On contracts, we would agree to an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. We would agree to any landlord having the right to sell his land to Irish State on valuation by present Commissioners, provided that all value of tenants' improvements were deducted. We do not go so far in land matters as Chamberlain--certainly not further. On veto. We could not accept the veto of the Imperial Parliament. This is the corner-stone of independence in the minds of Irishmen. Several plans were suggested--two-thirds majority, etc. I think something might be worked out by means of a sound Privy Council. We would assent to reasonable amendments by the Lords, but we should ask to be consulted. We have no objection to a Prince. This would be a great sop to the "Loyalists." Of course we must have the Police. We would reduce them to 3000--there are too many. We claim to pay a quota--to raise this quota as we like; there is no fear of Protection. Parnell and some Belfast manufacturers are the only Protectionists in Ireland. Perhaps, however, we might give bounties for a time. If we did, we should pay them, not you. If Bill thrown out in Lords, an Autumn Session; if thrown out again, to be brought in again in 1886, unless Mr. Gladstone prefers a dissolution. {277} No Procedure resolutions until Home Rule settled. There are only three Judges to whom we object. One is old and deaf and wants to retire, another is dying (Lawson). If terms agreed to, never to come out that there were negotiations. We would regard ourselves as members of the Liberal party; occasionally indulge like you Radicals in a wild-cat vote, but vote with Liberals on all Parliamentary issues. I have sent this with a lot more details to Hawarden. Rosebery writes to tell me that the "revelations" are well received in Scotland, and that there will be no difficulty there.[12] Do pray think how very advantageous it will be to get rid of these Irish.--Yours truly, H. LABOUCHERE. _Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_ 10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, ST. JAMES'S PARK, Sunday, Dec. 21, 1885. MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Healy came again to-day, and he tells me that the whole gang are now ready to accept the terms--provided that they are the terms. He stands absolutely against an Imperial Parliament veto and says that it is impossible. I proposed this: A Royal Prince--a sort of King Log. The reorganisation of the Irish Privy Council on a fair and reasonable basis. The veto to be the Governor acting by the advice of the Privy Council--_i.e._, of a majority. The Governor to be changed on petition of two-thirds of the Assembly. He thinks that this would do, and I have sent it to Hawarden. Healy has seen Parnell, and, without speaking to him about negotiations, he came to the conclusion that there will be no opposition there.