who afterwards found that the veteran statesman's idea of independence did not extend to toleration of any difference from his own decision and decree. These men found themselves suddenly called upon to choose between Mr Gladstone and Mr Parnell, and it will be noted that, in some instances at least, they were prepared to abandon Mr Parnell solely in obedience to Mr Gladstone's wishes, and with no more light thrown upon the subject than had been given by his letter. The statement that Mr Parnell and not Mr Gladstone caused the schism in the Irish party cannot hold water for a moment, because there was no schism before Mr Gladstone's letter, and Mr Parnell, having received an unanimous re-election at the hands of his colleagues, had no reason to cause or desire the schism which followed the publication of the Gladstone "Rescript." Then Mr Parnell put forth a Manifesto to the Irish people which afforded an excuse to any Irish member to reconsider his position on one side or on the other. It is absolutely necessary to remember dates as we proceed to consider the events of which we write. From the 17th until the 24th, Mr Gladstone remained silent. Upon the 24th he addressed to Mr J. Morley the letter which demanded the deposition of Mr Parnell. Upon the night of the 28th Mr Parnell's Manifesto was issued, and on Monday, December 1, the adjourned meeting of the Irish Parliamentary party commenced, and terminated on December 6th by the withdrawal of the majority and their adoption of resolutions deposing Mr Parnell and appointing Mr M'Carthy as their "sessional chairman." From a careful study of these dates it becomes abundantly clear,-first,

VOL. CXLIX.-NO. DCCCCIII.

that Mr Gladstone did not seek to interfere with Mr Parnell's leadership until he had ascertained the almost unanimous opinion of his English and Scotch followers; secondly, that in spite of all his declarations in favour of the independence of the Irish party, he did directly interfere in a matter primarily affecting that party, and actually already decided by them; thirdly, that a number of those who constitute the Irish Parliamentary party_undoubtedly fell away from Mr Parnell on account of Mr Gladstone's letter, and their fear of losing the support of the English alliance, totally apart from any consideration of the Manifesto and its contents, and after they had deliberately condoned the moral delinquencies of their leader.

These things should all be borne in mind in our apportionment of blame or praise to any of the parties concerned. If Mr Gladstone was from the first moment of Mr Parnell's condemnation in the Divorce Court struck with a righteous horror of the offence, and determined to sever himself once for all from the offender, it is difficult to understand why he should have waited for a whole week before making known his views and determination. If, on the other hand, Mr Gladstone was sincere in his opinion that the Irish party should be independent of the Liberal party, and should be permitted to manage their own affairs, it is equally difficult to see why he should have allowed the opinion of English Liberals to force him to the direct attack upon Irish independence which he undoubtedly made in the blow which he aimed at Mr Parnell. In any case this much is certain with regard to the Manifesto and its revelations—namely, that Mr

K

Parnell made no attack upon Mr Gladstone until Mr Gladstone, from whatever motive, made an attack upon him, and one which had for its object the extinction of his public life and political career. It is only just to Mr

Gladstone to recall the fact that he has not concealed that his object in delaying his attack was that he "might watch the state of feeling in this country,' "1 and that he has not pretended that his final action was dictated by any other motive than that of political expediency. It is also due to Mr Parnell that the nature of the attack should be remembered; because the first impulse of many honourable minds will be to condemn him for the contents of his Manifesto without considering, in the first place, that he was fighting for his life, and in the second place, that the withholding at this moment the particulars of the Hawarden conference with Mr Gladstone would have deprived him for ever of the principal weapon of his defence against the attack upon his leadership and political existence, which Mr Gladstone had adopted and encouraged.

Let us endeavour to be fair to all parties. It is beyond all controversy or doubt that a conference did take place at Hawarden, at the close of the year 1889, between Mr Gladstone and Mr Parnell, mainly upon the provisions of any legislative measure which might hereafter be introduced for the purpose of giving Home Rule to Ireland. Mr Parnell has given his version of the conference; and his remark that Mr Gladstone "mainly monopolised the conversation gives, from its extreme probability, an indirect confirmation of the accuracy of his re

collection. Does Mr Gladstone deny that there was such a conversation? Not at all. He confirms the fact when he demurs to the charge of having made "proposals," but tells us that "no single suggestion" of his " of his to Mr Parnell was formal, unanimous, or final." Of course this is an admission that there were suggestions; and no one who has studied Mr Gladstone's character and career will suppose that it was at all probable that any suggestion or proposal of his would be stated by him to be final, under the circumstances and conditions of the interview at Hawarden. Mr John Morley also gives an unnecessary denial to the statement that he offered office to Mr Parnell, but admits that he inquired whether he would still adhere to his refusal of office. Although, therefore, both Mr Gladstone and Mr John Morley declare that Mr Parnell's recollection deceives him as to the particulars of their conversations, yet both admit sufficient to render it impossible that the public should be satisfied without their own account of what "the particulars" really were. It is to the last degree improbable that they should only have related to minor details of the proposed Home Rule Bill. If, then, they indicated any considerable or important changes from the legislative proposal of 1886, how is it that Mr Gladstone has kept the whole of his party and the country in ignorance of such intended changes? Does not the fact of his having done so to some extent corroborate Mr Parnell's assertion of his own disapproval of the suggestions? For if they had been suggestions approved by him as likely to be palatable to the Irish party, and to render Home Rule

more acceptable to the British Parliament, is it not more than probable that they would have been allowed to ooze out, and would at least have been mentioned by Mr Parnell to the leading men among his colleagues? As regards the latter, his silence towards them was doubtless a mistake; but that very silence is an argument in favour of the accuracy of his present account of what occurred at Hawarden. It was natural-and still more especially so in the case of a man of Mr Parnell's reserved temperament that he should keep silence with regard to suggestions which he had not approved, the publication of which would certainly have caused disaffection among his followers to the imperilment of the English alliance, and which, not being final, he might still hope to see modified or withdrawn. Nor was it his policy to do otherwise than praise, uphold, and support Mr Gladstone before the public, because he knew full well that it was only through Mr Gladstone that he could rally the Liberals of England and Scotland to his Home Rule standard; and he equally well knew that his eightyfive Irish votes, dexterously guided, would be a powerful weapon with which to wring from Mr Gladstone such alterations and concessions as would render the new Home Rule Bill more satisfactory to his Irish followers.

In judging of such cases as the present, it is always wise, when certainty is not to be obtained, to consider the elements of probability; and in this case, if probability is carefully studied, it will be found to incline towards the statements in Mr Parnell's Manifesto, so far at least as concerns the Hawarden episode. No doubt, as events have turned out, it was a mistake on the part of Mr Parnell to have kept the particulars

of the conference from his colleagues and associates; but he cannot be blamed for this reticence by those who are now loudly accusing him of having violated confidence, because according to their view he should never have revealed these particulars at all. It is a fair and reasonable solution of the case to suppose that Mr Parnell saw no reason to reveal the matter until he should either have finally failed to convince Mr Gladstone that his suggestions could not be accepted by the Irish party, or should be obliged to make the facts known in order to vindicate his own position. That is precisely what he has now done. Was it to be expected that he would keep the whole thing quiet until the general election was over, and thus place himself entirely in the hands of Mr Gladstone, who, in the event of his obtaining a majority at the polls, might have put his suggestions into legislative form, and have then declared, as he does now, that Mr Parnell had not disapproved them? This would have been fatal to Mr Parnell's authority with his countrymen, supposing that the suggestions were as unpalatable to them as Mr Parnell declares them to have been to himself. But if this be so, it was evidently only a question of time on Mr Parnell's part as to when he should inform his party of the suggestions. An early disclosure might, and probably would, have damaged the alliance between English and Irish Home Rulers without any adequate compensation; but if he really disapproved, it is perfectly clear that unless Mr Gladstone had changed his mind in the interval, the disclosure must have come sooner or later. Nor is it altogether fair to condemn Mr Parnell for the betrayal of confidence, when we recollect

that the conditions were not equal as between Mr Gladstone and himself. Mr Gladstone was in no degree likely to offend his party or lessen his influence if it should become known that he had suggested modifications of the Home Rule Bill of 1886 in the direction of limiting the powers to be given to an Irish Parliament. He had therefore nothing to lose by maintaining the confidential character of the conference. Mr Parnell, on the contrary, would have given the greatest offence to his colleagues and followers, and would undoubtedly have weakened his authority, if it had become known that he had even meditated the acceptance of such modifications. The truth of this remark is proved by the blame even now cast upon Mr Parnell by some of his opposing colleagues, for having kept from their knowledge proposals or suggestions which they declare that they will never accept. It is evident, therefore, that to keep the secret of these suggestions was advantageous to Mr Gladstone and dangerous to Mr Parnell, and that the latter would have been more than mortal if, when driven to set his back against the wall, he had still thought it necessary, by a continued silence, to play into the hands of the man who was attempting to destroy him.

It is, of course, open, to any one to believe or disbelieve the charges against the "wire-pullers of the Liberal party," of having "sapped and destroyed the integrity and independence of a section of the Irish Parliamentary party. "But it is necessary to point out that, even if these and other charges of a similar character are untrue, this does not in any way affect the story of the Hawarden confer

ence.

Of the proceedings at that conference Mr Parnell has given us his account. A simple denial

of the accuracy of Mr Parnell, and the statement that "suggestions and not "proposals is the correct term to apply to the matter discussed at the conference, cannot be held satisfactory or sufficient under the circumstances. Mr Gladstone has told us that all his suggestions were "from written memoranda," and there can therefore be no difficulty in giving the particulars to the world. The British public have a right to ask that, if Mr Parnell be inaccurate, the extent and nature of his inaccuracies should be made known. Otherwise, if we are called upon to disbelieve a detailed and positive statement of a conference without any alternative statement to compare therewith, we cannot comply with such an unreasonable request. Some consideration, moreover, must be given to the position and interests of the parties concerned. It must not be forgotten that Mr Gladstone has himself set us an example of faith in respect to interviews with Mr Parnell. When the celebrated interview between the late Lord Carnarvon and Mr Parnell took place, Mr Gladstone openly and defiantly adopted Mr Parnell's version, in direct opposition to that given by Lord Carnarvon. So anxious was he, indeed, to make capital out of the event, that he exposed himself to one of the severest of the many rebuffs which have been brought upon him by his recklessness of assertion.

The incident is worth recalling to memory. In a letter to Mr Tait, candidate for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, Mr Gladstone wrote, on the 29th June 1886

"The Tories denounce us as dismemberers of the empire because we adopt the language of their own viceroy, Lord Carnarvon, and seek to meet the local wants of Ireland, and

to satisfy to some extent her natural aspirations. But Lord Salisbury, down to the general election, aware, as is now clear, of the Viceroy's views, kept this dismemberer in the viceroyalty and in the Cabinet, together, as we are now told, with other dismembering Ministers. I do not blame him for thus encouraging the Nationalists of Ireland in their most reasonable claims, but for abandoning that good method, changing to a bad one, and denouncing as Dismemberment the same policy of union, honour, and peace, which in the person of Lord Carnarvon he had taken to his bosom."

Upon the 3d of July appeared the following letter to the editor of the Times':

"SIR, My attention has been called to Mr Gladstone's letter of the 29th of June to Mr Tait, in which my speech in the House of Lords on the 10th of June is construed into an acceptance of his Irish legislation. Any one who refers to that speech will see how utterly unwarranted such an inference is. My words were deliberate, they are on record, and it is unnecessary to repeat them; but I must protest against their misuse for electioneering purposes.-I remain, &c.,

CARNARVON."

Upon this Mr Gladstone waxed wroth, and addressed a characteristic letter to Lord Carnarvon :—

"DEAR LORD CARNARVON,-I have just read in the 'Daily News' a portion of a letter which I would fain suppose not to be authentic. If it is not yours, please to consider this unwritten. The letter states that in writing to Mr Tait I have construed your speech in the House of Lords into an acceptance of my Irish legislation.' It discourteously goes on to allege that I have done this for electioneering purposes:' My letter to Mr Tait says nothing of what you adopt or accept. It states that we adopt the language of their own Viceroy, Lord Carnarvon.' Having adopted your language as a true description of our policy, whilst I make no reference to our legislation, how can I do otherwise than consider that, as your words describe our policy, your

'non

You

"DEAR MR GLADSTONE,-I have just read in today's papers your letter to me. In it you complain that I have said that you construed my recent speech in the House of Lords into an acceptance of your Irish legislation. I have re-read your letter to Mr Tait, and I am at a loss to understand what other meaning I could possibly attach to your words, unless they are to be used in natural' sense; or what could be the object of your introducing my name if it was not intended to indicate an agreement by me with you. adopt my language, you make that language signify an assent to your policy, and you then affirm that supposed assent as a fact. You further draw a distinction which, I confess, seems rather subtle, between your legislation and your policy. I, on the other hand, can only judge of policy by legislation, when it is expressed in all the precision of a very elaborate bill. You complain of discourtesy on my part because I attribute your reference to me to electioneering exigencies. I should be deeply concerned if I could feel myself guilty of any discourtesy, but I can only judge of intentions by acts. I cannot suppose that your allusion to me was of a purely academic character, nor can I divorce a letter written for the avowed purpose of recommending a candidate to a constituency from the objects and issues of the present elections. remain, &c., CARNARVON."

I

This correspondence, which exhibits Mr Gladstone in the unenviable light of one who wilfully misunderstands and perversely misrepresents an honourable opponent, did not prevent the GladstonianParnellite party from harping continually upon the same string, and