an end to discord …28
FROM JOHN DILLON MP
26 July 1899:
… I beg to say that I am not at the head of any Party or section, and cannot speak or act for anyone else … While I have been ready at any time for some years past, to confer with you or any other Nationalist member… I could do so now only in the capacity of an individual … In my judgment, the people of Ireland[,] disgusted with the failure of previous attempts … have … taken into their own hands the task of reconstituting a united Irish Party …29
FROM T.M. HEALY MP
House of Commons, 4 August 1899:
… In the opinion of several colleagues here, the question of Reunion raised in your letter to Mr. John Dillon and myself deserves to be further pursued… should not be lightly treated or grudgingly received …
Your appreciation of the importance of a reconcentration of Ireland’s Parliamentary strength, and its bearing on the questions which still remain to be dealt with by the present Parliament, will doubtless serve to justify this communication.30
JOHN DILLON MP TO MICHAEL DAVITT, MP MAYO SOUTH
29 August 1899:
Your last letter was very interesting. I agree with you that Redmond’s continued approaches are a sign that he feels himself in a tight corner … It would be foolish not to recognise that he may be able to do a great deal of mischief by getting a fresh conference called …31
***
THE PARNELL MONUMENT
A sign of the waning of bitterness was the success of the project to raise funds for the purchase of Parnell’s former home, Avondale, for the nation, and for the erection of a Parnell monument in Dublin. The latter idea was one of the products of the 1898 commemoration year. It had to compete with a proposal for a Wolfe Tone monument advocated by physical force nationalists. The Parnell monument fund soon far exceeded that for the rival project.
TO RICHARD ‘BOSS’ CROKER, NEW YORK
3 November 1900:
I want to let the subscribers who so generously last year supported the Parnell Monument Fund know how the matter stands now. The Fund was started to honour the memory of the late Charles Stewart Parnell by purchasing the house and demesne of Avondale to be preserved as a National Memorial for all time; also to erect the Monument.
The Parnell property was put up for sale in the Land Court in Dublin the other day. It was divided into seven Lots, and according to the established practice of the Court, these Lots should be put up for sale and sold separately.
The first Lot consisted of the house and demesne of Avondale; and this was the only portion of the property with which our Committee had any concern. There never was, as you know, any intention of purchasing any other portions of the property, and no effort at all was made to raise money for that purpose.
We had hoped that Lot 1 would not have fetched more than about £3,000; there was however considerable bidding for it, and finally we were obliged to offer £4,850, increased by us afterwards to £5,000; the judge however refused at the close of the bidding to declare us the purchasers and we then ascertained that a gentleman who said he was acting as a friend of Mr. John Howard Parnell had offered a sum of £8,000 for all the Lots in bulk, and in spite of our protests, they were sold to him for £8,000.
This purchaser has since offered to transfer his purchase to Mr. John Parnell if our Committee will pay him, the purchaser, £8,000 and costs. Of course, we have no power to do anything of the kind. Our duty was to secure Avondale House and demesne alone, and to vest it in Trustees for the benefit of the Nation for all time, with the understanding that any members of the Parnell family who chose to occupy it should be at liberty to do so …
I am in hopes that the purchaser who declares that he acted in the interests of Mr. John Parnell will come to some arrangement satisfactory to the family, but if we are unable to carry out our proposal of buying the place for the Nation, we can, at least, proceed with the erection of the Parnell Monument, and we propose immediately to place a contract with the eminent Irish-American sculptor, Mr. [Augustus] St. Gaudens, who has promised us to undertake the work.32
FROM RICHARD ‘BOSS’ CROKER
New York, 21 November 1899:
I have the honour on behalf of Tammany Hall to enclose a draft for £3,000 for the purpose of clearing the entire encumbrance now resting upon the Parnell homestead, thus securing the retention of the home in the family ...33
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
