As a matter of fact, Mr. Gladstone had approached the Cabinet through Mr. Balfour, both personally and by letter, urging that it would be a calamity if this great question were to fall into the lines of Party conflict. The Cabinet seem to have treated Mr. Gladstone's letter with scant respect. In spite of Lord Carnarvon's tendered resignation, Lord Salisbury was resolved to make no concession to Home Rule. Lord Carnarvon agreed not to resign until the opening of Parliament.
A statement in the Press inspired by Mr. Herbert Gladstone to the effect that Mr. Gladstone was prepared to concede an Irish Parliament in Dublin was declared by the latter to be "inaccurate and not authentic." But on December 26 he issued a memorandum to certain of his more reliable followers to the effect that he would support the Tories in a Home Rule policy which should satisfy him and the Irish Nationalists, and that if he were called upon to form a Government the preparation of a scheme of duly guarded Home Rule would be an indispensable condition.
On December 29 I wrote to Gladstone, forwarding a memorandum from Parnell. On the last day of the year he sent me a memorandum marked "Secret," in which he summarized the position between Parnell and himself. It amounted to this: Parnell wanted a definite pledge that there should be no more coercion before throwing the Tories out of power and putting the Liberals in. Gladstone, while realizing the gravity of O'Brien's statistics in the Nineteenth Century as to the result of exceptional legislation, refused to give this pledge. He alluded philosophically to the probable course of events if the Address went through unamended. Mr. Parnell wrote to me to the following effect embodying the points I was to pass on to Gladstone.
DEAR MRS. O'SHEA,—In reply to your query it would be inexpedient that the Government.... But, in any case, we should move a series of separate amendments to the Address—one asking for a suspension of the support by the naval, military and constabulary forces of the Crown of ejectments, pending the consideration by Parliament of the proposed Land measure; another praying the Crown to remove Chief Justice May from the Bench; a third condemning the practice of jury packing, resorted to by the Crown in all the recent trials; a fourth asking her Majesty to fulfil the promise contained in the Speech of last year for the equalization of the borough franchise in Ireland to that in England; a fifth condemning the proclamation of the meetings at Brookeboro' and Cullohill; and a sixth protesting against the proclamation and additional police force sent to several of the counties.
This would be an assault along the whole line of English misgovernment in Ireland, and should, in my opinion, be delivered before we allow the Address to leave the House. The first fortnight or so of the session would thus be occupied while the Government were making up their minds as to their proposed Land Bill.
At the meeting of the Party I think of proposing a resolution recommending the minority to pay more deference to the opinion of the majority than they did last session, and urging all the Irish members to sit together in opposition.
Kindly let me know what you think of these proposals.—Yours truly, CHARLES S. PARNELL.
These blanks were left in the letter as the phrases omitted were too confidential to be written. I learnt them and quoted them to Gladstone.
On January 21 Parliament met to transact business, and the resignations of Lord Carnarvon and Sir W. Hart Dyke were announced. Notice was given of a new Coercion Act, and on the 26th the Government was defeated by 331 to 252 votes—not, however, on an Irish amendment, but on the motion of Jesse Collings raising the question of "three acres and a cow."
[[1]] The Coercion Bill