Kitty O'Shea.

Charles Stewart Parnell; his love story and political life (Volume 2) online

. (page 13 of 20)
Online LibraryKitty O'SheaCharles Stewart Parnell; his love story and political life (Volume 2) → online text (page 13 of 20)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

You now inform me that a new condition is insisted upon
for the continuance of further negotiations viz., that the
question of the sufficiency of the guarantee is decided upon
by O'Brien, apart from me, and in conjunction with I know
not whom, that he is to see the draft of the proposed public
statement, and that he must bind himself to accept it as
satisfactory before it is published, while I am not to be per-
mitted to see it, to judge of its satisfactory character, or to
have a voice in the grave and weighty decision which O'Brien
and certain unknown persons were thus called upon to give
on my behalf as well as his own. I desire to say that I fully

*Mr. Gill was an Irish member of no particular attachment who proved
useful as an intermediary.



recognise the candour which O'Brien has shown in this matter,
and the absence of any disposition on his part to depart either
from the spirit or the letter of our agreement without my
knowledge or consent. It is unnecessary for me to enlarge
upon the humiliating and disgraceful position in which this
fresh attempt at exaction on the part of the Liberal leaders
would seem intended to place me. It suffices to say that
neither my own self-respect nor, I am confident, that of
the Irish people would permit me to occupy it for a single
moment. Besides this consideration, I could not, with any
regard for my public responsibility and declarations upon
the vital points in reference to which assurances are required
surrender into unknown hands, or even into the hands of
O'Brien, my right as to the sufficiency of those assurances
and guarantees. But within the last twenty hours informa-
tion of a most startling character has reached me from a
reliable source, which may render it necessary for me to widen
my position in these negotiations. It will be remembered
that during the Hawarden communication the one point of
the form upon which the views of the Liberal leaders were
not definitely and clearly conveyed to me was that regard-
ing the question of the retention of the Irish members at
Westminster. It was represented to me that the unanimous
opinion was in favour of permanently retaining a reduced
number, 34, as the symbol of Imperial unity, but not with a
view of affording grounds, occasions, or pretexts for Imperial
interference in Irish national concerns, it being held most
properly that the permanent retention of a large number would
afford such grounds.

But from the information recently conveyed to me, referred
to above, it would appear that this decision has been recon-
sidered, and that it is now most probable that the Irish mem-
bers in their full strength will be permanently retained. This
prospect, following so closely upon the orders of the Poll Mall
Gazette that it must be so, is ominous and most alarming.

In 1886 the second reading of the Home Rule Bill, as I



can prove by documentary evidence, was lost' because the
Liberal leaders declined till too late to agree to the retention
of any Irish members in any shape or for any purpose. This
resolve was formed because the Irish Party from 1880 to 1885
have proved their independence, courage, and steadiness on
many a hard-fought field, and it was felt necessary to get rid
of them at any cost. But the majority of the party of to-
day having lost their independence and proved their devo-
tion to the Liberal leaders, it is considered desirable to keep
them permanently at Westminster for the purpose of English
Radicalism, and as a standing pretext for the exercise of the
veto of the Imperial Parliament over the legislation of the
Irish body.

I refrain at present from going further into the matter,
but will conclude by saying that so long as the degrading con-
dition referred to at the commencement of this letter is in-
sisted upon by the Liberal leaders, I do not see how I can be
a party to the further progress of the negotiations, My
dear Gill, yours very truly, CHAS. S. PARNELL.

Other letters to Mr. Gill explain themselves :

February 6, 1891.

MY DEAR GILL, I have your letter of last night, and
note that you say that the first part of mine to you of yester-
day is founded on a misunderstanding which you can remove.
Although I cannot see where there is any room on my part
for misunderstanding the information which you conveyed, I
shall be very glad if it should turn out as you say, and in
that case, of course, the negotiations could be resumed. Will
you, then, kindly write and explain what the misunder-
standing was, and how you think it can be removed, as I
fear it may not be possible for me to see you at the House
of Commons this evening? Yours very truly,



February 7, 1891.

MY DEAR GILL, I am writing O'Brien by this evening's
post upon the subject of our conversation on Wednesday,
and for the present perhaps it would be better that the nego-
tiations should be conducted by correspondence between him-
self and me. As regards your note just received, I am sorry
that I cannot agree with you that it gives at all an accurate
account of the information you then conveyed to me, although,
while you expressly stated the conditions, new to me, of the
Liberal leaders, I agree that you did not say that you spoke to
me on behalf of them, or at their request, nor did I so inti-
mate in my letter of Thursday. Sincerely yours,


On February 10th he wrote thus to Mr. William

February 10, 1891.

MY DEAR O 'BRIEN, I have received your kind notes of
the 8th and 9th instant, and I fully join with you in the
expression regarding the unhappy situation that would be
created if the negotiations were to be broken off owing to
any misunderstanding. But I have been much desirous since
Wednesday of ascertaining the nature of the alleged misun-
derstanding, with a view to its removal, and up to the present
have entirely failed in obtaining any light, either from your
letters or those of Gill. Perhaps, however, I can facilitate
matters by relating as clearly as possible what it was that
fell from the latter at our second interview on Wednesday,
which gave rise to my letter of Thursday. You will remember
that, as requested by your telegram of Friday week, advising
me that you had obtained the materials for a final decision, I
met you at Calais on Monday week for the purpose of join-
ing you in coming to a decision as to whether the intentions
of Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were in accordance with
the views expressed in my original Memorandum of agree-



ment with you. You then showed me a Memorandum which
you stated was the substance of a public letter which Mr.
Gladstone was willing to write, conveying the assurance re-
garding the questions of the constabulary and the land. You
seemed of opinion that such a letter in such terms would
satisfy my conditions. But I was obliged to differ from you,
and hoped that I had been so fortunate as to convince you
of the reasonable character of my objections, for you asked
me to amend the Memorandum in such a way as to cause it
to carry out my views on the subject of the constabulary.
This was done, and it was arranged that I should meet Gill
in London the next day for the purpose of further consider-
ing the land branch, and to confirm that portion referring
to the constabulary after reference to the statutes. It was
at this interview that the origin of the present trouble arose.
In speaking of the future course of the negotiations, I under-
stood Gill to state distinctly that the Liberal leaders required
to be assured that you would be satisfied with their proposed
declaration before they made it, and that I was not to see
the Memorandum or know the particulars of the document
upon which your judgment was to be given. I assumed that
you would receive a Memorandum as at Calais, on which
you would be required to form and announce your judgment
apart from me. I do not know whether I am entitled to put
you any questions, but if you think not, do not hesitate to
decline to answer them. Are you expected to form your
judgment on the sufficiency of the proposed assurances before
they are made public? If so, what materials and of what
character do you expect to receive for this purpose? And
will you be able to share with me the facilities thus afforded
to you, so that we may, if possible, come to a joint decision?
Is it true, as indicated by a portion of your letter of the
8th, that you have already formed an affirmative opinion as
to the sufficiency of the Memorandum you showed to me at
Calais? I have not time at present to advert to what I con-
sider the great change produced in the situation by several



of the pastoral letters of the members of the hierarchy just
published. They create great doubts in my mind as to whether
the peace we are struggling for is at all possible, and as to
whether we are not compelled to face even greater and larger
issues than those yet raised in this trouble. Yours very
truly, CHAS. S. PARNELL.

After the negotiations with Messrs. O'Brien and Dillon
were brought to an unsatisfactory conclusion my hus-
band returned home to me, and, in telling me of the re-
sult of his tiring journey, remarked: "Ah, well, they
(O'Brien and Dillon) are both to be out of the way for
a bit."

They were both arrested on their return to Ireland,
and sentenced to some months' imprisonment.

Parnell had always found Messrs. O'Brien and Dillon
had a depressing effect upon him, as he said it was so
hard to keep them to the difficulties of the moment,
while they were so eagerly passing on to the troubles
of to-morrow.


On 22nd April, 1891, Mr. Frederick Kerley wrote from
10, Broad Court, Bow Street, W. C., to Mr. Thomson,
to say that he had succeeded that day in serving Mr.
Parnell with a copy of the Judge's Order, which Mr.
Thomson had handed to him on the evening of the 20th
instant. He saw Mr. Parnell at 7.5 p. m. pass through
the barrier on to the Brighton platform at Victoria
Station. He walked by his side and, addressing him,
said, "Mr. Parnell, I believe?" Parnell replied, "Yes."
He said he was desired to hand him that paper, at the
same time handing him the copy, when the following con-
versation ensued:

Parnell: "What is it?"



Kerley: "It is a Judge's Order."

P.: "Oh, it is the costs."

K. : "Yes, it is. That is a copy, this is the original,
and the signature of Mr. Justice Butt," and Kerley
showed the original to him.

P.: "Oh, very well."

K.: "This is Mr. Wontner's card, who is the solicitor
in the matter."

Mr. Parnell took the card and said, "Thank you."

It had all been done very quietly. No one saw what
was done, and Parnell was not subjected to the slightest
annoyance, and he did not appear to be the least an-
noyed. Kerley did not enclose the original, as he was
afraid to trust it through the post, but would hand it
to Mr. Thomson personally.


Wired 10 a. m., 23 April, '91.

Copy Order costs P. served personally last evening. Letter




" 'Tis the talent of our English nation,
Still to be plotting some new reformation." G. CHAPMAN.


March 31, 1882.

MY DICK,* I got your telegram, and will do nothing till
I hear again about the shares. I did not intend to attend
the general meeting of the bank, but Sandeman came and
brought me with him. It was very satisfactory.

A great intrigue last night. Walter, the proprietor of the
Times, was to have told with Marriott. Finding the Gov-
ernment would have a better majority than was expected,
he wrote a note at 11.15 to Marriott saying friends of whose
judgment he had a high opinion thought it would be bad for
the cause that he should tell Mr. Winn, the Opposition Whip,
and Marriott then asked me to tell. I felt, of course, that
the Government would never forgive me; still it might do
well in Clare, and they are a wretched lot, Gladstone and

I suggested Peter Taylor, Sir Tollemache Sinclair, or Joe
Cowen in the order named, and after much difficulty I finally
got off.

The Government were greatly elated by 39.

Rozenraad will not be managing director of the bank. He
wants to teach me details, he says, and propose me.


"Captain O'Shea's pet name for me.



May 1, 1882.

MY DICK, Lord Arthur Hill has given notice that he will
ask Forster to-morrow whether there is any truth in the state-
ment in the Times to-day.

I met C.* at Euston, and drove with him to the Board of
Trade. I then attended a meeting of Shaw, Dickson, M.
Henry and Co., and they propounded a scheme for arrears.
I had an appointment with C., who had meantime been at
the Cabinet Council, in his room after questions. He said
that for the moment he had absolutely nothing to say to me
only to impress upon me that if a row ever occurred and an
explanation was called for we were agreed that no negotia-
tions had taken place between us, but only conversations.
As to the answer F.f was to give to-morrow, I observed that
F. was a duffer if he couldn't get out of that much, that he
had plenty of practice in answering questions, but C. replied
he hadn't improved much.

I am to stay about here to-night, but I doubt the Govern-
ment allowing C. to say much more to me at present. G.f will
make his statement to-morrow at 9; I will try to run down
to Eltham if possible in the afternoon, unless I hear you are
taking the Chicks anywhere.

I am getting quite hopeless, and the dates of payments
are staring me in the face. YOUR BOYSIE.


July 20, 1882.

MY DICK, Sir John Lubbock sat next me on one side
and Miss Rathbone on the other. Sir John is very interest-
ing. Cotes, the Whip, was there. He said there was much
rumour at Brooks' about Forster's re-entering the Cabinet.
I should think this is impossible. It would finish the Govern-
ment. I think Chamberlain would have known. On Mon-
day night he told me he believed the rumour to be a d d lie.

*Chamberlain. fForster. JGladstone.



Afterwards went to Sir J. McKenna's. It was very funny
indeed. The Boys, Healy, T. P. O'Connor.

Chamberlain not in the House to-day. To-morrow I dine
with Sir William Hart Dyke (damnation on a volcano kind
of life), Saturday to Alfred Cohen's till Monday.

I hear nothing about my people. I dare say I shall see
you somewhere to-morrow if this Bill gets through. I con-
stantly go to see if there is a telly. YOUR BOYSIE.


Tuesday, August 1, 1882.

MY DICK, Chamberlain must think me an ass, or Par-
nell a knave, and I dare say both. I have twice telegraphed
to Morrison's Hotel to-day and no answer.

The Lords swear they will stick to their amendments. The
Government will, on the other hand, stick to their Bill pure
and simple, and risk all by it.

If the Irish Vote comes over to assist them on Thursday.
C. has just asked me whether I have had a telegram (12.30).


The memorial mentioned in the following letter was
for the reprieve of a young man, Francis Hymer, who
was condemned to death (and subsequently hanged) for
shooting a man. There was no direct evidence against
him, and Captain O'Shea got much support in the effort
for his reprieve. The young man was a small "gentle-
man farmer" and a very distant connection of Captain
O'Shea 's.


August 26, 1882.

MY DICK, I have been to the Viceregal Lodge with the
memorial. Lord Spencer said that in so grave a matter, and
one in which such a momentous responsibility lies on him, it



would not do to discuss the matter, but that the matter would
be fully weighed, etc., etc., etc.

Yesterday I was for a long time with Trevelyan. It was
funny to see his three boys playing cricket in the grounds
of his lodge with constabulary sentinels at each corner. The
lodges are charming places, but I have not been in the Under-
Secretary's. I tried to get a photograph of it yesterday, but
I failed. I tellied* I thought it better to say nothing to P.f
I see G. O. M. got back to town yesterday, but I dare say
he smells a rat and will not see you yet awhile. I am very
low about everything, and your letter is dreadful, and I don't
know who Mitchell is.

It is dreadful work here, and the weather is beastly. How-
ever, Lady Corrigan has sent a messenger to beg of me to
come and dine this evening at Killney. The house is next to
the Fitzgeralds'.

I am greatly afraid the G. O. M. will leave us in the lurch.

Mr. Gray says he will have full revenge on the Govern-
ment. They ought to let him out.

Great love to chicks. YOUR BOYSIE.


August 31, 1882.

MY DICK, I am longing to get home. No one knows 1
am writing, so say nothing in your letter about it to my
people. Great numbers of inquiries, but Mr. Parnell, although
in next street, never sent. P for pig! Gout come in old
place, not bad. Dearest love to chicks. Great many tele-
Am all right, but very helpless for present.


MY DICK, My arm is getting much better of the sprain,

but I cannot write much yet. I have had a better day to-day

all round. A great many people are constantly calling and

"Telegraphed. fParnell.



writing. I hear that Mr. Parnell is gone to England. I
merely say he never took the trouble to send a message or
write a line. I saw your letter to Aunt Mary to-day, and
one from Gerard. I am quite satisfied with fish, especially
as I don't want the gout to go to my arm. Nice note from
Fawcett. Also from Harcourt. Nothing from Chamberlain.
John Morley has been with me to-day for a couple of hours.
I hope to see Trevelyan to-morrow. I must write to chicks,
and it is still laborious. YOUR BOYSIE.

(Captain O'Shea had broken his arm, having been
thrown out of a jaunting car in Dublin.)


September 29, 1882.

MY DICK, Yes, I am afraid that the Grand Old Humbug
is gammoning us. It is very handy of him to be able to put
the claims on Lord Spencer's shoulders. Of course, Lord
Spencer would not stand out one moment against the G. O. M.'s
real wish.

I wrote to Mr. P. about his conference, but he has of course
not answered my letter. Perhaps it will be as well to wait
to try and frighten G. O. M. (which I am afraid would now
be a difficult job) till I have seen P.

I have 100 coming due on October 17th, 300 on Novem-
ber 13th, and 300 on December 3rd at the National Bank.
I must go to Limerick immediately.

The enclosed from Ellard is rather humbug.

I hope to leave this on Tuesday. It is a fearful journey,
because I cannot get on to a car from Claremorris to Tuam,
and I believe I must go to Dublin and thence down to Lim-
erick, two days' journey. I am sorry we cannot manage the
bank any longer. You see how it will be getting on. I
think I told you about George Ds. being flush of stuff and
my borrowing. I don't see any way out of it at all, and
believe the end is at hand. YOUR BOYSIE.




October 17, 1882.

MY DICK, I was at the Castle this morning and saw
Trevelyan about various things, and P.'s* complaints as to
the unfair exercise of the Crimes Act in various places. He
of course admitted me at once and was very civil. I then
went to see the Assistant Inspector General of Constabulary.

As I wanted to see Jenkinson on a matter of extra police
force in Limerick the Assistant Inspector General sent down
my card by his messenger. A reply came up that Mr. J. was
engaged with the Inspector of Constabulary for Limerick.
He kept me waiting an hour. In the meanwhile the Assis-
tant Inspector General gave me the opinion of the heads of
departments on Jenkinson. They call him "His Majesty
the Lion of Pride." (He was in the Indian Service.) He
knows nothing whatever of the country and assumes the
command of everything, meddling and muddling all, but is
an immense favourite with Lord Spencer. They say at the
Castle, however, that he can scarcely get Burke's place, it
would be too glaring. The fact is nothing is too glaring.

I wonder if J. knows anything.

I wish you could get Mattf to let me 1 A. M.J very cheap.
I cannot understand why he lives in Jermyn Street.

Gout bad enough, wrist greatly swollen. Journeys deferred,
should like to leave Friday morning so as to worry P. on
Thursday if his convention goes in on Wednesday. Will go
to see him by and by. YOUR B.


October 17, 1882.

I forgot to say that Canon O'Brien of Athenry writes in
Freeman that it was not the Archbishop of Tuam who for-
bade the priests to attend the meeting at Athenry, but his

*Mr. Parnell.

fMy nephew, Sir Matthew Wood. JNo. 1 Albert Mansions.

Mr. Parnell.


refusal to go was caused by Mr. Watt Hain's not having
placed before him the programme for approval.

Of course this is mere equivocation. YOUR W.

On August 2 and 15, 1883, Chamberlain wrote to
Willie with reference respectively to certain Bills and
praised Parnell's perfect loyalty. On January 30 of the
following year we find him giving Willie his opinions on
the Irish Land question and doubting if much would be
done until the Franchise question were settled. The
next letter which comes to my hand is from Mr. Childers,
and it also is about the land. He complains that what
the Land Act concedes an advance from the Treasury
to the landlords is very different from what the Irish
want an advance to the tenant himself. The obvious
difference being that in the former case it was by no
means certain that the tenant got the money. It is
plain from these letters that Willie was in constant
communication with Chamberlain, Gladstone, and (di-
rectly and indirectly) with Trevelyan.

October, 20, 1884.

MY DICK, I am so absolutely done up that it is impos-
sible to write much. It is very doubtful whether the game
is worth the candle.

However, the Fenians have now shown such an extraor-
dinary support that, as they themselves say, there will be
murder in the Co. Clare if I am opposed.

It took me all my time with some of them to allow a vote
of confidence in Parnell to be put to the meeting yesterday.
It was a terribly wet day, but the "flower of the flock" came
from immense distances, although no public announcement
was made. The attendance of some of my "friends" ren-
dered it impossible for the priests to be present, but they



showed their feeling towards me by harbouring me directly
the show was over, and giving me an excellent dinner. Not
that I have eaten 2 Ib. of meat since I left Dublin, and I
should have been in pieces in another three or four days.
The thing, although it is doubtful whether worth doing at
all, as you will be able to judge when I see you, has been
very thoroughly done.

My absence has enabled my enemies to triumph at the Bank.

I leave to-morrow and dine with Father Healy at Bray,
Lord Justice Barry, etc., etc. I shall try to rest absolutely
on Wednesday and come over on Thursday.


There are various matters mentioned in a letter from
Chamberlain of November 4, 1884, but it seems to have
been written to let out his anger that the Irish had sup-
ported Lord Randolph Churchill in the House. But The
O' Gorman Mahon received the benefit of a slap on the
back for having "voted straight."

Tuesday, December 15, 1884.

MY DICK, Another "Cousin" has turned up to-day who
must be as old as Methuselah. Everyone said at any rate
he must be dead.

It is provoking beyond expression. Maria expresses her in-
tense dislike of these relations in several of her letters.

I am wonderfully popular in this country amongst all the
respectable people and amongst the Fenians. What a man I
should be to take up the "Small Farmers' and Labourers'
League"! In six months the present "Boys" would be scut-
tling for their lives.

There is immense distress in the country no employment
for the labourers; the farmers, instead of working, reading
United Ireland and shouting for Home Rule at meetings.
Home Rule for them meaning their farms for nothing.



Credit being stopped everywhere, at the banks, by the whole-
sale firms and down to, and by, the village shopkeepers. Crime
is being re-established. The other night near Derryneveigh*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 20

Online LibraryKitty O'SheaCharles Stewart Parnell; his love story and political life (Volume 2) → online text (page 13 of 20)