The arrangement concluded between the Land League in Kilmainham prison and Mr Gladstone was called the Kilmainham Treaty. Its chief provision on one side was that the government should pass a new Land Act for the purpose of enabling tenants who were hopelessly in arrears with their rent to go into the land court. This was called the Arrears Act. Under it a tenant had to contribute one year’s rent, when the government would provide an equal amount out of the Church Surplus, and on the tenant making an affidavit that he was too destitute to pay more, the land court judge was empowered to declare the debt discharged. if the tenant, however, was found to have made a false declaration as to his inability to pay more, he was liable to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour.
This Act was soon passed, and its operations generally left a famine in their wake, so eager were the people to scrape together the amount needed to keep for a few months their title to their holdings, and procure the illusory benefits of the Land Act. The Irish leaders were, however, not to blame now. They had reached an impasse, where they were powerless to do anything of any use. They had run away from their first programme by promising to pay ‘all costs’, they had run away again from these promises under cover of the No Rent manifesto; they had now nowhere to run to. The government passed the new Persecution Act also very soon. The remark an English member made about it, that a short Act putting the person and property of everybody in Ireland at the absolute disposal of the Lord Lieutenant would have the same effect and be more convenient, was a sufficient description of it.
It was, however, only passed as a temporary measure. Had it been resisted at first, it might perhaps not have been made permanent. But it met with no resistance. This was probably partly because the Irish leaders were against resistance to anything just then, and partly because the Land League had tired everybody out — everybody, that is to say, except those whom it was intended to tire out, the government and the landlords. For the Land Leaguers worked just as hard for a sham as anybody could have done for a reality. Eventually, people were driven by sheer necessity to offer some resistance to this infamous statute when it was too late. Immediate action alone could have effected anything against it, and its long smooth working made one result inevitable. Soon after its expiration it was repassed as a permanent Act.
This is an illustration of the fallacy underlying a whole class of arguments favouring inaction in the presence of any evil against which no certain remedy is available, and such arguments are often heard in Ireland. The truth on which all answers to them are based, is that inaction in face of some evils is impossible. People in torment must squirm. They do it automatically. But automatic squirming spends much force, which is hardly ever anything but force wasted. And since the force must and will be used, it seems better that it should be used deliberately, at the time and in the way it is most likely to be useful. The amount of force wasted in automatic squirming in Ireland should have been enough to free the country three times over. After the release of the members of parliament, our position became more difficult than ever. It was held to mean the end of the No Rent manifesto, and this implied a great increase in the demands for payment of costs.
Evictions were going on merrily, both of poverty cases and the other kind. Some of the latter refused to settle or return to their homes, even when we advised them to. They preferred to stay out. In fact, the reports from the country indicated that the tenant farmers were just beginning to think of not paying rent as a reality, instead of a sham; two and a half years too late. About this time occurred the large batch of evictions of an unusual nature. Including sub-tenants, they numbered 70 families. They were mostly what is called in Ireland“strong’ farmers, which means men whe are comparatively well-to-do. They had allowed their farms to be sold in the county court after the Land League had announced its decision not to pay costs in future for tenants buying in their own farms, and though they offered to pay the rent and costs afterwards, had been subsequently evicted by the landlord. As a rule, landlords were glad to take the rent whenever they could get it, but this landlord, Lord Cloncurry, happened to be a little better off than most of his kind.
The landlord, it is true, stated in a letter to a newspaper, that he was willing to reinstate them on their paying rent and costs, and agreeing to judicial leases at former rents. If this was true ijt proved that they knew themselves unable to pay their former rents in the future. Now if these tenants meant to pay their rents they certainly should have paid them before they lost their title. Neither the Land League nor the Ladies’ Land League had ever advised the contrary procedure. So it looked as if they had fallen victims to carrying a make-believe too far. On the other hand, their offer of payment might only have been determined by the obvious breakdown of resistance to rent all around them. We decided on treating them as ‘Land League’ cases. The Land League, however, forbade us to supply them with huts. They did not forbid our making grants to them. Now though houses cost more than grants at first, they were, in my opinion, a better investment.
If 70 families have no roof over them, much money may be spent on them without their seeming any better off for it. Houses, on the contrary, when we were able to get them up properly, which unfortunately we could not always manage to do, might be expected to act as a permanent sign and symbol that all power did not lie with the foreign enemy in possession of the country. This, of course, is quite beside the question whether the tenants had a right to houses. We considered they had, and told the Land League that if they wanted the houses refused, they must refuse themselves. We did not, in truth, believe they would have the courage to do what they commanded us to do. In any case, we did not approve of the division of labour that left all the promising to them and all the refusing to us to do. For a long time Lord Spencer would not allow any houses to be erected; when he at length gave way, he accompanied his concession by the intimation that he meant to find the locality where any shelter for the son of man who had nowhere to lay his head, should be erected, either by putting extra police on it, or by erecting a police hut, or both, But the people preferred to pay a fresh tax rather than see their neighbours perish of exposure,
A special cause of embarrassment to us now was that we did not know whether it was the intention of the Land League to continue advocating any resistance to rent or not. Either they could not make up their minds on the subject, or they would not impart the result to us. We were thus compelled to steer a course, as far as we could, which would keep the way open to both alternatives. The one point on which we were able to pronounce with positiveness was that of the Bayonet. For, at first, some expectation was shown that the resumption of paying Rent at the Point of the Bayonet would naturally follow the lapse of the No Rent manifesto. This expectation we could, at least, dispel most emphatically.
From the first week in May we had cherished hopes of an early release from a long and uncongenial bondage. As time wore on, these hopes appeared less and less likely to be fulfilled. No word reached us of arrangements for taking over the work. At first we did not press the matter, as the Land League leaders seemed to have been thrown into a state of mind that was hardly businesslike by the Phoenix Park murders. For this consideration we were rightly served afterwards by getting very good cause to repent of it. May passed away, and June and July, and our noses were still at the grindstone. We found that though they had no excuse for keeping us any longer, they intended to keep us without excuse.
Then they took another leaf out of Pharaoh’s book. Expenses continued to be as high for some time after the change of government. Lord Spencer revenged himself for the Phoenix Park murders by stopping the release of the suspects, so that their maintenance, with some necessary grants to their families, had to be provided for, as well as maintenance, grants and defence in the cases of what were called ‘ordinary law prisoners’ awaiting trial, though there was very little of any faw that anyone could see about most of these cases. Costs had been increased for a time by the abandonment of the No Rent manifesto, and the evictions were likely to continue falling in for some time. The number of prisoners committed for not giving bail had not been large enough to cause much expense for maintenance, but the legal proceedings taken over them were necessarily expensive, and, I think, useless. Only in one case were any prisoners released, and in that instance it was doubtful whether the legal proceedings procured the releases.
However, the Land League solicitor seemed to think proceedings advisable, and not being concerned myself, I did not like to interfere. The whole of these expenses were not defrayed from our bank account, but enough of them were to get it into a much overdrawn condition. This we did not mind at first, because it was the custom of the Land League to keep both its bank accounts overdrawn — its own, and ours when it began to supply us with money. The funds had been removed to Paris, early in 1881, for safety. We reported our financial condition to Paris, as usual, but received no answer. The same fate attended all applications for funds. They were not refused, but simply ignored, and we then guessed that the Land League had now, for some reason, decided to leave the country in our hands, while keeping those hands empty. Henceforth we were to make the bricks, and make them without straw. The manager of the bank got frightened, and came to tell us so, more than once.
He was told that he was free to cash our cheques or not, as he pleased; we did not care; but as long as we were left in office, we would continue to draw them. We did not tell him the whole truth, which was that we wished the bank would dishonour them, as that would force the Land League to take some steps towards ending the anomalous situation then existing. The only parallel to it would be if one could imagine a House of Representatives refusing supplies to a ministry, and at the same time insisting on that ministry carrying on the government. The bank, apparently, was too afraid of the Land League to take action, and the overdraft went on piling itself up.
We knew that there must be something behind this last strategic move of the Land League, but could not guess what shape that something would take. But we only perceived that a scrimmage of some kind was going to be forced on us. In that event we foresaw that we should certainly need some ready money for our most vital necessities, and we decided to set apart the subscriptions that were still coming in to us. This precaution proved itself to have been well taken. We could have dissolved of course, on the grounds of no funds, but the majority were against such a step. It was thought likely to have a bad effect on the two Leagues. Even for anyone who was satisfied that there was no ‘future’ before the country except a 20 years wait, it was impossible to deny that an open quarrel might strengthen the chance of disasters being attributed to causes other than the real ones.
While people insist on thinking that it is the quarrels, and not the causes of the quarrels, that do mischief, open quarrels, though they mav really be absolutely necessary, will nearly always have the effect of misleading the public mind, which is in itself an evil. Except to avert a greater evil, therefore, quarrels should be avoided —in public. Our real mistake lay in not being emphatic enough in private, and soon enough. Though we received no word about either release or supplies, it was not because we were forgotten or our superiors too busy to attend to us. They continued in constant communication with us on another head; they went on finding fault. Happily we were now in a position to suggest, in properly diplomatic language, that they should do the work themselves, since they knew how it ought to be done. But they were not to be beguiled into an answer to any representations of this sort. In vain we prepared bundles of ‘cases’ for them to exercise their wisdom on. They were only returned when sent by post, and their personal delivery was met by flight.
At last, when the bank overdraft had reached about £5,000, the time was considered suitable for revealing the statesmanship that had been prompting the policy of the last three months. Our release had never been intended to take place. Our creators meant to grapple us to themselves permanently with hooks of steel — at least with one hook, and the bank overdraft was to be that one. At the beginning of August we were officially informed that the Land League would not discharge the debt to the bank unless we agreed to their terms, which were drawn up in a very curious document, to which the signatures of the heads of the Ladies’ Land League, about five or six altogether, were demanded. They were that the Ladies’ Land League should dissolve, and afterwards, were to consider all applications for grants made to the Land League and make recommendations on them for that body. The Land League, on its part, would then take the Ladies’ overdraft on itself.
Pledging a body which was to be defunct, to certain performances after its demise, is what many people would call ‘very Irish’. But there was no ambiguity as to the effect aimed at. Only those who actually signed the treaty would be bound by it. The work they were required to undertake in perpetuity was known as ‘making the grant’. Under the most favourable circumstances possible such work is bound to be very troublesome. For us it was the most laborious and sickening of all we had to do, and only a few both could and would have anything to do with it. The cause of the special difficulty for us — the little we had to go on in arriving at decisions in matters that were inherently perplexing and delicate — I have already alluded to. But even this little we should no longer have, once our League was dissolved and we could no longer send anyone about the country to get it for us. But the reasons against the plan proposed, or rather, insisted on, were too numerous to mention.
In fact, there was every reason against it and not one for it, except that the other side, understanding perfectly well the unpleasant nature of the tasks they had so intelligently planned to put, once and forever, on other shoulders, wanted us for a buffer between them and the country — a perpetual petticoat behind which they could shelter, not from the government, but from the people. Their action was, of course, a distinct violation of the terms on which they had invited the formation of the Ladies’ Land League. But such a point was now comparatively insignificant. For if every reason had been in favour of the proposal instead of against it, and if we had never seen anything before but sweetness and light in the men who make it, the trick they had resorted to in order to get it accepted must alone have made our consent impossible. Our long connection with them seemed to have brought very little understanding to them of our character, if they supposed their action could have any effect on us beyond strengthening our determination not to have any more to do with them.
The bank overdraft was more than the united means of those in whose names the account stood, or all of us, for that matter. If they expected that we should, for this reason, find ourselves so helpless that we should feel obliged to bind ourselves to everlasting penal servitude under them, they made perhaps the biggest of all the many big mistakes they had been making since the foundation of the Land League. We could truthfully say, in words often quoted in Ireland, ‘Far dearer the grave or the prison’, than that, Should it come to an actual contest, we knew that our position would be a serious one, if only for the reason that the ‘national’ papers would all have been closed to us. But we knew one thing that the other side did not know.
When the Ladies’ Land League first started, I advised all those taking leading parts, who had any money, to put it, as far as they could, out of the reach of the government, and followed my own advice by sending my own money to the United States. At this time the Land League funds were still in Dublin; after they were removed to Paris it was not worthwhile for the government to seize the small private means of the Land Leaguers themselves. But the great advantage of precautions consists in their resemblance to those shafts at random sped, which find ‘a mark the archer little meant’. The precaution we had taken for protecting our personal property from the foreign government promised now to come in very handy as a protection from the home government. If it came to proceedings by the bank, the first were most likely to be taken against me, and then — they would have to be conducted in the United States! What the other side would have felt like, if things had gone far enough for them to make this discovery, I cannot even conjecture.
Things never did go as far as this, however. Once we received the ultimatum, we did not follow the dilatory example of its authors. We met it with a prompt negative. We told them that we would give them all the information we had, and would even give secretarial assistance for a time, but the responsibilities of what grants their policies and their promises had made obligatory on the Land League, they must take on themselves. We would have none of it. Here a deadlock ensued, for both sides held firm. Yet our majority still held back from dissolving, though the reasons for dissolution were becoming pressing. Our branches,
though they did not complain, could not have liked the state of uncertainty in which they were kept, with the Land League falling to pieces about them, and other unsatisfactory conditions were coming into existence.
The work that had been described as morally impossible, was now becoming nearly physically impossible as well. The general supervision of the office and the maintenance of order there, were in the hands of three only. Of these three one was too ill to go to the office at all, and the other two had been obliged to go to the seaside to recuperate, and though they went to the office still, it was not the same thing as permanent attendance. The result was that the papers had begun to get into confusion. To dissolve, and let everybody else do as they pleased, seemed the only course before us. Still the majority continued to shrink from it. Their feeling apparently was, that if the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea, the hosts of the Egyptians would pursue them, and then the parallel would be completed by the drowning of the Egyptians.
And if that happened, then the children of Israel would be held responsible for the disaster, and the consequent loss of all the great works the Egyptians were still supposed to be on the point of accomplishing. This hesitation may have been construed as weakness by our opponents. If so, they were greatly mistaken, for there was no difference amongst us on the question of yielding to their demands. We were unanimous there. And in the end we did find a way out, where none had seemed possible. It somewhat resembled the expedient whereby the Lord Chancellor saved the situation in Iolanthe. One day we accidentally made the discovery that the fatal vow required from us was so drafted that the alteration of one word would change its nature so completely as to remove the penal consequences intended for the signatories.
With this alteration the obnoxious clause only bound them to make recommendations on the cases of applicants towards whom the Ladies’ Land League, instead of the Land League, had incurred responsibility. In this form it was quite innocuous. Not only were we willing to recommend the grants where we had incurred the responsibility, but the existence of this responsibility on our part constituted one of the many reasons why we could, and ought not to do, what the Land League required from us. There were some evicted tenants to whose support we had pledged ourselves and we wanted our freedom in order to fulfil these obligations, in case the Land League should try to strike at us through them, by cutting off their grants.
An attempt was, in fact, subsequently made to punish us in this way, but it was not persevered with. So the amazing document was copied out, after the necessary editing, and lavishly signed by all its intended victims. It was, I heard, accepted with effusion. Whether the small alteration in the wording was really overlooked, or whether the enemy was glad of the opportunity to escape from an untenable position, I do not know. They could hardly have liked the idea of a public conflict any more that we did. Perhaps they thought they could frighten some of us, if not all. Perhaps they thought there was no end to our folly. If they did, perhaps the thought was not unnatural.
Thus the Israelites made good their escape, and the Egyptians were not overwhelmed by the Red Sea this time. They found their way in there later on; their character made it inevitable that they should. But no one then could hold the Israelites responsible for the catastrophe. We did not allow time for grass to grow under our feet now. Notice of the resolution to dissolve was given at our next weekly meeting, and the resolution itself was carried the week after. This was in August. The Lord Mayor of Dublin opened a fund’ for evicted tenants at the Mansion House, and the Land League grants were made there until the National League’ was formed.
Of course, after we ceased to make the grants, there still had to be considerable communication between the staff of the defunct Ladies’ Land League and the new staff who now had to make them, and we were thus enabled to observe that almost the first thing they did was to make grants to some ‘poverty cases’ that we had been steadfastly refusing. This was only what we had expected. One small difficulty still confronted the defunct Ladies. I have mentioned that when we were obliged to advise tenants to settle, after all hope of resistance to rent being successful was over, we were also obliged to promise payment of the costs incurred through rent not having been paid sooner. Our forethought in reserving a small sum for emergencies we had rightly expected soon to arise, had left us with a few hundreds in hand at our dissolution. But the financial secretary reported that this sum would not cover these obligations.
This caused a scare, and for a time it seemed as if, after avoiding the appearance of ‘disunion’ over the larger question, we should be compelled to produce it over a very small one by making an appeal to the Irish at home and abroad for £100 or £200. Happily, this scare proved a false alarm. After enough time for further sifting had elapsed, the financial secretary, whose province it was to investigate these claims, found ground to modify her first opinion, and reassured us by announcing that the funds we had would be enough to meet all our obligations of this nature. So at length the ghost of the Ladies’ Land League rested in peace.
XII - Sequel of the Land League