It is only in recent years that the full facts of what happened during what is known as “The Parnell Split” have been made public, and these facts make it quite clear that neither during the Divorce Court proceedings nor subsequently had Parnell had a fair fighting chance.  Let it be remembered that no leader was ever pursued by such malignant methods of defamation as Parnell, and it is questionable how far the Divorce Court proceedings were not intended by his enemies as part of this unscrupulous campaign.  Replying to a letter of William O’Brien before the trial, Parnell wrote:  “You may rest quite sure that if this proceeding ever comes to trial (which I very much doubt) it is not I who will quit the court with discredit.”  And when the whole mischief was done, and the storm raged ruthlessly around him, Parnell told O’Brien, during the Boulogne negotiations, that he all but came to blows with Sir Frank Lockwood (the respondent’s counsel) when insisting that he should be himself examined in the Divorce Court, and he intimated that if he had prevailed the political complications that followed could never have arisen.  On which declaration Mr O’Brien has this footnote:  “The genial giant Sir Frank Lockwood confessed to me in after years:  ’Parnell was cruelly wronged all round.  There is a great reaction in England in his favour.  I am not altogether without remorse myself.’”

Not all at once were the flood-gates of vituperation let loose upon Parnell.  Not all at once did the question of his continued leadership arise.  He had led his people, with an incomparable skill and intrepidity, not unequally matched with the genius of Gladstone himself, from a position of impotence and contempt to the supreme point where success was within their reach.  A General Election, big with the fate of Ireland, was not far off.  Was the matchless leader who had led his people so far and so well to disappear and to leave his country the prey of warring factions—­he who had established a national unity such as Ireland had never known before?  “For myself,” writes William O’Brien, “I should no more have voted Parnell’s displacement on the Divorce Court proceedings alone than England would have thought of changing the command on the eve of the battle of Trafalgar in a holy horror of the frailties of Lady Hamilton and her lover.”

The Liberal Nonconformists, however, shrieked for his head in a real or assumed outburst of moral frenzy, and the choice thrust upon the Irish people and their representatives was as to whether they should remain faithful to the alliance with the Liberal Party, to which the Irish nation unquestionably stood pledged, or to the leader who had won so much for them and who might win yet more if he had a united Ireland behind him, unseduced and unterrified by the clamour of English Puritan moralists.  O’Brien and Dillon and other leading Irishmen were in America whilst passions were being excited and events marching to destruction over here.  “The knives were out,” as one fiery protagonist of the day rather savagely declared.  It is, as I have already inferred, now made abundantly clear that Gladstone would not have included in his letter the famous “Nullity of Leadership” passage if other counsels had not overborne his own better judgment.