Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:03:52.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Irish unionist party and the devolution crisis of 1904-5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

F.S.L. Lyons
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The passing of the land act of 1903 had been in large part due to the success of the conference held in Ireland during the previous winter between representatives of Irish unionists and nationalists. The chairman of the conference, Lord Dunraven, had been one of the most prominent of the unionist advocates of a conciliatory policy and, after the initial work of the conference had been accomplished, he was reluctant to abandon the instrument for good which had been fashioned during the preceding six months. Supporting him at the conference had been a group of other unionist landlords with views similar to his own; they became known as the Land Committee, and they were to form the nucleus of a new organisation which Lord Dunraven had already in mind. This group was independent of party ties, for, if it contained no nationalist members, it was also frowned upon by the official unionist body, the Landowners' Convention.

Type
Article
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 21 , March 1948 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1948

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 It was not until the land conference had achieved its principal results that the Landowners’ Convention somewhat grudgingly approved the action of Lord Dunraven and his associates. See Dunraven, , Past times and pastimes, 2. 9–15.Google Scholar

2 Dunraven, , Past times and pastimes, 2. 25.Google Scholar

3 Dunraven, , The outlook in Ireland, p. 272.Google Scholar

4 The whole programme will be found in Dunraven, , The outlook in Ireland, appendix 1, pp. 271–3.Google Scholar

5 ‘For the present we are content to bid the Irish Reform Association a cordial welcome and to wish success to its patriotic labours’ (Irish Times, 31 Aug. 1904).

6 Dublin Daily Express, 31 Aug. 1904.

7 Belfast News-Letter, 31 Aug. 1904.

8 For these exchanges, see Mackail, J. W. and Wyndham, G., Life and letters of George Wyndham, 2. 752–3.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., ii. 754.

10 Mackail and Wyndham, ii. 760–1.

11 Ibid., ii. 762.

12 Contained in his letter of 4 Jan. 1904 to the Irish press. See also Annual Register, 1904, pp. 240–1. For the abiding suspicion in unionist circles that MacDonnell was closely connected with the university proposals, see the leading articles in Belfast News-Letter, 13 Feb. and 4 Mar. 1905.

13 Hansard, 4th series, cxli. 437.

14 Hansard, 4th series, cxli. 438.

15 Ibid., p. 439. Sir Antony had actually offered to have the report typed out at Dublin Castle, so sure was he that he was within his rights.

16 Dunraven, , The outlook in Ireland, appendix i, pp. 273–6.Google Scholar

17 It was also proposed that the power of nomination (for the first term at least) should be exercised by the crown in order to secure due representation of the government, of commercial interests, and of minorities. The elected members might be returned by constituencies in which county, borough and parliamentary divisions were to be grouped. One-third of the members was to retire every third year, but was to be eligible for re-election or re-appointment. See Dunraven, , The outlook in Ireland, pp. 273–6.Google Scholar

18 Ibid. It might command all Irish revenue except a fixed sum to be paid annually to the treasury; or estimates for an average of years might be taken as the standard contribution from the imperial exchequer towards Irish expenditure for the year, and that contribution, together with savings from the previous year effected by the Irish government, might be voted and allocated in accordance with the budget annually submitted by the council to parliament; or again, certain heads of revenue might be assigned to Ireland with perhaps a further grant from general revenues. The report favoured either of the last two methods.

19 In the autumn of 1904, there were 20 Irish unionist members out of a total Irish representation of 103. See Dod’s Parliamentary companion, 1904.

20 The first report, published 31 Aug. 1904.

21 Mackail and Wyndham, ii. 765.

22 ‘Upon that I have to say without reserve or qualification that the unionist government is opposed to the multiplication of legislative bodies within the United Kingdom, whether in pursuance of the policy generally known as “home rule for Ireland”, or in pursuance of the policy generally known as “home rule all round”’ (The Times, 27 Sept. 1904).

23 This was stated by Lord Dunraven in the house of lords on 17 Feb. 1905 (Hansard, 4th series, cxli. 440).

24 This was confirmed by Lord Lansdowne’s speech in the house of lords on 17 Feb. 1905, when he said that Lord Dudley ‘… has authorised me to say that he was aware that Sir Antony MacDonnell was helping Lord Dunraven and that he discussed the reforms suggested in the noble earl’s scheme on several occasions with the under-secretary’ (Hansard, 4th series, cxli. 466).

25 Mackail and Wyndham, ii. 776–7.

26 Ibid., pp. 778–81.

27 Ibid., p. 790.

28 See the note by Murray Hornibrook in Mackail and Wyndham, ii. 76.

29 The Times, 27 Sept. 1904.

30 Irish Times, 27 Sept. 1904.

31 Dublin Daily Express, 27 Sept. 1904.

32 Belfast News-Letter, 27 Sept. 1904.

33 Belfast News-Letter, 29 Sept. 1904. The leading article in the same issue of the newspaper strongly supported the plea made by Moore and Craig that public expression should be given to the intense dissatisfaction felt by Ulster unionists.

34 Irish Times, 30 Sept. 1904.

35 National Review, Oct. 1904, p. 368. The article was widely quoted in unionist newspapers.

36 Irish Times, 13 Oct. 1904.

37 For these speeches see the reports in Irish Times, 14 Oct. and 16 Oct. 1904, respectively- A further example of the extent to which unionist members tended to lose their sense of proportion is provided by a letter to the press written by John Atkinson asking whether ‘… the devolution scheme with all its consequences to unionist interests is not the price secretly arranged to be paid for nationalist acquiescence in a settlement of the land question on generous terms.’. That this suggestion was seriously entertained may be seen from the leading article in the Irish Times, 3 Nov. 1904. It was indignantly repudiated by Col. Hutcheson-Poe in a letter to The Times, 5 Nov. 1904.

38 Belfast News-Letter, 24 Oct. 1904. In 1904, only two seats outside Ulster were held by unionists. These were both in Dublin University and were occupied by Sir Edward Carson (as he then was), who was solicitor general for England, and J. H. M. Campbell, who was solicitor general for Ireland. Since they both held office, they were debarred from attending unionist meetings of protest, but that they were sympathetic to unionist claims is shown by Campbell’s speech quoted above, and by a speech made by Carson at Manchester in Feb. 1905, to which reference will again be made later.

39 Irish Times, 3 Dec. 1904.

40 See Belfast News-Letter, 4 Mar. 1905, for a report of the first public meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council.

41 Mackail and Wyndham, i. 98–9.

42 For these circumstances, see pp. 3–4 above.

43 Mackail and Wyndham, ii. 769.

44 Ibid., ii. 771–2.

45 Ibid., ii. 777–8.

46 Ibid., ii. 778–81. The letter was dated 31 Dec. 1904.

47 Ibid., ii. 789.

48 Belfast News-Letter, 8 Feb. 1905. His biographer says that Carson ‘regarded it as a monstrous thing that a civil servant in such an important position should have been responsible for a scheme so much at variance with unionist opinion’ ( Marjoribanks, E., Life of Carson, 1. 345).Google Scholar

49 Irish Times, 16 Feb. 1905.

50 Hansard, 4th series, cxli. 324–5.

51 This was the first public announcement of the fact.

52 Ibid., cxli. 326.

53 Ibid., cxli. 433–43.

54 Ibid., cxli. 461. Later in the debate Lord Lansdowne intervened again, this time to say that Lord Dudley (the lord lieutenant)‘… has authorised me to say that he was aware that Sir Antony MacDonnell was helping Lord Dunraven and that he discussed the reforms suggested in the noble earl’s scheme on several occasions with the under-secretary’ (ibid., cxli. 466).

55 Hansard, 4th series, cxli. 622-32, for Redmond’s speech. William Moore, who spoke after him, agreed that ‘in every section of the population of Ireland there was discontent’. Neither he nor his colleagues would vote for the government on this amendment (ibid., cxli. 634).

56 Ibid., cxli. 658.

57 Ibid., cxli. 788–90, and 850, for the speeches of Dillon and Campbell-Bannerman respectively.

58 Ibid., cxli. 857–8.

59 Three of these were office-holders.

60 Ibid., cxli. 964–78. Redmond had originally greeted the devolution proposals as presaging home rule, but once they had been condemned by Wyndham he and the nationalist party utilised the crisis to discredit so far as possible the unionist administration. It is probable that Redmond—and almost certain that Dillon—hoped that the unionist government would be overturned, and that the liberals would gain office, having in the foreground of their programme a promise of home rule. For the nationalist attitude to the devolution crisis, see Gwynn, D., Life of John Redmond, pp. 106–9Google Scholar. For the sympathetic attitude of William O’Brien—at that time estranged from the party—see his An olive branch in Ireland, pp. 318–44.

61 See pp. 3–4 above. Many unionists felt that not all the correspondence had been published and that evidence discreditable to the government was being withheld. Balfour disposed of these charges in a memorandum (Oct. 1906) to his colleagues in the recent unionist ministry. He said that such letters as had not been published were private and in any event did not add anything to what he had said in the house of commons. For the memorandum and the letters see Dugdale, Blanche E. C., ‘The Wyndham-MacDonnell imbroglio, 1902-6’, in Quarterly Review, Jan. 1932.Google Scholar

62 Ibid., cxli. 991–6.

63 Ibid., cxli. 998–1004.

64 Hansard, 4th series, cxlii. 431–2.

65 Ibid., cxlv. 1352–5.

66 Ibid., cxlv. 1384.

67 On 22 Feb. 1905. See Hansard, 4th series, cxli. 1012.

68 Long, W. H., Memories, p. 145.Google Scholar

69 Ibid., p. 146. Soon after this MacDonnell fell ill, and, though he did not retire from office until 1908, was in fact incapacitated for the rest of the period during which Long held office as chief secretary.