Charles Stewart Parnell – M.P. for Meath 1875 -1891
Charles Stuart Parnell was nominated
as the official Home Rule
candidate for Meath in 1875,
in the Study Hall of
St Finian’s Academy Navan.
By his argument and personal charm he had managed to secure the support of the Bishop of Meath, Dr. Nulty, who was instrumential in
securing his nomination as a candidate.
On April 5th 1875 Parnell visited Navan,
where he was well received.
He told the assembled voters he would support fixity of tenure and fair rents for tenant farmers.
He said-
“This country will rule her affairs, and make her laws, and that is what I understand by Home Rule.”
In April 1875, when the results were announced, Parnell topped the poll with 1771 votes; J.L. Naper (Tory) got 902 votes and J.T. Hinds (Independent Home Rule) received 138 votes.
Parnell joined the Obstruction group of Irish M.P.s in Westminister, and when Isaac Butt died in 1879, Parnell replaced him as leader of the Irish Home Rule Party. Parnell saw the importance of the Land Question and saw how it could win support for the Home Rule Party.
To properly appreciate the following extracts from The Times one should first read about Parnell in books such as Charles Stewart Parnell, by FSL Lyons 1977 or Enigma: A New Life of Charles Stewart Parnell by Paul Bew 2011 and others. Navan is not mentioned in these two publications.
Parnell and Meath is dealt with comprehensively in Divine Right? The Parnell Split in Meath by David Lawlor 2007. This has plenty of references to Navan but The Times is not a primary source. Read the following extracts in conjunction with Davis Lawlor’s book.
*******
We have not reproduced the speeches which dealt with national issues – Home Rule and Landlord and Tenant.
London Times, 29 Sept 1877 Our Dublin correspondent writes:
Mr. Parnell paid a visit to Navan on Monday afternoon and met with an enthusiastic reception. He went in compliance with an invitation to deliver a lecture to the Young Men’s Association of that town, upon the comprehensive subject of “Ireland in the Past, the Present and the Future” but the chief object of his journey from Greenock where he had been on Saturday evening, was to meet his constituents and repeat to them his views on the Irish question without having to do so in another formal manifesto.
Some of the houses were decorated with laurel, and rude arches were drawn across the street in honour of his visit. A number of Town Commissioners and Roman Catholic Clergymen awaited his arrival by train, and a band was in readiness, which when he alighted played “God save Ireland” while a crowd which had collected at the station cheered lustily. The Chairman of the Town Commissioners read a long address in which he was welcomed to the ancient town and warmly commended for his honesty and patriotism, his earnestness and ability, his indomitable perseverance as a faithful representative and finally as “a great Irishman”.
The Commissioners observed with satisfaction that neither the fierce hostility of an intolerant alien Assembly, nor the vile abuse of an unscrupulous press, nor the chilling abstention of his own Parliamentary colleagues could divert him from that course of action which his patriotism suggested as best calculated to serve the interests of his country.
After receiving the address, Mr. Parnell took his seat in a drag and proceeded to the Market Square along with his leading friends. The Rev D. Tormey, when they arrived there, addressed a few words to the people, remarking that Mr. Parnell deserved the welcome which they had given to him.
Mr. Parnell’s observations drew forth loud cheers from the audience. He then drove round the town followed by a large crowd. In the evening he delivered his expected lecture. Mr. Ennis, senior member for the county occupied the chair.
A vote of thanks was passed to Mr. Parnell. The Rev. Mr. Power, who moved it, said he thought a policy of earnestness, was the true policy. A vote of thanks was also passed to Mr. Ennis M.P. but the reception was not so warm as that of his colleague, and there were some manifestations of unpopularity.
The Times, 3 Oct 1879
A banquet, at 10 shillings a ticket, is announced to be given to Mr. Parnell on the 12th inst. at Navan and the men of Meath are called upon to come from every hut and hamlet.
The Times, 7 Oct 1879. The Parnell Banquet at Navan-
Mr. Ennis M.P. will preside at the banquet to be given on Sunday next to Mr. Parnell M.P. by his constituents and admirers.
The Times 13 Oct 1879
The meeting to be held tomorrow in Navan is to be “the crowning pronouncement of Ireland on the policy of Mr. Parnell.” So the country is informed by the organ which is most energetic in support of that policy and its champion. It is expected to be of “immense magnitude” and when whose representative character and popular influence are beyond denial will be present and declare the sentiments of the people. It is to be hoped that it is to be the crowning demonstration, so it will also be the closing one, and that after a series of effective scenes and sensational incidents the exciting drama which the same performers have been playing in the provinces with great applause will terminate with a grand display of the whole strengths of the agitators in Navan.
Our Dublin correspondent telegraphed from Navan last night:-
The Parnell demonstration today at Navan was a most effective one in point of numbers. From all parts of the County Meath and from some places beyond it, tenant farmers, labourers and others flocked to the town.
The past week must have been spent on arranging the decorations. Scores of triumphal arches spanned the streets of the town, and in the roads leading to it flags with inscriptions, such as “Tenant right against landlord might”, “Farmers who pay rents they cannot afford encourage rackrenting”, “Home Rule”, “Down with land robbers”, “Reduce the rents”, “Irish lands in Irish hands”, “Welcome to Parnell”.
There could not have been fewer than 20,000 people present. On the motion of the very Rev. Thomas Lynch seconded by the Rev. Mr. Connolly, administrator, the chair was taken by Mr. Alexander Drake J.P., The Very Rev. Mr. Lynch then moved the first resolution … The Rev. Michael Tormey P.P. seconded the motion.
Mr. Parnell came forward, and was received with ringing cheers and waving of hats.
Among the subsequent speakers were…. Mr. Metge, a landlord who has reduced his rents 20 per cent…….
Another correspondent writing from Navan last night, says:
Immediately after the conclusion of the open air demonstration the banquet to Mr. Parnell was held in the Society hall, the largest building in the town, which was profusely decorated. Over 300 persons sat down to dinner, Mr. Ennis occupying the chair, and there being present, besides the guest of the evening, Messrs A.M. Sullivan, J.G. Bigger M.P., M. P. Kirk M.P., W.H. O’Sullivan M.P., O’Connor Power, A.O’Connor of the Home Rule executive. The cloth having been removed, the Rev. Mr. Connolly, administrator for Navan, read letters of apology from members of the Irish Parliamentary Party…..
Mr. A. M. O’Sullivan M.P., said that the order in which the toasts were given – “The Queen, Lords and Commons” first, and then following “The People and Home Rule” exemplified the saying of Grattan that the Irish people were loyal to the Sovereign, but they were determined to be free.
The Times 28 Nov 1882.
Mr. Davitt addressed a meeting in the Market Square of Navan, in language not calculated to promote the security of life and property in Ireland or to lessen the difficulties of the Government. He was received with every mark of honour in the town which he visited in company with Mr. T.D. Sullivan, M.P. Dr. Nulty, Roman Catholic bishop of Meath paid him the marked attention of sending his carriage to convey him from the railway station to the place of meeting, where there was a large crowd assembled……..
The Times, 29 Nov 1882. Parliamentary Intelligence.
Sir W. Barttelat – Before the right Hon. gentleman answers the question I should like to ask whether the attention of the government has been called to the language used by Michael Davitt in his speech at Navan, which language is of a most inflammatory character. At the meeting there were two members of parliament present-the Hon. member for Westmeath and Meath; I should like to know what steps the Government intend to take in this matter.
The Times, 17 Jan 1883. Court Report.
The Attorney general then proceeded to read the affidavit of sub Inspector Charles Edward Seymour, of Navan, which was to the effect that he was present at the meeting at Navan, that he heard Mr. Davitt addressing an audience of 5,000 people, and that he had since seen a report of the speech which agreed with what he had heard…..
There was also an affidavit made by Constable Bernard O’Malley, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, setting forth Mr. Davitt’s speech in full.
Davitt was jailed for six months and released after four months.
The Times, 2 Mar 1891.
Elaborate preparations were made to receive Mr. Parnell at Navan, and at the station he was met by a large crowd of persons, accompanied by bands and banners. The reception was of the warmest possible character, and almost all the shops and houses were decorated with evergreens. At the hotel Mr. Parnell was presented with a number of addresses from the people of the surrounding districts, who came to Navan by special trains. The meeting which was subsequently held was very largely attended, and the proceedings throughout were most unanimous and enthusiastic. The chair was occupied by Mr. Luke Smith, the Chairman of the Town Commissioners. On the motion of Mr. Lawlor, seconded by Mr. Quinn, resolutions were passed expressing continued and unbounded confidence in Mr. C. S. Parnell as the only living Irishman capable of uniting the scattered forces of the Irish race in one compact invincible body and to lead Ireland successfully “to the goal for which our father’s fought and bled.”
Parnell died 6 Oct 1891.
The Times, 2 Jun 1892.
The first collision between the two factions of the nationalists took place on June 1st at Navan, where a convention of County Meath, summoned by the Federationists, was held in the Roman Catholic seminary for the purpose of selecting candidates to oppose the present Parnellite members Messrs Mahony and Sheil. Mr. William O’Brien M.P., Mr. Davitt and Mr. Condon M.P. were present. A hostile crowd assembled outside the place of meeting and hooted when these gentlemen entered. The attendance of lay delegates and priests numbered 400, and every district in the county was represented. The proceedings of the convention were at first private. Mr. O’Brien M.P. presided. The delegates first by resolution pledged themselves to abide by the decision of the majority.
On the motion of the very Rev. L. Gartan, P.P. Kells, seconded by Mr. Sheridan, chairman of Navan Board of Guardians, Mr. Michael Davit was adopted as the Nationalists candidate to contest North Meath against Mr. Pierce Mahony, M.P.. On the motion of the Rev. Hugh Bevan, P.P. Trim seconded by Mr. King, Dunboyne, Mr. Patrick Fullam Poor law Guardian, Drogheda, was adopted as the candidate for South Meath against Mr. Sheil M.P. Both elections were unanimous. It was resolved to appoint election committees in every parish for organising purposes, and for the collection of funds.
After the convention a public meeting was held, which was attended by Messrs O’ Brien, Davitt and Condon. While the meeting was going on a hostile crowd gathered outside the building, and when the proceedings were closing the Rev. Mr. Behan, who had been called to the second chair, apprehending disturbance, advised the delegates to retire in a body from the grounds by a back gate and escort Mr. Davitt, O’Brien and Condon to the parochial house and thence to the station for Dublin. Many of the delegates, not adopting the advice choose the ordinary way to the parish priest’s house amidst continued groaning. After remaining for a short time inside, Messrs Davitt, O’Brien and Condon, resumed their course to the station, and a collision took place between a number of the delegates surrounding Mr. Davitt and the people opposed to them.
At first only angry words were interchanged; but the hostility afterwards took a more serious form. Mud was flung, and in the fight which ensued Mr. Davitt was struck on the left side of the head, and received a wound which caused blood to flow freely. It is stated to have been inflicted by a shop assistant, who approached within a few yards and deliberately flung a stone which struck Mr. Davitt. The assailant was handed over by a gentleman to the police. He was confronted with Mr. Davitt, who refused to prosecute him, and said the injury was slight. Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Condon and a number of the clergy and delegates came in also for rough usage, and had their clothes bespattered with mud. Mr. Davitt was attended by a doctor in one of the waiting rooms of the station, and after his head had been bandaged proceeded by train to Dublin. An angry crowd gathered on the platform, and, before the train moved off, amidst a sense of excitement, those who were returning from the convention were greeted with cries of “We will have no seceders in Navan”, “The traitors must go elsewhere”, and other hostile exclamations.
The Times, 16 Jul 1892. The General Election in Ireland.
A scene described in the Independent will give some idea of the conduct of the priests. Mr. Mahony was visiting the booths yesterday at Navan, when attention was directed to a priest, who lifted his hand and with considerable force struck an old man Owen Reilly down on the stones and grass where he lay insensible. The blow was given by Father Clarke, of Kingscourt, who had been before the door of the booths all morning. A man stooped down and lifted Reilly’s head from the ground, while a number of angry men faced the priest, who stood over the prostrate body. Father Clarke, with hands still clenched, was forced back to the front of his supporters while cries were raised of “arrest him”. His friends shouted that he would not be taken, and the police, who witnessed the assault, did not seem inclined to interfere. Indeed, all their tact and energy were required to keep the two parties from fighting.
Father Clarke now began to offer some excuse for his conduct. He said “The man offered me a gross insult. I did not mean to kill the man. Poor man, I have no feeling against him at all”. The statement was greeted with cries of dissent and comment on his action. Father Clarke added “. I respect the man’s conscience, but he insulted me very grossly and in a very offensive style. I respect every man’s rights.”
(A Voice) – “Then you should not raise your hand”.
Father Clarke – “Wait my dear friend; you must understand that a priest has a sacred character to defend, and my character is much more important than yours. Therefore I cannot allow a man to say that it was a shame for me to come here, that I was outraging decency in coming here and walking up and down without saying a word to any man or offering an insult. I say that no man has a right to insult me in that way. That is the reason of the little strike that I gave him. There is no cause for this confusion. I did not say a word that would offer the least insult to any man”
(A Voice) – “And did I not see you knock him down?”.
Father Clarke – “Because he insulted me.”
(A Voice) – If you raise your hand again, you will feel more than you gave.”
To a gentleman present, Father Clarke gave his name and address, and admitted that he struck the man. He added “Any man that offers me a gross insult, I shall strike.”
A Scotch gentleman who had viewed the scene with astonishment stepped forward and inquired of Father Clarke, “May I ask, Sir, If you are a priest?. Father Clarke replied “I am a priest”. The gentleman then said “I would not have known it but for the clothing that you wear”.
Mr. Mahony, who was standing by said “Will you allow me to say, Sir, that you know right well that no man would like to strike a man of your cloth, and it is a cowardly thing for you to strike that man.”
Father Clarke – “I say I will strike you if you won’t withdraw that word.” Saying this, the clergyman lifted his hand amidst cries of “Oh, no you don’t“. He was forced back by an in rush of people and narrowly escaped violence.
Mr. Mahony replied, ”No, I do not withdraw. I say, it is a cowardly thing for a priest to strike a man”. The police pushed aside the men in front of the Rev. gentleman, who was ultimately taken away by the parish priest. Father Clarke is a strongly built man, above the medium height, and in the prime of life. Owen Reilly is 73 years old grey haired, and somewhat bent with age.
John Parnell
The Times, 11 Jun 1895.
Mr. John Redmond speaking at Navan on Sunday in support of the candidature of Mr. John Parnell, said they were determined now to have the brother of Charles Parnell to represent them in parliament, and they would be successful.
Anti Parnellite Convention
The Times, 13 Jul 1895.
Meath – An anti Parnellite convention was held in St. Finians Seminary, Navan, yesterday, for the purpose of selecting candidates for North and South Meath. A large number of lay and clerical delegates were present. Several local men were proposed as representing the Dillonite and Healyite party, but were dropped and the convention decided to select Mr. Jordan to contest South Meath in opposition to Mr. Parnell, and Mr.Gibney to contest North Meath in opposition to Mr John Sweetman.
Dr. Nulty Star Chamber Court
The Times, 23 Nov 1896.
The Westmeath Examiner, a Parnellite journal, in its issue of Saturday states that another Star Chamber Court at which certain priests of that diocese are to be indicted for holding independent political opinions, is about to be held at Navan. The priests in this instance are in addition to those recently cited at Mullingar. Bishop Nulty has left Mullingar for Navan in order, it is presumed, to preside over the court. The Evening Hearld, commenting on the statement says that Dr. Nulty chooses to make himself obnoxious to the catholic laity of his diocese, and it is apparently his pleasure to play the part of a tyrant over those of his clergy who have opinions of their own upon any subject whatever. He claims infallibility in deciding matters concerning which he is profoundly ignorant….
Undeterred by the exposures of the Meath election petitions, he summoned the clergy who were suspected of Parnellite tendencies to a secret court of his own and held an inquisition into their opinions, alleging the warrant of the propaganda. He has now convened a second court of the same kind. The question, not merely for the people of Meath, but for the Catholics of all Ireland, is whether this scandal has not been too long tolerated. We cannot believe, adds the journal, that the ecclesiastical authorities are incapable of reducing the Bishop of Meath to silence, even if they cannot bring him to reason.
This was the last reference to Parnell in The Times.
*******
Parnell addressed many meetings on the Land Question. Several meetings were held on Market Sq. Navan. At one such meeting in Navan in 1880, Parnell described Lord Leitrim, a landlord as “a scourge of the human race.”
In 1886 Parnell succeeded in getting the First Home Bill introduced. It was defeated in the House of Commons and the Liberal Government resigned. The election was won by the Conservatives and the Unionists. Parnell survived a smear campaign against him in 1887. (see the Pigott Forgeries).
in 1889, Capt. O’Shea filed for divorce from his wife Kitty citing Parnell as co-respondent. The resulting scandal saw the Home Rule Party split. A section of the Party rejected Parnell as leader and the Church authorties came out against him. Michael Davitt visited Navan to addressed an anti Parnellite meeting on the Fair Green. On his way back to the station he was followed by a mob and received a bad wound to the head from a stone which had been thrown at him.
Navan remained a staunchly Parnellite town as can be seen from this report on a meeeting of the Navan Town Commissioners below:
Navan Town Commissioners Meeting – 27 February 1891
At an adjourned meeting of the Navan Town Commissioners held at 7.30 p.m. on Friday
the 27 day, February, 1891. To make arrangements with reference to presenting Mr. Parnell, M.P. with an address on the occasion of arrival in Navan on 1st March to public meeting and banquet.
Luke Smyth Esq. Chairman, presided. Others present Messrs: –
Micheal Rogers, John Spicer, John McKeever, Patrick McNamara, William Lawlor, Peter Finnegan, Thomas Nugent, Patrick Sheridan, Matthew Tormay, Peter Murray, Thomas Reilly, Edward Crinnion
The Chairman explained the object of the meeting and the Town Clerk read the address as follows:-
To Charles S. Parnell, Esq., M.P.
Sir,
We the undersigned members of the Navan Town Commissioners, on behalf of the people of Navan bid you a hundred thousand welcomes to Royal Meath. Looking back on these sixteen years, since you were first elected as our Parliamentary representative, and remembering the priceless services you have rendered to the land of our birth: our hearts are so full of gratitude, joy and pride, that we find it impossible to express in words, our feelings on this memorable occasion, we are grateful for all you have done and suffered for Ireland.
Coming from that class, which for centuries, have not only been in line with the enemies of our race, but have proved themselves, her most bitter foes; whose position in the social scale, would entitle to associate with those, who have always looked upon her sons, with disdain, whose great abilities and rare genius, would command the highest honours and respect from those whose society would be counted by the foremost of her rulers, if you had placed yourself on the side of her enemies; you have stepped down, from that high, and much boasted social position, to stand by the oppressed children of your native land; and thus you have been raised to highest position, which man can attain – that of living in the hearts of a generous, faithful, and grateful people.
Parnell visited Navan on March 1891. The Town Commissioners prepared an address to be delivered to him on his arrival to the public meeting and banquet. The address was proposed by Mr John Spicer:
“We are proud that in your hour of trial….when friends deserted and betrayed you, when you looked around for a friendly hand to help you, we formed for you a bodyguard to defend protect and sustain you…faithful leader of the Irish race.”
Parnell married Kitty O’Shea in 1891. He died in Brighton on 6 Oct 1891, overcome by the strain of work and rejection, at the age of 45. He left behind a deeply divided Home Rule Party. His funeral to Glasnevin was the largest since that of Daniel OConnell in 1847. Two thousand hurlers provided a guard of honour at his funeral.
(Parnell and Davitt were the first patrons of the GAA founded in 1884).
Sources:
The Honourable Member for Meath, Published By Meath Heritage Centre, 1998
Navan by the Boyne, Noel French 1986
*******
PARNELL AND NAVAN
Estract from The Laurel and the Ivy, by Robert Kee
The anomaly between his social background and his growing political activity was well evidenced in March 1875. On the 13 March he was announced as a steward of the Co. Wicklow steeplechases to be run at Rathdrum at the end of April. Among his fellow stewards were to be the Marquess of Drogheda, the Marquess of Waterford, the Earl of Wicklow [his kinsmen] and the Earl of Clonmel. By contrast, only eight days earlier he had written to the Freeman’s Journal a public letter of support for the candidacy at a by-election in Tipperary of a man, still technically an undischarged felon, whose name was a symbol of implacable republican hatred for any form of British rule at all in Ireland.
This was John Mitchell, an Ulster Presbyterian who, as a Young Irelander, has been moved to bitter desperation by the Famine and had at that time openly, though ineffectually, incited the Irish people to revolt, in his newspaper the United Irishman. After sentence in 1848 to fourteen years for treason-felony, Mitchel had escaped from his convict exile in Australia in 1850 and had lived ever since in the United States.
He had remained unchanged in his fanatical beliefs about Ireland, though wary and skeptical of the personalities who dominated the Fenian movement in the 1860s. With intelligent tolerance, the British Government had let him visit Ireland unmolested in the summer of 1874. He had been accompanied by an American-Irish nationalist of extreme views, a Dr. William Carroll of Philadelphia. Observers noted that, though Mitchel was now white-haired, asthmatic and looked older than his fifty- nine years, his eye had ‘lost none of its old fire’. He had stayed with Ronayne, the IRB Member of Parliament for Cork, and on his eventual return to the USA he was to write an interesting report on the state of Ireland as he had found it after more than a quarter of a century.
The country people, he said, were now better housed, better clad and much better educated, almost all the young people being able to read and write. A calm and settled resolution seemed to have taken the place of the former noisy and demonstrative patriotism that had expressed itself chiefly in threats and boasts – ‘no patriot needs to tell them that he is going to lead them in three months to fight the British Army with their naked hands’. At the same time Mitchel found Home Rule too mild a political objective, though he respected some of the men behind the movement. His conclusion was that ‘the force, the power now existing in Ireland is that which is designated by the three mystic letters, “I.R.B.”
This was the ‘courageous and honorable man’ whom Parnell, writing from Avondale, urged the public to support as a matter of ‘the utmost importance’ and to whose election committee he sent a personal contribution of twenty-five pounds.
The by-election was taking place in exceptional circumstances, for Mitchel had already successfully contested Tipperary the month before but had been disqualified as an undischarged felon. His disqualification was seen as a spiteful and insulting manoeuvre on the part of the Government and rallied Irish national feeling even more strongly for him the second time. The Home Rule movement, which had been rather equivocal towards him at the first by-election, for fear of disapproval by the Catholic Church, now gave him its support. Even so, Parnell’s intervention was strikingly personal, for he was at the same time one of five hononary secretaries to a testimonial fund then being raised on behalf of his own moderate leader, Isaac Butt.
But the Home Rule League wanted its own candidate. Duffy gracefully backed out. The Lord Mayor made no showing, but the local solicitor, John Thomas Hinds, was determined to stand as a Home Ruler and as such received the support of the local newspaper, the Meath Herald. The paper, trusting ‘that a stranger would not be imported into the county’, saw ‘absolutely no reason whatever that a Meath man should not represent Meath’. However, it was the stranger, Charles Stewart Parnell, who was first off the mark with his adoption address, which he publishd from Avondale on 2 April 1875, three days after returning from John Martin’s funeral.
The address was immaculately clear on all the necessary points. ‘Upon the great question of Home Rule,’ it ran, ‘I will by all means seek the restoration to Ireland of our Domestic Parliament, upon the basis of . . . the principles of the Irish Home Rule League of whose Council I am an active member,’ He would ‘act independently alike of all English parties’,.
His next point – a judicious one, in view of the importance of Catholic Church support – was an assertion of the principle of religious education, ‘of affording to every parent the opportunity of obtaining for his child an education combined with that religious teaching of which his conscience approves’.
This was followed by an equally clear statement in favour of tenant right. He would support the extension of the Ulster custom to the rest of Ireland, with the object of securing to the tenant ‘continuous occupation at fair rents’. He also called for ‘a complete and unconditional Amnesty’ for all prisioners suffering for taking part in Irish political movements.
As before, he reminded voters of his ancestor “Sir John Parnell, in the old Irish Parliament’, and of his grandfather, Sir Henry Parnell, ‘who rendered in the British Parliament services to the cause of Catholic Emancipation and of Ireland which the Irish people have not forgotten’. He again wound up with the words with which he had ,concluded his address to the electors of Dublin the year before: ‘If you adopt me, I will endeavour, and I think I can promise, that no act of mine will ever discredit the name which has been associated with these recollections.’
But he had not yet been adopted. His rival Hind’s address covered the same political points but in a few words only, and with a total lack of personal style. Only in the phrase ‘Home Rule at Least’ did he imply that he might be standing for something more than Parnell’s mere domestic parliament.
The Meath Herald continued to call upon Parnell to withdraw. But he had the advantage not only of a famous name but of political experience the previous year. The resources of the Home Rule League were put behind him, and by Sunday 11 April 1875 he was emerging clearly as the popular candidate.
On the evening of that day he went to Kells and received an unexpectedly large ovation from the crowd. After addressing them he was carried on their shoulders to his carriage accompanied by enthusiastic cheering and the strains of a brass band playing national airs. He and his party were then able to drive only a short way before the crowd removed the horse from the traces and drew the vehicle themselves. There was a final chorus of ‘God Save Ireland!’, the song written to the tune of ‘Tramp, Tramp, Tramp, the boys are marching’ to ensure the cry of Fenian prisioners condemned to death for the Manchester shooting in 1867. ‘Kells’, wrote the Nation afterwards, ‘lit the fire and the whole county quickly caught flame.’
The next day, Monday 12 April 1875 a great county rally held at Navan came out unanimously in favour of Parnell as the official Home Rule candidate. A procession with bands and banners marched through the town from the railway station, with Parnell himself, a ‘slight, handsome delicate-looking figure’, accompanied by a party of political dignitaries who had come up on the morning train from Dublin.
His great-grandfather’s time-worn Volunteer flags from Avondale were carried before him. At a big open-air meeting at which more than thirty priests sat on the platform, one of them contrasted the inadequate political enthusiasm of Mr. Hinds in the past with ‘Mr. Parnell . . . to those lineage they could look with pride, whose honesty and goodness shone from his very face’, Ireland, he declared, was growing young again.
Another speaker reminded the crowd that, though in Parnell they were advocating the cause of a landlord, he was a landlord who, like his father before him, had never evicted a tenant or changed the rent roll of his estate. This, the speaker claimed, was more than could be said of the great majority of landed proprietors in Ireland.
Parnell was adopted with acclamation, and came forward to the immense cheering to thank the crowd. His speech revealed a noticeable improvement in political grasp since the electioneering of the year before. He concentrated at once on the issue that appealed primarily to the electors of a great farming county like Meath – that of the relationship between landlord and tenant – and he spoke in clear, radical terms.
He attacked Gladstone’s Land Act of 1870, saying that he had not given the slightest protection to the tenantry over three-quarters of Ireland. Speaking as a landlord, he declared that the tenant as well as the landlord had property in the land, and that a bill was required to define the tenants’ interest and to protect it. In and out of Parliament, he said, he would support ‘fixity of tenure and fair rents’.
On Home Rule he said, with questionable hyperbole, that ‘since I first could think I had the principles of the movement ever fixed in my heart, for I always believed that the day would come whrn the voice of the people in this country would rule her affairs and make her laws and that was what I understand by Home Rule. [Applause.] . . . England should remember the example set by the American colonies, and bear in mind that if she refuse to Ireland what here people demand as a right, the day would come when Ireland would have her opportunity in England’s weakness . . . [Applause.] This seemed to be suggesting that something rather more than a mere domestic parliament could one day be the final goal.
That England’s difficulty was Ireland’s opportunity was a favourite IRB slogan. The adroit blurring of eighteenth-century ‘patriot’ nationalism and mid-nineteenth-century Fenian talk into a rhetorical whole was his first public hint of something he was to keep in reserve in his mind for the rest of his life: a refusal in the last resort to commit himself to a limit to Irish nationalism. Such hidden imprecision was to become part of his strength.
According to the Freeman’s Journal, the proceedings were throughout ‘of the most enthusiastic and unanimous character’. A leader in that paper on the eve of the poll endorsed his candidacy with enthusiasm. ‘Mr. Parnell . . . ‘ it declared, ‘is no convert of yesterday, but a tried, proved and faithful servant of Ireland, and we are confident that his parliamentary career will be as honourable and useful as that of his two ancestors who in the old times upheld the Irish cause in our own and the Imperial Parliaments’.
It was already becoming difficult to remember that he had entered politics as something of a dilettante.
Intensive canvassing of the county by Parnell and his friends followed the Navan meeting, and other meetings were held in many towns and villages. A most useful tribute to him by the local Catholic parish priest of his home town to Rathdrum had already been circulated, praising his ‘unimpeachable’ dealings with his tenantry and stating that the rents on-his estate were ‘in all cases moderate, and in many instances very low’. It concluded, ‘I believe Charles to be a man of great pluck, considerable promise, and of the strictest propriety of conduct.’
By now the candidate apparently felt sufficiently confident to take time off from canvassing to appear in the stands at Rathdrum steeplechases as a steward, with his fellow Wicklow landed proprietors, on Saturday 17 April. There was a large and fashionable attendance from Dublin. What can have been the conversation in the stands that afternoon about the young squire of Avondale, former High Sheriff of the county, and his eccentric departure into the new radical politics of which his fellow stewards and kinsmen must have disapproved almost to a man? Did they comment on it to him? Did they ask him what he thought he was doing? Or joke about it or protest about it behind his back? Or were they just too embarrassed to let themselves talk about it with him there? All we know for certain is the result of the Meath election, which was declared at Trim in the middle of the afternoon of Monday 19 April.
Parnell [Home Rule] 1,771
Naper [Conservative] 902
Hinds [Home Rule] 138
Parnell’s majority of 869 was larger than John Martin’s had been. The young Irish patriot’, declared the Freeman’s Journal, ‘is at the head of the poll,’ and it went on to state that Parnell had ‘no spots on his record’ and that he was ‘an Irishman – Irish bred, Irish born, ‘racy of the soil’, knowing its history, devoted to its interests’,
In Meath itself, delight at the result was unbounded. In Navan, sprigs of laurel and green boughs were fastened on the fronts of houses. In Kells, Athboy, Slane and other places, bands came out and played national airs in the streets, while bonfires were lit all over the county. Parnell himself was kept busy. Immediately after the declaration of the poll he addressed a large crowd outside his own committee rooms at Trim, and later, after a hospitable welcome from the local clergy, a crowd of some five or six thousand people in the streets of Navan. An enormous bonfire of tar-barrels, casks and boxes was lit on front of the priest’s house where he was entertained, and on leaving for his hotel he was hoisted on to the shoulders of the crowd, carried round the bonfire, and made to give another short address from the top of a barrel before finally retiring.
‘So ended the Meath election of 1875,’ concluded the Nation of 24 April, ‘an election which was of the utmost consequence to the National cause . . .’
No one could then have guessed how prophetic the words would prove.
*******