THE FIRST HOME RULE BILL
"_Memories, images and precious thoughts
That shall not die, and cannot be destroyed._"
--WORDSWORTH.
Before forming his Cabinet Mr. Gladstone enunciated the necessity for
an examination whether it was practicable to establish a legislative
body to sit in Dublin, and to deal with Irish, as distinguished from
Imperial affairs.
Five of the members of his last Cabinet--Lords Hartington, Derby,
Northbrook, Selborne and Carlingford--signified their absolute
opposition to Home Rule. Two--Mr. Chamberlain and Mr.
Trevelyan--agreed to the inquiry provisionally. Two--Sir Charles
Dilke and Mr. Shaw Lefevre--had been defeated at the General
Election. Seven--Lords Granville, Spencer, Kimberley, Ripon and
Rosebery, Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Childers--agreed absolutely.
Four new men--Mr. Morley, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Mundella and
Lord Herschell--came into the Cabinet. Mr. Morley became Irish
Secretary. A scheme was drafted by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Morley. It
consisted of two Bills, a Home Rule Bill and a Land Bill. On the
scheme being laid before the Cabinet Mr. Chamberlain and Mr.
Trevelyan resigned.[1]
{198}
On April 8th, 1886, the evening of the introduction of the Home Rule
Bill, Mr. Gladstone sent his private secretary down to Eltham with a
letter to me asking me to telegraph one word, "Yes," if he was to
introduce the Bill that night. In this case he was to speak shortly
after four o'clock. Mr. Parnell had not given him the required
answer earlier, as he had up to the last moment been trying to induce
Mr. Gladstone to give the Bill wider and more comprehensive clauses
than the G.O.M. would assent to. Now, however, he had said to me, as
he started that evening for the House: "This Bill will do as a
beginning; they shall have more presently. If the Old Man wires to
know if it is all right answer 'Yes.'" Mr. Gladstone had previously
arranged with me that I should be at home waiting for his message in
order that I might let him know that Parnell and the "Party" were
ready.
His messenger was so late that I simply snatched Gladstone's letter
from him and, scribbling my "Yes" on the enclosed Government form,
sent my waiting servant flying to the telegraph office with it.
After which I had time to join in the regrets of Mr. Gladstone's
secretary that his master had made it impossible for me to get up to
the House in time for his introduction of the Bill. The secretary
told me that he would have "derived considerable interest" from the
proceedings, but I felt much {199} more keenly than that about this
Bill that I had taken so often in its swaddling clothes from parent
to foster parent, and I was very much disappointed at not being
present at its introduction to a larger life.
The debate on the first and second readings lasted sixteen days. It
is to be remembered that in his attack on the Bill Mr. Chamberlain
did not oppose Home Rule, but only this particular scheme.
A great wish of Willie's was to be appointed Under-secretary for
Ireland. I had on various occasions made the suggestion to Mr.
Gladstone, but without successful issue. Gladstone had a perfect
manner of refusing appointments when personally asked for them; it
was always an apparent pain to him; nothing but the knowledge of his
duty restrained him from interference, and though I was not really
anxious that Willie should receive this appointment I was willing to
please him by asking for it, and it might have excited suspicion if I
had not asked. I must admit that Mr. Gladstone never to my knowledge
of him all those years made an appointment from motives of private
favour. Here once more, when he wrote regretting he couldn't poach
on his colleagues' patronage preserves, his manners were perfect.
On May 8th an urgent letter from Gladstone at Downing Street was
delivered at my house. Mr. Morley had lost track of Mr. Parnell, and
wanted to know where he was. It was apparently the most natural
thing in the world to ask me where was Parnell. A form of Government
telegram was enclosed for my reply.
In view of the fact that Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were so
pained, surprised, and properly shocked when Mr. Parnell was publicly
arraigned as my lover, the frantic way in which they applied to me,
when they were {200} unable to find him, was, afterwards, a source of
considerable amusement to us both.
From the time of my first interview with Mr. Gladstone onwards, no
time was lost in "failing to trace him here" before hurried
application was made to me at my--and Parnell's--permanent address.
I did not choose that the Irish Party should have his private
address--nor did Parnell choose it--but I was most particular that
the Government should know it. Governments--especially Liberal
Governments--are before all things simple-minded and of childlike
guilelessness.
I remember when on one occasion the Government desired to know
Parnell's views on certain matters before elaborating a Bill shortly
to go before the House, a special messenger was sent to Eltham with a
letter. I had gone to the seaside with my children, and my servants
had standing orders that they knew nothing of Mr. Parnell or of his
whereabouts. So the nonplussed Governmental messenger meditated upon
my doorstep for one moment only, then, armed with "_Mrs. O'Shea's
address_" at Hastings, came straight on to receive Mr. Parnell's
reply, and safely deliver it within the stipulated time. But there
can be no doubt, of course, that Mr. Gladstone's "Poor fellow, poor
fellow, what a terrible fall," subsequent to the hounding, at his
word, of his gallant opponent to death by the Irish sycophants,
alluded to the breaking of the eleventh commandment of social life:
"Thou shalt not be found out" (publicly), rather than to the seventh
of orthodox Christianity.
On June 7th Mr. Parnell spoke on the Home Rule Bill. It was the last
night of the debate, and he had carefully prepared his speech.
The rejection of the Bill by a full House--343 against {201} 313
votes--was immediately followed by the dissolution of Parliament.
Thus in July, 1886, the Liberals went out in alliance with the Irish
leader, whom, only twelve months before, they had gone out
_denouncing_ with all his followers.
So ends the most important period of my negotiations with Gladstone.
The subsequent course of them may be sketched briefly.
In July, 1886, Gladstone replied to certain suggestions of Parnell
recommending perseverance with the Home Rule scheme, with the
objection that he was unable to carry the Gladstonian Party beyond a
certain point.
There were times when Mr. Gladstone became somewhat uneasy in regard
to the possible consequences of so many interviews with me. Also
someone said once to him, "Supposing Mrs. O'Shea told Parnell you
said so and so, and it was more than you meant to say?" On June
15th, 1887, for example, he wrote asking with utmost politeness for a
letter instead of an interview.
However, on August 22nd of the same year I find him writing from
Hawarden thanking me for some gift (of game or fruit) and expressing
hope of the future.
Gladstone now told me that he wished to meet Parnell in order to talk
over the political situation, and I suggested that a visit to
Hawarden by Parnell would have a good effect politically. Gladstone
then asked Parnell to Hawarden to discuss the outlook in politics, an
invitation which Parnell did not answer at once, as he first wished
to ascertain the tactics of the Conservative Party.
On August 30th, 1889, Mr. Gladstone wrote to Parnell a most private
letter, lamenting that he had not heard from him and his friends with
reference to a visit to Hawarden. The fact was that since Parnell
had received {202} Gladstone's invitation the Tories had been making
advances, and had just proffered a Roman Catholic University for
Ireland. Gladstone was right in supposing that here was the cause of
Parnell's silence. He was not angry, but he threatened Parnell with
the effect of this new proposal on Nonconformist and Presbyterian
Liberals.
In October the air was clearer, the Government's Irish University
scheme had gone awry, and Gladstone was jubilant. He wrote on the
16th renewing the invitation. With regard to the Home Rule Bill he
was all for reserve; with regard to Parnell's action against the
_Times_ all for dispatch.
It was two months later, however (on December 19th), that Parnell, on
his way to Liverpool, visited Gladstone at Hawarden. It was a short
but agreeable visit, and at dinner Mr. Parnell sat next to Miss
Gladstone. The conversation turned upon actors and acting, and Miss
Gladstone said, "Who is the greatest actor you have ever seen, Mr.
Parnell?" "Your father, undoubtedly!" he promptly returned, much to
her delight.
As Parnell became moderate in politics Gladstone became more extreme.
I remember one evening in April or May, 1888, driving with Parnell to
Morley's house in Elm Park Gardens where Parnell and Morley had a
quiet conversation together.
I waited in the hansom cab a little way off the house for a
considerable time, and at last Parnell came out with an amused
expression on his face. As we were driving home he said:
"We can never satisfy English politicians! They imprisoned me for
causing agitation in Ireland, and now they want agitation, if not
outrage. Morley said to me: 'The people must be made to wake up a
bit; can't you {203} do anything to stir them up?'" Then with a
laugh: "If they knew how easy it was for me to stir Ireland up, and
how confoundedly difficult I have found it to quiet her down again,
they would be very careful before giving me such an invitation!"
And, with the experience of the past to give force and conviction to
his words, he had shown Mr. Morley the extreme danger of Mr.
Gladstone's suggestions.
[1] The letters of Captain O'Shea preserved by Mrs. Parnell throw
some light on Mr. Chamberlain's mind. In December, 1884, Chamberlain
dealt at length with the Nationalist movement and the sentiment
behind it, and unfolded his plan for a "National Board" for Ireland.
In March, 1885, he was discussing the possibility of an arrangement
with the Irish Party to get the Redistribution Bill and the Crimes
Bill quickly into law on condition that the Government brought in
Local Government Bills, including one for Ireland. In May, Captain
O'Shea wrote that Gladstone was strongly in favour of this solution,
and that, to Chamberlain's surprise, Lord Hartington did not reject
the proposal off-hand, as expected. He added that the Cardinal had
power to assure Parnell and the Government of the full support of the
Catholic Church. Captain O'Shea's personal interest in the abortive
scheme is revealed in the following passage from a letter of May 4,
1885: "The reason I am anxious about the Local Self-Government scheme
is that if Chamberlain has power, which I think he will in the next
Parliament, he will offer me the Chief Secretaryship, or the
equivalent post if the name is abolished, if the boys will let me
have it."
{204}