Ireland's struggle for freedom from English rule and domination has clouded the nations' history for the past several hundred years. Even today, Northern Ireland is still widely split over the popular desire for independence from England. During the late nineteenth century, Charles Stewart Parnell dedicated his life towards furthering the nationalist cause of Ireland. His underlying aims and intentions, as an Irish member of the English Parliament and as a national leader in his home country, have always been and will likely remain something of a debate. Family history and his experiences as a youth greatly affected the direction he gave to his entire life. This background combined with his singular personal nature produced amazing effects among the Irish people he led and the English people he manipulated throughout his political career; he confidently and defiantly took unheard of liberties in the English Parliament. Unfortunately, he never truly belonged among the people whose cause he dedicated his life to; his position among them was, in fact, largely dependent on his aloof nature. However, as much as this distance helped him throughout his career, it hurt him later in his career. In spite of wide public support, he had stepped on too many toes on his way to the top, and his adversaries did everything possible to discredit him. After being irrevocably linked to a shocking scandal, he was not able to maintain his hold over the government, and he eventually fell from power. Although his legal measures had very little success in furthering Home Rule or in altering Ireland's position in English politics and regardless of his intentions towards either the English or the Irish nations, Charles Stewart Parnell did upset the English political world which gave the Irish people the hope they needed to unite and work toward political freedom from England.
According to the biography written on Parnell by Barry O'Brian, who deemed himself a close friend of Parnell's in the extent that he had friends at all, the Parnell family may have been purely English in lineage, considering Parnell's ancestors came from Cheshire; but, even as landed English gentry in Ireland, his family held a thoroughly Irish perspective on political matters. His family had a strong history of support for Irish nationalism; his great-grand father, for example, resigned his office as Chancellor of the Irish parliament because he refused to be forced to vote for the Act of Union. This opposition stated that his position was "Ireland for Ireland's sake." These opinions and "Fenian sympathies" molded his thinking and they enabled the English to "justify" ruthless acts against his family. While at Cambridge, where he was looked down on for being Irish, Parnell learned that the English had searched his family's home in Wicklow and invaded even his mother's bedroom -- an outrage in his mind, under the suspicion that the family might be hiding Fenian weapons. The search produced merely a sword belonging to Charles Parnell, which the soldiers took. He never forgave the English for searching his house and seizing his property. Their disturbing his mother's peace was a heinous crime to him because his mother was virtually the only person he ever truly loved. (Hutchinson 29 and 43)
His personal demeanor before this incident had already been shy and reserved, but, following such outrage, his hatred of the English began to form. Shortly after, a group of Fenians was found guilty of killing an Irish Constable, and they were convicted and sentenced to death. The injustice of this trial and the treatment of the young men outraged all of southern Ireland; however, for Parnell, it was the breaking point in his full grown hatred of England and its ruthless dominion over his country and his people. From this point, at age 29, Parnell determined to go into politics and join Parliament with the specific intention of doing everything possible to disrupt Parliamentary procedure, anger the members of the English political scene, and embarrass the English as a whole.
In response to a speech given by Sir Beach, the Irish Secretary, in which had argued that Ireland, if given Home Rule, would not do anything outrageous such as freeing the "Fenian murderers," Parnell told all of Parliament that he did "not believe and never (would) ... that any murder was committed in Manchester." (Abels 45) His outspoken contradiction to the popular opinion shocked and upset everyone as it would for years after.
A statesman in the cabinet who claimed to know Parnell rather intimately called him "an enigma; but ... an enigma with a key ... the master passion of Parnell's life was not love of Ireland, it was hate of England ... this explains very much." (Hutchinson 27) Although one of the main focuses of his life does appear to have been taking advantage of any opportunity to act on his hate for England, Parnell certainly was not entirely a villain; in the majority of the actions he took against the English, Parnell always contrived the greatest possible advantage for Ireland as the end product of the English embarrassment and frustration. In his own words, "making the voice of Ireland heard in the English Parliament (was) the best way of embarrassing the English Parliament until it should listen to that voice, and also (was) the best means ... to achieve liberty without which Ireland could never be free of the humiliation England stamped on her." (Hutchinson 33)
The singular aim of opposing the English in an effort to make Ireland's voice heard was a major source of his appeal to the Fenians and the other people of Ireland. The key reason for his popularity was that his aims were also his country's aims. His countrymen loved to see the English harassed; in a sense, it was at least a minimal pay back for all the years England had been subjugating them. His attraction to the Fenians was that he would make openly make a stand in parliament directly opposing the English and affirming that he had as much right as any English member to be in the English Parliament, that he represented Ireland should not mean his vote or his speeches were of any less worth. The strange coincidence, however, seemed that Parnell did hold so much appeal when was actually entirely unlike either the Irish Party or the Fenians. Parnell treated his people with contempt which only reinforced his image of superiority and his uniqueness; as such, he was not one of them, but he was their leader. Regardless of his dismissive treatment of his own people, they were pleased with him because he always treated the English much worse which seemed to be all they wanted him to do. "As the detestation of the English for Parnell had mounted, the admiration of the Irish for him had correspondingly increased. No one could see where obstruction could lead, but at least it proved to the world and to the Irish themselves that they were a force to be reckoned with." (Abels 59)
Parnell did not have any claim as a particularly charismatic speaker; in fact, his speeches were too contrived and dogmatically delivered. He spoke slowly and with great difficulty; thus he spoke rarely. Eventually, as a result of his notoriety for obstruction, the English would hiss and make too much noise for him to be audible whenever Parnell rose to give a speech. This reaction, however, served his favor because it gave him the opportunity to "talk without having to worry much what he said" which enabled him to work on his public speaking. (Abels 53)
Aside from his periodic speeches, Parnell was commonly known as the "Great Coquette" on account of his remarkable capacity to remain silent. As a man who was otherwise cynical and aloof, this silence ultimately proved to be a great benefit to his career. Quietly listening to everyone around him taught Parnell, a man who rarely read or studied, "how to deal with men in their common humanity and ... individual differences." (Hutchinson 39) Thus, he learned how far he might go in insulting England and how much the other statesmen might give Ireland to have peace from his obstruction. His silence, however, caused a nearly sensational reaction. Men were intrigued by his silences, and they wondered at his thoughts. Often, fellow parliamentarians tried to engage him in conversations that proved to be ultimately one-sided and only served to further their interest in his enigmatic personality. He was "a kind of pet in Liberal circles ... who never gave back a purr in response." (Hutchinson 41)
His silence extended into the realm of gratitude as well. Parnell had a particular capacity for "refraining from saying 'thank you.'," that made men feel, even after acquiescing to his demands, they had not done enough, which irritated them into seeing how far they would have to go to please him. This attitude extended to his loyal followers as well, although they did not seem to find it any great offense. Due to his carelessness with money, Parnell had amassed huge debts. Friends and admirers raised money for a fund they called "Parnell's Tribute" which they used to pay off his estate mortgage and his debts. He silently took the check they presented him and pocketed it without ever saying a word. (Hutchinson 38)
Parnell, still relatively unknown, was elected in 1875, and he quickly befriended journalist Frank O'Donnell, a parliamentarian from County Galway. The two became allies in their effort to incite the English representatives and obstruct the business of Parliament. The Home Rule Confederation, which supported English Parliamentarians who supported Irish Home Rule, requested that Parnell speak for them on the platform of obstruction, but he declined. Interestingly, however, Isaac Butt, the leader of the Irish Party, was one of the thirteen members of the board, and he later came into highly publicized conflict with Parnell during the proceedings over the South African Bill of 1877.
Parnell and O'Donnell successfully made a combined effort to completely obstruct the progress of the bill by constantly interrupting to "report progress." Sir Harcourt, a Liberal, accused Parnell of "making a travesty of the rules." Harcourt quoted a speech of Parnell's in which he had stated his "policy is not a policy of conciliation, but ... of retaliation." O'Donnell jumped to his defense and retorted that the government was finally being served back some of the injustice it had been forcing on Ireland. At this remark, which openly stated the intention of the obstruction, Butt intruded into the conflict claiming that, if Parnell and O'Donnell represented his Ireland, he would "retire from Irish politics as from a vulgar brawl in which no man can take part with dignity to himself or advantage to his country." (Abels 58)
Parnell, one of the "Seven Champions of Obstruction" who had become heros in Ireland, took this open rebuke, which Butt made before the entire Parliament, and challenged him to a debate over the issue. Parnell told Butt that he did not care whether the English Parliament raised outcries against his actions because he did not care whether or not the parliament even existed "if that existence (was) to continue a source of tyranny and destruction to (his) country." (Abels 60) He blamed Butt for not protesting for Ireland's cause. He made an eloquent an pointed rebuke to Butt that he "should have been only too pleased to follow (him) in anything had (he) led in anything." Parnell asserted that they denounced him because he did "not join the majority in doing nothing." (Abels 60) Butt's criticism of Ireland's political hero ended his career as the party leader; Butt did not even receive a nomination for re-election while Parnell was elected as president of the Irish Party in his place.
By 1880, Parnell had developed into the acknowledged leader of his party; his popularity and appeal made him a major figure-head in the Irish nationalist movement. He had been elected president of the Land League and had even traveled to America to speak to Irish-American immigrants and win their support for Home Rule. English statesmen continually tried to win his favor for their plans concerning Ireland because they hoped his support might help get their bills passed. Parnell considered a proposal offered by Gladstone, and he found the proposal fairly suitable for his country. Together, Parnell and Gladstone presented the Home Rule Bill of 1886, but it never had the chance to pass. The Liberal party divided over its support of the Irish nationalism movement and the Unionist party returned to the majority power holder along with conservatives. The death of the bill virtually ended any hopes Parnell had of passing a Home Rule Bill through the English Parliament. Knowing the Parliament would reject any of his legislation, Parnell introduced a proposal for a Land Bill. He also understood that the rejection of the bill would cause violence and unrest among the people of Ireland which Parnell deplored because he felt it would not do any good in furthering the aims of his country's cause, especially at a time when both he and his country needed rest. (Hutchinson 40)
The violence resulting from the rejection of his Land Bill, the Plan of Campaign, received no instigation from Parnell although the English unsuccessfully tried to link him to it. In this case, as well as several later instances, Parnell's adversaries sought every possibility to implicate him in any possible crime. Letters were forged by a man named Pigott, who eventually resurfaced as a corpse; the content of the letters implicated Parnell as having given his active approval in the assassination of Under Secretary Burke. Judges sympathetic to him formed the "Parnell Commission" to investigate into the matter, and they discovered the forgeries which led to his acquittal. Parnell's response to the entire matter was a trivial denial of any guilt coupled with a vehement assertion of his indifference as to the source of the accusal. He refused to acknowledge the right of the English Parliament to judge him. (Hutchinson 36) Later, his inciting a boycott against English manufacturers resulted in his imprisonment, which only increased his influence with the people because it proved that the English government had finally acknowledge him as a threat to their government and to the security of their hold over Ireland. (Hutchinson 34) Herein lies the key to Parnell's significance to the national spirit in Ireland, although he accomplished relatively little in the world of legislation, Parnell offered hope that they could one day succeed joined each other and put forth enough effort.
Charles Stewart Parnell's star did not shine long, however. O'Donnell labeled Parnell a "runaway apprentice" who had simple used people to climb to the top. He saw Parnell as a dissatisfied aristocrat, and "there's no revolutionist like a malcontent aristocrat." (Abels 44) The idea of Parnell suffering some serious political blow because of his outspoken practices or from even being liked to political subterfuge would not be unlikely. Surprisingly, Parnell's political downfall did not find its roots in his political conduct. From the years of 1880 to 1886, Parnell had lived with Mrs. Katherine O'Shea while her husband, Captain O'Shea, had been out of the country. To Parnell, the closest he had encroached on scandal in his affair with this married woman was in living with her for six years and not informing her husband until after the fact. Capt. O'Shea in fact learned of the affair upon his return home in 1886, and from that point on, he had been periodically threatening to file charges against both his wife and Parnell. Eventually, O'Shea was prompted into action three years later, in 1889, by E .C. Houston-- who had also prompted the actions against Parnell in the Pigott case. (O'Brien, C. 280) However, Parnell felt that because her husband had been informed of the affair and because he had acted according to gentlemanly rules, that he "would emerge from the whole trouble without a stain on his reputation." (O'Brien, C. 279)
Both Parnell and Kitty O'Shea were found guilty in the 1890 trail in which neither was present for self-defense. Neither Parnell nor his party had prepared for a guilty verdict, nor did they expect the Liberal opposition on the point of Parnell's morals. Worse, the party had made no preparations in the event that it might lose Parnell's leadership. In the initial few months following the trial, he retained public and party support. The public would never doubt his word, and his party would stick by him. (O'Brien, C. 281) However, none of them counted on the strong influence of the Catholics in Ireland. The Catholics, along with Michael Davitt who had been Parnell's closest friend, became his most bitter foes. (Abels 7 and O'Brien, C. 283-287) Their initial support before the trial had been on the basis that Parnell was denying the adultery, but they learned that he was guilty and that he had allowed them to be deceived. Finally, Cardinal Manning morally urged Gladstone to repudiate Parnell; this moral dilemma coupled with the threats of Sir Harcourt, who never had liked Parnell, informing Gladstone that the English Liberal party will not work with the Irish Party while Parnell still lead it. The Irish Party met in Committee Room 15 to vote on the Parnell issue, and their vote was for him twice. However, Davitt wrote an article criticizing the party's silence over the moral issue, and a standing committee called on Catholics to reject Parnell. The force of the popular split over the retention of Parnell combined with a letter from Gladstone asserting that he and the English Liberal Party could not morally continue working with the Irish Party so long as it supported Parnell. These two influences resulted, not in the literal dismissal of Parnell, but in the split between the Irish Party itself. The majority of the members in Committee Room 15 for the final vote walked out with McCarthy as their leader. England believed it had finally disposed of it biggest political threat in Ireland. (O'Brien, C. 277-279)
Charles Parnell attempted to hold on to him political stature, but he found the struggle too difficult for his failing health. He never successfully passed any legislation in favor of Ireland. Even his platform of obstructed never produced much more than a petty annoyance for the English. Parnell had an long, passionate affair which was part of his personal life, perhaps the only part of his life which existed apart from his hatred for England, other than his love for his mother which itself is strongly linked to his political sentiments. (Hutchinson 43) But this scandal rocked the foundations of Irish unity. He caused a huge split between his faithful followers and those who were outraged at his actions; and that split lasted long after his death. In fact, he died at age 45, only a few years after he fell from his pedestal. However, even those whom he initially shocked with his susceptibility to human desires, even those who had spoken out most vehemently against him before his death, recalled their attack and eventually praised him. Davitt, ten years after Parnell's death, wrote that "to deny his greatness would be like denying the existence of a mountain." (Abels 7) Charles Stewart Parnell best stated the ultimate accomplishment of his own work: "I have shown the country that they have a power which they little knew of ... I intended to do nothing more than to show that if two members can do so much ... how vast and powerful might be the influence of a party of sixty." (Abels 60-61) Charles Stewart Parnell proved to the people of Ireland the there was hope, that they could unite to end English Domination and earn the freedom they had sought for so long.
Boyce, D. George, and Alan O'Day. Parnell in Perspective. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.
Hutchinson, Horace G. Portraits of the Eighties. Freeport: Books for Libraries Press, 1970.
O'Brien, Conor Cruise. Parnell and His Party 1880-90. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1974.
O'Brien, R. Barry. The Life of Charles Stewart Parnell, 1846-1891. Vol. 1 New York: Harper and Brothers, 1898.