THE MOVEMENT FOR DEVOLUTION AND ITS DEFEAT
The vital declaration of the objects of the Irish Reform Association
was contained in the following passage:--
"While firmly maintaining that the Parliamentary Union between Great
Britain and Ireland is essential to the political stability of the
Empire and to the prosperity of the two islands, we believe that such
a Union is compatible with the devolution to Ireland of a larger
measure of self-government than she now possesses. We consider that
this devolution, while avoiding matters of Imperial concern and
subjects of common interest to the kingdom as a whole, would be
beneficial to Ireland and would relieve the Imperial Parliament of a
mass of business with which it cannot now deal satisfactorily. In
particular we consider the present system of financial administration
to be wasteful and inappropriate to the needs of the country."
And then the manifesto proceeded to enumerate various questions of
national reform "for whose solution we earnestly invite the
co-operation of all Irishmen who have the highest interests of their
country at heart."
The enemies of Home Rule had no misconceptions either as to the purpose,
scope or object of the Reform Association. They saw at once how
absolutely it menaced their position--how completely it embodied in
substance the main principle of the constitutional movement since the
days of Parnell--namely, the control of purely Irish affairs by an Irish
assembly subject to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. From
debates which followed in the House of Lords (17th February 1905) it
became clear that the new movement had no sinister origin--that it was
honestly conceived and honestly intended for Ireland's national
advantage. But the Irish, whether of North or South, are a people to
whom suspiciousness in politics is a sort of second nature. It is the
inheritance of centuries of betrayals, treacheries and
duplicities--broken treaties, crude diplomacies and shattered faiths.
And thus we had a Unionist Attorney-General (now Lord Atkinson) asking
"whether the Devolution scheme is not the price secretly arranged to be
paid for Nationalist acquiescence in the settlement of the Land Question
on gracious terms"; and _The Times_ declaring (1st September 1904):
"What the Dunraven Devolution policy amounts to is nothing more nor less
than the revival in a slightly weakened and thinly disguised form of Mr
Gladstone's fatal enterprise of 1886"; whilst on the other hand those
Irish Nationalists who followed Mr Dillon's lead attacked the new
movement with a ferocity that was as stupid as it was criminal. For at
least it did not require any unusual degree of political intelligence to
postulate that if _The Times_, Sir Edward Carson, _The Northern Whig_
and other Unionist and Orange bravoes and journals were denouncing the
Devolution proposals as "worse than Home Rule," Irish Nationalists
should have long hesitated before they joined them in their campaign of
destruction and became the abject tools of their insensate hate. Sir
Edward Carson wrote that, much as he detested the former proposals of
Home Rule, he preferred them to "the insidious scheme put forward by the
so-called Reform Association." So incorrigibly foolish were the attacks
of Mr Dillon and his friends on the Reform Association that Lord
Rathmore was able to say in the House of Lords: "Not only did the
Unionist Party in Ireland denounce the Dunraven scheme as worse than the
Home Rule of Mr Gladstone, but their language was mild in comparison to
the language of contempt which a great many of the Irish Nationalist
patriots showered upon the proposals of the noble earl."
It is the mournful tragedy of all this period that a certain section
of Nationalist opinion should have seen in every advance towards a
policy of conciliation, good will and understanding between brother
Irishmen, some deep and sinister conspiracy against the National
Cause, and in this unaccountable belief should have allowed themselves
to become the dupes and to play the game of the bitterest enemies of
Irish freedom. But so it was, to the bitter sorrow of Ireland; and
many a blood-stained chapter has been written because of it. Whether a
fatal blindness or an insatiate personal rancour dictated this
incomprehensible policy Providence alone knows, but oceans of woe, and
misery and malediction have flowed from it as surely as that the sun
is in the heavens.
After Mr O'Brien's retirement, as I have already remarked, the country
was left without a policy or active national guidance. The leaders of
the revolt against the authorised policy of the nation went abroad
"for the benefit of their health." (What a lot of humbug this
particular phrase covers in political affairs only the initiated are
aware of!) No sooner was the Cork election announced than Mr Dillon
returned from his holiday, ready "to take the field" against the Irish
Reform Association and anyone who dared to show it toleration or
regard. He declared in a speech at Sligo that its one object was "to
break national unity in Ireland and to block the advance of the
Nationalist Cause," and he went on to deliver this definite threat:
"Now I say that any attempt such as was made the other day in the city
of Cork to force on the branches of the national organisation, or on
the National Directory itself, any vote of confidence in Lord Dunraven
or any declaration of satisfaction at the foundation of this
Association would tear the ranks of the Nationalists of Ireland to
pieces."
Note Mr Dillon's extreme zeal for national unity--the man who, less
than twelve months before, had set himself at the head of "a
determined campaign to defy the decisions of the Irish Party, the
National Directory and the United Irish League," and who did not in
the least scruple whether or not he "would tear the ranks of the
Nationalists of Ireland to pieces" in the gratification of his
purpose! The "attempt made in the city of Cork" which called forth Mr
Dillon's thunders was a resolution of the Cork branch of the United
Irish League which hailed with sympathy the establishment of the Irish
Reform Association as proof of the continuance of the spirit of
conciliation "among those classes of our countrymen who have hitherto
held aloof from us"--a spirit which had already led to such happy
results in the abolition of landlordism "by common consent," and which
was capable of "still wider and more blessed results in the direction
of a National Parliament of our own." The resolution also expressed
gratification "at the statesmanlike spirit in which Mr Redmond has
greeted the establishment of the new Association." It will be observed
that there was here a clear line of demarcation. Mr O'Brien and his
friends wanted, in moderate and guarded language, without in any way
binding themselves "to the particular views set forth in the programme
of the Irish Reform Association," to give a message of encouragement
to a body of Irish Unionists, who, as Sir Edward Carson, _The
Times_ and every other enemy of Home Rule declared, had become
converts to the National demand for self-government and who looked
likely to bring the bulk of the Protestant minority in Ireland with
them. Mr Dillon and those who thought with him savagely repelled this
movement towards a national unity which would embrace all classes and
creeds to the forgetfulness of past wrongs, animosities and deep
divisions. It seemed to have got into their minds that the appearance
of the Irish Reform Association covered some occult plot between Lord
Dunraven, Mr Wyndham, Sir Antony MacDonnell and Mr O'Brien. Mr Davitt
declared that "No party or leader can consent to accept the Dunraven
substitute without betraying a national trust." Others of lesser note
denounced the new movement and its authors with every circumstance of
insult and used language of a coarseness that deserves the severest
condemnation.
Mr Joseph Devlin, who had succeeded Mr John O'Donnell as Secretary of
the United Irish League, now began to be a rather considerable figure
in Irish politics on the Dillonite side. He told his constituents in
North Kilkenny that they were not going to seek "the co-operation of a
few aristocratic nobodies," and he, quite unjustly, as I conceive,
attributed to Lord Dunraven and his friends a desire to weaken the
national demand.
During this time the Government had given no sign that the Devolution
movement might not find favour in their sight. Had its main objects
met with a more cordial reception from the arbiters of the national
policy it is more than probable that the Unionist Government would
have stood sponsor for a large and generous instalment of
self-government which would have received the joyous assent of the
Liberal Party and passed through both Houses of Parliament with the
acclamations of everybody. In his first speech at Cork after his
election Mr O'Brien sought to rouse the country to a real perception
of the momentous issues that were at stake. He pointed out that the
proposals of the Reform Association were only "mere preliminary
materials for discussion and negotiation and that they are rather
addressed towards the removal of the prejudices of Unionists than put
forward as a final and unalterable answer to our national demand." And
then he went on to say: "Lord Dunraven and his friends may be all that
is diabolical, but at least they are not such born idiots as to expect
us to surrender our own organisation, or, as it has been absurdly put,
to coalesce with the new Association on such a programme." As a matter
of fact, Lord Dunraven had, in the most outspoken manner, stated that
he expected nothing from the Nationalists except friendly toleration
and fair play, whilst he and those associated with him were engaged in
the hard task of conquering the mass of racial prejudice and sectarian
bigotry that had been for so long arrayed against the National claim.
The efforts to induce in the intransigeant section of the Party a
spirit of sweet reasonableness were, however, foredoomed to failure.
Mr Dillon declined to address a meeting at Limerick, specially
summoned to establish a concordat between the Irish leaders. Mr
Redmond and Mr O'Brien accepted the invitation, and the former made it
clear that he still regarded the Land Conference policy as the policy
of the nation. He said: "It has been stated in some newspapers of our
enemies that the Land Conference agreement, which was endorsed by the
Irish Party, endorsed by the Directory of the League and endorsed by
the National Convention and accepted by the people, has been in some
way repudiated recently by us. I deny that altogether.... I speak
to-day only for the people and, so far as the people are concerned, I
say that the agreement, from the day it was entered upon down to this
moment, has never been repudiated by anybody entitled to speak in
their name."
Had the spirit of the Limerick meeting and the unity which it
symbolised been allowed to prevail, all might yet have been well and
the national platform might have been broadened out so that all men of
good will who wished to labour for an independent and self-governed
Ireland could stand upon it. But such a consummation was not to be.
There was no arguing away the hostility of Mr Dillon, _The Freeman's
Journal_ and those others upon whom they imposed their will. Mr
Dillon could give no better proof of statesmanship or generous
sentiment than to refer to "Dunraven and his crowd" and to declare
that "Conciliation, so far as the landlords are concerned, was another
name for swindling."
From the moment Mr Wyndham had placed his Purchase Act on the Statute
Book, with the assent of all parties in England and Ireland, his hopes
were undoubtedly set on the larger and nobler ambition of linking his
name with the grant of a generous measure of self-government. The
blood of a great Irish patriot, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, coursed
through his veins, and it is not impossible that it influenced his
Irish outlook and stimulated his purpose to write his name largely on
Irish affairs. And at this time nothing was beyond his capacity or
power. He was easily the most notable figure in the Cabinet, by reason
of the towering success that had attended his effort to remove from
the arena of perennial contention a problem that had daunted and
defeated so many previous attempts at solution. In all quarters the
most glorious future was prophesied for him. His star shone most
brightly in the political firmament--and there were many in high
places who were quite willing to hitch their wagon to it. He was
immensely popular in the House and he had captured the public
imagination by his many gifts and graces of intellect and character.
He had an exquisite personality, a wonderful charm of manner, a most
handsome and distinguished presence and was a perfect courtier in an
age which knew his kind not at all. His like was not in Parliament,
nor, indeed, can I conceive his like to be elsewhere in these rougher
days, when the ancient courtesies seem to have vanished from our
public life. There can be no doubt about it that in his first
tentative approaches towards Home Rule Mr Wyndham received
encouragement from leading members of the Cabinet, including Lord
Lansdowne and Mr Balfour. Sir Antony MacDonnell had been the welcome
guest of Lord Lansdowne at his summer seat in Ireland, and the latter
made no secret of the fact that their conversation turned upon the
larger question of Irish self-government. When Lord Dunraven was
attacked in the House of Lords for his Devolution plans Lord Lansdowne
"declined to follow Lord Rathmore in the trenchant vituperation Lord
Dunraven's scheme had encountered," and he admitted that Sir Antony
MacDonnell had been in the habit of conferring with Lord Dunraven on
many occasions, with the full knowledge and approval of the Chief
Secretary, and had collaborated with him "in working out proposals for
an improved scheme of local government for Ireland."
The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Dudley, made open avowal
of his sympathies and stated repeatedly that it was his earnest wish
to see Ireland governed in accordance with Irish ideas.
It was in this friendly atmosphere that the Irish Reform Association
propounded its scheme of Devolution which Mr T.P. O'Connor (before he
came under the influence of Mr Dillon) happily described as "the Latin
for Home Rule," and which Mr Redmond welcomed in the glowing terms
already quoted. The Convention of the United Irish League of America,
representing the best Irish elements in the United States, also
proclaimed the landlord concession as embodied in the Irish Reform
Association to be "a victory unparalleled in the whole history of
moral warfare." Here was an opportunity such as Wolfe Tone, Robert
Emmet, Thomas Davis and the other honoured patriots of Ireland's love
sighed for in vain, when, with the display of a generous and forgiving
spirit on all sides, the best men of every creed and class could have
been gathered together in support of an invincible demand for the
restoration of Irish liberty. I do not know how any intelligent and
impartial student of the events of that historical cycle can fail to
visit the blame for the miscarriage of a great occasion, and the
defeat of the definite movement towards the widest national union upon
Mr Dillon and those who joined him in his "determined" and tragically
foolish campaign. As a humble participator in the activities of the
period, I dare say it is not quite possible for me to divest myself of
a certain bias, but I cannot help saying that I am confirmed in the
opinion that in addition to being the most melancholy figure in his
generation Mr John Dillon was also the most malignant in that at every
stage of his career, when decisive action had to be taken his judgment
invariably led him to take the course which brought most misfortune
upon his country and upon the hopes of its people.
Attacked on front and flank, assailed by Sir Edward Carson and his
gang and denounced by Mr Dillon and his faithful henchmen, deserted by
Mr Balfour at the moment when his support was vital, Mr Wyndham weakly
allowed himself to be badgered into disowning Home Rule, thus sealing
his doom as a statesman and as potential leader of his own party. The
secret history of this time when it is made public will disclose a
pitiful story of base intrigue and baser desertion and of a great and
chivalrous spirit stretched on the rack of Ireland's ill-starred
destiny. I do not think it is any exaggeration of the facts to say
that Wyndham was done to death, physically as well as politically, in
those evil days. Driven from office, with the ruin of all his high
hopes in shattered disorder around him, his proud soul was never able
to recover itself, and he drifted out of politics and into the greater
void without--so fine a gentleman in such utter disarray that the
angels must have wept his fall.
That Mr William O'Brien did not meet a similar fate was due only to
the fact that he was made of sterner fighting stuff--that he possessed
a more intrepid spirit and a more indomitable will. But the base
weapons of calumny and of viler innuendo were employed to injure him
in the eyes of his fellow-countrymen, to whom he had devoted, in a
manner never surely equalled or surpassed before, a life of service
and sacrifice. _The Freeman's Journal_, whilst suppressing Mr
O'Brien's speeches and arguments, threw its columns open to ruffianly
attacks which no paper knowing his record should have published. In
one of these he was charged with "unnatural services to insatiable
landlordism." He was charged by Mr Dillon and the _Freeman_ with
being actively engaged with Mr Wyndham, Sir Antony MacDonnell and Lord
Dunraven in a plot to break up the Irish Party, and to construct a new
Moderate Centre Party by selling eighteen Nationalist seats in
Parliament to Lord Dunraven and his friends, and he was further
charged with being concerned in a conspiracy having for its object the
denationalisation of the _Freeman_. There were six libels in all,
of so gross a character that Mr O'Brien, since reports of his speeches
were systematically suppressed in every newspaper outside of Munster,
was obliged to take his libellers into court and, before a jury of
their fellow-countrymen at Limerick, to convict them of uttering six
false, malicious and defamatory libels, and thus bring to the public
knowledge the guilt of his accusers. Asked what his "unnatural
services to insatiable landlordism" were, Mr O'Brien made this
memorable reply: "To abolish it! All the Irish tenants had gained by
the land agitation of the previous twenty years was a reduction of
twenty per cent. My unnatural services under the Land Conference
Agreement was to give them a reduction of _forty per cent._ more
right away and the ownership of the soil of Ireland thrown in."
Lord Dunraven on his own part took Mr Dillon publicly to task for his
misrepresentations of him. He said that Mr Dillon "mentioned him as
being more or less connected with a great variety of conspiracies and
plots and with general clandestine arrangements.... He and George
Wyndham were said to have been constantly plotting for the purpose of
driving a wedge into the midst of the Nationalist Party. Well, as far
as he was concerned, all these deals and all these conspiracies
existed only in Mr Dillon's fervid imagination." And Lord Dunraven
went on to express his sorrow that a man in Mr Dillon's position
should have taken up so unworthy a line.
Mr Dillon, when he had the opportunity of appearing before the
Limerick jury, to justify himself, if he could, never did so. And he
never expressed regret for having defamed his former friend and
colleague and for having vilified honourable men, honourably seeking
Ireland's welfare. Upon which I must content myself with saying that
history will pass its own verdict on Mr Dillon's conduct.