CORRESPONDENCE.
MR. REDMOND'S SURPRISE PARTY.
ITO THE EDITOR OF TEM .SPEOTATOR.1 SIR,—Opinion in Ireland was a good deal divided about the fate of Mr. Birrell's Bill when it was submitted to the Con- vention in Dublin. Men of strong and vigorous opinions, like the Sinn Fein Party in the Dublin Corporation, made up their
minds at once. The Bill was to be rejected. The very proposal of such a Bill was an insult to the Irish people. Men in independent positions, like Cardinal Logue and Bishop O'Dwyer of Limerick, condemned the Bill. Mr. Healy, in whom the instinct of a wrecker is strong, poured acorn of a particularly withering kind on the Bill and the pa;ty which was prepared to consider it. But men of strong convictions and men of independent position, rare everywhere, are very rare in Ireland. Also, fortunately or unfortunately, there is only one member of Mr. Timothy Healy's party. Most of the Irish Nationalists were uncertain how they ought to treat the Bill. Most of the various bodies which sent delegates to the Convention decided that it would be better to see what the Convention thought before thinking themselves.
Mr. Redmond is an able man, a master of tactics, and very persuasive as a speaker. It was possible, in many people's opinion it was probable, that be would be able to persuade the Convention to accept the Bill in spite of the Bishops on the one side and the Sinn Fein people on the other. Therefore the ordinary delegate, the chosen representative of a Board of Guardians or an Urban District Council, was unwilling to commit himself beforehand. It is very unpleasant, unless one happens to be a hero soul; to form one of a minority. There- fore, also, people who were not Nationalists, and so were in a sense outsiders, were in a position to make bets on the result of the Convention. The odds on Monday morning were slightly in favour of the Convention accepting the Bill. Delegates travelling north or south or east in trains which converged on Dublin discussed the Bill and the probable action of the Convention. On Monday afternoon it was still possible for good Nationalists to discuss the Bill. On Tuesday afternoon no discussion was possible. The Convention unanimously rejected the Bill.
For Mr. Redmond had a surprise for the delegates when they arrived in the Round Room beside the Mansion House,— a chamber originally erected that George IV. might dine in spacious comfort. But few thoughts were of George IV., or of the wonderful coats-of-arms of the city's bygone Lord Mayors which adorn the walla, reflecting credit on the ingenuity of Ulster King-at-Arms. There on the agenda- paper stood a notice of motion in the name of Mr. John Redmond. It condemned the Bill, rejected it, cast it back into the teeth of Mr. Birrell; indeed, poured utter scorn upon the Bill.
Mr. Redmond proposed his motion in a speech which he seemed to dislike making, and which the delegates received without enthusiasm. The speech was, in fact, an apologia for Mr. Redmond's policy, and for the Parliamentary tactics of the party. It was a very able speech, and a perfectly straight- forward one. It was plain that Mr. Redmond thoroughly understood the position and mind of the Liberal Government. It was plain that he believed that it was only by accepting a little that he would get anything at all. It was plain, also, that he had somehow lost touch with Ireland ; that be had not understood until the very last moment the strength of the forces in Ireland which were opposed to compromise. The majority of those to whom Mr. Redmond spoke knew nothing of the game of party politics as it is played at Westminster, and cared very little about what appeared possible or impos- sible to the Liberal Cabinet. The speech was listened to coldly at first. After a time the buzz of conversation made it difficult to hear Mr: Redmond at all. Only when he reached the end of his speech and spoke of rejecting the Bill was there any enthusiasm. Even to the last, even when he denied that any alliance existed between the Irish Party and the Liberals, the enthusiasm was not general nor the cheering loud.
Mr. Redmond sat down. His position as the leader of the Irish Nationalists was shaken. The prestige of his party was injured. The next three speeches did nothing to restore the tone of the Convention. Mr. A. J. Kettle seconded the motion which rejected the Bill. He is a veteran Nationalist, and a man who bears a high character for consistency and courage. He had declared himself from the very first opposed to the Bill. He was listened to, but he excited no enthusiasm. A delegate from the United Irish League of Boston followed him with a speech full of catchwords and old, party cries,—a speech which on another occasion might have done very well, but which failed to catch the flagging attention of the meeting. Then came the, Rev. Father Humphreys, a priest well known for his uncompromising advocacy of the clerical control of the schools. • He objected to the clause in the Bill which established a Department of Education under the control of the new Council. The meeting woke up to protest angrily against Father. Humphreys's strong language. Mr. Redmond ruled the discussion of particular clauses of the Bill out-of order, and Father Humphreys, after a protest, gave way.. The incident was significant. Apparently the doctrine that lay management of the schools "lets the Devil in" was not popular with the Convention.
After Father Humphreys came Mr. Devlin, M.P. He made a brilliant speech, and was cheered again and again by the audience. After a protest against the "sectarianism" of Father Humphreys, he proclaimed in periods of real eloquence the reliance of the Irish Party on Irish democracy. He quoted with approval Mr. Sloan's condemnation of the Bill, and—an odd and suggestive fact—the crowded meeting of Nationalists cheered the Orangeman because they understood that he was a genuine democrat. The spirit which fired Mr. Devlin's speech was unmistakable. He was absolutely sincere in his belief in his party, and full of hope for the future. But his hope lay in the religious tolerance and brotherly forgetfulness of minor differences which ought to animate a great democracy. The old narrowness which made Irish Nationalism practically identical with Irish Roman Catholicism is no part of Mr. Devlin's creed. Apparently most of the audience were in full sympathy with him.
Another outstanding feature of the debate—if that can be called a debate where all the speaking is on one side—was the admission that the Irish Parliamentary Party has been losing ground in Ireland. Mr. Redmond made the admission. Mr. Devlin made it. Every speaker who did anything more than speak large familiar words made it. It was made plainly in a resolution passed after the Bill was condemned. The resolu- tion mentioned " the present apathy and indifference which exists among our people," "the seriousness of the situation," and emphasised the absolnte necessity of supporting the United Irish League. No intelligent man who knows Ireland to-day can doubt that the fears of the Parliamentary leaders are well founded. What is the future to bring forth ? There are those who think that the power of the politicians and the United Irish League is decaying, that it will crumble, as such powers do occasionally, with startling rapidity. It is too soon to be certain about this. But two or three things seem clear. First, Nationalism, the spirit which impels men to make sacrifices for their country and for what they 'believe to be her good, is not dead in Ireland. This was obvious in the Convention itself. It was much more obvious outside it ; in the debates of certain local bodies on the Bill and in the articles of independent papers. Next, agrarian agitation, the land hunger of the tenant-farmer, cannot be relied upon for long to supply the driving-force of the national movement. Finton Lawlor in 1850 suggested that the class war of tenant against landlord would give the enthusiasm necessary for a great movement. Michael Davitt, with the consent of Parnell, put the idea into practice. Now the enthusiasm is failing. The driving- force is becoming exhausted. Further, not only the best Irishmen, but the majority of Irishmen, are becoming tired of sectarian strife. There may be, there very probably will be, a temporary revival of agrarian trouble in connexion with the grazing lands in the Midlands. There may be, though this is far less likely, a recrudescence of religious bitterness. But neither land war nor bigotry is likely any more to be in close alliance with genuine Nationalism.
Mr. Redmond laid down in his speech the line of his party's activity in the near future,—a University Bill along Mr. Bryce's lines, an Evicted Tenants Bill, an amendment of the Land Purchase Bill. Will this programme be sufficiently inspiring to save the Irish Party from the decay which threatens it ? Is there more hope for it along the line of Mr. Devlin's new Irish democratic movement P These are the questions to which the party has to find answers in the near future. The position is one requiring grave thought and fearless action. For Ireland itself, the greater Ireland which lies outside the ring of politicians, there is a more serious question still " Is it worth while supporting the Parlia- mentary Party any longer P "—I am, Sir, &c., GEonoz A. BIRMINGHAM, Author of 1‘ The Seething Pot."
Previous page
