Page:Last Will and Testament of Cecil Rhodes.djvu/143

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
HIS CORRESPONDENCE.
129

the question, and as I believe that the action of the Irish party on the basis which you have stated will lead, not to disintegration, but really to a closer union of the Empire, making it an Empire in reality, and not in name only, I am happy to offer a contribution to the extent of £10,000 to the funds of your party. I am also authorised to offer you a further sum of £1,000 from Mr. John Morrogh, an Irish resident in Kimberley, South Africa.—Believe me, yours faithfully, C. J. Rhodes.

P.S.—I herewith enclose a cheque for £5,000 as my first instalment.

A year after this, Mr. Parnell went down to Hawarden to settle the details of the next Home Rule Bill with Mr. Gladstone. In the beginning of 1890 he wrote to Mr. Rhodes to say that the retention of the Irish Members at Westminster had been agreed upon, but that Mr. Gladstone insisted on reducing the representation in order to conciliate English public opinion. Mr. Rhodes, characteristically enough, had lost Mr. Parnell’s letter, and the evidence as to its contents is a report of Mr. Parnell’s speech in 1891.

When the unfortunate breach between Mr. Parnell and the majority of the Irish Party took place at the beginning of 1891, Mr. Parnell so far forgot the rôle which he had marked out for himself as to address to a meeting at Navan a declaration that “some day or other, in the long-distant future, someone might arise who may have the privilege of addressing you as men of Republican Meath.” Mr. Rhodes, on seeing a report of this speech, at once wrote to expostulate with Mr. Parnell, pointing out how inconsistent was this declaration about Republican Meath with the loyal maintenance of Imperial unity on a federal basis. Instead of resenting being thus recalled to the letter of his contract, Mr. Parnell wrote promptly and admitted his mistake. He said he regretted the words he had used; he had gone further than he intended, and, as a matter of fact, the words in question were contradicted by other passages of the same speech, as, for example, when he said: “We are willing