From 1840 O’Connell, annoyed by lack of progress, turned his focus to repeal through popular mobilization. Because of this and the strong Tory government of 1841 Irish issues did not feature heavily in parliament. Another Irish leader did not raise these issues effectively until Parnell in 1875. This was due to the Potato Famine that blighted Ireland in the late 1840’s and Gladstone’s motivation to ‘pacify Ireland’, as he put it, following the 1868 Liberal election victory, which led to land reform and the disestablishment of The Church of Ireland.
Parnell became leader of the established but poorly led IPP in 1880 after five years as an MP. By this time he was also President of the Irish National Land League who instigated The Land War in the early 1880’s. In this dual role Parnell was rightfully considered the leader of Irish Nationalism. The fervent activities of The Land League provided the catalyst for Gladstone’s second Land Act, which further increased the rights of catholic tenants and provided a tangible reward for The Land War, which was losing momentum. Strangely, Parnell did not commit his support to the act and W.E Forster, Irish Secretary, believed he ‘was trying to wreck the act’ (MacRalid). Whereas O’Connell was satisfied in 1829 it seems Parnell wanted greater reform. Parnell was able to wield more power within parliament than O’Connell due to the weak governments of the time. In 1885 the IPP held the balance of power, which allowed Parnell to use his political skill to earn the prospect of home rule. The fact that both the Conservative and Liberal parties had promised a Home Rule Bill shows the power Parnell held and the possibility that existed for real, more attainable changes in Ireland. The passing of The Ashbourne Act as a statement of Conservative will demonstrates this. It can be argued that the Home Rule Bill was an achievement in itself and opened Westminster to the possibility of home rule. I do not believe the break-up of the Liberal party was a disaster for Irish nationalist hopes of home rule as Gladstone was able to attempt a second bill in 1892. Though it was unwise for Parnell to attempt such a bill at the time particularly as he was not involved in its inception. Alan O’Day explains how Gladstone ‘took few of his colleagues or Parnell into confidence about the details of the bill’ and how it contained a great many negative provisions.
Following Parnell’s infamous home rule attempt no other leader of the IPP emerged as such an important figure. This is partly because of successive strong Conservative and Liberal governments that marginalised the IPP. Also because, in the early 20th century, the political agenda shifted away from Ireland and towards welfare reform.
Where O’Connell and Parnell embraced the British parliamentary system, De Valera distanced himself and his party from Westminster. His effect on legislation was more destructive than constructive but very effective. Despite rejecting his place within parliament it is ironic that De Valera had an almost impervious veto over Irish intended legislation that previous parliamentary Irish leaders could never have achieved from within the system. The 1918 general strike that ended any suggestion of conscription for Ireland demonstrates De Valera’s power. His complete rejection of British rule was complete when the Dail Eireann was established as a fully functioning national government. The descruction of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act was the single greatest impact on British Legislation made by an Irish Leader during the period. Adelman and Pearce believe De Valera made the act ‘virtually a dead letter’ in the south. This is certainly true as the extent of Sinn Fein’s victory in the new parliament’s elections was only matched by their complete rejection of the parliament itself. De Valera had put himself firmly in control of Irish governance. Though not supported by De Valera The Anglo-Irish Treaty existed to end the war that he had been an integral part of. His belief, and that of others at the time and since, that it did not sufficiently advance the nationalist cause can be questioned. It can be seen as a significant achievement given the IRA’s inability to continue the Anglo-Irish War. It was unrealistic to expect an Ireland to be delivered without partition as the concern and influence of Ulster Protestants was too great. Boyce suggests that the British were also concerned with their world image and did not want to be seen as ‘standing in the way of self determination’, which was championed by US President Wilson in 1919. However given the significance of the Irish issue for Britain and the considerable support for Irish Catholics emanating from The United States I doubt this was an important concern. The partition of Ireland was inevitable given Protestant feeling but through unconstitutional methods De Valera helped create an Ireland that was more independent than was hoped for in 1914.
The fact that since the rise of O’Connell the Irish issue was scarcely off the British political agenda is testament to the impact of the three most influential leaders and also to those who continued the cause but with less success. O’Connell set the tone for this period of Irish political action through his engagement of the masses. But more importantly, through The Emancipation Act, the inclusion of Catholics (both British and Irish), which permanently changed the composition of the House of Commons and helped aid the Catholic cause in Ireland. It also added greater representation to the British system, which brought is a small step closer to being a true democracy. Parnell’s splitting of the Liberal Party, whether unfortunate or careless, showed how influential and potentially dangerous the IPP had become. It was partly due to the fear of Irish agitation and their potential significance in Westminster that the strong Conservative government of 1895 began the policy known as ‘killing home rule with kindness’. Despite the lack of direct Irish intervention this led to an advancement of both the nationalist and catholic causes with The Local Government Act (1898) and Wyndham’s Act (1903). The Kilmainham Treaty between Parnell and Gladstone in 1882 was also significant due to the approach of the British not the Irish. It displayed Gladstone’s concession that the British could not impose the solutions to the Irish problems. The IPP’s increasing impact on Westminster throughout its existence and its intermittent alliance with the Liberal Party eventually led to the most important piece of constitutional legislation of the 20th century. The 1911 Parliament Act relied on the support of the IPP and would eventually lead to The Home Rule Act of 1914. This is the prime example of Irish impact on Westminster advancing the nationalist cause.
O’Connell employed revolutionary tactics to bring the catholic and nationalist cause to the attention of the British government. Through the Catholic Association he engaged the catholic population in his campaign in a way never seen previously. O’Connell was able to hold huge public meetings and use brinkmanship to pressurise those in power. This tactic was successful in 1829 as the fear of violence contributed to the creation of the Emancipation Act. When he returned to this tactic in 1840 with an aim to repeal the Act Of Union is was a failure. At the time the Conservative government as well as the English electorate was staunchly against repeal this meant he could not match his earlier success without reverting to more extreme methods. Unlike O’Connell, Parnell did support more extreme methods. As president of the Land League Parnell resided over a very successful and radical popular movement. MacRaild believes the agricultural depression ‘provided Parnell with the ideal opportunity to achieve popular support’. Certainly, the depression provided the catholic people with the stimulus to act upon Parnell’s inflammatory language. But Parnell was more the figurehead of the movement as Davitt and Devoy were in direct control of The League. Though the legitimacy Parnell added to the organisation is likely to have increased the response of the Irish population. As IPP leader he increased the party’s electoral support, which maximised Irish influence in Westminster. This created the foundation for the IPP’s continued electoral success. By the end of the period De Valera had managed to match the public participation of O’Connell, electoral success of Parnell and the direct action of The Land League. However nationalist and catholic support was more a statement of British opposition that it had been previously. The outrage caused by the British response to The Easter Rising provided Sinn Fein with enough support to eclipse the IPP as the electoral representative of the Irish people by 1918. As Adelman and Pearce wrote, ‘The election had given it legitimacy’. The general strike of 1916, creation and operation of the Dail Eireann and the eventual Anglo-Irish War is testament to De Valera’s incredible ability to organise and galvanise the Irish population. The fact that each of these actions produced positive results for the nationalist cause and by preventing conscription the population as a whole is even more impressive.
The virtual removal of the Anglican Ascendancy, increase in tenant’s rights and the dominion status of southern Ireland are great improvements on the 1801 situation. It can be argued that O’Connell and Parnell cannot be considered nationalists in the same way as De Valera due to his radical tactics and pace of progress. But the context in which he acted (following the British reaction to The Easter Rising and The First World War, which weakened the British Army) was favourable. Given Peel’s reaction to O’Connell’s planned Clontarf meeting shows that direct action would not have been effective at this time. Also I do not feel the Irish people would have engaged in as much violence if the constitutional route had not been explored or there had not been the successes of The Land War. Where O’Connell faced the greatest opposition and De Valera enjoyed the greatest success I feel Parnell wasted his opportunity. The advancement of the catholic cause through Liberal and Conservative legislation showed their willingness. Parnell could have used his position in 1885 to help create a series of bills that could have greatly advanced the catholic cause. The catholic cause advanced gradually but the nationalist advances were kick-started by Parnell and delivered effectively by De Valera.
David Whitehead
WORD COUNT: 2006