Tory Collapse (1904-9)

Chapter XXXVI

Tory Collapse (1904-9)

When Wyndham’s Land Purchase Act (1903) became law, the Freeman and Dillon launched what Davitt described as “a determined campaign” against it, Dillon prophesied it would lead to “national bankruptcy.”

That autumn O’Brien resigned from the Party as a protest against the “official” attitude of Redmond and Dillon towards the Act. I thought O’Brien’s policy sound, and although he had ceased to be friendly to me I supported him in the House of Commons. Meanwhile, a new portent flamed into the Irish political sky in the shape of Murphy’s halfpenny Independent. This revolutionized the situation and ultimately destroyed both the parliamentary party and the Freeman.

I wrote Maurice:

Chapelizod,

9th October, 1904.

“Murphy intends to make the new paper a “news” paper, and neutral until it commands circulation and development. Davitt told him last week that he would contribute signed articles for one or two issues, and showed himself friendly. He said that the reason O’Brien resigned was because Redmond refused to call a meeting of the “Directory,” or Party, to expel Dillon and himself for breach of discipline!

O’Brien thought his resignation would flabbergast Redmond, who was delighted with it.

I dined last night with W. F. Bailey at the Shdbourne Hotel. Sir Anthony MacDonnell was there, and from his defence of Dunraven’s bantling to Horace Plunkett who was also present, I could see that The Times allegation that he is responsible for it, is not unfounded.”

Sexton controlled the Freeman and had steadily minimized the benefits to accrue from Land Purchase. These benefits, of course, have since been diminished by the increase in rates and taxes, which followed upon the Great War. Yet how could O’Brien in 1903 have foreseen the European conflict 10 years later? Today, while farmers complain of losses, not a perch of land is allowed to be taken by the peasant without envious eyes being turned on the new owner. The farming interest is treated by some as being distressed, and by others of their class who have no land as if every bog were a Golconda!

To vindicate O’Brien’s policy, his colleague, D. D. Sheehan, M.P. for Mid-Cork (who afterwards served in the Great War and lost two sons in the struggle), resigned his seat and challenged opposition.

Redmond had been cowed by criticism of the price he had exacted from tenants on his estate in Co. Wexford. The Freeman published an account (previously submitted to Redmond), acknowledging that for some farms (without reckoning bonus) he got 241 years’ purchase. This delivered him into the hands of those who accused him of “setting a head-line” to the landlords for high prices. Dillon’s and Davitt’s opposition to understandings with the Tories (then in office) was unchangeable. O’Brien, therefore, dared them to run a candidate against Sheehan in Mid-Cork. No one took up the challenge, and Sheehan was returned unopposed.

To celebrate this victory, O’Brien gave a banquet in Millstreet. when he rose to propose the victor’s health the door was flung open by the hotel-keeper, with the words: “Gentlemen, the Bard!”

Then he led an unknown ancient to the head of the table.

The incomer was inclined to reminiscence, and told O’Brien that he was John Sullivan, “the Bard” who had been a leader of “Moonlighters” in 1887. He had served 15 years’ penal servitude for attacks on “land-grabbers.” His plan was, before a crime was committed, to visit the nearest town, simulate drunkenness and get locked up by the police.

He thus, while his gang was operating, secured a complete alibi. Yet he was betrayed in the end by one of his confederates, and was convicted before Judge Holmes at Tipperary Assizes. There he was sentenced to 15 years’ penal servitude on two counts, not to run concurrently. He bore the prospect of thirty years’ penal servitude without flinching, and from the dock made this comment:

“My Lord, I will devote my time in prison to an essay on the reform of the Royal Irish Constabulary!”

The “Bard” sent in many petitions for a reconsideration of his sentence, but Judge Holmes endorsed each of them with a recital of his misdeeds, and certified that he should never be allowed freedom until he completed his thirty years’ sentences. Still, the longest day comes to an end. When the first fifteen years expired Lord Aberdeen’s second viceroyalty in Ireland began. Millstreet moonlighting and Canon Griffin’s evidence for The Times had become vague memories, so the Bard’s release was permitted.

When he appeared at the dinner he said to O’Brien, “I’ve a great deal to thank you for, sir.” “Why?” asked William. “Because your paper was a great consolation to me in jail every Saturday.” “I didn’t know it was allowed inside Mountjoy,” was the answer. “Well, no,” said the Bard, “and for my first year or two I could not get it. Then I began to think how I could have relief, and hit on my second-in-command in Millstreet. I slipped out a letter ordering him to join up as a warder in the prison service, but I knew it would take time to get him promoted to Mountjoy. Yet his character was good, and for the last 10 years he was over me. So I was able to get your paper every Saturday.”

The Bard’s parish priest, Canon Griffin, was the only ecclesiastic in Ireland amongst 4,000 who openly took sides against the Nationalists.

When the House met in February, 1905, the position of George Wyndham became embarrassed by reason of the “devolution” proposals of Lord Dunraven, which the Ulster members alleged had been fathered by the Under-Secretary for Ireland, Sir Anthony MacDonnell. That official was a nominee of Lord Lansdowne, who, as an ex-Viceroy of India, knew of his great career. Redmond moved an amendment to the King’s Speech dealing with the new situation, but Wyndham did not face the debate, although he voted in the division. My remarks on the occasion were described by the Prime Minister (21st February, 1905) as a “brilliant speech.”

G. K. Chesterton, in one of his essays, comments on a thrust I then made at Lord Hugh Cecil, who sat at that time for Greenwich. “The noble Lord professed not to know what ‘nationality’ was. I shall tell him. Nationality is something men are willing to die for. Even the noble Lord would not die for the meridian of Greenwich.”

On the 1st March, 1905, Sir Henry Lucy in Punch wrote:

“Tim Healy has gone back to Erin, like a sensible man bent on minding his own business. His intervention in debate, illumining the week, was worth an average man’s attendance through the session.

This is the triumph not less of honesty than of genius. Tim spares no man in bitter denunciation of what he thinks is ill-doing to Ireland. He has no axe to grind - unless it be one designed for the decapitation of some five or six of the compatriots amid whom he sits, solitary but dominant. He does not even pay a Saxon assembly the compliment of preparing an oration in order to win its attention or earn its applause. No loss of stray folios of notes would embarrass him. He just talks to the House straight-forth, “an unpremeditated strain,” over the depths of whose pathos and passion flash gleams of mordant wit.”

The position of George Wyndham was undermined by the defection of his Ulster supporters, and he was forced to resign his post as Chief Secretary. My sidelong efforts in his defence evoked a letter from his mother, now no more:

Clouds,

Salisbury,

8th March, 1905.

Dear Mr. Healy,-

“I feel impelled to write to you at this time from the feeling of great gratitude. I found when talking over the situation with my son that your speech (on the debate on Sir A. MacDonnell) had touched him deeply, and had given him real pleasure at a time when there was so much that was painful and sad. He had the feeling that you at least understood him and believed that he had done his best, and felt your friendliness very much. I feel that being his mother, you will not mind my writing to thank you. Both Lady Grosvenor and myself feel most grateful.”

Believe me,

Yours most sincerely,

Madelaine Wyndham.

P.S -I must say I feel very much grieved that my son’s time in Ireland is over.”

George Wyndham’s brain was animated by a soul of the rarest and noblest order. My last meeting with him - little I thought it would be the last - came one night when I was hurrying from the House of Commons to Euston to catch the train ror Dublin. He was entering Palace Yard and stopped me. “Where are you going? ” he asked. “Home,” I replied. “Oh, no, don’t go,” said he. “Delay a day and dine with me to-night at Grosvenor Square.” “Ah, George,” I answered, ” I’ve clients at the Four Courts in the morning whom I cannot disappoint.”

Had I suspected his end was near, this would not have been my reply.

I wrote my father:

House of Commons.

11th April, 1905.

“Crean’s denunciation of the Party to me on Friday surpassed anything I ever heard. He said they were the worst Party ever elected, and that they should be starved out!”

Chapelizod,

18th April, 1905.

“William Moore, I hear, is to begin a campaign calling attention in the House of Commons to O’Brien’s share in the ” Devolution” proposals.

I see my election as Bencher in King’s Inns does not please Swift MacNeill, on the ground that O’Connell and Butt (my great predecessors, of course!) never got that compliment. There was great want of taste in those days. He does not disclose that the constitution of the Benchers was then wholly different. Nous avons changé tout cela.

The late Swift MacNeill, in spite of provocations, dealt with me in his book in a friendly fashion. So little did he understand his ejection from Donegal in 1918 by the Sinn Feiners that he seemed to attribute it to his Protestantism, which was absurd. The Sinn Fein dominants were determined to eject every unit in the Dillon group.

When I was made a Bencher of King’s Inn I wrote my father:

Dublin,

6th April, 1905.

“A muster of the Bar came to do me honour on my first dinner as a Bencher. I tell you this, as I have not been given to noising little triumphs, and as you would appreciate it more on that account. The men, being all my competitors and “rivals,” made me feel it. The Chief Baron and T. O’Shaughnessy used the selfsame words, that it was “a splendid demonstration in my favour.” Nearly every man on the Munster Circuit, and I think every Munster man in Dublin, attended - the Tories making it a point to be there. Many leading barristers from the other Circuits came, and there was not a vacant place in the hall. I have received nothing but kindliness and courtesy at this profession, from gentle and simple, for 20 years.

It is not for my own satisfaction, but for yours (because I know it will make you glad), that I say this. I could see the incident was acceptable, not only to the Chief Baron, but to Lords Justices Fitzgibbon and Holmes, who secured my election and came specially to dine with us. I asked no one to propose or vote for me as a Bencher. I didn’t even know I was to be elected, but by a majority of two to one, which never occurred before, I was carried, being proposed by Lord Justice Holmes, who pushed me in every way, although I never spoke a civil word to him in my life, and attacked him in Parliament when he was Attorney-General, and was often rough on him in the Court of Appeal.

Still, “Woe unto you when all men speak well of you.” Yet I hope I am far from that situation. It is only a reproof to the rancour of the political campaign that, as you have seen so much abuse of me, and to-night’s demonstration cannot reach the public eye, I thought I would make you aware that I have friends as well as enemies.”

Six months later I was retained by William O’Brien to defend one of his followers, and wrote my brother:

Chapelizod,

15th October, 1905.

John Roche, M.P., in a note to-day says that I should be the proudest man in Ireland for having been employed for John O’Donnell, M.P., because I had attacked him.

I got him off with three months’ imprisonment, and If Judge Ross had been sitting as Vacation Judge Instead of Boyd, I think I should have got him off altogether.”

In November, 1905, the Balfour Ministry resigned. Campbell-Bannerman was sent for, and became Prime Minister. Leading Tories supposed that owing to the cleavage in the Liberal ranks he could not form a Government. It was rumoured that Asquith, Grey and Haldane vowed they would not serve under him, but would stick to Lord Rosebery. Bannerman used to tell in his pleasant way how he saw each of the Imperialist trio separately at his house and won them over to his purpose.

The composition of the new Cabinet in which so many “Liberal Imperialists “held foremost places was not agreeable to Nationalists, as appears from a comment to Maurice:

Chapelizod,

12th December, 1905.

“The best of my judgment about the new Government is that they want to bury Home Rule, and will do nothing that they are not forced into. Perhaps it might not be the worst thing if they get a small Independent majority, as that would relieve them of the taunt of acting under Irish pressure. It is an attractive Ministry from John Bull’s point of view, and likely to be lasting if it keeps the Irish on hand.

Bob Reid, the new Chancellor [Lord Loreburn], is as good a fellow as ever breathed, and a staunch friend. The “nigger in the fence “is Asquith, a cold-blooded Yorkshireman. Sir B. Grey is friendly in moderation. So is Haldane, who whispered to me in 1893, at Gladstone’s dinner table, of the mistake the Irish made in dealing with Balfour. In 1901 Haldane was employed by Balfour to make a tour amongst the Irish bishops to commend a plan for University settlement, which came to nothing.

Fowler, the other “imp,” is more unsympathetic, and is partner to Perks. Lord Crewe is married to Rosebery’s daughter, and the whole lot must have joined the Cabinet in order to burst up Aunt Jane (as they call C.B.) at the first opportunity! Lord Aberdeen, the “decoy duck” for the Irish, carries no guns. The Canadian comics always made Lady Aberdeen their Viceroy, but she is strongly for Ireland and thoroughly sincere. C.B.’s wife hates the Rosebery faction like poison, but is afflicted with gout, and is a great concern to her husband. Bryce will cut no figure here, or in the House. He is a speaker with an unpleasant Belfast voice, and for all his learning, commands no weight.

The Tories will find their New Rules “barbed wire” to get over, but only for this, motions for adjournment at question-time would break up the Ministry-with operators like Carson, Campbell, Moore and Gordon on the Opposition benches, without mentioning Chamberlain, Balfour, Saunderson, or Long.

I never knew the Irish Office so weak. Hemphill is 84, and would be made a butt of though a fine old fellow.

Redmond was anxious he should be Lord Chancellor instead of Walker, and it shows how little his opinion is regarded by C.B. when Sam is reappointed. Treasury considerations to save the pension of £4,000 prevailed. Walker was Attorney-General when C.B. was Chief Secretary in 1884-5, and even when out of Parliament always waited on him when in London - so he told me.

It’s curious that, only for the O’Brien racket, the Dillonites would have ousted Redmond from the Chair after the General Election. Sexton never gives Redmond a “show “in the Freeman, and refuses to meet him because he says his mother was insulted at some meeting in Waterford during the Split which J.S.R. attended (where he was falsely charged with neglecting his mother). Redmond denies the incident, but “Silken Thomas ” is unrelenting.

The Party is in a sad plight for want of men of calibre. Redmond (and sometimes T.P.) is the only man listened to. Dillon disperses the House, and Blake is worse, while no new man is arising. This is the reason why there is no enthusiasm for Home Rule among the Liberals. They are a poor lot, and distrust us.”

A General Election followed the change of Ministry, after which I wrote my brother

Chapelizod

11th January, 1906.

“Up to the morning of the Loath Convention the Redmondites were striving to get a candidate against me. When they could secure no decent man they withdrew “out of deference to the Cardinal”!

As regards the results in England, I hear Balfour will be beaten. Cherry will be returned for Liverpool. Cecil Atkinson’s account of the smashing up of the Tory meetings is amusing. A Nonconformist gathering in Somerset refused to sing “God save the King,” owing to the Education dispute “Fiscal’, does not figure in Southern English counties, and “Education” is not of much account in the North.”

The Liberals carried Britain by an overwhelming majority. Bannerman, a plain-spoken Scotsman, after his victory, said to a follower who asked him, “What more can you want? ” “Well,” said he, “I should like to kick Balfour!

Davitt now advocated a “step by step” policy for Ireland, and when the House assembled I told Maurice:

House of Commons,

16th March, 1906.

“Redmond and Bryce are cogitating over some plan, but what it is I don’t know. Bryce is a Belfast man - without Morley’s Irish sympathies. Anthony MacDonnell is the driving power, and his models are Hindu.

The competition of Liberal and Labour reforms has blanketed the Irish Question. However, the tone of the House is friendly to Ireland.”

At the beginning of the session I met Lloyd George in Whitehall, as he was walking from the Board of Trade, to which he had been appointed President. I had while he was in opposition worked harmoniously with him, so in a friendly way I said that if any attempt was made to secularize education in Britain we should be against the new Government. Rather nettled, he replied, “We shall give Ireland Home Rule, and must ask you to allow England her local freedom,” or words to that effect. He then passed on briskly.

In May, Mr. Birrell brought in the Education Bill, which I knew was in contemplation when I spoke to Lloyd George. My speech against it was kindly treated by the Ministerial organ, the London Daily Chronicle (11th May, 1906):

“Mr. Dillon, on behalf of the Catholics, has specified the amendments which would satisfy them. Mr. Healy took much the same line yesterday afternoon in a speech which, for mingled humour and pathos, for powerful reasoning, finesse of temper, and emotional earnestness, has seldom been equalled in recent years in the House of Commons.”

The “Gallery” man of the London Standard mused:

“Mr. Healy spoke quietly, sardonically, emotionally, and he gripped the House. It was one of the most wonderful speeches delivered in this Parliament. Conceive the man: middle-aged, stoutish, ill-clad, with tie attempting to climb his collar, a man standing with hands carelessly behind his back, his pale sallowish countenance, with tufted rugged beard pushed out drowsy eyes, slowly blinking through thick pebbled pince-nez, the forehead high, cold; the bald temples reaching far back, a man with no emphasis, no gesture, no parlour-tricks of debate, but drawling, casual, and yet by personality, by detachment of mind, by the jaundiced satire of his tongue, the tearful wail of his Celtic and religious heart, the words dropping to a husky whisper-a most impressive orator… . With low modulated voice he pleaded the value of the eternal truths to children rather than instruction how to become rich-and the House was stilled. But in a minute he stirred the Chamber to uproarious hilarity. “I care very little for your education. I can’t spell; I can’t parse an English sentence; I can’t do the rule of three. I am supposed to know a little law, but I think that is a mistake.” Then the packed House was stilled again as, with drooping head and voice softening and breaking and nigh disappearing in feeling, he said: “There is one thing in which I and mine have a privilege, and that is the belief in Christ to come,” and so in a whisper, in a great silence, he asked for the continuance of the teaching given in the Catholic schools.”

I was told that the Archbishop of Canterbury, sitting next to Cardinal Bourne, congratulated him on my deliverance. Nevertheless, a great British Churchman, Sir John Kennaway, to whom I had never spoken, reproved me amidst congratulations for saying I could not spell. Who can?

The Education Bill, which Lloyd George and Dr. Clifford declared the nation panted for, was thrown out by the House of Lords, and although 22 years have gone by, it has not been heard of since. Long before 1906 1 sat up late at the National Liberal Club with Lloyd George and the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes to try to get at Nonconformist mentality as to education. I gleaned, perhaps imperfectly, believing that the religious notions of Churchmen and Nonconformists were not wide apart, that what the Nonconformists resented most was that in school they should bow to the vicar’s wife, and that they were not taken on excursions organized by the parson. I did not think these things trifles, especially in Wales where there is a racial difference. Yet why propose, because of the jarrings of Protestant opinion, to deprive every child who was not Protestant of religious instruction? Since then the Scotch have settled their education dispute.

Without shame I proclaim that I cannot write grammatically. Split infinitives and other hairy cattle of the weld do not startle me. As for “shall” and “will,” Byrne, editor of the Freeman’s Journal, debauched the “Irish race at home and abroad.” He always used the verbs crosswise. The foremost master of English, Cardinal Newman, declared of himself that he never composed a sentence without pain.

At the end of the session of 1906 I was retained by Sir George Lewis to conduct a legal inquiry in America, and wrote Maurice:

House of Commons,

18th July, 1906

“I shall leave Queenstown for New York on the 15th August for the FitzGerald case, with my wife and daughter.

I am in consultation with O’Brien in respect of his libel action against the Freeman. He has a good case on a review of all the speeches and articles he has raked up.

He and his friends are more ferocious against the Party than ever we were!”

When I reached New York I told him:

Hotel Waldorf Astoria,

New York,

27th August, 1906.

“Pat Egan breakfasted with us. He is not much changed, but has quite lost touch with Irish affairs from our point of view, and is full of New York Irish and American politics. He said he would not exchange the rule of John Bull in Ireland for the rule of Uncle Sam. He is rough on American statesmen and methods. John Devoy is his great bugbear, and he seems to think the heads of the Clan-na-Gael are in the pay of the British Government. My own view is that only for English Secret Service money there would be no secret societies in U.S.A.

My client, FitzGerald, says there isn’t a habitable town in the United States. Yet the people are all right and I have nothing but what is good to say of them. They have even grown more polite than when we were here in 1881.”

From New York we went to a coal centre in Pennsylvania, one of the most interesting places in our tour, called Union Town. After taking evidence there, I wrote that its coal wealth seemed so great as to be “beyond the dreams of avarice. ” Its hotel-keeper, Titlow, would not accept a dollar from any of the members of the Irish Bar who stayed with him. To prevent the then law of Pennsylvania operating as to Sunday-closing, he filled on a Saturday night my bath with bottles of lager beer on ice. Titlow’s hospitality was boundless. We were a party of half a dozen Dublin lawyers acting on a commission from Irish courts to investigate a divorce case, We were received in Union Town as if we were royalties. A beautifully-spoken Church of England clergyman came to Titlow’s hotel to greet us. After an hour or two he bade us good-bye, and we asked was there nothing we could do for him. “Ah, no,” said he. “I have a salary here of £800 a year, but I should gladly exchange it for £400 a year in England. I only called to hear the English language spoken.” speakers as we all were of the Anglo-Irish dialect, we smiled at each other as he left.

I wrote Maurice:

“California, Ltd.,” Train,

10th September. 1906.

“Union Town, Pa., is the most curious place I have struck. The riches are extraordinary. The Courthouse is finer than any we have. The solicitors’ room is lined with white marble. The bank is superior to any I have ever seen, outside America, and its strong-room, with an electric locking contrivance, is worth a visit!

Before we arrived at San Francisco the earthquake there had taken place. I telegraphed Father York of that city, believing he was the priest of the same name whom I had known in Dublin. He never revealed my mistake, and hospitably entertained us.

Hotel Metropole, Oaklands,

California

20th September. 1906.

“We passed through San Francisco last night in a cab. The desolation is awful. To-day we shall see the ruins left by the earthquake from a car, and to-morrow we start for Vancouver. It will take us 10 days to cross to the Atlantic coast. After we see Niagara we shall start by the first boat home.

We have had a much better time since we came West than before. The weather, although hot, was not unbearable. The Grand Canyon is a splendid sight which would require a month to see properly. Los Angeles and district are wonderful for vegetation and beauty, though the oil-derricks spoil the city.

The American accent is hard to understand in the common folk. If the divergence increases, in another hundred years it will be unintelligible to our posterity, although the written tongue remains the same. It’s harder to understand than Cockney English.

Only for the fun in the newspapers, they are filled with what to us seem trivialities. They take little interest in any European question, and even Irishmen have lost touch with Irish affairs. They all expect Home Rule next year from the Liberals as a matter of course!

We travelled home through Vancouver, and thought the Canadian Rockies” beyond Switzerland in beauty. We left Quebec for Dublin in October, 1906. I came home to see my father die.

Being absent two months, I lacked knowledge of the outbreak between O’Brien and Dillon. The Freeman had accused O’Brien of trying to form a “Middle Party,” and he brought an action for libel. It was tried in Limerick in March, 1907, and resulted in a verdict with nominal damages for O’Brien.

James Campbell and I were his counsel, and Campbell’s cross-examination of Sexton was smashing.

Dillon’s failure to attend the trial vexed Sexton. As part of the apparatus of humbug employed by the Freeman, its report of Sexton’s evidence embodied statements to which he did not swear. This (as he was in Limerick) was done in the Dublin office without Sexton’s knowledge. I wrote my brother:

House of Commons,

20th March, 1907.

“I did not see the Freeman report of my speech at the Limerick trial, but I bear O’Brien is going to publish a verbatim account.

The Party are very bitter over it and Billy Redmond to-day cut me for the first time Even during the Split we occasionally spoke. He will come round.

Birrell saw me trying to avoid him in the lobby yesterday and came and chatted pleasantly.""

The Freeman now became hostile to all Irish leaders. A movement to “get together” therefore began - in order that Freeman’s criticisms should be “spiked.” The owner of the Cork Examiner helped. I wrote Maurice:

Chapelizod,

22nd November, 1907.

“George Crosbie has been working a unity plan between O’Brien and Redmond. W. J. Lane wrote me that I should not obstruct it and should meet Redmond. To-day O’Brien writes “the coon will come down.”

At first Dillon announced that if I were allowed to return to the Party he would resign; whereupon O’Brien declared he would not return unless with me. He gave them until yesterday to make up their minds, and as he is to speak in Wexford on Sunday, they must have yielded.

Birrell called on me here three weeks ago unexpectedly with Thomas Lough, and a week later, wrote that he was coming again. I replied I would spare him the trouble, and called by appointment at the Lodge on Sunday week. He unfolded his University scheme, and I advised him it would be satisfactory, but that he should refuse to do anything until he had received assurances that his entire policy for Ireland next session would be backed by a united Party, including the abandonment of “cattle driving” - about which he was justly sore.

Birrell mentioned that Redmond wanted the Government to assent to a Home Rule resolution at the opening of next session “to save his face.” He went next day to London, where I knew Sexton was in conference with T.P. and others. I fancy Birrell informed them that without a united Party he could do nothing, and this may have brought about a change. A week ago G. Crosbie had written O’Brien that unity was hopeless, but now there is some new development.

I don’t want to go back amongst them, and told O’Brien I thought it would be unpleasant for both of us, and that our views would be obstructed and our efforts thwarted. I feel more divided from the Party than I did from the Parnellites when I made the reunion with them in 1900. A solicitor in Dundalk, who was aware there was something in the wind, sent me enclosed, showing the Cardinal’s views. Archbishop Walsh would be in favour of reunion, but is bitter against the Party and the Freeman.

O’Brien writes they are in mortal terror at the idea of having a National Convention. “which they seem to dread as much as they dread yourself.""

To prevent the Purchase Act being shattered O’Brien met Redmond, who, with Dr. O’Donnell (late the Cardinal Primate). represented Dillon at the conference. The negotiations were successful, and O’Brien and I resumed our places in the Party.

On this Birrell wrote me:

Irish Office.

Old Queen Street, S.W.,

22nd January, 1908

My Dear Healy, -

“I greatly rejoice at the reunion. Long may it continue. I want to have the advantage of your advice and co-operation during the University discussions. All seems to be going well. But I don’t know yet what suggestions the Bishops may make, though I am informed they are very well disposed.

I foresee dimly the following point of possible difference. All agree that the First Governing Body to set the University going and to keep it going, for, say, five years, must be a nominated body of Individuals, A.B., C.D., and so on. No reasons stated for them, but after they disappear, either en bloc or gradually, who are to take their places?

Two alternatives - a purely elected body representing the Graduates and the Faculties, with possibly some outsiders co-opted by the Elected Members - or a body, partly elected at large, by the Graduates, etc., and partly composed of men nominated by different authorities, e.g., the National and Intermediate Education Boards, and partly of er-officio members, and co-opted members. Amongst the ex-officio members would be, I presume, the Catholic and the Protestant Archbishops of Dublin, the Lord Mayor, and so on.

The first of these alternatives would be much easier to carry, as it would impose upon the University and its members the duty of choosing their Governing Body.

It is perhaps premature bothering you with this point but the time after all is not long and I want to be prepared beforehand.

In haste,”

A. Birrell.

When the session of 1908 began the Prime Minister, Campbell-Bannerman, was mortally stricken. Birrell, too, got ill, and I wrote Maurice:

Chapelizod,

29th February, 1908.

“Birrell’s illness is genuine, but unfortunate Campbell-Bannerman is done for, and although he promised to come down and support Redmond’s Home Rule motion, the case may be different now if he is prostrated, and Asquith feels secure in the saddle. All the Cabinet, I understand, have undertaken to work under Asquith.

Parliament is now sitting a month, and while both the big English Bills have been introduced, nothing is beard of the University Bill. I should be satisfied if we got that this year.

O’Brien, who has lived in Mayo, is full of real for a settlement of “the Western question.”

I dined with the Lord Chancellor [Walker] last night for the first time since he cane into office, and was greatly edified hearing him denounce the Treasury appointments. He actually offered to make more magistrates, although he recently made four. He mentioned that Dillon had promised that the Bill cutting down the Judges’ and his own salaries should never become law. There were a score of barristers, and the Master of the Rolls at the dinner.

I think a completely new political, journalistic and parliamentary situation will be soon created by Sinn Fein. P. A. McHugh was sick over the poll made by Dolan its nominee in Leitrim.”

A new movement had begun, and Dolan, a member of the Parliamentary Party, resigned his seat to fight its battle. He was beaten, but not badly. From inside the Cabinet we learnt that John Morley was strongest for “safeguards” as to a Home Rule Bill.

Respecting the new University, Birrell had occasion to rejoice that Orange opposition to his proposals melted away. On Redmond’s Home Rule resolution I was deputed by the reunited Party to speak in reply to the Government. Afterwards I wrote my brother:

31st March, 1908.

“The University Bill, after Carson’s, Wyndham’s and Balfour’s speeches, is sure to pass. William Moore admitted to me that “his lot” would not be sorry to have the question out of the way.

Birrell had a triumph last night, and I think his Party are in better spirits. It was a cruel task that fell to me quite unexpectedly to answer Asquiith the day previous, on the Home Rule resolution.

Redmond was sadly misinformed. Hs told me that Dillon complained of Birrell’s speech on Home Rule, but that Asquith would set matters right, and not to be anxious, so when I heard Asquith giving us away in fist-fulls I turned round to Redmond and asked some guidance, but got none (although I had been appointed at the Party meeting that day to reply). Whereupon I said, “I think I will give him a touch,” and Redmond said, “Very well.” After I had finished I thought I had made a poor show, but David Sheehy, to whom I had not spoken for 15 years, came up and congratulated me warmly, and so did a whole lot of the “bounders,” to whom I have not been friendly

Bishop O’Donnell was in the gallery and told one of them that my speech was quite necessary. I fear Redmond would hardly agree to this.

O’Brien said, “You have made history,” and gloomily predicted that the Party could not have stood anyhow, and that they had given birth to the Sinn Fein movement.

Tom Lough said it was the most necessary and “gorgeous” speech delivered for years, yet he is one of the Ministers. Samuels, K.C., who was in the gallery, told me it was the best speech he ever heard. So, anyhow, I am not disgraced.

Of course, I never dreamt of making, or having to make it, five minutes before I rose, as we could not expect such remarks from the designate-Prime Minister,

I don’t think we should have had such a good vote to-day on the University Bill if we hadn’t shown our teeth.

O’Mara, who resigned, came down to congratulate me to-day and said that most of the Party went to the Irish Club afterwards and highly approved of the line I took. An Italian journalist told me how much he relished my quotation from Dante.”

Winston Churchill, at Manchester (April, 1908), tried to make amends for Asquith’s deliverance:

“So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, the attack - very brilliant at the same time - the corrosive attack which Mr. Healy thought fit and proper to deliver upon him at the conclusion of that speech I must say - there are a great many Irishmen here, and I say with all respect to them - I think the Irish Party and the Irish people have shown a little less than their usual acumen in jumping to conclusions with regard to Mr. Asquith’s speech, which was certainly not sustained by any words which he uttered and which were still less sustained, but which were in fact absolutely refuted by the vote immediately given, not only by the whole Government, but by the overwhelming majority of the House of Commons.”

On Asquith becoming Prime Minister, John Morley went to the Lords rather thati be led by him in the Commons. Jealousy amongst Irish politicians is not unpartnered amongst men of British birth.

Morley’s biographer published in November, 1924, that he spoke of the Irish as “Wayward, and sometimes diabolic.” This satire on the result of 750 years of British tuition in civilization is severe,

In 1914 the “waywards,” 300,000 strong, sprang to the side which Morley deserted in the Great War. Fifty thousand of them fell, and as many more were wounded, without taking account of the “diabolics” from the Dominions and the United States.

The passage of Birrell’s University Bill was smoothed by Henry Butcher, M.P., professor of Greek in Cambridge (brother of Lord Danesfort). He was a Tory of the sweetest disposition, with whom I occasionally dined. He presented me with his works on Greece. Carson and other Irish Tories ako behaved well.

When Lloyd George conceived his “great” Budget I wrote

Maurice:

House of Commons,

29th March, 1909.

“I don’t know how the Government can find time for half their projects. The Budget, if it includes taxation of land values, must occupy the whole session.

O’Brien is extraordinarily plucky and optimistic. The idea of a man at his time of life starting a new organization, and fighting the others! I envy his energy. He showered praise on me for everything I did in court in Crean’s case.”

A few days after this O’Brien resigned, and I wrote my brother:

Chapelizod,

20th March, 1909.

“O’Brien is épatant. He never consulted me about resigning. His paper on Thursday had not a hint of his intentions, but is full of fight; yet on Friday his resignation is announced. My view is that if it was only for a week, and as a vindication, you should accept election for Cork if it fairly comes your way.”

Chapelizod,

1st April, 1909.

“I have heard from Brady, O’Brien’s solicitor, a story which throws a light on his resignation. He was so prostrated by Gussy Roche’s desertion that Dr. Cox was summoned by Mrs. O’Brien. The doctor, finding him bordering on collapse, ordered his retirement from public affairs, and insisted that he resign his seat. Mrs. O’Brien threw her weight on the doctor’s side, and O’Brien that night sent in his resignation and sent the news next day to the papers. Tout savoir c’est tout pardonner.”

O’Brien went abroad for several months. Hearing at Constantinople of Mrs. Dillon’s death, he cabled a long message of sympathy. This John never acknowledged, which pained O’Brien deeply. Dillon was usually a courteous man. After his death, in 1927, I was told that on his marriage I remarked privately, “This will double the number of his admirers.”

As it seemed apparent that O’Brien had retired from politics, I wrote my brother:

Chapelizod,

15th April, 1909.

“If without seeking it, a proposal should reach you to become a candidate for Cork, you ought to accept. I deplore the degradation of being associated with the “majority,” but unless someone leavens the lump, it can get no better. Moreover, you could always resign! Every one will know it is a sacrifice on your part, and that you cannot be expected to attend at the “drum-beat” as of yore.

The O’Brienites would rejoice if you agreed to stand, unless they mean to run William, which I doubt. I believe it would satisfy O’Brien that a hack did not succeed him, and all his influence would be thrown on your side. The days which would be required of you in London would be only a recreation. A great deal has happened since the time when we spent our lives at Westminster, and neglected our business. It would be something to confine the “solid blockheads” to their proper areas. If this opportunity is let slip, good-bye to anything like independence in our time.”

Although my brother was selected by a representative and unanimous convention as candidate for Cork, Redmond opposed him. He ran a nominee of his own without any popular endorsement, viz., George Crosbie, proprietor of the Cork Examiner. During the contest I wrote Maurice:

Chapelizod,

28th April, 1909.

“We were delighted to get your letter and to hear good news. My mind went back to the miserable evening in October, 1900, when I got your letter on the day of my own victory in North Louth, telling me you would be defeated in Cork. I would rather have been beaten myself.”

I did not interfere in the election, being a member of the Party, but when my brother triumphed, I wrote:

Chapelizod,

2nd May, 1909,

“Sunday being a day of rest, I spent it cursing the gang. This was interrupted by the Archbishop of Dublin’s visit. He meant it as a visit of congratulation, as he has not been here since August. He asked when we heard the news, and I know he remained up waiting for a message from the Independent. . .

The Archbishop inquired would there be any effort to exclude you from the Party, and said it would be “very funny if the terrible member of the family were included, and they excluded you.""

The ” Party” now flouted the decision of the third largest city in Ireland, and determined to exclude Maurice from its councils.

He had taken the “Pledge,” and I was a member of the Party, yet he was denied admission to the fold. The downfall of the parliamentary movement had begun.

O’Brien’s friends, in his absence from Parliament, took a stand against the Lloyd George Budget of 1909. We revelled in circumventing the Chancellor’s efforts to “square” matters with the Irish Party, and drove him into many fiscal modifications.

Our exposure of the way in which the death duties would hit Irish farmers and the licensing duties bleed Irish vintners alarmed the Redmondites. Privately, they implored the Chancellor to reduce his impositions. As I entered the House on a morning sitting I found Lloyd George elaborating the concessions he was prepared to make. I wrote my brother:

Chapelizod,

15th October, 1909.

“I had not looked at the Order Paper before the death-duty section was down. I only learnt it was on, when I came to the House and found Lloyd George on his legs (after prayers). Clancy and Dillon were the only Irish members present, and evidently knew all about it. A probate expert wrote me denouncing the clause, and I told him to write to the newspapers. I believe his letter appeared in the Freeman last Thursday. Dillon declared that the Government amendments would settle the case of every purchased tenant. I think I riddled this.

Lloyd George was insolent to me over it, so much so that the Welsh M. P. who has written his Life suggested that I should stand for a Welsh constituency, and that all the vernacular Welsh papers were full of my references to Disestablishment.

On the Licensing clauses Sam Evans’s speech defined the concession which Asquith made. It was the most appalling condemnation of the original Budget proposals, and showed that publicans in towns like Athlone would be contributing as much as those in Edinburgh.

The Lords have made hay of Birrell’s Education Bill, and the Budget also will be killed by them.”

Before the Licensing Clauses were through, T. P. O’Connor was cabled for by the Chancellor’s agents to return from Germany to prevent men like Stephen Gwynn voting with me in protest against the fleecing of Ireland.

I wrote Maurice

Chapelizod,

17th October, 1909.

“An official told me to-day he had seen a draft of the new Death Duty clause in the Budget to raise the tenants’ exemption to £1,000 This must be something not circulated to members, but a private draft for official use.

He was friendly to Dillon, but admitted that John was wrong in his estimate of the effect of Lloyd George’s concession and that of the £70,000 a year which the clause was originally estimated to capture from the Irish farmers, the amendment would only cost the Treasury £3,000 a year.

The Irish officials have written the London advisers of Lloyd George that the position has been misconceived by the draftsmen. My friend told me the Freeman misreported the clause on the occasion I attacked it, and that he only discovered this on comparing the Freeman version with The Times. He added that although the answer to your question about the case of “Attorney-General v. Robinson” was rightly given, the practice has been changed since the Budget was introduced. He is of opinion that if the Bill becomes law, it fails to justify the change which the Government pretend has been effected by the amendment.

I am at the disadvantage that I have not the words of the clause here. Neither had he. But he was emphatic that Dillon over-stated the “Concession,” and that Lloyd George was not rightly instructed by his English experts.

I explained that I was taken unawares when the amending clause was set down, and that if I had not risen when Clancy accepted it, it would have gone through without discussion, as I did not get time to examine the sections. He said it was a thousand pities you were not there. I said you felt this yourself as bitterly as I did, but we were tricked by the pre-arrangement between the Government and the “Party.""

John Clancy, M.P., had been given access to the Dublin Custom House, where its officials were ordered to prime him to defend the Budget from the Redmondite standpoint. I wrote my brother:

Chapelizod,

21st October, 1909.

“It is supposed that Lloyd George intended by his second amendment to Clause 61 to extend the Death Duty limit to £1,000 by his incorporation of Section 16 of the ‘94 Act, but I think it plain that nothing of the kind has been effected.

He must have had some understanding with Dillon and Clancy to extend the limit to £1,000, and supposed that his words carried this out. This would explain Dillon’s chortling.”

An unannounced consequence of the Budget would have been to compel Religious Orders to pay Death Duties on their total capital every time a trustee died. I acquit Lloyd George of acquaintance with the effect of this proposal, which was of French origin. He dropped it when we showed the havoc it would work on communities and corporations, Protestant as well as Catholic.

The late Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Walsh, was so grateful for our work in killing it, that when he arrived in London from a Continental holiday, he invited me to the Charing Cross Hotel to receive his thanks. “This,” he said, “is the real Healy Clause.” I told him my brother alone deserved such gratitude.

The original plan of the Government did not spring from any anti-religious spirit. I have never known an English Ministry - as a body - to be animated by hostile designs against religion. While we were opposing Lloyd George’s Budget, Lawson Walton, the Attorney-General, helped a French Sisterhood against an attempted mulct. Miss Pore, daughter of the great parliamentary advocate, Samuel Pope, O.C., was a nun in their house. By his will, Pope (a Protestant) left her £1,000. This the French claimed, under the law suppressing religious establishments.

Her convent in Havre was turned into a gambling-house. Expelled from Havre, the nuns came to Henley. When the refugees reached Dover, King Edward VII, who was travelling from France, seeing their distress, caused a carriage to be attached to his special train to bring them to London.

They were never tired of speaking of the kindness shown them in Henley. The Protestant vicar sent his children to their school to learn French, and chided them on the modest rate charged for instruction.

When the French claim was to come before the Probate Division in London they approached me, and I told their story to the Attorney-General, who foiled the attempt to rob them. The nuns were poverty-stricken after expulsion, and [A.-G.J Lawson Walton sent a barrister to court to protect their interests, and defeated the French Government.

The father of Miss Pope, in the ‘eighties, dominated the Private Bill Committees of Lords and Commons. His mind was stored with a wealth of precedents on the technique of Private Bills. No one dared write a book on parliamentary practice lest its secrets should become general knowledge. Pope knew everything, and was in all big cases. He was a temperance advocate, and no one could argue more convincingly en the merits of Sir Wilfred Lawson’s Permissive Bill than he - after a glass of champagne!

To return to politics, I must explain that as I fought Lloyd George’s Budget fiercely, the “Party” flamed with indignation, and its leaders were resolved to jettison me again. The Dublin vintners, however, on whom they depended, disapproved of this course and sent to London a deputation to Redmond to say so. He quailed as usual and deferred the guillotine.

I wrote:

Chapelizod,

1st November, 1909.

“If you have to be in London on Friday, come Thursday instead, and vote against the third reading of the Budget.

It is plain that Redmond is in the Liberal pocket. T.P.’s letters to a Chicago paper have recently altered in tone, showing that the Party begin to realize the injury to Ireland done by the Budget, but he asks, “What is the ruin of a few thousand publicans to the ruin of half a million tenants?” I gathered this from John Devoy’s paper, although T.P.’s attacks on me are not fully given therein.

Secret instructions have reached the Dublin Custom House from London as to the true construction of Clause 61. Evidently Dillon communicated with Lloyd George, who put him on the track of starting a controversy against me. The scribe employed to defend the Budget in the Irish Press could no more write what he signed than he could compose the Psalms.

Samuels, K.C., is writing an analysis of the Budget as to its effect on land taxes, and thinks they are full of pitfalls for farmers. It is a scandal to draft a taxing Bill in such a way that even experts cannot be certain of its meaning.”

When the Lords threw out the Budget, the Government dissolved, and I wrote Maurice:

Chapelizod,

21st November, 1909.

“O’Brien will return for the elections, and will be here in three weeks. Bishop O’Donnell’s letter yesterday was evidently written advisedly. Our Archbishop’s letter was a nasty pill for Redmond.”

Chapelizod,

25th November, 1909.

“A solicitor came to me about Birrell’s pledge (as he called it) to finance Purchase agreements down to the date of the passing of the Act, and complained that it was not inserted. I replied no actual pledge had been given, and as the Lords were so foolish as not to provide for this, it is now too late.

William Moore, K.C., told me that the Lords were asses enough to suppose, when they agreed to Lord Crewe’s motion negativing their previous amendments, that a number of small matters which they had dealt with need not again be provided for, and that the Bill is, therefore, full of mischievous things from the landlords’ point of view! Were the Lords such fools? He assured me it was so.

What a gamble legislation is! It reminds me of some of our mistakes on the Land Bill of 1896.

Moore says the Lords will insist on their Appeal Tribunal, but James Campbell told me there was to be some compromise about a Referee and a King’s Bench Judge. So it is evident the Bill will become law.

When you speak, make clear that the attack on the Wyndham Act was part of the “determined campaign.” It was Dillon’s Swinford speech, which he tried to sneak out of, that blooded the Treasury into” torpedoing” the Wyndham Act - a poor reward for the Party’s conniving at the passing of the Budget, which they three times might have defeated. Show how false Redmond’s figures were, as proved by Samuels, whom you will find quoted by Lord Dunraven.

When we recall the talk about the destruction of the Irish woolen manufactures by William III, it should be remembered that this didn’t amount to £100,000 a year, whereas the whisky trade amounts to millions. You will find useful figures in Alice Murray’s book on financial relations.

The policy of the Party to keep the Trinity College tenants unsold was owing to the Donegal resolution asserting that the lands should be retained for Catholic purposes. What a prospect!

If there had been a Conference with the landlords, the tenants could not have come worse off than they have, on the confession of the Party organ. Even Birrell speaks of the “ruins” of his Land Bill, and it is clear that were it not a Treasury Relief Bill, he would not have tolerated the Lords’ amendments.

Nothing has been extracted from the Liberals since the declaration of Asquith last year, which I denounced on behalf of the Party. Yet Dillon said publicly I should go home to let him “harvest” concessions for them! Such a harvester and binder!

Lord Lansdowne postponed the rejection of the Budget until Tuesday, because the Cabinet yesterday decided to dissolve Parliament at once, instead of waiting till January. The Tories believe delay is on their side. One of the news agencies says that the “hot-heads” amongst the Liberals declare that the inconvenience to Christmas trade is nothing compared with the necessity of an immediate attack on the House of Lords.”

When the Cabinet decided to appeal to the country after the rejection of the Budget by the Lords, I wrote my brother:

Chapelizod,

2nd December, 1909.

“In spite of a stale register, it seems good card-playing for the Government to have an immediate Dissolution. They think to do better than if they waited until January for the fresh register with more unemployment.

Healy Index. Home.