LETTERS OF PARNELL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 27, 23 May 1914, Page 8

LETTERS OF PARNELL.

The publication of this work arose 3ut of the publication by Mr William O’Brien, M.P., in the “Cork Free Press” in September last of wlr.it he described as “two pages of secret history . hearing upon the inner light of die Parnell divorce case.” Mrs Parnell (Kitty O’Shea) then decided to ouhlishj, in tho middle of May, the history of tho O’Shea divorce case Parnell’s love letters, and political revelations, including Parnell’s draft ol the Irish constitution, with Mr Ghulitone’s comments upon it. In introducing the correspondence in September last regarding the O’Shea livrtrce case, Mr O’Brien said: — “It is notorious that it was the oainful character of the nucontradict>d evidence in the O’Shea v. Parnell livorce, suit that tunied the public ondenmation of tiro great Irishman's fault into bitter indignation and disgust. It is now certain that if I’oriel 1 had been allowed to go into the .vituoss box the public verdict upon the entire transaction would have been Altogether revolutionised. Tho fault

ivould have remained, but tho Iris}: leader would have been shown to be 'ather the victim than the destroyer of a happy homo, and the divorce would never have taken place.” When the proceedings were first mule public, property ho wrote to Parnell, and received tho following lot 'or, dated Loudon, 14th January,

1890: “I thank you very much indeed foi s'on r kind letter, which I shall always lighly prize. If this case is over fulh -;one into, a matter which is exceed •ugly doubtful, you may rest assured that it will be shown that the dis umor and the discredit have not been ipon my side. 1 trust you will not al ow anything to interfere with tin ■ertainty of your being able to be pro ent at tho opening of the session, deliove me, yours very sincerely diaries S. Parnell.” Mr O’Brien continued:— “Parnell afterwards told me at Bon 'ogne that tho whole complexion o' ho case would have been changed h he had given evidence as to his re hitions with Captain O’Shea; that Ik had pressed upon Sir Frank Lock rood (Mrs O’Shea’s counsel) in tin strongest manner that ho should he examined ; and that upon one occasioi ie and Sir Frank Lockwood had al nost come to blows upon that point.’ Mr O’Brien said that the importance of the letter, then for the first turn -•iven to the public, was that it woul probably be the only confidential glimpse of history we would ever re •eivo, from Parnell’s nvn hand at al events, of the inmost truth rp a tians ictiou which, bad it only been full.' nvestigated at the divorce suit, wouh have saved the Irish leader from tin most painful part of tho discredit, prevented tho divorce, and revolution iset! tho history of the last twenty years. Mr Gerald H. W. O’Shea wrote in reply “As the only sou of the late Captain William Henry O’Shea, I must protest against tho scandalous insinuations contained in statements made by Mr William O’Brien to the ‘Cork Fret Press,’ and which ware reproduced b\ you in your issue of Monday last. “The deduction drawn by Mr William O’Brien—‘The Irish leader would have been shown to be rather a victim than a destroyer of a happy home and the divorce would never have taken place’—is a slander upon my late father and my mother and absolutely without foundation. “I have written to my mother fnow the widow of the late Mr C >•. Par

cell) upon the subject, and she replies : t “I quite agree with you as to the insult to myself, your father s memory, and, -above all, to my late husband, Mr Parnell, that is contained in he unwarrantable interpretation Mr VBrien has put Vuou that letter cf ny husband’s ho has published, and I iow propose, with your consent, to uihlish as soon as possible, myself the otters of my late husoan 1, winch, as -on know I had left ihrv’tioiis should so published after my death.