Rosebery Government Defeated

Chapter XXXII

Rosebery Government Defeated

On the 14th August, 1894, the Lords rejected the Evicted Tenants Bill by 249 votes to 30. The Redmondites gave no help during the struggle, and flew the “Jolly Roger.”

An incident followed, to explain which it is necessary to go back a few years. In 1891, while the Tories were in office, I persuaded the Irish Attorney-General, Madden, when sitting on a Committee on Statute Law Reform, that we should be advised by an Irish lawyer as to repeals. Reformers of English statutes, like the late George Howell, a Labour M.P., were prepared to repeal Magna Charta as “spent,” disregarding historic interests. It was on this Select Committee I first met Mr. Asquith and Mr. Austen Chamberlain, then young men. A proposal to repeal an Act making the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of England a first charge on the Consolidated Fund aroused Asquith’s demur. He inquired why, if the Judge had an existing right, it should be extinguished? So the repeal was abandoned.

Next year the Attorney-General appointed an Irish barrister for revision work. A son of a late judge, Mr. Lawson, in 1892, repealed as obsolete the “New Rules of Charles I,” which conferred on tradesmen or artificers inhabiting Galway the parliamentary franchise on taking “the necessary oath as freemen.”

Parnellite tradesmen in hundreds claimed votes under the “new rules” in 1893, and the Revising Barrister, unaware of the repeal, admitted them to the franchise. Their votes would have swamped the Nationalists, and an appeal was lodged, as the “necessary oath” was a mystery and had not been taken. The Court in Dublin occupied itself for a week discussing the question what the “necessary oath” was. I argued that it must be an oath which in that epoch no Catholic “tradesman or artificer” could take, and the decision went against the claimants.

Lawson, who had caused the repeal, was the Court reporter in Voters’ Registration cases, but sat mute as to the repeal, while days were taken up in argument. Afterwards, seeing his mistake, he in 1894 introduced into the Statute Law Revision Bill a clause to repeal his own “repeal.” The Liberals had meanwhile come into office, and my watchful brother lit on his proposal. The seat for Galway was at stake, as our majority was gone if the new “freemen” were admitted.

By coaxing Morley, he persuaded the English Attorney-General, Rigby, to jettison Lawson’s clause, yet Rigby fumed at our objecting to a “routine Bill.” So disturbed was he by our expostulations that, during the debates on the Home Rule Bill on a point about “rivers above bridge,” he dropped his pipe from his pocket amidst the laughter of the House. Still, we got him round, and Lawson’s clause was omitted.

Rigby was a deeply read lawyer, and to him was due the declaration that a right of way across the Thames at Marlow by ferry exists.

A college at Oxford had sold part of its estate on the river to the Soap King, Hudson, who refused to maintain the ferry. Viscount Devonport challenged the stoppage, and the Lord Chancellor (Halsbury) specially sat in the Court of Appeal to decide the question. His colleagues were Henn Collins and A. L. Smith, who, being doubtful, agreed to consult Lord Justice Rigby, an old Thames oarsman. He advised them to maintain the right of way. The Law Reports have no record of this decision.

As to Morley’s Select Committee, I wrote Maurice:

House of Commons,

15th August, 1894.

“The Galway seat is safe…

On the Land Report the McDermott cut down our recommendation, so that it is not as good as it should be. However, the disappearance of the Tories from the Committee will enable us to amend it. Morley imported something ridiculous into the “Town Parks” paragraph. I struck it out on his proof, only to find that he had not made the correction in that and other instances.”

House of Commons,

17th August, 1894.

“At the Land Committee to-day Sexton proposed putting “occupation right” in the forefront. It reminded me of the boy in the fable who strove to grasp all the nuts in the jar.

Rosebery’s speech on Tuesday disgusted me. Insincerity, predominant partner, etc. Sexton, when I mentioned this, thought it a very good speech.

O’Brien, back from Armagh, says what is wanted is a thorough-going English agitation against the Lords. Only for our vote to-night I don’t think the Government would do anything against the Lords, but we have quickened the pace. We were near beating them.

I am pressed by Barry and others to go to the Wexford meeting on Sunday week.

Last night Rigby struck out the Lawson section from the Statute Law Revision Bill.

Arnold Forster came gushing to me a few days ago about a speech I made on the Evicted Tenants Bill, and praised it as if he were an advanced Nationalist I

Morley told me that Colonel Saunderson’s wife (daughter of Lord Ventry) said to him her heart warmed when she heard me speak about Ireland.

What odd people we have against us!”

Mrs. Saunderson survived her husband. Her son, in January, 1926, brought her remains from England for burial in Cavan, within the Irish Free State.

On Morley’s Committee Carson made the only mistake in his career. Morley had the assistance of Sir Robert Reid, the English Solicitor-General, who was friendly to us. Reid had been one of the counsel for the traversers before The Times Forgery Commission, and usually recommended Morley to accept proposals favourable to the tenants. Carson, according to my recollection (without reference to records), felt so outraged that he withdrew from the Committee and took with him the entire Conservative representation. He calculated that the House of Lords would reject any Bill based on Morley’s proposals. Events, however, did not work out as he expected. The report was unanimously framed, and when the Conservatives came in the following year it became the basis of a Tory measure of land reform. Gerald Balfour piloted it and the House of Lords could not reject it. Thus the main recommendations of Morley’s committee became law. Carson, who was not then in office, opposed the subsequent Tory measure without avail.

In 1895, the last year of Lord Rosebery’s administration, I piloted to second reading an Irish Municipal Franchise Bill which applied the borough suffrage of England to Ireland.

Frank Lockwood was then Solicitor-General. A dashing and gallant figure, tall and ruddy, with wit and power of advocacy, as well as good looks to advance him, he sketched continually on scraps of paper with a marvellous pencil. Being a Yorkshireman he united the best qualities of the Irish and the Scotch.

His friendship for Ireland was constant. My Franchise Bill was sent to a Grand Committee, and Lockwood came to me on the morning the Committee was to meet, saying that Lord Rosebery requested him to watch its passage on behalf of the Government.

“Of course,” he said, “you will accept amendments such as those of Kenny, Ross, and Barton?” (Three Tory M.P.’s who afterwards became judges.) I explained that if the Bill could go through Grand Committee without amendment the Report stage would be dispensed with, and it would secure the first Wednesday after Whitsuntide for third reading, so that its passage would be assured.

Lockwood opened his eyes. A quotation of mine captured him, “Don’t you remember that Henri Murger declared in La Vie de Bohéme, ‘the first duty of wine is to be red’? Well, the first duty of my Bill is to be read a third time.” “Ah,” said Frank, “I see, ‘not an inch of our territory, not a stone of our fortresses,’” recalling Jules Favre to Bismarck in 1871. There were three misprints in the Bill which opponents could have fastened on to engraft amendments and kill the measure, but they never hit them.

So it got through Committee, and was set down for Third Reading. I wrote Maurice:

Dublin,

2nd June, 1895.

The Tories are making efforts against my Franchise Bill by recommittal. A ferment has been stirred up against it by John Ross. Morley is weak, and there is no saying what he will do. The Duke of Norfolk has promised help in the Lords, but there they are certain to slaughter it by unacceptable amendments.

Morley’s conduct about our “County Council Bill” was extraordinary. Dr. Fox complained that he could get no draft from the Party Committee, and begged me to draw the Bill. Having no time to draft 300 clauses, and hoping we could get Morley to assent to railroad it through Grand Committee (as we did the Franchise Bill), and send it to the Lords, I selected the method embodied in the Bill sent you. It was shown to Sexton by Dr. Fox before the Wednesday on which it was to be debated. Sexton showed it to Dillon. Neither made any objection. Accordingly the Bill was printed and issued. I heard no more of it until Tuesday, when Curran told me the Liberal Whip remarked to him that Morley would be very glad if the “Derby” race adjournment was voted for by our men. I thought this strange, and sent a message to Morley.

Evidently he had been seen by T. W. Russell and Balfour, and chaffed by them, and got scared about accepting the Bill. Later, Justin informed me that the Government would not vote for it. He did not say why, nor did I know, so I requested him to come with me to Morley. He declined, and I asked him to call a meeting of the Party, saying I would never again support the Government if they flouted us. Knox arrived then, and I requested him to see Morley with me.

Tom Ellis and Shaw Lefevre were with Morley, whose door was open. Ellis left and Morley motioned to Shaw Lefevre to excuse him a moment while he spoke to “these gentlemen.” I said: “Is it true, Mr. Morley, that you will not support our Bill to-morrow?” “Quite true. I certainly shall not support such a Bill.” “Is that your determination? ” said I.

“Decidedly,” said he, drawing himself up in his grandest style. “Then,” said I, turning on my heel, “you cannot expect us to support your Party. “Very good,” said he, as we left the room.

Harcourt was in the passage and stopped us, seeing something was up, and we told him that we would not further support the Government if they persisted in this intention. I got out a requisition and presented it to Justin asking for a meeting of the Party, and he ordered one for 9 p.m. Meanwhile, Harcourt sent for me and said Morley was leaving for Newcastle, but that Shaw Lefevre would represent him, and that the Government would vote for the Bill, while declining to accept the method of reference to the Lord-Lieutenant.

I said that was satisfactory, but that this was not the message delivered to us. When the Party met at 9 p.m. I stated what had occurred.

About 11 p.m. a division came, and the gentlemen in Room 15 trooped down, having been sitting, as Knox informed me, debating a resolution to withdraw the Bill on the ground that it was “unsatisfactory.”

This point had been started by the “bounders” in my absence, enraged at the triumph I had over Morley. I went back and heard Blake make a strange speech, winding up with a declaration that the Bill was a “gross attempt to palm off a measure which would have been rejected with indignation if proposed by Balfour.” I got up and tore the flesh off his bones, and frightened the “bounders.”

Thereupon T.P. proposed an amendment to the resolution withdrawing the Bill, to the effect that it would be proceeded with, but that every member was at liberty to criticize its details. Our followers voted against this, but I and others declined to vote, with the result that it was carried by two votes!

Next day the debate on the second reading showed their folly. I had left the room with the feeling that their incompetence made the condition of the Party hopeless. Amidst this despondency Arthur O’Connor came to me and said the occasion was the greatest triumph I ever had. As he is a man who never paid me a compliment, I suppose I scored.

One of their objections, forsooth, was that the powers of “Presentment Sessions” were to be abolished.”

Three years later, although the “portmanteau” drafting of Fox’s County Council Bill was hurried, it served to guide Tory Ministers in the enactment of the Irish Local Government Act, 1898. That measure transferred Grand Jury administration to Councils elected by the people. The insight of Gerald Balfour discerned that a Bill which the Liberals and their Irish allies viewed askance could never pass if loaded with innumerable clauses. It, therefore, authorized the Viceroy to apply or adapt by Order in Council statutes already passed for England. But for this device end-less opportunities for cavil and obstruction would have been afforded.

I got the Municipal Franchise Bill through the Commons, but Arthur Balfour on the Third Reading humorously asked if we claimed “verbal inspiration” for it! The Lords passed the second reading, but threatened amendments.

About this time Oscar Wilde’s first trial took place. The jury disagreed, and I begged Lockwood not to put him “on his country” again. “Ah,” he sighed, “I would not but for the abominable rumours against ---” I did not know Wilde, but in 1869 was a patient of his father, Sir William, a marvellous surgeon at eye and ear work in Dublin. He removed a squint from the eye of a British Princess in the ‘sixties, when no one else would attempt the operation.

An archaeologist of note, he published a book entitled Lough Corrib: Its Shores and Islands, with Notices of Lough Mask. His wife Ireland venerated. She was a Miss Elgee of Wexford before marriage, and in 1848 contributed to the Nation (conducted by Gavan Duffy) fiery articles and poems. The Nation was suppressed by Lord Clarendon, then Viceroy, because of an article of hers, Jacta alea est (The die is cast). T. D. Sullivan, in 1871, when about to republish it in the Irish Penny Readings, sent her a proof for correction. She returned it unread, with a note saying, “I cannot tread the ashes of that once glowing past.”

Lady Wilde used to hold a salon in Belgravia, where in broad daylight blinds were drawn, shutters closed, candles lit, and she sat enthroned in artificial splendour to receive her guests.

I asked Lockwood not to prosecute her son again because I wished the mother should be spared further agony. My appeal was in vain, and Wilde was convicted at the second trial. Two of his plays were running in London when he was sentenced. The author’s name was withdrawn from the placards.

When Lord Russell died, Lockwood came to me to mourn. The two lawyers were linked by many ties. Russell was Lockwood’s leader at The Times Commission, and had sat at The Hague Tribunal before which Lockwood argued in the dispute with Venezuela. There the British claim depended on the capture of Guiana from the Dutch, but the Venezuelans maintained that the disputed area was originally Spanish, and could not have accrued to Britain by conquest from Holland.

Lord Salisbury had issued an ultimatum to Venezuela which provoked the United States to intervene. A tribunal to compose the dispute was arranged, and the Venezuelan Government employed as counsel at The Hague Benjamin Harrison, ex-President of the United States, whose fee, I think, was £20,000. England was represented by Sir Frank Lockwood, Sir Robert Reid (afterwards Lord Loreburn), and Sir Richard Webster, ex-Attorney-General (subsequently Lord Alverstone).

The territory was ill-defined by maps, and Benjamin Harrison, to get evidence, went to Spain to visit the Jesuit monasteries. There he came on letters from the Carib coast (claimed by England) which were sent by Spanish missionaries to their Mother-house. The Caribs were a ferocious tribe, and Harrison produced to the Tribunal copies of these letters which created intense interest. Lockwood told me they were couched in strains like this:

Reverend Father, -

“We grieve to tell you that Padre --- when attempting to minister to the Caribs yesterday, was deprived of his legs and arms, and has only a few hours to live. Send us at once another priest to take his place.”

Your brother in J.C.

Letter after letter of the same import was read by Harrison with dramatic skill. Each showed that the Carib soil was not colonized by Dutch Protestants, but by Spanish Catholics.

As he reached the last despatch depicting the tortured martyrdom of a priest, he fastened his gaze on Russell, murmuring in a broken voice a thrilling but simple peroration: “Thus unflinchingly the soldiers of the Cross went forward on their mission, regardless of suffering, mutilation, or death. Were they Spanish Catholics or Dutch Calvinists?” Lockwood said to me: “I saw tears streaming down Russell’s cheeks, and felt that England’s claim to a territory depending on a Dutch pedigree was no more.”

Thirty years later an Irish administrator of what is indisputably British Guiana (Sir Joseph Nunan) was commended by the Colonial Office (1925) for suggesting the importation of Hindus to colonize its empty expanses.

Russell, however, was not always open to reason. A colleague of ours, P. A. Chance, an earnest parliamentarian, interested himself, while Russell was Attorney-General, in the Behring Sea Fisheries Bill, and objected to one of its clauses on the ground of an error in latitude or longitude. Russell replied testily, pouring scorn on the ignorance of a Dublin solicitor.

Sir Richard Webster, ex-Attorney-General, sat listening, and rose to say that Chance was right, and Russell wrong, adding that it was not possible the Bill should go through with such a blot. Russell then accepted Chance’s amendment.

One dull Wednesday (then a private members’ day) Russell came into the news-room of the House of Commons, occupied only by myself and an old Tory member. He tore down from the racks newspaper after newspaper, and then fiercely exclaimed, “Damn it! Isn’t there anything here to tell me what has won the Cambridgeshire?

He once won the Oaks with a mare which was not entered in his name, and Labouchere said the bookmakers paid him by deducting his more ancient liabilities from his bets. According to Labby, on the day of Russell’s triumph over Pigott he went to a betting house which was raided by the police and only escaped by climbing down the rainspout.

A snap division on “cordite” brought down the Rosebery Government in June, 1895, and installed Lord Salisbury as Premier.

Gerald Balfour became Chief Secretary for Ireland in succession to Morley.

I wrote Maurice:

Dublin,

4th June, 1895.

“I telegraphed J. E. O’Doherty yesterday to ask would he take the Bill with a £4 franchise, and he replied, “Take what you can get.” Therefore, as the Bill is largely one which concerns Derry, and as the £4 franchise would be harmless in Sligo, Limerick, Cork, Dublin; Drogheda, Wexford, Clonmel, I think it better, for the sake of getting the machinery of revision, that it should be passed. We shall have to take whatever the Lords offer us.

Ulster priests have been pressing the Cardinal to become a kind of umpire between the “bounders” and ourselves. Canon Coyne has gone to Carlingford to see His Eminence, and ask him would he assemble his episcopal colleagues. William Murphy opposes anything of the kind. Yet we have few candidates, and have been caught at a great disadvantage by the suddenness of the Dissolution. Murphy says they will “knife “you in Cork, and that you are a fool to stand there.”

The Irish “leaders” then connived at the shelving of the Franchise Bill by the Lords, though a threat to block the business of the incoming Ministry before the elections would have saved it. Instead of threatening, they promised to give Government business a free passage in the Commons, and the writs were soon out for the General Election. This was done to prevent my having the credit of making the Irish Municipal Franchise the same as that of England.

During the elections M.P.’s sharing my opinions were opposed and several were ousted. The cause of difference between us and the “leaders” was that, in private councils, we resisted the policy acquiesced in by the majority of the Party after Mr. Gladstone’s resignation. I resented Lord Rosebery’s speech on becoming Prime Minister (12th March, 1894) with its pallid allusions to Home Rule and the enunciation of the doctrine of the “predominant partner.” Besides, Sir William Harcourt’s Budget increased taxation on Irish products, and imposed death duties which clapped another half-million a year on Ireland without any political gain accruing beyond the gift of small jobs to the relatives of some M.P.’s.

As the Party perished in 1918, other things which helped to destroy it may be glanced at. To explain the uprise of the Sinn Fein movement, it should be stated that the Party treasurer, the late J. F. X. O’Brien, M.P., Secretary to the Parliamentary Committee, issued a circular on the 22nd August, 1894, appealing to the Rosebery administration for subscriptions to maintain Irish members.

A protest against my supposed acquiescence in this reached me from B. Molloy, M.P., and in the Freeman of Monday, 3rd September, 1894, I published a disclaimer:

The Freeman wrote:

“Mr. Gladstone’s money is as welcome and as lucky in the National Treasury as Mr. Cecil Rhodes’s.”

J. F. X. O’Brien three times publicly denied that he issued the circular. This misled Messrs. Dillon, William O’Brien and Davitt into confirmations of his denials. Wm. O’Brien, indeed, scouted the possibility that any of his colleagues “had behind his back been guilty of such incredible baseness.” Yet the “baseness” had taken place.

Previous to this, Sexton had moved in the House of Commons “that it was a gross and scandalous breach of privilege” to allege that the Irish Party received money from the Liberals. Gladstone was then Prime Minister, and Sexton declared, “Neither to the Government of this country, nor to any rich partisan, has any member of this Party ever been in~ebted for one penny, nor ever will be.”

On the 10th September, 1894, J. F. X. O’Brien, M.P., telegraphed from Dover to the Freeman:

“Notwithstanding clear explanation in last Thursday’s Freeman of origin of circular under heading “Mr. Gladstone’s Cheque,” Mr. T. D. Sullivan, in Friday’s issue, includes “two or three of our members ” among those who have “done the mischief.” Though circular was issued in my name neither I nor any other member of our Party had anything to do with drafting, signing or distributing it. Mr. Sullivan’s statement, therefore, is entirely unfounded.”

Yet after a statement so emphatic he next wrote to the Freeman humbly confessing that he not only signed it, but corrected the draft, or proof. To cloak this disaster, Justin McCarthy was prevailed on to summon his colleagues to meet in Dublin on rath November, ‘894, and they by majority declared that the circular was “the blunder of a clerk.” It was further resolved that no M.P. should contradict this taradiddle, or even discuss it,

Prior to the “incredible baseness” of the circular, a still more incredible transaction took place. On the 19th June, 1894, the Hon. Edward Blake, M.P., who had been Liberal leader in Canada, was instructed by the Committee of the Party (in my absence and without my knowledge) to write to the Ulster adviser of the Rosebery Government, T. A. Dickson, M.P., P.C., agreeing to make over four Northern seats to the Liberals, although in N. Tyrone and Fermanagh a Nationalist majority existed. Blake’s letter set forth:

“We are unable this year to recommend to the executive a subvention towards the registration expenses in North Tyrone, South Tyrone, North Derry and South Derry, in which Divisions, it is understood that Liberal Home Rulers (not members of the Irish Nationalist Party) shall be candidates.

It is understood that a large amount of the preliminary work of registration was borne by the branches of the Home Rule Federation last year, and that the remainder was done under arrangements made, and funds provided by your good offices. The Committee, being unable to recommend funds for this purpose, requested me to see Mr. Ellis [Liberal Whip] to explain the situation to him, and I pointed out the importance to the Liberals, as well as to ourselves, of their fighting the four seats, and the appropriateness of his making provision for the payment of, say, £200 in addition to any other provision contemplated in this regard, so as to fill up the deficit occasioned by our inability to contribute any money to registration work in these Divisions.

I saw Mr. Ellis accordingly, and stated the case to him. He expressed his goodwill and his anxiety to meet, as far as possible, our view, and promised to consider the matter fully, and he asked me when writing to you to say that he would be glad to hear from you fully as to the registration expenses in these four Divisions, and that he would await your letter before further consultation. May I, therefore, express the hope that you will write to me without delay?

If the suggested arrangement is carried out, then, apart from the voluntary work to be done by the local branches, the expense of the register in these four Divisions will be borne by the Liberals, and the Divisions, of course, would be treated as Liberal Home Rule, but not “Nationalist” Divisions-the Nationalists doing all in their power to second the efforts of the Liberals to secure the seats.

Any Committee or organization for the management of affairs in these Divisions would naturally be formed locally under the inspiration of yourself and the leading local Liberals, with due regard to the interest of keeping all elements united.”

This arrangement was kept secret from me, although I was a member of the Committee, while Dickson was not. In 1885, Parnell had reproached me for not contesting North Tyrone. I therefore more keenly resented the trading away of the seat behind my back to people who deserved little from us.

At the N. Tyrone Convention in Omagh in 1895 I objected to the seat being allotted to a Liberal placeman. This was dubbed by the Freeman “The Omagh scandal.”

A satirical comment in Arthur Griffith’s paper appeared:

The Place-Hunters’ Paradise

We have searched back the records of Irish constituencies for 50 years exclusive of Trinity College - and we find there is none to equal North Tyrone as a place-hunters’ paradise. Every candidate who contested that constituency, successfully or unsuccessfully, for 25 years past has been rewarded with a place by the British Government.

No constituency in Ireland - save Trinity College-holds or has ever held such a record as North Tyrone. To sit for North Tyrone is equivalent to an income of at least £3,000 a year. It is the greatest stronghold of the Castle in Ireland - the Place-hunters’ Paradise - the one place in Ireland where 3,000 voters calling themselves Nationalists vote unanimously as the Castle directs.

---

Such comments were fatal to the Parliamentary movement. Yet the persecution of M.P.’s of my opinion became more savage. At the General Election I wrote my brother:

Dublin,

7th June, 1895.

“Attacks excuse us from restraint. Your letter should go out to-morrow and make plain that you and your friends have been spoken of as “self-seeking liars.” State that you have never had a shilling from the Party even for travelling expenses, and have no intention of supporting insults without cause. Dillon is going to Tyrone to-morrow to oust Mat Kenny, and I am, at Kenny’s request, attending there. I am going to Monaghan on Monday, and Dundalk on Tuesday.”

Dublin,

8th June, 1895.

“I have just returned from Omagh, where Dillon presided over the Tyrone Convention. The priests were on “retreat” and a lot of bogus branches from South Tyrone and Mid Tyrone were assembled to oust Mat Kenny.

Reynolds would not go on, and they adopted a decent man instead of Kenny, whom I met last night, and whom they never saw, named Murnaghan, on the recommendation of Father Rock, the County delegate. They didn’t even pass a vote of thanks to the outgoing members. I read Blake’s letter and Dillon was livid with rage, and hadn’t a word to reply. He is organizing South Monaghan against O’Driscoll, where they are holding a convention to-morrow at Carrickmacross. All intelligent men are with us, but the Bounders have all the place-expectants, and it is hopeless to make headway against them.”

Dillon proceeded from Tyrone to Carrickmacross (Co. Monaghan), where his delegates at a handpicked “Convention” succeeded in ousting another member opposed to his claims to leadership. In my constituency, North Louth, I was confronted by a Parnellite candidate, encouraged by the division in our ranks.

In Britain the Liberals were beaten, and the Tories secured 150 majority. When too late, Mr. Dillon complained of Lord Rosebery’s policy.

The gift of North Tyrone to the Liberal Solicitor-General, plus the appeals for subscriptions to the Rosebery administration, rankled deeply in Irish hearts, yet T. F. O’Connor, M.P., on the 15th October, 1895, directed a meeting of his Executive of the Irish National League of Great Britain to be summoned in London to expel me from that body. On his motion, I was unanimously thrust forth. Two months earlier (August, 1895) I was elected by the Irish Party by ballot a member of its Committee at the head of the poll. The vendetta, however, continued.

On the 13th November, 1895, I was expelled by 48 votes to 42 from the Irish Federation. T. P. O’Connor, who seldom visited Dublin, came over to aid in my decapitation. On the following day a meeting of the Irish Party assembled, and despite its vote in August I was removed from the Parliamentary Committee by a majority of six. Only four Irish newspapers approved of this. Twenty condemned it. Neither Sexton nor William O’Brien took part in the “purification.” The “Committee” never met afterwards, and T. P. O’Connor and Dillon were thus placed in control of Irish “policy.”

I now was made an outlaw. In March, 1894, I had been driven from the Board of the Freeman, and by the new eradication was “fired out” of the councils of the two organizations in Great Britain and Ireland controlling national policy, and from the Committee of the Party

A count in the indictment against me was that I had supported William Murphy’s candidature in S. Kerry in September, 1895. Murphy stood on the invitation of the priests of the Cahirciveen deanery, when the “Party” refused to hold a convention in the constituency to “select” a candidate. Finding Murphy in the field, T. P. O’Connor sent over a London ally named Farrell, for whom he drew up a manifesto, signed by Justin McCarthy, which secured his return.

Murphy had given years of parliamentary service to Ireland, and at the Split in 1890 helped to found the National Press. Opposition to him, however, was machined, and he was beaten. His opponent Farrell, decked with parliamentary laurels, was convicted in a London Police Court for selling diseased Dutch pork, unfit for human food, in the Metropolitan Meat Market in October, 1896.

A majority of the Executive of the Irish Federation demanded a National Convention. This was opposed by Mr. Dillon, but was carried by 11 votes to three. The Secretary of the Organization, David Sheehy, M.P., refused to act on the resolution; yet on the day of my expulsion it was decided to hold a “Convention of the Irish Race” so as to dilute native opinion by importations from abroad.

T. P. O’Connor declared that an Irish Convention would be merely a “Donnybrook Fair.” These manoeuvres were a prelude to the enforced retirement of Justin McCarthy, who was prevailed on to resign the Chairmanship of the Party before Parliament met.

After the General Election of 1895 an Oil question was raised in the House by Jasper Tully. Though I helped him I had as little knowledge of “Flashpoint” as himself. The Parnellites had won an election in Roscommon and, to celebrate their victory, set fire to a barrel of paraffin, which exploded and killed many. This was hushed up, but Tully, to damp the spirits of opponents, ruefully described the tragedy in the House of Commons.

He explained his purpose to me beforehand, and I endorsed his criticisms with a demand for a Select Committee to inquire into the nature of the oil palmed off on Connaught villages by Pennsylvanian millionaires.

To our amazement Henry Mathews, Home Secretary, acknowledged the seriousness of the case, and agreed to appoint a Select Committee. Next day Reuter announced that the New York Press chorused alarm. The debate in the Commons took place on a Friday night, and on Saturday I received a long cablegram, which must have cost a fabulous sum, from the Standard Oil Company, signed “O’Day of New York,” explaining that a cargo of paraffin below flashpoint had been exported to Ireland by mistake, and vowing that if this were overlooked there never again should be a recurrence.

I passed this on to Tully, and requested him that, as he would be a member of the Select Committee, no needless injury should be done to the products he assailed. Tully acted tactfully, and there were no further complaints.

Jesse Collings became Under-Secretary to the Home Office in 1896, when questions as to the fiashpoint of oil were frequent. The London Echo used to display splash headings, such as “Death in the lamp,” to help, as he thought, Eastern oil.

Controversy prevailed as to whether it was the “lamp” or the “oil” that led to explosions. Jesse Collings sat for Birmingham - a “lamp” constituency - and on a Wednesday the problem was debated. All M.P.’s arriving at the Post Office of the House were handed a registered letter from Rothschild’s Paris firm. This was in the Baku interest, for oil even then was a live issue.

Jesse Collings got a mauling from his own side for his maladroit handling of the Lamps Bill. Having regard to his former friendship for Ireland, I rose to make a diversion in his favour. I knew, in view of Birmingham’s interests in lamps, that he dared not prescribe a different type, and that the Baku oil owners’ agitation was bottomed on interested motives.

To my mind, it was a struggle between Baku and Pennsylvania. So I began by saying that I had received, on entering the House, a registered letter from Rothschild’s of Paris, and that my hand trembled as I opened it, fearing my “overdraft” was in danger. Every one knew I had no account at Rothschild’s, and this caused merriment.

Members soon realized that the debate was a conflict between the Baku owners and the Standard Oil Company, and that Collings, an incorruptible Minister, was being baited in a conflict between rival interests. He won, and an American paper reported that my intervention saved him, although “Mr. Healy’s integrity is above suspicion.”

Whether this was a hit at the Standard Oil Co., or myself, must be left to the reader’s sagacity.

Healy Index. Home.