There were two negotiations with Joe. The first was this: Gladstone agreed to draw up two clauses, one letting the Irish M.P.s sit on Imperial matters, the other dealing with finance of an Imperial character. This was agreed to at Downing Street by him and his colleagues. I went to Joe. After some demur he agreed, and I went back to Downing Street, with the agreement written by me and dictated by him. Then I left London. The next day was Sunday. On my returning I found a man with a note from Joe. He said that he had been deceived, that Gladstone was backing out, for he had told a Pressman on Saturday evening that he had yielded on nothing.

I sent for Arnold Morley. This had happened. Joe had at once sent round a telegram with the words "Absolute surrender." One he had sent to O'Shea, who showed it to Parnell, and thus it came to Gladstone. But Parnell had been consulted and therefore merely sent it to show what a rascal Joe was. Gladstone made the observation to the Pressman as a reply to Joe, being cross. He was at Glyn's House at Sheen, and we sent a man on horseback to find out what I was to say to Joe. The reply was that it was true he had agreed to the two alterations; that he certainly would draw up the first amendment himself, but that as he had not made out the second, how could he say that he could draw it up? But if Joe would he had no doubt that he (G.) would accept it.

I went with this to Joe. He said that it was a shirk, and that G. meant to say that he would not accept the amendment. Both got cross, and the arrangement lapsed. Joe was foolish in sending the telegram, but I always thought that G. was most in fault. He did so hate Joe.

When later on there was a meeting of the Party at the F. O., Joe wrote me a letter for G. in which he said that, unless the Irish sat in Parliament, he was pledged against the Bill.

I gave

this to G. He read out a statement of what he would do. It was vague. I was sitting by Whitehead, and got him to get up and say "Then we understand that the Irish will sit." G. glared at

me and said, "I do not understand the technicalities of drafting, so I will read again what I am prepared to do." In fact he would not admit that he had yielded.

After this there was a meeting of M.P.s inclined to go against the Bill. It was engineered by Caine. They first passed a resolution that all would act together. Then a letter from Bright was read. I, having heard result, went to the Reform Club. There I found Bright, who eagerly asked what the meeting had decided. I said to vote against the Bill. He said that he regretted this. When I told him that it was due to his letter, he replied that he had only said that he should himself vote against the Bill. I reminded him that he had previously told me that he would vote neither way. He answered that he had been insulted by Sexton. I asked him to give me the letter for publication. He agreed to

do so, but found that he had no copy. Just then Caine came in, and he said to him, "Give Labouchere my letter to publish." Then he went out of the room. Caine refused to do this, and my impression always has been that only a portion of the letter was read.

I several times told Joe afterwards that G. would make things right in his speech winding up the debate on the second reading. G. said he would. The day came. Joe sat behind me, and a member was to be put up to accept (I forget his name). G. said nothing definite. Joe cursed him, and went on saying to me, for he sat just behind, "You hear." When his speech was over, I begged a Whip to go to Gladstone to tell him that he had said nothing definite and asked whether it was to be understood that the Irish were to sit? He replied that that was what he meant. I told the Whip to go back and tell him that by his ambiguity in the House he had lost his Bill. On this there was despair. I was asked to find out whether Joe would receive Herschell. He refused, and said that he would have no more negotiations and should vote against the Bill. It was never clearly agreed that the Bill after the second reading should be shelved, but this was the intention.

So now you have the facts for fu

ture generations. Such a lot of babies as Gladstone, Morley, Joe and Bright I never came across. To a certain extent Gladstone was influenced by the idea that if defeated he would sweep the country on a dissolution. But he never could quite make up his mind to yield one inch to Joe. He was ready to do what was wanted to secure the votes of Joe and his friends. But this was to be understood, in order to avoid having actually yielded in so many words.

I am further fortunate in being able to complete the narrative from the lips of an important witness drawn from the other side, Mr. W. S. Caine, to whose activity in the business Mr. Labouchere bears testimony, was the Chief Whip of the Liberal Unionist Party. Mr. Chamberlain selected him for the post whilst the Radical section stood alone, and he retained it when in the dramatic circumstances related by Mr. Labouchere, the sections were bound together with a force that in due time became solidly and firmly amalgamated with the Conservative Party under the Premiership of Lord Salisbury. Later, Mr. Caine, like Sir George Trevelyan and some others, returned to the Liberal fold, his personal esteem and admiration for Mr. Chamberlain not fully surviving the changed circumstances.

Writing on April 25, 1898, Mr. Caine

says:

In the first week of April, 1886, Labouchere constituted himself a friendly broker between Gladstone and Chamberlain. At the time I urged Chamberlain not to employ him, but to refuse any negotiation that was not conducted by an old Cabinet colleague. I named Lord Herschell as the most suitable man. However, my advice was not taken, and the negotiations were entered into.

Lord Hartington was not in the negotiations at all, and my impression is that he knew nothing about them. It was simply the Chamberlain group who would have been squared.

On April 7, Labouchre brought his negotiations to a conclusion. Gladstone was to concede the retention of the Irish members. I was to rise immediately afterwards and say a few platitudes, giving Chamberlain time to consider the concessions made, and deal with them in a formal speech later on. However, the G. O. M. went on and on, and not a word was said. He sat down without making the smallest concession, much to our astonishment and dismay. Labouchere, who was sitting just below me, turned round as Gladstone sat down, and made the characteristic remark, which has remained in my memory ever since-"Isn't the Old Man a thimble-rigger?" It soon leaked out that the negotiations had fallen through. Chamberlain told Captain O'Shea all about them. Captain O'Shea told Parnell. Parnell went storming down to Downing Street about two o'clock in the afternoon and knocked the whole arrangement into pie. These are the simple facts of that particular episode, which was a little private intrigue of Chamberlain's own. I feel quite sure that Hartington knew nothing about it, had nothing to do with it, and would never have consented to it. It would only have secured the adhesion of the Chamberlain group. This would, however, have shaken the solidarity of the hundred stalwarts, and I think would have enabled Gladstone to pass the Bill by a majority of three or four.

Two or three days before the final division-I forget the exact date-an offer came practically from Mr. Gladstone, agreeing to withdraw the Bill at once, if he got his second reading, recast it and re-introduce it in the fol

lowing year. A private meeting of the Liberal Unionist section was convened by me in Committee room No. 15, to consider whether we should accept this compromise and vote for the Bill.

I had to see Bright about it. He would never come to the House. I used to go to him at the Reform Club every evening at nine o'clock, and tell him what had gone on during the day. I saw him about this meeting and begged him to come to it. This, however, he would not do. I asked him to write a letter, which he did. This

letter I read to the meeting. It was simply to the effect that personally he objected to the compromise, but he would fall in with the decision arrived at by the meeting.

There was, of course, a prolonged discussion. The man who was bitterest against any compromise, and most determined that the Bill should be thrown out, was not Bright, but George Trevelyan, who made a vehement speech which undoubtedly settled the line that the meeting took. We declined the compromise, and voted against the Bill.

I did not keep Bright's letter. It was in great demand, as you may well imagine. I tore it into little bits and left it on the floor of the Committee room, without taking any copy. One enterprising journalist offered me a hundred pounds for it.

I still believe that if Chamberlain had taken my advice, and refused to negotiate through such a born intriguer and dodger as Labouchere, and negotiated in the open through the medium of Herschell, or some other member of the Cabinet, the whole current of his

tory would have been changed; but Chamberlain himself is a born intriguer, and loves it dearly. He and Hartington were never very cordial at that time, Hartington being always afraid that Chamberlain would sell the pass.

It will be observed that Mr. Caine is insistent on the fact, interesting to the future historian of the epoch, that Lord Hartington was not only no party to the negotiation with Mr. Gladstone that almost succeeded in healing the breach in the Liberal Party, but was absolutely ignorant of what was going forward. In a letter addressed to me Lord James of Hereford puts the case with characteristic lucidity and moderation. "In the early part of 1886," he writes, "the Liberal Unionist Party had not settled down into the form it afterwards assumed. Mr. Chamberlain and Sir George Trevelyan, as you will recollect, accepted office under Mr. Gladstone. It was not till after their resig

nation that the Radical section of the Liberal Unionists developed their full strength. Thus it came to pass that during a portion of the spring and early summer of 1886 Lord Hartington was not acting in the close alliance with Mr. Chamberlain which afterwards existed."

By a striking coincidence the eventful meeting of Mr. Chamberlain's following, summoned at the last moment to decide what course they would take on the motion for the second reading of the Home Rule Bill, was held in Committee room No. 15, later the scene of the disruption of the Parnellites and the deposition of their chief. Fiftyfive members obeyed the summons. They held in the palm of their hand the fate of the Ministry. If they rallied to their old leader, the second reading of the Home Rule Bill would be carried. If they walked out without voting, it would creep through. If they voted against it the Bill must go, and with it the great Leader, and a ministry but yesterday nominated as a result of overwhelming triumph at the polls.

I was told by one present that Mr. Chamberlain submitted the issue in a manner the gravity of which indicated conception of its momentous importance, and in a judicial tone that befitted the occasion. Doubtless without intentional irony he adopted the method Mr. Gladstone made familiar at great crises. There were, he said, three courses open to them. They might support the second reading; they might vote against it; they might abstain from voting. He declined to take the responsibility of advocacy of one or other, confining himself to brief summary of what would follow on adoption of the several courses. He suggested that, in order to arrive at unmistakable decision by the broadest process they should take a second ballot.

On the first division, of the fifty-five silently and solemnly taking part in it, thirty-nine voted against the second reading, three declaring in favor of it, whilst thirteen stood aside. On the second ballot, the three who voted for the second reading-on the understanding conveyed by Mr. Gladstone at a meeting of the Liberal Party held at the Foreign Office on May 27, that the Bill would thereafter be dropped, to be brought in again the following year, minus the clause excluding Irish members from Westminster-stood to their guns. Of the abstainers, nine went over to the majority, and the fate of the Government was sealed.

At one o'clock on the morning of June 8, 1886, the division was called, and by a majority of thirty in a House of 656 members the Home Rule Bill was thrown out. Of the 345 members who achieved this stroke, only 250 were Conservatives, a number impotent to withstand the rush of the crusade led by Mr. Gladstone. It was the ninety-three Dissentient Liberals, the united forces of Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Hartington, who turned the scale.

XVI.

THE DUNMOW FLITCH.

October 29, 1873, I count as the most fortunate day of my life. Upon it I married the daughter of my old schoolmaster, an acquaintance going back to childhood. Whatever measure of suecess I have obtained in life is largely owing to her counsel, example and inspiration.

On September 14, 1897, the following paragraph appeared in the "Daily News":

sentation was made by Mr. John Aird, M.P., in a graceful speech.

The announcement had a remarkable run through town and country papers, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, even more ready than Mr. Silas Wegg, dropped into poetry:

And is it true that you have gained
The Matrimonial laurel,
And have you all these years remained
Without a single quarrel?

No ripple on the glassy sea,

No breeze upon the air, No bitter in the cup of tea,

To discompose the pair?

How very good you both must be
As life's sweet flowers you cull,
But was it not-oh! tell to me-
Just, just a little dull?

Sir Charles M'Laren, less accustomed to woo the muses, was also led astray:

For wedded lives without a hitch
Old Dunmow cures the tasty flitch;
So at the feast for them prepared
And blessed by bounteous Father Aird,
Our Lucys, who the genial cake
For mirth and kindness ever take,
Now, for their lovers' faith unshaken,
In triumph carry off the bacon.

Phil May drew an exquisite sketch showing me riding off triumphantly on pig-back. Most amusing in the multitude of commentaries on the event was the remark of a Press Gallery man of the old school joining in conversation on the topic in the Smoking Room.

"Always the way," he remarked gruffly, puffing at his pipe. "To him that hath shall be given. Lucy can afford to pay for flitches of bacon. There's many a better fellow has to buy it by the pound; yet he gets the flitch."

were

writer, sister of John Bright, mother of Sir Charles M'Laren, was one of the sweetest-natured, daintiest-mannered ladies I was ever privileged to know. In face she was beautiful. In spite of her many years her mind was as alert, her interest in affairs as keen, as if she were still thirty. She wrote to a friend in Edinburgh:

Mr. and Mrs. Lucy are here. Don't you remember how interested we were two years ago in reading of their having won the Dunmow Flitch of Bacon, and thinking it showed much moral courage in claiming it? But I can understand now how they claimed and won it.

They have between them a beautiful and interesting combination of mental conditions, such as go to make the wheels of daily life go smoothly round. Mrs. L. has a most sweet unselfish nature whilst her husband can relieve the seriousness of life by intelligent and intellectual humor. He is gifted intellectually as you know, and she exerts a refining spiritual influence over all. This latter quality has been very sweet and comforting to me in the conversations I have had with her. In short I have felt it a privilege to be here with them, though regretting much that the need of rest after some months of entertaining at home has necessitated my keeping my own room a good deala real self-denial for me, as you may suppose. Your friend, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, judged wrongly. There can be no dulness in such a life. There can be great and pleasing variety without the unpleasantness of opposition.

After this it is painful to be obliged to confess that the whole thing was a hoax. What really happened was that. in accordance with custom extending over many years, we were spending a week in the autumn with Sir John and Lady Aird. He had no country house, but early in the year made his selection out of mansions in the market for temporary occupation. As soon as arrangements were made, he hospitably engaged us for a week's stay. In this

year he found his rest house in Essex, not far distant from Dunmow, famous chiefly for its ancient custom of bestowing a prize of a flitch of bacon upon a couple who can vow that their married life has been undisturbed by quarrelsome words. One afternoon we drove thither. John Aird pulled up the carriage at a grocer's shop, entered and presently returned, accompanied by an aproned man carrying a flitch of bacon. This, Sir John, with bared head, and, as the paragraph lapsing into truth says, in a graceful speech presented to Mrs. Lucy.

How these things get into the papers, I know no more than did Mr. Crummles when he read in the local sheet a paragraph extolling the gifts of his theatrical company, and making light of Charles Kean, or Phelps, in comparison with its manager. There are thousands of people, in addition to my friend of the Press Gallery, who to this day firmly believe that Mrs. Lucy and I submitted ourselves and our case to the ancient tribunal at Dunmow, and won the flitch of bacon against all comers.

XVII.

FRED BURNABY.

I met Fred Burnaby up in a balloon, forming an acquaintance rapidly ripening into friendship that lasted to the day of his untimely death at Abu Klea. The date was the autumn of 1874. Some weeks earlier a couple of French æronauts, M. and Madame Durouf, had arranged to make an ascent from Calais. The wind was high, blowing out across the Channel. If they mounted their fate was inevitable. They would be driven out to sea with little chance of escape from drowning. They wanted to postpone the ascent, but maddened by the jeers of the throng who had paid for admission to the grounds whence ascent was to be made, they entered the car, the