Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:00:32.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The significance of the nationalist response to the Irish land act of 1903

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Philip Bull
Philip Bull*
Affiliation:
Department of History, La Trobe University, Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Irish land act of 1903, commonly known as the Wyndham act, was the most significant achievement of George Wyndham’s term as chief secretary for Ireland. From the time of his appointment in 1900 Wyndham made the formulation of such a bill a first priority for himself and for his principal advisers. His private correspondence, especially that with Arthur Balfour, reveals how determined he was that it should provide, not the stop-gap measure of earlier legislation, but an effective and final solution to the vexed problem of land occupancy in Ireland. In the end, however, the draft legislation owed less to the efforts of Wyndham and his advisers than to his shrewdness in allowing to a conference between landlord and tenant representatives the scope to evolve an agreed solution in line with guiding principles which he had previously enunciated. The resulting act provided the basis for tenant farmers to secure the ownership of their farms, so bringing to an end the land war that had raged in Ireland since the late 1870s.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 111 , May 1993 , pp. 283 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Correspondence between George Wyndham and Arthur Balfour (B.L., Balfour papers, MSS 49803-4).

2 O’Brien, Conor Cruise (ed.), The shaping of modern Ireland (London, 1960), p. 13.Google Scholar

3 Especially Bew, Paul, Conflict and conciliation in Ireland, 1890-1910: Pamellites and radical agrarians (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar; Gailey, Andrew, Ireland and the death of kindness: the experience of constructive unionism, 1890-1905 (Cork, 1987)Google Scholar; Foster, R. F., ‘Anglo-Irish literature, Gaelic nationalism and Irish politics in the 1890s’ in Ireland after the union: proceedings of the second joint meeting of the Royal Irish Academy and the British Academy, London, 1986 (Oxford, 1989), pp 61–82 Google Scholar; idem, Modern Ireland, 1600–1972 (London, 1988), ch. 18.

4 Principally the Irish land acts of 1870 and 1881.

5 The first provisions for land purchase occurred under the Irish Church Act of 1869, and there was more specific provision through the Bright clauses of the 1870 land act, but these early Liberal provisions were largely ineffective. It was the Conservative land act of 1885 (the Ashbourne act) which first made land purchase attractive and effective, but the provision of funds was inadequate for the demand.

6 For an extended analysis of Russell’s campaign see Jackson, Alvin, The Ulster party: Irish Unionists in the House of Commons, 1884-1911 (Oxford, 1989), pp 158–69.Google Scholar

7 The Times, 22 Sept. 1902, citing letter of Lord Barrymore to the Daily Express. His views were fully endorsed by the duke of Abercorn (The Times, 29 Sept. 1902). They were two of the nominated landlords; the other two were Colonel Edward Saunderson and The O’Conor Don.

8 Redmond to O’Brien, 6 Sept. 1902 (University College, Cork, William O’Brien papers, AM 176).

9 O’Brien, William, An olive branch in Ireland and its history (London, 1910), p. 142.Google Scholar

10 Shawe-Taylor to O’Brien, 12 Sept. 1902 (U.C.C., O’Brien papers, AM 185).

11 Ibid.

12 Irish People, 13 Sept. 1902. Warwick-Haller, Sally, William O’Brien and the Irish land war (Dublin, 1990), p. 224 Google Scholar shows that the respondents to the plebiscite were less than half of those canvassed, but this does not detract from the significance of this split, especially given the subsequent vindication of those who had taken the lead in the initiative for the conference.

13 Patterson, Henry, Class conflict and sectarianism: the Protestant working class and the Belfast labour movement, 1868-1920 (Belfast, 1980), pp 44–61.Google Scholar

14 Dillon to O’Brien, 12 Sept. 1901 (N.L.I., William O’Brien papers, MS 8555/9).

15 O’Brien to Timothy McCarthy, 16 Feb. [1902] (copy) (U.C.C., O’Brien papers, AM 4-5).

16 O’Connor to O’Brien, 12 Aug. 1902 (ibid., AM 139-43): L, F. S.. Lyons, in John Dillon: a biography (London, 1968), p. 226 Google Scholar, is dismissive of O’Brien’s later representations of this letter as a round-robin, but for discussion of the collective responsibility for it see Bull, P. J., ‘The reconstruction of the Irish parliamentary movement, 1895-1904: an analysis with special reference to William O’Brien’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1972), pp 354–9.Google Scholar

17 Redmond to Dillon, 25 Sept. 1903 (copy) (N.L.I., Redmond papers, MS 15182/4).

18 O’Brien, Olive branch, p. 184.

19 O’Brien, William, ‘The new power in Ireland’ in Nineteenth Century, lxxxi, no. 397 (Mar. 1910), pp 427-8.Google Scholar

20 For further discussion of this see Kettle, T. M., ‘Would the “Hungarian policy” work?’ in New Ireland Review, xxii (Feb. 1905), pp 321-8Google Scholar; Bull, ‘Reconstruction’, pp 325–32.

21 See Hutchinson, John, The dynamics of cultural nationalism: the Gaelic revival and the creation of the Irish nation state (London, 1987), esp. pp 151-4.Google Scholar

22 Lyons, Dillon, p. 240.

23 Davitt to Thomas Higgins, 28 Feb. 1903 (photocopy) (N.L.I., MS 2159, ff 11–20).

24 Davitt to Dillon, ‘Wed’ [probably 26 Aug. 1903] (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MS 6728/150).

25 For a succinct account of Dillon’s view of the relationship of the land question to the pursuit of home rule see Lyons, F. S. L., The Irish Parliamentary Party, 1890-1910 (London, 1951), p. 103 Google Scholar, based very largely on an unusually frank expression by Dillon of his opinions to Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, recounted in the latter’s My diaries (2 vols, London, 1919–20), ii, 56.

26 See Gailey, Ireland and the death of kindness, pp 193–6.

27 George Crosbie to O’Brien, 13 July [1904] (U.C.C., O’Brien papers, AN 42).

28 See Davitt to Dillon, 15 Aug. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MS 6728/147), in which he specifically expresses his intention ‘to remain at a good distance from the League & League matters now that the Land Question “has been settled”’. Although this is in the context of his immediate disenchantment, he did not in fact ever resume an active role.

29 Davitt to Dillon, ‘Wed’ [probably 16 Sept. 1903] (ibid., MS 6728/155a).

30 Freeman’s Journal, 26 Aug. 1903.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.; see also Lyons, Dillon, pp 236–7.

33 For Dillon’s attitude towards the United Irish League in its early years see Bull, Philip, ‘The United Irish League and the reunion of the Irish Parliamentary Party, 1898-1900’ in I.H.S., xxvi, no. 101 (May 1988), pp 52–62.Google Scholar

34 Dillon to Rev. T. Dawson, 29 Apr. 1921 (U.C.C, O’Brien papers, AT 109-10).

35 P. A. McHugh to Dillon, 12 Sept. 1903, 30 Oct. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MSS 6757/1128, 1129).

36 Davitt to Dillon, [7 Sept. 1903] (ibid., MS 6728/154).

37 O’Brien, Olive branch, pp 270–71.

38 Devlin to Dillon, 14 Sept. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MS 6729/95).

39 Devlin to Dillon, 17 Sept. 1903 (ibid., MS 6729/96); McGhee to Dillon, 16 Sept. 1903 (ibid., MS 6757/1038).

40 Redmond to Dillon, 26 Sept. 1903 (ibid., MS 6747/46).

41 Dillon to Redmond, 23 Sept. 1903, 2 Oct. 1903 (N.L.I., Redmond papers, MSS 15182/4, 5); Redmond to Dillon, 26 Sept. 1903, 7 Oct. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MSS 6747/46,49).

42 For an extended treatment of the issue of the sale of the Redmond estate see Bew, Conflict and conciliation, pp 108–11.

43 Timothy McCarthy to O’Brien, 29 Oct. 1903 (U.C.C., O’Brien papers, AN 77-9).

44 David Sheehy to O’Brien, 12 Oct. 1903 (ibid., AN 69).

45 Freeman’s Journal, 17 Oct. 1903.

46 J. P. Farrell to O’Brien, 15 Oct. 1903 (U.C.C., O’Brien papers, AN 70).

47 P. J. Collins to O’Brien, 8 Oct. 1903 (ibid., AN 64-5).

48 George Crosbie to O’Brien, 14 Nov. 1903 (ibid., AN 100).

49 Rev. J. Clancy to Henry O’Shea, 30 Oct. 1903 (ibid., AN 80).

50 T. P. O’Connor to Dillon, 4 Oct. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MS 6740/127).

51 Dillon’s journal, 3 Nov. 1903 (ibid., MS 6542).

52 Ibid.

53 Lyons, Ir. Parl. Party, pp 108–9.

54 David Sheehy to O’Brien, 19 Oct. 1903 (U.C.C., O’Brien papers, AN 72).

55 Dillon’s journal, 18 Nov. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MS 6542).

56 O’Brien, William, ‘The breakdown in Ireland’ in Nineteenth Century, lxii, no. 365 (July 1907), p. 33.Google Scholar

57 Dillon’s journal, 18 Nov. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MS 6542).

58 Redmond to Dillon, 5, 6 Nov. 1903 (ibid., MSS 6747/50, 51); Dillon to Redmond, 6 Nov. 1903 (N.L.I., Redmond papers, MS 15182/5); William Redmond to Redmond, ‘Monday’ [9 Nov. 1903] (ibid., MS 15242/1).

59 Dillon to Redmond, 7, 9 Nov. 1903 (N.L.I., Redmond papers, MS 15182/5); Redmond to Dillon, 11 Nov. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MS 6747/56).

60 Redmond to Dillon, 11 Nov. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MS 6747/56).

61 Dillon’s journal, 28 Nov. 1903 (ibid., MS 6542); Dillon to Redmond, 25 Dec. 1903 (N.L.I., Redmond papers, MS 15182/5).

62 Dillon to Edward Blake, 19, 27 Nov. 1903 (N.L.I., Blake papers, microfilm, pos. 4682).

63 Dillon’s journal, 18 Nov. 1903 (T.C.D., Dillon papers, MS 6542).

64 For a fuller analysis of reasons for O’Brien’s resignation see Warwick-Haller, O’Brien, pp 247–51.

65 Brien, Olive branch, p. 288.

66 Lyons, Dillon, pp 231–2.

67 While Dr Warwick-Haller’s recent book on O’Brien gives a more detailed account of O’Brien’s actions and ideas, she writes within a context, and on the basis of assumptions, which do not allow a proper evaluation of his political strategy in this period and the analysis of Irish politics on which it was based. For a review of Dr Warwick-Haller’s book by the present writer see below, pp 333–4.

68 An earlier version of this paper was given at Cambridge in February 1986 at a seminar in the modern British history series convened by Professor Derek Beales and Dr Peter Clarke. I am indebted to La Trobe University for time to work on the subsequent version and to Trinity College, Cambridge, for a congenial environment in which to do so.