the question of the Police we say that the present military police should be disbanded and those Statutes repealed which give power to the Lord Lieutenant to raise, equip or maintain a police force.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.
