably Mr. Rhodes's legal advisers—were prepared to take steps to call him to account.
(5) We do not propose to continue this correspondence unless Mr. Hawksley has some further statement of fact to
make. If Mr. Abel Thomas desires to deny that he had any communication with Mr. Hawksley in regard to the matter, we shall, of course, be glad to publish such a communica- tion from him, and to offer him our apologies for having quoted the passage from Truth, even though he did not at the time publish any denial in that journal.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
