And thus Ireland parted with “the greatest of her Captains” and reaped a full crop of failures as her reward.  Too late there were flashing testimonials to his greatness.  Too late it became a commonplace observation in Ireland, when the impotence of the sordid sections was apparent:  “How different it would all be if Parnell were alive.”  Too late did we have tributes to Parnell’s capacity from friend and foe which magnified his gifts of leadership beyond reach of the envious.  Even the man who was more than any other responsible for his fall said of Parnell (Mr Barry O’Brien’s Life of Parnell): 

“Parnell was the most remarkable man I ever met.  I do not say the ablest man; I say the most remarkable and the most interesting.  He was an intellectual phenomenon.  He was unlike anyone I had ever met.  He did things and said things unlike other men.  His ascendancy over his Party was extraordinary.  There has never been anything like it in my experience in the House of Commons.  He succeeded in surrounding himself with very clever men, with men exactly suited for his purpose.  They have changed since—­I don’t know why.  Everything seems to have changed.  But in his time he had a most efficient party, an extraordinary party.  I do not say extraordinary as an opposition but extraordinary as a Government.  The absolute obedience, the strict discipline, the military discipline in which he held them was unlike anything I have ever seen.  They were always there, they were always ready, they were always united, they never shirked the combat and Parnell was supreme all the time.”

“Parnell was supreme all the time.”  This is the complete answer to those—­and some of them are alive still—­who said in the days of “the Split” that it was his Party which made him and not he who made the Party.  In this connection I might quote also the following brief extract from a letter written by Mr William O’Brien to Archbishop Croke during the Boulogne negotiations: 

“We have a dozen excellent front bench men in our Party but there is no other Parnell.  They all mean well but it is not the same thing.  The stuff talked of Parnell’s being a sham leader, sucking the brains of his chief men, is the most pitiful rubbish.”

Time proved, only too tragically, the correctness of Mr O’Brien’s judgment.  When the guiding and governing hand of Parnell was withdrawn the Party went to pieces.  In the words of Gladstone:  “they had changed since then”—­and I may add that at no subsequent period did they gain the same cohesion, purpose or power as a Party.

It may be well when dealing with Parnell’s position in Irish history to quote the considered opinion of an independent writer of neutral nationality.  M. Paul Dubois, a well-known French author, in his masterly work, Contemporary Ireland, thus gives his estimate of Parnell: