"In what way could Ireland, supposing she wished to injure you, be more powerful to effect injury to your Imperial interests than she is at present? If you concede {270} to her people the power to work out their own future, to make themselves happy and prosperous, how do you make yourselves weaker to withstand wrongdoing against yourselves? Will not your physical capacity be the same as it is now? Will you not still have your troops in the country? Will you not still have all the power of the Empire? ... In what way do we make you weaker? In what way shall we be stronger to injure you? What soldiers shall we have? What armed policemen shall we have? What cannons shall we have? What single means shall we have, beyond the constitution, that we have not now, to work you injury?"[6] [1] He studied the balance of the lamp for the "new ship" he was inventing--the one he was always trying at Brighton. (See p. 277.) [2] Kerr, Mr. Parnell's agent and bailiff. [3] Emily Dickinson, Parnell's sister. [4] Mrs. Delia Parnell was giving the theatricals and dance in the great new cattle-shed he had had built from his own plans, modelled on the plan of the new station at Brighton. [5] Now Viscountess Buxton. [6] A letter of this period from Parnell to Cecil Rhodes, dealing with the Imperial aspect of Home Rule, is unfortunately the only important document left of the correspondence between the two, the rest having been accidentally destroyed. Parnell had been greatly interested in the political tactics of Rhodes in South Africa. When in London Rhodes sought an interview, which took place at the Westminster Palace Hotel. In the letter of June 23, 1888, Parnell expresses his gladness at knowing that Rhodes considers that the measure of Home Rule to be granted to Ireland should be "thoroughgoing," and adds: "I cordially agree with your opinion that there should be effective safeguards for the maintenance of Imperial unity." The two men had been discussing the question of the exclusion or inclusion of Irish representation at Westminster. Parnell judged exclusion to have been a defect of the Bill of 1886, and shared Rhodes's view that inclusion would facilitate the larger measure of Imperial federation. Parnell returned to this point in 1891 in the course of his correspondence with Dillon and O'Brien on the question of the leadership of the Nationalist Party. He asserted in a letter to Gill, one of the intermediaries in these discussions, that he could prove "by documentary evidence" that the second reading of the 1886 Bill was lost "because the Liberal leaders declined till too late to agree to the retention of any Irish Members in any shape or for any purpose." {271} CHAPTER XXVI BRIGHTON HAUNTS "_We went as children joyous, or oprest, In some absorbing care, or blest, In nodding conversation--hand in hand._" --HONORA SHEE (THE LOVER'S DIARY).