J&*. 4f>] THI'l LIBK1LVL LKADKUS 323
Mr. Gill wrote once more saying that he knew * nothing whatever about those conditions and proposals on the part of the "Liberal leaders of which you speak * ; adding, * if anything I said in our conversation led you to form such an impression, it was an entire raiHapprehonsion, arising poKsibly out of my own eagor-noHH in hoping that those prolonged negotiations might bo brought to an end as quickly an possible without further delay/
Pannoll replied :
Parncll to Mr. Gill
February 7, *91.
* MY DEAR GiLtV"-l am writing O'Britm by thin evening's post upon the* snbjtvt of our conversation on Wednesday, and for the present perhaps it would Iw l>ottet that tho negotiations should 1m coiuluutt'd by corrcHpoiuloncit bctwtukn himself and inc. AH regardH your note junt reotuvtid, I. am Hurry that I ranttot agruu with you that it givtm at ail an accurate account oŁ tins information you thon convoytul to mt*t aitliough whilo you Btatod the ooiulitionn^ ninv to uu>f of tho
JCiiboral laadcirs, I agrou that you did not nay that you spoke to mo on btihalf of thtutt <ir at their n.t<}UCHty nor did I so intimate in my letter of Thursday,
* Hincoroly yourn, *CHAH. H.
On February 8 Mr, OMlritm \vrotu tt) Panutll ; *Thoro in not a nhadow of foundatitm fur tlui ntury which app«arn in havu rttiitdiiHl you nf mnv pro* and domands uf tho fjihural hnulcrn.1 On Fcibruary 9 hts wnitti a^ain, nayin^ ; * What a \vouful tiling it would ln» if nrgotiatiuim wuro brnknn off ** undta*a hard-fought field, and it was felt mscessary to got rid of them at any cost. But tho majority of the party of to-day having lost their independence and proved their devotion to the Liberal loaders, it is considered desirable to keop them jwiiiaiicinily at Westminster for the