not dream of standing unless adopted by the popular party in Ross. In the event of a contest, I suppose the popular party are certain to succeed.
I should be glad to hear from you again and to know when there is a probability of Mr. Foley [Home Rule MP for New Ross since the 1880 general election] actually resigning. I presume matters will be so arranged that his resignation and the name of the popular candidate will be announced simultaneously.
It is unnecessary for me to go into my political opinions in writing for you know they coincide exactly with your own.2
TO FR. PATRICK FURLONG, PP NEW ROSS
40 Charlewood St., London S.W.,
29 December 1880:
… I shall not make any move whatever until I hear from you again. In fact, I place myself entirely in your hands and will go over whenever you think it best. I see my name has got into the papers and the paragraphs are, as usual, incorrect …
I presume the expense of a contest would be much the same as in Wexford – if it were likely to be very much more it might cause me some inconvenience unless I had timely notice.
In Wexford at the general election I did everything for my poor father and we dispensed with the services of a solicitor as a conducting agent. I suppose we could do the same in Ross, in which case the expenses must of necessity be small.
I suppose the only chance of opposition is from [Lieut.-Col. Charles] Tottenham [three times elected Conservative MP for New Ross, whose family owned most of the town].
Trusting to have the pleasure of seeing you before long …3
***
Redmond was elected unopposed for New Ross Borough on 1 February 1881. His initiation as Member of Parliament took place in turbulent circumstances. He was sworn in on the evening of 2 February. The following day, he was one of 27 Irish MPs ejected from the House of Commons after news of the arrest of Land League founder Michael Davitt had ignited an Irish Party protest, during which Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone had moved the suspension of its leader Charles Stewart Parnell.
TO FR. PATRICK FURLONG, PP NEW ROSS
40 Charlewood St., London S.W., ‘Wednesday’
[2 February] 1881:
On arriving at the House this morning I found the fight had been suddenly stopped by a ruling of the Speaker of which I fancy we are destined to hear a good deal.
I expected to be able to take my seat at twelve, but a motion for adjournment unexpectedly made by A.M. S[ullivan] on a question, has given rise to a debate which will probably last all the sitting.
In that case, I cannot take the oath until tomorrow. Our ‘chaps’ are full of fight but, I fear, if the rulings of the Speaker are maintained it will be difficult to make a successful stand.
P.S. There is a rumour that the Government intend to suspend Habeas Corpus at once by proclamation of the Queen, which they can do if they choose.4
***
Joseph Biggar MP, Frank Hugh O’Donnell MP and James Lysaght Finegan MP were three of a group of Irish members, including Parnell, elected in the 1870s who favoured the ‘active policy’ of parliamentary obstruction to speed the cause of Home Rule.
During February, Parnell went to Paris to meet with prominent French political figures including the writer Victor Hugo and the Communard Henri Rochefort.
Redmond spoke powerfully in the debates on the Coercion Bill, which passed the House of Commons on 28 February 1881.
William ‘Buckshot’ Forster MP was Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1881.
TO FR. PATRICK FURLONG, PP NEW ROSS
House of Commons,
26 February 1881:
… What is thought of the fight made against the Coercion Bill? I think the great error was allowing ourselves to be suspended while the New Rules were passed. Only for that incident it would have taken some time to pass them and they would probably have been modified. On the whole I think we did as well as could be expected – Parnell’s absence was and is a great injury to effective action by the Party and I am most anxious for him to return[,] the more so as I don’t anticipate much practical result from his work in Paris … I would employ any means against the English Government but I don’t think Rochfort [sic] and that lot can do anything for us and I think Parnell is wasting his time.
I have already tasted something of the anger of the House ... I must say it is not nearly so unpleasant a sensation as I fancied. I had got up quite without preparation and the only effect the shouts had was to inspire me with plenty to say. Tim Healy, however, bears off the palm – I think if English members could they would flay him alive. He is able to rile them more than Biggar, O’Donnell and Finegan rolled into one.
Did you see our invasion of Forster’s constituency – Bradford? It was rather cheeky for the two youngest members of the Irish Party to beard the lion in his den …5
TO FR. PATRICK FURLONG, PP NEW ROSS
House of Commons, 25 April 1881:
… I have been making a ‘provincial tour’ and have addressed some fine meetings in the north of England during last week. This evening I am off again in company with Finegan to Darlington and Hartlepool …
I read with interest your speech at New Ross L.L. and am glad to find our opinions are identical …6
***
On 7 April Gladstone introduced his historic Land Bill that provided for the judicial review and fixing of rents, effectively establishing dual ownership of land holdings in Ireland. While recognising the value of the Bill, Parnell, for tactical reasons, moved a party resolution to abstain on its Second Reading.
TO FR. PATRICK FURLONG, PP NEW ROSS
House of Commons, 9 May 1881:
… I never felt so uncertain about any vote but I think my reasons were sound. I was not influenced by Dillon’s arrest and in my speech at the meeting I protested against connecting it with our action.
I am in favour of abstaining from voting on the Second Reading [of Gladstone’s Land Bill] on its own merits for these reasons. It will not in any way imperil the passing of the Bill and will I think make the Government all the more willing to make concessions to us in Committee so as to secure our support on the Third Reading when the really important division will be taken …7
TO FR. PATRICK FURLONG, PP NEW ROSS
House of Commons, 10 May 1881:
Since I last wrote I have shown your telegram to Parnell and he has specially asked me to write to you …
He is most anxious for the country to support our action, more especially as I cannot see how we can change our front even if it seemed wise to do so ...
We are all in a most difficult and painful position, and it will be deplorable if we have a further secession from the Party.
What is the general idea among those with whom you have spoken? 8
***
On 19 May the Irish Party abstained on the Second Reading of the Land Bill. Fourteen members of the Party disobeyed the Party whip and joined with twelve previous ‘seceders’ in voting for the Second Reading. The name ‘Fenians’ here refers to members of the secret physical-force movement, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), who, in the light of the failure of its 1867 uprising, were split on the question of support for the constitutional methods of Parnell.
TO FR. PATRICK FURLONG, PP NEW ROSS
House of Commons, ‘Monday’
[23 May] 1881:
… I am sure you were pleased and relieved to find how loyally most of our men acted. The few who voted for the Bill I think made a great mistake but happily they are too few to make a ‘split’ …