New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-02-04
III.
London, January 1S.

II uhich he showed jill Iio '''iS
,be enemies Of society. lie en-
$50 the House of Commons. ana u.
W. seemed as if that we're his real
10 was a master of cups ana
ann Erom his seat below the gang
~ he launched his shafts asa'"S'
wa and foe alike. He would use any
80 and fling a lampoon at a man
thorn he differed In opinion. He
for Northampton, constituency OF
radical shoemakers-it seems 'ra' an
.s0enakers are Radicals-ana was the
"u,ne,,a of Mr.. Bradlaugh, and used TO
,..oribs himself humorously as me
scA-,s,,an member for Northampton
-. hs cbampioned Bradlaugh loyally
,.,,-b his long and in the end vic
tcrious fight.
~, the whole. he had less Influence
tn his abilities deserved. He was "A
sAornsbooter who carried on a guerilla
-. kind Of war sometimes useful but
.o,aou respectable. Mr.. Gladstone
lacked askauce at his supporter. whose
/ ,.ctcs brought discredit on the party az
| Last as often as they brought 1t help
l ,borchere. nevertheless, had place III
| .bs councils of the party, though not III
Mr. Gladstone's councils, and when IN
,sos no formed his last Ministry, La
/ houebere confidently expected place in
,be Cabinet. He did not get 1t. He USED
% saw or his friends used to say that
Pie mare was on the list subnltted by
Mr. Gladstone 10 Queen Victoria, out
vss struck off by the Queen. That IS
an error. Mr. Gladstone. 1t is tue, was
urged 10 make him Minister, but stead
;v refused. II Is not necessary to go
into the reasons of his refusal. They
Law on the surface. The amazing thing
&c that either Labouchere or ms friends
should have imagined that Mr. Glad
stone. TO whom the dignity and author
,tv Of tie House of Commons were dear,
would have accepted as a colleague
man who made sport of both. The re-
port that Mr.. Gladstone had submitted
Mr.. Labouchere's name TO the Queen
,leached the ears of great Member OF
.
ervant of the Queen. He said:
Neither Mr.. Gladstone nor any mar
wing dare affront Her Majesty by such
proposal
There were certain matters on which
he Queen was known to be implacable.
There were certain categories Of men,
Including some men of real capacity and
distinction, inclusion in which was ali
hnpassable barrier TO the Queens IA
Eor or federation. Mr.. Gladstone knew
il we'll He would never have made tho
mistake attributed to him. Nor do /
think Mr.. Gladstone considered Mr.. La
bouchere's Parliamentary services to
himself or to the Liberal party Of great
value. He had little patience with the
methods the Member for Northampton
adopted. 1t was not. as some thought
on account of Mr.. I-adlaugh, for Mr..
Gladstone himself championed that free
thinkers cause, though detesting his
principles. or, in his view, want Of prin-
Ciples. But in matters of tradition, of
fhe honor Of the House Of Commons and
Of its members Mr.. Gladstone was an
unbendins Conservative. So was he in
respect Of the kind of Radica;lsm with
which Mr.. Labouchere was identified \
There were years when this Radical,
like other Radicals, had been of teal use
TO the Liberal party. But it was with
the constituencies, not in the House, and
there never was anything in the personal
relations of Mr.. Gladstone and Mr.. La
bouchere which disposed the great Min
lister TO welcome him as a colleague in
the Cabinet. Nor was the Liberal leader
the man TO say, as have heard lesser
lnen say:
"Labouchere diverts us; why should
We resent his insinceritles?"
OF similar insincerity in really
great man. whom his admirers thought
too great to be judged by the usual rules
of morality. Mr.. Gladstone said:
DO you call It diverting? / call it
6evillsh."
For Mr.. Gladstone would not admit
that In morals you can have two weights
OF two measures; except perhaps for
himself: certainly not for Disraeli.
The best of takers" said many. But
that depends on what kind of talk you
care for. Mr.. Labouchere was amusing
beyond question. both with tongue and
with pen, and in very much the same
way. / have heard him often. He was
instantaneous. That was one secret Of
his effects. The brain worked auto
matically. It was not called upon for
an effort. Its action was voluntary and
always Immediate. The retort framed
itself, and was the more crushing to 8
victim. Often what passed for wit was
in truth mere rudeness. 1t was the
street urchin who filings pebble out of
the gutter. But the street urchin is also
clever and quick. Labouchere, not at
his best, but not infrequently. was
mere Gavroche, Victor Hugos typical
pamin
II he discussed serious topics, what
you missed always was the accent OF
sincerity. He was no doubt a convinced
Radical, and convinced Little Eng
lander, and a convinced Pro-Boer, and
many other things where conviction did
him no service, but the reverse. Yet
even then mis- tone was flippant. He
seldom stated or argued a case. What
he liked was tearing to pieces the case
some one else had stated. He seldom
discussed politics without personalities.
Whether he had a case or no. what he
kAl sxxSt aft
ney. he was no respecter of persons.