THE PARNELLITES AND THE ENGLISH PARTIES.
(Prologue, p. 1.)
As I am not writing a history of English parties, I need not discuss here the truth or falsehood of this contention. But I cannot let it pa.s.s without a word as to two cases which came under my own observation, and which aggravate the inherent improbability of the tale. In November 1885 I went to America, and on my way pa.s.sed through Stockport, where my friend, Mr. Jennings, long my correspondent in England, was then standing as a Conservative candidate. I attended one of his meetings and heard him make an effective speech, much applauded, which turned exclusively upon imperial and financial issues. That he had no understanding whatever with the "managers" of the Irish vote in Stockport, I have the best reason to believe. But he was a.s.sured by them that the Irish intended to vote for him; and at a subsequent time he was rashly a.s.sailed in the House of Commons by an Irish member with the charge that he had broken faith with the Irish who elected him. It was an unlucky a.s.sault for the a.s.sailant, as it gave Mr. Jennings an opportunity, which he promptly improved, to show that he owed nothing to the Irish voters of Stockport. Whether they voted for him in any number in 1885 was more than doubtful; while in 1886 they voted solidly against him, with the result of swelling his majority from 369 to 518 votes.
In January 1886 I returned to Europe, and going on a visit into Yorkshire, there met a prominent Irish Nationalist, who told me that he had come into the north of England expressly to regiment the Irish voters, and throw their votes for the Conservative candidates, on the ground that it was necessary to make the Liberals fully understand their power. He had fully expected in this way to elect a Conservative member for the city of York. Great was his chagrin, therefore, when he found the Liberal candidate returned. Upon investigation he discovered, as he told me, that the catastrophe was due to the activity of a local Irish priest, _who was a devoted Fenian_, utterly opposed to the Parliamentary programme, and who had exerted his authority over the local Irish to bring them to the polls for the Liberal candidate.
Sir Frederick Milner, Bart., the defeated Conservative candidate for York, afterwards told me that the local priest referred to here was a most excellent man, and that so far from playing the part thus ascribed to him, he took the trouble, as a matter of fair dealing, to see his parishioners on the morning of the election and warn them against believing a pamphlet which was sedulously circulated among the Irish voters on the night before the polling, with a message to the effect that Sir Frederick despised the Irish, and wanted nothing to do with them or their votes. Sir Frederick has no doubt, from his knowledge of what occurred during the canva.s.s, that direct instructions were sent by Mr. Parnell or his agents to the Irish voters in York to throw their votes against the Radical candidates. These latter brought down a Home Rule lecturer to counteract the effect of these instructions, and the pamphlet above referred to was an eleventh-hour blow in the same interest. It was successful; the Irish votes, some 500 in number, being polled early in the morning under the impression produced by it. The moral of this incident would seem to be, not that there was any real understanding in 1885 between the Parnellites and the English Conservatives at all, but simply that the English Radical wirepullers are more alert and active than either the Irish Parnellites or the English Conservatives. It is interesting, too, as it ill.u.s.trates the deep dread and distrust of the "Fenians" in which the Parnellites habitually go.
NOTE E.
THE "BOYCOTT" AT MILTOWN-MALBAY.
(Vol. i. p. 209.)
Father White of Miltown-Malbay, taking exception to the statement made by me, upon the authority of Colonel Turner, that he was "the moving spirit" of the local "boycott" of policemen and soldiers at that place, addressed a note to Colonel Turner on the 5th of September, in which he desired to know whether Colonel Turner, had given me grounds for making this statement. To this note Colonel Turner tells me he returned at once the following reply, which he kindly forwards to me for publication:--
"ENNIS, _6th September_ 1888.
"REV. SIR,--I am in receipt of your letter of yesterday, and in reply thereto beg to state that I informed Mr. Hurlbert that you said "in open court" that you had directed (I believe from the altar) that the town was to be "made as a city of the dead" during the trials of 23 publicans who were charged for conspiracy in boycotting the forces of the Crown who had been employed in preserving the peace on the occasion of a former trial--this you said you did in the interests of peace. The magistrates, however, took a different view, viz., that it was done with the object of preventing the military and police from obtaining any supplies, which they were unable to do; and that their view was the correct one was proved by the fact that half of the accused pleaded guilty to the offence, and on promise of future good behaviour were allowed out on their own recognisances. That the people followed your instructions on that day, coupled with the fact that in your letter to the _Freeman"s Journal_, dated 17th March of this year, you stated that you offered me peace all round on certain conditions, thereby showing that at least you consider yourself possessed of authority to bring about a state of peace or otherwise, probably led Mr. Hurlbert, to whom I showed a copy of this letter, to infer that you admitted that you were the moving spirit of all this "local boycott," while you only did so in the particular case above mentioned. Whether Mr. Hurlbert is correct in drawing the inference he does as to your being the moving spirit, and as to your conduct, may perhaps be gathered from the numerous numbers of _United Ireland_ and other papers which he saw giving reports of illegal meetings of the suppressed branch of the Miltown-Malbay National League, at which you were stated to have presided, and at some of which condemnatory resolutions were pa.s.sed, and also from the fact that you are reported to have presided at a meeting on Sunday, April 8, which was held at Miltown-Malbay in defiance of Government proclamation.--I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
ALFRED E. TURNER.
"Rev. P. White, P.P., Miltown-Malbay."
On further investigation of his records, Colonel Turner found it necessary to follow up this letter with another, a copy of which, through his courtesy, I subjoin:--
"ENNIS, _10th September_ 1888.
"REV. SIR,--A slight inaccuracy has been pointed out to me in my letter to you of the 6th inst., which I hasten to correct. It occurred in transcribing my letter from the original draft. I should have said that I told Mr. Hurlbert that you stated in open court, at the trial of 23 publicans charged with boycotting the forces of the Crown on the occasion of a former trial, that you had told the people (I believe from the altar) that the town was to be made as a city of the dead during the former trial; and that in consequence the soldiers and police could get nothing to eat or drink in Miltown that day.
"I also told him that this boycotting of the police was by no means new, since on the 13th March 1887, at a meeting of the Miltown-Malbay branch of the League at which you are reported to have presided, in _United Ireland_ of 19/3/87, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:--
""That from this day any person who supplies the police while engaged in work which is opposed to the wishes of the people with drink, food, or cars, be censured by this branch, and that no further intercourse be held with them."
"I regret that through inadvertence I have had to trouble you with a second letter.--I am, Rev. Sir, yours faithfully,
"ALFRED E. TURNER.
"Rev. P. White, P.P."
[1] Vol. ii. p. 376.
[2] Vol. ii. p. 364-370.
[3] The exasperation of the local agitators under the cool and determined treatment of Mr. Tener may be measured by the facts stated in the following communication received by me from Mr. Tener on the 20th of September. I leave them to speak for themselves:--
"POLICE BARRACKS, WOODFORD, _17th Sept._ 1888.
"DEAR MR. HURLBERT,--I enclose you _a printed_ placard found posted up in Woodford district on Sunday morning the 9th inst. It alludes to _tenants_ who had paid me their rent,--and broken the "unwritten law of the League." All the men named are now in great danger. The police force of the district has been increased--for their protection; but the police are very anxious about their safety!
"I send you also a _pencil_ copy taken from a more _perfect_ placard which the police preserve. John White or Whyte is the tenant whose name I already have given you. He is the tall dark man whom you saw (with an ex-bailiff) at Portumna. He was then an "Evicted Tenant."
He has since been, on payment of his rent, restored to his farm by me. And now, as you see in the placard, he is held up to the vengeance of the "League of h.e.l.l," as P.J. Smyth called it.--Yours, etc.
"ED. TENER.
"_P.S._--The evictions were finished on the 1st of September, and on the 9th (_after_ it became known that the men whose names are in the placard had paid) the placard was issued."
_(Placard.)_
"IRISHMEN!--Need we say in the face of the desperate Battle the People are making for their Hearths and Homes that the time has come for every HONEST MAN, trader and otherwise, to extend a helping hand to the MEN in the GAP. You may ask, How will that be done? The answer is plain.
"Let those who have become traitors to their neighbours and their Country be shunned as if they were possessed by a devil. Let no man buy from them or sell to them, let no man work for them. Leave them to Tener and his Emergency gang. The following are a few of the greatest traitors and meanest creatures that ever walked--John Whyte, of Dooras; Fahey (of the hill) of Dooras; big Anthony Hackett, of Rossmore; Tom Moran, of Rossmore! Your Country calls on you to treat them as they deserve. Bravo Woodford! Remember Tom Larkin!--"G.o.d SAVE IRELAND!""
[4] Appendix, Note A.
[5] Appendix, Note B.
[6] Appendix, Note C.
[7] Appendix, Note D.
[8] Since this was written fifteen Catholic bishops in England, headed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, have united (April 12, 1888) in a public protest against the Optional Oaths Bill, in which they say: "To efface the recognition of G.o.d in our public legislature is an act which will surely bring evil consequences." Yet how can the recognition of G.o.d be more effectually "effaced" than by the unqualified a.s.sertion that the will of the people, or of a majority, is the one legitimate source of political authority?
[9] Mr. Blair was then a member of the Lincoln Cabinet, and its "fighting member."
[10] Mr. Quill stated that the Savings-Banks deposits increased in Ireland during 1887 eight per cent. more than in thrifty Scotland, and _forty per cent._ more than in England and Wales!
[11] This was the Provost"s last appearance in public. He died rather suddenly a few weeks afterwards.
[12] In the Census of 1880 it appears that of 255,741 farms in Illinois, 59,624 were held on the metayer system, p.r.o.nounced by Toubeau the worst of systems, and 20,620 on a money rental.
[13] I have since learned that Father M"Fadden sold another holding, rental 6s. 8d., for 80. He has three more holdings from Captain Hill, at 15s., 6s. 8d., and 11s. 2d., for which he was in arrears for two years in April 1887, when ejectment decrees were obtained against him. For his house holding he pays 2s. a year! So he was really fighting his own battle as a tenant in the Plan of Campaign.
[14] Yet of Connemara, Cardinal Manning, in his letter to the Archbishop of Armagh, August 31, 1873, cites the "trust-worthy" evidence of "an Englishman who had raised himself from the plough"s tail," and who had gone "to see with his own eyes the material condition of the peasantry in Ireland." It was to the effect that in abundance and quality of food, in rate of wages, and even if the comfort of their dwellings, the working men of Connemara were better off than the agricultural labourers of certain English counties.
[15] For this holding, of 10 Irish acres, I have since learned the widow O"Donnell pays 10s. a year. She is in the receipt of outdoor relief, there being fever in the house (May 1888).
[16] This "townland" is a curious use of a Saxon term to describe a Celtic fact. The territory of an Irish sept seems to have been divided up into "townlands," each townland consisting of four, or in some cases six, groups of holdings, occupied by as many families of the "sept." The chief of the "sept" divided up each "townland"