The West End Scandals.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 469, 7 May 1890, Page 6

The West End Scandals.

(from our special correspondent.) London, March 7. Mr Labouchere is a shrewd, coob cautious man, who has seldom, if ever, been known either in print or in Parliament to pledge his word to a serious story or statement without having ample and convincing proofs at his finger-ends. The 'House of Commons knows this, and it was In disagreeable expectation of a startling, and possibly highly unpleasant, revelation that hon. members on the Ministerial bench assembled last Friday evening. "Lobby,” they said, "is made of sterner stuff than young Parke. Whatever his facts may be, you’ll find they’ll stand considerable pulling to pieces.” And so they did, as anyone reading the AttorneyGenerals reply must conclude. Lord Salisbury’s admissions alone are selfdamnatory. He denies flatly that he in any ■way connived or assisted at Lord A. Somerset’s escape, and avers that it was a mere fortuitous accident that the menaced man fled within two hours of his (the Premier’s) momentous interview with Sir Dighton Probyn. Yet, mark this: his lordship confesses that he told Sir Dighton there was serious evidence against one of the parties with whose name rumour was making free. Now, suppose the Premier placed just a wee-wee bit emphasis on the word one, or looked, significantly at Sir Dighton as he spoke, and what follows ? Both men knew the one suspect in whom Sir Dighton felt specially interested. It was, of course, naturally hi 3 brother officer, ' Lord Arthur Somerset, like himself a member of the Prince of Wales’ household, and the cadet of a family whom he held in great respect and affection. Would General Pro byn’s senses need sharpening, think you ? wouldn’t the faintest hint suffice ? General Probyn, said Mr Charles Hall, could nob have communicated with Lord Arthur, because when he left Lord Salisbury at King’s Cross, he drove straight bo his club, where he stayed till long after the hour at which Lord Arthur’s train departed. What, however, are the known facts ?

On the morning of the same day General Probyn had interviewed Somerset on the subject of the scandals. What passed between them is, of course, unknown, save that Lord Arthur undertook to take steps to clear his character, and likewise promised to meet Sir Dighton at the Club that evening after the latter had seen the Premier. Somerset did not come to the Club that evening, but about the time General Probyn arrived, a cab loaded with luggage and attended by Lord Arthur’s man put in an appearance. The valet waited ten minutes, and then drove off to Charing Cross in time to catch the mail.

Did General Probyn communicate with the valet ? The Irish on Friday night were in great form. When the Attorney-General declared that never were charges so grave based on so little foundabio.i, he was greeted with cheery cries, " Pigott,” and when he vowed Lobby’s allegations were baseless, Sir Richard was invited to "pledge his reputation ’ (as he did in the matter of the “Times” charges against Parnell) on the statement. "Mr Labouchere’s speech,” writes an M.P. who was present, “ was very quiet in form—distinctly contemptuous to the Attorney-General, and as usual quite unrhetorical. Here and there Mr Labouchere got a faint cheer from the Tories, who, for the most part, sab silent and un easy, Lord Randolph being throughout a watchful hearer. How like a cat watching a mouse is Lord Randolph, and how deadly he looks ! For the rest, the ladies’ gallery was empty, but the strangers were left in the House—in spite of Mr Maclure’s attempt to exclude them—while Mr Labouchere made his terrible statement. The purport of Mr Labouchere’s speech will best be shown by giving it in diary form. The facts speak for themselves ; the dates are all important in view of Mr Labouchere’s flat contention that Lord Salisbury had been guilty of " a

Criminal Conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice ” : 7 July.—Newlove arrested. 20 .Aug.—Yeck arrested. 18 Sept. Newlove and Veck tried. Veck, though Hammond’s partner, the tempter and decoy of scores of unhappy boys, gets nine months ; New love four. So much for Yeck and Newlove ; now for Hammond. First week in July.—Hammond flies. 6 July.—Warrant against him, after he has fled. 25 July.—Foreign Office refuses request of police for Hammond’s extradition from France. 9 August.—Mr Phillips, representing G.P.0., goes to Paris and telegraphs suggesting that Hammond should be extradited. 8 August, 14 September. Hammond goes to Belgium, followed by Mr Phillips, and the police still anxious to arrest him if F. 0. would apply for extradition. 16 Sept.—Secretary of G.P.O. “in earnest,” urges IP’s arrest. 6 Oct.—Mr Monro remonstrates with Treasury, and declares that a stigma rests on our police, because of H.’s non-arrest. Oct. (later, but date not certain). —Government declining to extradite, and Treasury only charging H. with misdemeanour, he gets off to America, having been supplied with large sums of money. Now for Lord Arthur Somerset. July 2.—Several boys go to Knightsbridge and identify Lord A.S, 3 Aug.—Lord A. S. watched at the barracks. 22 Aug.—Lord A. S, seen again at barracks. 23 Aug.—More testimony obtained, including evidence of despatch of P.O. orders to boys. 24 Aug.—Treasury in possession of all this evidence. 11 Sept. —Constable calling at ba.racks informed that Lord A. S. had gone abroad with four months' leave of absence ! 8 Oct.—“ This unfortunate man,” as the Attorney - General called him, goes to Duchess of Beaufort’s funeral. Oct (middle of). —Lord A. S.’s commanding officer makes inquiries, and Sir Dighton Probyn asks for interview with Lord Salisbury. 18 Oct.—lnterview re Lord A. S. between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn. Lord A. S. flies the country. 12 Nov.— No fresh evidence having in the meantime been forthcoming, warrant issued for Lord A. S. s arrest. This was Mr Labouchere’s plain story. The Attorney-General’s answer was, as we have said, not satisfactory. He denied (1) that there was any arrangement with the Recorder and the counsel in Veck’s and Newlove’s cases that light sentences should be imposed, and read a letter from Mr Poland in proof; (2) That the Government bad in any way impeded the course of justice. Warrants were not issued before because there was not sufficient evidence; (3) Mr Labouchere’s account of the Salisbury-Dighton interview. He gave Lord Salisbury’s account, which was this : j

"Sir Dighton Probyn saw Salisbury, and asked him whether there was any truth in the imputations made in certain newspapers against certain persons whom he named. Lord Salisbury said that, as far as he knew, there was nob a vestige of evidence against any of those persons except one, and in his case the evidence of identity was nob considered sufficient in the judgment of the law advisers of the Crown.” Subsequently Lord Salisbury’s communication was read, and it turned out that Lord Salisbury only denied that he said anything as to the Date of the Issue of the warrant, nob that he mentioned a wairanb at all. Towards the end of the speech the atmosphere got very hob. The Attorney, in describing the Salisbury-Probyn interview, challenged Mr Labouchere, amid shouts from the now excited Tories, to produce the name of bis informant. Mr Labouchere declined, ns it was given in confidence. More shouts. Mr Labouchere then rose and said that he would write the name on a slip of paper, and the Attorney-General should judge whether he would read it or no. Shouts from the Liberals. The Attorney-General first accepted ihis, and then

Went Back on his Word. The excitement was intense, because every one believed that the nams was that of the Prince of Wales. This was a mistake-it was that of a high official. Mr Labouchere wrote it down, and offered it to the Attorney, bub he would nob either take it or read it. This gave the keynote to the stormy scene that followed. • The speech of the Attorney-General rendered a reply by Mr Labouchere inevitable, and Mr Labouchere rose promptly to make it. But a curious incident brought that speech to

An Abrupt Termination. Mr Labouchere, answering the challenge of the Attorney-General as to the interview between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighten Probyn, declared with emphasis that he did not believe Lord Salisbury. There was a strange little pause—as there always is when the House is shocked, and there were loud cries of “Withdraw” from the Tory benches. M r Courtney at first seemed indisposed to notice the remark ; but his hand was apparently forced by the shouts of the Tories, and he called upon Mr Labouchere to withdrew. But Mr Labouchere is not a man to recede from a position; and very quietly, but very resolutely, he declined to make the demanded withdrawal. Then there was another strange, still pause, and then cries of " Name, name.” Again Mr Courtney called upon Mr Labouchere to withdraw : again Mr Labouchere declined, adding, however, he did so out of no disre spect to Mr Courtney. Naming was now inevitable, and Mr Labouchere was named. This penal act against one of the ablest and most popular members of the House was strongly resented on the Liberals side of the House ; and several members called in question the ruling of Mr Courtney. Mr Speaker had meantime been sent for, and he entered the House, looking pale, grave, ghastly ill. He quietly refused to allow any discussion of the ruliing of Mr Courtney, and then there was the second division, Mr Labouchere calmly voting against his own suspension. Then he was called upon to withdraw, but he managed before doing so to have a final shot at Lord Salisbury. He expressed his ironical regret that his conscience did not permit him to believe the word of Lord Salisbury, and with this parting shot Mr Labouchere retired to the Smoking-room, and calmly indulged in a cigarette ; and then he went home, and doubltless devoted the evening to light literature, with the serenity of his truly philosophic mind. Bub nob before he had had a long talk with Mr T. P. O’Connor, which enabled " T.P.” to answer the Attorney - General. Mr Labouchere’s colleagues left behind keenly resented his treatment. They pointed out that the Attorney-General had been enabled to get rid of the chief antagonist of the Government on this subject; and demanded an adjournment, of the debate. But Mr Smith was only too anxious to make capital out of the turn the debate had taken, and only too delighted to get off without further discussion ; so he virtually refused to allow these accusations to hang over the heads of his colleagues for an indefinite period. lb need scarcely be said that these and such like statements suggested

Reminiscences of the Parnell case to the Irish members, and that their ironical cheers accentuated that fact. So the debate went on, motions for adjournment alternating with keen dissection of the answer of the Attorney-General until at last Mr Forrest Fulton took upon himself the ignoble duty of gagging further debate by moving the closure ; and just as the clock was about to strike midnight the division was taken. Of course there was a big Tory majority ; but the depressed looks of therank and file—above all, the eagerness of the Attorney-General to explain—the fretful exasperation of Mr W. H. Smith—proved that the bolt of the member for Northampton had gone home; and the triumphant majority suspected what verdict tho country would pronounce on the action of the Government. Cum Grano Salisbury. Since writing the foregoing Lord Salisbury has himself made a pei'sonal explanation in the Lords which practically admits Labby’s charge. His Lordship’s memory with regard to exactly what occurred at the momentous interview with Probyn is (strange to say) hazy, as (this is curious, too) he considered it a “casual interview,” and attached to it “no importance whatever.” Nevertheless the Premier admits having stated to the General not merely that there was evidence of a kind against Lord A. Somerset, but that rumours had reached him that further testimony had been obtained. Furthermore when General Probyn expressed angry disbelief in his comrade’s guilt, Lord Salisbury tells us he made answers “of a more reserved character.” Sir Dighton Probyn must indeed (putting possible significant looks and tones out of the question) have been a simpleton if he didn’t leave King’s Cross with the conviction that Somerset had better make himself scarce without delay. As to Probyn’s communicating with Lord A. Somerset’s valet, ’tis quite possible that it was arranged beforehand, “ no news bad news.”