Bat by far the most important difference between Mr. O'Brien's
statement on Tuesday, and Mr. Redmond's reply on Wednesday, consisted in Mr. O'Brien's ignoring, and since denying, and Mr. Redmond's asserting, that Mr. O'Brien had offered Mr. Parnell, in the name of his section of the party, an absolute veto on any Home-rule Bill or any other legislative measure which Mr. Gladstone might propose as a settlement of the Irish Question. Such a veto would, as Mr. Redmond very truly says, have made Mr. Parnell still the Irish Dictator; and of course, if that was to be given him, his removal from the headship of the Parliamentary party would be a mere matter of form, a diplomatic concession to Mr. Gladstone's demand and to the scruples of the Nonconformists which would have been robbed of all substantial meaning. With such a veto, all the Irish negotiations with Mr. Gladstone must have been submitted to Mr. Parnell for his adhesion; and though they might have been submitted to him through Mr. O'Brien and not directly, Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues would have been really as much at Mr. Parnell's mercy as before. If these conditions were really offered, it is clear that the whole negotiations were undertaken by Mr. O'Brien for the purpose, not of satisfying Mr. Gladstone's conditions, but of hoodwinking him with the idea that his conditions had been satisfied when they had not. Mr. Redmond is extremely rough in his accusations against Mr. O'Brien for not telling the most essential part of the truth; but till this veto question is cleared up, we cannot say whether his wrath is justified or affected.
Previous page
