Parnell's Downfall (1890)

Chapter XXV

Parnell’s Downfall (1890)

Before the debates began in Room 15 on Parnell’s deposition I sketched to my wife in shorthand the situation in the Party.

House of Commons,

27th November, 1890.

“Maurice was at the House when I got there at 3 p.m., and I have been consulting with our friends about the situation. A majority of the Party is against Parnell, but you can gauge the situation better from the Freeman to-day than I can, as I have not yet seen a paper, although it is 8 p.m.

Dr. Kenny returns to Ireland to organize meetings on Sunday in Parnell’s favour. So we held a caucus just now and condemned such tactics, and sent a warning telegram to Kenny, which I suppose he will disregard.

The best men of the Party are unanimous, but Parnell is holding on like grim death, and will cut up nastily at the finish. I would not be surprised if he stuck to the funds in Paris, or threatened that he would cut off the paid men’s salaries.

I dined with Sexton and Maurice just now. Sexton said that at yesterday’s meeting, if an intelligent foreigner entered the room he would imagine that the entire Party was being tried for adultery, with Parnell as the judge. His coolness and impudence are beyond all you can imagine. Every effort will be used between this and Monday to organize the weak-knees on his side. His partisans are Ned Harrington, Dr. Kenny, Dr. Fitzgerald, Conway, and all that kind. He has no influential men except Redmond, Leamy, Clancy, and Dick Power.”

The following day I wrote her:

House of Commons, 28th November, 1890.

“I am glad I was not here for the first two days, as I am worn out with anxiety. There is nothing going on but lobbying and intrigue-all kinds of pressure being brought to bear on both sides. In a few hours (it is now nearly six) Parnell is to issue a Manifesto to crush both ourselves and the Gladstonians. We, therefore, have not been idle, and to-day at twelve o’clock I drew up a requisition to call a meeting for 6 p.m. to-night to condemn the issue of any declaration to overawe or influence our deliberations on Monday, and empower Justin McCarthy to answer Parnell. McCarthy has seen Gladstone, and I believe we can show that there is not one word of truth in the statement about the , “Hawarden visit” which Parnell is to make.

The men strongest for Parnell are John Redmond, John O’Connor, Ned Harrington, Conway, Dr. Fitzgerald, Garret Byrne, Corbett, and others of that sort, with Leamy, Power, and Sheil. Parnell is fighting like a tiger. Henry Campbell told Mat Kenny yesterday that he would bring down two revolvers to the meeting on Monday and shoot the first man that voted against Parnell.

Maurice has been working to resist the pressure and intimidation on the other side, but although I have not yet seen the “Manifesto” in which we are to be denounced, Parnell’s doom is sealed.

Sexton is bitter against him, but Huntley McCarthy, curiously enough, will support Parnell. So will Colonel Nolan and Joe Nolan.

I am told Parnell’s speech on his re-election on Tuesday was the most extraordinary ever heard, that he said he would “lift for them a corner of the curtain,” which was that O’Shea, out of 23 years of married life had only spent 40 nights at home. And “such was the happy home he was accused of destroying.” He challenged anyone to search Hansard to see had he ever called O’Shea his “honourable friend.”

William Murphy, Arthur O’Connor, W. J. Reynolds, and most of the good men of the Party are against him. Parnell has with him blind McDonnell and Blane. Cox and Deasy are against him. Clancy wavered very much on account of his Leinster Hall speech, but from my conversation with him I think his wife is the difficulty. Sir Thomas Esmonde was shaky, but he has come round, and Parnell complained in the *Freeman *office last night that Esmonde had “cut” him in the National Liberal Club, where he went in search of Campbell.

Gladstone remarked that it was odd that the man who was a rock to all the world was like a bit of wax in the hands of a woman. Kitty has inspired the proceedings…

I had a terrible letter against Parnell from Father John Behan, telling us give the “beast” no quarter.

Knox’s bishop, Dr. McGuinness, who is also Conway’s, has written and wired strongly against Parnell. Knox is all right.

It is a dreadful spectacle we present with a lunatic trying to smash the great fabric that has been created under his authority.

The bitterness of some of the men whom you would least expect to be against Parnell is immense. but on the other hand, he has many friends whose intent is as patriotic as ours.”

Parnell availed himself of the adjournment to start an intensive propaganda. On Saturday, 29th November, he put forth a manifesto asserting that, on his visit to Gladstone at Hawarden the year before, he received details of the Home Rule plans of the next Liberal Cabinet. He alleged that the integrity of a section of the Irish Party had been “apparently sapped and destroyed” by the wire-pullers of Liberalism, who claimed the right to veto their choice of a leader, and appealed to the Irish people” not to consent to throw me to the English wolves now howling for my destruction.” He complained that in any future Home Rule Bill the Irish Legislature would not be given power to settle the Land question, control the constabulary, or appoint judges or magistrates.

These lies were baited to catch gudgeons. In private he told his friends that the Manifesto was “the greatest political coup of the century.” Every one else saw that it was framed to bunker down the Divorce issue, and draw a red herring across the scent. It delighted the Tories, for after Parnell visited Gladstone at Hawarden he expressed the utmost confidence in and admiration for him. At Edinburgh his speech in praise of Gladstone was fulsome. It is true that at Hawarden he displayed aloofness. Breakfast there was the favourite meal for holding conversation, and Parnell would not come down for it. At dinner he came late, without tendering an apology. It may have been the acme of statesmanship, but it was barbarously un-Irish.

That evening I wrote my wife:

London,

29th *November, *1890.

“Parnell’s mamfesto is a black production, and instead of weakening his opponents, has only made them more solid.

To-day he was in the Library of the House, knowing many of our men turn up there on Saturdays, and began to question them to see were they crushed by his “revelations.” He got facers from every one of them, especially Condon and Sheehy, whom he tried to influence by entreaty. They afterwards joined a knot in another room of the Library, who are making arrangements for the debate on Monday, and signed the cable with John Roche, Kilbride, and Lane (the three other “Campaign” members) to America, protesting against his manifesto. This will be decisive with Dillon and O’Brien.

We appointed Sexton master of ceremonies for Monday, to conduct the debate and call for speakers or for silence, because every attempt will be made to obstruct and we must not play into Parnell’s hands.

The last trick is to try to postpone decision until the American delegates can return, but our men are proof against cajolery.

The treachery to Gladstone in Parnell’s manifesto is deplorable. He has now deceived every Party which confided in him, Tory, Liberal, and Home Rule. His language about us has been low enough. He told some reporter he would “teach the beggars who hadn’t the price of their fare to Dublin that dared to oppose him.""

Next day (Sunday) I was so ill that I could not go to Mass-much less attend a meeting which Arthur O’Connor called at his chambers. Shorthand enabled me to write at length to my wife:

30*th November, *1890.

“It is midnight and I have not been out all day. I was completely disabled, so that I was unable to attend the meeting to draw up the resolution under which Parnell is to be declared “deposed” to-morrow. This is the night before the battle, but there is calm on our side compared with the excitement of last night.

I wired you the reply of the American delegates. When it reached the Club at 11 p.m., about 20 of our men, who had gathered round before it arrived, raised a cheer in the smoking-room. I afterwards saw Leamy in the room and felt sorry for this, though I silently joined in rejoicing. It was a great relief, otherwise Parnell might have found a rump to annoy us, for if we had not the necessary two-thirds majority under the “pledge” we would be unable to call on them to resign their seats for failing to act with the Party.

At one moment I pity Parnell. At another, when I hear of his determination to wreck everything, I loathe his conduct.

Now that the American delegates have taken sides we received intelligence that Archbishop Walsh is to declare in the morning, and that Archbishop Croke has wired against Parnell a message to McCarthy calling for his resignation. Dr. Walsh’s secretary wired William Murphy that His Grace was writing me.

John Redmond said to Barry in the Club to-night that he was going to beseech Parnell to retire, but that he knew it would be useless, although he did not believe Parnell would have 20 supporters to-morrow. Parnell is now staying with Dr. Fitzgerald, one of his partisans.

If it had not been for John Barry, Parnell might have tricked the Party. Sexton told me that only for my telegram on Wednesday he would have done nothing, and Barry says that after Sexton and McCarthy had gone to Parnell on the Tuesday night with Gladstone’s letter, and been uncivilly received, they refused to stir further, and that it was the rank and file, led by himself, who supported the requisition. Undoubtedly, Barry’s speech at the meeting was the most important one. He tells me that to-day Sexton, in my absence, made a handsome reference to me, and said that though we had had differences in the past, we had come to know each other better through this crisis, and had sunk every feeling for the sake of the country, etc. Also that I had been vindicated by the present posture of affairs for my action in Galway in 1886.

Harrington has not signed against Parnell with the other American delegates, and I should not be surprised if there were furious stirrings-up as the result of Parnell’s action as he is not wrestling simply for the sake of the leadership, but that Arklow Harbour, Dublin paving-sets and the Paris funds may form ingredients in his motives. He intends to marry Kitty when the six months are up. May they be happy. Tuohy, of the *Freeman, *told me that on the night after the verdict Parnell remarked to him that the divorce was a good thing, as it enabled him to define his domestic position. He now talks without reserve about “Mrs. O’Shea.”

Henry Campbell told Tuohy that he found him at Brighton on the night the howl arose against him (having read all the evening papers) studying astronomy, and that he made no remark on the “situation.” When asked by one of the *Freeman *staff what would be the result if the delegates in America sent an adverse telegram, he simply replied, “Then that would be an adverse telegram.” At which the other gasped, “But if that should lead to an adverse vote?” To this Parnell replied,” Oh, then that would be an adverse vote!” Isn’t this sublime? It means he is cracked.

Everywhere the Divorce case is being sung about in the music-halls. Passing through the Strand you hear the itinerant hawkers shout some toy or picture: “Mr. Parnell and Mrs. O’Shea.” Still he remains unmoved. Several of his supporters have come over to us, but Clancy is likely to vote for him, and is in honest distress…

After dinner (we had Colonel Atkinson of Detroit to dine) I amused myself writing “Limericks,” beginning.” There was a young man named MacNeill,” which I presented to him, and he promised to place them in his “commonplace book” as they were not ill-natured like the “scoffs of that horrid creature Dick Adams.”

The conduct of the *Freeman *is bad, and only it would be hardly worth while, we would denounce it. Its *Evening Telegraph *is beneath notice. To-day, Conway and Joe Nolan, two of Parnell’s outriggers, got the London branches of the League to pass resolutions in his favour, but they might as well “whistle jigs to milestones.” The openings of the fight have been skilfully handled on both sides, and neither has left a stone unturned.

We should have liked to word the resolution ousting Parnell differently, but it was thought a bald one would be safest in order not to alienate any of our weak men who still have a hankering after our peerless, incomparable, matchless, devoted, uncompromising, heroic and inspired leader.

On Monday, 1st December, I was unable to walk the few hundred yards to the House of Commons, and drove there to sit by the fire in Room 15, stone-cold and shivering, trying to get warm before the meeting assembled. Henry Campbell was sympathetic and helped me to take oft my boots, so as to get my feet unchilled.

When the adjourned debate in Room 15 opened, Parnell called on his secretary (Campbell) to read messages in his support. These were all faked. The most offensive was one against Sexton from a secondhand bookseller of ill-repute in Dublin, the late William Hickey. So coarse was it that I protested. Parnell blandly apologized, and said he was not aware of its contents. This finished him in my estimation. Every one knew he organized the slanders against his opponents through the Dublin sub-sheriff, the late John Clancy, and that the telegram was concocted to intimidate Sexton. No reporters were admitted to the proceedings except those attached to the *Freeman, *who were Parnell’s henchmen. We daren’t take a vote as to Parnell’s press arrangements lest some of our friends who were against him on the main issue would support him on a minor one, and thus give him a victory, which would have possibly split his opponents.

When the message from the American delegates came, he refused to allow it to be read, on the ground that it was only a “newspaper paragraph.” Next he ruled out of order a resolution declaring his tenure of the chair ended, saying the only question before the meeting was Barry’s motion of the previous Wednesday, that “a full meeting be called for Friday next.”

Barry’s motion had been negatived and “Monday” substituted at the instance of Parnell’s friends. The tact that “Friday” had flown did not trouble the Chair. He assured us that he would decide every point according to “strict parliamentary procedure.” He was cleverer as a tactician than the bulk of his opponents, and knew the foibles and weakness of every colleague. Moreover, he studied the effect which the Split was creating in Ireland, and believed he would carry the weaklings. These and uninstructed persons, he realized, composed the bulk of the voters.

I wrote my wife:

1*st December, *1890.

“Parnell used every strategy to retain his position. Justin McCarthy saw him before twelve, and said he was quite mad, but he has borne himself wonderfully during the meeting, except for one or two interruptions or gestures. He was dignified in the conduct of the proceedings, just as if he had no personal concern in them, and laughed at each point as good-humouredly as anybody else, when there was occasion. I think the latter portion of his speech was written out, as he seemed to be looking down at a manuscript, but it appeared very effective, and brought tears to my eyes. He made a mistake in ruling technicalities in his favour, and this will reduce respect for him.

His phrases about Gladstone were in bad taste, and will injure his reputation. Barring that, though there was not much in what he said, he showed moderation. I cannot conceive any other man going through such an ordeal with so much dignity. I feel sorry for him. Even in his reply to me, considering what I had said, there was nothing to complain of. He is, however, perfectly unscrupulous and would invent any lie or statement to help himself. His secretary, Campbell, has been demonstrative in his favour. I spoke to Henry for the first time for years to-day, and he was quite cordial in asking about my health. There is a friendly feeling among the men on both sides. James O’Kelly, who is sitting next to me and is Parnell’s most determined supporter, has been chatty and friendly both before and after my speech. Dr. Kenny looks wretched, and seems to feel matters. Maurice does not acquit him of concealment in respect of some knowledge of Gladstone’s letter before the party re-elected Parnell last Tuesday. I don’t know how this stands.

The speeches for Parnell have not been good. William Redmond, who is now speaking, pleases me better than anybody. I did not think much of John Redmond’s speech. My speech broke Parnell a lot. He interrupted Sexton considerably, but except as to the word “false,” he did not interrupt me. I faced him from five or six feet away, and he seemed to feel the arguments. His allusion to John Barry as the “leader-killer” was bitter, but he did not mention Barry’s name. Apart from technical rulings, he has acted the gentleman, and no one, from a Pagan point of view, could help admiring him.”

My wife was so much concerned that she must have probed me with telegrams. My replies she preserved:

House of Commons,

2*nd December, *1890.

“I had a letter from Alfred Webb, whom I told not to be “mistering “me, in which he speaks of his difficulty in refraining on account of his “veneration” for me.

Avowed obstruction is being persisted in. Parnell rules every point in his own favour with the sweetest suavity. It is hard to blame anyone who is anxious to speak that he should wish to have the opportunity of placing his views on record. It is now evident that we shall have a big fight in the country afterwards. Parnell is being supported bitterly by a number of men, influenced largely by personal friendship, and by others who fear mischief to the Cause if he is retired. The National League branches are being worked against us by Hishon and Dr. Kenny.

All the “Resolutions” we are receiving are due to the way they have machined public opinion. Hishon had the impudence to telegraph me today requiring me to apologize to Parnell, and saying “feeling was dead against me.” All I can say is, if I were driven to emigrate to Africa, an outcast and a pauper, such intimidation would not influence me in the least, as you well know.

Clearly, while we are fighting them here on the basis that they will be bound by the decision of the meeting, they have no intention whatever of being so bound, and will embarrass us in Ireland by elections. The conduct of the *Freeman *has been blackguardly, and is wrecking the cause. It appears to me as if Parnell could get the mob with him, but that all the thinking men are on our side. Enormous mischief must ensue temporarily, I fear, whatever happens. Our men are solid, and he is certain to be defeated, but he is fighting every point with tenacity.

Charies II apologized for taking an “unconscionably long time” to die, but Charles III has no such sense of the proprieties. It looks as if we had raised up a Frankenstein which is now about to destroy everything. He is determined that there shall either be no party, or his party. The delay, he believes, makes for his side, and of course it is being used to distract the people. His rulings in the Chair have been shameless, but I believe he is unconscious of this, and that he feels exactly as you might expect a god to feel-that he could not be wrong, and that anyone who would not obey him and follow him must necessarily be damned… .”

On Wednesday talk of compromise arose and I thus described the situation to her:

House of Commons,

3*rd December, *1890.

“There is some chance of a settlement, and we have agreed to a truce until to-morrow. I cannot tell you what the proposals are, as we are all bound not to reveal them, although I have not the smallest doubt the whole thing will be in the Press to-morrow. If anything comes of the truce we shall not have lost but gained, and in any case, in point of time, we have not lost much, for this is such a short day. On account of the blackguard telegrams dispatched about Sexton, and the threats to himself and me at the League meeting yesterday, the debate to-day would have been a bitter one, for we were determined to “have it out” all round. I think I could have shown good reason for my speech at the Leinster Hall, which would have prevented that appeal to the country which Parnell has been threatening. For as he prefers Kitty to his country, fear of the “Queen’s Proctor ” is at present his guiding motive.

His main subject of anxiety before the divorce was the custody of the child, Clare. He consulted lawyers in the City some months ago as to whether, if he bolted out of the country with her, he could, under foreign law, be brought back and compelled to deliver her up. He, therefore, was prepared to bolt then, and leave us all “in the lurch,” if he could safely have done so. The incident is pathetic, and I think the better of him as a man, whatever I may think of him as a politician, on account of this.

It seems O’Shea maintains that Clare is his own child, and he told Labouchere that whenever Kitty came up to his fiat in Victoria Street she insisted on renewing their old relations, and he swears he will keep Clare on this account. The whole of the squalid business is known to every gossip in London…

Parnell declared to the Party when he was re-elected that there was some other man in the case. This is of course Weguelin, so she must have been in relation with both. A precious piece of goods for the unfortunate fellow to be tied to for the rest of his life. Yet Parnell’s determination to marry her is so great that he almost shudders at the name of the Queen’s Proctor, or at any allusion to connivance on the part of O’Shea.”

The truce in Room 15 did not last more than a day. Henry Campbell told me that Mrs. O’Shea, and not Parnell, was to blame for the fight continuing. Campbell spoke of her bitterly for forcing Parnell to keep on battling, saying that the “Chief” left town on the Wednesday night willing to retire, but that at Brighton Mrs. O’Shea’s folly and ambition were such that she prevailed on him to return and defy the majority of his colleagues. Next day a pause came. Parnell, during Sexton’s speech, agreed to retire if the Liberal leaders made a declaration on Home Rule which the Party held to be satisfactory. I wrote my wife:

House of Commons,

4th *December, *1890.

“Another change has come over the situation. As I write this, there are sitting amicably round a table Parnell, Sexton, myself, McCarthy, Redmond, Leamy, Deasy, and R. Power. You will have to read the *Freeman *to understand it. After the speeches Sexton and I made against Parnell and the way we have cornered him, here we are, chatting as cordially over the prospects of Home Rule, etc., as if nothing had occurred. Parnell is as bland as ever with us, just as if we had said nothing to ruffle him.

Sexton made a splendid speech, and it was in the middle of this that the compromise was renewed. Parnell is now saying that the dispatch of a delegation to the Liberals is “the most important thing that has been done in Irish politics in his time” - and we have talked over the best way of getting terms from Gladstone.

Parnell has just said we should go to the Old Man to-night, before he has read my speech in the morning “over which he would be licking his lips!”

I never knew such a man, nor ever read of such a man. For a number of our fellows maintained he was in such a rage against me during my second speech that he was fumbling with his revolver, and John Barry went near him to prevent him drawing on me. I don’t think it likely that he would have done so, but others as fiercely maintain it.

Richard Power has just come to tell Parnell of his arrangements for us to meet the Liberals, and that they were in a state of consternation. Parnell replied, “They have four guns on them now, anyhow!”

I don’t know whether the thing is a trick or if Parnell means to act honestly and retire. My fear is that Gladstone will refuse to treat with the deputation, but Sexton says we could not withstand the torrent of objection which would arise in Ireland if we rejected all hope of compromise.

Besides, it looks as if Parnell’s followers had at last prevailed upon him to surrender, but you will see from his speech that he was trimming, and thought to trick us, until I tore his shuffling into ribbons. All the men say I made a fine speech. Sexton’s was magnificent.

Won’t everybody rejoice it we succeed in keeping the Party together?”

Parnell was not neglectful of sidelong opportunities. He first begged McCarthy to visit Gladstone and get guarantees about the next Home Rule Bill. Although the Tories were in office, McCarthy, overcome by his cunning, waited on Gladstone, who refused to respond. On McCarthy telling this to Parnell he lost self-control and insulted McCarthy, who retorted, “Parnell, I think you might be a little more courteous!” Parnell shouted at him, “I’m more of a gentleman than you, sir.” So he and McCarthy parted.

At this stage my wife, who never before interfered in politics, must have been moved to send a protest, for I replied to her:

House of Commons,

5th *December, *1890.

“I cannot blame you for your telegrams, for they evince a feeling I strongly hold myself though why you should imagine I am responsible for what is going on I cannot understand-unless you did not read my speech, which I presume to-day’s *Freeman *has done me the honour of printing. So far from my wishing for what has occurred, I said, “Thank God” when I heard Parnell’s tricky refusal yesterday morning; and Sexton, who felt differently, proposed to me an adjournment for an hour to discuss Parnell’s suggestions. I instantly refused to entertain them, so Sexton said, having intended to rise himself, “You get up, then.” He has been affected in consequence of the attitude of some of his Belfast supporters, and I cannot take a line markedly opposed to him.

Sexton considers that, once Parnell accepted the amendment of Clancy after first rejecting it this morning, we could not face the constituencies unless we made some effort to meet friends on the opposite side.

I am clear that, while every man of them except Campbell hopes the negotiations will succeed, and that Parnell will retire, Parnell himself is only tricking us. I said so last night when the compromise was under discussion, and I have made no concealment of my views; but while we are all determined that, whatever results, Parnell must go, and that none of us will serve under him again, we should be open to condemnation if we failed to take every step to try to keep the Party together.

Do you think we look with relish on the prospect of having these 29 men resign and of contesting their seats with them? The breaking up of the American mission, and the return of the delegates, prove how distracted our people abroad are, and, of course, there are similar differences in Ireland. I therefore agree with Sexton that we should be mad if we did not exhaust every means to try to keep the Party unbroken. We shall not be disgraced if we fail. We should be if we refused to make an effort.

Under no circumstances will I serve again under Parnell in the English Parliament while I shall be quite happy if he takes control at College Green, should the doors there ever open.

This has been the most anxious day we have had. Parnell insisted on my going on the delegation to Gladstone. Sexton made a beautiful speech to Gladstone. John Redmond also spoke with perfect loyalty, good faith and good feeling. It is apparent that Parnell’s supporters desire peace, and knowing their sentiments, to treat them as mere malcontents with whom no faith should be kept, because we know Parnell is not to be trusted, would be deplorable.

I have refused to tell even Maurice what has been transpiring so far, beyond what will appear in the papers to-morrow, and cannot mention anything to you, for the same reasons. I am exhausted with anxiety. I would rather a thousand times be fighting than negotiating.

When we returned to Parnell to-day and told him that Gladstone said Clancy’s resolution was a “bar,” Parnell laughingly commented, “An obstacle,” as Biggar said.” This, you will remember, was Joe’s observation in his breach of promise case.

John Redmond has just come to me to say that the Liberal leaders are consulting over our last communication, and not to leave to-night. I fear Gladstone will not help us and that if he consents to speak, Parnell will then go foxing about it. His followers will not stand to him if Gladstone gives any real pledge. Certainly Redmond and Leamy will not, and if they desert him, he will be left with not more than two or three, so he would be done for. Everything depends on Gladstone’s reply, and you will probably know more before you receive this than I can tell you.

I believe Parnell will declare any reply “unsatisfactory,” but I forced him to say he would resign if the majority declare otherwise.

I see John Dillon from New York says we should have ended the debate on Monday, but it is easy to splutter. Would he have appointed a committee of six to drag Parnell by force out of the Chair and have a faction fight? To criticize at a distance is so simple.

I wonder does William O’Brien think of my constant prophecies about Parnell? He seems distracted.”

Gladstone refused (not being in power) to give any pledges as to the next Home Rule Bill, and on the 6th December, 1890, Parnell presided for the last time over the Party.

The debates had wearied on more than a week. Mr. Goschen characterized them as ” the greatest he ever read.” They banished interest from the House of Commons, but enthralled and hurt Ireland.

Parnell’s plan was to bring about the collapse of the session so that the struggle would end on the prorogation of Parliament. He was in collusion with the Tory Whips and his policy dovetailed into theirs. On the night before the final sitting he muttered to J. M. Tuohy, the *Freeman’s *London correspondent, “Biggar appeared to me last night.” Said Tuohy, “You mean you dreamt about him?” “Oh, no,” answered Parnell, “he appeared to me.” Tuohy, who was fiercely on his side, told me this.

On the morning of our last meeting we called on Parnell at the Westminster Palace Hotel and told him that at 6 p.m. that evening the majority would leave Room 15 and take no further part in its futilities. As we went towards the door he drew me aside to one of the pillars in the hall, saying, “Healy, let us shake hands for, it may be, the last time. I am told you believed yesterday that I had a revolver in my pocket and was about to use it. I assure you that this was not so. I should never dream of bringing a weapon into any meeting of my countrymen, especially into one where excitement was likely to be kindled.” I replied, “Thank you, Parnell.” We shook hands, and so parted for ever.

At five o’clock that evening I wrote my wife:

6th December, 1890.

“We are within a few minutes of disruption. We cannot get the Liberals to say anything while Parnell remains chairman, and he refuses to allow any resolution to be moved requiring him to resign. We had a row to-day as he called upon John O’Connor to move a resolution, when we wished William Abraham to be heard. We shouted for him, and there was slight disorder. Abraham handed his resolution to McCarthy, and we called on McCarthy to put it. Parnell roared that he would not allow him to act as chairman, and snatched the paper out of his hand. McCarthy did not know what was in the paper. Sexton appealed to the meeting to hear O’Connor for a short time, as we did not intend to remain listening to obstructive speeches. McCarthy rose and dignifiedly explained that he had risen to a point of order when Parnell snapped a paper out of his hand. Parnell made a kind of apology, and O’Connor was heard to move a resolution against Gladstone.

In the midst of his speech John Redmond shouted that Gladstone would be “the master of the Party.” I asked, “Who would be the mistress of the Party?” Whereupon Parnell called me “a dirty little scoundrel who insulted a woman.” I made no reply, being content with the thrust, which will stick as long as his cry about Gladstone’s “dictation” continues. I knew compromise would be impossible.

I did not approve of the negotiations, but feel we did not do wrong in trying. Sexton insists on my writing a manifesto to our people. I must leave myself in the hands of men like him, who have done so well.”

At six o’clock, Farnell having refused to put any question touching his deposition, Justin McCarthy rose to announce our withdrawal. Forty-four colleagues followed him out. Many of us shook hands with those from whom we were separating. It was a friendly break-off, and dignity was preserved throughout.

The late Alfred Kinnear of the *Central News, *who was not present at the break-off, printed an account of it as a ” Donnybrook Fair.” So malicious were his falsehoods that Sexton and I went on Sunday evening to the *Central News *office to ask that the truth should be told. I did not go in, but Sexton did, and got little satisfaction, though William Saunders, afterwards Liberal M.P. for Hull, was at the head of the agency.

For his lies Speaker Peel excluded Kinnear for ten years from the Lobby after inquiry into our complaint. During the Boer War he was sent to South Africa to do justice on the Dutch, and after his return he was readmitted to the Lobby.

Healy Index. Home.