unprecedented 174 grazing farms remained unlet in 1907.160
The political dimension of the campaign was soon on display. Unionists who expressed concern about lawlessness and disparaged the Government for inactivity were labelled ‘carrion crows’ by Birrell in April 1907 (indicating, as the Freeman put it, their ‘insatiable appetite for the unsavoury’). The phrase was taken up with enthusiasm by the nationalist press.161 Birrell’s claim that the country had not been more peaceful in 600 years seemed a complacent echo of nationalist propaganda, and would look hollow in the light of data he later gave for Irish agrarian crime in 1907: ninety-eight outrages with firearms (up from twenty-two in 1906), 276 cases of malicious injury to persons, animals and property and 270 people needing police protection.162 In August, six counties were proclaimed as seriously disorderly and 400 extra police drafted in at the request of the RIC Inspector General; the following June, a further two counties and 350 police were added.163 The Times called for the revival of the 1887 Coercion Act.164 Birrell warned that cattle-driving could only tie the Chief Secretary’s hands on reform. T.M. Kettle challenged such warnings as ‘reactionary’ utterances similar to those of ‘Buckshot’ Forster (Birrell’s Liberal predecessor in 1881), and sought to justify cattle-driving: ‘All the economics, all the public spirit, all the common sense was on the side of the cattle-drivers and against the Castle drivellers.’165
Before the Council Bill fiasco, Ginnell had complained to Redmond at his refusal to convene a party meeting to plan for the campaign: ‘Neither League nor party having decided to suspend agitation, I have no authority to suspend it. Your decision threw me back upon my own duty to keep the people up to the fighting line.’166 With the bill dead, it was time for the shift in attitude implied by Kettle’s words. Devlin, having conferred with Redmond, wrote to Dillon in June 1907 that the situation demanded that ‘prompt steps should be taken to give the country a lead’.167 He advised Redmond that the representative of each district where cattle-driving was carried on ‘should be sent into these places to associate himself with the people’. Listing the counties where the grazing agitation was most acute, he referred to Ginnell: ‘There is no row at present in Westmeath, but Ginnell has written me to say that he is coming over in order to create one, and I have given him every encouragement.’168 All this was reflected in the unwonted militancy of the June Party Statement and of Redmond’s call at Battersea for agitation for the compulsory purchase of the grazing tracts, repeated in east Galway, the heart of the disturbed area where Sinn Féin organizers were already active. A sizeable number of party MPs took their cue from Redmond and advocated boycotting and intimidation.169 Prosecutions for cattle-driving multiplied throughout 1907 and 1908. In late August 1907, six counties were proclaimed, and J.P. Farrell, MP for North Longford, who had called for the fight to be extended to every ranch, was arrested along with seventeen others. Ginnell was prosecuted and given a six-month sentence for contempt of court when he failed to attend in December.170 Farrell was jailed for six months the following December, and served three months.171
Paul Bew has described the novel aspect of the anti-grazier agitation that distinguished it from earlier phases of the land war. As Ginnell’s January 1907 letter to Redmond testifies, graziers were often well-to-do Catholics and nationalists, some even members of the League. The potential for double standards and hypocrisy, and conflicts within the League between nationalists divided by the land issue, was obvious.172 Ginnell complained of being attacked and thwarted at every turn by the ‘wealthy Westmeath grazing interest’ and its chief organ, the Westmeath Examiner, whose editor was J.P. Hayden, MP for South Roscommon and a personal friend and confidant of Redmond from Parnellite days. Hayden had made ‘incursions’ into his constituency, said Ginnell, who asked Redmond to ‘take serious notice’ of Hayden’s opposition to UIL policy and to prevent his making the League an organization for the defence of ranchers.173
IX
Everywhere Redmond went in autumn 1907, he was made aware of the strong grass- roots mood in favour of having O’Brien and Healy – the mortal enemies of 1900, whose relationship had slowly transmuted itself into an alliance cemented by a certain agreement on agrarian policy, a shared hatred of Dillon and a shared contempt for Redmond – and the former’s acolytes readmitted to the party.174 In early October, O’Brien publicly suggested a friendly conference with Redmond, who replied favourably to the idea at subsequent meetings that month. Efforts were made behind the scenes in November by Captain Donelan and George Crosbie to arrange such a conference.175 The moves revived all of Dillon’s old unease, especially when O’Brien insisted on Healy’s readmission, as well as on a convention to be held in advance to ratify the terms of agreement in both of their cases. Redmond’s suggestion that Healy’s case be deferred for a year until things settled down was refused outright by O’Brien, who wrote to Healy that: ‘He [Redmond] undoubtedly pines for an agreement, but shudders at the danger of offending Dillon and the Freeman.’ Healy found Redmond’s suggestion ‘not unnatural’, and was willing to allow O’Brien to re-enter without him, so strongly did he believe in his power to ‘stop the rot’ in the party.176 Meanwhile, Redmond battled against Dillon’s negativity:
I feel very strongly that if Crosbie’s letter were published tomorrow alongside of an absolute refusal by us, the effect would be extremely bad and many of our best friends would think us in the wrong.177
Despite Redmond’s refusal of a convention, and O’Brien’s adamance on the admission of Healy, initial impressions were nonetheless positive when the informal conference went ahead on 13 December, with Bishop O’Donnell joining O’Brien, Healy and Redmond.178 However, wrangling continued over the precise meaning of the party pledge. Redmond received a barrage of advice from Dillon, who had no doubt that ‘much mischief’ had been done and that O’Brien had gained much ground.179 Despite Redmond’s assurance on 19 December that no concessions had been made on vital matters, Dillon was unpersuaded, and blamed him for O’Brien’s revival:
… a very serious situation has now arisen. O’Brien with great astuteness has… outmanoeuvred the Party, and he is now appearing before the country as the champion of unity – always a popular cry… Before your speeches at Drumkeeran and Limerick… O’Brien and his followers were absolutely unable to get a meeting in Mayo or indeed in any part of Connaught. But now the idea has gone abroad that you are more or less in sympathy with this agitation… if this is allowed to continue, I fear the effect on the position of the Party will be disastrous….180
Redmond refusing further meetings with O’Brien, the standoff continued into the new year.181 O’Brien and Healy responded positively, however, when the principles agreed before Christmas were published and endorsed by the Directory as the basis on which the dissidents might return to membership of a pledge-bound party. In turn, the party approved this declaration, Dillon proposing the readmission of all MPs who accepted the principles and signed the party pledge. On 18 January 1908, the Freeman announced ‘The Triumph of Unity’ and published friendly correspondence between O’Brien and Redmond.182 Privately, Redmond wrote to O’Brien: ‘I sincerely trust that we are now at the end of our quarrels which have been a great source of unhappiness to me all through.’183
The agreement covered the O’Brienite MPs Augustine Roche, D.D. Sheehan and John O’Donnell. Esmonde announced a week later that he would rejoin the party in deference to the wishes of his friends, but had ‘no great hopes’ in the efficacy of parliamentary action.184 Dolan was a different matter. On 30 January, he finally declared his resignation and his intention to stand for Sinn Féin. The by-election was fixed for 21 February. The campaign, in reality an eight-month affair, lived up to the best traditions of violent Irish elections.185 Dolan’s support lay among the members of the North Leitrim UIL Executive who had opposed the Council Bill and had mandated him in June to go to the National Directory to call for the party’s withdrawal from Westminster. At Redmond’s October meeting at Drumkeeran in the constituency, Dolan had tried to speak, but was met with cries of ‘Clear out’ and ‘Traitor’, followed by the throwing of mud and stones.186
The party took seriously the electoral challenge
