Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The main way in which the second Home Rule Bill differed from the first was in its provision for the retention of Irish M.P.s at Westminster. Cecil Rhodes played an important part in bringing about this change, both in the way in which he obtained Parnell's support for continued Irish representation in die Imperial Parliament, and in the assistance he gave to the Liberal Party to regain power in 1892. But while most of the facts about Rhodes' only major incursion into British politics have long been well-known, his actions have been obscured; either through misunderstanding, or because they have been considered as peripheral to the more important aspects of their subjects by biographers of Parnell and Rhodes himself and by writers on the home rule crises, and so have been underestimated.
1 The best published expositions of Rhodes' ideas are in ‘Vindex’, Cecil Rhodes: His Political Life and Speeches, 1881–1900 (1900)Google Scholar, and Stead, W. T., The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes (1902).Google Scholar The former is a collection of speeches and writings edited by the Rev. F. Verschoyle, who had Rhodes' co-operation and assistance in preparing the book. The latter, in many ways the best work on Rhodes, was written by the crusading journalist who was the only man with whom Rhodes fully discussed his ideas.
2 Stead, , op. cit. p. 117.Google Scholar Rhodes had originally considered standing as a Conservative for the Bristol seat. Basil Williams Papers, Rhodes House Library, Oxford (hereinafter cited as R.H.L. MSS) Afr. S. 134. Material for ‘Cecil Rhodes', notebook 1, notes of interviews with R. H. Yerburgh and Sir Ralph Williams. After Gladstone's conversion to home rule in 1885, however, he gave even more serious thought to the Liberal candidature for the Dalston seat where the Rhodes family had extensive property, but found he would not be able to commute between London and South Africa where his main business interests lay. Stead, , op. cit. p. 117.Google Scholar
3 Rhodes also had other objections to the 1886 Bill. He believed that the limitations on full self-government that were proposed were in conflict with the principles behind the grant of home rule. ‘I am of opinion that the Home Rule granted should be a reality and not a sham. If the Irish are to be conciliated and benefited by the grant of self-government, they should be trusted and trusted entirely‘, he wrote. He also felt that the provision for the Irish to contribute to imperial revenue, while at the same time they were excluded from Westminster, was ‘degrading to Ireland’ since it ‘was opposed to the first principles of constitutional government by sanctioning taxation without representation’. Rhodes, to Parnell, , 19 06 1888. The Times, 9 07 1888Google Scholar: ‘Vindex’, op. cit. pp. 843–4.Google Scholar
4 Rhodes, to Parnell, , 19 06 1888.Google Scholar
5 MacNeill, J. G. Swift, What I Have Seen and Heard (1925), pp. 264–5.Google Scholar See also ‘Vindex’, pp. 840–1.Google Scholar
6 Stead, , op. cit. p. 118.Google Scholar
7 MacNeill, , op. cit. p. 259.Google Scholar Rhodes did not, of course, become well-known in Britain until after 1889.
8 O'Brien, C. Cruise, Parnell and His Party, 1880–1890 (Oxford, 1957), pp. 266–7.Google Scholar
9 MacNeill, , op. cit. pp. 265–6.Google Scholar
10 The original letters have disappeared, but they were published in The Times, 9 July 1888, probably on Rhodes' insistence to safeguard his side of the agreement. They were also printed later in ‘Vindex’, pp. 843–50Google Scholar (see note 19 below), and Stead, , pp. 120–9.Google Scholar
There are three accounts of the Rhodes-Parnell meetings based on first-hand knowledge - by MacNeill, ‘Vindex’ and Parnell's main biographer, R. Barry O'Brien - but there are unsatisfactory features about each of them. MacNeill was present at the discussions, but gives few details, op. cit. p. 266.Google Scholar‘Vindex's’ account is based on information supplied by Rhodes, , op. cit. pp. 841–2.Google ScholarO'Brien, R. Barry, The Life of Charles Stewart Parnell (1910 ed.), pp. 426–8, gives much more detail. The author was a staunch Parnellite who often wrote articles setting out Parnell's views and policies. But once again, his account is based on information given by Rhodes in an interview O'Brien had with him in the mid-1890s and on material supplied by Rhodes later.Google Scholar
11 For Irish opinion in general, see O'Brien, C. Cruise, op. cit. pp. 184–6 and 189–90.Google Scholar For Parnell's views, see O'Brien, R. Barry, op. cit. p. 374Google Scholar, and Morley, J., The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, III (1903), 305 and 324.Google Scholar
12 Morley, , op. cit. p. 307.Google Scholar
13 Ibid. p. 386.
14 Notes and Memorandum by Gladstone, 8–10 Mar. 1888. Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MSS 44773, fos. 48–9.
15 Gardiner, A. G., The Life of Sir William Harcottrt, II (1923), 148Google Scholar, suggests it was under discus sion before 1889, but gives no evidence. Lord Rosebery was making definite proposals on the matter in 1888, however. (See note 18 below.)
16 Parnell, to Rhodes, , 23 06 1888. The Times, 9 07 1888Google Scholar: ‘Vindex’, op. cit. pp. 847–50.Google Scholar
17 O'Brien, R. Barry, op. cit. p. 428.Google Scholar
18 For Rosebcry's views on the retention of Irish members, see The Times, 15 June 1888.
19 Rhodes to Parnell, 19 June 1888. Rhodes submitted a draft of his letter to Parnell before formally despatching it. At Parnell's request he left out references to reduction of the Irish representation, and also to his proposed donation. The full draft is printed in ‘Vindex’ showing the omissions and alterations requested by Parnell.
20 O'Brien, R. Barry, op. cit. pp. 427–8Google Scholar: ‘Vindex’ op. cit. pp. 841–2.Google Scholar Parnell's attitude was probably not as illogical as it seems since he apparently agreed with the method of determining colonial (and Irish) representation at Westminster, but did not want Irish strength to drop until they had got the settlement they wanted.
21 For the story of what happened to this money and the balance of Rhodes' donation, see O'Brien, C. Cruise, op. cit. p. 267Google Scholar, and Lyons, F. S. L., The Fall of Parnell, 1890–91 (1960), pp. 271–4.Google Scholar
22 It should perhaps be stressed that Parnell's letter to Rhodes gives his general views only. His reservations about the reduction of the Irish members and the desirability of converting Gladstone gradually were given privately.
23 O'Brien, R. Barry, op. cit. p. 554.Google Scholar
24 On 10 March 1888, and during Parnell's visit to Hawarden in December 1889 (see below).
25 ‘He is certainly one of the very best people to deal with that I have ever known.’ Gladstone's Diary, 18 Dec. 1889, quoted in Morley, , op. cit. p. 420.Google Scholar Sec also O'Brien, R. Barry, op. cit. p. 560.Google Scholar
26 There is some evidence that Gladstone and Granville, at least, of the Liberal leaders did not know of Parnell's changed views. See O'Brien, R. Barry, op. cit. p. 560Google Scholar, where Gladstone is reported to have said he thought Parnell was of the same mind on the subject of exclusion or retention, when they met in December 1889, as he had been in 1886. See also Granville to Spencer, 22 Oct. 1889, quoted in Lyons, , op. cit. p. 106.Google Scholar But the donation of such a large sum of money received wide publicity, apart from the publication of the letters in The Times, see O'Brien, C. Cruise, op. cit. p. 267Google Scholar, and it seems most unlikely that they could not have known.
27 As Sir Harcourt, William, in particular, recognized. Gardiner, op. cit. pp. 148–9.Google Scholar
28 Ibid.
29 The invitation was unprecedented in that Parnell had never visited Hawarden before. Hammond, J. L., Gladstone and the Irish Nation (1938), pp. 602–3.Google Scholar
30 Gladstone, to Parnell, , 4 Oct. 1889,Google Scholar printed in Ibid. p. 603.
31 Harcourt, to Gladstone, , 27 10 1889, printed in Gardiner, op. cit. p. 149.Google Scholar Granville to Spencer, 22 Oct. 1889, printed in Lyons, , op. cit. p. 106.Google Scholar
32 For what was discussed, see Notes and Memorandum by Gladstone, Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MSS 44773, fos. 155–71. A dispute later developed over what had passed at the meeting. See Lyons, , op. cit. pp. 100–4 and 107–10Google Scholar, and O'Brien, C. Cruise, op. cit. pp. 307–8 for details.Google Scholar
33 The letter has disappeared but Parnell read it out in the course of a speech during his campaign to retain the leadership of the Irish party in 1891, after having got it back from Rhodes through J. R. Maguire. For the letter (and speech) see The Times, 12 Jan. 1891. See also J. R. Maguire to Rhodes, 30 Dec. 1890. Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. C.27 MSS Afr. S.228, fo. 12.
34 Dictionary of National Biography, Supplement. 1920–1930, pp. 553–4.Google Scholar
35 On the evidence in the Rhodes Papers Rhodes seems to have had no direct contact with Morrogh after 1890, and his correspondence with Maguire is mainly on business matters with political references being brief, general, and rather few and far between.
36 Letter from ‘C.B.’ (Charles Boyd), Spectator, 3 Aug. 1901.
37 ‘Vindex’, op. cit. p. 854.Google Scholar
38 Rhodes to Schnadhorst, 23 Feb. 1891, Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Afr. t.5, fos. 497–9.
39 Ibid. Rhodes' rebuke to Parnell referred to in note 36 above was made in almost identical language.
40 Rhodes to Schnadhorst, 25 Apr. 1892, published in the Spectator, 12 Oct. 1901, and in Stead, , op. cit. pp. 131–3.Google Scholar Gladstone's speech was his famous Newcasde one of 2 Oct. 1891. Rhodes took so long to take up the matter because he waited until he visited England again when he hoped to see Schnadhorst. However, he missed him, and eventually wrote while on his journey back to South Africa when he did not have his previous letter with him; hence his mistake.
41 Schnadhorst to Rhodes, 4 June 1892. Ibid. See also W. T. Stead to Rhodes, 6 May 1892, Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Air. S.229, fo. 7. Rhodes had asked Stead to send on his letter to Schnadhorst as he had mislaid Schnadhorst's address. Stead had done so after making a copy of the letter first. He then replied to Rhodes. ‘I think the fault lies with Mr. Schnadhorst, not with Mr. Gladstone. I was writing to Mr. Gladstone about something else, and incidentally mentioned that you were very much indignant with several speeches upon Egypt; whereupon, Mr. Gladstone wrote asking what were those speeches to which Mr. Rhodes took exception, as he had not the pleasure of knowing what Mr. Rhodes's views were concerning Egypt. From this I infer that Mr. Schnadhorst has never informed Mr. Gladstone of anything that you said to him …’
42 Stead to Rhodes, 1 July 1892. Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Afr. S.229, fo. 7. Stead had earlier featured Rhodes' ideas in the Review of Reviews in 1891. See Baylen, J. O., ‘W. T. Stead and the Boer War: The Irony of Idealism’, Canadian Historical Review, XL (12 1959), 305–6.Google Scholar
43 The Times, 5 June 1893.
44 For example, none of the three works on Parnell that have been referred to in the course ot this paper seems to attach any significance to the matter.
45 Williams, B., Cecil Rhodes (1921), p. 134.Google Scholar This is still the best full-scale biography of Rhodes, written by an author who was sympathetic to him, but even so Williams accepts that Rhodes might have had ‘some such quid pro quo in his mind when he struck his bargain with Parnell’. He has been followed by many others on this point.
46 Perhaps the best example of this attitude is the famous reply made by Joseph Chamberlain when he was asked by Albert Grey what he knew of Rhodes. Williams, , op. cit. p. 136.Google Scholar
47 Spectator, 3 Aug. 1901.
48 Ibid. p. 143.
49 Spectator, 10 Aug. 1901. See also Spender, J. A., The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, I (1923), 202–7.Google Scholar
50 This involved writing to Stead who had a copy of one of the letters, and to Lord Rosebery who was mentioned in the correspondence and whose permission Rhodes sought for publication. See Rhodes to Stead, 11 Sept. 1901, Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Afr. S.229, fo. 7, and Rhodes to Rosebery, 10 Sept. 1901. Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Afr. S.227, B.31, fo. 1731.
51 Spectator, 12 Oct. 1901. The correspondence is also in Stead, , op. cit. pp. 131–7.Google Scholar
52 Among more recent works that follow this interpretation are Poel, J. Van der, The Jameson Raid (Oxford, 1951), pp. 233–4Google Scholar; Pakenham, E., Jameson's Raid (1960), p. 161Google Scholar; James, R. Rhodes, Rosebery (1963), p. 380Google Scholar; Stansky, P., Ambitions and Strategies: The Struggle for the Leadership of the Liberal Party in the 1890s (Oxford, 1964), p. 235Google Scholar; and Butler, J., The Liberal Party and the Jameson Raid (Oxford, 1968), p. 262.Google Scholar
