After we went to Brighton Parnell would give the dogs a swim in the sea every day, and Grouse's strong swimming was a great delight to his master. Pincher, the terrier, was the cause of much anxiety, as he used to swim right out to sea--so far that we lost sight of the little dark head--and Parnell had very often to get a boat out and fetch the exhausted little beast back. This little dog lived for many years after his master's death (Grouse only two years), but he would never allow another man to touch him without trying to bite him. He was fond of Parnell, but always on guard with other men, though quite good-tempered with women. Parnell used to say that Pincher must have been so badly treated by some man that he had learned distrust of all males. Many a time he came home from his rides with rueful amusement at the exaggerated value placed upon their legs by shepherds or labourers he had met on the Downs who had been bitten by Pincher with a careless indiscrimination that at last earned him a muzzle.
Parnell also brought to Eltham a very old setter, Ranger. He had been a splendid dog, and now his limbs were too feeble to follow his faithful heart in his master's sport. So Mr. Parnell took pity on him, and asked Mr. Corbett to let him have the dog for a lady who would care for his old age, and Ranger came to us, spending the { 236} evening of his life in basking on the sunny lawn at Eltham, wagging a dignified tail of appreciation and greeting to those of us he met on his stiff walks about the place or dreaming his doggie dreams of the sport of the past, happy and cared for till he died.
The following letter was sent to _United Ireland_ on April 11, 1885, in regard to the proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to Ireland:--
You ask for my views regarding the visit of the Prince of Wales. In reply, I desire to say that if the usages of the Constitution existed in Ireland as they do in England there would, to my judgment, be no inconsistency in those who believe in the limited monarchy as the best form of government taking a suitable part in the reception of the Prince. But in view of the fact that the Constitution has never been administered in Ireland according to its spirit and precedents, that the power of the Crown as wielded by Earl Spencer and other Viceroys is despotic and unlimited to the last degree, and that in the present instance the Royal personage is to be used by the two English political parties in Ireland for the purpose of injuring and insulting the Irish Nationalist Party, and of impeding, if possible, their work, I fail to see upon what ground it can be claimed from any lover of constitutional government under a limited monarchy that the Prince is entitled to a reception from the independent and patriotic people of Ireland, or to any recognition save from the garrison of officials and landowners and place-hunters who fatten upon the poverty and misfortunes of the country. Let me suggest a parallel. Would it be tolerated in England for a moment if the Government, for their own party purposes, on the eve of a general election, were to use the Prince of Wales as an electioneering agent in any section of the country, and were to send him upon a Royal progress in order to embarrass their political opponents? The breach of constitutional privilege becomes still graver when we consider that it is the march of { 237} a nation which is now sought to be impeded--the fruition of a long struggle and of many sacrifices which the adventitious aid of this Royal visit is enlisted to injure. I have, however, every confidence that our people, having been suitably forewarned, will not allow their hospitable nature and cordial disposition to carry them into any attitude which might be taken as one of condonation for the past or satisfaction with the present state of affairs.