Charles Stewart Parnell

(b) That Mr. Parnell was intimate with the leading Invincibles; that he probably learned from them what they were about when he was released on parole in April 1882 ; and that he recognized the Phoenix Park murders as their handiwork.

We find that there is no foundation for this charge. We have already stated that the Invincibles were not a branch of the Land League.

(c) That Mr. Parnell on 23rd January 1883, by an opportune remittance, enabled F. Byrne to escape from justice to France. We find that Mr. Parnell did not make any remittance to enable F. Byrne to escape from justice.

Pigott's Forgery.

The argument of Parnell's insincerity based on the facsimile letter alleged to have been written by Parnell condoning the Phoenix Park murders broke down altogether. It had been purchased with other documents from one Richard Pigott, who afterwards tried to blackmail Archbishop Walsh by offering, in a letter which was produced in court, to confess its forgery. Cross-examined by Charles Russell on this letter to the archbishop, Pigott broke down utterly. Before the commission sat again he fled to Madrid, and there blew his brains out. He had confessed the forgery to Labouchere in the presence of G. A. Sala, but did not stay to be cross-examined on his confession. The attorney-general withdrew the letter on behalf of The Times, and the commission pronounced it to be a forgery. Shortly after the letter had been withdrawn, Parnell filed an action against The Times for libel, claiming damages to the amount of LI oo,000. The action was compromised out of court by a payment of £5,000.

Practically, the damaging effect of some of the findings of the commission was neutralized by Parnell's triumphant vindication in the matter of the facsimile letter and of the darker charges levelled at him. Towards the close of 1889, before the commission had reported, but some months after the forged letter had been with drawn, Parnell visited Hawarden to confer with Mr. Gladstone on the measure of Home Rule to be introduced by the latter should he again be restored to power. What occurred at this conference was afterwards disclosed by Parnell, but Mr. Gladstone vehe mently denied the accuracy of his statements on the subject.

Divorce Case.

But Parnell's fall was at hand. In December 1889 O'Shea filed a petition for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with Parnell. Parnell's intimacy with Mrs. O'Shea had begun in 1881, though at what date it became a guilty one is not in evidence. O'Shea had in that year challenged him to a duel, but was pacified by the explanations of Mrs. O'Shea. It is known that O'Shea had been Parnell's confidential agent in the negotia tion of the Kilmainham Treaty, and in 1885 Parnell had strained his personal authority to the utmost to secure O'Shea's return for Galway. It is not known why O'Shea suddenly took action in

1889. No defence being offered, a decree of divorce was pro nounced, and in June 1891 Parnell and Mrs. O'Shea were married.

At first the Irish party determined to stand by Parnell. The decree was pronounced on Nov. 17, 1890. On the loth a great meeting of his political friends and supporters was held in Dublin, and a resolution that in all political matters Parnell possessed the confidence of the Irish nation was carried by acclamation. But the Irish party reckoned without its English allies. At a meeting of the National Liberal Federation held at Sheffield on Nov. 21, John Morley was privately told that the Nonconformists would insist on Parnell's resignation. Parliament was to meet on the 25th. Mr. Gladstone tried to convey to Parnell privately his con viction that unless Parnell retired the cause of Home Rule was lost. But the message never reached Parnell. Gladstone then requested John Morley to see Parnell; but he could not be found. Finally, on the 24th, Gladstone wrote to Morley the famous and fatal letter, in which he declared his conviction "that, notwith standing the splendid services rendered by Mr. Parnell to his country, his continuance at the present moment in the leadership would be disastrous in the highest degree to the cause of Ireland," and that "the continuance I speak of would not only place many hearty and effective friends of the Irish cause in a position of great embarrassment, but would render my retention of the leader ship of the Liberal party, based as it has been mainly upon the prosecution of the Irish cause, almost a nullity." This letter was not published until after the Irish parliamentary party had met in the House of Commons and re-elected Parnell as its chairman without a dissentient voice. A few days later Parnell was requested by a majority of the party to convene a fresh meeting. It took place in Committee Room No. 15, and of ter several days of angry recrimination and passionate discussion, during which Parnell, who occupied the chair, scornfully refused to put to the vote a resolution for his own deposition, 45 members retired to another room and there declared his leadership at an end. The remainder, 26 in number, stood by him. The party was thus divided into Par nellites and anti-Parnellites, and the schism was not healed until several years after Parnell's death.