Tweet
Robert - thank you so much.
-
-
An issue of political importance: Mr. Labouchere
As I have been considering this issue (while reading the last three pages of responses) I thought I'd add my own opinion on this matter.
Henry Labouchere is an example of a self-declared "Liberal" who really is not, and who was a bit to questionable to get what he thought he was owed by the Liberal party.
The son of a wealthy French banker, Labouchere had a minor diplomatic career in the 1850s (including a period in Washington, D.C., but then that was considered a back-water for anyone hoping for a big diplomatic career. He took an interest in theatre properties, and built up a small theatre empire. He also took a mistress who was an actress, and lived with her for a number of years before they got married.
Throughout his career he was too outspoken - the sort of person who will say "I say it as I see it" even if he has hurt or angered people. The most important dramatist in England in this period was William Gilbert, who gave back his own remarks to Labouchere's criticisms (and in the non-Sullivan operetta, "His Excellency" he actually makes Labouchere appear to be a hypocritical joke). This kind of behavior followed him throughout his career - and a study of his career makes the man seem one whom the nation and world could have done without.
Today "liberalism" usually encompases a desire for reform and improvement - frequently to raise up the standards of sub-groups in society.
That a person who is "liberal" can be conservative on some matters is always possible, as the reverse (a conservative might be more liberal on matters than someone might thing). This particular member of the Liberal Party did support "Home Rule", which raises him in our estimation (I presume). He opposed female suffrage (he felt women should know their place in society). He hated Jews, feeling they should not have gotten the right to vote, and claiming they were running the government through "Jew Barons" (this decades before the lies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"). In his newspaper, misnamed "Truth", he attacked businesses owned or involving Jews, and gleefully discussed how they had created many business swindles (one can believe he must have jumped for joy and enjoyed the story of Mr. Barnett and his career - he probably did publish about it). More about this later.
He had gotten elected to Parliament again in 1880 (in the tidal wave that brought back Gladstone's second ministry). His best know "achievement" was the "Labouchere Amendment" which made all homosexual acts illegal (even when done by consenting adults by both sides). This law would last from 1885 to the 1960s, and become known as the "Blackmailer's charter" because it enabled blackmailer's to threaten to reveal violation of the law unless they were paid off. Labouchere never regretted this achievement - one can see himself smoking a cigar at home and drinking some port after dinner, pleased by the results. It was this law that led to the imprisonment of Oscar Wilde in 1895. Labouchere's reaction to the fall of the great writer: he was angry Wilde only got two years in prison, rather than the full seven.
Sweet fellow our Henry.
His interest in attacking homosexuals appears to his support of Ernest Parks in the "Cleveland Street Affair" of 1889. But that did not go all that well for Parks - possibly because the targets were aristocrats close to the royal family, not great writers.
In the 1880s, after 1885 both parties had a period of difficult realignment, with the Liberals definitely being in the minority position due to Joseph Chamberlain taking his "Unionists" and some old Whigs into the Tory camp. However, Gladstone did come back for a fourth time in 1892, and Labouchere thought he'd be rewarded for his support of Home Rule with a cabinet spot (which makes one wonder if he really wanted Home Rule for the sake of the idea). He did not get it, nor the post of Ambassador to the United States. Neither Gladstone and his closest advisors, nor the royal family liked Labouchere. He was useful. So is a doormat.
Still he did not jump the Liberal Party - even in 1894 when Gladstone retired and Lord Rosebery became Prime Minister. Rosebery hated Labouchere - most likely because the Prime Minister's beloved wife (who died in 1889) was a member of the Rothschild family. Those anti-Semitic barbs sometimes can haunt a person.
In the 1ater 1890s the Tories under Salisbury are now in office - and have little use for Labouchere. Soon there is a scandal about the misuse of "Truth". Apparently, while gleefully detailing all about wicked Jewish money-lenders, bankers, and financial crooks, Labouchere did not mind using his newspaper to boost companies he had financial interests in!!! In short, his calling Jewish businessmen crooks, was the pot calling the kettle black!*
*I need point out that there seems not to have been any legal action that resulted from this, but the discovery of Labouchere's funny behavior certainly hurt his own newspaper's image with the reading public. One thinks of this, and then considers his settlement with Inspector Jarvis on the comments about Jarvis's real business in the U.S. that appeared in "Truth" and one can see that even in 1889-90 Labouchere was aware that if he was torn apart on the stand in a long trial about his misuse of the paper, it might have opened a lot of other floodgates.
The long Tory control of the government ended in 1905, when Sir Henry Campbell Bannermann returned with a huge Liberal majority to head the Government. Labouchere again thought he'd be a minister in the cabinet. He was rejected again. Finally seeing the handwriting on the wall, Labouchere resigned from Parliament in 1906. He died in January 1912.
The upshot of his name and career was that except for the anti-homosexual action of 1885 Labouchere never really was more than a vote for "Liberal" Government" measures that he felt like supporting, and a voice to attack Tories with (which they presumably noted, explaining why the revelations about "Truth's" Misuses for Labouchere's pocket finally emerged). He made too many enemies (and failed to realize he had done precisely that). He was never really in the run for more Liberal Party advancement or Cabinet/Diplomatic advancement. Colorful yes, but ultimately fairly useless.
Jeff
[A lot of the details in this article came from the entry on Laboucere in "Wikipedia".]Last edited by Mayerling; 05-31-2015, 01:10 AM.Comment
-
Hi Jeff, thank you for that.
There was certainly one occasion where Labouchere's anti-semitism contributed to him becoming embroiled in a protracted libel action between 1879 and 1881 after he wrote a sneering obituary of the part-proprietor of the Daily Telegraph, Lionel Lawson, which annoyed his nephew, the then editor of the Daily Telegraph, Edward Levy Lawson, and this led to a spat between Lawson and Labouchere during which Labouchere called Lawson "a disgrace to journalism", causing Lawson to physically attack Labouchere before suing him for criminal libel. During cross examination at the police court (in the libel proceedings) before the magistrate Sir Robert Carden, the following questioning of Lawson was carried out by Labouchere, as extracted from the Times of 25 October 1879:
Labouchere: I believe you are by race and religion a Hebrew?
Lawson: I was born in the Jewish faith, and I have never given it up.
Labouchere: I believe your father is?
Lawson: Yes.
Labouchere: I believe your uncle, Lionel Lawson, was?
Lawson: I believe so.
Sir Robert Carden: What has this to do with the issue?
Labouchere: Then the proprietors of the paper are of the Hebrew faith?
Lawson: Partly.
Labouchere: Who is not?
Lawson: There are many shareholders.
Sir Robert Carden – What has this to do with the inquiry?
Labouchere: You do not sufficiently see that this inquiry is not of my seeking. Mr. Lawson has come into this court. He asks you to commit me – for what? For saying, among other things, that he is a disgrace to journalism. That opens up the whole of Mr. Lawson’s life and everything he has done in connection with journalism. (Applause)
Labouchere asked who the proprietors of the Daily Telegraph were but Sir Robert Carden overruled the question.
Labouchere (to Lawson): What would be your opinion of a Christian newspaper living in Turkey owning a newspaper who published on the Turkish fasts and festivals an appeal to the Turks to go to their mosques for the laudation of Mahomet as the only true prophet of God?
Sir Robert Carden: We cannot go into that.
Labouchere's point was that the Daily Telegraph had dared to publish articles praising the Christian religion despite being owned by Jews.
While conducting his own questioning of Lawson, Labouchere was continually interrupted by the magistrate who said things like "I wish you would come to the libel. I must say something or else you would go on for ever. Whatever my ruling may be you must pay respect to it" and "As soon as I grant you permission to put one question you put another which is irrelevant". Labouchere appealed to the High Court against the magistrate's ruling as to the extent of his cross-examination but lost. However, when it came to trial the jury could not agree and the parties must have settled privately before a re-trial.
As can be seen from the applause that Labouchere received, he played to the gallery at times like this and his attacks on Lawson seemed to be quite popular. He had a considerable following and this highlights why it was important for him to settle the Jarvis action out of court before being torn to pieces in a very public way in the witness box.
There was a biography - or rather a hagiography - of Labouchere's life published by his nephew, Algar Labouchere Thorold, published in 1913 (after Labouchere's death in the previous year). It contains not a single word about Jarvis or the legal proceedings which were clearly a huge embarrassment to the family and were thus airbrushed out of the story.
It may be noted that Labouchere was visited in October 1888 by Richard Piggott, who confessed to him that he had forged the Parnell letters and committed perjury. Labouchere became convinced that the Metropolitan Police were involved in illegal activities in support of the Times and continued that theme for the next two years until his humiliation at the hands of Inspector Jarvis.
For Ripperologists, one point of interest is that Labouchere seems to have been filing reports to New York about the murders which did not appear in the newspapers in England. And one of them was possibly about Tumblety. Thus the Toronto Evening News of 8 October 1888 reported as follows:
"NEW YORK, Oct. 7 - Henry Labouchere cables to the World...An American who used to live in New York, and who now keeps a herb shop in the Whitechapel district, was visited by a detective this week, who asked him if he had sold any unusual compound of herbs to a customer since August".
This was based on the theory that the murderer was trying to find the elixir of life. The above story has previously been published on Casebook but I'm not sure if the source of Labouchere has ever been mentioned. I did wonder, in passing, if Labouchere included this story in the Truth so I checked out the September and October issues but couldn't find it. However, Labouchere did include some Ripper related articles in the Truth during October to December 1888.
Finally, the Truth in 1879 included a report about Barnett's fraudulent activities and listed a number of the company names that he used to conduct them. But I'm not aware of any interest showed by Labouchere in Barnett in 1888, probably because his activities related to Canada.Comment
-
Just to correct that statement which isn't quite right. It was Kirby's secret telegrams to Soames (representing the Times) about his plans to enlist Sheridan which were exposed (see the Times of 5 March 1890) as well as other secret telegrams relating to Kirby's mission. Sheridan also swore an affidavit before an American solicitor which was published in an American newspaper. So the entire plot was revealed but neither Jarvis nor Shore (or Shaw) were ever mentioned.Originally posted by David Orsam View PostLast edited by David Orsam; 05-31-2015, 06:08 AM.Comment
-
Hi Dave,
The source of the "Wikipedia" article on Labouchere mentioned the incident of his courtroom case with Levy-Lawson, and it even involved Labouchere getting caned by the newspaper publisher outside their club, and being briefly suspended from the club for his behavior (this was later the subject too of a law suit that ended in his being allowed back into the club).
That Labouchere played to an audience is obvious. He certainly was not the only anti-Semitic politician and journalist of the late Victorian period (the rise of Disraeli to the Premiership opened floodgates that included attacks by the likes of Thomas Carlyle, for example). But the problem for Labouchere was that his audience had to believe he was their champion. It is reminiscent of a slightly later M.P./newspaper proprietor: Horatio Bottomley. Constantly insisting he represented the best brains for the common folk of England in his day (he once campaigned on the slogan "Business, Brains, and Bottomley") his successful roguish career - studded with shoddy money making companies and business scams - came to a screeching end with the 1922 "Victory Bond" scandal. Pushed by his news magazine "John Bull", Bottomley got many of the very people who believed in him to invest their pittance amounts in the purchase of a very high bond issue - which the money was not used for. When this was shown in court, Bottomley ended up with a seven year term for fraud, and his reputation finally in tatters.
That would have been the case (except there was no trial, for obvious reasons) for Labouchere. If he was using "Truth" to stock-job his companies at the expense of his readers (and - presumably - his political supporters) the revelations that they had been his saps would have meant, at least, a serious drop in his newspaper's circulation. Labouchere would not have sued on the issue, probably as he was aware that whoever brought the story up would only have to point to past editions of "Truth" to document it.
I'm certain, being human, he had some good qualities, but I find his bad ones just too glaring to ignore. He belongs (along with Mr. Bottomley, and a number of other prize examples) a reason to be thankful that the winnowing methods of politicians in pushing forward certain figures, for all it's defects, have certainly prevented some "beauties" from achieving real power.
JeffComment
-
A couple of Simon Wood points I want to pick up on. Firstly, regarding the above quote. The "nit-picking delight" exists only in Simon's imagination. I wanted to make use of the G&S song title in my article to say that things are usually exactly what they seem but I also wanted to cite the correct song title. When I said in parentheses that Simon rendered the song title as "Things are seldom as they seem" there was no criticism or delight either expressed or implied in such a minor, immaterial and insignificant error. I hope that is clear.Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostComment
-
The second Simon Wood point I want to respond to is the above. I was very surprised to read this because it is not quite the impression that I got from Simon's book. In his book, Simon not only quotes the allegation about the British plot in full from the New York Herald but then also reproduces a very long quote from Patrick Egan, President of the National League of America who, when asked if the steamer business was a hoax said "No" and explained that "the blowing up of an English steamer in New York harbour would result in England forcing the hand of the American government and compelling the American Congress to pass the extradition treaty in the form that England desires." In response to this, Simon Wood says: "Egan's reasoning appeared sound".Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
Then Wood says, "but, if the story was true, this proposed act of British state sponsored terrorism, which also implicated the Pinkerton Agency, had been clumsily leaked and was now off the table." (bold highlighting added)
To me, that is giving credence to a story which Simon now tells us "goes way off the Richter scale".
While Simon in his book then goes on to say "Or perhaps the story was simply an impromptu piece of Irish Nationalist propaganda...", as I read him, he is only offering this as an alternative possibility to which he appears to give exactly the same weight as the possibility that the allegations were true (but that the plot could not now go ahead due to the publicity). I certainly don't see anything about the allegation going way off the Richter scale in his book.
When I read this passage at the time, I remember thinking that there appeared to be no allegation against Scotland Yard too crazy for Simon Wood to accept might be true. It is welcome that he now disassociates himself from this and I hope that he now realises that the Jarvis allegations (and it is notable that in the very next paragraph after discussing the ship blowing up allegations he says that on returning to London, Inspector Jarvis "continued to dazzle and confuse") are equally crazy.Comment
-
Note to self: Must not forget to book myself into the Aaron Kosminski Wing at Colney Hatch.Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.Comment
-
Before you check in Simon, can you help me as to whether I've understood you correctly on the allegations against Inspector Jarvis:
Labouchere makes allegations MEANS the allegations are true.
The Home Secretary denies the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.
The Commissioner of Police denies the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.
Inspector Jarvis denies the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.
Labouchere admits the allegations are false MEANS the allegations are true.
Labouchere apologises for the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.
Labouchere pays £100 and Jarvis' legal costs for the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.Comment
-
Hello Simon,Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
Careful. Someone will find your book , in 100 years from now with fading scribble saying what you really meant....
PhilChelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙
Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....Comment
-
And the fact that not a single piece of evidence has emerged after 125 years to support the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
Have I got this right?Comment
-
Hi David,
Ask yourself your own question.
Not a single piece of evidence has emerged over 125 years to suggest that Tumblety was out on bail prior to 16th November, yet you argued black and blue that this did not necessarily mean it wasn't true.
Have I got this right?
Regards,
SimonNever believe anything until it has been officially denied.Comment
-
There is a sketch of Jarvis, "Buckingham Advertiser and North Bucks Free Press" Oct 2nd 1897 (item on his retirement). Bit difficult to upload, though.Comment
-
How about three pieces of evidence, or three Scotland Yard officials referring to Francis Tumblety as a Ripper suspect post Kelly murder, yet NONE of them said, 'he was in jail during the Kelly murder so he couldn't have done it." Hmmm.Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
1. Littlechild stating unequivically Tumblety was, 'amongst the suspects', a man clearly in the know. Why else would Sims ask Littlechild about the Ripper case?
2. Anderson soliciting US chiefs of police on ripper suspect Francis Tumblety.
3. Andrews stating not only that he was very familiar with Tumblety, even when he made a personal opinion that he was not the Whitechapel murderer, the stated Scotland Yard still wanted to interview him POST Kelly murder!
Any reason why they'd want to interview him if he was stuck in jail during the Kelly murder?
Sorry Simon
Sincerely,
MikeThe Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.comComment
-
Those questions weren't for just Simon, but everyone else on Simon's conspiratorial sinking ship. Phil? Tom? Trevor?The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.comComment
Comment