Chapter One: 1886-1899
In 1885, the main political issue in Ireland was home rule. Nationalist opinion had been marshalled into a coherent movement by Parnell, whose party structure was effectively organised through the National League. The nationalists were an unstoppable electoral force in the south, but in Ulster conservative and liberal candidates remained dominant. Elements of both the conservative and liberal parties suggested co-operation in the 1885 general election to ensure home rule candidates would only take a minimum number of seats. Many liberals, however, were vehemently opposed to any such plan, and as a result it was never fully realised. Men like Thomas Dickson opposed the scheme. He instead envisaged a liberal party for all denominations, which could win catholic support away from Conservatives.1 The liberal party could guarantee more catholic backing the following year when Gladstone introduced the home rule bill onto the Commons agenda. The bill polarised opinion in the party; those in Ireland who supported it became known as Gladstonian liberals, those against it formed the liberal unionist party. The conservatives were now called unionists. The liberal split caused by the bill was, a shattering blow for a party apparently already in its death agony according to Richard McMinn.2 The strength of the party was tested soon after the split, in the 1886 general election. Those in support of Gladstone soon came forward to show their colours. A meeting was organised for May 28th to discuss a way forward, where Dickson backed Thomas Shillingtons intention to form a new group to articulate protestant home rule opinion. This would become the Irish Protestant Home Rule Association.
This organisation established its administrative centre in Belfast, although it was to work alongside a Dublin branch. The reasons for the new group were stated at the first meeting in Belfast: Irish necessities were disregarded at Westminster; because Irish dissatisfaction with the existing form of government endangered the safety of the empire of Great Britain and Ireland....because traditions of trust were unequally distributed between the religious communities, society was disorganised.3 The northern branch appealed to presbyterians who felt they could get a better deal under a Dublin parliament. In the south, isolated protestants were called upon to protect their interests. The Dublin department was soon to fade, however, despite support from Douglas Hyde and Maud Gonne. It gained no higher popularity than it received in its initial year.
The Freemans Journals view that the association was, destined to play an important part in the resolution of the home rule question was optimistic. As the national agenda moved to land, the association found itself having to make difficult decisions on policy. By the end of 1886 they had decided to publicly reject the Coercion bill, with direction from land campaigners James Williamson and John Pinkerton.4 Shillington told members to support tenants organisations, and the nationalist Plan of Campaign was endorsed.5 Agrarian agitation was not the original objective of the association, however, and with home rule pushed temporarily into the background of Irish politics the movement became practically anachronistic in the next decade, says Oliver McCann.6 The association, although not officially dissolved until 1895, ceased to be of any consequence after 1890.7
Despite a reported membership of 10,000 at one point (in 1887),8 the IPHRA ultimately failed to make any real impression on the Irish political landscape. Its timing was unfortunate in that home rule was being eased off the agenda just as they were growing in stature. Ultimately, however, it was too small and disorganised to make a difference. McMinn concludes that the association eventually proved the theory its founders set out to debunk: that in the 1880s few protestants in Ireland wanted Irish self-government.9
When election time arrived in 1886, Gladstonian liberals were in a position to contest three seats in Ulster. All were presbyterians in support of home rule. They were: S.C.McElroy in north Antrim, James McKelvey in mid Antrim and James Wylie in north Tyrone. Wylie, a former land commissioner, originally wanted to stand in the mid Armagh by-election of the same year, but despite initial backing from the National League Parnell blocked the move.10 He eventually received nationalist backing for the north Tyrone fight, but was beaten by the previously conservative incumbent William Hamilton, now a unionist. County Tyrone farmer McKelvey was also seen off by a unionist, receiving only 933 votes in the process.11
S.C.McElroy, a tenant-right campaigner since the 1860s, enjoyed a high profile in Irish liberal circles. The Trinity graduate was a devoted follower of Gladstone, although as a presbyterian he did not find it easy to enthusiastically endorse home rule policy.12 One thing he was sure of was that he was not a unionist, and through his editorship of the Ballymoney Free Press he persuaded substantial numbers of liberals in north Antrim to stick with Gladstone. He did not have enough support, however, to beat the sitting unionist member in the area in 1886. McElroy was defeated again, although by a much smaller margin, in the following years by-election after the unionist MP was appointed Lord of Appeal.
While McElroy found himself campaigning as a presbyterian in a largely protestant area on a home rule ticket, perhaps his enthusiasm about the measure should not be exaggerated. McElroy was secretary of the Route Tenants Defence Association, and land was his main preoccupation, much more important to him than Irish self-government. One source of frustration for him was the fact that local party differences caused a lull in the Route land movement from 1886 to 88.13 McElroy wanted radical reform of the 1881 Land Act, and was sometimes disappointed with the lack of movement on the issue. In January 1888 he persuaded liberal colleagues, unionists, and nationalists to confront the inadequacies of the 1881 act; he was prepared to work with all sides to achieve his objectives. Richard McMinn takes the view that McElroy in fact was involved in the tenants association out of personal interest, to protect his standard of living.14 He calls the land movement selfish for neglecting the Irish agricultural labourers until it was too late.15 Even if this was the case in north Antrim, however, it cannot be argued that McElroy was not committed to land reform.
McElroy was not so committed to home rule. This is illustrated in his decision in later years to support unionist candidate Peter Kerr-Smiley in County Down. Later in his career he witnessed land reform under unionist rule, and apparently this satisfied him.16 After the death of Gladstone in 1898 it was proved that his loyalty was to the former Prime Minister, and not so much his party, or even Gladstones home rule ideals.
Thomas Dickson was a fellow Liberal and land reformist of McElroy. Dickson had been a Liberal MP from 1874 to 80 and 81 to 85 17, and after the party split showed sympathy with the Home Rule ideal.18 A linen manufacturer in Dungannon and Belfast, Dickson wanted better administration for Ireland and a land purchase act. In 1888 he appeared in Dublin with nationalist backing to win the St Stephens Green seat as a liberal. An appeal was made by a local doctor to embrace Dickson, despite his denomination: ...by returning Mr Dickson for this constituency you will send a message of peace to the north. Let us show that we are willing to sink personal differences and divisions in order to obtain the freedom of our country.19
Apart from the liberals, four other protestant candidates supported home rule in Ulster in the landmark 1886 election. These were Robert McCalmont in east Belfast, R.R.Gardner in mid Armagh, James Williamson in north Armagh and J.G.Biggar in Cavan. John Pinkerton and Jeremiah Jordan stood as nationalist candidates in the west. McCalmont, an agricultural chemist, was a member of the Protestant Home Rule Association. Unsurprisingly he was comprehensively beaten by unionist Edward Wesley.20 Solicitor and IPHRA man Williamson was also defeated, alongside party colleague Gardner in Armagh. J.G.Biggar in west Cavan was in contrast to these debutante candidates. He had been a home rule MP for Cavan County from 1874 to 1885 after unsuccessfully contesting a Derry seat in 1872. He was a winner in 1885 and 1886 in west Cavan as a nationalist party member. This was the seat he held onto until his death in 1890 at the age of 62.
Unlike some other candidates in this study, Biggar was fully committed to the national cause of Ireland. A prosperous Belfast-born provisions merchant,21 he was appointed president of his home towns home rule association in 1872. Later in the decade he forged links with the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the Fenians, and was made treasurer of the Land League. He became a prominent member of Parnells party, spearheading their Westminster obstruction policy with the leader.22 Biggars tactic of intolerably long speeches incurred the wrath of English newspapers.23 Designed to draw attention to and win more parliamentary time for the home rule issue, the strategy sometimes did not produce its desired effect. Henry Lucy concluded in 1877 that Home Rule means not going home all night yourself, and keeping as many other people as possible out of their beds.24 It was in this year that Biggar converted to catholicism, although not before the genial little humpback obstructionist as Hugh ODonnell once called him25, had served years of working for home rule in Ulster as a presbyterian.
In the south, Jeremiah Jordan retained his seat for the nationalists in West Clare in 1886. Jordan, a tenant-farmer, first entered politics through the temperance and kindred movements.26 He became a member of various tenants associations, the National League, the Land League and the United Irish League. Like McElroy, Jordan presented himself as a crusader for land reform. He said in 1886 that, the tenant farmer seeks redress and deliverance from rackrent and from landlord agent and bailiffs. He made it clear that he was on the farmers side - he said he saw their struggles every day. He stated in a letter that compulsory land purchase is the only mode by which the land question will be settled. A Protestant standing in the nationalist party, Jordan emphasised the non-denominational nature of the land issue: This is not a party question. It is neither orange or green, Tory or Nationalist, Protestant nor Catholic. It is not a question of North verses South.27
John Pinkerton took the Galway seat in his first election as a nationalist. He was born in Ballymoney and co-operated with McElroy in the north Antrim area on land issues. He contested his home seat in 1885 as an independent, months after being appointed justice of the peace by the liberal government.28 Disillusionment with the liberal party meant that he answered the call of Parnell to move to Galway to take a safe nationalist seat; he received a telegram just days before the election which read: Parnell wishes you to stand Galway or Ossary we paying expenses.29 Parnell was delighted to capture Pinkerton; Thomas Sexton said the nationalist leader recommended him with hearty assent.30 Their relationship was soon to turn sour, however, when the Ulsterman aligned himself with the anti-Parnellite camp after the split.
Pinkertons religion was no secret to the people of Galway, who were more concerned with the party he represented, and the fact that he supported home rule. On his arrival in his new constituency he was greeted by messages of support from local labourers groups, town commissioners, and the local GAA club who welcomed Pinkerton to the seven-hundred year struggle for the right of national self-government.31 In time the nationalist party used Pinkertons denomination as an illustration of their open mindedness. An election leaflet read: Pinkerton as member for Galway is an object lesson in Tolerance, the best answer to Lord Salisburys [Conservative Prime Minister] argument that Home Rule means Rome Rule. The rejection of the Ulster Protestant would influence many a wavering vote in the constituencies.32
In 1887 S.C.McElroy failed for a second time to take the north Antrim seat, this time in a by-election. One of his motivations for following Gladstone down the home rule path was the alternative; a feeling had grown that unionism would attempt to limit the opportunities of the presbyterian community. Richard McMinn comments, Presbyterian antagonism towards the alleged Conservative, Anglican monopoly of parliamentary representation and official appointments was a major force in Ulster politics in these years, particularly in such a county as Antrim, with its sizeable Presbyterian majority.33 Relative to its size, the presbyterian community was under-represented in parliament for many years.34 The Presbyterian hierarchy were also concerned about their lack of magistrates and members in other high-ranking state positions. The liberal government had attempted to redress the balance, but a major stumbling block was that magistrates had to own land.35 The 1886 Presbyterian General Assembly ruled that its members should reject home rule and remain with the liberal unionists. Concerns about discrimination were discussed the following year, and some progress was achieved through co-operation with the lord-lieutenant.36 Some high profile members of the church grew impatient, however, and declared themselves followers of Gladstone. These included Ballymoney minister J.B.Armour, who broke from the liberal unionists in 1893.
Armour, who became a leading home rule activist in north Antrim, had a number of reasons for taking his dissident stance. He believed that the evils of the 1800 Union had to be undone, and the Irelands trade could increase with more legislative independence. Armour of course was indignant about the treatment meted out to presbyterians since the Union, and said that any new system had to be an improvement: ...under no conceivable circumstances could they have recognition than they had during all the days of Tory rule in Ireland.37 Armours reasoning here is in common with virtually all presbyterian home rulers.
Dublin-born John Gordon Swift MacNeill took the south Donegal seat in another 1887 by-election. MacNeill had a Church of Ireland tory background to early life, but after education at Trinity and Oxford he joined Parnells nationalists promising, unswerving affection and allegiance from the depths of my heart.38 MacNeill was to have a long and successful political career in Ulster, and was much respected at Westminster for his legendary mastery of parliamentary procedure. Patrick Maume says he was most well-known for his legal expertise and encyclopaedic knowledge of parliamentary rules.39
The next general election, in 1892, came two years after the nationalists had split over the Parnell divorce case. This, however, did not loosen their grip on constituencies outside Ulster. Overall in Ireland a series of 71 anti-Parnellites took seats in the election, along with another nine Parliamentary party members supporting Parnell. The other 23 seats were taken by unionists largely in Ulster. Liberal home rule candidates had no success. Even in the darkest period after his fall, F.S.L.Lyons points out, Parnells legacy meant that four-fifths of the parliamentary representatives of the country were solidly behind the demand for home rule.40 The 1892 general election was a notable one; in Ireland many seats were fiercely contested in a manner more associated with Britain. In a few cases, rival nationalist camps put candidates forward in bitter opposition. More crucially, however, it was in this election that the unionists fought for every seat possible like never before.
It was common knowledge that a second home rule bill would be introduced if the liberal party in Britain came to power.41 This meant that every seat the unionists could take from the nationalists could be precious. In total 83 out of 103 seats were contested in Ireland, representing around 80% of the country, as opposed to the usual mark of around 50%.42 The unionists were rewarded for their tenacity with a respectable number of seats, although they failed to make any breakthrough outside Dublin and the six counties that now make up Northern Ireland. In figures to the nearest hundred the total unionist vote was 83,900, while the home rule vote amounted to 313,900.43 The home rule vote included the14,500 given to Gladstonian liberals in Ulster, who found themselves demoralised by the fact that they remained seatless, particularly after their hard work in Antrim.
The Gladstonian liberals had put forward five hopefuls: Dickson in south Tyrone, James Dougherty in north Tyrone, Dr Thomas Greer in north Londonderry, Samuel Walker in south Derry, and W.H.Dodd in north Antrim. The mens task was made virtually impossible by the fact that they failed to secure the backing of the presbyterian hierarchy. Presbyterian mouth piece The Witness said that these were excellent men 44, but they should not be supported as the Union was paramount. The editorial slammed plans of a land purchase scheme as distracting attention from the more important issue of nation. It warned its readers not to be sucked into a Home Rule frenzy by the promise of wealth and free farms.45
Dr Thomas Greer was born in Co.Down and studied medicine at Queens College, Belfast. He established a medical practice in Cambridge before returning to Ireland where he contested north Derry as a liberal home ruler. He was beaten by unionist H.L.Mulholland who as a conservative had defeated Samuel Walker in the same constituency seven years earlier. Walker was educated at Trinity and was called to the bar in 1855. He served as solicitor-general of Ireland from 1883-85 and attorney-general in 1886. He received 4,053 votes as a liberal in south Derry in 1892, compared to Thomas Leas 4,554.46 Following his failed bid to enter parliament he was appointed lord-chancellor in the same year.
James Dougherty was born in Derry and was ordained a presbyterian minister in Nottingham.47 A Professorship at Magee College took him back to his home county, where he decided to support home rule. His loss in north Tyrone in 1892 was a narrow one. By this time Thomas Dickson had become the principle organiser of the liberal home rule movement in Ulster.48 He gave up his Dublin seat to contest south Tyrone but was disappointingly defeated by rising liberal unionist T.W.Russell. One area where the liberals considered they had a real chance of success in was north Tyrone. W.H.Dodd Q.C. was to stand here against unionist Charles Connor. Rathfriland-born Dodd was called to the bar in 1873, after forming a close relationship with J.B.Armour at university.
Both Armour and S.C.McElroy were strongly influential in Dodds nomination. Armour felt alienated from unionism especially in light of the selection of Connor as their candidate for north Antrim. Connors connection with Bushmills and his unsatisfactory views on the land question left Armour feeling let down by the leadership.49 A sometimes bitter contest ensued with Armour claiming Dodds opponents only wished to, perpetuate...the worst form of home rule - the home rule of the grand jury system, which is taxation without representation; the home rule of big rents; the home rule of representatives in whose selection you have no choice, whose principles are principles of ascendancy for a class and degradation to all creeds save one.50 Leading unionist William Hamilton retorted with an attack on Dodd and Armour that was so vicious Dodd was unable to recover from the bad publicity it generated in time to make any impact on the polls. Dodd himself actually played down the home rule issue,51 knowing he could improve his chances by focusing on land. Presbyterian minister J.D.Osbourne gave his support saying that, without independent men such as he, advocating....freedom for the tiller of the soil, the desires of Presbyterian Ulster outside Belfast will find no adequate _expression in the house of Commons.52
Protestant nationalists running in 1892 were Swift MacNeill again, Jeremiah Jordan and Samuel Young. MacNeill, now an anti-Parnellite, easily retained his south Donegal seat. Jordan campaigned in Ulster for the first time, and was only narrowly beaten by the unionist candidate in north Fermanagh. This prompted him to contest the south Meath by-election the following year, and he was content to take this seat outside Ulster. Samuel Young was also successful as an anti-Parnellite in east Cavan despite an unexpected unionist challenge. Young, a Belfast presbyterian, devoted most of his life to a distilling business which made him a wealthy man.53 He was involved in the reorganisation of the nationalists at the end of the decade, and made the east Cavan seat his own until 1910.
Young, described as one of the most respected members of the party54, was an advocate of self-government for Ireland. As the wealthiest member of the Irish party, however, he retained right-wing conservative views often out of step with the nationalists. He was hostile towards the Gaelic League55, and found himself under attack from the United Irish League in 1900 when he attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace. He was accused of belonging to a group of place-hunting social climbers who did not have the interests of the nation at heart.56 Young and fellow nationalist member Dr E.C.Thompson defied their own partys ban on attending royal functions when they travelled to the coronation of King Edward VII, but none of the controversy affected Youngs claim to parliament. As founder in 1894 of the Ulster Liberal Land Committee, Youngs intentions of reform in this area are unquestioned. It is not so clear, however, that he was such a big supporter of home rule. He certainly had no intention of advocating a policy where all links between Britain and Ireland would be severed, as can be seen in his affection for the royal family.
John Pinkerton was the only protestant home ruler from Ulster to stand outside the nine counties in 1892. He retained his Galway seat, but only after a keenly fought battle with Arthur Lynch, a Parnellite nationalist. In the end, only 45 votes separated the two men.57 Pinkerton campaigned as an anti-Parnellite, and used titular leader Justin McCarthy to win votes. One election leaflet read: ...plump for Pinkerton, who is fighting with the illustrious McCarthy for independence and freedom.58 Perhaps Pinkertons biggest coup was securing the support of the catholic Bishop of Galway X.F.J.McCormack in such a close fight. McCormack stated, In my opinion it would be simply disastrous to the Irish cause to reject the candidature of such men as Mr Pinkerton.59
The new liberal government elected to power in 1892 set about drawing up a second home rule bill without delay. Its introduction was the blow unionists had been expecting, and they embarked upon putting plans for its destruction into action. The presbyterian church were also alarmed at the development, and a special General Assembly meeting was called for March 1893 in Belfast. Here, a series of resolutions were drawn up, stating the importance of maintaining the union and rejecting the Government of Ireland bill, now on its second reading.60 The Reverend J.B.Armour spoke here in favour of the home rule bill; he did not give it unqualified support, but asked his fellow presbyterians to give it a chance. After all, he said, it must improve the situation for members of the church.61 He also said that maintaining the status quo would let the landlord class continue to take advantage of struggling tenants. He went as far as to say that Gods will could be achieved through the home rule bill.62 The Reverend J.D.C.Houston stated his belief that there existed a large number of fair-minded protestant home rule supporters.63 In the end the official resolutions were passed unanimously, but Armour did receive support from James Dougherty, who was continually heckled and interrupted during his speech.64
Following the regular General Assembly meeting in June, Dougherty and Armour wanted to show Gladstone that not all presbyterians were against his proposals. Organisation was poor, however, with Thomas Dickson commenting, I feel that in Ireland we Gladstonian Liberals have no platform.65 Eventually a memorial was decided upon, to include all the signatures of Ulster prebyterians in favour of reform. In all 3,535 names were collected and sent to the Prime Minister with a covering letter stating the signatories intent to make self-government work. A second paragraph asserted support for, a measure to abolish dual ownership in land, by which alone a final settlement of this Irish land question can be achieved.66 Although not all those who signed the bill were fully committed to the resolutions embodied in the 1893 bill,67 the overall figure of support for the memorial shows that presbyterian opinion on home rule was by no means overwhelmingly against. The home rule bill passed the commons, but was defeated by the Lords, many of whom were Irish landowners.
At the beginning of the following year John Morley, the liberal governments Irish chief-secretary, announced an inquiry would take place into previous land legislation. Liberals J.B.Killen, Thomas Shillington and the Reverend Richard Lyttle saw this as an opportunity to organise home rule opinion in north-east Ulster in a new Irish Liberal and Radical Union. In a letter to Dickson, Lyttle stated, Home Rule sentiment has certainly spread and increased considerably during the past 12 or 18 months among farmers and in some cases among business people in Protestant districts of North East Ulster. In my opinion it is not an hour too soon to make an effort to capture the labourers.68 A meeting was held on February 2nd 1894 in Belfast, attended by liberals and nationalists. Here the Ulster Liberal Land Committee was established. This gave Ulster farmers the chance to put their case to Morleys committee, but there was much consternation when Morley decided not to speak to leaders of the group. According to Pinkerton, the decision cost liberals in Ulster huge support in the months before the general election: If Mr Morley gave the northerners the chance of seeing and hearing him we could almost carry Ulster.69
After seeing his best-laid plans for home rule scuppered again, Gladstone resigned his position in March 1894. The decision was to cause much discontent amongst his Ulster supporters. Unionist reformist T.W.Russell predicted that land would prove to be the central issue of the next general election. He went on to say that without Gladstone, rightly or wrongly men consider Home Rule to be dead.70 In July 1895 Roseberys liberal ministry was put on the line against Lord Salisburys conservatives. The conservatives won and Salisbury was installed as Prime Minister in June. In Ireland, however, results were strikingly familiar to the previous election. Anti-Parnellites lost just one seat, the Parnellites gained two, the unionists lost two, and for the first time a liberal home ruler was successful.71 Compared to 83 contests in 1892, there were only 42 in 1895. The unionists picked up a substantial proportion of their seats undisputed: 15 of a total of 21.72
Three liberal home rulers stood: Dodd in south Londonderry, Arthur Houston in the north of the same county, and Charles Hemphill Q.C. in north Tyrone. Houston was well beaten, although he did receive more votes than his fellow liberal Thomas Greer who ran for the seat in 1892. Houston said that protestants should accept nationalism in the spirit of Grattans parliament, and continued, ...under home rule we will be a great, a prosperous and a progressive people.73 After disappointment in Antrim three years earlier Dodd was beaten again, this time by Thomas Lea. Dodd had also missed out on the solicitor-generalship position, despite strong recommendation from Armour. Armours main concern was one of religious representation: To conciliate the Presbyterians, the appointment of Mr Dodd, who is a thorough Presbyterian, would be a wise stroke of policy.74
Charles Hemphill was born in 1822, and ran for parliament in his home constituency of Cashel, Tipperary, in 1857. Once a conservative, he converted to liberalism and in 1886 followed Gladstone on home rule, standing in Liverpool.75 The preferred choice of the Northern Whig, he took the solicitor-generalship ahead of Dodd.76 By winning in north Tyrone he succeeded where Dougherty and Wylie had failed. In the event, he received just 89 votes more than unionist William Wilson. Hemphill was another liberal concerned with land reform; he showed this with his support of Morleys land bill.
Despite gaining their first member of parliament, the liberal home rulers found no coherence in the remaining years of the century. This was partly due to the fact that seemingly a number of supporters had little time for home rule or ideas of nation. They had only sectional interests, particularly drawn to the movement because of its promise of land reform. Oliver McCann comments that, these people were prepared to accept any form of government, so long as their needs were satisfied.77 A series of blows had taken their toll on the liberal home rulers. The failure of home rule and the resignation of Gladstone left the movement in a state of what Richard McMinn calls ideological bankruptcy.78 The neglect of their needs by the national leadership under Rosebery, including Morley, dismayed the Ulster liberals; further embarrassment was caused when the main party disowned the land purchase issue.79 Liberal home rulers found themselves cut adrift and in the doldrums without the vital co-operation of their spiritual leader Gladstone.
Nationalists also experienced upheaval in these years with the Parnell split, but the common goals of home rule and land reform had ensured this group did not loose any seats in 1895. Six Protestants in or from Ulster stood as nationalist candidates in the election. Jeremiah Jordan hoped to retain his south Meath position, but was surprisingly beaten by just 43 votes by Parnellite John Parnell.80 The result was unexpected as Jordan had gained praise for his work on the two crucial issues of land and nation. One newspaper commented that, No man in an enthusiastic party is more enthusiastic in the cause of Irish autonomy than he.81 The anti-Parnellites were well aware of Jordans qualities, and didnt want to loose his parliamentary experience. Three days after the Meath defeat Jordan was put forward in south Fermanagh. As the only nationalist candidate here, he was assured of victory.
Swift MacNeill easily kept his Donegal seat, and Samuel Young was returned again in Cavan, this time without opposition.82 Vesey Knox was successful in west Cavan, but moved to Londonderry in the same year, and this was the seat he took up. Ulster Land Committee chairman Thomas Shillington ran for Westminster for the first time since he had done so as a Liberal in Armagh in 1885. His battle as an independent nationalist against T.W.Russell in south Tyrone was hard fought, but proved ultimately unfruitful. Shillington was an active Portadown businessman who chaired the Armagh IPHRA. in 1886 and was appointed head of his home towns liberal club in the same year. Although he would not make any further attempts to enter parliament, he would become one of the most well-known protestant home rulers in Ulster for his dealings with both liberals and nationalists.
John Pinkerton in retaining his seat in Galway was the only protestant nationalist MP from Ulster outside the nine counties. Pinkerton commented that he was glad the first home rule bill did not pass into law, because it had many faults,83 but he was disappointed with the failure in 1893. He by no means held the view that Britain were imperial oppressors over Ireland; indeed he expressed his admiration for the English: If you leave him to act on his honour, he said he will generally do what is right.84 Pinkerton, however, believed that home rule was a necessary step as only then,
...can the condition of our people be improved. The English Parliament does not understand the Irish people, and does not know how to set about the business of improving the country, or the condition of the people; beside that, they have not time to attend to the business, no matter how good may be their intentions.85
Home rule would not be a stepping stone to an independent Ireland in Pinkertons view, however, despite the thoughts of his party colleagues. He claimed that a separation from Britain would be absurd, and that the bulk of the nation were against such an idea: We are not such born fools as to wish to separate from the most powerful nation in the world, and to set up a poor, weak little state.86
On landlords, Pinkerton made his views very clear: They would expropriated on equitable terms....farmers would become the owners of the farms in full, instead of, as now, owning only their portions of the dual property.87 Pinkerton had great sympathy for tenants, saying that going to court to obtain fair rent levels simply took far too long. He said violent resistance was inevitable as tenants were desperate. They didnt care about prison, because they would be utterly ruined after eviction anyhow.88 Overall, he said, home rule would be beneficial; Ireland could flourish economically through the woollen industry, and improvements in the fisheries. Despite what he saw as the benign intentions of the British government, Pinkerton believed that an Irish parliament was the only way forward: Irishmen alone understand the nature of the problem to be solved. Government by an English parliament has resulted in such a deplorable state of affairs that it can only be righted by long and strenuous endeavours on our part.89
Asked about the practical workings of an Irish house, Pinkerton was not concerned that it would become unworkable with unionist dissent, but did admit, We should have differences of opinion, as is the case in all public bodies.90 As for his own position within the nationalist party, he said he had encountered few difficulties with the vastly catholic make-up, saying most of his colleagues were broad minded. For fellow protestants, he said he had no fears for them under home rule. He commented, All I have is at stake, but I have no fears at all....I am on the best of terms with Catholics.91 This optimism, however, subsided as the 1890s drew to a close as Pinkerton and Jordan found their position within the nationalist party increasingly uncomfortable and isolated says McMinn.92 Some of Pinkertons attitudes did not sit easily, he found, with the reunified nationalists in 1900, and he was replaced in Galway by a Redmondite.
Pinkerton in 1894 had advocated co-operation between nationalism and Ulster liberalism in an attempt to win more seats for the home rule cause.93 This strategy did come to fruition, with J.B.Armour campaigning on behalf of Shillington in south Tyrone as well as his own man Dodd in Derry. Protestant liberals helped nationalist Vesey Knox to be elected in Londonderry city in return.94 This co-operation proved a sensitive issue, however, with the anti-Parnellites. Groups led by Justin McCarthy and T.M.Healy clashed over candidate selection. In one infamous case members attended a convention at Omagh to choose who was to stand in east and mid Tyrone. Chairman John Dillon greeted members with the news that nationalists in the north of the county had already decided to back the liberal Charles Hemphill. Newspaper reports ensued claiming that nationalists had sold four Ulster seats to the Liberals for £800 per year, but these had no credible foundation.95
Liberal home rulers found themselves in an uncomfortable position after the fall of the main partys government. They knew now that another home rule bill was years away. Dissatisfaction with conservative policy was expressed at the 1896 Presbyterian General Assembly. The opinion that Balfours 1896 Land Purchase Bill had not gone far enough was expressed, and compulsory sale was urged.96 As I have previously stated, some presbyterian tenant farmers supported the liberal home rulers due to what Frank Wright calls the key issue of land reform.97 In the new government T.W.Russell was busy trying to rally support for land reform on all sides. The new Prime Minister Salisbury was initially interested in his ideas, since he found backing from rural presbyterians and some catholic farmers in Ulster.98 According to Alan ODay, Russell contributed to the reformist impulse of the new administration.99
This attitude was appealing to some previously liberal presbyterians, who were quite happy to accept radical land reforms without home rule. As ODay comments, Russell sought material prescription to make Home Rule redundant.100 Speaking in 1893, Russell said home rule,
...can only have one meaning for the people of Ulster. It means their degradation as citizens. It will place their religious freedom, purchased at a great price, at the mercy of Archbishop Walsh. It will place their civil rights wrung from kings, at the disposal of the most unscrupulous body of politicians that Ireland has ever produced.101
Russell was a unionist, and his desire to destroy home rule incited a hostile reaction from some liberals and nationalists. His actions certainly did not enamour him to Jeremiah Jordan, who became a most bitter political opponent.102
Presbyterian liberals were disgruntled at the lack of movement on home rule from 1895 and 1900, and they were joined by more of their fellow churchmen in impatience with the government on issues of land and representation. Familiar rumblings on discrimination could be heard with the disappointing assessment in 1898 that claims of Presbyterians to secure fair share of public appointments have not yet been recognised.103 To help the cause, the Presbyterian Unionist Voters Association was created,104 seemingly ignoring liberals like Armour who had been voicing his opinion on the issue since 1893. The association soon faded, however, partly due to the gathering pace of Russells land movement at the turn of the century.
©2000 If you wish to refer to this piece please contact me.
Notes
1 Brian Walker. Ulster Politics: The Formative Years. (Belfast: UHF and Institute of Irish Studies, 1989), 194.
2 J.R.B.McMinn. The Myth of Route Liberalism in North Antrim, 1869-00. Eire-Ireland. (xvii, no.1, Spring 1982), 147.
3 James Loughlin. The Irish Protestant Home Rule Association and Nationalist Politics, 1886-93. Irish Historical Studies. (24: 95, May 1985), 34.
4 Oliver McCann. The Protestant Home Rule Movement, 1886-95. (MA thesis: UCD, 1973), 55.
11 Brian Walker ed. Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland, 1801-1922. (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1978),130.
13 McElroy, S.C. The Route Land Crusade. (Coleraine: Chronicle Office, n.d.), 45.
18 Alan ODay. Irish Home Rule 1867-1921. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), xviii.
21 S.J.Connolly ed. Oxford Companion to Irish History. (Oxford: OUP, 1998). 46.
25 F. Hugh ODonnell. A History of the Irish Parliamentary Party: Volume II. (London: Longmans, 1910), 45.
26 M.Stenton and S.Lees eds. Whos Who of British Members of Parliament 1886-1918. (Sussex: Harvester Press, 1978).
28 J.R.B.McMinn. The Reverend James Brown Armour and Liberal Politics in North Antrim 1869-1914. (PhD thesis: QUB, 1979), 415.
34 J.R.B. McMinn. Presbyterianism and Politics in Ulster 1871- 1906. Studia Hibernica. (xxi, 1981), 137.
37 McMinn. Against the Tide: J.B.Armour Irish Presbyterian Minister and Home Ruler. (Belfast: PRONI, 1985), li.
38 ODonnell. Irish Parliamentary Party, 290.
39 Patrick Maume. The Long Gestation: Irish Nationalist Life 1891-1918. (Dublin: Gill and MacMillan, 1999), 73.
40 F.S.L.Lyons. The Irish Parliamentary Party 1890-1910. (Westport: Greenwood, 1975), 130.
44 The Witness. (1 July, 1892).
47 Kate Newman. Dictionary of Ulster Biography. (Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, 1993).
48 F.S.L.Lyons. The Irish Parliamentary Party and the Liberals in mid-Ulster, 1894. Irish Historical Studies. (vii, March 1951), 191.
55 Maume. Long Gestation, 245.
57 Walker. Election Results, 360.
63 J.D.C.Houston and J.B.Dougherty. Are Protestants afraid of Home Rule? (London, 1893), 11.
65 Armour Papers. (PRONI, D.1792/A1/2/30).
67 McMinn. Against the Tide, xliv.
68 E.C.Thompson Papers. (PRONI, D.1711/1).
71 Lyons. Irish Parliamentary Party, 130.
73 Houston and Dougherty. Are Protestants afraid of Home Rule?, 11.
74 McMinn. Against the Tide, xxxviii.
76 McMinn. Against the Tide, 31.
77 Oliver McCann. The Protestant Home Rule Movement 1886-1895. (MA Thesis: UCD, 1973), 123-4.
78 McMinn. Route Liberalism, 149.
80 Walker. Election Results, 155.
82 Election Results, 152.
92 McMinn. PhD thesis, 416.
93 Irish News. (1st September, 1894).
94 McCann. Protestant Home Rule Movement, 125.
95 Lyons. The Irish Parliamentary Party. IHS, 192.
96 McMinn. Presbyterianism and Politics, 146.
97 Frank Wright. Protestant Ideology and Politics in Ulster. European Journal of Sociology. (xiv,1973), 241.
98 ODay. Irish Home Rule, 181.
101 Parliamentary Debates. (4th series, 7, 1982), 116.
103 General Assembly Minutes. (x, 537, 1898).
104 McMinn. Presbyterianism and Politics, 142.
