Talk:Henry Labouchère

Spelling

Corrected to British spelling and tried to make use of the accent consistent, except in the Amendment, and his uncle. I'm not sure if those two take an accent. Certainly, the Victorians gave Labouchère himself the accent at least half the time (and the rest can probably be put down to lazy printers), so it's right in his case. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Labouchère. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yPic5kyJ?url=http://faculty.winthrop.edu/vorderbruegg/winthropweb/vitaindex/gilbert.html to http://faculty.winthrop.edu/vorderbruegg/winthropweb/vitaindex/gilbert.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Labouchère. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707060227/http://www.gabrielleray.150m.com/ArchiveTextH/HenriettaHodson.html to http://www.gabrielleray.150m.com/ArchiveTextH/HenriettaHodson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources: Book review

User:Suslindisambiguator, I note that you added this to the "Sources" section of the article: "Review of The Life of Henry Labouchere by Algar Thorold". The Athenaeum (No. 4486): 409–411. 18 October 1913. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help) The sources section, however, should only list sources that are used in the text of the article. There might be information in this book review that would be good to use in the article, but until it is used in the article, it should not be cited as a source for the article. Feel free to select information from the book review that would enhance the article, then we can cite the book review as a source for the article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Suslindisambiguator, what you've done now is merely to hide the review in footnote 33. Again, if there is anything of particular interest in the book review, why not say so in the text? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I added hathitrust links for 2 titles not connected with the review. According to the anonymous reviewer, " ... anyone desirous of understanding Henry Labouchere should read the first chapter of this book ..." There might be information in this book review that would be good to use in the article, but until it is used in the article, it should not be cited as a source for the article. Is this Wikipedia policy? Are you saying that there should no notes or references for sources? User:Suslindisambiguator

Yes. The Sources section is just a list of books that are cited in the text of the article. Further reading is a list of books that are *not* cited in the article but are of interest to anyone who wishes to do further research on the topic. Articles, like the one you are citing, can be footnoted if they are discussed in the article's text. None of Wikipedia's best articles do what you have done here. This is an article about Labouchère, and all the important, encyclopedia information about him should be presented in the text with appropriate in-line citations. See WP:CITE, and WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Change of monarch

This article currently includes the seemingly contradictory statements:

Queen Victoria refused to allow Gladstone to offer Labouchère an office, however, as he had insulted the Royal Family... this was the last time a British monarch vetoed a prime minister's appointment of a cabinet minister.

[...]

He was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council on 14 February 1906

Why would someone non grata be allowed into the Privy Council? To explain this I added a parenthetical note "Victoria having died in 1901" after the latter point, but this has been removed firstly by an editor who did not "see how this helps", and then with the fallacious claim that the article was "better before".

No doubt those who removed it can recall from memory the date of Victoria's death, and synthesise that that event allowed Labouchère's rehabilitation in the eyes of the monarchy; we cannot assume the same of all our readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"with the fallacious claim": must you? Why is it you are so often combative when someone disagrees with you? No-one has described your parenthetical addition as the "fatuous, clumsy and badly done inclusion", they gave reasons for the reversion, so is there any need for you to start throwing round epithets that are rather pointy?

I do find it a bit jarring to read "When he failed to reply to the accusations, his reputation suffered. He was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council on 14 February 1906." If at all possible, I think it would be better to look for some sourcing that explicitly shed some light on his apparent rehabilitation. We can guess that the change of monarch played a part, but it leaves me wondering whether Edward VII would have been less insulted by Labouchère's earlier attacks. I think the article could only benefit from little more depth in examining the changes between 1897 and 1906. --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Between 1886 and 1892, a Conservative government was in power, and Labouchère worked tirelessly to remove them from office. When the government was turned out in 1892, and Gladstone was called to form an administration, Labouchère expected to be rewarded with a cabinet post. Queen Victoria refused to allow Gladstone to offer either Labouchère or Charles Dilke an office, however, as she had a strong personal dislike of them - "she would never allow such horrid men to enter the Gov^t". Her dislike stemmed from his editorship of Truth, which she felt had insulted the Royal Family. According to the historian Vernon Bogdanor, this was the last time a British monarch vetoed a prime minister's appointment of a cabinet minister. However, Gladstone may have been glad to drop Labouchère given his lack of political support. Likewise, the new foreign secretary, Lord Rosebery, a personal enemy of Labouchère, declined to offer him the ambassadorship to Washington for which Labouchère had asked.

Through the 1890s, Labouchère was an active critic of both Liberal and Conservative Imperial policies; he demanded an enquiry into Rhodesian policy in 1893-94, and in 1895 sat on the commission enquiring into the Jameson Raid. However, his position became gradually alienated from his party and from public opinion, as he strongly opposed the South African War and argued for peace. His reputation was also tarnished by a series of financial scandals; in 1897, Labouchère was accused in the press of share-rigging, using Truth to disparage companies, advising shareholders to dispose of their shares and, when the share prices fell as a result, buying them himself at a low price. He failed to reply to the accusations, and his reputation suffered. A later pamphlet by Henry Hess of The Critic, in 1905, revealed further financial misdealings.

When the Liberal party took power in December 1905, Labouchère was not offered any political office by Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the new prime minister. He was disappointed in this – he had been a strong supporter of Campbell-Bannerman – and retired from Parliament the following month, choosing not to stand at the 1906 general election. His only political reward from the new government was a privy councillorship.

He retired to Florence, where he died seven years later, leaving a fortune of half a million pounds sterling to his daughter Dora, who was by then married to Carlo, Marchese di Rudini.

@Pigsonthewing, Ssilvers, Tim riley, and RexxS: I've drafted up a more detailed end section above. Thoughts? I'll add it tomorrow if no objections.

This lets us highlight that there had been a change of administration, but also that by the time it came around he was no longer popular even with his own party. I don't want to outright say making him a privy councillor was a deliberate snub by Campbell-Bannerman, but that's certainly the sense I get from the ODNB summary of it. He didn't get a ministry, he didn't get a peerage, he didn't get a knighthood, he certainly didn't get any of the ambassadorships he'd always yearned for...

I've avoided drawing a specific link to Victoria as we don't know from the sources how strong her opposition to him was - both Bogdanor and the ODNB specifically say she drew the line at giving him a ministry, but that Gladstone was perhaps happy to have the excuse to drop him anyway. She might have acceded to a more minor thing like a privy councillorship, or she might have agreed had Gladstone actively supported him.

In that light, it's worth noting the other person she explicitly vetoed in 1892 was Dilke - though Gladstone didn't suggest him, in the end - but she had made similar objections to him before, when Gladstone came in in 1880, and had then eventually agreed to his being a minister after he recanted some of his more controversial positions. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew: thank you for that excellent exposition. It more than satisfied my curiosity and I believe it would be an unequivocal improvement to the article. I hope others will agree with me. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, what a pleasure to encounter you here! I have the warmest memories of past collaborations. I'm madly tied up IRL this evening, and will look forward to reading your contribution tomorrow. Kind regards, Tim riley talk 17:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all you say, Andrew, and I think it is well said. Please wait for User:Tim riley to review this, as Tim was personally present at the discussions among Her Majesty, Labouchère, Campbell-Bannerman and so forth. Seriously, if it is at all possible to trim the new political material just a bit and still make the facts clear, I think that would be even better. Thanks, Andrew. Oh, also, Andrew, would you make any changes to the LEAD section? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia one sometimes has to deal with quite unpleasant people - mendacious, hypocritical, bullying or arrogant - and it can be quite hard to keep a neutral tone. In editing Labby I have found it particularly difficult to maintain that tone, and I think Andrew has done it perfectly. I agree with RexxS and Ssilvers that the changes are spot-on. I add my thanks to theirs. Tim riley talk 06:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks all. I've made these changes (and a bit of consequential tidying) and will have a look at overhauling some of the rest while I'm at it. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

1868 election

For the avoidance of doubt, Labouchère lost by 90 votes, as stated. It was a three-candidate contest for two seats. A Tory won one of the seats, and of the two Liberal candidates Labouchère had 90 fewer votes than his colleague. (Lord G. Hamilton (C) 7,850; Viscount Enfield (L) 6,507; H. Labouchère (L) 6,397. (The Times, 27 November 1868, p. 5.) [unsigned by Tim riley]

User:Tim riley, thank you for the explanation, but my calculator says that 6,507 - 6,397 = 110, not 90. Are all the numbers correct? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have probably mistranscribed the figures (and I could never do sums). The first and third are clear enough in the scan: 7,850 and 6,397. The middle one is a bit blurry. The Times added that the Tory beat Enfield by 1,343 votes and Labby by 1,453. Pray adjust the totals above accordingly. Tim riley talk 20:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 1,453 - 1,343 = 110, so it seems clear enough that the margin was 110 rather than 90. I'll adjust it in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a muddle here. Let me clarify it.

Labouchère's defeat at the 1868 election was RESOUNDING, which is the reason he didn't return to Parliament for so many years. (As he himself said of the winner, Tory candidate Lord George Hamilton, "he taught me a lesson I never forgot".) The article before its amendment implied Labouchère lost the seat by only 110 votes – i.e. a slender majority. Quite wrong. The 110 votes referred to were the difference between him and SECOND Liberal candidate Viscount Enfield, for the SAME SEAT of Middlesex.

The fact that there was a second candidate from Labouchère's party on the card infuriated him, and was one of the factors on which the entire election hung. It's important to understanding Hamilton's win, and Labouchère's defeat. @Ssilvers deleted my revision including mention of Enfield and Hamilton as irrelevant to the entry with the comment "This has nothing to do with Labouchere." It had *everything* to do with Labouchère and with his response. Labouchère was still simmering over Hamilton and Enfield two decades later.

While @Ssilvers, who clearly invests the time to review all the authoritative sources before reverting the hard work of other editors, disputes my amendments, it's not a hill I wish to die on, and certainly not at the expense of such scholarly authority. I've chosen simply to leave it at the fact Labouchère lost by a substantial majority. It was by over 1,000 votes (it was a small voting seat) which led to papers printing he'd been 'trounced'. A letter later published in the local press suggested slight variations in the official voting count, but nothing significant. For context, the British Newspaper Archive informs how Labouchère's battle with Enfield derailed his campaign, while Hamilton's memoirs offer his side the story, and very frank he is. He also provides the 'official' figures. MisterWizzy (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No muddle at all. First of all, do not WP:EDIT WAR. Wait until a consensus is obtained on the Talk page before making changes that have been resisted by other editors. Secondly, you make no reference at all in your long explanation above, to the fact stated by User:Tim riley that the election was for TWO seats, not one. So Labouchere did not have to beat Hamilton, he only needed to beat Enfield, to whom he lost by 110 votes. If you want to talk about Hamilton's victory, do it at Hamilton's article. If you want to talk about Enfield's result in the election, do it at Enfield's article. However, if you have a source that clearly clearly and specifically explains that Labouchere's loss made him stay out of politics for the dozen years, that would be worth citing. The number you present regarding how far behind Hamilton Enfield was, is, to use your expression, "wildly" irrelevant to Labouchere. The important figure is that he was a close third to Enfield. If you think I am wrong in this assessment, then find a WP:CONSENSUS of wikipedians who agree with you and disagree with Tim riley and me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Concurring with Ssilvers that MiserWizzy is the muddled one. The margin was indeed as small as 110, as the reliable sources we have dug out confirm. Edit warring and snide remarks about reverting the "hard work" of other editors don't help, and don't alter the established facts. Tim riley talk 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Here are the figures from the Liberal committee: [1] And here are the figures given in Hamilton's memoir: [2] Yes, he lost the second seat to Enfield by a narrow margin, but given he'd previously held Middlesex uncontested, his defeat by Hamilton was resounding. MisterWizzy (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, this belongs in Hamilton's biography, not Labouchere's -- it may have been a "resounding" victory for Hamilton, but the sources do not establish that Labouchere considered the loss to be "resounding" or that it was the motivating reason why he quit politics for 12 years (although our text does imply that). See WP:OR for Wikipedia's guideline on this. Of interest here, however: it seems there is slight disagreement as to the actual tally of the votes among the three sources: these two sources and The Times! -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"the sources do not establish that Labouchere considered the loss to be "resounding". = "I can't be arsed looking for other sources, so they don't establish it." Point of fact: it doesn't matter a toss if Labouchere considered the loss resounding or not (which in fact he did); the voting tally shows he was trounced. There was no slim margin about it. And until that's altered, the article is misleading. MisterWizzy (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)