EDWARD BLAKE MP
8 Leeson Park, 3 November 1900:
… The Elections, taking everything into account, have I think been satisfactory. While I did not personally approve of the policy of making peace with a hatchet, it is at least very satisfactory that the country has pronounced its opinion in such a decided way.
I think if things are allowed now to settle down, that we have a very fair chance of a strong movement, and a united Party, but if a policy of expulsion be adopted, I have very great fears of the consequences …8
***
As the second UIL Convention approached, the strife between O’Brien and Healy, often fought out in the editorial columns of the Freeman’s Journal and the Irish Daily Independent (see Chapter 12) reached new heights of bitterness. The Archbishop of Dublin was moved to intervene.
FROM WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP
9 November 1900:
… The only thing on which I am quite clear and which for me will involve the question of my membership of the Party is that the Convention ought specifically to direct Healy’s exclusion from the Party …9
TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP
8 Leeson Park, 10 November 1900:
… Consider well whether it may not be quite possible to effect your object as to the Party by proposing some test for membership such as adoption of League and authority of Convention, which would have the same effect as exclusion of individuals practically by name …
I would be in favour of continuing the three Trustees for the new [Parliamentary] Fund, but I think the distribution of the Fund ought to be in the hands of the Party and its own Treasurers …10
TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP
8 Leeson Park, 5 December 1900:
[Regarding O’Brien’s proposed resolutions for UIL Convention]
… In my opinion this resolution should be followed by one dealing with the surplus of the General Election Fund (close upon £3,000) and allocating portion of it to form the beginning of the new Fund and portion to the League.
I don’t think it reasonable to expect an early response to the new appeal and therefore out of the surplus we will have to provide enough to send the Party to London in February – that is to say at £50 a head about £2,000 …11
TO ARCHBISHOP WALSH
8 Leeson Park, 10 December 1900:
I have read your letter with much concern … the intervention of Your Grace in the direction indicated is a very serious matter; at the same time if Your Grace feels it a public duty to make a pronouncement on the political situation that has arisen I cannot take the responsibility of asking you to refrain from doing so.
I sincerely hope that the Convention proceedings do not have the deplorable consequences you anticipate.12
***
The second Convention was held on 11–12 December 1900. With Redmond trying to keep order amid fierce uproar, the Convention voted by a large majority for O’Brien’s motion to exclude Healy from the Party, all former Parnellites voting against. The decision brought peace to the Party. Redmond set about organising it for Parliamentary work.
TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP
8 Leeson Park, (circular letter) 1 January 1901:
… the Committee of the Party appointed to ‘consider and report upon a plan for the distribution of Parliamentary work amongst members of the Party’ has reported in favour of the appointment of Sessional Standing Committees to deal with … (1) Land and Evicted Tenants, (2) Congested Districts, (3) Labour, (4) Town Tenants, (5) Education, (6) Financial Relations, (7) Administration, (8) Local Government, (9) British Affairs, (10) Foreign Affairs, (11) Private Bill legislation.
I am most anxious at the very commencement of the Session to put this system (if approved by the Party) into immediate operation.
… I would be very much obliged if you would let me know … if you are willing to serve on committees on [(1), (2) and (7)].13
***
THE LAND STRUGGLE
From the beginning of the 1901 session, Redmond and his colleagues, in line with Parnell’s policy of realizing peasant proprietorship, made the achievement of new land purchase legislation from the Tory Government the policy priority for the Party. An integral part of this strategy was a campaign of agitation in the countryside. While avoiding outright violence, this relied on traditional methods of intimidation and boycotting to enforce the will of the UIL, which by autumn 1901 had 100,000 members organised in 1,000 branches. Among those imprisoned under the coercion laws were some Party MPs.
FROM JOHN DILLON MP
Dublin, 29 January 1901:
… I am very strongly of the opinion that the amendment on Compulsory Sale ought to be the first Irish amendment [to the Address] and ought to be moved by you …14
TO JOHN DILLON MP
Aughavanagh, 30 January 1901:
I am very glad to find your view the same as my own about Land Purchase. I am rather doubtful about O’Brien’s view from a note I had from him some little time ago … but it would be utter madness to hand over this question which has been in one shape or another our chief plank on the land question since the Land League to Russell or anyone else …
P.S. It’s all snowed up here.15
TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP
52 Wynnstay Gardens, 5 February 1901:
I need not say how sorry I am to hear of your renewed illness.
We can have at least two good Irish debates on the Address. The Address will last fully a fortnight … My view is we shd. concentrate ourselves this year on two: [Land] Purchase and the League …
I also am laid up with a heavy cold … I have had a terrible trip to meetings in Yorkshire.16
TO WILLIAM O’BRIEN MP
52 Wynnstay Gardens, 4 April 1901:
I was glad to learn from your note that you are improving though slowly. I am sure when the spring weather comes and you are able to be in the open air more, that you will rapidly recover.
… We are to hold a meeting of the Directory on Tuesday the 16th. If you feel at all up to it, I would be very much obliged for a few lines giving me any suggestions that may occur to you as to resolutions.
I will be at the Gresham Hotel on Saturday the 13th …17
TO JOHN O’CALLAGHAN, SECRETARY, UNITED IRISH LEAGUE OF AMERICA, BOSTON
House of Commons, 26 April 1901:
Things are going exceedingly well. The League
