"memories, images and precious thoughts
that shall not die, and cannot be destroyed."
—wordsworth.
before forming his cabinet mr. gladstone enunciated the necessity for an examination whether it was practicable to establish a legislative body to sit in dublin, and to deal with irish, as distinguished from imperial affairs.
five of the members of his last cabinet—lords hartington, derby, northbrook, selborne and carlingford—signified their absolute opposition to home rule. two—mr. chamberlain and mr. trevelyan—agreed to the inquiry provisionally. two—sir charles dilke and mr. shaw lefevre—had been defeated at the general election. seven—lords granville, spencer, kimberley, ripon and rosebery, sir william harcourt and mr. childers—agreed absolutely. four new men—mr. morley, mr. campbell-bannerman, mr. mundella and lord herschell—came into the cabinet. mr. morley became irish secretary. a scheme was drafted by mr. gladstone and mr. morley. it consisted of two bills, a home rule bill and a land bill. on the scheme being laid before the cabinet mr. chamberlain and mr. trevelyan resigned.[1]
{198}
on april 8th, 1886, the evening of the introduction of the home rule bill, mr. gladstone sent his private secretary down to eltham with a letter to me asking me to telegraph one word, "yes," if he was to introduce the bill that night. in this case he was to speak shortly after four o'clock. mr. parnell had not given him the required answer earlier, as he had up to the last moment been trying to induce mr. gladstone to give the bill wider and more comprehensive clauses than the g.o.m. would assent to. now, however, he had said to me, as he started that evening for the house: "this bill will do as a beginning; they shall have more presently. if the old man wires to know if it is all right answer 'yes.'" mr. gladstone had previously arranged with me that i should be at home waiting for his message in order that i might let him know that parnell and the "party" were ready.
his messenger was so late that i simply snatched gladstone's letter from him and, scribbling my "yes" on the enclosed government form, sent my waiting servant flying to the telegraph office with it. after which i had time to join in the regrets of mr. gladstone's secretary that his master had made it impossible for me to get up to the house in time for his introduction of the bill. the secretary told me that he would have "derived considerable interest" from the proceedings, but i felt much {199} more keenly than that about this bill that i had taken so often in its swaddling clothes from parent to foster parent, and i was very much disappointed at not being present at its introduction to a larger life.
the debate on the first and second readings lasted sixteen days. it is to be remembered that in his attack on the bill mr. chamberlain did not oppose home rule, but only this particular scheme.
a great wish of willie's was to be appointed under-secretary for ireland. i had on various occasions made the suggestion to mr. gladstone, but without successful issue. gladstone had a perfect manner of refusing appointments when personally asked for them; it was always an apparent pain to him; nothing but the knowledge of his duty restrained him from interference, and though i was not really anxious that willie should receive this appointment i was willing to please him by asking for it, and it might have excited suspicion if i had not asked. i must admit that mr. gladstone never to my knowledge of him all those years made an appointment from motives of private favour. here once more, when he wrote regretting he couldn't poach on his colleagues' patronage preserves, his manners were perfect.
on may 8th an urgent letter from gladstone at downing street was delivered at my house. mr. morley had lost track of mr. parnell, and wanted to know where he was. it was apparently the most natural thing in the world to ask me where was parnell. a form of government telegram was enclosed for my reply.
in view of the fact that mr. gladstone and his colleagues were so pained, surprised, and properly shocked when mr. parnell was publicly arraigned as my lover, the frantic way in which they applied to me, when they were {200} unable to find him, was, afterwards, a source of considerable amusement to us both.
from the time of my first interview with mr. gladstone onwards, no time was lost in "failing to trace him here" before hurried application was made to me at my—and parnell's—permanent address. i did not choose that the irish party should have his private address—nor did parnell choose it—but i was most particular that the government should know it. governments—especially liberal governments—are before all things simple-minded and of childlike guilelessness.
i remember when on one occasion the government desired to know parnell's views on certain matters before elaborating a bill shortly to go before the house, a special messenger was sent to eltham with a letter. i had gone to the seaside with my children, and my servants had standing orders that they knew nothing of mr. parnell or of his whereabouts. so the nonplussed governmental messenger meditated upon my doorstep for one moment only, then, armed with "mrs. o'shea's address" at hastings, came straight on to receive mr. parnell's reply, and safely deliver it within the stipulated time. but there can be no doubt, of course, that mr. gladstone's "poor fellow, poor fellow, what a terrible fall," subsequent to the hounding, at his word, of his gallant opponent to death by the irish sycophants, alluded to the breaking of the eleventh commandment of social life: "thou shalt not be found out" (publicly), rather than to the seventh of orthodox christianity.
on june 7th mr. parnell spoke on the home rule bill. it was the last night of the debate, and he had carefully prepared his speech.
the rejection of the bill by a full house—343 against {201} 313 votes—was immediately followed by the dissolution of parliament. thus in july, 1886, the liberals went out in alliance with the irish leader, whom, only twelve months before, they had gone out denouncing with all his followers.
so ends the most important period of my negotiations with gladstone. the subsequent course of them may be sketched briefly.
in july, 1886, gladstone replied to certain suggestions of parnell recommending perseverance with the home rule scheme, with the objection that he was unable to carry the gladstonian party beyond a certain point.
there were times when mr. gladstone became somewhat uneasy in regard to the possible consequences of so many interviews with me. also someone said once to him, "supposing mrs. o'shea told parnell you said so and so, and it was more than you meant to say?" on june 15th, 1887, for example, he wrote asking with utmost politeness for a letter instead of an interview.
however, on august 22nd of the same year i find him writing from hawarden thanking me for some gift (of game or fruit) and expressing hope of the future.
gladstone now told me that he wished to meet parnell in order to talk over the political situation, and i suggested that a visit to hawarden by parnell would have a good effect politically. gladstone then asked parnell to hawarden to discuss the outlook in politics, an invitation which parnell did not answer at once, as he first wished to ascertain the tactics of the conservative party.
on august 30th, 1889, mr. gladstone wrote to parnell a most private letter, lamenting that he had not heard from him and his friends with reference to a visit to hawarden. the fact was that since parnell had received {202} gladstone's invitation the tories had been making advances, and had just proffered a roman catholic university for ireland. gladstone was right in supposing that here was the cause of parnell's silence. he was not angry, but he threatened parnell with the effect of this new proposal on nonconformist and presbyterian liberals.
in october the air was clearer, the government's irish university scheme had gone awry, and gladstone was jubilant. he wrote on the 16th renewing the invitation. with regard to the home rule bill he was all for reserve; with regard to parnell's action against the times all for dispatch.
it was two months later, however (on december 19th), that parnell, on his way to liverpool, visited gladstone at hawarden. it was a short but agreeable visit, and at dinner mr. parnell sat next to miss gladstone. the conversation turned upon actors and acting, and miss gladstone said, "who is the greatest actor you have ever seen, mr. parnell?" "your father, undoubtedly!" he promptly returned, much to her delight.
as parnell became moderate in politics gladstone became more extreme. i remember one evening in april or may, 1888, driving with parnell to morley's house in elm park gardens where parnell and morley had a quiet conversation together.
i waited in the hansom cab a little way off the house for a considerable time, and at last parnell came out with an amused expression on his face. as we were driving home he said:
"we can never satisfy english politicians! they imprisoned me for causing agitation in ireland, and now they want agitation, if not outrage. morley said to me: 'the people must be made to wake up a bit; can't you {203} do anything to stir them up?'" then with a laugh: "if they knew how easy it was for me to stir ireland up, and how confoundedly difficult i have found it to quiet her down again, they would be very careful before giving me such an invitation!" and, with the experience of the past to give force and conviction to his words, he had shown mr. morley the extreme danger of mr. gladstone's suggestions.
[1] the letters of captain o'shea preserved by mrs. parnell throw some light on mr. chamberlain's mind. in december, 1884, chamberlain dealt at length with the nationalist movement and the sentiment behind it, and unfolded his plan for a "national board" for ireland. in march, 1885, he was discussing the possibility of an arrangement with the irish party to get the redistribution bill and the crimes bill quickly into law on condition that the government brought in local government bills, including one for ireland. in may, captain o'shea wrote that gladstone was strongly in favour of this solution, and that, to chamberlain's surprise, lord hartington did not reject the proposal off-hand, as expected. he added that the cardinal had power to assure parnell and the government of the full support of the catholic church. captain o'shea's personal interest in the abortive scheme is revealed in the following passage from a letter of may 4, 1885: "the reason i am anxious about the local self-government scheme is that if chamberlain has power, which i think he will in the next parliament, he will offer me the chief secretaryship, or the equivalent post if the name is abolished, if the boys will let me have it."
