June 1889:
… If the landlords ask for arbitration, of course the tenants, in this as in every other case under the Plan of Campaign, are willing to submit their dispute to a fair arbitration.
I agree with you that Mr. John Redmond would make an excellent representative of the tenants in such proceedings, and I will endeavour to get him to act in that capacity if the arbitration is to go on … The formulation of the tenants’ demand in such arbitration should be left to the gentleman chosen to act as the tenants’ representative.20
FROM GEORGE W. WARREN, BARRISTER
27 September 1889:
Wm. Sinnott Esq. Landlord.
Sundry Tenants (Evicted).
Lands Garrynisk, Co. Wexford.
Settlement by arbitration agreed upon.
Dear Sir,
I beg to say that I have been appointed to act for the landlord in this case and I understand you have consented to act on behalf of the tenants. Kindly let me know when it would be convenient for you to meet me on the lands after 10th proximo (up to which time I have engagements).21
FROM M.J. HORGAN, SOLICITORS
Cork, 20 November 1889:
I think it only fair you should have the privilege of acting as Mr. Healy has done, namely retained the cheque which included 50 guineas (special fee) in excess of yours and out of it sent £100 to the Tenants’ Defence Association.
Therefore I return your cheque [for] £115.11.0 in order that you may act similarly if so disposed. I don’t see why your generosity should not be known as well as Mr. Healy’s.22
TO M.J. HORGAN
15 Upr. Fitzwilliam St.,
21 November 1889:
I am much obliged for your letter but I feel bound to return you the cheque again. I assure you I don’t consider this at all an act of generosity and my only doubt is whether I am justified in taking even the fees which I have retained.23
***
Johanna gave birth to two further children, William Archer in 1886 and Johanna in 1887. On 12 December 1889 in Dublin, she died having given birth to a stillborn child.
TO FR. PATRICK FURLONG, PP NEW ROSS
82 Warwick Gardens, Kensington,
2 January 1890:
I can’t do more than send you a line to thank you for kind letter and to beg of you to remember my darling wife in your prayers.24
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
