ENVOY TO GLADSTONE
"_Good Cinna, take this paper, and look you, lay it in the
praetor's chair, where Brutus may but find it!_"
--SHAKESPEARE (JULIUS CÆSAR).
Negotiations concerning the Crimes Bill were broken off, but before
the end of June, 1882, I was once more acting as envoy to Gladstone.
The following is a characteristic memorandum drafted by Parnell for
transmission by me to the Prime Minister:--
Although the Coercion Bill as likely to pass into law is of such a
character as to render it impossible for him to take any further part
in the Irish Land movement, yet he trusts that the administration of
the Act by the Government will be of such a moderate character as to
enable him to co-operate generally with Mr. G. in Parliament and in
the English constituencies in carrying to a successful end that land
legislation the foundations of which were so broadly laid in the Act
of last session, and in gaining those other measures of general
reform for the benefit of the peoples of both England and Ireland
which now constitute the programme of the Liberal Party.
Since his (Parnell's) release he has taken steps to secure that no
portion of the invested surplus of the fund shall be drawn without
his signature, and he will endeavour to provide that future
remittances from the offices of the central organization in America
shall be added to this fund; the remittances through the _Irish
World_, however, he has no hopes of being able to control in any way.
The Bill[1] to go through all its stages in six days--Supply to be
facilitated.
{179}
Duration to be limited to three months after assembly of a new
Parliament if present Parliament is dissolved within three
years--treason felony struck out on report.
Centres of disturbance are being rapidly created throughout Ireland,
owing to loss by tenants of legal interest in their holdings through
sale or expiry of period of redemption. The formation of the new
Landlord Corporation accompanied by a harsh administration of the
Coercion Act will tend to encourage landlords to resist reasonable
concessions.
He has placed new clauses on the notice paper for the Arrears Bill
which will go far to meet these difficulties, and will do what he can
to facilitate Supply and the passage of that Bill, also to prevent
obstruction to other Government business.
These notes were submitted a second time to Mr. Gladstone, with the
addition of the following paragraphs:--
This danger might be met by insertion of clauses in Arrears Bill
having compulsory retrospective effect as far back as June, 1880, and
making provision for payment of costs.
It is most desirable that Parliament should reassemble after short
holiday to make whatever permanent amendments the Government think
necessary in the Land Act.
On June 29th Mr. Gladstone wrote thanking me for my letter and
returning "the enclosure."[2] Reference was made by him to the
murders of Mr. Walter Bourke and Corporal Wallace in Galway; and
though I have no doubt he did not suspect Parnell of the least shade
of complicity, it was plain that he did not completely acquit the
extremists of the _Irish World_.
The progress of the Crimes Bill was more hotly contested than ever in
the committee stage, which extended over twenty-four sittings of the
House. Clauses were {180} fought word by word, sentence by sentence.
The Bill was read a third time on July 8th, and was passed by the
Lords four days later, receiving the Royal Assent on the following
day. In less than a week 17 counties were proclaimed; and by the
beginning of August 170 suspects were in custody.
On July 21st the Arrears Bill passed the Commons by 169 to 98. Lord
Eversley (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) rightly observes that instead of
appealing to justice Mr. Gladstone based his support of the Bill on
expediency. For years tenants had been burdened with excessive rents
on land which their efforts had raised from prairie value. The
wiping out of the accumulated arrears of these unjust rents could
hardly be termed a mere act of expediency.
On July 31st the Lords returned the Bill to the Commons cut to
pieces. Certain minor concessions were made, and the Bill was sent
back otherwise in its original form. When next it appeared in the
Lords the Irish landlord peers revolted. The Bill promised them part
payment of what they had looked upon as a bad debt; and so--not for
the sake of justice, but for the sake of that bait of two years'
rent--they supported the Bill, which was passed by the Lords on
August 10th. On or about August 18th, when it became law, fifty
suspects were released.
I had addressed an appeal to Mr. Gladstone against the death sentence
passed upon a young Irishman on very doubtful evidence. On September
14th he wrote saying that he would certainly bring the appeal under
the notice of Lord Spencer. I was in correspondence with Mr.
Gladstone throughout November of this year.
Ireland did not figure largely in the Parliamentary legislation of
1883, though a number of minor Irish Bills, on tramways, fisheries
and so forth, which received the {181} support of Parnell, were
carried. Parnell's position in Ireland was impregnable, but the
extremists in America were exasperated by his constitutional
agitation. Early in 1883 Patrick Ford started a dynamite crusade
against England in the _Irish World_, and attempts were actually made
to blow up public buildings in London, while a nitro-glycerine
factory was discovered in Birmingham. Immediately an Explosives Bill
of the most drastic character was introduced by Sir William Harcourt
and rushed through the Commons in a single sitting. The Irish Party
offered no opposition.
It is significant of the tactics of Mr. Gladstone that he was
secretly striving to influence the Vatican against Home Rule. A Mr.
Errington, an Irish Catholic, but a Whig member of Parliament, had
been sent to Rome with a letter of recommendation from Lord
Granville. Mr. Gladstone had also written about him through Cardinal
Manning, who was opposed to the mission. His business was at first
to work for a Papal reprimand of priests who engaged in Land League
agitation. He succeeded finally in engineering a rescript, dated May
11th, 1883, calling upon bishops to restrain priests from taking part
in the Parnell testimonial.
Willie was very anxious that Mr. O'Hart (O'Hart's Irish Pedigrees)
should be granted a pension from the Civil List. Mr. Gladstone had
already declined to include him in the List of Beneficiaries. Now at
Willie's urgent request I most reluctantly asked Mr. Gladstone to
reconsider his decision as to Mr. O'Hart, and on September 19th,
1884, received a snub for my pains. I had told Gladstone that Lord
Spencer was credited with having expressed the opinion that Parnell
had some connexion with the Phoenix Park murders. Gladstone {182}
now said he was sure that Spencer did not really believe this.
In October, 1884, Mr. Trevelyan ceased to be Irish Secretary and
entered the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The
vacant post was offered to Mr. Shaw Lefevre, but on hearing that Lord
Spencer intended to seek for the renewal of the Coercion Act when it
expired in September, 1885, he refused the offer. Mr. (afterwards
Sir Henry) Campbell-Bannerman became Chief Secretary on October 24th.
During 1884 Parnell kept quiet, and my negotiations on his behalf
with Gladstone were intermittent.
In the early part of the year, however, a document of tremendous
import was submitted--none other than "A Proposed Constitution for
Ireland," drawn up by Parnell, which was as follows:--
An elected Chamber with power to make enactments regarding all
the domestic concerns of Ireland, but without power to interfere
in any Imperial matter.
The Chamber to consist of three hundred members.
Two hundred and six of the number to be elected under the present
suffrage, by the present Irish constituencies, with special
arrangements for securing to the Protestant minority a
representation proportionate to their numbers; the remaining 94
members to be named in the Act constituting the Chamber.
The principle of nomination regarding this proportion of members
to last necessarily only during the duration of the first Chamber.
The number of elected members, suffrage, and boundaries
constituencies for election of succeeding Chamber to be capable
of alteration by the preceding Chamber, excepting those special
arrangements for securing to the Protestant minority a
proportionate representation, which arrangements shall be fixed
and immutable.
The first Chamber to last for three years, unless sooner
dissolved by the Crown.
{183}
The Chamber shall have power to enact laws and make regulations
regarding all the domestic and internal affairs of Ireland,
including her sea fisheries.
The Chamber shall also have power to raise a revenue for any
purpose over which it has jurisdiction, by direct taxation upon
property, by Customs duties, and by licences.
The Chamber shall have power to create departments for the
transaction of all business connected with the affairs over which
it has jurisdiction, and to appoint and dismiss chief and
subordinate officials for such departments, to fix the term of
their office, and to fix and pay their salaries; and to maintain
a police force for the preservation of order and the enforcement
of the law.
This power will include the constitution of Courts of Justice and
the appointment or payment of all judges, magistrates, and other
officials of such Courts, provided that the appointment of judges
and magistrates shall in each case be subject to the assent of
the Crown.
No enactment of the Chamber shall have the force of law until it
shall have received the assent of the Crown.
A sum of one million pounds sterling per annum shall be paid by
the Chamber to the Imperial Treasury in lieu of the right of the
Crown to levy taxes in Ireland for Imperial purposes, which right
would be held in suspense so long as punctual payment was made of
the above annual sum.
The right of the Imperial Parliament to legislate regarding the
domestic concerns and internal affairs of Ireland will also be
held in suspense, only to be exercised for weighty and urgent
cause.
The abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and all
other offices in Ireland under the Crown connected with the
domestic affairs of that country.
The representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament might be
retained or might be given up. If it be retained the Speaker
might have the power of deciding what questions the Irish members
might take part in as Imperial questions, if this limitation were
thought desirable.
Such Naval and Military force as the Crown thought requisite from
time to time would be maintained in Ireland out {184} of the
contribution of one million pounds per annum to the Imperial
Treasury; any excess in the cost of these forces over such sum
being provided for out of the Imperial Revenue (i.e. by Great
Britain).
The Militia would also be levied, controlled, and paid by the
Crown, and all forts, military barracks, posts, and strong places
of the country would be held and garrisoned by the Crown forces.
No volunteer force to be raised in Ireland without the consent of
the Crown and enactment of the Imperial Parliament, and, if
raised, to be paid for and controlled by the Crown.
On May 11th, 1884, Lord Richard Grosvenor wrote a non-committal
acknowledgment of the receipt of this memorandum.
The Government was then devoting its attention to the Franchise
Bill and the Redistribution of Seats Bill, and it had been
decided to incorporate Ireland in the scheme. This Parnell
considered to be of tremendous importance. Speaking in December,
1883, at the Dublin banquet held in his honour, he alluded to the
force which had then been gained for Ireland. The change was, in
fact, enormous. Instead of the franchise being confined
practically to the farmers, it would now include the labourers
and the cottier tenants, and the number of voters in Ireland
would go up from 200,000 to 600,000. How would those labourers
and cottier tenants vote? Lord Randolph Churchill (who supported
the Bill against his Party) and Mr. Chamberlain thought,
strangely enough, that their inclusion would help the landlord
interest. Parnell knew better, and when the Bill became law, in
December, 1884, he leapt into action. This was the weapon for
which he had been waiting. From December to March of the
following year he went through Ireland organizing for the
imminent General Election.
{185}
In the early months of 1885 the Liberal Government was in a bad
way. It had narrowly escaped defeat on the vote of censure for
its failure to relieve Gordon at Khartoum. The Cabinet was
divided against itself. Many of the Liberal members were
inclined to rebel, and the Irish were working with the Tory
Opposition. Ireland was the rock upon which the Government was
to come to a wreck. The majority of the Cabinet was in favour of
continued coercion. Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, and Mr.
Shaw Lefevre were strongly opposed to it. But on the subject of
local government for Ireland the difference of opinion was even
more dangerous. Chamberlain submitted a scheme for an elective
National Council in Dublin, with control over administrative
Boards and Departments, but not over the police and the
administration of the law. It had been ascertained indirectly
that Parnell would accept this scheme, and would not oppose a
moderate Coercion Act. Gladstone was prepared to go a step
further and give the National Council control over the police. A
vote was taken in the Cabinet. All the Peers, with the exception
of Lord Granville,[3] were against, and the Commoners, with the
exception of Lord Hartington, were in favour of the scheme.
Therefore "for the present" the scheme was abandoned. This was
in May. The battle over coercion remained to be fought. In less
than four weeks the Government was out of office.
Gladstone had not been able to make up his mind to abandon
coercion altogether, though he had endeavoured to sweeten the
draught with the promise of a Land Purchase Bill, and Parnell had
been able to arrange privately {186} with the Conservative
Opposition that if they came into power coercion would be dropped.
On June 8th the Government was beaten on the second reading of
the Budget. The ostensible question, which concerned nobody, was
that of a tax on wine and beer. The whole of the thirty-nine
Irish members voted for the Opposition, and the Government was
beaten by twelve. Thereupon Gladstone resigned and Lord
Salisbury formed his first Ministry. Parnell held the key of the
position. He had put the Tories into power; at his will he could
put them out again.
Lord Carnarvon became Lord Lieutenant, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach
Chief Secretary, and the intention was expressed to govern
Ireland by constitutional methods. Coercion for the time being
was abandoned, Lord Carnarvon had thought much on Irish
questions, and his rule was in marked contrast to that of his
immediate predecessors.
On July 14th Lord Richard Grosvenor suddenly remembered Parnell's
draft Constitution for Ireland which I had submitted to
Gladstone. Did it still hold good? To this letter I replied,
and on July 23rd Lord Richard wrote again asking for a plain
answer. But this at the moment it was impossible to give, for
the attitude the Tories would take up with regard to Home Rule
was not yet certain. Lord Carnarvon, the Lord Lieutenant, was
believed to be very favourably disposed to the Irish demands, and
Lord Randolph Churchill seemed willing to go far. On July 28th
Lord Richard wrote again, imploring us to show our hand.
Evidently the Irish vote was worth securing.
It is interesting to note that on July 17th Mr. Chamberlain,
speaking at Holloway, urged that the pacification {187} of
Ireland depended on the concession to her of the right to govern
herself in the matter of purely local business.
At the end of July Parnell met Lord Carnarvon in London. The
Lord Lieutenant had already been in communication with Sir
Charles Gavan Duffy and Mr. Justin McCarthy upon the subject of
Home Rule, and there can be little doubt he was in earnest in his
agreement with the principle. How far he was used by his Party
as a cat's-paw to play for the Irish vote is another question.
At least Lord Salisbury knew of the proceedings of his colleague
and was perhaps not averse from using Lord Carnarvon's
convictions to win Parnell's support at the forthcoming elections
without giving a definite Party pledge. The conversation between
Lord Carnarvon and Parnell led the latter to believe that the
Tories were prepared to support a measure of local government for
Ireland. But how far were the Liberals prepared to go?
On August 4th Mr. Gladstone wrote to me further with reference to
the proposed constitution for Ireland. Did this represent
Parnell's views now? He was urgent in asking for an answer. In
one of my notes I had spoken of the suggestion that a proposition
of his son, Mr. Herbert (now Lord) Gladstone, should be
substituted for it. Mr. Gladstone now assured me on the best
authority that no such proposition had been made. I gathered,
however, that his son had made some suggestions.
To this a long and comprehensive reply was sent--apparently too
long and comprehensive. No doubt he wanted a definite and
limited scheme to be set before him. I had referred in my letter
to certain changes which had occurred since the draft was sent.
I knew that Gladstone knew what those changes were, for the
frantic appeals for {188} a definite statement were precisely the
counter-bidding against the heightened biddings of Lord Randolph
Churchill and the Conservative Party in which Gladstone declared
he would not engage. He was obviously disinclined to make an
offer until Parnell had pinned himself down to a final demand.
If only he could know what the Home Rule Party wanted!
The following day Mr. Gladstone set out on a yachting expedition
(to Norway), and a few days later, on August 11th, Parliament was
prorogued.
Parnell opened his campaign in Dublin on August 11th, when he
announced that he and his Party would stand for an Irish
Parliament and nothing else. There was no talk now of a National
Council. Lord Hartington replied declaring Parnell's proposals
to be fatal and mischievous, and on September 9th Lord Richard
wrote, on behalf of Mr. Gladstone, who was back in England,
pleading for details.
On October 7th Lord Salisbury, speaking at Newport (Mon.), made a
diplomatic statement about Ireland which suggested much and
promised nothing.
Later in the month I sent Mr. Gladstone a paper containing the
views of Mr. Parnell, and on November 3rd Lord Richard Grosvenor
replied, referring me to the Government of the day, but thanking
me for the information. There was some mention in the letter of
Willie's prospects for Mid-Armagh. Apparently that affair was
off, since Willie had himself written to such an effect. Willie
was given a gentle rap on the fingers for having in Ireland
talked over the plans for his election with another person.[4]
{189}
On November 9th, at Edinburgh, Mr. Gladstone made a speech which
rivalled Lord Salisbury's in elusiveness. The constitutional
demands of Ireland must not be disregarded, but it would be a
vital danger if at such a time there was not a Party politically
independent of the Irish vote.
Parnell desired precisely the contrary, and on November 21st, the
eve of the General Election, a manifesto was issued calling upon
Irish voters in Great Britain to vote against the Liberal Party.
Before Parnell's interview with Lord Carnarvon I had sent
Gladstone Parnell's suggestions for a new Home Rule Bill. Mr.
Gladstone wrote expressing satisfaction at the news of the
intended interview, but he would not be drawn. Nevertheless
Parnell made another attempt, {190} and on December 14th, 1885,
addressed the following letter from my house at Eltham:--
NORTH PARK, ELTHAM, KENT.
_December_ 14th, 1885.
MY DEAR MRS. O'SHEA,--It appeared to me from Mr. Gladstone's
utterances in Scotland that he would admit the justice of
Ireland's claim for autonomy, and also the expediency of soon
endeavouring to satisfy it provided the result of the General
Election went to show an overwhelming preponderance of the
opinion of the representatives of Ireland in favour of this
claim. A very proper reservation was also made regarding the
maintenance of the supremacy of the Crown in Ireland and all the
authority of Parliament necessary for this supremacy.
We now know that more than five-sixths of the Irish members
elected by household suffrage have been returned, mostly by very
large majorities, as supporters of the institution of an Irish
Parliament, that a clear majority, seventeen out of thirty-three,
from the Ulster constituencies have been so returned, and that
only one county and one city in Ireland, Antrim and Belfast
respectively, are without Nationalist representation.
Under these circumstances does it not seem that the question has
now resolved itself firstly into a consideration of the details
of the proposed settlement, and secondly, as to the procedure to
be adopted in obtaining the assent of Parliament, and if needful
of the British electorate to this settlement? As regards the
first matter, the rough sketch, which I sent you some weeks back,
appeared then, and still appears to me, the smallest proposal
which would be likely to find favour in Ireland if brought
forward by an English Minister, but it is not one which I could
undertake to suggest publicly myself, though if it were enacted I
would work in Ireland to have it accepted bona fide as a final
settlement, and I believe it would prove to be one.
[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF A PORTION OF LETTER ON pp. 190, 192-3.]
This proposal was carefully designed with a view to propitiate
English prejudice, and to afford those guarantees against hasty
legislation, interference in extraneous matters, and unfair
action against particular classes, apprehended by {192} many
persons as a result of the establishment of an Irish Parliament.
It did not involve a repeal of the Act of Union, an irrevocable
step, and the Imperial Parliament having conferred the privilege
by statute would thus always be in a position to recall it by a
similar method, if the privilege was abused.
It provided for a special proportionate representation for the
large Protestant minority of Ireland. It also left to the
Imperial Parliament the practical decision from time to time as
to the matters which did or did not come within the province of
the local legislature. These are all important concessions and
guarantees, and some opinion must surely have been formed by now
upon these and other details.
As regards the question of procedure, I am desirous of knowing
after a time whether the solution of the Irish question would be
made the first and only business by a Liberal Government till the
question was settled. The reform of procedure would probably be
found not so necessary or pressing if the Imperial Parliament
could get rid of its Irish work. It appeared to me that the best
way to turn out the present Government would be by a general vote
of censure without special reference to Ireland, or by a vote
directed against some act of policy other than Irish, for which
occasion may shortly arise. We might then either abstain or vote
for the censure as might be deemed best. I have not seen Lord
C.,[5] and shall probably not arrange to do so for a week or two,
as I wish to know how the other side is disposed first. I have
always felt Mr. Gladstone is the only living statesman who has
both the power and the will to carry a settlement it would be
possible for me to accept and work with.
I doubt Lord C.'s power to do so, though I know him to be very
well disposed. However, if neither party can offer a solution of
the question I should prefer the Conservatives to remain in
office, as under them we could at least work out gradually a
solution of the Land question. You will see from this letter
that I am very much in the dark, except as to my own mind and
that of Ireland, that I want information as to whether Mr.
Gladstone has, as I suppose, accepted the principle of a Chamber
for Ireland with power over her domestic and {193} internal
affairs, and, if so, which, if any, of the details contained in
sketch he objects to or is in doubt about. Further, it is
important that I should be advised before the meeting of
Parliament what procedure would in his judgment be best for
bringing about that change of Government which would enable Mr.
Gladstone to deal authoritatively with the Irish question.--Yours
very truly, CHAS. S. PARNELL.
I sent this letter to Gladstone, and on December 16, three days
before the completion of the General Election, he dispatched from
Hawarden a long reply; but he said nothing more than he had already
said in public at Midlothian and elsewhere and in private letters to
me. Throughout this period the one fact apparent was that he would
pledge the Liberal Party to nothing until he was in office and
supported by the Irish Party. While there was a Tory Government in
alliance with Parnell he would do nothing. Whether or no he was
sincere in his advice to us to take Home Rule rather from the Tories
than the Liberals if possible--because many Liberals would support a
Tory Home Rule Bill, while all Tories would oppose a Liberal
measure--this I cannot say. He offered it constantly, though he
urged that a trafficking with both Parties for the purpose of getting
the best terms possible, when, as in the end it must be, avowed,
would injure a Tory measure and kill a Liberal one.
The result of the election was that the Tories in alliance with the
Parnellites outnumbered the Liberals by four. The Liberals in
alliance with Parnell would have outnumbered the Tories by 167.
Parnell had swept the board in Ireland, and in the House of Commons
he was dictator.
Immediately after the General Election the Salisbury Cabinet met to
consider its Irish policy, and Lord Carnarvon at once tendered his
resignation. The conclusion {194} to be drawn is obvious. Compact
or no compact, Lord Carnarvon had reason to believe that the Cabinet
were prepared to pursue a certain line of policy which it now
appeared they had no intention of pursuing. The reason for the
_volte face_, too, is plain. Tories plus Parnellites formed too
narrow a majority of the House for Governmental purposes. The Irish
were no longer of any use, and they were abandoned.
Correspondence with Mr. Gladstone continued, and his letters were
still cautious. He seemed to fear the soreness of certain Liberals
over the Parnellite opposition at the polls, but he confessed to be
very willing to co-operate with the Tory Government in the matter of
Home Rule, and he stated that he had acquainted the Government with
his disposition. Letters of December 19th, 22nd, and 24th are all
more or less to this effect. He harped on the word "bribe."
As a matter of fact, Mr. Gladstone had approached the Cabinet through
Mr. Balfour, both personally and by letter, urging that it would be a
calamity if this great question were to fall into the lines of Party
conflict. The Cabinet seem to have treated Mr. Gladstone's letter
with scant respect. In spite of Lord Carnarvon's tendered
resignation, Lord Salisbury was resolved to make no concession to
Home Rule. Lord Carnarvon agreed not to resign until the opening of
Parliament.
A statement in the Press inspired by Mr. Herbert Gladstone to the
effect that Mr. Gladstone was prepared to concede an Irish Parliament
in Dublin was declared by the latter to be "inaccurate and not
authentic." But on December 26 he issued a memorandum to certain of
his more reliable followers to the effect that he would support the
Tories in a Home Rule policy which should satisfy {195} him and the
Irish Nationalists, and that if he were called upon to form a
Government the preparation of a scheme of duly guarded Home Rule
would be an indispensable condition.
On December 29 I wrote to Gladstone, forwarding a memorandum from
Parnell. On the last day of the year he sent me a memorandum marked
"Secret," in which he summarized the position between Parnell and
himself. It amounted to this: Parnell wanted a definite pledge that
there should be no more coercion before throwing the Tories out of
power and putting the Liberals in. Gladstone, while realizing the
gravity of O'Brien's statistics in the _Nineteenth Century_ as to the
result of exceptional legislation, refused to give this pledge. He
alluded philosophically to the probable course of events if the
Address went through unamended. Mr. Parnell wrote to me to the
following effect embodying the points I was to pass on to Gladstone.
DEAR MRS. O'SHEA,--In reply to your query it would be inexpedient
that the Government.... But, in any case, we should move a
series of separate amendments to the Address--one asking for a
suspension of the support by the naval, military and constabulary
forces of the Crown of ejectments, pending the consideration by
Parliament of the proposed Land measure; another praying the
Crown to remove Chief Justice May from the Bench; a third
condemning the practice of jury packing, resorted to by the Crown
in all the recent trials; a fourth asking her Majesty to fulfil
the promise contained in the Speech of last year for the
equalization of the borough franchise in Ireland to that in
England; a fifth condemning the proclamation of the meetings at
Brookeboro' and Cullohill; and a sixth protesting against the
proclamation and additional police force sent to several of the
counties.
This would be an assault along the whole line of English
misgovernment in Ireland, and should, in my opinion, be {196}
delivered before we allow the Address to leave the House. The
first fortnight or so of the session would thus be occupied while
the Government were making up their minds as to their proposed
Land Bill.
At the meeting of the Party I think of proposing a resolution
recommending the minority to pay more deference to the opinion of
the majority than they did last session, and urging all the Irish
members to sit together in opposition.
Kindly let me know what you think of these proposals.--Yours
truly, CHARLES S. PARNELL.
These blanks were left in the letter as the phrases omitted were too
confidential to be written. I learnt them and quoted them to
Gladstone.
On January 21 Parliament met to transact business, and the
resignations of Lord Carnarvon and Sir W. Hart Dyke were announced.
Notice was given of a new Coercion Act, and on the 26th the
Government was defeated by 331 to 252 votes--not, however, on an
Irish amendment, but on the motion of Jesse Collings raising the
question of "three acres and a cow."
[1] The Coercion Bill
[2] The enclosure was a letter from a notorious Invincible in America
who had written to Parnell assuring him of his support and protesting
against the anti-Parnell pro-Davitt agitation got up by Ford in the
_Irish World_. Gladstone had expressed a wish to see one of his
letters.
[3] Lord Morley has stated that Granville voted for the scheme, and
Lord Eversley that all Peers voted against it.
[4] Captain O'Shea had made himself unpopular with the Irish Party,
and when in 1885 he wanted their co-operation in his re-election for
County Clare, only Parnell was ready to help him. He had always
refused to sit with the Party, had taken a place on the Government
benches, and thence kept up a running fire of sarcastic comment on
the speeches and mannerisms of his fellow-countrymen. His intimacy
with Chamberlain was also a cause of suspicion, and he would not take
the Party pledge. Mrs. O'Shea was anxious for him to remain in
Parliament, as his political interests left him little time for
visiting Eltham. The need for watchful diplomacy when he was there
was irksome to her. Especially since the February of 1882 she could
not bear to be near him. Parnell had great doubt of the possibility
of getting Captain O'Shea returned for Clare or any other Irish seat
without the pledge. O'Shea, under the impression that he himself had
been the chief negotiator of the "Kilmainham Treaty," accused Parnell
of ingratitude and treachery. Mrs. O'Shea then got into touch with
Lord Richard Grosvenor, and a scheme was put on foot for getting
Captain O'Shea nominated for the Exchange Division of Liverpool as a
Liberal. The united strength of the Liberal Party, exercised by Lord
Richard Grosvenor and through him by Mr. Gladstone, and of Parnell's
influence on the Irish vote, failed to carry him in. The retirement
of the English Liberal candidate, Mr. T. E. Stephens, even after
nomination and the concentration of the Liberal forces on O'Shea's
election did not suffice. Mr. L. R. Baily, the Conservative,
defeated him by 55 votes. Captain O'Shea then returned to the demand
for an Irish seat, and persisted in being nominated at the
by-election pending in Galway. He still refused to take the Party
pledge. Parnell, therefore, at first refused to countenance his
candidature, but finally gave way, and he was elected.
[5] Lord Carnarvon.
{197}