Читать книгу John Redmond - Dermot Meleady - Страница 11

CHAPTER 2

Defending Parnell, 1890–1891

In November 1890, Capt. William O’Shea, an Irish former MP, was granted a divorce from his estranged wife Katharine on the grounds of her widely known ten-year affair with Parnell. The first response of most Irish Party MPs was to reaffirm their loyalty to Parnell; he was unanimously re-elected to the chair of the Party. However, the impact of the scandal on Nonconformist Liberal opinion in Britain convinced Gladstone that a continuation of the Home Rule alliance with the Irish Party under Parnell’s leadership must mean his own resignation, the loss of the next election and the indefinite postponement of prospects for Home Rule. When Irish MPs became aware that Gladstone had sent a letter to this effect to the press, a majority reconsidered their allegiance. The Irish Catholic bishops added their weight to the pressure on Parnell to resign the leadership, something he adamantly refused to consider. After a week of anguished debate at Westminster in early December, the Party split when 44 MPs declared Parnell’s leadership terminated, while 27 upheld it. During the debate, Redmond, who had declared himself bound to Parnell ‘by the double ties of private friendship and political allegiance’, emerged as chief spokesman for the Parnell loyalists, arguing that the independence of the Irish Party from British parties was more important even than Home Rule.

TO FR. PATRICK FURLONG, PP NEW ROSS

7 December 1890:

… Nothing in the present heartbreaking crisis gave me greater pain than your telegram. I will not attempt to argue the question with you in a letter and I only send you this note lest you should construe my silence into discourtesy. I need not, I am certain, assure you that I have acted from a clear and strong conception of what is best for the country and from no other consideration whatever.1

***

At the end of December, Parnell was persuaded to join in negotiations to seek a resolution to the conflict. Two senior Party members, William O’Brien and John Dillon, had jumped bail while on trial on agrarian charges some months earlier, and escaped to the US to avoid imprisonment. They now sailed for France to meet Parnell. The two sides met at Boulogne, with Redmond acting as Parnell’s intermediary, T.P. Gill as O’Brien’s. Meanwhile, a faction of the anti-Parnellite MPs, led by the acid-tongued T.M. Healy, rejected all dialogue with Parnell and sought no less than his political annihilation.

MEMORANDUM OF JOHN REDMOND MP AND T.P. GILL MP

of conversations at [Hotel du Louvre s/Mer]

Boulogne, 30 and 31 December 1890:

The first interview between Mr. Parnell and Mr. [William] O’Brien took place after arrival of boat and before dinner.

During dinner Mr. Gill communicated to Mr. Redmond the suggestions which Mr. O’Brien and he proposed to offer with a view to a peaceful settlement of the differences between [sic] the party. After dinner Mr. Redmond proceeded to communicate these suggestions to Mr. Parnell, whereupon Mr. Gill coming into the room was suggested to state them himself. This he accordingly did and a long conversation took place between Mr. Parnell and him. Mr. [J.J.] Clancy was present during portion of this conversation. At its close Mr. Redmond requested Mr. O’Brien to resume his conversation with Mr. Parnell.

The conversation between Mr. Parnell and Mr. O’Brien was accordingly resumed, Mr. Redmond and Mr. Gill being present thereat.

The conversation was at first conducted on the following main lines:

(1) The voluntary retirement of Mr. Parnell;

(2) As consideration for which and for the peace and unity amongst the Party to be secured thereby (a) the Party to acknowledge [the] informality of Mr. McCarthy’s election and then to elect him formally without opposition (b) Party to pass resolutions expressive of gratitude to Mr. Parnell and citing circumstances accounting for precipitation of crisis, e.g. hasty publication of Mr. Gladstone’s letter, tone of English Press, manner in which Mr. Gladstone’s letter was communicated to Mr. Parnell, and its non-communication to Party etc. (c) decision of Party only to affect chairmanship thereof and not to affect any other office or position which Mr. Parnell may occupy (d) endeavours to be made with a view of inducing Mr. Gladstone to make some form of public statement acknowledging haste with which his letter published, and circumstances of its communication to Party and insufficient consideration for Mr. Parnell’s position; (e) special recognition to be given to Mr. Parnell in connection with the Chairman of the Party in discussions with regard to details and provisions of Home Rule Bill and other Irish legislation.

(3) The conversation proceeded on these lines for some time when Mr. Parnell said [breaks off] …2

T.P. GILL MP TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN, MP CORK NORTH-EAST

2 January 1891:

John Redmond and I have been trying to call you up by the telephone but failed to get a response … NB: Depend upon it, from this stage forward it is necessary to have Jack R [Redmond] present at everything.3

***

The outcome of the Boulogne negotiations was an agreement to a set of proposals that it was hoped would smooth the way to a voluntary retirement by Parnell. Central to these was the production by the Liberal leaders of ‘assurances’ regarding their intentions as to the next Home Rule Bill. Officially these would be presented to Justin McCarthy, the newly elected party leader. In reality, they would be assessed by Parnell. If Parnell judged them satisfactory, he would retire, to be replaced by Dillon. The assurances were delivered on 28 January.

FROM C.S. PARNELL MP

London, telegram Sat. 24 January 1891:

Kindly wire Euston Hotel any prospect settlement Parnell.4

TO T.P. GILL MP

Dublin, telegram Mon. 26 January 1891:

Just starting for Avondale will bear your wire in mind don’t think he [Parnell] can see you London till Wednesday will wire early tomorrow Redmond.5

TO T.P. GILL MP

Dublin, telegram Tue. 27 January 1891:

Parnell entirely agrees he crosses tonight wishes to see you Westminster Palace Hotel tomorrow morning as early as possible Redmond.6

TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP

Dublin, telegram [fragment] Tue. 27 January 1891:

… he entirely agrees he goes London tonight meets Gill there tomorrow he will write you have no anxiety about bona fides Redmond.7

MEMORANDUM CONTAINING THE LIBERAL LEADERS’ ASSURANCES REGARDING THE POLICE AND LAND QUESTIONS,

28 January 1891:

Police.

Mr. Gladstone expressly said in introducing the HR Bill in 1886 that he and his colleagues ‘had no desire to exempt the police of Ireland in its final form from the ultimate control of the Irish legislative body’. The complete organisation [… missing] police by the Irish Government, to take the place of the [… missing] not require [… missing] (subject, of course, to a strict observance of all engagements made by the Imperial Government with the R.I.C.) and would, on the completion of the arrangement for a civil police, finally disappear.

Land.

It would be obviously inconsistent with the concession of HR to Ireland that the power to deal with the laws relating to land in Ireland should be permanently confined to the Imperial Parliament to the exclusion of the local Legislature. The Land question must therefore either be settled by the Imperial Parliament simultaneously with the establishment of HR or within a limited period thereafter to be specified in the HR Bill, or the power to deal with it must be committed to the local Legislature.8

***

Parnell arrived, exhausted, in Calais on 2 February to assess the Liberal assurances. While there, his discussions with Dillon were acrimonious. He demanded amendments to the assurances regarding the Home Rule powers governing the police and land questions.

‘COPY OF AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED AT CALAIS FEB. 3 [1891] BY MR. PARNELL TO MEMO OF LIBERAL ASSURANCES’:

Police.

The complete organisation of the civil police by the Irish Government to take the place of the present armed and semi-military police will (ought) not (to) require more than a moderate amount of time, say five years or less.

Provision will be made in the Home Rule Bill by which the present armed police under the control of the Lord Lieutenant shall (would) undergo a rapid reduction or transformation (subject of course to a strict observance of all engagements made by the Imperial Government with the R.I.C.) and that at the end of the interval above-named it shall finally disappear, and that the statutory powers now possessed by the Lord Lieutenant for the raising or maintenance of (such) a police force in Ireland shall thereupon cease …

[All emphases Parnell’s].9

J.J. CLANCY MP (IRISH PRESS AGENCY, LONDON) TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP

4 February 1891:

Redmond and I had a long conference today with Parnell … and as he (R) has had to leave this evening for Dublin (where his mother is dying), he desired me to drop you a few lines on the subject … I entreat you to have patience and not to lose heart but persevere … We believe Parnell is sincere and is acting bona fide ... 10

TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP

5 February 1891:

I have just returned from London where I fully discussed the situation with P. I understand there is no objection to strengthening the assurance about the Police in such a way as to satisfy him and that the only point of dispute is as to the Land Question. I do hope you will use all your influence to have this difficulty removed and I say this as one who is quite as anxious for the settlement … [missing] … made might fairly be accepted, namely, that the Land Question should be included amongst the matters over which the Irish Parliament would have power to deal but that this power should be deferred for say five years after the passing of the Act … There is not much difference between this and the proviso in the memorandum … I can quite understand the feeling of impatience on the part of Gladstone and his friends and God knows you have special reason for impatience, but so much is at stake and we have approached so near an agreement that it would be horrible if a … [missing]… we are all possessed with the belief in P’s bona fides …

Best regards to John [Dillon].11

***

Writing to Gill on 5 February, Parnell claimed to have become aware of new demands from the Liberals, aimed at excluding him from the assessment of the assurances, which would place him in a ‘humiliating disgraceful position’, and of plans to keep the full Irish representation at Westminster. A bewildered Gill immediately alerted Redmond to the danger of breakdown.

TO T.P. GILL MP

Dublin, telegram 6 February 1891:

Impossible to start this morning wire nature of immediate danger Can I do any good by telegram prevent any final decision till he consults friends reply Redmond [National] League office.12

WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP TO T. P. GILL MP, LONDON

Boulogne, telegram 7 February 1891:

Any breakdown most desirable Redmond Harrington and you should come over tonight [to Boulogne].13

TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP

London, 7 [misdated ‘January’] February 1891 [fragment]:

… some time with P today. He has got firmly in his mind the idea, due to something which fell from Gill, that the Liberal leaders are trying to make it a condition that you alone [should] see the amended memo and … [missing] … I have every [hope] you may be able to get the changes he suggests made by Gladstone …

[I cannot go] to Boulogne and if I did [it would not achieve] anything … [I must return to] Ireland where [my mother is] hovering [between life and death]. God grant you [success in] your work in the … [missing].

[PS]: I am afraid John’s [Dillon’s] interview with P at Calais had a very bad effect and accounts for much of recent events. Ever since P has been saying if you were to be the leader, as he originally … strongly urged, the difficulties … very small … [missing].14

TO C.S. PARNELL MP

London, ‘Monday night’ [9 February 1891]:

I have just seen Gill on his return from Boulogne, and I am most anxious to see you tomorrow. Until you have seen me I would strongly urge you not to publish anything whatever. I have some good reason for believing that the Liberals won’t agree to amend the memo in any respect even as to the Constabulary and that therefore, if you so choose, you will be in a position to break off on that ground, which I’m sure you see would be an infinitely safer ground than the ‘new condition’ which O’Brien never heard of and did not agree to.

On the other hand if you thought the negotiations should proceed I think it not impossible that we could secure O’Brien [as chairman] in place of Dillon after all.

If the negotiations are broken off on the ground of the assurances being in your view defective, I feel sure O’Brien would not say or do anything hostile, but I fear if your letter to Gill be published and made the pretext for the rupture, he would be driven to action which would be regarded as hostile.

I must go to Dublin tomorrow night.15

***

On 11 February, the final breakdown of the negotiations came after Parnell was informed that the Liberal leaders refused to ‘alter a comma’ of the assurances. Dillon and O’Brien crossed to England, where they were arrested, later to serve six-month sentences. The split in nationalist Ireland became ever more envenomed. The loss of the Carlow by-election was the third consecutive electoral defeat suffered by the Parnellites (following Kilkenny North in December and Sligo North in March). A National Convention of Parnellites was scheduled for 23 July. The 24 MPs on the platform did not include Redmond, who was detained at murder trials in Wicklow. His absence was later interpreted as a distancing of himself from Parnell.

WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP TO T.P. GILL MP

(letter smuggled from Galway Jail), date unknown [pre-22 July] 1891:

I have learned the result in Carlow [by-election] … [It offers] a splendid opportunity for reunion if McCarthy’s people [… illegible] and Redmond resolute ...

The Dublin [Parnellite] Convention is plainly [arranged] on the eve of our release to make Parnell’s men nail their colours to the mast and make reconciliation impossible, or at least to sow division between us and McCarthy’s men. If Redmond would write P a letter suggesting that the Convention shall be postponed, in view of the declaration of [the result] in Carlow, until our release and until there should be consultation as to some possibility of re-establishing union, it would be a decisive stroke …

If John Redmond shows that spirit, I am pretty confident that we would be able to enforce tolerant and even generous treatment from the other side – though, of course, P’s own follies have tremendously strengthened the party of no quarter … R has a magnificent chance.16

***

Dillon and O’Brien were released from prison on 30 July and immediately joined the anti-Parnellite opposition. Redmond maintained a six-week period of silence until mid-September, possibly in expectation of peace overtures from O’Brien. When none materialised, he accused O’Brien and Dillon of lacking the courage to break with the hateful campaign of the scurrilous Healy. Meanwhile, Parnell’s health deteriorated under the impact of constant campaigning, and he died at Brighton on 6 October. Redmond thenceforth cast himself as chief standard-bearer of Parnell’s principle of Party independence. The ensuing weeks were filled with bitter recriminations, private and public, between the protagonists.

WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP TO T.P. GILL MP

‘Wednesday’ [7 October 1891]:

The appalling news just to hand ends all controversy. If he had only let us save him that time at Boulogne, what a different fate his might have been! If even Redmond and the rest had had the courage of their convictions after our coming out of jail he might even then have been persuaded to save himself from his tragic fate. It is most woeful.17

TO T.P. GILL MP

Telegram 17 November 1891:

I have refused to say one word in public of our interchanges of confidence but have been treated with brutal falseness by others write to me Redmond.18

***

Opinion among Redmond’s Wexford North constituents was overwhelmingly anti-Parnellite. He resigned the seat in October and announced his candidacy for Parnell’s Cork City seat. In a campaign full of street violence, he was defeated by an anti-Parnellite. In December, he tried again, this time in Waterford City, where his opponent was Davitt; he was elected to the seat he would hold for 26 years until his death.

TO MICHAEL DAVITT

7 December 1891:

… I agree with you in deploring the injurious effects which the contests of the past year have had upon the reputation of Ireland before the world, and I would welcome any truce upon reasonable terms whereby the decision of the issues before the country could be reserved for the General Election.

If your proposal means that both sides should agree that pending the General Election no contests should take place, but that each party should be permitted unchallenged by its opponents to fill up from its own ranks any vacancy in a seat which had been held by one of its members, I think it a most reasonable one – and I would gladly do my best to have it adopted.19

FROM MICHAEL DAVITT

8 December 1891:

I am glad you endorse at least the spirit of my proposal for a truce in the fight for Waterford. It is right however I should at once inform you of the fact that my letter in yesterday’s papers was written without any consultation …

I fear there is little if any chance of a truce being agreed to by the Stalwarts on both sides. Moreover, since the writ has been applied for by your friends there can be no hope of averting a combat now …20

FROM MICHAEL DAVITT

11 December 1891:

I sincerely regret that the contest is to come off immediately, and with you …

You may rely upon it that whatever little influence I possess … will be exercised in the interests of fair play and moderation, and I feel assured from the tone of your letter that you will be found equally desirous to have this fight as free as possible from those scenes and disorders which did so much harm to the country, in the estimation of external friends, in previous elections.

Regretting I cannot wish you something better than defeat in the impending struggle for Waterford.21

FROM W.J. O’NEILL

Curracloe, Co. Wexford, 22 October 1891:

… Your retirement [from North Wexford seat] causes me and your many friends great sorrow. We are proud of you for the way you have borne yourself all through. You acted like a true man – and may God bless you for it …22

FROM CORK YOUNG IRELAND SOCIETY

30 November 1891:

… as a slight token of the love and admiration we hold for you … the members have unanimously elected you President.

Hoping you will accept the position … We are anxious to know when it would be convenient for you to deliver the Inaugural Address …23

FROM EDMUND DOYLE

Broadway, Co. Wexford, ‘Christmas 1891’:

… Let me … beseech you to use your present triumph [in Waterford] in doing one of the greatest services an Irishman could possibly render to the country. You have proved your loyalty to your Chief, use your influence now to heal the dissensions among our countrymen …24