Читать книгу John Redmond - Dermot Meleady - Страница 13

CHAPTER 4

Leading the Parnellites: The Second Home Rule Bill

Redmond’s meeting in March 1892 and subsequent lengthy correspondence with the Lancashire industrialist and Liberal MP William Mather, of which this letter is a sample, shows that he had given deep thought to the nuances of Irish–British relations as they would be re-shaped by Home Rule, in particular to such thorny constitutional questions as the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and the retention of Irish MPs at Westminster.

THE HOME RULE BILL

TO WILLIAM MATHER MP

13 April 1892:

… the result of our very pleasant conversation the other night on the subject of Home Rule. I think I may say we found ourselves in complete agreement on … almost every point which we touched upon, and if what I understand to be your views are the views also of the Liberal leaders and if they are carried boldly out in the Home Rule Bill I think it may safely be assumed that that measure will receive the support of all sections of Irish Nationalists …

As to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament … we don’t wish to touch it in any way. For my part I quite admit that from a constitutional point of view it may truly be said the Imperial Parliament has no power to divest itself of its supremacy. Therefore it must be conceded that after a Parliament for Ireland had been created by Statute, the power which passed that Statute wd. remain untouched and capable at any time of amending or repealing it altogether. In addition of course the Imperial Parliament would retain in its own hands … the control of every Imperial concern. What we demand is that by international compact it should be secured to us, that while our Statutory Parliament exists it shall have supreme and sole control over all purely Irish affairs. It may be said why not leave the question as it is left in the Colonial constitutions? There, in theory, the Imperial Parliament can interfere at any moment and pass laws which would override the authority of any local enactments. This power, however, is never used and we all know never will be used. Why would not Ireland be satisfied with a similar arrangement?

The answer is simple. Ireland’s case differs materially from the case of the Colonies. The Colonies are at the other side of the world. No Colonial members sit at Westminster. There is no inducement to the Imperial Parliament to interfere in Colonial local matters of which they know nothing or next to nothing. In Ireland it is quite different. The Irish members are to be retained at Westminster. It will be the interest of one section of Irishmen to endeavour in season and out of it to appeal from the Irish to the Imperial Parliament. A power which in the case of the Colonies is harmless because an absolute dead letter, would in the case of Ireland be a constant source of danger.

We therefore say you must formally enter into a compact with Ireland that while the Irish Parliament lasts, it will be permitted sole and unfettered authority over all purely Irish affairs subject only to the constitutional veto of the Crown …

On the question of the Police we say that the present military police should be disbanded and those Statutes repealed which give power to the Lord Lieutenant to raise, equip or maintain a police force. The civil constabulary to be absolutely under the control of the Irish Parliament.

It is perfectly clear that on the Land question the Liberal Party are not agreed upon a policy. It is, therefore, I fear hopeless to expect that the Irish Land question can be effectively dealt with simultaneously with the granting of Home Rule …

On the question of religious ascendancy, we recognize the fears and suspicions of a section of our countrymen and tho’ we know them to be unreal and absurd, we wd. be quite ready to agree to any reasonable safeguards to allay them.

The position of the Irish members at Westminster raises a question of some difficulty and so long as the Imperial Parliament remains at the same time the Parliament of England and Scotland, the position of representatives at Westminster from Ireland after the creation of an Irish Parliament must at best be an illogical or anomalous one. If Irish members had a right to vote upon purely English or Scottish affairs while Englishmen and Scotchmen had abandoned their right to similarly interfere in Irish affairs, it certainly would give cause for complaint. On the other hand if Irishmen were only to vote on purely Imperial affairs the result might be that upon the supreme question of the existence of the Imperial government when it depended upon a vote on some English or Scotch measure or policy, they would be deprived of any voice whatever. It is a problem of the greatest difficulty. We can only hope that the genius and statesmanship of both countries may be able to solve it …1

***

Within two days of his appointment as Irish Chief Secretary following the Liberal victory in the 1892 general election, John Morley, one of the Cabinet’s strongest supporters of Home Rule, sought a meeting with Redmond.

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING WITH JOHN MORLEY MP

17 October 1892:

Saw J. Morley at Lord Chancellor Walker’s house. Walker was present at portions only of conversation. Went to meet M. at his urgent request.

…

R. How do you regard the prospects of this winter?

M. With grave misgiving. If I can’t rule Ireland this winter with success it means destruction. I don’t believe the talk about a revival of secret societies … though there may be a revival of Parnellism … At the same time I know there are forces behind you which you yourself cannot entirely control. They could make my task this winter an impossible one. Can you give me any hope on this point?

R. It depends on yourself. If you are thorough you can disarm hostility. In the first place release the Prisoners.

M. Do you mean the Dynamiters or the Gweedore men? I can make a good case in England for the release of Coll, but can I in the case of Daly and the others?

R. I mean the so-called Dynamiters. I take it for granted Coll will be released (Morley did not dissent) but this won’t do. You must release Daly and the others. They have been eight or nine years in prison [compares their sentences to those of English dynamiters – the Walsall case]. As for Daly he was three times poisoned. If that happened to any ordinary prisoner he would have been released.

M. [His difficulty is, if Daly were released, it would be said that it was not because of the poisoning but because of a desire to get the Irish vote. Also Harcourt [Chancellor of the Exchequer] told him he had told Redmond that the Government has letters of Daly putting his guilt beyond all doubt.]

R. Without admitting Daly’s guilt, have you not got the Walsall precedent to say he has been punished enough?

M. It would be natural for a Minister to ask himself would he gain enough in Ireland to compensate for what he lost in England, i.e. odium …

Could you promise us a united Nationalist Party?

R. No. Reunion has been made impossible by insults and blackguardism of Healy and others.

M. Yes – the misfortune of the thing is that the man [Healy] with most brains amongst the anti-Parnellites is – what shall I say? – without character.

R. A political savage –

M. Yes – but you must remember the anti-Parnellites are not all of his way of thinking. The cleavage between you and the anti-Parnellites is no greater than the cleavage between the one section of anti-Parnellites and the other. In fact the whole nationalist movement is in chaos.

R. That was inevitable from the destruction of Parnell.

M. Perhaps so. Remember always I am as much a Parnellite as an anti-Parnellite and have been all this [time].

R. Can you promise me anything about Amnesty?

M. All I can promise is that I will write to Asquith [Home Secretary] and press your views upon him – putting before him the Walsall precedent and telling him how important you regard the question.

R. But after all you can decide it. If you demand it the Cabinet must agree.

M. That no doubt is so; but I cannot say anything more to you now.

R. No one doubts the complete innocence of Egan.

M. I am quite aware of the great distinction between his case and the others. …

M. [Horrified by the savage insults and abuse in the newspapers]. As far as I know, neither you nor Dillon have used language of insult, though it has been used towards you. Have you any suggestions as to securing a peaceful winter?

R. Amnesty – Amnesty – Amnesty!

M. Anything else?

R. Yes – make the ‘understanding and agreement’ which Dillon says he has had with Gladstone about the Home Rule Bill public … We want to discuss them in Ireland.

M. ‘Understanding and agreement’ with Dillon! There have been absolutely none.

R. But Dillon in a public speech has declared that there have been such –

M. As to Home Rule [there has been no sort of ‘agreement or understanding’ with Dillon or any of his party]. They know no more than you do.

R. That makes the position of affairs still more grave. Did you read Stead’s article in this month’s Review of Reviews?

M. No.

R. Well, he says we may get a London County Council for Ireland but no more.

M. There are of course two sections in the Cabinet. One is of Stead’s way of thinking but the other, to which of course I belong, would not remain in the Government a single hour if our Home Rule Bill only meant that … But do you really want Home Rule?

R. Certainly – genuine Home Rule.

M. Then don’t destroy our chances of giving it to you.

R. We don’t intend to do so and we believe others are embarrassing the Government far more than we are [for example, Dillon’s promises in the name of the Liberal Party for one-and-a-half years].

M. I have protested to Dillon for drawing such large bills upon me.

R. Why do you allow the most bitter partisans – the local Healys who are always insulting large sections of their fellow townsmen – to be picked out for the magistracy?

M. My instructions are quite the reverse.

[Chancellor Walker had entered the room.]

…

R. What view do you take of the Meath petitions [brought by the Parnellites against the 1892 election results in South and North Meath]?

M. I take the gravest view possible. I look with more apprehension to them than [to] anything whatever. If what I hear is to be the evidence be substantiated it will mean ruin.

R. But it is a vital matter that the people should be freed from the monstrous clerical intimidation which is prevalent all over Ireland. Meath is only an example.

M. I fully recognise this. It is horrible and almost incredible, but surely the time to defeat it is when you get Home Rule, not while trying to get it.

C. Can nothing be done to save this exposure?

R. Nothing as far as I can see except not to defend the petitions and to let us have the seats.

C. That of course is impossible …

M. Sd. he hoped I would consent to see him again … complained that no one went to see him except ‘the wrong sort’ – no Irish member had called upon him.2

***

The Second Home Rule Bill was introduced by Gladstone in February 1893. Redmond, ostensibly representing a more militant form of constitutional nationalism than the anti-Parnellites, had to steer a careful course between venting criticism of the Bill’s inadequacies and avoiding its rejection by his more extreme supporters. Although the Second Reading was passed with the support of all nationalist factions, Redmond’s widely acclaimed speech in its favour included the stricture that the Bill could not be regarded as a final settlement of Ireland’s claims. When the financial clauses were debated in Committee in June, his criticisms were much tougher than those of anti-Parnellite spokesmen. Similar censures would be voiced by nationalist critics of Redmond two decades later in the debates on the Third Home Rule Bill.

TO JOHN MORLEY MP

House of Commons, 13 June 1893:

… in regard to the financial clauses [of the Home Rule Bill] the rumour of the intentions of the Government … has reached me from another source ... I consider the matter so grave, that I feel bound to let you know the view taken by at any rate some Irish members. I have had an opportunity of consulting my friends and they agree with me that it will be our duty to vote against the 3rd Reading of the Bill in the event of the Government making any proposal … to take from the future Irish Government the collection, even for a time, of all Irish taxes … as unjust and humiliating in the last degree. If not too late, I would urge most strongly upon you the desirability of endeavouring, in consultation with Irish Nationalists of both parties, to frame such financial arrangements as will enable all of us to continue our support of the measure.3

***

The second Home Rule Bill passed the House of Commons on 1 September but was rejected by the House of Lords, exercising its veto. In charting a way forward for the Parnellite minority after the Bill’s defeat, Redmond continued to receive sound advice, judiciously seasoned with flattery, from T.P. Gill.

FROM T.P. GILL

13 October 1893:

… You won’t mind me telling you how [your speeches] struck me:

(i) I approve of your making it clear that ‘Ireland stops the way’ – both as agitation in Ireland and … well-timed disturbance of the House of Commons; (ii) I approve of the nine [Parnellite MPs] devoting themselves to agitation and organisation in Ireland during the autumn session – provided they pair all right.

However … I disapprove of the offensive tone in speaking of the Liberal party and things and measures which the English democracy and working classes hold very dear … [This] can only do you harm both in England and in Ireland … you can make the effect you want without it … speaking in this way was one of the mistakes poor Parnell admitted to me and he tried and generally managed to avoid it in his later speeches …

In Ireland mark this – whatever growth of Parnellite strength has taken place during the year is largely due to the impression created of the sagacity of your actions in Parliament throughout the session; to the confidence thus inspired in your wisdom, discretion and skill – your Parnellesque qualities in short, a confidence which has been greatly heightened by the squabbling on the other side. Men who feared that in supporting Parnellism they were helping to wreck Home Rule have begun to feel that they are doing the contrary and that Parnellism is likely to furnish from its bosom a new leader to whose prudence and adroitness and courage they can trust the constitutional cause …4

FROM T.P. GILL

24 October 1893:

… you should come over and make a tour, taking the opportunity to give a word for the British working man … address a meeting in England in a strongly democratic tone … and point out to the British democracy that we have no quarrel with them, that those who have been Ireland’s oppressors have also been theirs … a series of meetings, indeed, addressed in that vein, with variations, would do a lot of good both to you and to the cause at large …5

***

One of the concessions salvaged by Redmond from the wreck of the Home Rule Bill was a Liberal commitment to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole topic of British–Irish financial relations since the Act of Union. The Commission’s 1896 report, which confirmed the over-taxation of Ireland, would be a landmark event that ignited an island-wide agitation for redress that drew support from nationalist and unionist opinion alike.

FROM JOHN MORLEY MP

5 December 1893:

I was very pleased to get your kind note last night. You and I shall yet have some business to do together in this world, and I believe neither of us will do anything in the meantime to make that business more difficult … I shall continue to be at one end of a wire, and Ireland at the other.6

MEMORANDUM IN REDMOND’S HAND: ‘INTERVIEW WITH JOHN MORLEY ABOUT NAMES FOR FINANCIAL COMMISSION’

19 February 1894:

Incidentally he sd. he was going to appoint a batch of R.M.s and sd. he wd. appoint one Parnellite barrister if I would name one. I sd. I cd. not do so. Asked me if I knew Miles and Dan Kehoe and were they Parnellites. I said yes.7

FROM JOHN MORLEY MP

24 February 1894:

I hope you will allow me to propose your name as a member of the Commission on the References enclosed. It is, as you know, a Royal Commission, and Mr. Childers will be in the chair … Let me have a reply as soon as you conveniently can.8

FROM THE SECRETARIES OF WELSH PARLIAMENTARY PARTY

25 February 1895:

The opponents of Welsh Disestablishment will divide against the introduction of the Welsh Bill on Thursday next. On behalf of the Welsh Parliamentary Party we venture to appeal to you and your followers to support us in this matter as you have done on former occasions ... It is needless to point out how staunch Wales has stood to the National cause of Ireland.

P.S. Please bear in mind that I travelled 1300 miles to vote for Second Reading of Home Rule Bill in 1893 – G.O. Morgan.9

***

THE AMNESTY CAMPAIGN

Constitutional nationalists, including Redmond’s father, had engaged in amnesty campaigns for imprisoned revolutionaries since the 1860s. Redmond’s efforts on behalf of members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) in British jails played an important role in the maintenance of the credibility of his faction, and of constitutional political action in general, in the eyes of the ‘advanced’ nationalists who had flocked to Parnell’s side in his final days. The letter here from John O’Leary, a founding member of the IRB though opposed to terrorist methods, criticises the tendency of amnesty rhetoric to merge into approval of violence. The two most notable convicts aided by Redmond were John Daly and Henry Wilson (the alias of Thomas Clarke), both IRB men imprisoned since 1883 on charges of plotting to bomb London. Clarke was to be the principal long-term planner of the Easter rebellion of 1916, which did much to destroy the Home Rule project and Redmond’s career.

FROM E. LEIGH PEMBERTON, HOME OFFICE

Whitehall, 16 February 1892:

I am directed by Mr. Secretary Matthews [Secretary to Home Secretary Sir Matthew Ridley] to say, in reply to your letter of the 15th instant asking for permission to visit John Daly on Thursday next and to see James Egan on the same day, that instructions will be sent to allow you as the legal adviser of Daly to have an interview with Daly on Thursday at Portland … on the express condition that the interview is strictly confined to the legal business of Daly, and not made use of for discussing prison treatment or prison discipline. Similar … with regard to Egan on this occasion ...10

FROM HENRY MORONEY

St. Ignatius Rd., Dublin, 22 November 1892:

[I write] to you on behalf of the ‘Dublin Invincibles’ who are at present confined in Maryboro’ Prison. What I want to know… is why these men are excluded from the Amnesty question or why is it that our representatives in Parliament do not think of paying them a visit … I admit it was a terrible conspiracy, but after all what was it compared to the treachery England used against us? ... They are ‘Political Prisoners’ … they must be released …

I wrote to Mr. Harrington and you Mr. Redmond on one former occasion and I am surprised that my letter was not even acknowledged.11

FROM HORACE WEST (SECRETARY TO H.H. ASQUITH, HOME SECRETARY)

Whitehall, 25 February 1893:

I am desired by Mr. Asquith to acknowledge your letter of yesterday’s date, informing him of your desire to visit the prisoners Daly and Wilson at Portland, some time next week, and to say that instructions will be given to the Governor of the Prison to afford you the usual facilities.12

FROM H.H. ASQUITH, HOME SECRETARY

Whitehall, 20 June 1893:

I am informed by the prison authorities that in the course of your recent visit to Daly you gave him pen and paper, that he wrote for some time, and that you took the document away with you.

Probably you were not aware that such a proceeding is entirely contrary to prison rules, but it is obvious that a prisoner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the privilege of seeing a legal adviser to make any written communication which may be used outside, and which has not passed under the eyes of the Governor.13

FROM JOHN O’LEARY

‘Lonsdale’, St. Laurence Rd., Clontarf, Dublin, 25 October 1893:

… [Regarding the content of your speech] and what you were reported to have said … about the Clerkenwell explosions which was undoubtedly a Fenian act, if scarcely (though not of the dynamite nature at all) a Fenian method …

I fear you are likely to burn your fingers over this amnesty business. I think it cannot serve the prisoners, nor any good cause at all, that at the meetings the use of dynamite is often approved of and nearly always in a sense excused.

There are to my mind two unassailable arguments for amnesty; first, that there was no fairness about the trials, and secondly, that, even if (or when) guilty, the men should not be punished more severely than the undoubted Walsall dynamitards.

As to the plea of innocence, I fear that can hold good for few if any, and I know it can’t hold good for most. I know things are not easy for you or your party, but you may make them more difficult. I incline to think the tenants are a better card to play against your adversaries, though here again the question is made very difficult by the part mad action of O’Brien and Dillon …14

FROM KENELM E. DIGBY [PERMANENT UNDER-SECRETARY], HOME OFFICE

Whitehall, 4 December 1895:

With reference to your letter of the 1st inst. respecting the case of the Treason Felony convicts, I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he has the cases of these men under his consideration, and has ordered a special medical inquiry into the health of all the Treason Felony convicts in Portland, which he desires to have before him before coming to a final decision.

An order permitting you to visit Daly, Wilson and Dalton is forwarded herewith.15

Notes in Redmond’s hand on prisoners, undated:

Drs. Maudsley’s and Nicholson’s report about May ’95 on Portland prisoners.

Wilson [Thomas Clarke]: Heart action shows symptoms of valvular disease but condition not attributable to imprisonment. Indigestion ... Sound mind.

Devany: Mentally he is naturally somewhat weak. Good health.

Whitehead: Good bodily health. Though not mentally strong, he is not insane. He seems to have enough cunning in his disposition to make him feign insanity as he is reputed to have done.

Gallagher: Health good. Lost 35 lbs. Says he has no physical ailment. He is not insane. His answers throughout were quiet and rational and his demeanour, tho’ dejected and somewhat sullen, natural and composed. In our opinion his mental condition exhibits nothing more than the natural effects of imprisonment upon a man of his education and temperament 45 years old.

Duff: Insane.

Dalton: Sound in mind and body.

McDermot: Ditto

Flanigan: Ditto

Burton: … General health not affected.

Featherstone: Circulation weak and sluggish.

Daly: Complained in exaggerated fashion of a variety of ailments. Good health and sound mind.

Generally none of prisoners injuriously or unduly affected in mind or body by imprisonment.16

FROM JOHN DALY, TREASON FELONY PRISONER AT PORTLAND

22 June 1896:

(written on back of leaflet outlining regulations regarding communications between prisoners and their friends):

… I want to see you now, so much that if you cannot find it convenient to come at once, it will not be at all necessary (so far as I am concerned) that you should come at any future time.17

FROM SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY, HOME SECRETARY

Whitehall, 3 August 1896:

With reference to your request to make another visit to Daly and others prisoners at Portland, I feel obliged to say that being advised that these visits have a prejudicial effect on the health of the prisoners by bringing about elation and subsequent depression of spirits, which has had a very serious effect upon some of them and especially Daly, I do not feel able to grant your request.

I have however given most anxious consideration to a report which I have within the last day or two received from the medical gentlemen whom, in consequence of representations made to me, I at once sent down … and have come to the conclusion that the state of health of … Daly, Devany, Whitehead and Gallagher justifies my advising their release on licence on that ground …18

***

John Daly was released from Portland prison on 20 August 1896. ‘Wilson’ (Thomas Clarke) was released in September 1898.

FROM [DMP ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER] JOHN MALLON

27 October 1898:

It would be wholly inconsistent for me to make any representations to the Lord Lieut. or the Chief Secretary in regard to Wilson. If he writes himself to the Chief Secy half a dozen words pointing out the great inconvenience of reporting personally, his letter would be referred to the Chief Commissioner … My own opinion always was that reporting was never intended for men of Wilson’s class but for thieves or such like ...19