Charles Stewart Parnell was an Irish nationalist and statesman who led the fight for Irish Home Rule in the 1880s. The fight for home rule emerged in Ireland as a backlash against the 1801 Act of Union with Britain. Parnell was also president of the Irish national land league, a political organisation of the late 19th century which sought to help poor tenant farmers. Its primary aim was to abolish the complete control which landlords had over their tenants in Ireland and it was also set up to allow farmers to own the land they worked on. However Parnell was often considered to be a highly controversial figure and some people argue that he hindered the cause for Irish cause rather than helped it. Many People believed that Parnell actually helped the cause and this was because of his close work with William Gladstone, who was the prime minister throughout this time period, which led to changes which Ireland would probably not of got if it wasn’t because of the close relationship between Parnell and Gladstone. Another Reason which suggests that Parnell helped the Irish cause was that Parnell had created a united movement in Ireland, who all wanted to achieve the same goal which was Home rule. This unity meant that Ireland was stronger than ever before and could perhaps challenge the British. However on the other hand some people argue that Parnell did not help the Irish cause. This was because of his affair with Kitty O Shea which led to outburst among the British public, and his refusal to resign from his post after the affair had come to light. This therefore led to a division within the party. Another argument was that because Parnell worked so closely with the more extreme Irish nationalists who used violence rather than constitutional methods, he actually lost the sympathy of the British public. Despite both arguments having weight to support either view, I am going to take the side that Parnell hindered the Irish cause rather than helping it.
The view that Parnell damaged the home rule cause is supported In sources 4,5 and 6.In source 4 we can see that Parnell hindered the cause because of ’ his arrogant and forceful style’. Parnell’s forceful style led to the British public (who had previously sympathised with the Irish movement for home rule) losing sympathy with the Irish movement because of its violent ways and this was therefore damaging as now Parnell had now changed he British public opinion of the home rule movement, which meant that now the British public would want any bills passed in favour of the Irish. Secondly Parnell’s arrogance meant that he would eventually split the party in 2 as only a select few liked him. By dividing his party it meant that Irelands only realistic party of achieving home rule was now significantly weakened and home rule would have been unlikely to of been achieved.
Source 5 suggests that Parnell didn’t help the Irish cause. We can see this through a statement which William Gladstone makes in his speech about the home rule bill to the House of Commons. ‘I cherish the hope that this is not merely a lesser evil, but may prove to be a good in itself’. From this quote we can gather that perhaps William Gladstone was threatened with violence by Parnell, and despite him getting what he wants this violent nature meant that he lost the support of people who wanted to win the bill constitutionally. Parnell was often seen to be walking a ‘tight rope’ between Irish nationalists and the more moderate reformers. This meant that every decision he made would be scrutinised by 1 side or another.
Source 6 implies that Parnell’s personal life bought down the cause’. Parnell’s private life bought down his career and his cause together. The affair with kitty o Shea was particularly damaging as it meant that a number of senior politicians were calling for his head and for him to resign as having an affair in the Victorian era was frowned upon. This image wasn’t good for the Irish party and meant that they would have someone who a lot of people now hated leading them. Secondly the arrogance which Parnell showed by not resigning from the party meant that the party got split in two. Source 6 re-emphasises this view as it states that ‘Parnell’s ‘arrogant refusal to resign tore the home rule movement apart and rescued Salisbury’s government. This was particularly bad because it meant that there was a lack of unity, which before was considered to be one of the main strengths that Parnell possessed his ability to unite Ireland under one cause. However now that there was a division it meant that he had now lost this strength.
On the other hand there is enough evidence in these sources to suggest that Parnell infact helped the Irish cause. Source 5 can be seen as implying the view that Parnell helped the cause because of how he united everyone in Ireland to go after the same goal which was home rule. ‘The voice of Ireland as a whole has clearly and constitutionally spoken.’ We can clearly see that Ireland has been united as Gladstone refers to the ‘voice of Ireland as a whole’ by using a phrase like this in his speech we can see that Parnell has successfully united Ireland as the ‘whole’ of it want changes. Other parts of the source where we see that Parnell has successfully united Ireland is when source 5 refers to the fact that 5/6 of its lawfully chosen representatives are of mind on this matter. The fact that they are one minded on this implies that they feel very strongly about the home rule bill. Also by using the wording 5 sixths Gladstone is suggesting that Ireland are united over this matter, however by saying 5 sixths it means that one sixth of Ireland disagrees with the home rule bill, perhaps Gladstone has said this to show that not all hope is lost for the British on passing the bill. Source 4 also shows that Parnell had successfully united Ireland. ‘He was able to create a united movement capable of advancing towards home rule.’ This unity allowed Ireland to push on for home rule however this unity was created by Parnell and this therefore suggests that without Parnell Ireland were unable to push on for the home rule bill as they weren’t united enough.
Source 4 suggests that one of Parnell’s weaknesses could actually be considered strength. ‘His arrogant and forceful style won attention at Westminster and in Ireland and amongst ex Fenians in Irish-America. ‘One of Parnell’s main weaknesses was considered to be his arrogance which in turn eventually tore up his party, however without his arrogance in the first place perhaps Parnell wouldn’t of been successful as his arrogance was key for him to win over many people. By winning over many people it meant that Westminster and Britain would have to hear Parnell out as he was becoming more and more influential.
In conclusion to all of this I believe that Parnell hindered more than he helped. This is because of the fact that his arrogance undid all of his work before hand as he split the party in two which meant that they lacked unity meaning they were a weaker outfit. Also the continued violence in which Parnell’s associates used whilst he was battling for the home rule bill meant that he changed the opinion of a once supportive British public, this therefore yet again hindered the Irish cause. However the argument for Parnell helping the Irish cause is very weak in my opinion. Firstly some people may say that he helped the cause because he had a close relationship with William Gladstone who was pm at the time. This allowed him to get closer to achieving the Irish home rule bill than any other Irish politician before him. Secondly they may say that his unity of all of Ireland made them a much stronger country than ever before as they were all dedicated to achieving the same goal that of home rule.