Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T20:33:04.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Joseph Chamberlain, Parnell and the Irish ‘central board’ scheme, 1884-5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

C.H.D. Howard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There goes the man who killed the home rule bill.’ Few will question the truth of this comment on Joseph Chamberlain. Yet the man who so vigorously opposed the home rule bill had from the very beginning of the second Gladstone administration, in which he held the comparatively junior office of president of the board of trade, been one of the members of the cabinet most anxious to consider Irish needs and opinion. He had criticized Forster’s coercion policy and had pressed for remedial legislation. He had acted as the link between the cabinet and the negotiators of the ‘Kilmainham treaty’. For a brief period he had been conspicuous for the relative closeness of his relations with Parnell and other leading Irish nationalists. ‘ I have spoken freely and openly to him [Parnell] and to many other Irish members, since Mr Forster ceased to be Irish secretary,’ he wrote to Gladstone on 7 June 1882, after his attention had been called to newspaper comments on the fact that he had been observed in conversation with Parnell in a lobby of the house of commons the day previously. At the end of 1884 and in 1885 he had engaged in negotiations with Parnell with a view to the establishment in Ireland of what later came to be known as a ‘national council’, but at the time was usually termed a ‘central board’.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 8 , Issue 32 , September 1953 , pp. 324 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 O’Brien, R. Barry, The life of Charles Stewart Parnell, 2. 158.Google Scholar

2 Chamberlain to Gladstone, 7 June 1882 (B.M., Add. MS 44125, f. 145).

3 In 1884–5 the proposed body was variously termed an ‘Irish board’, ‘central board’, ‘central council’, ‘national board’ and ’national council’. As ‘central board’ is the term most frequently used in the documents relating to the negotiations of 1884–5, I have employed it in this article.

4 3 Hansard [306], 574–8 (1886); 4 Hansard [14], 721–4 (1893).

5 3 Hansard [329], 961–71 (1888). The report in The Times, 31 July and 1 August 1888, is more complete.

6 See The Times, 2 Aug. 1888 (O’Shea’s letter), 6 Aug. 1888 (Parnell’s letter), 7 and 13 Aug. 1888 (two letters from Chamberlain). A draft of Chamberlain’s unpublished letter, dated 7 Aug. 1888, is among his papers (see below). For an account of this controversy see Garvin, J. L., The life of Joseph Chamberlain (hereafter cited as ‘Garvin’), 2. 388–92.Google Scholar

7 Chamberlain, Joseph, A political memoir (hereafter cited as ‘J.C.’), pp. 135–59.Google Scholar

8 Garvin, i. 575–624, ii. 3–30. Garvin’s account of the ’ central board ’ negotiations has been sharply criticized by Captain Henry Harrison in Parnell, Joseph Chamberlain and Mr Garvin (hereafter cited as ‘Harrison’), pp. 88–115.

9 I am deeply indebted to the Chamberlain trustees for permission to use the papers of Joseph Chamberlain (hereafter cited as ‘CP.’); to the Father Superior of the Oblates of St Charles and to the Rev-Alphonse Chapeau for permission to use those of Cardinal Manning (cited as ‘M.P.’); and to Earl Spencer for permission to use those of the fifth earl. The chief relevant documents in these collections, other than those already published elsewhere, have been printed above, viii. 237–63.

10 Dilke’s memoir of his political career is incorporated in Stephen Gwynn and G. M. Tuckwell’s Life of the Rt Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke (hereafter cited as ‘G. & T.’). I have consulted the MS of the memoir at the British Museum and have confirmed that the version given in G.& T. is accurate and complete. References will be given, therefore, to the printed version of the memoir (G.& T.), not to the original MS. Unfortunately, Dilke’s diaries for the first half of 1885 are not with his other papers.

11 Chamberlain to Morley, 21 Oct. 1879 (copy in CP.; quoted, Garvin, i. 318).

12 45 and 46 Vict. ch. 25, sect. 37.

13 Gladstone to Spencer, 9 May 1885 (Spencer papers; copy, B.M., Add. MS 44312, f. 95).

14 Memorandum, 25 Mar. 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 44312, f. 39).

15 Chamberlain to Dilke, 12 Sept. 1884 (B.M., Add. MS 43875, f. 153 v.).

16 The Times, 5 Jan. 1885.

17 J.C., pp. 136–7.

18 CP. A rough copy is endorsed in O’Shea’s hand-writing : ‘Drawn in agreement with C S. Parnell—1 Albert Mansions.’ This rough copy, together with other documents mentioned subsequently, was probably given to Chamberlain by O’Shea in Aug. 1888 at the time of the controversy with Parnell.

19 See O’Shea’s letter in The Times, 2 Aug. 1888.

20 Preserved in C.P.

21 C.P.; above, viii. 240.

22 Based on the mutilated copy of the crimes act in CP. and Chamberlain’s note. The sections whose renewal was not to be seriously opposed were: nos. 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20.

23 CP.; above, viii. 240.

24 3 Hansard [257], 7 (1881).

25 G. & T. i. 445. Part of the entry in Dilke’s diary for 17 May 1882 (B.M., Add. MS 43934, f. 88) has been cut out. The letter from Düke to Grant Duff, 17 May 1882 (B.M., Add. MS 43890, ff. 221-2), mentioned in G.& Τ i. 445, adds nothing to the information given in the memoir. Harcourt’s warning is discussed in Harrison, pp. 29, 48-51, 54. Captain Harrison has shown in Parnell vindicated that O’Shea knew of his wife’s relations with Parnell for several years before 1890, and has emphasised the point in ’ Parnell’s vindication ’, above, v-231–43. In connexion with these points the following letter from Labouchere to Chamberlain (undated, but evidently written in Oct. or Nov. 1885) is of interest:

My dear Chamberlain,

I have received a long letter from O’Shea asking me to denounce Parnell for not supporting him, and he says that he is going to see you. Here are the real facts. Parnell is—or is supposed to be the lover of his wife. He told me several times that he would do all that he could for him, but that it was very difficult. I found out from the ‘ boys ’ that the difficulty was in their knowledge of the love affair, and in their not seeing why on account of it he was to be treated better than others who had given a half support to Parnell. Of course it is impossible to explain this to him, as we must assume that he knew nothing of the domestic detail. I write you this, to put you up to the facts, but don’t say that I wrote at all to you about it to him.

A week ago H. Gladstone wrote to propose that Healy and I should ‘by chance’ come to Chester, and that he should by chance drop in There is no copy in CP. of any reply to this letter. Chamberlain did not always answer Labouchere’s numerous and often indiscreet letters.

26 J.C, p. 137. This is confirmed by Spencer’s letter to Chamberlain, 12 Mar. 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 252). Neither Chamberlain nor Spencer mentions the date of the interview.

27 Chamberlain to Duignan, 17 Dec. 1884 (C.P.; The Times, 6 July 1893; above, viii. 240–2).

28 Harrison, , Parnell vindicated, pp. 293 n, 356.Google Scholar

29 Obituary in Birmingham Daily Post, 28 Mar. 1914. See also Law List.

30 Chamberlain to Duignan, 28 June 1873 (C.P.).

31 Duignan to Chamberlain, 6 Nov. 1881 (C.P.). In due course I hope to publish Duignan’s letters to Chamberlain, describing conditions in Ireland in the eighteen-eighties.

32 Duignan to Chamberlain, 14 Nov. 1881 (C.P.).

33 Duignan to Chamberlain, 24 Oct. 1884 (C.P.).

34 O’Shea to Parnell, 19 Jan, 1885 (copy in CP.; printed above, viii. 246).

35 Duignan to Chamberlain, 24 Oct. 1884 (C.P.).

36 Harrison, p. 95, distinguishes between the ‘Chamberlain scheme’ and the ‘Parnell scheme’. I have preferred to use the term ’ O’Shea scheme’ rather than ‘Parnell scheme’ with reference to the proposals contained in O’Shea’s aide-memoire of 27 November 1884 and his memorandum of 14 January 1885, entitled ‘Local self-government in Ireland’. The memorandum is printed in The Times, 13 Aug. 1888, and in Harrison, pp. 248–50. Parnell’s share of responsibility for these proposals is discussed below.

37 Chamberlain to O’Shea, 11 July 1885 (copy in CP.; printed in J.C, p. 153); 3 Hansard [329], 967–8 (1888).

38 A scheme for a ‘central council’ in Dublin with powers of private bill legislation had been discussed but not approved at the first public meeting of the Irish national league, in Dublin, 7 Feb. 1883 (The Times, 8 Feb. 1883.)

39 Chamberlain to Duignan, 17 Dec. 1884 (above, viii. 241).

40 See Chamberlain’s minute of n Apr. 1885 (CP. and Spencer papers; printed above, viii. 254-5; also O’Shea to Chamberlain, 2 Mar. 1885 (C.P ; printed, J.C, p. 310).

41 Chamberlain to Duignan, 17 Dec. 1884 (above, viii. 241).

42 Chamberlain to J. T. Bunce, 11 June 1885 (C.P. ; quoted, Garvin, ii. 8).

43 J.C., pp. 79, 121-2, 125-6, 148; Chamberlain to Emilia Pattison, 17 May 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 43876, ff. 96–7; quoted, Garvin, i. 622). See also Hammond, J. L., Gladstone and the Irish nation, p. 393.Google Scholar

44 Duignan to Chamberlain, 4 July 1893, and Chamberlain to Duignan, 5 July 1893 (C.P.; printed in The Times, 8 July 1893).

45 Chamberlain to Morley, 18 Dec. 1881 (copy in J.C.).

46 Above, viii. 246. O’Shea’s spelling mistake was perhaps occasioned by the fact that Duignan pronounced his name ‘Dignan’. I am indebted for this information to Mr E. H. Dance, of Wolverhampton, who was formerly acquainted with the late Carl Duignan, the son of W. H. Duignan.

47 This letter has not been preserved, but its import is evident from Chamberlain’s reply to Duignan, 19 Dec. 1884 (CP.).

48 Chamberlain to Duignan, 19 Dec. 1884 (CP.).

49 O’Shea to Parnell, 19 Jan. 1885 (copy: above, viii. 247).

50 Parnell to O’Shea, 5 Jan. 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 242).

51 Above, viii. 242, 245–6.

52 Parnell to O’Shea, 13 Jan. 1885 (above, viii. 245).

53 Parnell to O’Shea, 5 Jan. 1885 (above, viii. 242).

54 Parnell’s letter in The Times, 6 Aug. 1888.

55 Parnell to O’Shea, 5 Jan. 1885 (above, viii. 242).

56 O’Shea to Parnell, 6 Jan. 1885 (copy in CP.; above, viii. 243).

57 The Times, 7 Jan. 1885.

58 Parnell to O’Shea, 13 Jan. 1885 (above, viii. 246).

59 Healy to Duignan, 11 Jan. 1885 (copy in CP.; above, viii. 243–5).

60 Above, viii. 245–6.

61 J.C, pp. 138–9. Chamberlain nowhere states exactly when he came into possession of these letters, but he was presumably referring to them when, in the house of commons on 31 July 1888, he declared: ’ I have to state that this scheme which the hon. member calls my scheme was brought to me from him, and I am glad to say, and to tell the hon. member that I have the proof now, which I had not got at the time, of what I assert in his own hand-writing, in letters which are wholly in his hand-writing, and not in the hand-writing of a secretary’ (3 Hansard [329], 968). Chamberlain specifically mentions both letters in his draft letter to The Times, 7 Aug. 1888 (not dispatched), in which he states: ‘These letters were given to me by Mr O’Shea long after wards when Mr Parnell thought fit to suggest that the former had no authority for the proposals made to me’. In A political memoir, p. 158, Chamberlain states that O’Shea showed the letters to Labouchere in 1886.

62 J.C, p. 139.

63 Above, viii. 242, 255.

64 Garvin, i. 590.

65 Printed in Curtis, E. and McDowell, R. B., Irish historical locuments, pp. 282–4.Google Scholar

66 The Times, 22 Jan. 1885.

67 Chamberlain to Duignan, 7 Feb. 1885 (CP.). The major part of :he letter is printed below.

68 Above, viii. 245–6.

69 See above, viii. 249–51, 252–5, 255–7; Fortnightly Review, new series, xxxviii (1885). 1–16; The radical programme, preface by Chamberlain, Joseph, pp. 301–28Google Scholar; Lucy, Henry, Speeches of the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P. (hereafter cited as ‘Lucy’), pp. 186, 202Google Scholar; The Times, 9 and 16 Sept. 1885.

70 M.P.; copy in C.P.; above, viii. 255–7.

71 Leslie, Shane, Henry Edward Manning (hereafter cited as ‘Leslie’), PP. 394–8, 408–10Google Scholar; G.& T., ii. 129–32.

72 These letters have not survived, but in his letter to O’Shea of 29 Dec. 1884 Chamberlain acknowledges O’Shea’s letters of 22 and and 24 Dec. 1884.

73 Chamberlain to O’Shea, 29 Dec. 1884 (copy in CP.).

74 The appointment was made for 15 Jan. 1885. This is evident from Chamberlain’s letter to O’Shea, 29 Dec. 1884, from O’Shea’s letter to Chamberlain, 10 Jan. 1885 (C.P.) and from O’Shea’s letter to his wife, 9 Jan. 1885, printed in O’Shea, Katharine, Charles Stewart Parnell (hereafter quoted as ‘K. O’Shea’), 2. 203 Google Scholar. On the other hand the copy of O’Shea’s letter to Parnell, 19 Jan. 1885 (above, viii. 246; quoted, but misdated, by Garvin, i. 584) refers to the interview with Chamberlain having taken place ‘yesterday’, i.e. 18 Jan. 1885. J.C, p. 140, perhaps following O’Shea, also gives Jan. 18 as the date of the interview. There are several possible explanations of this contradiction : (i) The interview may have been postponed from Jan. 15 to 18. (ii) There may have been two interviews, (iii) O’Shea’s reference to the interview as having taken place ’ yesterday ’ may have been incorrect.

75 C.P.

76 C.P. ; printed in The Times, 13 Aug. 1888, and in Harrison, pp. 248–50.

77 J.C, p. 141.

78 J.C, p. 141. Gladstone’s statement is questioned by Garvin, i. 582, but confirmed by Hammond, op. cit., pp. 419–20.

79 An inference based on Chamberlain’s minute of 11 Apr. 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 254) and Spencer’s letter to Chamberlain, 26 Apr. 1885 (C.P.; above, viii. 276). I have not, however, found a copy of the memorandum among the Spencer papers.

80 Above, viii. 246–8.

81 O’Shea to his wife, 19 Jan. 1885 (K. O’Shea, ii. 204).

82 Chamberlain to O’Shea, 21 Jan. 1885 (copy in C.P. ; quoted, Garvin, i. 586).

83 Ibid.

84 Garvin, ii. 388–92.

85 Chamberlain to Morley, 21 Jan. 1885 (typescript copy in CP.; above, viii. 249–51).

86 Duignan to Chamberlain, 4 Feb. 1885 (CP.).

87 Healy to Duignan, 11 Jan. 1885 (copy in C.P.; above, viii. 243–5).

88 Chamberlain to Duignan, 7 Feb. 1885 (CP.). The outrages mentioned were the dynamite explosions in London.

89 O’Shea to Chamberlain, 2 Mar. 1885 (CP.; J.C, p. 310).

90 Chamberlain to Spencer, 10 Mar. 1885 (Spencer papers; above, viii. 251). There is no copy in C.P. of this letter, which, unlike other letters written by Chamberlain in connexion with the crimes bill and central board ’ negotiations, is on house of commons note-paper. It is possible that Chamberlain wrote it after a further conversation with O’Shea.

91 Spencer to Chamberlain, 12 Mar. 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 252).

92 O’Shea to his wife, 17 Mar. 1885 (K. O’Shea, ii. 206).

93 K. O’Shea, ii. 205–6, 209.

94 B.M., Add. MS 44312, ff. 38–43. 25 Mar. 1885 is the date at the head of the memorandum; Spencer’s signature is dated March 23.

95 Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 23.

96 That is, sections 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20. Spencer asked for the renewal of several sections which, according to the plan put forward by O’Shea, were to have been dropped, viz., nos 7, 8, 10, 14, 21, 22 and 23, dealing with boycotting, riots and unlawful assembly, proclamations of meetings and search for arms. On the other hand, he did not ask for the renewal of sections 15, dealing with aliens, 19 and 20, relating to the ‘blood tax’ i.e. compensation in cases of murder and maiming, which were among those which ‘Mr Parnell would not seriously oppose.’

97 B.M., Add MS 44312, f. 38 v.

98 Ibid., f. 40.

99 Ibid., f. 39 v.

100 Ibid., f. 40.

101 C.P.; above, viii. 252–5.

102 Above, viii. 252.

103 Above, viii. 254–5.

104 Above, viii. 255.

105 Spencer to Chamberlain, 26 Apr. 1885 (CP.).

106 G.& T., ii. 129.

107 ‘Eight tenths of the Catholics in England are Irish. The two tenths, say 200,000, are English’ (Manning to Bishop Herbert Vaughan, 12 Apr. 1886; in M.P.).

108 See the Tablet, passim and especially 26 Dec. 1885.

109 Manning to Bishop Ullathorne, 2 Mar. 1873 (M.P.; quoted in Leslie, p. 207).

110 Manning to Pope Leo XIII, 17 Feb. and 12 Apr. 1885 (copies in Italian in M.P.; translations quoted in Leslie, pp. 402–4); Walsh, Patrick J., Walsh, William J., archbishop of Dublin, p. 208 Google Scholar; Blunt, W. S., Gordon at Khartoum, p. 469.Google Scholar

111 Entry in Manning’s journal under the date, 4 Dec. 1883 (M.P.). It appears, however, to have been added to the journal at a later date. The passage is quoted in Purcell, E. S., Life of Cardinal Manning, 2. 579.Google Scholar

112 Manning to Pope Leo XIII, 17 Feb. 1885 (copy in M.P.). The copy is in Italian; the translation given here is my own; a slightly different translation is given in Leslie, p. 402.

113 Leslie, pp. 389-90, 394; extract from O’Shea’s diary (CP.; above, viii. 259-60); K. O’Shea, ii. 205.

114 Tablet, 18 Apr. 1885. Besides Croke the group comprised the archbishop of Tuam, the bishops of Elphin, Achonry and Galway, and the coadjutor-bishop of Kildare and Leighlin.

115 Manning to Pope Leo XIII, 12 Apr. 1885 (copy in Italian in M.P.; my translation; see also Leslie, p. 403).

116 Leslie, pp. 386–90; Walsh, op. cit., pp. 138–55; G.& T., ii. 131; K. O’Shea, ii. 205.

117 Chamberlain’s memorandum of his interview with Manning, 2,4 Apr. 1885 (CP.; J.C, p. 145).

118 G.& T., ii. 129.

119 G.& T., ii. 130.

120 J.C., p. 144; G.& T., ii. 130.

121 J.C., p. 144.

122 J.C, p. 145.

123 J.C., p. 146.

124 J.C, p. 146.

125 M.P.; copy in CP.; above, viii. 255–7.

126 J.C, pp. 147-9. This memorandum was evidently the basis of Gladstone’s report to Queen Victoria on the ‘central board’ scheme in his letter of 23 May 1885, printed in Guedalla, P., The Queen and Mr Gladstone, 2. 356–8.Google Scholar

127 Above, viii. 255.

128 Above, viii. 257.

129 Parnell to Manning, 29 Apr. 1885 (M.P.; above, viii. 261).

130 G.& T., ii. 131.

131 Manning to Dilke, 30 Apr. 1885 (original in M.P. ; Leslie, p. 395).

132 G.& T., ii. 130.

133 Manning to Chamberlain, 4 May 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 262).

134 J.C, 148; see also the interview with Chamberlain in R. Barry O’Brien, op. cit., ii. 134–6.

135 Parnell to Manning, dated ‘Tuesday Evening’ and contained in an envelope post-marked 5 May 1885, which was a Tuesday (M.P.; above, viii. 262).

136 33 Hansard [306], 575–8 (1886); see also Gladstone’s Midlothian speech, The Times, 22 June 1886.

137 Chamberlain to Manning, 22 June 1886 (M.P.; Leslie, pp. 408–9).

138 Manning to Chamberlain, 23 June 1886 (CP.; copy in M.P.; Leslie, p. 409).

139 Spencer to Chamberlain, 26 Apr. 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 258).

140 J.C., p. 147.

141 G.& T., ii. 130; J.C., p. 148.

142 Extract from O’Shea’s diary, 28 Apr. 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 259). The account of this episode in J.C, p. 148, reads like a paraphrase of the relevant extract from the O’Shea diary. Dilke’s account of this period and his correspondence confirm the statement that he was considering resignation at this period if he and Chamberlain failed to win the cabinet over to their Irish policy. (G.& T., ii. 131–2.)

143 Extract from O’Shea’s diary, 29–30 Apr. 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 259).

144 Ibid., 30 Apr. 1885 (above, viii. 259–60).

145 C.P.; above, viii. 261.

146 O’Shea’s note of interview with Parnell, 30 Apr. 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 261).

147 In C.P.

148 G.& T., ii. 130.

149 J.C, p. 148; G.& T., ii. 132; extract from O’Shea’s diary, 1 May 1885 (above, viii. 260).

150 Standard, 4, 6 and 7 May 1885.

151 Manning to Düke, 7 May 1885 (M.P.; quoted, G.& T., ii. 132; quoted, but misdated, Leslie, pp. 394–5).

152 Freeman’s Journal, 9 May 1885.

153 J.C, pp. 148–9.

154 Extract from O’Shea’s diary, 8 May 1885 (above, viii. 260).

155 In J.C., p. 9, Chamberlain states that he was in touch with T. H. S. Escott of the Standard while a minister. But on 2 Dec. 1880 he had written to Gladstone to say that Escott was no longer employed by the Standard (B.M., Add. MS 44125, f. 50.)

156 Extract from O’Shea’s diary, 10 May 1885 (above, viii. 260).

157 Trevelyan to Chamberlain, 6 May 1885 (C.P.; above viii 263)

158 O’Shea to his wife, 8 May 1885 (K. O’Shea, ii. 210).

159 G.& T., ii. 132.

160 J.C, p. 149.

161 G.& T., ii. 132.

162 Gladstone to Spencer, 9 May 1885 (Spencer papers; copy, B.M., Add. MS 44312, f. 95).

163 J.C, p. 149.

164 G.& T., ii. 136.

165 Such charges were, of course, very common. See, especially, G.& T., ii. 140, and O’Brien, op. cit., ii. 136.

166 Presumably an allusion to Parnell’s speech at Cork, 21 Jan. 1885.

167 Minute by Campbell-Bannerman, 30 Apr. 1885 (CP.; Spender, J. A., Life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 1. 84).Google Scholar

168 O’Shea to Manning, 10 May 1885 (M.P.; Leslie, pp. 395–6); extract from O’Shea’s diary, 11 May 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 260).

169 J.C, p. 149; G.& T., ii. 132–3.

170 Shaw Lefevre to Gladstone, 21 May 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 44153, f. 207, v.); Chamberlain’s minute, 11 Apr. 1885 (above, viii. 253); J.C, p. 143.

171 Chamberlain to Gladstone, 12 May 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 44126, ff. 76–7).

172 O’Shea to Manning, 10 May 1885 (M.P.; Leslie, pp. 395–6); extract from O’Shea’s diary, 10 May 1885 (above, viii. 260).

173 Minute by Trevelyan, 30 Apr. 1885 (CP.; above, viii. 261–2).

174 Chamberlain’s minute, 11 Apr. 1885 (above, viii. 255); Shaw Lefevre to Gladstone, 21 May 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 44153, f. 207); Trevelyan to Chamberlain, 30 Apr. 1885 (above, viii. 261–2); J.C, p. 149; G.& T., ii. 133.

175 3 Hansard [298], 627–8 (1885).

176 The Times, 21 May 1885; Churchill, Winston S., Lord Randolph Churchill (1952), p. 301.Google Scholar

177 According to the Annual Register, 1885, p. 93, this decision was taken under pressure from liberal back-benchers.

178 Gladstone to Chamberlain, 20 May 1885 (CP.; quoted, Garvin, i. 611); G.& T., ii. 134.

179 3 Hansard [298], 971–2 (1885).

180 Dilke to Gladstone, 20 May 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 44149, f. 347).

181 G.& T, ii. 134.

182 Chamberlain to Gladstone, 20 May 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 44126, ff. 79–80; Garvin, ii. 611).

183 J.C, p. 150; G.& T., ii. 134.

184 Shaw Lefevre to Gladstone, 21 May 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 44153, f. 207, v.).

185 Pall Mall Gazette, 21 May 1885.

186 J.C, p. 150; Dilke to Chamberlain, ‘Thursday’ (CP.).

187 G.& T., ii. 138–42.

188 G.& T, ii. 139.

189 Heneage to Gladstone, 2 June 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 44491, ff. 20–22). For this letter see J.C, p. 150, n. 2. Sir Henry Hussey Vivian wrote to Gladstone on 6 June 1885, urging the same course (B.M., Add. MS 44491, f. 51).

190 3 Hansard [298], 1193 (1885).

191 That is, during the session of June 8.

192 Lucy, p. 134; The Times, 4 June 1885.

193 SirClarke, Edward, The story of my life, pp. 239–40Google Scholar. Queen Victoria, in a letter to Gladstone, 10 June 1885, expressed surprise at the government’s resignation (Guedalla, op. cit., ii. 362).

194 Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone, 16 June 1885 (B.M., Add. MS. 44093, f. 262; Selections from the correspondence of the first Lord Acton, ed. Figgis, J. N. and Laurence, R. V., pp. 264–5)Google Scholar. Acton’s letter also refers to doubt ’ ‘as to the action and design of the P.M. himself’.

195 Chamberlain to J. T. Bunce, II June 1885 (CP.; quoted, Garvin, ii. 7).

196 That is, presumably, after the resignation of Gladstone’s government. Salisbury did not kiss hands on acceptance of office until June 23. (Letters of Queen Victoria, series 2, iii. 677).

197 J.C, p. 150.

198 Lucy, p. 145; The Times, 15 June 1885.

199 Lucy, p. 154; The Times, 18 June 1885.

200 For example, Harrison, p. 112.

201 Hartington to Sir Henry James, no date given (quoted in Bernard Holland, Life of … duke of Devonshire, ii. 72).

202 Hartington to Sir Henry Ponsonby, 6 October 1885 (Letters of Queen Victoria, series 2, iii. 698).

203 Fortnightly Review, new series, xxxviii (1885), 1–16.

204 J.C, p. 108.

205 G.& T, ii. 140.

206 The radical programme (preface by Joseph Chamberlain), p. vi.

207 Chamberlain to J. T. Bunce, II June 1885 (CP.; quoted, Garvin, ii. 8).

208 The Times, 23 June 1885; G.& T, ii. 148.

209 Dilke to Manning, 24 June 1885 (B.M., Add. MS 43896, f. 91).

210 G.& T, ii. 149.

211 Manning to Düke, 25 June 1885 (M.P.; quoted, Leslie, p. 397).

212 See, in this connexion, the letter to Manning from Bishop Nulty of Meath, 19 Nov. 1885, quoted in Leslie, p. 448. The Irish bishops themselves proved no more helpful in regard to the visit than Manning; see the letter from Archbishop Walsh to Düke, 29 July 1885 (C.P. ; quoted Garvin, ii. 27).

213 United Ireland, 27 June 1885, and subsequent issues.

214 The Times, 2 July 1885. A manifesto, issued by the Irish national league of Great Britain to the Irish voters in Wakefield, declared : ‘The suggestions of individual liberal statesmen in favour of Irish rights cannot be taken as satisfactory assurances of the future, coming especially from overthrown ministers who acquiesced in coercion during their five years’ tenure of power’ (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 6 July 1885).

215 The Times, 3 July 1885.

216 Chamberlain to O’Shea, II July 1885 (copy in CP.; J.C, pp 151–4).

217 O’Shea to Chamberlain, 13 July 1885 (CP.; J.C, pp. 154–6).

218 J.C., p. 157.

219 O’Shea to Parnell, 29 July 1885 (copy in CP.; J.C, p. 157).

220 J.C., p. 135.

221 Lucy, pp. 155–79; The Times, 25 July, 6 and 7 Aug. 1885.

222 Lucy, pp. 186–7, 202; The Times, 9 and 16 Sept. 1885.

223 For Chamberlain’s disavowal of responsibility for the views expressed in the ‘inspired’ article in the Fortnightly Review, reprinted in The radical programme, see 3 Hansard [304], 1440–1, and [306], 575 (1886).

224 Lucy, p. 202; The Times, 16 Sept. 1885.

225 Lucy, p. 187; The Times, 9 Sept. 1885.

226 Lucy, p. 185; The Times, 9 Sept. 1885. For Chamberlain’s account of this speech and its reception see J.C, p. 121.

227 Lucy, p. 225; The Times, 25 Sept. 1885.

228 The Times, 15 Oct. 1885, reporting Goschen’s speech at Glasgow the previous day.

229 For the contents of Chamberlain’s ‘unauthorized programme’ see E.H.R., lxv (1950) 477–91.

230 Chamberlain to Düke, 26 Dec. 1885 (B.M, Add. MS 43876, f. 183).

231 Ibid.

232 Chamberlain to Labouchere, 26 Dec. 1885 (copy in CP.; quoted in Thorold, A. L., Life of Henry Labouchere, p. 272).Google Scholar

233 Fortnightly Review, new series, xxxix (1886), 273–84.

234 For example by Mansergh, N. in Ireland in the age of reform and revolution, p. 104 Google Scholar, and by the reviewer of A political memoir in T.L.S., 6 Mar. 1953.

235 3 Hansard [306], 696–8 (1886).

236 A unionist policy for Ireland, preface by Chamberlain, Joseph (1888), pp. 17–18, 107–17.Google Scholar

237 Garvin, ii. 253.

238 It will be apparent that the account of the ‘ central board’ negotiations given above differs considerably from that contained in the late Garvin’s, J. L. Life of Joseph Chamberlain, 1. 575–624 Google Scholar, ii. 3–30;, which contains several inaccuracies, the most important of which are:

  • (i)

    (i) Garvin does not draw attention to the considerable modifications that Chamberlain’s scheme underwent in 1884–5. The scheme passed through five principal phases, viz.: (1) The subordinate legislature suggested in the letter to Duignan, 17 December 1884. (2) The administrative ‘central board’ suggested to Morley, 21 January 1885. (3) The ‘central board’ with both administrative and legislative functions, proposed in the minute of 11 April 1885 and the memorandum of 25 April 1885. (4) The scheme of ‘national councils’ for the whole United Kingdom, with administrative functions and with legislative functions limited to matters normally dealt with by private bills, suggested in the Fortnightly Review, July 1885 and in The radical programme. (5) The purely administrative ‘national councils’, on which powers of preparatory legislation might be conferred after a probationary period, mentioned by Chamberlain in his speeches in September 1885.

  • (ii)

    (ii) It is misleading to describe the scheme for ‘national councils’ in all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom as ‘home-rule-all-round’ (Garvin, ii. 8, 75). Such language suggests a far more ambitious scheme than was really the case. It is true that in private correspondence and conversation Chamberlain often used the words ‘home rule’ loosely (Garvin, i. 318, 579, 595, ii. 598–9), but in public speeches he never in 1885 applied the term to his proposals. In course of time the words ’ home rule ’ have acquired a variety of connotations, but it is unlikely that in 1885 any Irish nationalist would have considered them a correct description of Chamberlain’s scheme.

  • (iii)

    (iii) Equally misleading is the term ‘federal scheme’ (Garvin, ii. 8) as a description of the ‘national councils ’ proposals. To employ the word ‘federal’ in this context is to telescope the ‘national councils’ scheme formulated in the Fortnightly Review in July 1885 with the very different proposal for the adoption of the American constitution put forward in the same magazine but in much altered circumstances in February 1886.

  • (iv)

    (iv) It is not correct to say that in 1885 Chamberlain was willing to concede control of the police (Garvin, i. 583, n.). This error may perhaps result from a misinterpretation of a reference to ‘control of the police’ in J.C, p. 141. In the Fortnightly Review, n.s. xxxix (1886). 275, Chamberlain specifically denied that he had suggested handing over control of the police to a ‘national council’. This is confirmed by Gladstone’s letter to Queen Victoria (Guedalla, op. cit., ii. 357).

  • (v)

    (v) The statement (Garvin, i. 601) that Parnell ‘gave the required promise to support the radical ministers if they resigned’ seems to be based on the extracts from O’Shea’s diary (above, viii. 259) and the passage in J.C, p. 148. O’Shea’s note of 30 April 1885 (above, viii. 261) does not record any such promise. On the other hand, Garvin does not mention Manning’s letter of 4 May 1885.

  • (vi)

    (vi) The statement (Garvin, ii. 75) that Chamberlain’s scheme formed part of his ‘unauthorised programme’ at the 1885 general election is incorrect. The scheme was dropped four months before the general election.

  • (vii)

    (vii) The failure of the ‘central board’ negotiations did not cause ‘the break with Parnell’ as the title of Garvin’s twenty-fifth chapter (ii. 3-30) implies. It is clear from J.C, pp. 178–9, that in January 1886 Chamberlain was still ready to co-operate with Parnell in a policy of land-purchase.