R. It depends on yourself. If you are thorough you can disarm hostility. In the first place release the Prisoners.
M. Do you mean the Dynamiters or the Gweedore men? I can make a good case in England for the release of Coll, but can I in the case of Daly and the others?
R. I mean the so-called Dynamiters. I take it for granted Coll will be released (Morley did not dissent) but this won’t do. You must release Daly and the others. They have been eight or nine years in prison [compares their sentences to those of English dynamiters – the Walsall case]. As for Daly he was three times poisoned. If that happened to any ordinary prisoner he would have been released.
M. [His difficulty is, if Daly were released, it would be said that it was not because of the poisoning but because of a desire to get the Irish vote. Also Harcourt [Chancellor of the Exchequer] told him he had told Redmond that the Government has letters of Daly putting his guilt beyond all doubt.]
R. Without admitting Daly’s guilt, have you not got the Walsall precedent to say he has been punished enough?
M. It would be natural for a Minister to ask himself would he gain enough in Ireland to compensate for what he lost in England, i.e. odium …
Could you promise us a united Nationalist Party?
R. No. Reunion has been made impossible by insults and blackguardism of Healy and others.
M. Yes – the misfortune of the thing is that the man [Healy] with most brains amongst the anti-Parnellites is – what shall I say? – without character.
R. A political savage –
M. Yes – but you must remember the anti-Parnellites are not all of his way of thinking. The cleavage between you and the anti-Parnellites is no greater than the cleavage between the one section of anti-Parnellites and the other. In fact the whole nationalist movement is in chaos.
R. That was inevitable from the destruction of Parnell.
M. Perhaps so. Remember always I am as much a Parnellite as an anti-Parnellite and have been all this [time].
R. Can you promise me anything about Amnesty?
M. All I can promise is that I will write to Asquith [Home Secretary] and press your views upon him – putting before him the Walsall precedent and telling him how important you regard the question.
R. But after all you can decide it. If you demand it the Cabinet must agree.
M. That no doubt is so; but I cannot say anything more to you now.
R. No one doubts the complete innocence of Egan.
M. I am quite aware of the great distinction between his case and the others. …
M. [Horrified by the savage insults and abuse in the newspapers]. As far as I know, neither you nor Dillon have used language of insult, though it has been used towards you. Have you any suggestions as to securing a peaceful winter?
R. Amnesty – Amnesty – Amnesty!
M. Anything else?
R. Yes – make the ‘understanding and agreement’ which Dillon says he has had with Gladstone about the Home Rule Bill public … We want to discuss them in Ireland.
M. ‘Understanding and agreement’ with Dillon! There have been absolutely none.
R. But Dillon in a public speech has declared that there have been such –
M. As to Home Rule [there has been no sort of ‘agreement or understanding’ with Dillon or any of his party]. They know no more than you do.
R. That makes the position of affairs still more grave. Did you read Stead’s article in this month’s Review of Reviews?
M. No.
R. Well, he says we may get a London County Council for Ireland but no more.
M. There are of course two sections in the Cabinet. One is of Stead’s way of thinking but the other, to which of course I belong, would not remain in the Government a single hour if our Home Rule Bill only meant that … But do you really want Home Rule?
R. Certainly – genuine Home Rule.
M. Then don’t destroy our chances of giving it to you.
R. We don’t intend to do so and we believe others are embarrassing the Government far more than we are [for example, Dillon’s promises in the name of the Liberal Party for one-and-a-half years].
M. I have protested to Dillon for drawing such large bills upon me.
R. Why do you allow the most bitter partisans – the local Healys who are always insulting large sections of their fellow townsmen – to be picked out for the magistracy?
M. My instructions are quite the reverse.
[Chancellor Walker had entered the room.]
…
R. What view do you take of the Meath petitions [brought by the Parnellites against the 1892 election results in South and North Meath]?
M. I take the gravest view possible. I look with more apprehension to them than [to] anything whatever. If what I hear is to be the evidence be substantiated it will mean ruin.
R. But it is a vital matter that the people should be freed from the monstrous clerical intimidation which is prevalent all over Ireland. Meath is only an example.
M. I fully recognise this. It is horrible and almost incredible, but surely the time to defeat it is when you get Home Rule, not while trying to get it.
C. Can nothing be done to save this exposure?
R. Nothing as far as I can see except not to defend the petitions and to let us have the seats.
C. That of course is impossible …
M. Sd. he hoped I would consent to see him again … complained that no one went to see him except ‘the wrong sort’ – no Irish member had called upon him.2
***
The Second Home Rule Bill was introduced by Gladstone in February 1893. Redmond, ostensibly representing a more militant form of constitutional nationalism than the anti-Parnellites, had to steer a careful course between venting criticism of the Bill’s inadequacies and avoiding its rejection by his more extreme supporters. Although the Second Reading was passed with the support of all nationalist factions, Redmond’s widely acclaimed speech in its favour included the stricture that the Bill could not be regarded as a final settlement of Ireland’s claims. When the financial clauses were debated in Committee in June, his criticisms were much tougher than those of anti-Parnellite spokesmen. Similar censures would be voiced by nationalist critics of Redmond two decades later in the debates on the Third Home Rule Bill.
TO JOHN MORLEY MP
House of Commons, 13 June 1893:
… in regard to the financial clauses [of the Home Rule Bill] the rumour of the intentions of the Government … has reached me from another source ... I consider the matter so grave, that I feel bound to let you know the view taken by at any rate some Irish members. I have had an opportunity of consulting my friends and they agree with me that it will be our duty to vote against the 3rd Reading of the Bill in the event of the Government making any proposal … to take from the future Irish Government the collection, even for a time, of all Irish taxes … as unjust and humiliating in the last degree. If not too late, I would urge most strongly upon you the desirability of endeavouring, in consultation with Irish Nationalists of both parties, to frame such financial arrangements as will enable all of us to continue our support of the measure.3
***