The Land League organization gave him just the kind of political machinery he wanted, though the credit of its creation belongs more to Michael Davitt and John Dillon than to him. It soon became immensely popular in Ireland, and, for a time, its orders and decrees superseded the established law of the land, with the seeming result of replacing social order and tranquillity by a condition of widespread anarchy, confusion, and lawlessness. It is only fair to say, however, that the Land League meetings did not create but only revealed the misery, distress, and discontent of the Irish rural populace. The country had recently suffered from a severe visitation of famine. Evictions for non-payment of rent had been steadily increasing for several years past. In 1877 the number stood at 463; in 1878 it swelled to nearly 1,000; at the end of 1880 it had actually reached 2,110. A bill was introduced by one of the Irish members with a view to mitigating the rigors of the law as regarded the impoverished tenantry. The government refused to adopt the measure, but sought to meet the case by framing a remedial scheme of their own which was introduced under the name of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. This bill, which was vigorously assailed from opposite quarters in the Commons, was unceremoniously rejected by the Lords, who denounced it as a flagrant encroachment on the rights of property. It must ever be regretted in the interests of mere humanity that Mr. Gladstone's government did not compel the recalcitrant peers to abandon their attitude of defiance in regard to that much-needed piece of ameliorative legislation. The House of Lords takes nothing so ill as open and avowed conflict with a powerful and popular ministry. In such a case the issue is never doubtful. And if the ministry had shown a determination to nail their colors to the mast, the Lords would have lost no time in unfurling a flag of truce. As it was, their practical acquiescence in the rejection of the bill consummated the rupture between the Irish party and themselves. The speeches of the chiefs of the Land League grew fierce, and at times violent, in their denunciation of Her Majesty's ministers. Mr. W. E. Forster, especially, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, a man of invincible resolution and ineradicable prejudices, and yet withal a man of much rugged kindliness of nature, became the victim of incessant interrogation and attack in Parliament, and the object of an unrelenting and quenchless hate in Ireland.
At one time the tone and temper of leading agitators were all that could be desired. "Abstain," said Mr. Davitt, "from all acts of violence, repel every incentive to outrage. Glorious indeed will be our victory, and high in the estimation of mankind will our grand old fatherland stand, if we can so curb our passions and control our actions in this struggle for free land, as to march to success through privation and danger without resorting to the wild justice of revenge, or being guilty of anything which could sully the character of a brave and Christian people." Later on Mr. Davitt's feelings were less calm and his language less measured, mild and sober; as when, for instance, he pictured to his excited auditors "the wolf-dog of Irish vengeance leaping across the Atlantic to redress and avenge the wrongs of Ireland." Mr. John Dillon went further still, and ventured to intimate in a speech delivered at Kildare the advisability of military drill and general preparation for a resort to arms should the necessity arise.
Among the various means, legitimate and otherwise, adopted by the League for the accomplishment of its ends, was that form of social ostracism now familiarly known as "boycotting." Captain Boycott was an Englishman, employed as agent of Lord Earne, and occupied a farm at Ballinrobe, near Lough Mask. Emboldened by the powerful protection of the League, Lord Earne's tenants had refused to pay the stipulated rents, and Boycott served notices of eviction upon them. Whereupon not only the tenants on the estate but the population for miles on every side of him resolved not to have anything to do with him in any shape, whether of barter, business, or intercourse, nor was any one else permitted to relieve his isolation, or do him or his family any service, or supply him with any necessity of life. The Orangemen of Ulster organized and went armed to his relief, and under the protection of a small band of soldiers and police, his harvests were gathered in, and his produce conveyed to the nearest available market. Boycott went to England for a short time, and on his return to Lough Mask at once extricated himself from his painful and perilous position by giving up his agency. His unexpected surrender, strange to tell, brought about a complete revulsion of feeling among the dwellers of that wild and lovely district. He now became as popular as he had before been obnoxious. In the course of a speech delivered at a mass meeting of from fifteen to twenty thousand men at Waterford, in September, 1883, Michael Davitt said, "It was better for all concerned that the truth should be plainly and bluntly told, in order that English quack statesmen might be saved the trouble of proposing half measures to satisfy the Irish people.... Let the landlords of Ireland resign their unpopular positions, follow the example of Captain Boycott, and nobody would molest them, but if they did not, they would be grievously surprised by and by, for they would make the discovery which Captain Boycott had made, that the English government would find that it did not pay from an Imperial point of view to support a worse than useless class against the Irish nation. The 'lifeboat for the landlords,' as Lord Derby had once called the Land Act (1881), rescued them from the rocks upon which they were hurled by the waves of the Land League, but they had not reached the shores of safety yet. There were other breakers ahead that would do more damage to their rotten system than the storm of the Land League. When the laborers and the artisans of Ireland or of England and Scotland were enfranchised, was it to be supposed that the educated millions of industry would allow the national patrimony—the land—to be any longer the property of a useless class? In the language of scripture, the landlords would be asked to give an account of their stewardship, for they could be no longer stewards."
While, however, the Land Leaguers were jubilant at the success of their movement, the government were preparing to take strenuous measures for its suppression. Its leaders, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Sexton, along with the Treasurer, Mr. Egan, and the Secretary, Mr. Brennan, and several others, were prosecuted by the Crown on the charge of inciting to outrage. The prosecution, however, broke down, as everybody expected it would, through disagreement of the jury.
When Parliament assembled in January, 1881, the policy announced for Ireland was, as usual, one of concession and coercion. There was to be a Land Act, and there was to be a Bill which would give the Lord-lieutenant "power by warrant to arrest any person reasonably suspected of treason, treasonable felony, or treasonable practices, and the commission, whether before or after the Act, of crimes of intimidation, or incitement thereto." The conflict over the latter bill, which was first introduced, made the House of Commons more like a bear-garden than a place of rational deliberation and debate. Even Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone became exasperated, and charged back upon their assailants with an energy and violence quite unwonted. Mr. Gladstone's speech in particular aroused the House, angered the Irish members, and proved to be the prelude to a prolonged conflict with systematic obstruction, which went on for some time, night and day, without break. Even Mr. Parnell for the moment lost all self-command, entered into an angry conflict with the Prime Minister, defied the ruling of the Speaker, and was expelled the House, as Mr. Dillon had been the evening before. Some thirty others of the National party followed his example of defiance with a similar result. At the close of February the Coercion Bill was sent up to the Lords, and on the beginning of March received the Queen's assent. The end of July saw the third reading of the Land Bill in the Commons, after long and wearisome debate. The Lords amended it to death, and sent it back to the Commons—the poor and pithless shadow of its former self. Restored to life in the Lower House, it was again presented for the acceptance of the peers. Again they struck at its vitality, but the Commons said, Nulla vestigia retrorsum. A thousand popular platforms and almost the whole provincial press called upon the government to be firm; mass meetings in London and other large cities and towns clamored for the abolition of the House of Lords and the extinction of hereditary rule. Eventually the courage of the peers gave way, and the Land Bill of 1881 became law.
The closing months of the year saw the Land League chiefs in Kilmainham Prison. Mr. Gladstone on his visit to Leeds, early in October, had met with a reception more than royal from the folks of Yorkshire. For two or three days special trains from every part of that densely populated county poured into the great emporium of the cloth-trade thousands of enthusiastic admirers eager to catch a near glimpse of the foremost statesman of the age as he rode from point to point through the barricaded streets. In one of the speeches made during the visit, he had strongly reprobated the policy and proceedings of Mr. Parnell. At a meeting in Wexford, a few days after, Mr. Parnell replied with some bitterness. A few days more brought the exciting news of the arrests by the Irish Executive. The situation was desperate. The imprisoned leaders at once issued a manifesto calling upon the tenantry of Ireland to withhold payment of rents. This was a direct violation of the law, as well as a great political blunder, and the government at once seized the occasion as a fitting opportunity for suppressing the Land League and the advanced Nationalist press. In the session of 1882 there appeared a manifest indisposition on the part of a majority of the cabinet to give further sanction to the policy of Mr. Forster in Ireland. The imprisoned Home Rulers were released from Kilmainham on conditions which he thought perilously lenient, and he resigned, as also did Earl Cowper. The entry of the new Lord-lieutenant, Earl Spencer, on the 6th of May, into the Irish capital, promised well; but the assassin had bargained with the fates for the day, and before the sun had ceased to shed his bright beams on the green grass and budding trees of Phœnix Park, a scion of the noble house of Devonshire and his companion in office had been immolated on the altar of Irish vengeance before the eyes of the new viceroy as he stood in the window of the viceregal lodge. The civilized world was horror-struck. Ireland expressed her profound regret at a transaction which was thought to have been planned and executed by some designing foe. Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and Davitt hastily met to disclaim any sympathy with the crime and to denounce the criminals. The rest of the story is now familiar and needs not be retold. The government was known to have been contemplating a milder régime for Ireland; but the disastrous incident of the 6th of May drove them back upon their former policy. A Crimes Bill was passed, followed by a measure of alleviation, known as the Arrears Bill, with the view of keeping the scales of justice even. In the middle of August the exhibition of Irish Art and Manufactures was opened in Dublin, and the unveiling of the statue of O'Connell, in Sackville Street, was part of the programme of the ceremonies. On the following day, Messrs. Parnell and Dillon received the freedom of the city, and Mr. E. D. Gray, M. P., proprietor of Freeman's Journal, and High Sheriff of Dublin, was committed to Richmond gaol for contempt of Court.
Whatever necessity may be pleaded for such measures as these, they only had one result, namely, the steady advancement of the Irish National cause. Dynamite explosions in London, Glasgow, and elsewhere, troubles in Egypt and the Soudan, complications with Russia as to the Afghan frontier, left little time for attention to Irish affairs during the last years of the existence of the Liberal ministry. The Irish Nationalist leaders had convinced themselves that they owed no gratitude to the government, and could hope for nothing from the Liberal party, except "chains, imprisonment, and death," to cite the words of Mr. Gladstone's recent reply to the Irish citizens of St. Louis. They had been long biding their time and watching for their opportunity, when suddenly it presented itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Childers, in presenting the Annual Budget, "ran a tilt" against the "beer and spirit" interest—a sin unpardonable, for any minister in England. The Budget was defeated, and ministers accepted the hint, rejoicing that, for a time at least, their troubles were ended.
Meanwhile the organization of the Irish National party had been developed to a point of perfection in anticipation of the New Reform Bill. That bill promised nothing in particular either to Gladstone or Salisbury, and it has given to neither any particular advantage over the other. In the counties the Liberal interest has advanced; in the boroughs it has markedly declined. But it promised everything to Parnell, and the fulfilment has been equal to the promise. It is no exaggeration to say that with a compact following of eighty-six he is virtually "master of the situation." But his position, on the other hand, is undoubtedly very critical. It is one which few men are likely to envy; it is one which not one in a thousand is competent to fill. Will he be equal to it? Where Grattan—sagacious, eloquent, high-minded and sincere—so signally failed, is Parnell likely to succeed? To-day his party is united, enthusiastic and strong, but when the hour for compromise and concession arrives, will the unanimity be maintained? Does Mr. Parnell himself know how much to ask, how little he ought to take, and where to draw the limit of compromise? Repeatedly Mr. Gladstone has invited Irish leaders to bring forward some definite scheme, and let the country know what they meant by "Home Rule." The cry, as a party watchword, has served admirably—seldom has a couple of words served so well—because, as expressing Irish National aspirations, it meant everything in general and nothing in particular; but the moment is at hand when it will be necessary to reduce it to a definite and feasible scheme of domestic government and policy. When that moment comes, will the prince of obstructionists in St. Stephen's prove himself equally capable as a constructive statesman on College Green? Should Mr. Gladstone find himself in a position soon after the opening of Parliament (he is not in a position now) to enter into practical negotiation with Mr. Parnell, may not the latter discover, as many an able and successful leader of men has done before him, that the next sad thing to a great defeat is a great victory? It is no secret that the demand Mr. Parnell, as the head of the Irish Nationalist party, is commissioned to make on behalf of Ireland, is a demand for national self-government almost, if not quite, amounting to national independence: it is equally well known that no British statesman would ever think, in the present state of public sentiment, of countenancing such a claim. For ourselves we do not venture to forecast the issue of the conflict; for "prophecy is the most gratuitous style of error." We content ourselves with hoping that the settlement may be speedy, pacific, satisfactory, and lasting.