The Viceroys of Ireland

by Charles Kingston O'Mahony

CHAPTER XIX

Lord Carnarvon was sworn in as Lord-Lieutenant on July 7, 1885, and on January 12, 1886, he tendered his resignation, departing from the country thirteen days later. It was an unusually brief, yet an exceptionally interesting, viceroyalty. He was rightfully regarded as a man of fastidious honour and sincerity. On two occasions he had resigned Cabinet rank because of conscientious objections to the policy of his leaders, and there was scarcely anybody among the statesmen of his time who commanded greater respect and confidence. The action of Lord Salisbury in giving him the viceroyalty was rightfully interpreted to mean that the Tory Prime Minister realized fully the gravity of the situation in Ireland. Lord Carnarvon might have had a more exalted and powerful position in the ministry. He accepted the viceroyalty in the same spirit of anxiety to benefit his fellows that had been characteristic of him since his entry into public life nearly thirty years before. He was now fifty-four years of age, and was known to fame as the author of the act that consolidated the British possessions in North America in 1867. Again Colonial Secretary in 1874, the foreign policy of the Cabinet did not meet with his approval, and he resigned, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach succeeding him.

Lord Carnarvon's state entry into Dublin evoked a display of enthusiasm, from all classes that indicated clearly the hopes of the people for something brilliant from his administration. Lady Carnarvon was received for her own sake, as well as for that of her husband. She possessed all the arts of the successful leader of society, and she exercised them fully while in Ireland. There was keen competition to make the acquaintance of the viceroy and his wife, and Dublin Castle seemed likely to experience something quite different to its troubles of the previous five years. But the wise knew that the imminent General Election would in all probability terminate the reign of Lord Carnarvon. The Salisbury ministry was a 'Cabinet of Caretakers,' and the most that could be hoped for was the viceroy's return within a few years when the electors had had another opportunity of passing a verdict upon Gladstonian Liberalism.

Carnarvon and Parnell

Lord Carnarvon, however, quickly upset the equanimity of the prophets. Whatever may have been his own doubts about the durability of his position, he startled friends and foes alike by arranging for an interview with Charles Stewart Parnell. A Tory Lord-Lieutenant debating the policy of his Government with the Irish leader was even more productive of astonishment than the sight of Parnell accepting a place in the Government would have been. The interview was kept a secret for a time, but it was too important to escape disclosure and debate, and the result of the General Election of November-December, 1885, hastened the acrimonious and puzzling discussion, with its sequel of denials and denunciations. The scene of the momentous interview was a London drawing-room. The viceroy, the moment he was alone with Parnell, appears to have taken the trouble to explain elaborately—perhaps too elaborately—his adherence to Unionist principles. As the representative of the queen, he could not listen to one word involving the separation of the two countries; as a Tory minister, he did not expect any result from the interview, and he did not even hope for an agreement; while further, to protect himself and his colleagues, he assured Mr. Parnell that he was acting entirely upon his own responsibility, and as an individual, and not as a Cabinet minister.

Despite these preliminary precautions, the Irish leader came away from the meeting under the impression that the Tory party were willing to grant Ireland an assembly giving it complete control of its own affairs, and also a measure of land reform that would settle that difficult problem. Of course, the price to be paid for this was to be the Irish vote. On the other hand, Lord Carnarvon most emphatically contradicted this interpretation of what had passed between them. Nevertheless, Mr. Parnell adhered to his version.

The General Election of November-December, 1885, did not give either of the English parties an independent majority. Of Liberals there were 335, Tories numbered 249; and 86 Irish Home Rulers, all followers of Mr. Parnell, held the balance of power. Mr. Gladstone was now a Home Ruler, and a Bill for establishing a separate legislature for Ireland was introduced. It was in the early days of Mr. Gladstone's conversion to the cause that Mr. Parnell hurled a charge against the Tory party of having at one time been willing to purchase the Irish vote by an eleventh-hour conversion to Home Rule. The charge was denied indignantly, and then the Nationalist leader named Lord Carnarvon as the Tory emissary. The ex-viceroy explained his position in the House of Lords. This was on June 10—three days after Mr. Parnell's speech in the Commons. The latter at once replied in a letter to the Times of June 12. It is worth reproducing:

The Tory Party and Home Rule

'Lord Carnarvon proceeded to say that he had sought the interview for the purpose of ascertaining my views regarding—should he call it?—a constitution for Ireland. But I soon found out that he had brought me there in order that he might communicate to me his own views upon the matter, as well as ascertain mine. In reply to an inquiry as to a proposal which had been made to build up a central legislative body upon the foundation of county boards, I told him that I thought this would be working in the wrong direction, and would not be accepted by Ireland; that the central legislative body should be a Parliament in name and in fact. Lord Carnarvon assured me that this was his own view also, and he strongly appreciated the importance of giving due weight to the sentiment of the Irish in this matter. He had certain suggestions to this end, taking the Colonial model as a basis, which struck me as being the result of much thought and knowledge of the subject. At the conclusion of the conversation, which lasted more than an hour, and to which Lord Carnarvon was very much the larger contributor, I left him, believing that I was in complete accord with him regarding the main outlines of a settlement conferring a legislature upon Ireland.'

The viceroy's explanation of this was more general than particular. He must have been satisfied with Lord Salisbury's verdict that he had conducted the interview with Mr. Parnell 'with perfect discretion,' but all the same it was many years before the Tory party lived down the allegation that had he wished Parnell could have purchased it lock, stock, and barrel, for service in the Home Rule cause.