The Party Split (1890-1)

Chapter XXVI*

The Party Split *(1890-I)

Parnell’s behaviour as chairman in Room 15 in interrupting and making rulings in his own favour was till then unprecedented. Thirty-one years later, when the Treaty of 1921 came under discussion, another chairman outstripped him.

On Sunday, 7th December, 1890, I wrote my wife:

“We are in great spirits. Our men met to-day at Arthur O’Connor’s chambers and subscribed aver £10,000 for current expenses. Besides that, J. F. X. O’Brien, the treasurer, has £1,200. Parnell, however, thinks he has control of £42,000 in Paris, so we dispatched O’Brien there with Arthur O’Connor to-night to try to induce Munroe, the banker, to hold the funds, as Justin McCarthy is one of the trustees.

Arthur O’Connor, during *The Times *Commission, was sent to see Munroe to prevent *The Times *getting information. We don’t expect to get the money, but if we can prevent Parnell getting it we shall be satisfied.

A letter has gone to the Pope from the highest quarters requesting an endorsement of the Irish Bishops’ declaration-though whether this would hurt or help us remains to be seen.

We are determined to start a daily paper, and have little doubt we shall be able to raise the capital.

The *Freeman *will change its tune when it hears the news to-night, so if they are not insolent in the morning you will know the reason why. Maurice, Chance and I have subscribed £50 each to the Party funds, and so have Esmonde and several others, while Barry, Webb, Dickson, and Morrough have given £100 each. The spirit of our men is splendid. Sexton is in great form, and came to the Club last night, and promised to turn up there to-night. He has become “clubable.” He told me after meeting Davitt that Parnell sent Davitt a message that if he would attack me in his paper Parnell would forgive him everything! …

Seeing that Parnell’s calling me a “dirty little scoundrel” was omitted from the Sunday papers I went to the Press Association and insisted on its being printed to-morrow.

I suggested to the Party to-day that if none of the dissentients resign it might be well for us to fling down a challenge. I would, if necessary, throw up my seat for Longford to contest it again against anyone the Parnellites select. Pending, however, the result of the Kilkenny vacancy, and the communication we have addressed to Pope Hennessy asking “under which King” he means to serve, we have decided to take no action. Yesterday being the day Parnell had the best card as to Gladstone’s refusal to answer us, he played the game the worst. You may consider we might have been easier in our language at times, but give Parnell an inch and he will take an ell; so if we showed signs of being cowed, instead of cowing him, we were done for.

There was practically no one but myself to face him at the end, or rather, there were plenty, but once Sexton and I took command, all the rest left the matter with us. As Sexton was conciliatory I had to show my teeth. If I had been in sole command, this imbroglio about the Liberals over “Clancy’s amendment” would not have arisen. Not that I blame Sexton, or that he showed any weakness, but his nature is conciliatory, and perhaps he was not sorry to appear more” statesmanlike ” than others. I only considered what was effective against Parnell.”

The *Freeman *then was edited by a jaunty Galway man named Byrne, assisted by Edward Ennis, afterwards Under-Secretary for Ireland. Both thought their paper unassailable. On the Saturday when we left Room is (6th December, 1890) Ennis came to London to warn me that “the Chief” was invincible, and that we should be beaten at the polls unless we returned to our allegiance. His words were meant to be stinging. “We’ve got the funds, we’ve got the Press, we’ve got the organization, we’ve got the Chief, and we’ll knock hell out of you!” I laughed.

I wrote my wife:

House of Commons,

8*th December, *1890.

“It is all over, all over. Byrne and Ennis of the *Freeman *are “over” too, crying for quarter as to our proposed paper, which has funked them completely. They are now imparling with Sexton. I saw Ennis last night. He endeavoured to intimidate me, but nobody heeds them.

I am sorry for the outrage to which you have been subjected by the smashing of the windows, but that is not the first thing we have had to put up with. I hope the bairns were not too frightened, but of course you have not let them know that there is anything to be afraid of. No more will there be, after a month or two, when our people begin to get a glimmer of the truth.

Gladstone tore his ex-Cabinet asunder on Friday night trying to get them to let him give “assurances” before Parnell was deposed. He almost cried, Camphell-Bannerman says, talking over the result, “for those poor fellows, Healy and Sexton,” after the fight we made.

We drew “first blood” to-day by moving the Kilkenny writ. When we “divided” we cheered our new Whips’ names, Esmonde and Deasy. Parnell and most of his lot had to go into the Lobby under our banner. Dr. Kenny and Redmond did not vote, being more Parnelilte than Parnell.”

That day a Bill was promoted by a Dublin Conservative named Findlater to enable Nelson’s Pillar to be removed from O’Connell Street, Dublin, as being an obstruction to the thoroughfare. The Government opposed it, but it was carried by a majority of five. Parnell strolled in as the bells rang. Knowing nothing of what was going on he voted with us. Finding that we had beaten the Government, he approached Justin McCarthy with a smile, saying, “Allow me to congratulate you on the first great victory of your new Party!”

Three days later, with my brother and Mat Kenny, I found myself in the train for Holyhead with Parnell and his followers. A demonstration to meet him at Kingstown at 7 a.m. was organized, and his Dublin friends sat up all night to arrange a “greeting” for myself. Unknown to ourselves, we were on a fast new steamer making her first trip to Kingstown, and it arrived ten minutes before Parnell’s mob reached the jetty. Our train steamed out as they arrived from Dublin. Their execrations and disappointment were enjoyable. On reaching Westland Row, we found another contingent brigaded; but they were too sleepy to offer much violence. My brother kicked off one assailant, and Mat Kenny disposed of another.

Later that day, when going to the Four Courts, I was struck, in O’Connell Street. I had come from London to argue the case of a farmer for whom I had fixed a “fair rent.” An appeal was taken, and I desired to re-argue the case, lest my absence should harm him. Now that tenants have become freeholders it is not easy to realize the interest taken in land cases at that epoch. To land-lords every defeat seemed a Waterloo-to tenants every victory an Austerlitz!

When I reached the Four Courts somewhat late, the case had been ably presented by Thomas O’Shaughnessy, who in 1926 resigned the Bench after a career of distinction.

Lord Justice FitzGibbon, the foremost member of the Court, was doubtful, but I was so vain as to think my argument had brought him round, as in a few days a decision was given in the tenant’s favour. Soon my self-esteem was shattered. I had built a house near the tenant, who, in thanksgiving for my services, called on me. He said, “You’re a grand lawyer, sir, but when I got home that night from Court I told my wife. ‘Maria,’ says I, ‘I’m done for!’ She asked, ‘How is that?’ Said I, ‘I’ve a pain in my shoulder after sitting in that court all day with Judge FitzGibbon against me.’ ‘Are the rest of them against you, too?’ says she. ‘No,’ says I, ‘but it is a “reserved case,” as the clergy say in confession when you’ve done something terrible.’ ‘Well,’ says she, ‘we can’t help that, but get a doctor for your shoulder.’ ‘What doctor? What could the local fellow do for me? I want a head doctor in Dublin.’ ‘Then,’ says she, ‘tackle the pony and see you old friend Dr. FitzGibbon.’ ‘Maria,’ says I, ’ I never thought of him.’ Well, Mr, Healy, you know the FitzGibbon boys were reared beside me, and real gentlemen. Many’s the covey of partridges I put up for them on my farm. It was grand to see them sporting, for they were the old stock. So I yoked the pony and went in to Dr. FitzGibbon. The first thing he says to me was, ‘John, I’m glad to see you. How are you?’ ‘Thank you, Doctor,’ says I, ‘I’m sorry for the cause of my calling.’ ‘Never mind,’ says he, friendly as ever. ‘What is it?’ ‘Well,’ says I, ‘I’m bad with my shoulder.’ ’ Oh dear! says he. ‘What is it, and how did you contract it?’ The word ‘contract’ stuck in my mind, so I told him I got it that day in the Four Courts. ‘Oh,’ says he, ‘you were on a jury, I suppose?’ I up and said, Indeed no, Doctor. I was all day in the Court where your brother sits.’ ‘My goodness!’ says he. ‘Is that so, John? I know it’s draughty.’ ‘Saving your presence, Doctor,’ said I, ‘draught be damned! That Court is against tenants and I am not blaming your brother for it.’ ‘John,’ says he, very firm, ‘you’re unjust.’ ‘I beg pardon, Doctor,’ I said, ‘I mean nothing wrong, but I’ve a horrid pain in my shoulder.’ ‘Well,’ says he, ‘I’ll give you a liniment.’ Then I left him, and I wish, Mr. Healy, there was more grand counsel like yourself, for you won that trial for me.”

The day that case was argued Parnell seized the office of *United Ireland, *and turned out its editor, Mr. Bodkin, K.C. (afterwards County Court Judge). We re-seized it that night and put a guard inside. Stephen Cunningham, of the Ship Hotel opposite, next morning seduced the guard, and Parnell headed a mob to retake the premises. The police calmly surveyed the proceedings, for the *Freeman *had swung Dublin to Parnell’s side, and officialdom in the Castle abetted him.

Every one opposed to Parnell was abused by the *Freeman. *Sir Thomas Esmonde was described as that “Ally-Sloper-pated noodle masquerading under the title of Grattan Esmonde”; Sexton was a “weakling”; I became ” Sim Tappertit,” who had “sold his clients for blood-money to Dublin Castle”; Dillon, who in 1880 was called by the *New York Herald *on arrival in America “the melancholy Dane,” was styled the “melancholy humbug.”

Parnell, knowing the country was hostile, favoured the avoidance of a contest in North Kilkenny. Enthusiasts (who always canker sound policy) overbore him. Without the sanction of a Convention, he was forced to start a Tipperary landlord, the late Vincent Scully, as his candidate against Pope Hennessy, who had been adopted by his own Convention. Thirty Parnellite M.P.’s, young and ardent, poured into the constituency, but we had the better of them in man-power, and controlled larger forces. Never before in the history of elections did 70 M.P.’s take part in such a fray.

Kilkenny borough, though outside North Kilkenny, became the head-quarters of both sides. It was strongly for Parnell. He harangued a mob there every night from his hotel, denouncing opponents with a picturesque invective that gave joy to the unwashed. Pope Hennessy, whom he had first put forward, was “a mongrel skinner from Cork”; Justin MacCarthy, “a nice old gentleman for a tea-party, and if they visited his hotel they would find him with his feet in a mustard bath with a jug of whisky-punch beside him”; Dr. Tanner, M.P., was “a murderer”; Davitt “a jackdaw”; Dillon “vain as a peacock, and with about as much brains”; Healy “a scoundrel who betrayed prisoners to the Crown, and deserted them when they had no more money in their pockets.” Sexton and others were “scum, refuse, gutter-sparrows, and humbugs.”

I barely touched on this fustian in letters to my wife:

13th *December, *1890.

“I am writing before breakfast, an unusual exercise, but it is the only chance I may have. We shall win. Parnell has got the town mob by drink and money, but has not got the voters. If the mob had votes we were dished.

There are hardly any influential men on Parnell’s side. It was a pity we didn’t imitate the Parnellites, but our friends were too confident, and left things unorganized. They are now getting roused, yet only that Davitt came we should be in a bad way.

Parnell is leaving for meetings in Limerick and Waterford, which is a mistaken policy, but he has a week left here. He thinks that if he gets a crowd at a railway station or a mob that comes (half through curiosity) to hear him, he will carry the country. He has a handy cry in his name, which for so long had a magical influence, and it is not surprising that many people should not be converted from a belief which we were all professing a month ago. We are like pagans converted to Christianity, being stoned for attacking our gods of yesterday. I don’t blame the rustics against us, considering that men like Dr. Kenny, Redmond and O’Kelly have acted as they have done.

Parnell’s object is to prevent our getting a hearing, or arguing with the people, and, therefore, mob violence is his resource… ”

A couple of days later, when I had traversed the constituency, I wrote again to my wife. She, like my brother, gave me no inkling that my letters had been preserved, and in time she probably forgot them. I present what I scribbled in all its rawness.

Kilkenny,

15th *December, *1890.

“A mob has been organized by the brewers, but they represent nothing beyond blackguards who shout, and who shouted for Sequah, the Indian medicine man, louder than they do for Parnell. I spoke yesterday for an hour without effort to an enormous mass of people, who were as enthusiastic a crowd as ever I saw in the Land League days. We have the principal district with us, while Parnell has no district solid for him.

He will be beaten by a thousand votes, which, considering the exertions he has made, and the devices he has resorted to, will be a triumph. Yet he talks as if he was certain of victory. I pity him. There is nothing in anything he says.

At the outset we were unorganized and spiritless, but now “blood is up” and the priests are working with energy. To-day we leave Kilkenny City for outlying districts, and shall hardly return until Monday.”

To my brother, on the same day, I wrote:

Kilkenny,

15th *December, *1890.

“There is no “resource of civilization” which Parnell and his friends have not resorted to, while we were resting on our oars. If we had come straight here after the Writ was moved, we could have captured the mob as easily as they did; but we relied on the goodness of our cause, while they were working like demons spilling drink. You must come for Sunday. Sexton does not intend to run any risks, so I am bearing the brunt of the attack.

William O’Brien’s talk of “compromise” from America is mischievous, as holding out prospects of peace. The only compromise Parnell will make is that he be retained leader, and this election will have been decided before O’Brien can be heard from.

Our meeting yesterday was equal to anything I have seen in the Land League days, and in voters alone must have contained 1,500. Many of them were miners. The Parnellites therefore have brought down Trade Unionists from Dublin to get at them, but it will be labour in vain.

If beaten, Parnell has no further power. I am afraid of Redmond and Val Dillon nobbling Pat O’Brien in Nenagh Jail. We have no one there who could get at him.

For myself, the hissing of the mob is music in my ears, Still, it is only fair to the working man to say that a number of them have protested against the terrorism that has been organized. Sheer violence is Parnell’s policy. His action in seizing O’Brien’s paper ought to disgust thinking men. I organized its recapture, and would have held it too, but was not admitted to the premises before our garrison was induced to evacuate. I would have hung on and led them, and there would have been blood spilt before they got into the office if I were there.

A telegram has come that Parnell was routed to-day by Davitt at Rathdowney Fair, and that the people left Parnell and thronged to Davitt’s meeting. Rathdowney is in Queen’s County, but the Kilkenny farmers attend the Fair.

I don’t think we could have won without Davitt. He called at my house in Dublin before coming down, and we are now friendly. Parnell declares he will form a new Party and eject us, but that “Dillon and O’Brien are the worst of the lot.” His followers are not much assistance to him.

He should be probed over the balance of the Indemnity Fund in *The Times *case. Lewis’s bill, including all expenses, was £31,000. Parnell put the balance in his pocket amounting to £10,000, although Lewis’s costs included both his action in Scotland and England against *The Times. *He had also £5,000 from C. Rhodes. This money is being used against us here.”

We were hampered by the position taken up by Dillon and O’Brien in America after McCarthy was elected to succeed Parnell. They imagined themselves possessed of a magic talisman for wheedling “the Chief.” Of what their patent consisted we had no hint. I knew that negotiations would be hopeless. Dismayed, we learnt that our friends abroad believed they could repair our supposed blunders. A touch here and a touch there, forsooth, were all that was required to soothe Parnell and smooth every obstacle.

In Dublin we had started an evening paper under Bodkin’s editorship. Of it, and of the Dublin Press, I wrote my wife:

Johnstown,

16*th December, *1890.

“The election is going well. We addressed a meeting to-day and drove here, where I shall stay to-night and to-morrow.

I have seen the first number of *Insuppressible. *I sent them further stuff, but the shorthand writer made a hash of it, as he was not able to read his notes. What we have most to apprehend is the difficulty of the people’s understanding the situation. They cannot see why Parnell, who was their ideal in the past, should be set aside, as they don’t read the papers.

My name will be an object of hatred with many for years, and my income will be proportionately reduced. I have enough rivals to fan the flame. It is only by straight hitting there is the least chance.”

Next day I wrote my father:

Kilkenny,

17*th December, *1890.

“We shall win by a thousand. I never felt so certain that we are right. I am sorry to attack Parnell, but it is a necessary evil to bring the truth home to the common mind where his name was ensanctuaried. If he was treated tenderly a la O’Brien, he would know no bounds in audacity, so that it was only by the terror of plain truths that he could be reduced to some appreciation of his position.

Looking back, I would say and do everything for and against him all over again, if the circumstances were the same - with the difference that I never could have believed he would act so unpatriotically as to divide the country. Now “Carthage must be destroyed,” and the readiest way, though the rudest, is the most merciful for Ireland and himself.

The combinations against us, Fenians, Factionists, landlords, and grabbers, with a lining of honest fanatics, is enough to make thinking folk take the straight road, yet I see your Dr. Dennehy goes to Cork to greet the Arch-wrecker! I don’t blame anyone outside the Party when men like Dr. Kenny, J. Redmond and O’Kelly within it are sinning against light. Only for them Parnell never could have set out for the precipice.

I hope the attacks on me by pressmen annoy you as little as they do myself? It is no affectation of indifference when I say that they only make me laugh. The fury of the Kilkenny “blades” is over, as the porter has given out! I walked the streets yesterday without a “boo,” and was cordially saluted by numbers of working people. Now we could beat Parnell in the town as handsomely as in the county… .”

Most of us had to address meetings two or three times daily, often in bad weather, but my wife’s interest in the contest was so great that I had to maintain my correspondence with her:

Johnstown,

18th *December, *1890.

“We shall win by 1,300 majority. There is no chance of Parnell succeeding. Every day tells against him, and the *Freeman’s *readers will be cursing it for deceiving them.

After the poll is declared on Tuesday I shall return home, which will make up for all you have gone through.

I don’t see how Parnell can stand this racket. His followers will lose courage, and without them he can do nothing, though personally he is capable of going alone.”

Parnell’s friends were so certain of victory that his solicitor, M. J. Horgan, of Cork, wrote to a brother of Dr. Tanner, M.P.:

18*th December, *1890.

“We’ll whack the others upside down, not only here, but everywhere, all over the country. The consequences to your brother will be ruinous. We’ll lick every d--- one of them upside down, and time will confirm what I say.

Kilkenny will be the first to show our unconquerable strength, and the faith of the Irish people in Parnell.”

I wrote my wife:

Kilkenny,

20th *December, *1890.

“Sexton, Condon and Father Humphries left by the To train, and Justin and Charlotte by the mail. Some will go to Boulogne to meet O’Brien. John Redmond is here still. I start at 7.30 a.m. to speak at nine o’clock, after first Mass, and drive to other churches for second Mass. I shall not be back here to-morrow, as I will go to Castlecomer for the poll and return here on Monday about 10 p.m.

Reports are hopeful, and I stick to my estimate that we shall win by over 1,000. Parnell’s hearse allusion at the funeral made the mourners creep. He hired a special train of supporters from Dublin, which speaks well of the intelligence of his followers here. Dr. Tanner, who was drooping last night, and whom I could hardly convince, is now jubilant, and would not allow my modest estimate of Parnellite strength even in their best districts. He is at 9.30 p.m. starting off in the fog and frost for a fourteen-miles’ drive to Johnstown. I did not know Parnell was yesterday to arrive there, but he and his friends kept all their movements secret, whereas we do everything openly. Parnell carries his crowd with him in cars, and we call the procession a “hippodrome…

At Castlecomer flour was thrown at Parnell. He pronounced it “lime,” and said his eyes were injured. Speaking from his hotel window in Kilkenny that night, he put a bandage over one eye. After ending his oration, he removed it, disregarding the presence of his partisans in the room from which he spoke. Castlecomer was strongly against him. I went there to see that when the poll ended the ballot boxes should be safely delivered, as their contents would be the decisive factor in the contest.

I had served notice on the sheriff to mount guards so that after the poll the boxes should be convoyed in safety to Kilkenny City, 15 miles away, where the count was to take place. We left Castlecomer in heavy rain, when the poll closed at 8 p.m.

Policemen drove before and behind us. Suddenly I saw the town lights reflected on the barrels of rifles gripped by lurkers in ambush. I was startled and thought the precious boxes were to be waylaid. The guns, however, proved to be those of the R.I.C. lying in wait. Every few hundred yards armed sentinels appeared in the wet to safeguard the passage of the ballot boxes. Arriving in Kilkenny in dripping clothes, I felt equal to encounter Noah’s deluge when I called for supper. The Castlecomer votes being safely harvested, I knew victory was certain.

Next day, the Sheriff declared Pope Hennessy elected by a majority of 1,165, as we forecasted. This was due mainly to the votes of the Castlecomer miners. Parnell assailed them afterwards as descendants of the English who wetted the powder in the guns of the rebels of ‘98.” This was untrue. The miners were Catholics, and the late Father Timothy kept them riveted to our side.

Soon after, William O’Brien, believing he could heal the Split, left America for Boulogne, as Parnell had arranged to meet him in France.

Dillon followed him, distrusting O’Brien’s powers, and declared that Parnell had “completely captured” O’Brien. Parnell’s eye-bandage again became effective. On leaving London for France, he did not wear it. When the steamer neared Boulogne, he applied it.

I have already alluded to the *Insuppressible, *a halfpenny broadsheet which, after Parnell had seized *United Ireland, *its editor, Bodkin, published from the *Nation *office. O’Brien caused him to drop it. I was therefore asked by Archbishops Croke and Walsh to go to France and remonstrate with O’Brien. Accompanied by John Barry, I went to Paris. Letters to my wife state: *

5th January, *1891.

“We found O’Brien quiet in manner, and without any trace of bitterness against one side or the other, blaming both impartially. He had no sympathy to express for the bothers we had gone through, having quite enough trouble for himself. As far as I could see, we were in agreement on every point except one, namely, he hopes to get Parnell to retire, and thinks he is entitled to his own way independent of the Party. Neither Dillon nor he associates himself with the Party in anything that has been done. They desire Parnell’s deposition, but everything we have done is open to criticism. There is not the least chance that O’Brien will have anything to do with the new paper. On the contrary, having failed to bring about Parnell’s retirement, he will go to jail and wash his hands of us. Fight Parnell I don’t believe he will, as he thinks the Cause is lost if Parnell will not retire, and O’Brien will not take part in a struggle against him.

I have no doubt his tone with Parnell will be changed from his tone with us. Yet at heart he is sympathetic with the man we have been fighting. He dislikes Davitt and distrusts the priests, and his solution of the difficulty will be to go to jail, and leave us in the welter, rather worse off than we were before. He imagines Parnell could carry 30 seats. Yet he declares his leadership impossible, but refuses to accept solidarity with the Party that deposed him, though done on his recommendation and that of the other American delegates. Yet they too approved of the appointment of McCarthy. Nothing we have done has been wisely done. So now there are not two Parties, but three Parties, for the “envoys” claim that they are in a position of superiority by reason of their aloofness from the conflict, which entitles them to intervene!

We pointed out every argument against this line of thought. The effect of Parnell’s offer of the leadership to O’Brien, however, is great, and while I am sure he would be anxious to get rid of Parnell on the condition of even Blane or Gilhooly being appointed leader, he cannot leave out of sight the hollow compliment paid him. We were friendly, but despite the length of the interview, he never took us into confidence as to what the terms of “settlement” might be, although we knew from the newspapers and from the statement of Byrne of the *Freeman *to Tom Condon the offer Parnell pretended to make.

Yesterday, having been asked to lunch by Madame Raffalovitch, John Barry protested to O’Brien against our being kept in darkness, and William mentioned, as a State secret (what was in that day’s papers), that Parnell’s *sine qua non *was McCarthy’s deposition. J. F. X. O’Brien and Gill were present. William will refuse the editorship of the National Press.

I don’t care who is leader, so long as Parnell goes, but the trick would not seem beyond the intellect of a child-if it hadn’t succeeded in capturing William.”

John Barry took O’Brien’s attitude more to heart than I did. As we trudged back to our hotel through the snow, he vowed he would never trust O’Brien more. John Hooper, M.P., editor of the *Cork Herald, *and a close friend of O’Brien’s, told me that O’Brien, to whom I had telegraphed from Calais *en route, *complained that I did not believe he was out when we first called. He arrived at Madame Raffalovitch’s, where he was staying, just as we came the second time, and I saw him open my telegram in the hall. “That is it,” said he, throwing it down. Seeing it was in typescript, which was then peculiar to France, I asked out of curiosity to look at it. This, Hooper declared, O’Brien regarded as a proof of my distrust of his word that he had only just come home. He was entirely mistaken, and I only asked to see the telegram because it was in a French system, new to me. Knowing nothing of his suspicion, I wrote my wife next day:

Paris,

*5th January, *1891.

“Parnell could not carry a dozen seats, but O’Brien says he knows Ireland better than we do. He resents the idea that he will allow Parnell to “play” with him, and he says he must get credit for not being a fool. We told him that he was being fooled, and left him under no illusions, and that he was assuming our 45 men were fools, or that they had not exhausted all the efforts of diplomacy. Parnell may make a grace of yielding to O’Brien, on the ground that he has not “insulted” him, but I shall be surprised at any arrangement being made.

We were not taken into William’s confidence as to what his proposal was, but understood that it was his own election in the room of Justin McCarthy. We left him in the friendliest spirit, and nothing but good humour and kindliness prevailed, William saying that I had not proved a true prophet when I said in *Insuppressible *that Parnell would keep him dangling round Paris. I told him his action independently of the Party laid him open to the charge of arrogance and indiscipline, which was our complaint against Parnell. He bore this without flinching, with a gentle egoism, beyond reproof.

Having been invited to lunch at 12 noon to-day at Madame Raffalovitch’s we went, and found Gill and F. X. O’Brien, who also, without our knowledge, arrived from London last night, and whom William was out to meet by an earlier train when our wire arrived. Gill had been staying with O’Brien, and is now at the Normandy Hotel with his wife, and to-night we called on William Redmond to express our sympathy at his child’s death, but did not go upstairs, although he pressed us, as John Redmond was there. After lunch Barry took O’Brien aside while I was chatting with Madame Raffalovitch, and evidently complained that members of the Party were not trusted to know what his proposals were. William said that Parnell was inflexible in refusing to accept McCarthy’s chairmanship, and that his main condition was Justin’s retirement. We knew that William’s installation in Justin’s place underlay this, and confined our conversation to maintaining that Parnell was throwing this out as a blind, and would afterwards use it against us; yet William is determined, whatever occurs, to exhaust his influence upon Parnell, and closed the discussion by telling us that it was useless to argue the matter, as it would only lead to temper.

Madame Raffalovitch remarked to me that Gill was a bad influence on him in the Parnellite sense. For anything that has been going on in Ireland, or for any of the troubles we have had, or are likely to have, he has not the smallest appreciation; and I have no hope that he will assist us. He has obtained some kind of pledge from Redmond and Clancy that they will withdraw from Parnell’s Party if he persists in fooling O’Brien, or are convinced that Parnell is acting in bad faith; but I don’t attach value to such assurances. William’s appreciation of the situation may be judged from his remark that, if we had not beaten Parnell so heavily at Kilkenny it would be easier to deal with him now.

Apparently, everything that we have done has been ill done, and nothing has been done that ought to have been done, and William and Gill are the only men to put matters right. Anything more hopeless it is impossible to conceive.

Tom Condon, whom Justin 10 days ago brought to the Club, declared he would not support O’Brien’s leadership. Barry said the same, but my notion is that, although the whole thing is a trap and a fraud and will be used against us as a fulcrum by Parnell later on, even if he submits now, the country will insist on anything for the sake of peace. Condon had been told by Byrne of the *Freeman *that William’s leadership was Parnell’s solution; yet O’Brien did not think it possible to tell this to Barry and myself last night, nor until Barry formally complained this morning. William’s attitude towards every man who is opposing Parnell is not sympathetic as it is towards the men who are supporting him. He promised a telegram to me at the Club on Wednesday.

We leave Paris at 10 o’clock to-morrow, and will be met at Charing Cross by Sexton and McCarthy for a further pow-wow. Certainly the proposed humiliation of Justin is a mean transaction. I shall be home on Thursday.

I think we have done some good in putting stiffening into O’Brien, and removing illusions, but he is not obliged to us; Barry is disgusted with him, and says that my remark to William, that there were now three parties, the Parnellites, ourselves, and the American delegates, was quite justified. William spoke at one time of the “McCarthy-ites,” for which I took him up briskly. He will probably be firmer with Parnell than he would have been before our coming, and that is all the good we have done.”

We left Paris in bad spirits, foreseeing nothing but mischief from O’Brien’s intervention.

On the 9th January, 1891, from Dublin, I told Maurice:

“The effect of O’Brien’s dalliance with Parnell on men like Sir William Harcourt and Henry Fowler has damped matters. Both have been urging the chucking of Home Rule, and if Gladstone were to die or retire, Parnell would be justified. I have felt worse towards the Boulogne fooling to-day than I did even in Paris.

We had to prepare a circular to the shareholders of the *National Press, *informing them of O’Brien’s refusal to be editor.

O’Brien wired me on Wednesday night: “I am afraid I must say no to Chairmanship,” and asked me to visit him on Saturday for the purpose of debating a suggestion that he should resign instead of refusing the post. I could not spend further time on this so I returned home.

His wire to McCarthy asked him to go to France, and Justin at first refused, but I hear to-night he has gone with Sexton.

Nothing trickles to us from the other side any more than from the Orange Hall. T. D. Sullivan and I have policemen watching our houses day and night.

We cannot produce a newspaper before March, as details which have to be arranged are inconceivable. We have £40,000 subscribed, and there will be no difficulty in getting the whole capital once the paper is started.

The Tories will be fools if they don’t dissolve Parliament while we are in this fix. I shall be surprised if they are so stupid as to let us get time to pull ourselves together. We can get the *Insuppressible *out from the *Nation *office, and must only put up with it. Meanwhile we are losing on it weekly, as we have no means of getting advertisements or distribution, but the money is well spent in reducing the *Freeman *and *Telegraph *to submission.

Bodkin is full of matter. He is staunch against Parnell and disappointed with O’Brien. Parnell only proposed O’Brien’s leadership *pour rire, *to make us subsequently ridiculous, and would marry Kitty while William was in jail. Justin said he would resign [the Chair] if that would get us out of a difficulty, but it would not.”

But for the telegraph clerks we should have been in the dark as to what was going on in France. Justin McCarthy wrote:

20 Cheyne Gardens,

Chelsea Embankment, S.W.,

12th *January, *1891.

“My Dear Tim -

We came to no conclusion at Boulogne, and I for one did not expect to come to any. William O’Brien is unconsciously and in honest good faith helping to play the game of “Committee Room 15” all over again. But we decided to go, because we felt sure that if we had refused, Parnell would have made an immense blowing-horn of our refusal at the Limerick meeting, and we did not want to give him the chance. Besides the terms of O’Brien’s telegram were very appealing, and at the time seemed to hold out some hope. Parnell now accepts O’Brien’s proposal for the leadership of Dillon. The rest of the position is unaltered. We simply say that we can do nothing without the knowledge and consent of the Party - which we maintain to be *the *Party. Parnell stipulates that he and I should resign together, and that the proceedings which deposed him should be regarded as invalid and informal-and O’Brien rather gives in to this idea. Sexton and I replied that any discussion of the validity of the proceeding is to our minds inadmissible. Sexton made an offer to submit the question of my resignation to our 55 men, and I for my own part declared that I should be willing to stand by that offer. That is all. We are, as you see, just where we were before.”

Truly yours,

Justin McCarthy.

I sent this to Maurice, commenting:

Dublin,

14*th January, *1891.

“I enclose report from Justin McCarthy on the Boulogne comedy. Parnell has no notion of retiring, but his followers would be glad to get rid of him, and are sincerely anxious for some agreement whereby Dillon would be chosen chairman. I hardly agree with you that, if it were not for O’Brien, no decent man outside Dublin would be with Parnell. Yet I know that if O’Brien and Dillon had been at home and working with us, we should not have had this trouble.

The replies to our circular after O’Brien refused to become editor of the new paper have been coming in splendidly. There have been only half a dozen refusals for small amounts of shares. We considered our *status *carefully, and abstained from making a demand for money until we secured their consent, but to-day the “allotment” papers will go out. We received to day from the Bishops an inquiry whether the paper would be conducted according to Catholic principles, Yet there can be no guarantee for the policy of the paper unless in the character of its shareholders. We gave no reply yet, being in the throes of parturition… .

I have received copy of a letter Tim Harrington sent Swift MacNeill in which he expresses surprise that Swift should have been “influenced by the intimidation and ruffianism of a man like Healy, and that it remained to be seen whether personally it would have been the wiser course for MacNeill to have allowed himself to be swerved from the path of duty and principle by a man upon whom both sat very lightly.” This is delightful. To-day Harrington telegraphed O’Brien to get McCarthy to allow William’s name to be substituted at Munroe’s Bank in Paris for Justin’s! They think they have William in their pocket. I am writing to McCarthy warning him.

I have been so much engaged with the starting of the new paper and the endless preliminaries for it that I have not been following other matters much. The Directors meet every day for hours - that is to say, Murphy, Dickson and myself, but Sexton is apparently intimidated privately. I wired to ask him to be here to-day for a meeting of the Tenants’ Defence Committee, at which we thought Parnell would attend, but he made an excuse. The fact that the fight is thrown on me by men who would, perhaps, be the first to condemn my “strong language” is a further reason why I should be glad if some settlement could be arrived at.

Limerick men inform me that Sunday’s Parnell demonstration was wretched, and that not 40 voters attended.”

Again I wrote him:

Dublin,

17th January, 1891.

“I saw Archbishop Walsh on the Bishops’ resolution. He was very reasonable, and I could see it was not meant in the sense we feared. Dr. Walsh’s idea of having a clerical Director the Bishops were unable to adopt, and the resolution was the result of their abandonment thereof. Dr. Walsh has undertaken to satisfy his colleagues from what I said to him. His Grace also let me into one of the lies which Parnell has been using to influence O’Brien, but pledged me not to mention it publicly for the present. We have seen O’Brien’s cables to Dillon, which show that Dillon is going to France to restrain O’Brien from falling into Parnell’s hands. One of the things O’Brien cabled was: “Tim and Labby have been at this for a long time” - meaning thereby that he had fallen in with Parnell’s lie about the “English conspiracy.” Dillon wired to Gill begging him to “save O’Brien from Parnell.” The cables ended by O’Brien begging Dillon to trust him and that he “could not afford to send any more cables.” Dillon then started for Havre. What a marmalade!

We would be able to accept Dillon’s leadership if Parnell were willing to resign. This I don’t believe. O’Brien has some understanding with Clancy and Redmond that they should abandon Parnell if he doesn’t accept his compromise, but it will come to naught.

I have got hold of a telegram from Harrington to O’Brien on Wednesday after the Tenants’ Defence meeting, saying, “Parnell wishes you to get your name instead of McCarthy’s as trustee of the Paris fund!” - proving how completely they believe they have O’Brien in their hands. The mischief O’Brien has done he is ignorant of. I am going to-night to Edgeworthstown, and all Longford will be at the meeting to-morrow. Dan Mahony told Denis Sullivan to-day that, having been in Kerry to bury his mother, he was astonished at the bitterness of the people against Parnell.

Scully’s manager in Nenagh made himself offensive, and led the crowd against us, which for a bank manager was pretty strong. You may of course tell Canon O’Mahony about the cablegrams, but don’t tell anyone else, as Harrington, on account of my getting *The Times *ciphers, would know the source of the information.

Business is *nil, *but I am not sorry, as my mind is off legal work.”

During these anxieties we had also to try to maintain the cause of the tenants in their struggles against landlordism. I was soon again in the courts on their behalf.

I wrote Maurice:

Dublin.

22*nd January, *1891.

“I got back last night having spent three days in Longford defending seven prisoners, whom I acquitted, before two of the decentest R.M.’s I was ever before - Smith and Beilby. The town mob had been “portered” into shouting against me on the Sunday night and Monday, but as the case wore on they got civil, and there was not a whimper as I was leaving, although the result was not known until to-day. I am glad on account of Jasper Tully, as his paper has stood to us. Two of the defendants were Parnellites, and would not be defended by me, but I made the best fight for them, and they were very warm as I was leaving. All my constituents are for me, but the roughs of South Longford are for Dr. Fitzgerald, M.P.

I had a fine reception in Mullingar in retaliation for some booing on Saturday night. I stayed with Bishop Nulty. Parnell has no chance whatever, and all Connacht is dead against him. I have been “left” by Sexton and Co. These are not men “to go tiger-hunting with.” I have no mind to be thrust forward while they lurk behind, in statesmanlike retirement.

We are puzzled to know what to do about starting a new organization, as the Boulogne gentlemen have mined the ground under our feet. Their proposal is that Dillon should be leader, and is then to return to Ireland to prison, while Parnell and O’Brien go to America, and that a committee is to guide the Party, consisting of half Parnellites and half ourselves!

I have earned only a guinea since the term opened. We shall have to stop *Insuppressible, *as O’Brien won’t allow Bodkin to write anything useful. John Redmond said, “O’Brien was more Parnellite than himself.” For a man who has been a partisan all his life to turn “statesman” when partisanship was essential is pathetic,

I don’t know how Hooper heard of the Bishops’ letter to Parnell about *United Ireland, *as Dr. Walsh told it to me as a “great secret” so that I did not tell you. This shows how “secrets” are kept by trustees and trustors. I cannot see what Parnell would gain, or what the Bishops would lose, if the letter were published. Parnell castrated his letter to Cecil Rhodes, and I hope the Liberals will secure the original and publish it as soon as Rhodes arrives.

O’Brien’s action as to *Insuppressible *was hardly “cricket.” It was bad enough to telegraph Bodkin as he did, but to give his telegram to other papers at the same time was worse. The *Freeman *had it before the *Insuppressible *was out. We had determined soon to stop it on the ground of expense, but O’Brien cut its throat.

We ought to do some work on the Land Bill. I shall put down amendments to reject Balfour’s “concessions.”

In 1898 I printed the text of the Primate’s letter in a pamphlet called Why Ireland is not Free (page 26). As Parnell misled O’Brien* *by a perverted account of it, I quote the original. The letter chiefly objects to the starting of the “Plan of Campaign,” which Parnell himself had condemned four years before.

4 Rutland Square E., Dublin,

*15th October, *1890.

Dear Mr. Parnell, -

“At a general meeting of the Bishops held here to-day some public questions of great importance in their bearing on religious interests were under consideration, and I was asked to convey to you the conclusions arrived at by the meeting on two of these questions. Let me premise, as request to do that the chief object for which the resolutions were adopted is to maintain, and if possible to strengthen, the relations which have hitherto generally existed with such happy results between the clergy and the Irish National Parliamentary Party, and to remove causes of misunderstanding which would surely be most painful to clergy and laity, and which might prove ruinous to our political prospects. I have also to observe that on the two questions to which we now call your attention the disapproval of the Bishops should have been long since notified to their flocks were it not for their anxiety to preserve the unity and strength of the National movement, and their expectations that the proceedings they condemned would shortly cease without their interference.

The Bishops have much confidence in your prudence and foresight, and hope that your influence and authority with the Party will remove the disquieting abuses they refer to before they further attract public attention and, perhaps, lead to disastrous opposition and division in the National ranks.

The matters to which the Bishops presently request your attention are - 1st: The independent action of individual members of the Party in originating and sustaining movements involving the gravest consequences, political social, and moral, without the sanction of the Party as such. Manifestly this sanction should, in all acts of importance, be sought and obtained before priests or people are invited to give their co-operation. The Bishops feel that the time has come to declare that they cannot in future sanction the co-operation of their clergy in proceedings taken under individual responsibility

2nd: The want of supervision, even in matters of the gravest importance over *United Ireland. *This paper is regarded as the organ of the National Party, and for that reason the clergy who co-operate actively with the Party are, by many, held responsible for its editorial comments, even its vituperative attacks on individuals.”

I am, dear Mr. Parnell, Yours faithfully,

Michael Logue,

Archbishop of Armagh.

After the *Insuppressible *disappeared the only support we had in the Press came from Michael Davitt’s *Labour World, *published in London. His attacks on Parnell were fiercer than anything we had said or written:

“His honour is a by-word, his mendacity boundless, his vindictiveness and tyranny infamous, his hypocrisy colossal.”

Other phrases aplenty spurted:

“His reeking name, blasted reputation,” his “hideous deformity,” and “the imposture called Parnellism.”

Davitt, cross-examined on 16th May, 1892, in an action he took for libel against Redmond’s *Independent, *made this apology:

“If these observations are of a personal character, I regret them.”

His quatrain on Parnell during the Sligo election of 1891 was denounced as the essence of “scurrility.” So I shall not quote it, I wrote Maurice:

Dublin,

25*th January, *1891.

“Legal business has been killed by the “crisis.” 1 am not worse off than anyone else, although I have only made a guinea in a fortnight! Denis Sullivan says that his receipts are seven guineas for that time, as against 40 for the same period last year. The “lists” are meagre, and I suppose people’s minds are occupied with politics, for every one says no such poor Term has been known.

In letters from Knox and Murphy both mention that McCarthy and Sexton hope to make communication of the Boulogne proposals to-morrow. Hooper spoke to me yesterday about Archbishop Logue’s letter to Parnell, as to which Parnell lied to O’Brien. He didn’t show it him, for O’Brien told Hooper it contained a request that no more” Protestants”should be selected members. The letter contained nothing of the sort. Archbishop Walsh read it to me, and I have written His Grace suggesting that he should wire O’Brien that he has been deceived, and offering to send a copy of the letter. As read to me it was not even marked “private,” and referred only to two points: first a complaint that members of the Party were (without prior sanction of the Party) committing it to important enterprises which placed priests in a dilemma; and second, that no effective supervision was given to *United Ireland, *which contained attacks on individuals that were undesirable.

The first point refers to New Tipperary, and the second to some attacks on a man’s personal appearance.”

I wrote him again:

Dublin,

23*rd February, *1891.

“Bodkin, with whom I dined, says that Hooper told him that Gill was cursing Dillon and says he would never follow such a leader, so it is evident there was a plan on O’Brien’s part, had it not been for Dillon, either to support Parnell, or take the leadership himself, as a warming-pan for Parnell. Weakly as Dillon behaved, he is firmer than O’Brien.

The Carrick-on-Shannon blackguardism against me was carried on by less than a hundred youngsters from a distance, aided by the town mob and want of preparation on our side. The Party of disorder is always the Party of defeat. It appears as if we had the voters, and Parnell had their sons. Longford men assured me of a triumphant return. I am more than ever resolved.”

Maurice being member for Cork, for which Parnell also sat, was eager for news, and we exchanged a continual correspondence. My letters to him reflect our anxieties from day to day:

Dublin,

28*th February, *1891.

“The account of the groaning at me in the *Freeman *is absurd. A few fellows groaned, which provoked a volume of cheering that surprised me. There was no interference of the police, or any hustling, and I walked straight through the crowd to challenge them. They were only a few lane boys from the surrounding purlieus.

I am doing nothing in the Courts, but I prefer being free for a while.

I am getting on well with the new paper, though there is much to be done before Saturday.

Parnell’s plan is to galvanize the Secret Societies and to get our meetings broken up, and have disorder over the country.

If they can, they will prevent the sale of our paper by intimidation, but they will find they have undertaken too large an order. Once it is in steam for a month their tune will be changed.”

I gave up my whole time for three months to getting out the *National Press, *which was to be our future daily organ, and as Dublin was intensely Parnellite owing to the writings of the *Freeman, *the task was no light one. I frequently reported progress to my brother:

Dublin,

4th March, 1891.

**“**Things at the *National Press *office are beginning to look shipshape, but there will be a good deal to be done even after the paper has been issued.

Father Kearney, of Oldcastle, who used to be the leading priest in Drogheda and who started there the *Independent *newspaper and the Independent Club tells me they will beat Parnell, and that his Navan meeting was of no account, although the numbers were large. Parnell is endeavouring to get control of the Drogheda *Independent, *of which he is a shareholder, but will not succeed.

Everywhere he is trying to “nobble” the Press, or to intimidate the proprietors. MacGough wrote threatening the secretary of the Drogheda *Independent, *and inserted an advertisement in the Sligo papers for a news-paper office in order to frighten the Sligo *Champion. *We are watching our premises day and night.

Dublin,

*6th March, *1891.

“I am writing this in the *National Press *office. Everything is going splendidly. We have more advertisements than we can use, and if the machines go off all right by and by, the thing will be a success. Sexton is here and has quietly taken up the editorial position, although he had previously declined it. Murphy will be charmed at this. Dickson is here, also T.D.S. and Bodkin, and we are to have a “spread” when the first paper is run off. I am greatly in heart by this business.

Archbishop Walsh was here this afternoon, and spent an hour looking into every nook and cranny of the place, and expressed his wonder that in three months such an organization could be got together. We have got as leader-writers Gaynor from Belfast and Hugh Maguire of the Wexford *Free Press. *Bodkin and Donovan of the *Nation *are assisting. All the compositors cheered when the Archbishop came into their room. They are now applauding wildly at the locking up of the first side of the paper. We have the place watched by policemen, but I apprehend blackguardism as to our parcels and placards. This cannot last. We shall print 60,000 copies of the first issue.

Printed in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd., Frome and London.

Healy Index. Home.