To what extent do you think that Charles Stuart Parnell damaged the cause of Home Rule free essay sample

To what extent do you think that Charles Stuart Parnell damaged the cause of Home Rule? Charles Stewart Parnell was born in 1846, and became one of the nost important figures in 19th Century Great Britain and Ireland. Parnell was the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, and one of the strongest forces behind land reform in Ireland. Parnell also was the president of the Land League, and his relationship with William Gladstone, the four time Prime Minister, led to him being a huge part in the Home Rule battle. As important as Gladstone was, this was also a disaster for Ireland in his downfall. He was exposed as having an affair with the wife of one of his closest friends, Kitty O’Shea, and his refusal to back down from leading the Irish parliamentary party split his party in half, creating havoc for the Home Rule supporters, which is why some may agree with the statement as it ruined the chances of Home Rule. Alternatively, his close work with Gladstone and his efforts to unite the conventional and revolutional sections of nationalists means there is controversy over the matter. Overall, although his arrogance caused the Home Rule bill to become tainted, his crucial work in the years previously with unification and relationships means I feel that he did more to help than hinder the Home Rule cause. One of the main faults that Parnell had that hindered the Home Rule cause was his affair with Kitty O’Shea. Katherine, or Kitty O’Shea was the wife of Captain William O’Shea, until he issued a divorce notice citing Parnell as the cause for their divorce. Although the couple were already separated,. Captain O’Shea didn’t want to get a divorce as he knew Kitty was waiting on a substantial inheritance. Parnell was listed as the cause of their divorce by Captain O’Shea, but he did not contest this as it would have lengthened the divorce process and he wished to marry her himself. A divorce decree was granted on 17th November 1890. As if the divorce case itself wasn’t enough, it also lead to his party being split. Most of the Irish parliamentary party was catholic, and it is forbidden to remarry after divorce, so many of his own members were against him due to their religious beliefs. Parnell was actually warned by Gladstone that if he retained leadership it would mean the loss of the next election, the end of their alliance and also of Home Rule. However, Parnell was determined not to concede his power. 73 members of the IPP (irish parliamentary party) met in Westminster, and tried to reach a compromise, suggesting Parnell temporarily retired. Parnell refused,  and stated â€Å"If I go, I go forever†, and blocked any move to remove him, as he was the chairman. Instead of attempting to battle him, 44 of the present members simply walked out, led by Justin McCarthy to form the Irish National Federation. This created rival groups of Parnellites a nd anti-Parnellites. The minority that remained were led by John Redmond as the Irish National League, but of Parnell’s closest associates, Michael Davitt, John Dillon, Timothy Healy and William O’Brien all deserted him. This wrenched the former IPP in two, and crushed the Home Rule cause. After the divorce case, Parnell reacted furiously to a letter between Gladstone and Justin McCarthy, that told how support for home rule would not continue as long as Parnell was in power. Parnell released a manifesto to the Irish that denounced the Liberal alliance, re-affirmed the independence of the Irish Parliamentary Party and personally attacked Gladstone, thus undoing the political work he had spent the previous five years taking part in. Irish Nationalist MPs had a tough choice to make; either stand by Parnell and lose all chance of Home Rule and support from the Liberals, or denounce Parnell and separate from him yet keep his ideology. On the 1st December 1890, a meeting took place between the IP P. The party split, with 37 MPs supporting Parnell, but 45 MPs, led by McCarthy, separating from the Party. A few days later, the Catholic clergy leaders also called upon the Irish to repudiate his position. This arrogance severely weakened the party as there was now no united front on which to fight Home Rule, and some support was lost as this gave anti-Home Rule politicians ammunition against the cause as Parnell gave a bad reputation through his actions. Parnell also refused to agree, and continued with his irrefutable defiance. He participated in by-elections to try and regain power, but was beaten in each by anti-Parnellites. This defiance continued throughout his poor health, choosing to continue with his public agitation rather than keep himself well, even though he was suffering with a kidney condition. Parnell died of a heart attack aged 45 at his home on the 6th October 1891. A final reason that hindered the Home Rule cause in relation to Parnell is that people believed he was in it more for personal gain than for the good of Ireland. Parnell made himself a central figure in Iris h Home Rule politics, meaning that his downfall was even more crushing. He was President of the National Land League, aiming to create a united movement for Home Rule. He was also at the centre of a group of  obstructionists amongst the Irish MPs, which as said by A.C Hepburn, â€Å"impeded the business of the House Of Commons in order to publicise the nationalist cause.† His central role is also seen again in Source 6, England 1870-1914 by R. Ensor, but in a hindering manner. The source reads â€Å"The savage feuds caused by his arrogant refusal to resign tore the Home Rule movement apart and rescued Salisbury’s government.† This reinforces that it was in fact Parnell’s fault that the downfall of the Home Rule cause occurred. This arrogance and determination to be a central figure meant that actually after his downfall he could not be replaced by anybody, weakening the Home Rule cause and the Irish party in general. Alternatively, Parnell did also massively help the Irish cause. His relationship with the Prime Minister, William Gladstone, allowed the Irish politicians to finally gain a voice in Parliament, of which they had never had a chance to before. His obstructionism in Parliament â€Å"won attention at Westminster†, as said by A.C Hepburn in Source 4. Source 5 comes from a speech by Gladstone to the House of Commons, where he outlines his respect for the Home Rule plan – â€Å"I cannot say it is otherwise when five-sixths of its lawfully chosen representatives are of one mind in this matter† – which suggests that there are some unlawful aspects of the IPP, yet supports the constitutional path they have chosen to take. Source 6, by R. Ensor, reinforces that the relationship between Parnell and Gladstone, as â€Å"In 1890 Parnell reached a new peak†, as the Home Rule support was growing rapidly and his working relationship and mutual respect was paying off for himself and the Irish. One of the main reasons Parnell had success with the Irish cause was the fact that he managed to create a united Irish movement. His support was split between the constitutionals who wished to go the legal way to win home rule and improve Irish support, but he was also supported by the more radical side of the Irish nationalists, the Fenians. This put him in a difficult position on some decisions as it meant he may lose the support of one side, but overall this unification brought success. For example, having the radicals on side showed that he had a good relationship with them, which suggested that he may be able to help Gladstone control them so that they weren’t as much as threat to the crown. Source 4 states â€Å"and amongst ex-Fenians in Irish-America who had nothing but contempt for constitutional  nationalism† which emphasises his influence, as even though the Fenians didn’t tend to use constitutional methods to try and achieve their aims, they supporte d Parnell and his methods. Source 5 implies that the speaker is not convinced by Parnell, as the source says â€Å"I cherish the hope that this is not merely a lesser evil, but may prove to be good in itself† suggests that the speaker is not confident about their alliance totally. This is surprising as Source 5 comes from William Gladstone, Parnell’s political ally, so you would not expect Gladstone to show a lack of confidence publically. Source 6 agrees that Parnell created a united movement, but also believes that he ruined it as well as creating it – â€Å"the disclosure of Parnell’s personal life brought down his career and his cause† – through his involvement in an affair with Kitty O’Shea. Overall I feel that although Parnell was a huge damage to Home Rule after he split the party and brought a poor reputation on the Irish Parliamentary Party, without Parnell there would have been no strong case for Home Rule, as predecessors lacked his charisma, drive, and support from many areas of society, both British and Irish. If it was not for his defiance and early death, then Parnell may have led Ireland to success with more than just Home Rule.