in O’Brien, Olive Branch, pp. 475–9.
147F.J., 7, 8, 15 Jan. 1903.
148F.J., 12, 24 Jan. 1903. At Newmarket-on-Fergus on 8 February, Davitt threatened that ‘the men who have smashed their system of felonious landlordism will hold their ground until its rotten carcass is fully and finally disposed of. What I, for one, want is victory, and not a mere promise of it….’ F.J., 9 Feb. 1903.
149Ibid., 12 Feb. 1903. The Archbishop’s interventions in nationalist politics were many, but, given his own interests in landed property, he might have been expected to be more circumspect on this occasion. He had been criticized in 1894 by the Parnellite MP Pat O’Brien for his ‘silent acquiescence’ in the mistreatment of Roscommon tenants by the Catholic landlord Lord de Freyne; O’Brien alleged that the Archbishop held a £40,000 mortgage on the estate. I.D.I., 14 Jul. 1894.
150O’Brien, Olive Branch, p. 185.
151F.J., 19 Jan., 2 Feb. 1903.
152Redmond to O’Brien, 14, 19, 22 Jan. 1903, OBP Ms. 10,496 (7); F.J., 26 Jan. 1903.
153Dillon’s copy of Redmond’s circular to the party, 2 Dec. 1902, DP Ms. 6747/31.
154Redmond to O’Brien, 11 Feb. 1903, OBP Ms. 10,496 (7).
155O’Brien, Olive Branch, p. 213.
156Dillon to Redmond, 27 Feb. 1903, RP Ms. 15,182 (4).
157F.J., 31 Mar., 11 Apr., 6 May 1903.
158Ibid., 9 Apr. 1903. Bull, Land, p. 152.
159Redmond to O’Brien, 1, 3 (twice) Apr. 1903, OBP Ms. 10,496 (8).
160O’Brien, Olive Branch, pp. 227.
161F.J., 17 Apr. 1903; Warwick-Haller, William O’Brien, p. 236.
162Frank Callanan, T.M. Healy (Cork, 1996), pp. 446–7.
163Privately, Dillon told Blunt that he was opposed to the bill on principle and would oppose it in committee and vote against its third reading were it not for his loyalty to the party and concern for its unity. Lyons, Dillon, p. 231–2.
164F.J., 19 May 1903; Redmond to O’Brien, 20 May 1903, OBP Ms. 10,496 (8). The chivalrous Redmond assured the audience: ‘The disturbance of this meeting might have been easily and summarily dealt with, were it not that it was led by a lady, against whom we could not put in force any of the rough and ready methods which in other circumstances would be used to other disturbers (applause).’
165O’Brien, Olive Branch, p. 237.
166F.J., 17, 18 Jun. 1903.
167Redmond to Blunt, 17, 19, 20 Jun. 1903, RP Ms. 15,171 (1); Wyndham to Redmond, 22, 23, 24 Jun. 1903, RP Ms. 15,233 (2). According to O’Brien, Wyndham later told Redmond of a nightmare he had had during the crisis, in which he had found himself creeping along a razor-sharp ledge of rock with abysses to right and left. O’Brien, Olive Branch, p. 242.
168Redmond to Wyndham, 2 Jul. 1903, RP Ms. 15,233 (2); Wyndham to Redmond, 5 Jul. 1903, Michael McDonagh Papers, NLI Ms. 11,447.
169Redmond to O’Brien, 20 May 1903, OBP Ms. 10,496 (8).
170F.J., 6 Jul. 1903.
171Ibid., 17 Aug. 1903.
172Memoir by Mrs Sophie O’Brien, OBP Ms. 8507 (2).
173Newscuttings of 1903, RP Ms. 7433.
2
THE LIMITS OF CONCILIATION
That policy of conciliation… meant that the people should enter into negotiations for the working of this [Land] Act… in a spirit of conciliation, and friendliness and compromise – in a word, having been whole-hearted in fighting, they should be equally whole-hearted in making peace.
– Redmond at Limerick, 15 Nov. 1903.
… the circumstances and actualities of the time in which Mr Redmond lives are so different from Parnell’s, as to afford no basis for any comparison at all… perhaps the greatest difference of all is to be found in the fact, that all Mr Redmond’s personal critics overlook, that Parnell’s party had not gone through the horrors of a split….
– Francis Cruise O’Brien in The Leader, 26 February, 1910.
I
While the Land Bill was in Parliament, Dillon, Davitt and the Freeman had restrained their opposition for fear of being held responsible for its defeat. In May, Dillon had shared his mixed feelings with his Mayo constituents:
Then in God’s name, I say, if they accept the conditions laid down by the Convention in Dublin, let us give them the twelve millions, and I won’t say our blessing (laughter) and let them go… One thing is quite certain: that Ireland can get along very well without them (applause)… the hereditary enemies and exterminators of our race.
The present juncture was merely a truce, and if it broke down the landlords would suffer more than the tenants: ‘Our arms are stacked and ready for use tomorrow, and the League is stronger today than ever it has been in its history….’1 It was an empty threat, given Dillon’s past refusals to join O’Brien in building the UIL and his recent concern to restrain its agitation in the face of Government coercion. Now, with the Land Act on the statute book, though not yet in operation, he returned to the theme. Choosing another town in his constituency on 25 August to launch what O’Brien