The notion seems to be that the Liberal opponents may be put down at 100, and that this will reduce them to 70; these calculations, however, are evidently upon exceedingly vague data. It is pretty clear that a number of the opponents do not like the idea of a dissolution, and that they are very anxious for an arrangement. It is therefore quite possible that they will come in upon some such basis. Do pray think the matter over, and consider whether it is not worth your while taking these assurances as a concession to you. Of course it is not certain that they will be definite, but you might insist upon their being made definite in the House of Commons. I think that it is a proof of astounding weakness not giving up the Clause. These people can never make up their minds either to fight or to make peace. The G.O.M. has a natural love of shilly-shally, and those around him encourage him in this for their own purposes. My own belief is that they don't want you to vote for the Bill, and that you would spoil their game if you did. The G.O.M. cannot last, and if only you would rally you would be certain of the mantle, whereas with Goschen and Hartington you never possibly can get on.--Yours truly, H. LABOUCHERE. _Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain_ 10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, The Derby Day, 1886. MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--If you can agree to anything less than the excision of the twenty-fourth Clause, and consider that it would be useful to let Mr. Gladstone know this, could you write me a letter stating your views? This I could let Mr. Gladstone have to-morrow morning, as a letter to me and _not intended_ for him to see, with the understanding that it is for his {349} private reading and not for his Cabinet. It might probably lead him to go farther than he otherwise would in his concessions. He, no doubt, wants to pass his Bill, and although he believes that he would sweep the country at an election, he must in his calmer moments know that he may possibly not do so. But I am certain that there are men in the Cabinet who, whilst pretending to be in favour of conciliation, are doing all they can to prevent it--some arbitrarily, and some because their private ambitions point to your being forced into a position of antagonism. I do not think that Mr. Gladstone will be likely to change in regard to the Cabinet decision respecting the twenty-fourth Clause. The point therefore is to find some other mode of ensuring what is practically a surrender in respect to Irish representation here. The excision of the Clause is the simple and direct method, but when did our venerable friend ever take the direct method? If, however, he _clearly_, _distinctly_, and _definitely_ pledges himself to introduce a Clause having the same object as the excision, and to incorporate it in his Bill, the result is the same, although the road may not be quite as straight. He might easily be parried in the House by your saying, "I understand the Prime Minister to, etc.,