Cecil Rhodes and the Second Home Rule Bill

Cecil Rhodes and the Second Home Rule BillAuthor(s): G. P. TaylorSource: The Historical Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Dec., 1971), pp. 771-781Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2638106 .

Accessed: 04/12/2014 17:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheHistorical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.161 on Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:04:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2638106?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Histori'cal journal, xIv, 4 (1971), pp. 77I-78I. 77I Printed in Great Britain

VII. CECIL RHODES AND THE SECOND HOME RULE BILL

By G. P. TAYLOR

The Sheffield Polytechnic

THE main way in which the second Home Rule Bill differed from the first was in its provision for the retention of Irish M.P.s at Westminster. Cecil Rhodes played an important part in bringing about this change, both in the way in which he obtained Parnell's support for continued Irish representation in the Imperial Parliament, and in the assistance he gave to the Liberal Party to regain power in I892. But while most of the facts about Rhodes' only major incursion into British politics have long been well-known, his actions have been obscured; either through misunderstanding, or because they have been considered as peripheral to the more important aspects of their subjects by biographers of Parnell and Rhodes himself and by writers on the home rule crises, and so have been under- estimated. It is the object of this essay to reassess these facts and to give more positive emphasis to Rhodes' contribution to the Irish home rule movement.

Rhodes' support for home rule stemmed from his ideas on imperial federation. 1 He believed that the best way of preserving the unity of the British Empire was for the colonies to have local self-government. The freedom from interference in their internal affairs that resulted would mean that there would be no desire for complete independence. At the same time there was a need for greater consolida- tion of the Empire and for the self-governing colonies to share in the responsi- bilities and policy decisions of the Empire as a whole. This would come about, he believed, if the colonies were represented in the Imperial Parliament. As a first practical step towards putting his beliefs into practice Rhodes had, between I882 and I884, toyed with the idea of standing for a seat in the British Parliament, where he would have acted as a member for South Africa.2

1 The best published expositions of Rhodes' ideas are in ' Vindex ', Cecil Rhodes: His Political Life and Speeches, I88I-I900 (I900), and W. T. Stead, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes (I902). The former is a collection of speeches and writings edited by the Rev. F. Verschoyle, who had Rhodes' co-operation and assistance in preparing the book. The latter, in many ways the best work on Rhodes, was written by the crusading journalist who was the only man with whom Rhodes fully discussed his ideas.

2 Stead, op. cit. p. 117. Rhodes had originally considered standing as a Conservative for the Bristol seat. Basil Williams Papers, Rhodes House Library, Oxford (hereinafter cited as R.H.L. MSS) Afr. S. 134. Material for ' Cecil Rhodes ', notebook I, notes of interviews with R. H. Yerburgh and Sir Ralph Williams. After Gladstone's conversion to home rule in I885, however, he gave even more serious thought to the Liberal candidature for the Dalston seat where the Rhodes family had extensive property, but found he would not be able to commute between London and South Africa where his main busincss interests lay. Stead, op. cit. p. 117.



772 G. P. TAYLOR

Gladstone's adoption of a home rule policy in I885 opened the way for the eventual achievement of the aims of Rhodes and the other imperial federationists, but at the same time his i886 Home Rule Bill threatened to frustrate them completely in that it provided for a separate Irish parliament and an end to Irish representation at Westminster. This arrangement would have placed Ireland in a similar position to the other self-governing colonies and given an impetus to their growing separation from the mother country that the imperial federationists were trying to prevent.3 On the other hand, a system of self-government for Ireland which provided for the retention of Irish members at Westminster would have created a precedent that could have been followed with the other colonies. The defeat of the Home Rule Bill and the subsequent Conservative victory at the i886 general election gave the imperial federationists a breathing space, and Rhodes took advantage of the opportunity that was offered.

This came about in a rather roundabout way in the autumn of I887 while Rhodes was returning to South Africa from a business trip to England. Among his fellow passengers on board ship was J. G. Swift MacNeill, a prominent Irish Nationalist M.P. The two men soon got to know each other, and had frequent discussions on home rule, in which Rhodes put forward his views and expressed the fear, which he shared with public opinion generally, that since the Irish had supported the i886 Bill and their exclusion from Westminster they were working for complete separation from Britain. MacNeill insisted that this was not the case. He assured Rhodes that the Irish party did not seek separation but had accepted the form of home rule that Gladstone had offered at the time, and that they would in fact agree to continued Irish representation in the Imperial Parliament if a suitable scheme were proposed.4 Their discussions stimulated Rhodes to action. He persuaded MacNeill to speak on home rule while he was in South Africa, and on their arrival in Cape Town took him direct to Kimberley where he had insisted on taking the chair at a meeting for him. It was on the train to Kimberley that according to MacNeill, Rhodes returned to the subject of an Irish representation at Westminster. He told me that he was very well off - a circumstance of which I had not previously been aware - that he could afford the gratification of his fancies, and that, if I could give him a promise that if in the next Home Rule Bill there was a provision for the retention of an Irish representation at Westminster the Irish party would not oppose it, he would give me ?io,ooo for the funds of the Irish party.

3 Rhodes also had other objections to the I886 Bill. He believed that the limitations on full self- government that were proposed were in conflict with the principles behind the grant of home rule. ' I am of opinion that the Home Rule granted should be a reality and not a sham. If the Irish are to be conciliated and benefited by the grant of self-government, they should be trusted and trusted entirely ', he wrote. He also felt that the provision for the Irish to contribute to imperial revenue, while at the same time they were excluded from Westminster, was ' degrading to Ireland ' since it ' was opposed to the first principles of constitutional government by sanctioning taxation without representation '. Rhodes to Parnell, i9 June 1888. The Times, 9 July I888: ' Vindex ', op. cit. pp. 843-4-

4 Rhodes to Parnell, i9 June i888.



CECIL RHODES AND SECOND HOME RULE BILL 773

MacNeill pointed out that he could not give such a pledge personally, but would pass Rhodes' proposal on to Parnell if Rhodes put it in writing. Rhodes did so, and MacNeill took the formal offer with him when he returned to Ireland later in the year. He reported to Parnell, who dictated the reply MacNeill sent to Rhodes to the effect that he ' was prepared to accept the offer on behalf of the Irish Parliamentary Party '.

Before discussing subsequent developments it is interesting to consider the circumstances under which MacNeill and Rhodes met. According to W. T. Stead, Rhodes' views were well-known to the Irish and MacNeill was used as an intermediary to solicit funds from him for the home rule cause. When the discussions between them revealed 'the nakedness of the Nationalist Treasury' to Rhodes, ' he saw the situation, and seized it with his characteristic prompti- tude '.' But MacNeill states quite clearly in his memoirs that he went to South Africa for health reasons, and that he had never even heard of Rhodes before they met on board ship.7 Then again, the Irish party's funds were not as low as Stead's statement would indicate, and although their total annual income at this time was less than Rhodes' /io,ooo offer, and did not meet their annual expendi- ture, they still had a considerable sum in reserve.8 But apart from these reservations, it would surely have been easier for Rhodes to have been approached in England than for MacNeill to have made a journey to South Africa to achieve his supposed object. It is more likely that the meeting was a chance one, but that from it Rhodes created an opportunity to further his aims. The circumstances were typical of the man, as Stead suggests.

The matter was not taken further until Rhodes' next visit to England in April I888.9 He then had several meetings with Parnell at which his conditions were discussed and final arrangements made for the payment of the donation. The two men also exchanged formal letters, which set out the gist of the discussions between them, and also give support to the main accounts of the meetings which make it clear that Rhodes persuaded Parnell to change his views on continued Irish representation at Westminster.'"

5 J. G. Swift MacNeill, What I Have Seen and Heard (1925), pp. 264-5. See also ' Vindex ', pp. 840-I .

6 Stead, op. cit. p. II8.

7 MacNeill, op. cit. p. 259. Rhodes did not, of course, become well-known in Britain until after I889.

8 C. Cruise O'Brien, Parnell and His Party, I880-I890 (Oxford, I957), pp. 266-7. 9 MacNeill, op. cit. pp. 265-6. 10 The original letters have disappeared, but they were published in The Timnes, 9 July i888.

probably on Rhodes' insistence to safeguard his side of the agreement. They were also printed later in Vindex ', pp. 843-50 (see note I9 below), and Stead, pp. I20.

There are three accounts of the Rhodes-Parnell meetings based on first-hand knowledge - by MacNeill, ' Vindex ' and Parnell's main biographer, R. Barry O'Brien - but there are unsatisfactory features about each of them. MacNeill was present at the discussions, but gives few details, op. cit. p. 266. ' Vindex's ' account is based on information supplied by Rhodes, op. cit. pp. 84I-2. R. Barry O'Brien, The Life of Charles Stewart Par-nell (I9I0 ed.), pp. 426-8, gives much more detail. The



774 G. P. TAYLOR

The exclusion question had been one of the most controversial aspects of the i886 Home Rule Bill, but it had divided English opinion, not that of the Irish, who were indifferent to whether they were represented at Westminster or not. Parnell himself had no strong feelings on the issue, and had accepted Gladstone's proposals in this respect without question.11 Gladstone also had, or professed to have, an open mind on the subject, but had decided to bring Irish representation to an end to avoid a Cabinet split. and to safeguard the rest of his home rule policy.'2 The Liberal defeat in the i886 election and the prospect of seven years in opposition that this entailed meant that there was no immediate need for either Gladstone or Parnell to reconsider the details of the i886 Bill. However, Glad- stone had indicated a slight change in his views in a speech at Swansea in June i887, when he stressed that he had never made the exclusion of Irish members a prerequisite for home rule, and that he was ready to consider proposals for their provisional inclusion."3 Then, in March of the following year, the two men had a formal meeting at which Gladstone put forward a general suggestion that the ' American system' might be considered 'as a possible basis of a plan of Home Rule ', and Parnell thought the idea ' might be made a groundwork '. " By the time Rhodes and Parnell met the question was being considered by some of the Liberal leaders at least,"5 but no positive change of policy emerged until Rhodes persuaded Parnell that continued Irish representation was both necessary and desirable.

As a result of their discussions Parnell accepted Rhodes' contention that the exclusion clause had been a serious weakness in the i886 Bill, because its acceptance by the Irish made it appear that they wanted complete separation and thus antagonized public opinion against the measure. He therefore agreed to give his support to the insertion of retention clauses in the next Home Rule Bill,'6 though he did not think it wise to urge a change of policy on Gladstone. Parnell believed that the Liberal leader was strongly opposed to retention, and felt that he would have to be brought round gradually to a different policy. But he was sure that when the time came for Gladstone to consider the details of a new Bill he would have changed his views.'7 Parnell also differed with Rhodes over the actual

author was a staunch Parnellite who often wrote articles setting out Parnell's views and policies. But once again, his account is based on information given by Rhodes in an interview O'Brien had with him in the mid-I8gos and on material supplied by Rhodes later.

11 For Irish opinion in general, see C. Cruise O'Brien, op. cit. pp. I84-6 and I89-90. For Parnell's views, see R. Barry O'Brien, op. cit. p. 374, and J. Morley, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, III (I903), 305 and 324.

12 Morley, op. cit. p. 307. 13 Ibid. p. 386. 14 Notes and Memorandum by Gladstone, 8-io Mar. i888. Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MSS

44773, fos. 48-9. 15 A. G. Gardiner, The Life of Sir WVilliam Harcourt, II (1923), 148, suggests it was under discus-

sion before I889, but gives no evidence. Lord Rosebery was making definite proposals on the matter in I888, however. (See note I8 below.)

16 Parnell to Rhodes, 23 June I888. The Times, 9 July I888: ' Vindex ', op. cit. pp. 847-50. 17 R. Barry O'Brien, op. cit. p. 428.




number of Irish M.P.s to be retained. Rhodes had taken up a recent suggestion by Lord Rosebery that they should be retained but reduced in numbers,'8 and proposed that their representation be proportionate to the Irish contribution to imperial revenue, which would have brought their membership down from I03 to 34.19 Parnell was opposed to such a reduction, at least until the Irish legislature obtained full control over such matters as the police, judiciary and land policy, which had been reserved to the Imperial Parliament for several years in the i886 Bill. But he did, rather illogically, agree to a further request by Rhodes to support the inclusion of a permissive clause in the next Bill whereby any colony could claim representation at Westminster on a basis of its contribution to the imperial exchequer.20 Then, with the satisfactory settlement of the conditions, Rhodes paid over the first instalment of his donation - /5,000 - together with a further /i,ooo from J. B. Morrogh, an Irish business colleague from Kimberley on whose behalf he had been empowered to act.2'

As has been seen, the formal letters exchanged between Rhodes and Parnell were published in The Times and Parnell's changed views were made known publicly.22 It is suggested that the knowledge of Parnell's desire to retain the Irish members was a major factor in Gladstone's own change of policy on the issue. For, in spite of the fact that their two parties were dedicated to the same basic aim, and Gladstone and Parnell were the sole arbiters of policy for the Liberals and Irish Nationalists respectively, the two leaders had very little contact with each other,23 and apparently had two official meetings only after i886.24 And although Gladstone felt it was easy to do business with Parnell when they did meet,25 this is open to considerable doubt. Parnell was completely detached in his approach to English politicians; he said little and trusted nobody. With his inscrutability on the one side and the tortuous workings of Gladstone's mind on the other, their discussions can hardly have been as satisfactory as Gladstone imagined. Apart from their meetings the two leaders kept in touch through various intermediaries, especially John Morley; but collaboration in this way must

18 For Rosebery's views on the retention of Irish members, see The Timnes, I5 June i888. 19 Rhodes to Parnell, I9 June i888. Rhodes submitted a draft of his letter to Parnell before formally

despatching it. At Parnell's request he left out references to reduction of the Irish representation, and also to his proposed donation. The full draft is printed in ' Vindex ' showing the omissions and alterations requested by Parnell.

20 R. Barry O'Brien, op. cit. pp. 427-8: ' Vindex ' op. cit. pp. 84I-2. Parnell"s attitude was probably not as illogical as it seems since he apparently agreed with the method of determining colonial (and Irish) representation at Westminster, but did not want Irish strength to drop until they had got the settlement they wanted.

21 For the story of what happened to this money and the balance of Rhodes' donation, see C. Cruise O'Brien, op. cit. p. 267, and F. S. L. Lyons, The Fall of Parnell, 1890-91 (I960), pp. 27I-4.

22 It should perhaps be stressed that Parnell's letter to Rhodes gives his general views only. His reservations about the reduction of the Irish members and the desirability of converting Gladstone gradually were given privately. 23 R. Barry O'Brien, op. cit. p. 554.

24 On io March i888, and during Parnell's visit to Hawarden in December I889 (see below). 25 ' He is certainly one of the very best people to deal with that I have ever known.' Gladstone's

Diary, i8 Dec. I889, quoted in Morley, op. cit. p. 420. See also R. Barry O'Brien, op. cit. p. 560.



776 G. P. TAYLOR

have been even more difficult than the direct contact between them. So a positive statement of Parnell's views as represented by The Times letters was much more significant than might otherwise appear to have been the case.26 It can, of course, be argued that since Gladstone had not been influenced by the views of the Irish party in i885-6, or indeed had not even made much attempt to find out what their views were, he was not likely to be affected by them in i888. But circumstances had altered. The Gladstonian Liberals now needed the Irish almost as much as the Irish needed them,27 and when Parnell made such a definite statement of policy it must have had its effect.

In the months that followed the question came to occupy the Liberal leaders more and more,28 until finally, in August I889, Gladstone invited Parnell to his country home at Hawarden to discuss future home rule policy.29 Significantly, in view of what has been said above, he did this before he had had a full meeting with his own colleagues on the matter. Parnell could not go at the time, however, and Gladstone again invited him in October, when he expressed the hope that he and Parnell could have their discussions before he met the other Liberal leaders for the same purpose later in the month.30 As it was, Parnell did not visit Hawarden until December, after Gladstone and his colleagues had had their meeting. By this time the Liberal leaders had all come round to the idea of retain- ing Irish membership, though they were not agreed on whether numbers should be reduced or not.3' And when Gladstone and Parnell finally met, their discus- sion was on the form future Irish membership was to take: the principle had been accepted by the Liberal leader.32

Whether Rhodes (or Parnell) had intended their association to develop beyond the arrangements made in i888 can only be guessed at, but at the least Rhodes on his side was determined to see that his conditions were adhered to, while Parnell seems to have been just as anxious to carry out his side of the agreement. On I8 March I890, Parnell wrote a letter to Rhodes in which he described what had passed at his meeting with Gladstone. The step he took was quite unprecedented

26 There is some evidence that Gladstone and Granville, at least, of the Liberal leaders did not know of Parnell's changed views. See R. Barry O'Brien, op. cit. p. 560, where Gladstone is reported to have said he thought Parnell was of the same mind on the subject of exclusion or retention, when they met in December I889, as he had been in i886. See also Granville to Spencer, 22 Oct. 1889, quoted in Lyons, op. cit. p. io6. But the donation of such a large sum of money received wide publicity, apart from the publication of the letters in The Times, see C. Cruise O'Brien, op. cit. p. 267, and it seems most unlikely that they could not have known.

27 As Sir William Harcourt, in particular, recognized. Gardiner, op. cit. pp. 148-9.

28 Ibid. 29 The invitation vas unprecedented in that Parnell had never visited Hawarden before. J. L.

Hammond, Gladstone and the Irish Nation (1938), pp. 602-3. 30 Gladstone to Parnell, 4 Oct. I889, printed in ibid. p. 603. 31 Harcourt to Gladstone, 27 Oct. 1889, printed in Gardiner, op. cit. p. 149. Granville to Spencer,

22 Oct. I889, printed in Lyons, op. cit. p. Io6. 32 For what was discussed, see Notes and Memorandum by Gladstone, Gladstone Papers, B.M.

Add. MSS 44773, fos. 155-71. A dispute later developed over what had passed at the meeting. See Lyons, op. cit. pp. 100-4 and 107-I0, and C. Cruise O'Brien, op. cit. pp. 307-8 for details.



CECIL RHODES AND SECOND HOME RULE BILL 777 since he made no attempt to inform any of his colleagues in the Irish party what had happened, and indeed Rhodes appears to have been the only person Parnell did communicate with on the question.33 The link between them was strengthened a little later in the year when J. Rochfort Maguire, Rhodes' close friend and business agent, became an Irish Nationalist M.P. and, in the words of his biographer ' the chief connecting link between Rhodes and the nationalist party '.34 He was followed shortly afterwards by J. B. Morrogh who had settled in England as a member of the London board of Rhodes' De Beers diamond mining company. But whatever Maguire's and Morrough's intended functions were, by I890 Rhodes' business and political interests debarred him from taking an active part in home rule affairs, and the two men seem to have played a fairly passive role as M.P.s.3

Rhodes' only other contact with Parnell appears to have been an incident that occurred in March I89I. At the time Parnell was engaged in his back-to-the-wall campaign to retain the leadership of the Irish party in the aftermath of the O'Shea divorce case. On i March he made a speech at Navan, Co. Meath, in which he said that in future he might address his supporters as 'men of republican Meath'. When Rhodes read an account of the speech, which seemed to suggest that Parnell was thinking in terms of a republican form of government after home rule and thereby repudiating their agreement, he wrote to Parnell to demand that his donation be paid over to charity.36 Parnell wrote back to say that he regretted the reference and that he had not changed his policy at all, and that in any case the statement had been contradicted by other passages in the same speech.37

Soon after this incident chance once again threw an opportunity Rhodes' way to further his policy of imperial federation through home rule, and once again he seized it with both hands. Early in I890, F. J. Schnadhorst, the secretary of the National Liberal Federation, paid a visit to South Africa. While there he spent some time in Kimberley and had long political discussions with Rhodes. In the following year while Rhodes was in England, Schnadhorst followed up their earlier contacts by suggesting that Rhodes make a donation to Liberal Party funds.

Rhodes was quite willing to do so. He sent Schnadhorst a cheque for /5,000, but imposed two conditions on its acceptance. One was that the gift should be

33 The letter has disappeared but Parnell read it out in the course of a speech during his campaign to retain the leadership of the Irish party in I89I, after having got it back from Rhodes through J. R. Maguire. For the letter (and speech) see The Times, I2 Jan. I89I. See also J. R. Maguire to Rhodes, 30 Dec. I890. Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. C.27 MSS Afr. S.228, fo. I2.

34 Dictionary of National Biography, Supplement. 1920-1930, pp. 553-4. 35 On the evidence in the Rhodes Papers Rhodes seems to have had no direct contact with Morrogh

after I890, and his correspondence with Maguire is mainly on business matters with political references being brief, general, and rather few and far between.

36 Letter from ' C.B.' (Charles Boyd), Spectator, 3 Aug. I901. 37 Vindcx ' op. cit. p. 854.



778 G. P. TAYLOR

kept secret, though Gladstone could be told about it. And the second was that if a future Home Rule Bill did not provide for Irish representation at Westminster the cheque should be returned.38 He also added a postscript to the effect that he had been horrified by a speech John Morley had just made suggesting that a Liberal government would withdraw from Egypt, and that if this was the case his cheque should be passed over to charity since, 'It would be an awful thing to give my money to breaking up the Empire '.3

The differences between these conditions and the ones attached to his earlier donation are interesting, especially in view of the publicity given to the payment to Parnell and the condition of secrecy attached to the gift to the Liberal Party. But the circumstances were completely different. In i888 Rhodes' main aim had been to get his policy adopted by Parnell and the Irish party. This had been achieved and had, of necessity, been publicly acknowledged. By I890 Rhodes knew from Parnell that the Liberal leaders had come round to accept the same views on Irish representation that he held himself, even though Gladstone refused to clarify the party's intentions in public. With Parnell's agreement to the arrangement whereby the self-governing colonies would also be able to claim representation in the Imperial Parliament, Rhodes could see that a Liberal victory in the next election would make a system of imperial federation possible. His f5,ooo donation to the party's funds was to assist in the achievement of this victory, and the condition of secrecy attached to it was, and is, normal for political subscriptions of this nature.

As with the Parnell donation, Rhodes was determined to ensure that his conditions were carried out, and he became involved in a dispute with Schnadhorst that paralleled the one he had had with Parnell when he felt that they were not being observed. This occurred early in i892 after Gladstone had made a speech which, like the one by Morley referred to above, suggested that the Liberals would withdraw from Egypt. At the time Rhodes' main preoccupation was with the settlement and development of Rhodesia, and the construction of his Cape to Cairo railway. He was therefore extremely conscious of the need for Britain to remain in control of Egypt. But his preoccupation caused him to confuse the reason why he had made his donation to the Liberals. He claimed in a letter to Schnadhorst that 'the question of Egypt was the only condition I made', and that he had asked at the time that Schnadhorst tell Gladstone of his donation, ' and I suppose you must have mentioned the Egyptian question, which was really all I cared about '.40

38 Rhodes to Schnadhorst, 23 Feb. I89I, Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Afr. t.5, fos. 497-9. 39 Ibid. Rhodes' rebuke to Parnell referred to in note 36 above was made in almost identical

language. 40 Rhodes to Schnadhorst, 25 Apr. I892, published in the Spectator, I2 Oct. I9OI, and in Stead,

Op. cit. pp. I31-3. Gladstone's speech was his famous Newcastle one of 2 Oct. I89I. Rhodes took so long to take up the matter because he waited until he visited England again when he hoped to see Schnadhorst. However, he missed him, and eventually wrote while on his journey back to South Africa when he did not have his previous letter with him; hence his mistake.




Schnadhorst replied that Egypt had not been mentioned as a condition, only in the postscript; that the home rule issue had been Rhodes' main concern; and that his donation had been spent on the home rule campaign. He also dismissed Gladstone's remarks on- Egypt as ' no more than the expression of a pious opinion ', and that a Liberal government would not withdraw from the country.4 Rhodes seems to have accepted both the explanation and the assurance.

Rhodes was to intervene twice more in the home rule debate, though through the medium of third parties and not directly on his own. In July I8g2, W. T. Stead published an election handbook in which Rhodes' views on the Empire were put forward as a manifesto. This was done without Rhodes' prior knowledge. Stead wrote at the time,

I thought it was a great shame that you were not here to issue an Address, so I drew up an Address from your letter to me, and from our last conversation ... I hope you will not be displeased with the shape in which I cast your remarks. It has at least one bene- fit - it has brought your ideas more clearly before the public than has hitherto been attempted.

He also publicized Rhodes' ideas in his periodical, Review of Reviews, at the same time.42

Rhodes' final word on the issue came in mid-i893 while the second Home Rule Bill was before Parliament. This time it came through J. R. Maguire, who published a letter in The Times in which he reviewed the Rhodes-Parnell agreement and re-emphasized both Rhodes' views and Parnell's acceptance of them. The letter appears to have been a bid, inspired by Rhodes, to rally the support of the Irish party, now split and without Parnell's leadership, to the agreement that Parnell had made on their behalf as well as being a reassertion of Rhodes' own ideas at a crucial time.43

The Bill, of course, provided for the retention of a reduced Irish membership at Westminster, as did the third Home Rule Bill and the final settlement of the Irish issue that was worked out for Northern Ireland in I920. The change of policy that Rhodes had set in motion in i888 remained a permanent feature of the official British approach to home rule.

41 Schnadhorst to Rhodes, 4 Junc I892. Ibid. See also W. T. Stead to Rhodes, 6 May I892, Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Afr. S.229, fo. 7. Rhodes had asked Stead to send on his letter to Schnadhorst as he had mislaid Schnadhorst's address. Stead had done so after making a copy of the letter first. He then replied to Rhodes. ' I think the fault lies with Mr. Schnadhorst, not with Mr. Gladstone. I was writing to Mr. Gladstone about something else, and incidentally mentioned that you were very much indignant with several speeches upon Egypt; whereupon, Mr. Gladstone wrote asking what were those speeches to which Mr. Rhodes took exception, as he had not the pleasure of knowing xvhat Mr. Rhodes's views were concerning Egypt. From this I infer that Mr. Schnadhorst has never informed Mr. Gladstone of anything that you said to him . . .'

42 Stead to Rhodes, I JulY I892. Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Afr. S.229, fo. 7. Stead had earlier featured Rhodes' ideas in the Review of Reviews in I89I. See J. 0. Baylen, ' W. T. Stead and the Boer War: The Irony of Idealism ', Canadian Historical Review, XL (December 1959), 305-6.

43 The T'imes, 5 June I893.



780 G. P. TAYLOR

Most of the facts set out above have been common knowledge for many years, but Rhodes is never thought of as having played an influential part in the home rule issue. There are several reasons for this which need to be discussed before Rhodes' contribution can be set in complete perspective.

In the first place the importance of his arrangement with Parnell has simply not been taken into account either by biographers of Parnell or of Rhodes himself. The main reason for this is not hard to find. It was Gladstone, and to a lesser extent the other Liberal leaders, not Parnell, who determined the nature of the first two Home Rule Bills. Therefore neither Parnell's conversion to a different policy, nor the fact that it was Rhodes who converted him, has been regarded as being of any real importance whatsoever.44 Secondly, as with so much that has been written about Rhodes, he has not been taken at his own face value, and ulterior motives have been ascribed to his donation to the funds of the Irish party. In particular, it has been seen as a means of obtaining Irish support over the grant of the charter to the British South Africa Co. in I889.4" But the evidence for this is circumstantial only. Rhodes made his original offer to MacNeill in 1887, before he was in a position to make any definite plans for the development of Central Africa. Indeed, the fact that he was thought of as being a 'home ruler' led to a great deal of opposition to his proposals from among the Conservative and Liberal Unionist Parties who, after all, were in power at the time, and might have been thought of as a more logical target for such bribery.46

Even greater obscuring of Rhodes' intentions has arisen as a result of his donation to the Liberal Party. As has been seen, Rhodes himself was under the impression by I892 that the main condition he had attached to the gift was that a Liberal government should not withdraw from Egypt. He made matters worse a few years later when the fact of his donation was revealed for the first time. This occurred in I9OI in a letter sent to the Spectator by Charles Boyd, a journalist friend of Rhodes.47 The editor of the journal thereupon suggested that the fact that Rhodes had made such a large contribution to Liberal Party funds was the reason why the Liberals on the parliamentary committee of enquiry into the Jameson Raid had let Rhodes off so lightly.48 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman then joined in the fray. He said that he spoke both for himself and Sir William Harcourt and declared that not only were the editor's deductions false, but that

44 For example, none of the three works on Parnell that have been referred to in the course of this paper seems to attach any significance to the matter.

45 B. Williams, Cecil Rhodes (I92I), p. I34. This is still the best full-scale biography of Rhodes, written by an author who was sympathetic to him, but even so Williams accepts that Rhodes might have had ' sorme such quid pro quo in his mind when he struck his bargain with Parnell '. He has been followed by many others on this point.

46 Perhaps the best example of this attitude is the famous reply made by Joseph Chamberlain when he was asked by Albert Grey what he knew of Rhodes. Williams, op. cit. p. I36.

47 Spectator-, 3 Aug. I90I.

48 Ibid. p. 143



CECIL RHODES AND SECOND HOME RULE BILL 78I

the original story was 'from beginning to end a lie '.4 By this time Rhodes felt that the matter had to be put straight, but he did not have copies of all his correspondence with Schnadhorst and several months passed while he attempted to gather it together.50 When he had done this he sent it to the Spectator with a covering letter in which he reiterated that his main concern when he made the donation was that England should remain in Egypt, even though the letter that had accompanied his cheque showed this impression to be a false one.51 But his statement has been accepted, and most references to the transaction follow Rhodes' own account of his motives, some even to the extent of seeing the Liberal acceptance of his money as an undertaking to remain in Egypt. 5 But whatever the interpretations, since they have been made on the basis of Rhodes' own mistaken view of his action, the link between it and his donation to Parnell has been obscured.

As will be seen from what has been set out in this paper, however, both dona- tions were directed to the same end. Rhodes had a clear and consistent view of Irish home rule as a major step towards imperial federation, and the actions he took to realize his aims were just as clear and consistent.

49 Spectator-, Io Aug. I9OI. See also J. A. Spender, The Life of the Rt. HotI. Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman, I (I923), 202-7.

50 This involved writing to Stead who had a copy of one of the letters, and to Lord Rosebery who was mentioned in the correspondence and whose permission Rhodes sought for publication. See Rhodes to Stead, iI Sept. I9oI, Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Afr. S.229, fo. 7, and Rhodes to Rosebery, Io Sept. I9OI. Rhodes Papers, R.H.L. MSS Afr. S.227, B.31, fo. I73I.

' Spectator, 12 OCt. I9OI. T'he correspondence is also in Stead, op. cit. pp. 13I-7.

52 Among more recent works that follow this interpretation are J. Van der Poel, The Jamesont

Raid (Oxford, 1951), pp. 233-4; E. Pakenham, lan2eson's Raid (I960), p. I6I; R. Rhodes James, Rosebery (I963), p. 380; P. Stansky, Ambitions and Strategies: The Struggle for the Leadership of the Liberal Party in the I890S (Oxford, I964), p. 235; and J. Butler, The Liberal Party and the

Jasmeson Raid (Oxford, i968), p. 262.



Documents

Cecil Rhodes and the Second Home Rule Bill