George Wyndham in Dublin Castle (1899-1903)

Chapter XXXV*

George Wyndham in Dublin Castle *(1899-1903)

In the summer of 1899 Arthur O’Connor, on the Terrace of the House of Commons, brought Redmond, leader of the Parnellite minority, to me. As if nothing had happened, Redmond’s salute was, “Hallo, Healy, old boy!” and we shook hands. Dillon had resigned the Chair of the Party in view of the forthcoming General Election, protesting that he wished a Parnellite should succeed him if unity could be re-established. By this course he hoped at the Dissolution to sweep the country.

I wrote my brother:

Dublin,

19th *January, *1900.

“Redmond’s American trip has impressed on him the necessity of our coming together, and that no more money would be sent for faction.

He asked Clancy to draw resolutions for reunion, but Clancy came to me on Tuesday with nothing done, and I had to draft them. Then we went to Redmond, who agreed.

I told him I thought the result of the joint meeting of the two Parties would be the selection of Harrington for the “Chair” and he said that would not affect him; and that the main thing was to get together. The fact that he is assured of my assistance in the Party has made him feel confident that his section would not be crushed by the majority. Dr. Kenny is willing to accept the inevitable.

Harrington saw Dillon yesterday, who recommended him to write to Captain Donelan, asking him to join in the Whip for the opening day. Davitt and O’Brien are vexed at the turn things have taken.

William Murphy is beginning to wish someone else would take up “the white man’s burden “in the *Nation *since the price of paper has nearly doubled.”

The Redmondites, after struggling for nine years, saw that they could no longer maintain their newspaper, and begged me to get William Murphy to buy it. Their signals of distress were due to insolvency, and to the knowledge that as part of the price of reunion I was willing to support Redmond for the Chairmanship of a reunited Party. Murphy, under pressure from me, agreed to buy the *Independent, *and in January, 1900, the Parnellites (now Redmondites) met the other Nationalist members in a Committee-room of the House of Commons.

Reunion had been to some extent brought about by co-operation between Redmond’s friends and mine on the Local Government Act of 1898, to which Dillon was opposed. Dillon’s favourite for the Chair was Harrington, then stricken in health, and he would have been chosen had he not gone to Dublin and spoken kindly of me in the *Freeman *office. This was conveyed through William Abraham, M.P., o William O’Brien (at Glengariff). The latter, although out of Parliament, wielded a powerful influence, and wired his friends at Westminster, “Vote for Redmond, and smash the Healy-Harrington conspiracy.” I then was supporting Redmond, and was conferring with him daily.

An hour before the election Redmond and I consulted at the Grand Hotel, London, with the late J. L. Carew, M.P., and P. O’Brien, M.P. I showed them my calculation as to Redmond’s chances, which left him in a minority of five. O’Brien’s mistaken telegram at the eleventh hour saved Redmond from defeat, and after a wrangle he was chosen unanimously as Chairman in spite of the protest of Dillon’s backers. His election was a fluke.

A few minutes later we crowded into the Mouse, where a debate on the Boer War was proceeding. Dillon refused to enter the Chamber, and went to Dublin that night to avoid appearing in Parliament amongst the reunited Party. His partisans were furious. The bitterest of them were John Roche, M.P., and P. A. McHugh, M.P., now no more. They, too, absented themselves from the House, and declared they would “knife” Redmond.

When Dillon left for Dublin, the *Freeman *printed articles with barbed thrusts at the new leader.

I was asked that day on behalf of the reunited Party to speak on the Boer War.

Gladdened by the reunion of the Irish ranks, I made a speech which drew praise from the British press.

The correspondent of the *Newcastle Leader *wrote:

“Mr. Healy made one of the appearances of his life, and for some 40 minutes held the attention of the House with his sardonic humour, his bitter taunts, his defiant expression of Irish nationality, and his really eloquent and beautiful language. There is much of the poet in the composition of the Member for North Louth. No man in the House has more humour of a grimly tragic order. Mr. Healy says the most biting, the most laughter-provoking things, with a gravity which is almost supernatural. He passes from the wildest farce to the deepest solemnity without a change of expression. He is an orator who understands the art of making pauses, of lowering his voice almost to a whisper, although a perfectly audible whisper, and the hold he maintains on the House is notable in the extreme. His speech fairly bubbled over with good things. He contrasted the Government’s attitude with that of Pirate Smith, who sailed out “with no Bible on board. He swore by the Jolly Roger, and not by the ten commandments.” You want to “syndicate Christianity.” The Irish, he said, have an advantage over the Dutch in being “able to contemplate your virtues at close quarters.” Rudyard Kipling, Mr. Healy has heard, “is an author whom it is extremely difficult to translate into Dutch.” More funny than all was the description of the genesis of the Burmese War, with the telegram, “Theebaw is still drinking.” And this speech, so full of barbed darts, of wildly funny illustrations, ended with a peroration of fine and elevated eloquence.”

A Tory writer, whose name the scrap-book of my wife did not preserve, exclaimed:

“The great speech of the afternoon was from the irascible, sardonic, vinegar-tongued Tim Healy. It had little to do with the point at issue, and, therefore, it was beneath argument. But it was so bitingly insulting, so daring, so sarcastic, uttered in so lazy a drawl, with head hanging forward, and eyelids wagging as though half asleep, and never a smile, but always a sneer on the saturnine features, that one could not resist thinking, “Here is a parliamentary Swift.” Conceive the man-medium-sized, wearing bad-fitting pepper-and-salt clothes and with his tie climbing half up his collar; on the face an expression of sullen contempt; the lips pursed, a ragged straggling patchy black beard adding to the saturnine set of his face, and in his tone hardly any emotion, but saying the most vindictive things as ordinary men observe “It is a wet day.”

And I’m told that Mr. Healy is In private life meekness itself, and gets down on his knees and plays horsey with little children.”

Members of the Austrian Parliament joined in a card of congratulation to me on this speech headed, “Hail! Theebaw is drinking still.”

Although our members sympathized with the Boers, I must record that Joseph Chamberlain had no intention to make war on them. He twice came to me for an opinion when the situation in South Africa grew perilous.

I thought he was wrong in getting Robson, Liberal M.P. for S. Shields (afterwards a Law Lord), to condemn the limited extension of the franchise which Kruger offered the Outlanders. Blue Books subsequently showed that Renter’s cables were deficient in scope. Kruger unwisely closed the “drifts,” and Chamberlain came again to me for an opinion. I had closely followed the Transvaal question, and told him, “On no account declare war. The closing of the ‘drifts’ is provocative, but Kruger has his own difficulties with the young Boers. Besides, there is Schalk Burger’s party in the Read. Yet that body all told is not larger than an Irish grand jury - 23. Let his Franchise Bill take effect, and before long the Outlanders, plus Schalk Burger’s friends, will obtain influence.” I recalled to him that the Orange Free State at one time had offered its presidency to a Scotsman named Frazer, and said, “Why should you press matters without allowing local politics to develop?” He replied, “That is exactly my own opinion,” and we parted.

This conversation took place openly, in the “No” Lobby. Kruger suddenly and stupidly declared war, because he supposed Chamberlain meant fight. True, the Colonial Secretary strode the Terrace of the House daily with Lord Lansdowne, then Minister for War, but that was what showmen call “business.”

Ministers intent on grave affairs don’t parade their purpose on the Terrace, but sit closeted. Dr. Clark, M.P. for Caithness, the Boer representative in London, was impressed by this parade, and his dispatches were captured in Pretoria. They have not yet been published, but did they make clear that Queen Victoria said she would never consent to a declaration of war on sincere Bible-lovers like the Boers? Kruger, and not Chamberlain, precipitated the conflict.

Possibly the fact that Kruger was sent copies of the Irish Coercion Acts alarmed the Tory Cabinet.

Mrs. Green’s articles in the *Nineteerth Century, *from St. Helena, indicate that the Boer prisoners supposed that England had first declared war.

George Wyndham (Arthur Balfour’s private secretary) soon took Gerald Balfour’s place. Wyndham was a child of genius. He first won notice from Balfour by appositely using, at a luncheon table where Balfour sat, some big word, which I have forgotten. He was a Guardsman, and saw service in the Sudan. He told me that after the battle of El Teb the “Tommies” were so thirsty that they would not trust the serjeants to divide the water supply amongst them, and insisted that the officers should do so. When he had served an apprenticeship in the War Office, Lord Salisbury summoned him to Hatfield, to appoint him to Dublin. Wyndham told me the only advice Salisbury gave him was, “Beware of Healy.” Then he bade his daughter play “The Wearing of the Green.”

Imagination alone can glimpse the old Marquis, bulky and sardonic, the youthful Irish Secretary, fearful of the future, the charming girl at the piano, strumming an unpractised rebel air.

No soul more accordant with Ireland than Wyndham’s came out of England. On reaching Dublin his first visit was to the vaults of St. Michan’s, where the body of his kinsman, Lord Edward FitzGerald, lies. The vaults have the quality of preserving from corruption the remains of the dead. Coffins decay, but not the bodies. A Quaker Nationalist M.P., Alfred Webb, had enclosed Lord Edward’s frame in a new vesture of oak. Wyndham and his mother were touched thereby. ‘Afterwards they pilgrimaged to a house in North Dublin, where dwelt the descendants of the wool-merchant in Thomas Street on whose premises Lord Edward was stabbed by Major Sirr.

The family they visited had preserved the tea-caddy from which tea was to have been brewed for the Geraldine. Mrs. Wyndham asked for, and was given, a few tea leaves.

Tradition possessed Wyndham. Until the Great War, Kildare people held a yearly celebration in honour of a member of the protestant yeomanry who allowed Lord Edward, disguised as a sheep-drover, to pass across Leixlip Bridge from Co. Kildare into Co. Dublin. The Geraldine asked the sentry, “Is there good pasture about?” “No, my Lord,” said the yeoman, “pass farther on.” On he went, but a few days later was attacked and slain in Dublin by Sirr and Swan.

When Lord Salisbury resigned (over a peerage dispute with King Edward) Wyndham breathed more freely. His sympathies with Ireland were intense. A Jacobite by tradition, a poet born, and with the blood of Lord Edward in his veins, his ambition was to make an international settlement between the island he administered and the island of his birth.

I met him first years before at a dinner given at Haldane’s, and urged the printing of John O’Donovan’s Ordnance Survey reports (full of Celtic learning), begging that the editing should be entrusted to Douglas Hyde. Carson had studied at Trinity College with Hyde, and was favourable, but the Treasury jibbed at the cost.

Letters of that period to my brother treat of reunion with the Redmondites.

House of Commons,

7*th March, *1900.

“I promised to speak with Redmond at Liverpool on St. Patrick’s Day. We had a conference to-day with Murphy, Carew and Redmond over the newspapers, and things are in train for settlement.

O’Brien saw Redmond on Saturday and Sunday, and issued an ultimatum to compel him to recognize his League.

We are getting the newspapers amalgamated, and Redmond will be then in a stronger position. He and I went to Speaker Lowther yesterday. We also went to the Lords and got Lord Morley to agree to the Dublin Corporation Bill being considered by a joint committee.

The announcement to-night of the Queen’s visit to Ireland is extraordinary.

The sparse attendance of the Irish members on the Budget is lamentable. There were never 20 in the House. Only 26 voted, although half dozen more were in London, and could have been present.”

The Boer War led Queen Victoria (stirred by the deeds of the Dublin Fusiliers and the Connaught Rangers) to pay a tribute “To my brave Irish soldiers.” She abolished the ban against wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick’s Day in the Army and Navy. Until then service-men were “clinked” for disobeying the order “Take that vegetable out of your cap!”

Her Majesty, in her last years, to emphasize the compliment, visited Dublin in 1900. On her visit being announced, Redmond came to me, complaining that pressmen were swarming on him to know would he welcome her. I replied, “Take the bread out of their mouths by saying in the House of Commons what you would have to say piecemeal. The case is one of a venerable lady to whom no extremist could be discourteous.” He hesitated, but promised to consult Blake, M.P., the Canadian statesman who, when the reunion with the Parnellites was sealed in January, received the compliment of being given the custody of the archives of the Party during the decade of dissension.

Blake met Redmond and myself in the Division Lobby to take counsel as to the reception of the Queen. Redmond knew that Blake’s breakaway from Dillon in January had elected him Chairman, and his opinion therefore was a determining factor. On his advice, Redmond accepted my view to welcome the Royal visit. The effect of. this on the House of Commons was profound. Extremists in Ireland attacked Redmond, and the first inkling I got of his alarm was conveyed as we were travelling together from London on the 16th March, 1900, to attend the St. Patrick’s Day celebration in Liverpool

He said that William O’Brien had wired Jerry MacVeagh, secretary to the St. Patrick’s Day dinner in London, “Postpone banquet and you will smash Redmond.” In astonishment I protested that O’Brien never sent such a message.”

Redmond savagely answered, “He did, the dog!”

T. P. O’Connor, Member for a Liverpool Division, travelled in our train to attend the gathering, but would not occupy our carriage, and on arrival at Liverpool stayed at a different hotel. Such were the conditions under which we addressed the first meeting of Irishmen to celebrate “Unity.”

Redmond was mistaken in telling me that O’Brien’s message to MacVeagh came by telegram. It was contained in a letter.

Redmond had a cranky craft to steer. He was surrounded by men who had been for nine years antagonistic, and had not insight enough to know in whom to place trust. His chief anxiety at the moment was that his organ, the *Independent, *should not make shipwreck after his frequent assertions to its shareholders that it “had turned the corner.” Still, he was also in terror of William O’Brien’s new movement. As to the latter I wrote my brother:

Chapelizod,

24*th June, *1900.

“Cardinal Logue told a priest who attended a meeting of the O’Brien League in South Louth that, as he had been obliged to “suspend “him once already, he hoped he would not compel him to repeat the process!”

Redmond, on the eve of the elections, addressed me in piteous accents as to the Independent.

5 Leeson Park,

Dublin,

31st *July, *1900.

My Dear Healy, -

Is there any way of saving the *Independent *from being sold to the *Freeman? *You know my position from the start. I did all I could to have an amalgamation with the *Nation, *but the superior wisdom of some of our friends broke down the scheme.

Now what I feared all along and predicted is about to happen. I think it would be a misfortune for the country generally. The *Freeman *has made an offer (£12,000) to Baker, and he is to bring it before the Court, but, of course, if a Letter proposal is made, the Court would accept it. For all our sakes don’t you think it would be wise for Murphy to step in now and offer to reconstruct the Company, or buy?”

Very truly yours,

J.R. Redmond.

The reader will hardly credit that a few months later the writer connived at the plan which drove my brother from Parliament and nearly succeeded in ousting myself. He next appealed:

8 Leeson Park,

Dublin,

*Tuesday.

*My dear Healy, -

“I saw Murphy and he is to meet Holohan, Tallon and me at his office at two o’clock to-morrow. Will you, like a good fellow, meet us there, so that we may see if it is possible to do anything?”

Very truly yours,

J. E. Redmond.

His organ had become the official newspaper of the reunited Party, but was for sale in the Bankruptcy Court, and the *Freeman *Company was likely to be the sole bidder. Meanwhile Murphy supplied a large sum and I a smaller one to keep his paper going.

I wrote my brother:

Dublin,

2*nd August, *1900.

“I spoke to Redmond about his supporting O’Brien against us, and said his going to Cork was practically taking part in a scheme to oust you. This he disclaimed, but I said I knew as far as he was concerned it was not so, yet that its effect was the same. He replied there was no intention to put you out, for the best of all reasons, that they didn’t think they were strong enough. I answered that this didn’t leave you under any sense of obligation and spoke so strongly that he indicated if I felt that way there was no use in proceeding with the newspaper amalgamation. I made no reply, but left him to assuage his own feelings.

Murphy was away, and when he returned, I pointed out that if the paper was to do any good, it must have the support of a strong Party in the House of Commons, and that if Redmond stood by, while we were being expelled, the trend of the paper would be Freeman-wards.”

Still, I complied with Redmond’s “occasions” and prevailed on Murphy to bid for the Independent.

Further dealings with Redmond led me to tell Maurice:

Chapelizod,

5*th August *1900.

“Redmond is without heart, and I don’t think he can have much judgment. The question of the indemnity for making the offer for the *Independent *is not settled, and I don’t know anyone except Murphy who is to give the indemnity.

The paper would have been stopped this week but that Murphy provided a further £300, and Tallon £100. Murphy did not wish me to make a further input, but insisted that someone besides himself should take an interest in keeping the *Independent *alive. The marvel is how it lasted. Clearly Redmond only agreed to reunion in the Party when he had exhausted every device.

Until we see whether the *Freeman *outbids us we cannot determine anything. If it bids up to £20,000 in order to spite Murphy, that would so burden the concern as to make it waterlogged, and it is doubtful whether Murphy would buy.”

Murphy was in the quandary of having two daily papers to keep up, his own *Daily Nation *and Redmond’s *Independent. *To descry capital to save the *Independent *we swept the horizon with anxious eyes.

I had to go to Paris to see the Munroe Bankers, and there Murphy telegraphed me that he had acquired the *Independent - *outbidding the *Freeman *by an offer of, I think, £17,000. With it he merged the *Daily Nation. *On returning from France, I wrote Maurice:

Chapelizod,

7*th September *1900.

“You will see a letter of mine to-morrow in the *Independent. *I am doing nothing else for the paper. Murphy’s idea is to keep it like a Nationalist *Irish Times. *I think it must come near the *Freeman *in point of circulation and if it had proper management and advertisements, I can’t see why it should not pay, but for the present it is likely to need £300 a week to sustain it until “peace, retrenchment and reform” begin

The *Freeman *is bitter, I am told, over the amalgamation, but I don’t read its articles.”

If Sexton had outbid Murphy, the *Freeman *would be alive today! Redmond, relieved of the burden of the upkeep of his paper, went over to O’Brien’s side,

I warned my brother:

Chapelizod,

14*th September *1900.

“A dissolution will take place at the end of this month. It was on information supplied by me that the date of the 25th was published yesterday in the *Independent *and *Herald. *This is confirmed by the London Daily Telegraph.”

After Redmond became leader my friends made no attempt at organization as we expected his support and that of the Party we had reunited. This was not forthcoming, and the amalgamated newspapers became unfriendly. We were opposed in the constituencies by O’Brien’s League, and at the Dissolution William Murphy sent a letter of protest to his own paper, the *Independent, *against the O’Brienite opposition to me in N. Louth, but the editor suppressed it.

Men who had created “unity” (so much sighed for) were those most bitterly assailed. When the General Election came I wrote Maurice:

Chapelizod,

20*th September *1900.

“Take a stout stand, but don’t on my account do anything that would injure yourself. Entirely discard me in any attitude you assume. Every one for himself in this scramble, and as, of course, you would never sacrifice principle, you should overlook minor considerations. They cannot defeat me [in N. Louth], although I shall have an ugly time on Sunday. We live in the days of the claque and not of the closet, and the thinking man is doomed unless he adopts the gear of the scallywag.”

O’Brien could have been elected for any Irish constituency, but stood against my brother, and also came to Louth to oppose me. I replied to a despairing note from Maurice:

Dundalk,

3*rd October *1900.

“I am sorry to receive such a letter from you, and to think it is I who am to blame for bringing a blow like this on you. My victory will do me no good now. I could not speak anywhere since I heard your news. I cannot write to you as I would wish, and perhaps you may do better than you think,

I shall win here by nearly double the majority I had, but it will bring me no comfort if you are beaten. Cardinal Logue is bitter against Bishop O’Donnell for his conduct towards T. D. Sullivan, and says it is disgraceful.”

A nominee of Redmond stood against me in Louth. I beat him, but Maurice lost in Cork. in my contest there was a unique incident. The town of Louth was always hostile to me, being Callanite, and William O’Brien with skill and generalship selected it as the place for a public meeting, to which I was invited. I could not refuse, and O’Brien imported a Dublin farmer, A. J. Kettle, to preside over my extinction. From a brake in the village they arraigned me on grounds which were, doubtless, satisfactory to themselves. By some means which I have forgotten I climbed into their brake to reply. Then the fun began. The “Molly” or Hibernian organization was at that time behind O’Brien. Its members would not listen to a word I uttered. Nor did I wish them to do so. All my efforts were concentrated in getting in some “hot shot” during the turmoil. Somebody shouted at Kettle, “Your spout is broke,” and to soothe his wounded feelings I wound up by moving a vote of thanks to him for his dignified conduct in the chair. He was furious, and afterwards wrote off me that I would leave Ireland pelted by certain obnoxious unprintables - “Oh, the brave days when we were twenty-one!”

I wrote my father:

Dublin,

19th *November, *1900.

“I have not heard from Maurice. I felt his defeat because he was valuable to the country, and so dear to me, and especially that William O’Brien could so impose on the people. Maurice’s relation to the Electric Tram Company as affecting jarvies, and the Gas Works, as well as the liquor interest, helped to beat him, but this is only part of the tale, Money is all-powerful, and O’B. spent it while Maurice hadn’t it. If he could have hired a mob he would have won.

As for myself in N. Louth, when I rose at 7 a.m. on the polling day, and looked out on an appalling storm in which you would not send a dog out, I said, “I am done for.” Many of the booths are seven or eight miles from the voters, and the previous polls were taken in the heart of summer. The Pamellite strength was in the towns, where the voters had shelter and convenient booths, while my strong places were mountainous and remote. Well, it’s all over now, and as Maurice, T. D. Sullivan, Arthur O’Connor and others are beaten, so would I prefer to be, were it not for the triumph it would have given the Bounders.

It is years since I have taken any satisfaction in being in the House. Biggar’s death was the first wrench, then the Split then Gladstone’s disappearance, then the *Freeman *racket and now comes this squalid army of parasites mustered by Dillon. Poor Ireland! Some European convulsion must engulf England before her grasp is loosened on our throats. God’s Providence and justice will prevail over men’s folly, although we may go down to our place in the dust before the tour of His retribution sounds. British rule in this country is not to be relaxed by the spells and fetishes of the new worship.

Five years ago when I urged John Barry to stand again he replied, “I would as soon take a bath in a sewer as join the Irish Party.” Hence I am faintly amused at their talk about expelling me. If Redmond had a spark of courage he could have foiled the whole game, but I am satisfied that (although he doesn’t appreciate it) the shaft, aimed at me, will transfix him. I never go near him, but let things drift and dree as they list.

I don’t blame the people. The seizure from us of the *Freeman *in 1892 sealed our fate. No one could stand against the daily poison it poured into the National veins. It is therefore unjust to talk of public “ingratitude.” Just as the English became Unionist or Home Rulers according to the tone of the local Press, so were our own folk operated on. It was not even so much the daily paper as the *Weekly Freeman, *carried home in the women’s market baskets, that did the evil - loaded to the gunwale with virus. We did what we thought fight and have met the fate which will be dealt to others more deserving a thousand years hence. It is important only in the same way that grit in the eye is important.

Except to yourself I have never written in this strain. I have always seen through the mists nothing more important in the end than a gravestone inscribed “R.I.P.” On your account as well as Maurice’s, I could have wished things different, but for myself I will never ask “quarter.”

T. D. Sullivan is as gay as a lark. I felt for him, but he has imbibed some laughing-gas which relieves his soul from pain. Murphy behaves like an Indian at the stake. He never blenches or complains, although he adventured nearly £20,000 to help Redmond.

I was in London 10 days ago, and must go again to the Lords this weekend *re *“Lord Ardilaun *V. *Howth Tram Company,” I don’t think the Bounders can drive me out of business. I don’t get many jury cases lately owing to political prejudice, but I keep fairly busy, and till I get staler wil always command the market in a certain class of case. I do some work better than others, but in another set I am no good. Yet in my own line I will earn a living always, despite malice and all uncharitableness “whilst this machine is to him” in going order, Every professional man is kind to me, young or old. The young men are especially courteous. I went to one of their meetings to-night (Law Students Debating) and found it pleasant to be getting old! (This to you, sir!)”

When Parliament reassembled in 1900 I had lost many friends, and was excommunicated by a Convention of the O’Brien League which declared me unworthy to be a member of the Irish Party. I had taken the “pledge” at the election, and no offence was imputed. Redmond presided at the Convention, and feebly opposed my expulsion. Harrington did so vehemently. Dean Shinkwin, P.P. of Bantry, my native town, was brought up to move it. A majority of the delegates supported this inroad on the Party Pledge, which specified that a member’s colleagues should alone be the tribunal to decide on his conduct.

Dean Shinkwin died in 1923 at 90 years of age. Of his brother at the Munster Bar he used to say that, although “little good at Common Law, he was the very devil at Equity” - a family gift!

On the meeting of Parliament O’Brien framed an amendment to the Queen’s Speech rejoicing at the election of a “united Party.” On this I remarked in the Commons that it “hardly did Ireland justice, as Ireland had returned two united parties, and I’m one of them.”

I wrote Maurice:

Dublin,

23rd December 1900.

Every one in Parliament spoke of your loss to the House and Ireland. Asquith and Gerald Balfour were sympathetic, and I could see from the Liberals that they were strongly opposed to what had been done.

Salisbury’s speech was downhearted on the Boer trouble and if the Opposition were worth anything they could have hammered Chamberlain to pulp, but except Harcourt, they have hardly anyone worth a curse.

The Irish Party missed the greatest chance they ever had last session. I don’t believe they will do much now. I am glad to be free from all responsibility for their proceedings.”

House of Commons,

15*th February, *1901.

“The old Parnellite section, including Redmond, are friendly. Dr. Tanner, who looks as if he was dying, warmly shook hands.

Carew says Wyndham wants to meet me to talk over some projects! I have undertaken to dine with Carew on Sunday on my return from taking the children to France.

Redmond is embarrassed by having received 51 applications for £ s. d from his 80 followers!”

When I met Wyndham at Carew’s he was uncertain as to the policy to be pursued in Ireland. I could not feel surprise owing to the different moods prevailing amongst the Irish representatives. No one knew who was uppermost. Carew was a staunch supporter of Redmond, and I thought would guide him wisely.

I wrote my father:

Dublin,

24th February, 1901,

“**George Wyndham told me at dinner a few nights ago that William O’Brien was his great obstacle to useful legislation, and that his plan is to claim the parentage of everything that is done. Personally I can’t dislike O’Brien, as he has brains, and capacity for self-sacrifice.

I don’t think the Government a strong one. It is merely a Balfour-Chamberlain duet in debating power, and when these are exhausted there is no one else of first-rate brains. Gladstone would have had them out long ago, but the Liberals are mainly piffle on the Front Bench, and there is no growth that I can discern in the rear-ranks. The Irish, in spite of all disadvantages, have had an abler proportionate team than any other lot although with more unpresentable members. We have usually a worse “residuum” than the English, Scotch, or Welsh, but this devil’s guard has not been increased lately more than in previous parties.

The O’Brienites would not now tolerate an intrigue to unship Redmond, who will gradually consolidate his position.

The Cabinet have two Purchase Bills under discussion, but have not yet adopted either, but some such Bill will proceed for certain, unless the stalwarts make it impossible. Here again Redmond’s influence will come in, and I see riftage in that direction, which will ultimately place O’Brien in a minority in the councils of the Party.

Everybody denounces Maurice’s exclusion, and dozens of English M.P.’s have spoken of him to me as the ablest man in Parliament.

The Dundalk people want me to assail the Coronation Oath there next Sunday. We are very persuasive at long range, but I am going.”

The Oath was changed in the next reign, thanks to the courage and statesmanship of His Majesty George V. It had been framed at the Revolution after the accession of William and Mary, in despite of the formularies of *The Book of Common Prayer *and the Statutes of Edward VI (1547 and 1548).

It was of Dutch Calvinistic provenance, and declared the doctrine of Transubstantiation “idolatrous.” In protesting against it at Dundalk I addressed my constituents as “Fellow-idolaters!

In the debates on its repeal, so little was English law known to Scotch Presbyterians that an ex-Lord-Advocate interrupted my citations from the Acts of Edward VI with a denial of their accuracy.

I told him that when I ended my remarks I should bring him the volume of the Statutes. This I did, and he snorted, “Whaur do they come from?

“From the library,” I answered. “What library? Not our library in the House?” “Oh, yes,” I assured him. He had assumed that I “passed off” enactments which were non-existent.

In 1901 there was much discussion on Irish Railways affecting Munster and Ulster. My brother had in 1898 carried a “Cork and Fermoy line” in the Act which created the Fishguard and Rosslare route between England and Ireland.

I wrote him:

Mail Boat,

24*th July, *1901.

“After seeing the wretched reports of the debate on the Railway Bill in the Dublin papers I thought nothing had been gained but to let the Companies out of the bargain with the loss of the £93,000. MacIvor in effect said the G.W. Railway would make the Fermoy line. They will never be allowed to come to Parliament for an abandonment scheme after Balfour’s speech. Redmond said the forfeited £93,000 should be given to Waterford!

The House would have thrown the Bill out if it was left to those who listened to the debate. I knew Redmond would oppose this, and that he would bring the Party with him, so I took care to say I did not intend to divide… .”

The session ended without gain to Ireland. When the new year began I wrote:

House of Commons,

24*th January, *1902.

“I see no hope for the country from the present Party and feel I am wasting time and throwing away money here… .

Last night Dillon didn’t take the vacant seat at dinner where Redmond was, although he had to pass him by. He took a table by himself, where he was joined by T.P.”

Dillon, in spite of his appeals for unity, never made up the breach with Redmond. He “caucused” continually with T. P. O’Connor, and treated Redmond as a makeshift. So he was, no doubt, but this did not justify the constant projection of a rival to the Chair. Besides, Dillon himself was no longer prepared to take an extreme agrarian stand like O’Brien. I wrote Maurice:

Dublin,

11th February, 1902.

“I hear Wyndham has a Purchase Bill ready, but the Government won’t waste time cramming sweets down our throats. It is much the same as regards the University question. The lesson of 1873 makes no impression. Yet when the Pope sanctioned Catholic youth going to Oxford and Cambridge Ireland’s extreme position was given away.

A son of Judge Murphy’s wrote home from the front last week That an old Boer came in to surrender with his son, a lad of 12. As he was handing the rifle to the sergeant the boy snatched it and shot the sergeant dead. Both father and son were then riddled with bullets. Fancy that for a child of 12! If our race had a tithe of their stuff (or their arms) they never could have been conquered.”

Dublin,

16*th March, *1902.

“Henniker Heaton told me he was out and home on the ship from Australia with William O’Brien. He says O’Brien always spoke of me in a friendly way. Heaton’s comment was that he seemed to be afraid of me. He is now either in Greece or Rome, and in these classic localities is in no hurry home.

Sir M. Beach sent for me about that matter he spoke to me on a year or two ago, and I should not be surprised if he tackled the question this time. Keep this to yourself.”

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach did not, as Chancellor, propound the plans in his Budget which he outlined to me. Our conversation was secret, and I could not, therefore, reveal them. In my talks with him I conceived the greatest respect for his character. In public we passed each other by without a nod of recognition! I wrote Maurice:

Steamer Munster,*

3 a.m., 27th March, 1902.*

**“I sent you a copy of the Wyndham Purchase Bill before starting from London. I have agreed to oblige the *Irish Times *(under pressure from Arnott) by writing them a few letters over my name upon it, beginning on Saturday. I should feel obliged if you would send me your views (if you have time). I have promised the first article for Saturday, and therefore must finish it to-morrow night. I suppose you are busy at Assizes, but let me know if you can examine the Bill. I have not read the tenure clauses, but if we can get a decent Commission constituted, I should not be much afraid.”

Ministers were hopelessly divided about Ireland. Wyndham was entirely friendly, but constantly complained of the way he was thwarted by his officials. Balfour had now become Prime Minister and was also friendly, but not anxious to plunge into adventurous courses, knowing that the Irish Party would, it possible, prevent the Tories carrying any beneficial measures for Ireland. I wrote my brother:

Chapelizod,**

**2*nd June, *1902.

“I can’t understand how this Government is run. Wyndham complained to me last week on the Coercion question that when he left Ireland for London at the beginning of the session he had all his official staff breast high with him, and that gradually they were poisoned against him, and his influence undermined. I don’t know of whom or what he was complaining, but I think there must be some clique in the Castle determined to block anything favourable to the popular side, even in the remotest way. I don’t suppose Lord Cadogan [Viceroy] knows much that is going on.

If Lord Cadogan resigned and Wyndham became powerful (which he is not) I could do something

I never knew such a Government. Personally they are civil, but as a corporate body, paralysed.”

A wealthy Dublin stockbroker, James McCann, had now become an independent Irish member. He was chairman of the Grand Canal Company, and was full of the idea that by cheapening water transit much could be done for Ireland. Of his plans I wrote:

Chapelizod,

9*th July, *1902.

The Government can be induced to make gradual concessions, and we may get a University settlement in the autumn session I would go for the purchase of Canals and Railway - first buying the canals which with effective competition would in a year or two bring the railways to their senses. Then, having got a National Council of Management established for this, I should make it the medium of all financial expenditure in the country, and gradually disestablish the Local Government Board, the Board of Works and the Castle, using the County Councils as the basis of representation.

Hicks-Beach, Balfour and Wyndham were willing to find a couple of millions this session for the acquisition of canals on James McCann’s line, and I am making up the question with a view to drawing a Bill for McCann for compulsory acquisition.

Any such programme is useless if its supporters are blackguarded daily in the *Freeman, *as the Government are determined to do nothing for the existing Irish Party. If we succeed, some system of Home Rule will be evolved in the course of a few years. When you consider that it is 16 years since Gladstone made his attempt in ‘86, and that nothing has since been done, it seems as hopeful a way of approaching the question as by the original method of “frontal attack.""

As long as Redmond led the Parnellite minority, he was like myself in favour of trying to harness the Tory Government to schemes of reform for Ireland. From the moment, however, that he became leader of the united Party, Dillon, who was a convinced Liberal, dominated him, and strove to thwart concessions to Ireland by the Conservative Government. Dillon’s father, a ‘48 rebel, became Liberal Member for Tipperary, and Phil Callan, M.P., used to assert he had proofs that in the ‘sixties the elder Dillon, but for his untimely death, would have been given office under the Whigs. I wrote Maurice:

London,

13*th July, *1902.

“Wyndham made an onslaught on Dillon in the de Freyne debate (which was suppressed in the Irish papers), referring to the fact that, if the district was a poor one, it was extraordinary that it contained so many wealthy shopkeepers such as John Fitzgibbon, and that recently the firm of Monica Duff had been floated for £25,000 of which Dillon was the managing director!”

Dillon suspected that Jasper Tully, M.P., supplied Wyndham with the ammunition for this criticism, and took the earliest opportunity to drive him from Parliament. Up to that time, Tully had been one of his supporters, and two years before had objected to the Chair being entrusted to Redmond. I thought, therefore, Wyndham’s information came from official sources. I wrote my brother:

Mail boat,

26*th July, *1902.

“I could not move for the “Return” you wanted, as I hate staying in London a minute after Irish business is over. As long as you were there, the place was tolerable, but with all my friends gone it is hateful.

I heard O’Brien in the House on Thursday. He and Asquith rose with me, and I was taken. Asquith yielded, but William did not. When he was called he controlled his voice much better than last year, but kept it too much in a whisper, so that there were cries of “Speak up.” I thought his matter very good and literary. He has Redmond under his thumb. T.P. seems chiefly to inspire the tactics of the Party.

They have all been civil to me, and I have nothing to complain of in their attitude, except that when I talk now they don’t cheer! They laugh, however! I suppose they can’t help that.

I drew the Canal Bill for James McCann, but he doesn’t know how to introduce it, and has put it off for another week, although I gave him full instructions, and was anxious to get it printed to send you a draft for suggestions. I took the London Water Bill as a model, and cobbled the clauses from it. It wants a good many things, but it is hard dealing with inexperts like McCann, who is one of the decentest and most impracticable men alive. It’s astonishing how such men make thousands of pounds. He is undoubtedly an extreme man, most hospitable and a good fellow, and recalls what you might picture as a Dublin Catholic merchant in the days of Daniel O’Connell or Grattan… .

Poor Beach’s eyes filled with tears at a compliment from T.P. yesterday. All the lot have become emotional. Balfour broke down similarly under Bannernan’s accolade to him as Prime Minister. There is a “Maffick” as the result of the [Boer] War. Everything seems to me to be changed except the Channel passage.”

The Purchase Bill of 1902 failed. After Sir Michael Hicks-Beach retired, I had a note from Wyndham showing his hopes of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer:

House of Commons,

4th August, 1902.

My Dear Mr. Healy, -

“I cannot manage Louth in this Bill. But I have a plan, in a rudimentary stage, for dealing with the East Coast and I will do more for Louth than any other county. I cannot get on with it now in its transition stage between Beach and-whom? I hope it will be Ritchie, as I have been educating him on the necessity of giving me money for Ireland.

Yours very sincerely,

George Wyndham.

The mere introduction of the Purchase Bill of 1902 led to results. The late Lord Dunraven came forward with a proposal that the tenants’ representatives should meet the landlords. This was wisely accepted by William O’Brien, and at the Masion House, Dublin, he met Harrington (Lord Mayor), T. W. Russelt H.P., Lord Dunraven, Lord Mayo, Sir Hutcheson Poe, and Sir Nugent Everard, to discuss terms.

The landlords (bereft of political power by the Local Government Act of 1898) demanded that their “net incomes should be assured. The tenants could not afford a price which would provide the owners with a “trustee security.” Still, the evacuation of the landlords was shown to be a question of £ s. d.

Parliament met for the adjourned session on the 16th October, 1902, when the Prime Minister moved that its time be occupied thenceforward with Government business. A grant of an unspecified sum for the Uganda Railway was foreshadowed, but nothing was proposed for Ireland. Hansard records that the Irish Secretary (Wyndham) was hissed as he entered the House (Volume 113, p.37). Speaker Gully refused to allow any reference to Irish topics. I, therefore, rose, “speaking as a native of Uganda,” to thank the Government for its solicitousness for that supposed island. Next day an English paper (name not preserved) wrote:

“Mr. Balfour acted with the approval of the House in refusing to be beguiled into further concessions to the Hibernian Comedy Company. If they produced such admirable performers as Mr. Healy all the time, the House could endure the strain; but Mr. Healy is the one star in the firmament of dullness, and his satire has no reflex influence on the crowd behind him.”

Lloyd George, then a rising man, came to compliment me. He said that some dolt on his own side remarked, “Of course, Healy must have prepared his satires,” and that he answered, “How could he without knowing that the Speaker was going to rule against allowing Irish debates on the first day of the session?

In 1903 the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ritchie, agreed to give a bonus to aid Land Purchase. The annuities would repay the loan, so that the cost to the taxpayer (outside the bonus) would be nil. The Act undid the confiscations of James I, Cromwell, and William III. To this reform William O’Brien contributed more than any other man. The Wyndham Act is, therefore, as much the O’Brien Act as Wyndham’s. His colleagues, however, were jealous, and Davitt sided with Dillon and Sexton in hostility.

I wrote my father:

Dublin,

10*th March, *1903.

“The Cabinet meet to-day to polish off the Purchase Bill, which will be brought in on 25th March. The interest is to be 33 per cent., of which part is to be for Sinking Fund, which would enable the instalments to be cleared in 49 years, give 25 per cent. reduction on second term rents, and the landlords 23 years’ purchas - assuming they could invest in 4 per cent. securities.

There is to be a University for us later. I would prefer it linked with T.C.D. Our Archbishop favours that, but T.C.D. objects. So it may be fused with the “Royal” at first. The King is personally anxious for a reconciliation with Ireland. He frequently sees General Butler. Sir Anthony MacDonnell’s appointment was entirely due to Edward VII. The “True blues” hate Sir A., and I expect before many years there will be important changes, even under a Tory Government.

Not that this Government is a bit too strong in England. The Licensed Vintners are angry over recent legislation.”

Wyndham brought in his Purchase Bills of 1902 and 1903 on Lady Day (25th March), his wife’s birthday. Beforehand he received Communion in the Anglican rite.

In 1898, at Gladstone’s funeral, I noticed the attendance of Lady Grosvenor, Wyndham’s wife, who drove in a trap behind the coffin from Hawarden to the railway station. My brother was with me, and remarked on the profusion of her beautiful hair. He said that in Gaelic there were over 30 praises, or phrases, for a woman’s hair. Shingling’ was then unknown. After the Purchase Bill was introduced, I commented:

Dublin,

3*rd April, *1903.

“I am hardly pleased with the Bill, but if I were to say so this would kill it. A puff of wind would throw Wyndham out. He is so nervous that he has been wanting me to see him all this week, and alter much negotiation I am crossing again to London on Tuesday to spend the evening with a friend where he will be.

The Government are in a shaky condition. Enthusiasm for them there is none, and none for the Purchase Bill. King Edward has been hard at work to have something done for the pacification of Ireland, and would not let the Government go on with a new Coercion Bill.

Dillon, Davitt and Sexton are hostile to O’Brien, and if I were to join them the Bill would be killed, and William dished, but I could not be guilty of such faction as to oppose it. I hope it may be modified. I am, however, pleased with the shape of the Commission and Bailey’s appointment. No doubt it is right for the tenants as they are, but their case was a bit given away by the Land Conference.

Sir Anthony MacDonnell sent Bailey to me a month ago to know should he resign his post! He evidently has not had his way about the Bill, and it is a hotch-potch of everybody’s notions, though the whole thing could be done by “rules” and put into a few clauses. I don’t see the *Freeman, *but understand from its *Evening Telegraph *that it is hostile. Tim Harrington told me O’Brien promised to consult Sexton before the issue of the “Conference Report.” and forgot it! For this he will never be forgiven.”

At this time the management of the *Freeman, *under Sexton, satisfied no political party. It was an organ of high influence, and Sexton (who was ultimately ousted by Redmond) was determined not to be dislodged. He would not speak to the editor, W. H. Brayden, and written communications only passed between them.

During the debates on Wyndham’s Bill I could not avoid over-Dillon and O’Brien. I was avoid overhearing the thrusts and cuts sandwiched between them, and with neither was I on speaking terms. The Liberals were hostile to the measure, lest is should win credit for the Tories. Dillon took their view. The Irish peers began to hold caucuses against it. But for the intervention of King Edward, their insagacity would have triumphed.

Commotion in England now arose over Chamberlain’s “protection” policy. He, Ritchie and the Duke of Devonshire left the Cabinet. I wrote Maurice:

Chapelizod,

11*th June, *1903.

“Had the Government gone out, while I should be sorry for Wyndham, and would have hated a Dissolution, I should have been glad at the change.

Administrative arrogance against Catholics confronts us every day, and in the smallest matters, which drives me wild.

Our people never dream of attributing failure to the malice of officials. The old groove and the old gang domineer in Ireland as long as the Tories are in office. The friendly heads in London are inefficacious.”

House of Commons,

*July, *1903.

“Waldron, M.P., told Wm. Murphy that at a dinner Dillon gave to Judge Mathew and Burke Cochrane last month in Dublin a story was told that when John Morley came to Ireland, they asked me how he should be treated, and that I said, “Like an ass at a fair; let him alone until he goes astray, and then fire stones at him.

Wasn’t that pretty? I suppose they told Morley this lie.

Judge Mathew informed Father Delaney, the Jesuit, that I was the author of a flattering review of McCarthy’s book against the priests in *The Times, *called “Literature.” Aren’t they endless liars?”

Before the “Report ” stage of the Irish Purchase Bill was taken in the Commons, Wyndham telegraphed asking me to come from Dublin to help him, and we met at a breakfast in his house in Grosvenor Square. On arrival I saw that many ladies had assembled with his charming mother to meet us, and I was nervous - or should the word be shy?

When the ladies left Wyndham said, “I’ll accept every amendment you propose, except one.”

“Which?” I asked.

That enabling ‘joint-tenants and tenants in common’ to fix fair rents. It is a ‘tenure’ proposal, and outside the scope of Land Purchase.”

“Well,” said I, “that’s the only amendment I value. I care nothing about the rest. I proposed them to facilitate purchase, but have no interest in them beyond a lawyer’s. My ‘tenure’ proposal would enable forlorn creatures in Connaught, trapped by a technicality, to escape rack rents.” He answered, *“*Yes, but I could never get it through the Lords, and it would be dangerous to overload the Bill.”

The Commons met then at noon on Wednesdays, and we wrangled till 11.30 a.m. I rose to go, disappointed. Then I heard a rustle of silk, and his mother entered.

Said she, “How are you getting on with my son, Mr. Healy?

“Very badly, Mrs. Wyndham,” was my reply. “Your Saxon son has rejected the only amendment I set store on!”

“He’s not a Saxon,” she promulgated, “and he shall accept your amendment! George, take Mr. Healy’s amendment.”

I looked at her bewitched, for she knew nothing of the point at issue. George, however, turned lovingly to his mother, colouring, and answered, “Very well, mother, I will.”

As she spoke, George’s secretary, Philip Hanson, dashed in, saying, “Chief, I’ve a cab at the door, and the Bill will be on in twenty minutes.”

Wyndham cut in, “Healy has persuaded me to accept his amendment about ‘Joint tenants and tenants in common.’”

Hanson cried, “I’ve just been to the Speaker [Gully] and arranged to have it ruled ‘out of order.’ So I must hurry back to tell him it’s all right.”

We then drove to the Mouse in separate vehicles. The Speaker, when the debate on my proposal was neared, seemed to wobble, but I said jauntily, nodding at the Chief Secretary, “I understand this is agreed?” Wyndham nodded back. Then the Speaker put my amendment, and it was carried without a murmur. The Mouse of Lords afterwards accepted it without objection.

Western cottiers of “striped” (intermixed or rundale) land in the days between 1903 and 1923 should bless the mother of George Wyndham for removing the bar which hindered them from fixing “fair rents.” I wrote my brother:

Chapelizod,

22*nd July, *1903.

“I am trying to get the House of Lords to insert an amendment which Wyndham refused. Butcher has undertaken to ask Lord Macnaghten to move it. All I am anxious for is to kill the appeal by owners against labourers cottages and new roads. I breakfasted with Wyndham at his mother’s house, and had to yield a lot, as he is nervous about the Lords. I told him

I must get something.” After a long wrangle when he could make no other excuse, he blandly remarked, “Well, you know, the others are very jealous of you.” However, I was out for scalps, and hadn’t travelled from Dublin to breakfast with him for the good of my health. I shall tell you of the “win” I harvested later on.

O’Brien, during the Committee stage, after one of Dillon’s harangues, snarled at him across the bench, “The summer is passing and we are making no progress.”

On Monday night, after the Bill passed the third reading, Wyndham and O’Brien left and a debate on the Coercion trials was started by the residuum. Atkinson kept his patience marvellously. If O’Brien had been there he would never have tolerated their conduct. Dillon abetted it, and Redmond sat fuming.

They care nothing for Irish interests, as against those of “Party.""

After centuries of strife the plan of purchase advocated by us from the outset had become law, and forgetfulness of ancient wrong to-day robs of actuality the history of the struggle. Trade Unions now “net” disputes by inquiring how much cash, coal, or iron an industry can yield, and what is the fair share thereof between worker and owner. In 1880-1 Irishmen were imprisoned for trying to apply that principle to agriculture. Coercion Acts against agrarian combinations were periodically imposed.

Few Englishmen fathomed the difference between Irish and British tenures, which largely arose from the fact that improvements and reclamations in Ireland were made by the tenant, and in Britain by the landlord. The Irish Party, when discussing Gladstone’s proposals in 1881, had not merely to be watchful to abolish pretexts for eviction, but to invent devices to prevent the capture of tenants’ improvement by absentees who rarely visited their estates. I wrote Maurice:

Chapelizod,

18*th August, *1903.

“The situation still is that “John wants the Chair.” Redmond dines only with the Parnellites as of old, and has little support from the rest of the Party.

The Government will not dissolve. The Duke of Devonshire, with his simplicity, is the pivotman of the situation. Except Arnold Forster, most of the Liberal-Unionists are with him. The Duke is not keen for office, and will resign if the pace is forced by Chamberlain. Lord James wrote a strong “anti-Joe” letter the other day. It is symptomatic of the situation, and one of the minor Ministers came to me saying, “Joe would be happy to see you if you wish.” I replied that there was no necessity, that it was not for me to intervene, to decide on a situation created by English elections. There is no principle involved except on Joe’s side, and I think he is a most courageous fellow to take this stand against olden fetishes (whether he is right or wrong in his economics). That point only experience can decide, and I can’t see any advantage for the Irish farmer in being undersold by Canadians, any more than by Americans.

John Barry’s antipathy to Protection, and his common sense, have influenced me, seeing that he has experience of Protection both in America and France, and of Free Trade in England. He remains violently in favour of Free Trade. Personally, I am in favour of a tax on flour, but when I said that of old to Parnell he replied that it was the only tax he could not favour, as the Irish millers refused to adopt the modern Hungarian machinery.

To my father I wrote:

Chapelizod,

21*st August, *1903.

“I am sad at Carew’s [J. L. Carew was member successively for Kildare, Dublin and Meath.] death. He was a Parnellite, but kept the *Leinster Leader anti-bounder. During the” Union of Hearts “he was in confidential relations with the Liberals, and before the General Election of 1892, after a dinner at Arnold Morley’s, where Gladstone and Spencer came, I thought I had the “Split” settled with him, but Redmond held out. Carew was in *with the Tories, and carried ever £10,000 from the brewers to the Parnellites to fight us. Lately he was on friendly terms with Wyndham and knew what went on behind the scenes. His going to Court was due to the fact that his wife’s people tried to get the Court of Chancery to take away the custody of Sir Coleridge Kennard (his stepson), alleging that Carew was almost a Fenian, and was bringing up the boy a Catholic. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision after Carew was presented at Court, though, of course, that did not turn the scale. His brother was the backbone of the Meath Petition against us in 1892. Later I acted for him in the Land Court.

Should the Liberals get in at the Dissolution we shan’t get anyone as good as Wyndham, who has Nationalist sympathies. I met his mother a couple of times, and she showed me all her “Lord Edward” relics with pride. She sat every night in the Gallery of the Commons watching George with motherly pride during the Purchase debates.

The Duke of Devonshire behaved like a gentleman in his conduct of the Purchase Bill in the Lords, and in his attitude towards Ireland. I was “tickled” one night at one of his devil-may-care speeches in Committee. Lord Belmore, a Fermanagh Tory, moved something and the Duke said, “I don’t know that I understand the proposal of the noble Lord. All I know is that it cannot be accepted by the Government.” Then he sat down without raising a titter - it was so natural.

The Duke is willing to sell to his Irish tenants, but thinks it likely there may be some concert between the big landlords as to the terms they will accept. However, if the tenants let things “hang in the wind” too long, between the wet and the *Freeman, *there won’t be much enthusiasm on their side. It is the pursuit, and not the prey, that makes hunting pleasant, and now that peasant-proprietary is at men’s doors, it comes, as usual, hardly in the tempting guise they expected. This weather may not be in the end such a bad thing for the farmers, in cooling the temperature raised by the “Dunraven Conference.""

The question of Irish railway communication again came up. My brother had insisted on a direct line from Fermoy to Cork when the Rosslare to Fishguard route was under discussion.

I wrote him:

Dublin,

2nd November, 1903.

“Wyndham is anxious to get the Railway Bridge at Cork built over the Lee on the terms of releasing the Great Southern from the clause as to the Fermoy line. He proposes to see me about it in a few days. If I resist, he will not broach the matter further with the Directors. Have you any view? There is no chance of the Fermoy and Cork line being made, and William O’Brien doesn’t care, nor have the Cork people shown themselves keen. Wyndham says he could get the Great Southern to take over the Dingle Railway, but makes me think that military reasons underlie the bridge, and that there is some apprehension amongst strategists of a landing on the south-west coast in the event of war, however remote.”

Dublin,

3rd November, 1903.

“Wyndham does not seem as confident about the University Bill as when I saw him before, but he will lay my views before Balfour on Friday. He knows Redmond is not anxious for it and says they may do it in 1905…

He talked a lot about the Government of Ireland, and is evidently cutting down the police and “Removables,” but is disgusted with the Treasury obstruction of every effort at reform.”

Wyndham, at the close of 1903, wrote me:

Chief Secretary’s Lodge,

Phoenix Park,

Dublin,

31st *December, *1903.

My Dear T. J., -

“On this last day of a memorable year I wish you all happiness and good fortune in 1904. I shall always associate the Land Act with memories of our meetings at poor Carew’s at 44 Belgrave Square, 3 Old Queen Street and on that sunset evening at Chapelizod.

The *Daily Independent *articles on the Land Act are very helpful. Redmond’s attack on Atkinson was outrageous and purely mischievous.

I shall, of course, amend at once, and have the written sanction of the Prime Minister to that course.

I shall avoid all criticism of the judges, express contrition for unsuspected ambiguity, and invite Parliament without delay to reiterate explicitly an intention attested after debate and division in both Houses.

I am trying to scrape pennies together for Whitestown [pier], but am miserably short of funds.

Have you seen the Resolutions passed by the Council at Queen’s College, Belfast? They show that the University question is a National question. If anybody takes that point - and it will be taken - I hope the *Independent *will “go in “hard for a solution on National lines and seek rather to persuade than to menace the Presbyterians or T.C.D.

Hamilton of Queen’s College and many junior Fellows in Trinity are with me. The moderate Protestant landlords will soon take the field. Then there will advance to the footlights a chorus of Catholic laymen.

Do not anticipate any of these events, but when they happen let the *Independent *take the lead on the line that T.C.D. and the Presbyterians will, no doubt join with the rest of their countrymen, although boggling for tine moment etc., etc.

I hope to secure the *Telegraph, Standard *and *Daily Express *in England. If the Belfast Orangemen play the fool on 22nd January, treat them to good-humoured banter on their “provincialism,” and belated attempt to heal their dissensions by pretending the 20th is the 17th century.”

Yours ever,

George W.

I wrote my father:

Dublin,

8*th January, *1904.

“Wyndham is anxious to settle, or try to settle, the University question next year. He calls my new house “Heliopolis,” as he looks down on it from the Park. I have a sincere regard for him and for his mother, who is a good Irishwoman. She showed me all her Lord Edward relics one day last year, with tier eyes moist.

I think if the bishops have any driving power, or *nous *enough to send over a confidential watcher to observe the “party 2 during the session from “under the clock,” we shall get somiething.

Redmond frequently sees the Lord-Lieutenant (who doesn’t know everything that is going on) and Sir A. MacDonnell. All the pundits are jealous of each other. Hence some yarn retailed by J.E.R. about an alleged opinion of the Law Officers on the Purchase Act led to squalls. James Campbell [Solicitor-General] to-day startled J. Clancy, M. P., by saying no such opinion had been given. As Biggar said to me in ‘81, “You call that a strong Government - I call it a row of jealous individuals!” This immortal saying takes rank with his “Never resign anything. Get expelled.”

The Vice-Chancellor gets dotty after lunch - a decent upright old Tory (82). I won’t say that to know him is to love him, but at any rate it is to appreciate and respect him. Stout old Protestant as he is, his Crier spends his time praying for his conversion - Rosary in front, diversified by reading the *Irish Catholic. *The “Vice “knows the Crier’s weakness. In that Court he calls “Silence” twice a day - a light soulful job!”

To Maurice I said:

House of Commons,

*3rd March, *1904.

“The Government will carry on through the session, and cannot be defeated, even on a snatch vote. Chamberlain is physically broken. The Ministry now is a rum lot of youngsters.

I met Lord Stanley a moment ago, and shook hands, saying, “What the devil are *you *in this Government?” “Postmaster-General,” he said, with a laugh. “Oh my!” said I.

Then Graham Murray came up and I found he was in the Cabinet, and there are such a lot of strangers on the Treasury Bench you could hardly “call your soul you own” among them. Except the two Balfours and George Wyndham, there is hardly a man in the same post as when you were here.”

House of Commons,

28th *May, *1904.

“Things are going badly for the Government, but they will hold on until next year.

Murphy intends spending large sums on the *Independent, *and is changing its character.”

In that session a cutting from London Opinion shows the state of the Irish Party. I forget the occasion, and the date is not given in my wife’s scrap-book. Possibly it may have been provoked by comments on the price exacted by Mr. Redmond for his estate:

“A striking instance of political ingratitude was furnished in the House of Commons on Friday afternoon. Tim Healy, the rasper - Tim Healy, the banner-bearer in many a stubborn fight - Tim Healy, who has done more navvy work for the Irish Nationalists than any other many in the Party, was howled down by his old colleagues. No impartial observer can have admired some of Mr. Healy’s methods, but when it comes to a question of ability six-sevenths of the lot now at Westminster are not fit to black his boots…

As a matter of policy it seems suicidal for the Redmond contingent to fall out with Tim Healy. If he were to cut away from the old crowd and get an English constituency, and if he would shed some of his vitriolic manner, sheer ability would carry him a very long way in Parliament. He would be invaluable to the Liberals, would the Member for Louth.

Healy Index. Home.