A third plan might be that of John Morley's, to exclude them for three years, and for them at the end to come back as they are now, unless any alteration during the interval be legislatively made in their position. Parnell is very much opposed to the retention. He puts his opposition upon the difficulty of getting Irishmen to come over. He asks whether there are to be two separate elections, or only {332} one. In the first case, he complains of the expense and of the difficulty of finding men, in the second he asks how men can sit and vote in both Parliaments when they are both sitting at the same time. Do pray be conciliatory in the matter, and be satisfied with the substance. If the "open question" were granted, I am sure that you would have a majority of Radicals, who agree with you in the main, but think that they ought to regard the Second Reading at the conservation of the principle of a domestic Legislature for Ireland. After all, a General Election with a Radical split would either give Mr. Gladstone a majority against you, or would end in a Conservative victory, neither of which would be a gain to you. I take Brand's constituents of Stroud, and the constituency of Ipswich as specimens of public feeling, for I have been at both of them this week. At Stroud we had a meeting. The Whigs did not attend. Winterbotham took the chair. He announced that he should vote against the Bill. There were groans and "three cheers for Gladstone." I went for the Bill, but explained that it was desirable that the Irish Members should be retained, and that this was your view. There were shouts of "let him vote with Gladstone on the Second Reading." At the end some overzealous ass proposed "three cheers for Brand." This was met with a chorus of howls and groans. I enquired later on what was the real position, and was told that all the Radicals were against Brand, but that there would be no use calling upon him to resign, as about five hundred Whigs would stick to him, and these with the Conservatives would secure his return. At Ipswich the meeting was entirely for the Second Reading. I praised up Collins, etc. They cheered his name, but whilst dead against the Land Bill, went for the other Bill, and did not seem to care much for details. Two of the County Members spoke. They had been returned--mainly through Collins's exertions--but they told me that the agricultural labourers wanted the question settled, and did not care much how it was settled.--Yours truly, H. LABOUCHERE. {333} _P.S._--You have never let me have your "plan" in reply to the observation, that the idea is good in theory, but that the practical difficulties are insuperable. _Telegram, Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere_ HAWARDEN, May 1, 1886. Herbert Gladstone expected from Scotland to-night letter from me to Midlothian will shortly appear.[7] GLADSTONE. LABOUCHERE, 10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, S.W. _Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_