No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Gladstone, Forster, and the release of Parnell, 1882 – 8
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
Extract
It is intended to examine in this article an instance of Gladstone’s ‘sophistry’ employed in defence of Parnell himself; the review which Gladstone wrote of T. Wemyss Reid’s biography of W. E. Forster, and which appeared in the Nineteenth Century for September 1888, under the title ‘Mr Forster and Ireland’. Considered as sophistry, it is, indeed, a virtuoso performance; some of the documents material to the case are ignored, others are misconstrued, others yet are quoted so selectively as to disguise the fact that, in reality, they contradict the argument they were adduced to prove, and the whole thesis depends upon a play upon meanings which trembles upon the brink of transparency. Merely to expose Gladstone, however, in a practice of which his enemies have so often accused him, and which, in any case, is not uncommon in politics, would be to indulge illfeeling without benefiting scholarship. The review deserves wider attention in that it is also a unique interpretation of the ‘Kilmainham treaty’. Other accounts, in all their diversity, have tended to agree that the episode was in some sense a political transaction.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1969
References
1 Brian O’Neill’s view of it as an episode in the class war and a middle–class betrayal of the people—War for the land in Ireland, (1933), ch. IV —belongs to a way of looking at politics in general, rather than the Kilmainham episode in particular, and need not be regarded as dissent from the general view.
2 44 & 45 Vic. C.4. The act empowered the lord lieutenant to issue warrants for the arrest and detention of anyone reasonably suspected of high treason, treason–felony or treasonable practices, or (in prescribed districts) of committing or inciting to acts of violence or intimidation, or ‘tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order’. Suspects were treated not as ordinary criminals, but as first–class misdemeanants ; many of those later arrested by Balfour looked back with longing to the palmy days of gaol under Forster. They might be detained for any length of time while the act lasted, but each case had to be reconsidered after each three months of detention, unless good reason appeared for an earlier release.
3 The argument had the additional advantage that the ex-cabinet could still be argued to have acted in good faith even if Parnell and his colleagues had been found guilty.
4 Gladstone had stood firm on the position of his article when first privately questioned by Selborne : ‘… aware as I am of the slipperiness of recollection, & especially of negative recollection, I did not write itwithout careful examination of documentary evidence, which left upon my mind no doubt whatever. As matter of mere opinion, I do not see how it was possible for us to have released the three suspects had there been before us any ground for supposing them implicated in crime, for the terms of the act of 1881 refer expressly to reasonable suspicion of such implication’ (Gladstone to Selborne (copy), 12 Sept. 1888, B.M., Add. MS 44298, f.216).
5 However, Holland’s, Bernard Life of Spencer Compton, eighth duke of Devonshire (1911), 1, 329 Google Scholar, speaks of Forster in the autumn of 1880 as having ‘ demanded a wide extension of the preventive principle of the Westmeath act ’. In fact, though Forster’s original concept of the act was penal, it became in practice increasingly preventive ; see below
6 Spencer to Gladstone, 23 Sept. 1888 (B.M., Add. MS 44313, ff. 143–50.
7 The M.P.s and League leaders were £ accused of what may be called technically “treason”, in setting up an Association like the Land League which usurped the authority of imperial tribunals such as the land courts ; but they were not guilty of what is popularly considered the crime of “ treason ”, an attempt to upset the crown & constitution of the country by revolution ’ (Spencer, ibid.).
8 The original memorandum is in B.M., Add. MS 44766, ff 71–2.
9 Drafts of the intended letter are in B.M., Add. MS 44298, ff 233–5, 236–45. The passages reproduced here are taken as quoted in the second of these drafts, but the cabinet reports can also be found in The letters of Queen Victoria (ed. G. E. Buckle), series 11, iii, 273–6, with slight differences in the parts quoted.
10 Both Gladstone and Selborne were reluctant, in view of what they regarded as a deplorable current tendency to ‘leak ’ cabinet secrets, to make public use of these documents.
11 Gladstone to Selborne, 21 Sept. 1888; draft letter intended for publication, hence its formal tone (B.M., Add. MS 44298, ff 223–4.
12 Gladstone to Selborne, 21 Sept. 1888 (copy); B.M., Add. MS 44298, f. 222. Cf. Selborne’s letter to a friend, a month later, ascribing Gladstone’s article to ‘ his zeal for the whitewashing of Parnell ’ (Selborne, Memorials, pt 11, ii (1898), p. 299. Gf. also Bright’s reply to Selborne’s circular on the innocence of the M.P.s : ‘… it may be convenient to assume such a judgment in Mr Gladstone’s present association with the men he thought it necessary to send to prison ’.
13 Chamberlain to Gladstone, 18 Nov. 1880; B.M., Add. MS 44125, ff 48–9. This is quoted, with some unimportant inaccuracies, in Garvin, J. L., Life of Joseph Chamberlain (1932), 1, 338.Google Scholar
14 Russell, Lord John, Recollections and suggestions of public life, 1813–1873 (2nd ed., 1875), p. 273.Google Scholar
15 Grey, Earl, ‘ Ireland ’ in Nineteenth Century, June 1882; pp 1000–1001 Google ScholarPubMed. This article is an interesting whig criticism of the protection act.
16 Its correct short title was ‘ Protection of Life and Property (Ireland) Act ’, a name sometimes casually applied to Forster’s measure, e.g. Gladstone’s report to the queen of 29 Apr. 1882, quoted above. The Westmeath was not exactly the first case of a suspension of habeas corpus in an agrarian crisis; cf. the act of 1822, under which, however, no arrests were made.
17 The figure 19 appears to be correct up to 22 Apr. 1875; see H.G., 1875, lxii, p. 183.
18 See printed memorandum (unsigned), 2 May 1878, in S.P.O., Chief Secretary’s Office Registered Papers (hereafter referred to as C.S.O. Reg. Papers), 10269/1879. It was in tnese circumstances that Henry A. Blake, the future Special R.M., K.C.B., colonial governor and writer, was appointed as a very junior R.M. to Tuam district in January 1878.
19 J. T. M’Sheehy, R.M., report not dated; probably beginning of August 1879; C.S.O. Reg. Papers 13089/1879.
20 See C.S.O. Reg. Papers, 583/1880, for this resolution, the reactions of the Castle, and the dispositions of troops and police in Mayo at this time.
21 Printed memos and returns of the opinions of R.M.s and inspector-general of constabulary on renewal of the peace preservation act; C.S.O. Reg. Papers, 34686/1880.
22 Cowper, memorandum on the state of Ireland, for cabinet use; 8 Nov, 1880 (B.M., Add. MS 44625, f. 84).
28 Forster, memorandum for cabinet use, 10 May 1880 (P.R.O. Cab. 37/2/23). The legend that Forster, hypnotized by Castle bureaucrats and police, was pressing for coercion and was fortunately restrained or thwarted by his saner colleagues, notably Chamberlain and Dilke, appears to derive from the memoirs and biographies of Chamberlain and Dilke. Dilke’s account of how he single-handed averted coercion (three days after Forster had advised against it) is comic; however, unlike Chamberlain he was not in the Cabinet and cannot have known exactly what was going on.
24 Gladstone to Forster, 25 Oct. 1880 (B.M., Add. MS 44157, f 136–7.
25 Gladstone to Cowper, 24 Nov. 1880 (copy, B.M., Add. MS 44467 ff 39–40).
26 Chamberlain to Gladstone, 16 and 18 Nov. 1880; (B.M., Add. MS 44125, ff 43–6, 48–9 also quoted, with minor alterations, in Garvin, , Chamberlain, 1, 328–9Google Scholar, 338).
27 Forster to Gladstone, 8 Nov. 1880 (B.M., Add. MS 44157, ff 213–17). Cf. his letter of 23 Nov.: ‘… I do not think that those of my colleagues who are opposed to this step have realised to themselves the demoralization consequent on the executive showing itself to be successfully defied—This would be bad enough in any country but it is hard to estimate its danger with such a people as the Irish.’ (ff 234–5).
28 Forster to Gladstone, 7 Dec. 1880 (B.M., Add. MS 44157, ff 35–8). Gf. Peel’s cabinet memo, of 17 Feb. 1844: ‘What I fear is that that instrument [trial by jury] should break short in our hands. When it does, there is impunity for crime, and the government is paralysed ’ (Sir Robert Peel from his private papers, ed. C. S. Parker, iii, 105).
29 Forster, memo, for the cabinet, 15 Dec. 1880 (B.M., Add. MS 44625, ff. 94–6).
30 Forster to Gladstone, 5 Nov. 1880 ; cf. his letter of three days later : ‘ It is impossible for anyone to dislike it more than I do—I both fear and hate it probably as much as you. …’ (B.M., Add. MS 44157, ff 191–4, 213–17).
31 C.S.O. Reg. Papers, 14767/1879; for R.M.s’ reports, collected and printed, see 34686/1880. Gladstone to Forster, 25 Oct. 1880 (copy in B.M., Add. MS 44157, ff 186–7).
32 Forster to Gladstone, 25 Oct. 1880 (B.M., Add. MS 44157, ff ’ 178–85).
33 Devoy, Davitt to, 16 Dec. 1880 (Devoy’s post bag 2, 23 Google Scholar. ViscountGladstone, , After thirty years (1928), p. 187.Google Scholar
34 Cowper, , memorandum on the state of Ireland, sent to Gladstone, 9 June 1881 (B.M., Add. MS 44470, ff 64–9).Google Scholar
35 Cowper to Gladstone, 2, 3 Sept. 1881 (B.M., Add. MS 44471, ff 143–4, I45–7). In the latter, Cowper remarked that he would like to see what attitudes the forthcoming Land League convention showed toward the land act, before releasing any important prisoners.
36 B.M., Add. MS 44159, f. 17–
37 Forster to Gladstone, 2 Oct. 1881 ; B.M., Add. MS 44159, ff 29–36. Reproduced, with many minor inaccuracies, in Reid, T. Wemyss, Life of the Right Honourable W. E. Forster (1888), 2, 340––44.Google Scholar
38 Forster to Gladstone, 10 Oct., 20 Nov., 1881 (B.M., Add. MS 44159, ff 60–61, 102–5).
39 Dicey, A. V., ‘ How is the law to be enforced in Ireland?’ in Fortnightly Review, ι Nov. 1881 Google Scholar —a masterly criticism of the protection act and the possible alternatives.
40 Forster to Gladstone, 7 Apr. 1882, and memo for the cabinet, 17 Apr. 1882 (B.M., Add. MS 44160, ff 77–85, 139–40). I am indebted to Mr Owen Dudley Edwards for his having pointed out that, in replies co protests from the U.S. government about the imprisonment without trial of persons claiming U.S. citizenship, the act was represented as being preventive rather than penal. See also his article, ‘ American diplomats and Irish coercion, 1880—1883 ’ in Journal of American Studies, i, no. 2, Oct. 1967.
41 Parnell’s protection act dossier is in C.S.O. Reg. Papers, 21040/1882.
42 E.g. C.S.O. Reg. papers 46219/1882; this suspect was also not believed to be innocent.
43 Spencer to Gladstone, 12 Sept. 1881 (B.M., Add. MS 44308, ff 151–6).
44 Letters of Queen Victoria, as above.
45 Hansard 33 cclxix, I20, 148, 830.
46 E.g. in DrMcDowell’s, R. B. otherwise excellent Irish administration 1801–1914 (1964), p. 59.Google Scholar MrCorfe’s, Tom The Phoenix Park murders (1968)Google Scholar does good work in drawing attention to the circumstances of Gowper’s resignation, but leaves Forster’s case less clearly examined. The present writer knows of no evidence, even negative, to support Brian O’Neill’s suggestion that Forster’s resignation was part of the bargain agreed upon in the Kilmainham treaty (War for the land in Ireland, p. 84).
47 Cowper to Gladstone, 2 May 1882 (B.M., Add. MS 44475, ff 84–85).
48 Hartington and Spencer himself were already somewhat doubtful whether Forster ‘ after being the absolute head of the govt, for so long, could get on with Spencer, or any lord lieutenant with a will of his own — Granville to Gladstone, 8, 12 Apr., 1882 (B.M., Add. MS 44174, ff 86–90, 96–9). See also Ramm, A., Political correspondence of Mr Gladstone and Lord Granville, 1876–1886 (1962), 1, pp 355–6, 358–9.Google Scholar
49 Chamberlain, , Political memoir, ed. Howard, C. H. D. (1953), pp 57–9;Google Scholar Harcourt to Spencer, 25 Feb. 1883 (Harcourt correspondence, no. 114, Spencer papers, Althorp).
50 Morley to Gladstone, 10 Aug. 1888, and copy of Gladstone to Morley, 11 Aug. 1888 (B.M., Add. MS 44255, ff 252–9). Morley in a later account placed less weight on his article; Recollections (1917), i, p. 175.