The Social Composition of the Land League

Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd

The Social Composition of the Land LeagueAuthor(s): Sam ClarkSource: Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 17, No. 68 (Sep., 1971), pp. 447-469Published by: Irish Historical Studies Publications LtdStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30005304 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 08:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIrish Historical Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.184 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:53:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ihsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30005304?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


IRISH HISTORICAL STUDIES

VOL. XVII No. 68 SEPTEMBER 1971

The social composition of the

Land League

The historical importance of the Irish National Land League lies

primarily in its contribution to the politicization of Irish agrarian society. During the years 1879-82 the Land League conducted

a tenant right campaign embracing virtually every county in the south and west of Ireland, and an extensive portion of the midlands as well. In these areas it organized an impressive network of local branches, which drew large numbers of farmers into political activity. The movement was not, however, organized by farmers alone. The central direction of the agitation was assumed by a contingent of Irish nationalists, while local leadership was provided, in large measure, by a discontented segment of the town population. Townsmen were numerically well represented in the Land League, they played an instrumental role in initiating the agitation, and they continued, once league branches had become established, to help organize meetings and enforce the league's authority in local land disputes. Hence, though the Land League was principally a farmers' organization, and though, in the end, it served to politicize Irish farmers, it was the product of an alliance between two distinguishable social groups.

During the decades immediately preceding the formation of the Land League, tenant farmers had posed few effective challenges to the political and economic power of the landowning class in rural Ireland. There were certainly to be found opponents of landlordism who possessed a measure of political influence in their localities, but their numbers were small, and they lacked a politically mobilized public to which they could appeal for support. Only for brief periods, most notably in the early I850s and again in I869, were they able to

447



448 THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE LAND LEAGUE

organize tenant movements that attracted significant public attention, but in none of the earlier movements were all classes of farmers involved in political activity. Disputes between individual landlords and their tenants were usually carried on independently of organized political agitation. The majority of farmers, if they opposed the land system at all, did so only through primitive forms of protest, such as agrarian outrage and mob resistance.

Irish nationalists could claim small credit for furthering the cause of the farmer before the advent of the Land League.' It is true that Young Irelanders like Duffy took an active part in founding the Irish Tenant League in the 185os, that fenians tried to infiltrate and organize agrarian secret societies in the sixties, and that the Home Rule League took an interest in promoting tenant defence associations in the seventies. Still, these efforts accomplished little, reaching, as they did, only a portion of the farming population. The cause of their failure is to be found, at least partly, in the fact that the period in which they took place was marked by a condition of rising economic prosperity. It is difficult, as a rule, to keep people interested in political agitation when times are prosperous. A more fundamental reason may have been, however, that the bulk of nationalist support came from urban social groups which had no immediate interest in the land. Fenianism was strongest among industrial workers in Dublin and Cork, while home rule depended mainly on the support of the Dublin middle class. Thus the strength of nationalism came from the cities, with the result that nationalist associations, even in the agrarian counties, normally gave second place to the land question. Those farmers who did join nationalist associations found it difficult to direct attention to land reform. Nationalists were not necessarily unsym- pathetic to the cause of farmers; they simply feared that the land question would divert attention from their principal objective, which was political independence for Ireland.

A reversal of this attitude was advocated in 1878 by a small number of fenians-Davitt, Devoy and others-as part of the so-called 'new departure', a proposed alliance between fenians and the relatively radical 'Parnellite' section of the parliamentary nationalists. One of the terms of this proposal was that nationalists should give priority, at least temporarily, to the land question in order to win the

1 The term nationalist, as used in this paper, is meant to include not just separatists, but also those who advocated various schemes of legis- lative independence.



THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE LAND LEAGUE 449

allegiance of rural Ireland. It became common among promoters of this alliance to claim that the Land League was the fulfilment of the new departure's objectives, but recent research has disproved this contention.2 The Land League was not the simple product of negoti- ations between rival factions of nationalist leaders. These leaders merely responded to new social conditions arising out of an agricultural depression, which began in 1878 and which was brought on by crop failures and grain competition from North America. This depression produced a wave of discontent among farmers, but, equally important, it produced a new willingness on the part of a segment of the urban population to agitate for land reform. The segment that became active consisted mostly of townsmen whose welfare was closely tied 'to that of farmers. The success of the Land League was due, in large measure, to the fact that in 1879-82 townsmen entered into political activity on a large scale, thereby enabling the entire orientation of nationalist politics to shift, for a brief period, toward the interests of farmers.

Whereas townsmen had not previously constituted an influential section of nationalist support, with the depression of the late seventies they took up political activity in unprecedented numbers, and were able to shift the balance of nationalist forces in the direction of agrarian interests. They were the only social group who could have done so. Although social unrest among farmers attracted sufficient notice to suggest to nationalist leaders the possibility of building a nationalist movement on the basis of the land question, only with the participation of townsmen would such a movement have been possible. The reason for their importance lies in the vital political role that they had come to occupy in agrarian society. The social and economic centres of this society were the towns, where farmers as well as townsmen came together to do their buying and selling, and to engage in social activity. Inevitably, towns also became the political centres of these communities. This was true even in the I87os when political activity was less intense in the agrarian counties than in the cities. Shops and public houses, the vast majority of which were located in towns, were used as gathering places for both formal and informal discussions of political topics. Townsmen were in an advantageous

2 T. W. Moody, 'The new departure in Irish politics, I878-9' in H. A. Cronne, T. W. Moody and D. B. Quinn (ed.), Essays in British and Irish history in honour of James Eadie Todd (London, 1949), PP 325- 33; and 'Irish-American nationalism' in I.H.S., v, no. 60 (Sept. I967), pp 438-45.




position to disseminate information among members of the community. In doing so they were able to influence popular feeling and to arouse public concern over political issues. They were also able to make arrangements for political meetings and demonstrations, which were almost always held in towns, with townsmen well-represented on the speakers' platforms. Not surprisingly, townsmen often assumed leadership positions whenever political associations were formed. Thus, when the agrarian counties were hit by agricultural depression, the conse- quent social discontent could evolve into a political movement only if townsmen were willing to take the lead.

Fortunately for farmers, the economic position of townsmen was such that they had an interest in the farmers' cause. This interest was only potential in the sixties and early seventies, but was activated by the agricultural depression of the late seventies. If this depression meant that farmers could no longer afford to buy the luxuries and even necessities to which they had become accustomed in the earlier period of prosperity, it also meant that shopkeepers no longer had the market on which they had come to rely and which had enabled them to establish successful business enterprises in preceding years. Although the distress of I878-80 was catastrophic for a large number of Irish farmers, for most it involved primarily a regression toward subsistence living. To do without purchases that they could afford a few years earlier, and to fall into debt, was an inconvenience, perhaps consider- able, to Irish farmers. To townsmen, who relied on farmers for the major part of their business, a return to subsistence living by farmers was disastrous, as contemporaries were well aware, 'In Ireland', wrote the editor of the Connaught Telegraph, 'trade depends altogether on its agricultural class, and now that they are reduced to such extremities the consequence is that the business portion of the population are, if not in a worse, certainly in as bad a position, as those upon whom they must always depend '.

An additional factor operated to translate the economic hardship experienced by townsmen into hostility towards the landowning class. Many townsmen accepted the tenant farmer's argument that his economic surplus was substantially reduced by the necessity to pay rent. This argument was all the more disturbing to those townsmen who believed, again to quote the Connaught Telegraph, that 'the money that this country produces is spent out of it '.4 Although townsmen were unfamiliar with the complexities of landlord finances, they

8 Connaught Telegraph, 9 Aug. I879, p. 4- Ibid., 9 Aug. 1879, p. 4.



THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE LAND LEAGUE 451 were often impressed by what they could see, namely, by the fact that it was in England, or at least in Dublin, that large landowners and their families made their major purchases, and, in some cases, even resided. Town and country were drawn together by the common conviction that, if farmers could reduce their rents, townsmen had everything to gain.

Not all townsmen, of course, identified their interests with those of farmers, or took part in the agitation. In this article an effort will be made to identify those town occupational groups that were most involved in the Land League, and to demonstrate that these townsmen were, relative to their numbers in the society, over-represented in the movement. In view of the preceding discussion, we would expect to find that the most active contributors were those who were econom- ically dependent on farmers, and also those who held positions that were advantageous for organizing political activities.

Evidence to support this proposition may be found in an examination of the occupational distribution of persons arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act, 1881," which gave the lord lieutenant the power to apprehend anyone reasonably suspected of intimidation, violence or incitement, and to hold a suspect in custody without trial. Since the act was used specifically to intern individuals involved in the land agitation, the roll of persons arrested under the act provides the most extensive list of people active in the Land League movement."

Table I gives an occupational breakdown of the arrests, showing the number and percentage of suspects in various occupational categories. The occupational group designated as 'traders and business proprietors' includes not only merchants and shopkeepers, but also commercial travellers, auctioneers and business contractors. Employees of business operations were assigned to the category 'shopkeepers and clerks', unless they were manual workers, in which case they were placed with the artisans. The category described as 'unspecified labourers' includes all persons whose occupation was given simply as labourers, with no indication of whether they were agricultural or non-agricultural labourers. It should be noted that the registrar- general's office met with similar problems of classification in analysing the returns of the 1881 census. Their solution was to place unspecified

5 44 Vict., c. 4. O S.P.O., Irish crimes records, I88x.




Table I : Occupations of persons arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act, 1881*

number percentage occupations arrested of arrests

agricultural sector 488 57.8 farmers 327 38.7 farmers' sons 131 15.5 herdsmen o10 1.2 farm servants 4 0.5 other agricultural 16 1.9

commercial and industrial sector 3'r 36.8 traders and business proprietors 94 11.x shopworkers and clerks 28 3-3 innkeepers and publicans 68 8.1 artisans and non-farm labourers 86 I0.I

unspecified labourers 35 4.2

professional sector 39 4.6 clergy I o0.

teachers 10 1.2 newspaper editors and correspondents 14 1.6 general professional 10 1.2

subordinate professional service 4 0.5

civil service and defence sector 2 0.2

domestic sector 5 o.6

total 845 1oo.o

* Suspects for whom more than one occupation was given were coded according to the occupation mentioned first. Shopkeepers' sons, publicans' sons et cetera were coded according to father's occupation, except for farmers' sons, who were assigned a separate category. 'Other agricultural' comprises gardeners, fishermen, cattle jobbers and other miscellaneous agricultural occupations. 'Newspaper editors and correspondents' includes also newspaper proprietors; and 'subordinate professional service' consists mostly of law clerks. Suspects whose occupation was given as 'Land League organizer' or 'clerk in Land League office' were not included, nor were members of parliament. Altogether Ixo suspects were either excluded or could not be coded because no occupation was provided. The actual total arrested was 955-




labourers in the industrial sector, though they acknowledged that the majority of these labourers were probably agricultural.7

As may be seen in Table I, the most numerous occupational group among the suspects is that of farmers and the agricultural sector as a whole constitutes a majority. Yet farmers by no means make up the entire list of suspects. Non-agricultural occupations are well represented, the largest group among these being traders and business proprietors, who are I I.1% of the total. Artisans also form a sizeable

group, with Io.I%, as do innkeepers and publicans, with 8. I%. These

percentages, however, are, in themselves, of only limited value. They may be simply a reflection of the size of various occupational categories in the society. Taken alone they do not necessarily reveal the level of disaffection of each group or its propensity to become involved in the agitation. To obtain a measure of propensity to become involved, the occupational composition of the list of arrests must be set against the occupational composition of the society as a whole.

What is wanted is a comparison of the occupational distribution of the suspects with the occupational distribution of the labour force in 1881. If we are satisfied with a breakdown according to broad sectors, this task is easy enough: Table 2 shows the number and percentage of males in each occupational sector, as given in the I88 census; the same table also provides the percentage of suspects in each sector.

A comparison of the two distributions provides us with our first clue as to which occupational groups had the greatest propensity to become involved in the agitation. The only sector that is significantly over-represented is the commercial and industrial sector: 36.8% of the arrests belong to this sector, while 31.7% of the labour force fell into this classification. The agricultural and professional sectors are over-represented, but only by fractions, while the two remaining sectors are under-represented.

A more suitable approach would be to isolate the occupational groups that are contained within the broad sectors. In order to do so, it will be necessary to break the sectors down into narrower occupational groupings, as was done in Table I. Unfortunately, the census classification of occupations does not coincide precisely with the classification used in Table i. No difficulty arises with respect to the agricultural and professional sectors, except that there is no identical

7 Census of Ireland, 188t: part ii, general report, p. 112 [C 3365], H.C. 1882, lxxvi, 536.




Table 2: Occupations of persons arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act, 188i and the occupational distribution of the male labour force by occupational sector

percentage percentage of number in occupational sectors of arrests labour force labour force

agricultural sector 57.8 57.4 902,010 commercial and industrial

sector 36.8 31.7 499,329 professional sector 4.6 4-4 69,552 civil service and defence

sector o.2 4-3 66,937 domestic sector o.6 2.2 34,o68

total 100.0 100.o 1,571,896

category in the census classification to which we can compare herdsmen. It is also possible to remove innkeepers and publicans from the commercial and industrial sector, as well as unspecified labourers, but the remainder of the commercial and industrial sector is divided in the census according to type of commodity; that is to say, persons working with a certain commodity are often grouped together, with no indication as to how many are artisans, shopworkers or shopkeepers. Any attempt to distinguish between shopworkers and shopkeepers is hopeless; at almost no point in the census is a distinction made between these two occupations. The only re-arrangement of the census classification that is at all possible is to select from the male labour force every occupation that is unambiguously connected with artisanal or manual (non-farm) labour; these occupations can then be used as a rough estimate of the number of artisans and non-farm labourers in the male labour force. Wherever ' makers' and ' dealers' of a commodity are classified together in the census, there is no choice but to leave this group, as we have done, in a general category of industrial and commercial occupations, which we shall call 'traders, business proprietors and shopworkers'. The result of this procedure, of course, is to seriously underestimate the actual number of artisans and non-farm labourers in the society, and to over-estimate the number of traders, business proprietors and shopworkers, since all

ambiguous occupations have been placed in the latter category.




Table 3 shows the occupational distribution of the male labour force when three of the five sectors are broken down into narrower occupational groupings. The occupational classification of P.P.P.

suspects in this table is the same as that given in Table I, except that

Table 3 : Occupations of persons arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act, 1881 and occupational distribution of the male labour force (agricultural, commercial and industrial, and professional sectors only)*

percentage percentage of number in

occupations of arrests labour force labour force

farmers 38.7 24.4 382,342 farmers' sons 15-5 12.I I89,576 herdsmen I.2 -

shepherds - 0.4 6,775 agricultural labourers - I2.6 198,579 farm servants 0.5 6.o 94,737 other agricultural 1.9 1.9 30,001

traders, business proprietors and shopworkers 14.4 12.5 197,654

innkeepers and publicans 8.1 0.4 5,724 artisans and non-farm

labourers 0 o. 1 9.2 144,6 Io unspecified labourers 4.2 8.5 134,085 other commercial and

industrial -.1 17,256

clergy 0.I 0.5 7,036 teachers 2.2 0.5 8,462 newspaper editors

and correspondents 1.6 0.02 388 general professional 1.2 o.6 8,793 subordinate professional

service 0.5 0.2 3,298 students - 2.6 41,575

total 99.2 93-5 1,470,891 * ' Other commercial and industrial' consists entirely of men employed

in conveyance on canals, rivers and seas, more than half of whom are merchant seamen.




shopworkers have now been grouped in the same category as traders and business proprietors. Table 3 demonstrates that farmers, as such, are over-represented among the arrests; they make up 38.7% per cent of the arrests, and only 24.4% of the labour force. Their sons also contribute a greater proportion to the arrests than they do to the labour force: 15.5% as opposed to 12.1%. Traders, business proprietors and shopworkers are somewhat over-represented (14.4% versus 12.5%), while innkeepers and publicans are vastly over-represented (8.1 % versus 0.4%). Artisans and non-farm labourers are slightly over-represented; they constitute io.1% of the arrests and 9.2% of the labour force. Unspecified labourers are significantly under-represented. Whether they are predominantly agricultural workers or non-agricultural workers, the result is the same. They compose only 4.2% of the suspects, whereas agricultural labourers alone make up I2.6% of the labour force, and unspecified labourers another 8.5% of the labour force. All but clergy and students among the professional sub-categories are over-represented, but the differences are so small that no firm conclusions can be drawn about them, except for newspaper editors and correspondents, who clearly contribute more than their share to the arrests.

The meagre over-representation of artisans and non-farm labourers is even less convincing when it is recalled that we have under-estimated their number in the labour force. If a more accurate estimate could be obtained, they would more than likely be under-represented. The opposite may be said of traders, business proprietors and shopworkers. To the extent that we have under-estimated the number of artisans and non-farm labourers in the society, we have thereby over- estimated the number of traders, business proprietors and shopworkers. In view of this handicap, the fact that the latter category is over-represented at all (even though by only a small amount) is quite impressive. Their actual number in the labour force is certainly less than the estimate we have used, so in reality the difference between their percentage among the suspects and their percentage in the labour force is greater than the difference shown in Table 3. Further- more, by including shopworkers with traders and business proprietors we have obscured the fact that the latter occupations make up the better part of this occupational category. In fact, more than half of the traders, business proprietors and shopworkers are actually merchants or shopkeepers.

The purpose of the foregoing analysis has been to identify those

occupational groups that had the greatest propensity to become



THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE LAND LEAGUE 457 involved in the Land League agitation. We may reasonably conclude that the following non-farm occupations made the greatest contribution relative to their numbers in the society: shopkeepers; innkeepers and publicans; and newspaper editors and correspondents. Most suspects holding these occupations were townsmen living in rural areas; if we examine their residences we find that less than a tenth were from major cities and less than a quarter were from villages or smaller rural centres. Shopkeepers and publicans were directly dependent on the economic patronage of farmers, and all three types of occupations placed their incumbents in positions that were advantageous for disseminating information among the members of their communities and for organizing political activity. This was obviously true of innkeepers and publicans, as well as of newspaper editors and correspondents, but shopkeepers were also active in organizing political activity, especially open-air meetings, as will be shown later in this paper.

It may occur to the reader that the list of arrests under the Protection of Person and Property Act does not properly reflect the role of the clergy in the Land League. Only one clergyman was arrested under the act, the notorious Fr Sheehy from Kilmallock, but this should not be taken as evidence of a lack of clerical participation. The unwillingness of priests to advocate violence, and the embarrass- ment caused to authorities by their arrest, constitute sufficient explan- ation for their absence among the suspects. An understanding of the part played by priests in the movement must rely on other modes of research, and, in the present context, the clergy can serve only as a reminder of the limitations of the methods that are being employed in this paper. It is certainly not possible to claim that the P.P.P. suspects represent an unbiased sample of Land League membership. Although the P.P.P. act was designed to crush the Land League, authorities did not confine themselves to members of the league, but sometimes used the act to arrest anyone suspected of committing violent outrage. Almost always these outrages were agrarian, but the suspects may or may not have had any connection with the Land League itself.

However, evidence that will be presented later in this paper reveals that only a relatively small proportion of traders, business proprietors and shopworkers were arrested for a violent crime. There is no reason to believe that the list of arrests under the P.P.P. act exaggerates the representation of this occupational category in the Land League. Indeed, whatever bias exists in the arrests quite likely has the reverse




effect, since, if persons arrested for violent outrage are excluded, the percentage of traders, business proprietors and shopworkers increases (from I4.4 to i8.6), as does the percentage of innkeepers and publicans (from 8.1 to 12.9), as well as the percentage of newspaper editors and correspondents (from 1.6 to 2.4). Artisans and non-farm labourers, in contrast, drop from Io.i to 6.5%, while unspecified labourers are almost eliminated, their proportion being reduced from 4.2 to only i.o%. Hence the omission of persons arrested for violent outrage raises the proportions contributed by the very town occupations that I have suggested were important.

It would be a mistake to overstate the case and thereby to create doubt as to whether or not the Land League was a farmers' organization. It need only be remembered that 54.2% of the suspects were either farmers or farmers' sons. Moreover, a proper understanding of the social composition of the Land League may not depend so much on an awareness of the numerical representation of shopkeepers and certain other town groups in the league, as on an awareness of the nature of their participation and of the roles they played. In this regard, I would suggest that they contributed most of all to getting the movement started.

A brief survey of persons who were instrumental in the first few months of the agitation may illustrate this point. It need hardly be stated that Davitt did not initiate the agitation on his own. In the Fall of feudalism he recalls that he arrived in the western town of Claremorris in April 1879 to find 'farmers, businessmen and others' eager to take part in a movement against landlordism. He claims credit for suggesting that a meeting be held in Irishtown to expose rent increases on property for which a local priest was acting as agent. Davitt refers to four persons who were helpful in organizing this meeting :. P. W. Nally, the son of a prosperous Mayo farmer,9 J. W. Walshe, a commercial traveller,"' J. P. Quinn, a school teacher," and John O'Kane, a shopkeeper in Claremorris.2 Another list of

8 Davitt, Fall of feudalism, p. 147- 9 Information on P. W. Nally was obtained by interview with his nephew Kenneth Nally, 23 Jan. 1971, Rockstown House, Balla, Co. Mayo.

'0 Special comm. 1888 proc., i, 55- "1 John Devoy, 'Michael Davitt's career' in Gaelic American, 3 Nov.

90o6. 12 J. C. Carter, sub-inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Clare-

morris, to H. L. Owen, chief inspector, Mayo, 29 Jan. 1879 (S.P.O., C.S.O., R.P. I88o/5141).




persons who helped to organize the meeting can be obtained from James Daly of Castlebar, the proprietor of the Connaught Telegraph, who claimed in a letter to his own newspaper' that he proposed the idea of the Irishtown meeting to a group consisting of James Daly of Irishtown, a tenant farmer,"4 Daniel O'Connor, also of Irishtown and a tenant farmer," Thomas Sweeney, a shopkeeper in Clare- morris,1' and the John O'Kane whom Davitt mentions. Regardless of who first suggested the Irishtown meeting there is no reason to assume that either Davitt or Daly is mistaken about who took part in organizing the meeting. Taking both lists together, the tally looks like this: two farmers, one farmer's son, a commercial traveller, a school teacher and two shopkeepers. A subsequent newspaper report reveals that at the meeting itself two of these men took the floor: Thomas

Sweeney, the shopkeeper, and J. W. Walshe, the commercial traveller. The chairman of the meeting was James Daly of Castlebar, and the

speakers included John J. Louden, a barrister from Westport,"' and

John O'Connor Power, a member of parliament for Co. Mayo. The other speakers were mostly persons from outside the county, such as Thomas Brennan, M. M. O'Sullivan, John Ferguson and Matthew

Harris.'s During the following months the west of Ireland was the scene of

a number of land demonstrations. Davitt, Daly and Louden organized a meeting in Westport on 6 June, the first meeting at which Parnell

spoke. On the i5th of the same month, a large meeting was held in

Milltown, County Galway, again organized by Davitt, Daly and associates. Eight days later the chief secretary, James Lowther, was

questioned in the house of commons about the speakers at these

meetings, particularly those at the Milltown meeting. He replied that

-3 Connaught Telegraph, 15 Jan. 1881, p. 5. 14 The valuation and location of the land and buildings a person holds

can often be used to judge whether or not he is a farmer. This information may be obtained from the land valuation records (Valuation Office), which will hereafter be cited as V.O. followed by the electoral district, the approximate year in which the relevant book was recopied and the page reference. For example, the citation for James Daly of Irishtown is V.O., Kilvine, 1867, pp 2, 7, 21, 48.

5 V.O., Kilvine, 1867, pp 8, 38. 16 Slater's commercial directory of Ireland, i881 (Manchester, 188i),

c, 3 (hereafter cited as Slater's, 188i followed by a lower-case letter to indicate the province and then by the page reference). n Special comm. r888 proc., ix, 539.

18 Connaught Telegraph, 21 Apr. 1879.




some of the persons who took part were 'not in any way connected with the neighbourhood' and ' certainly not connected with the land '. Two days afterwards he was asked on what authority he had formed this belief, and he elaborated by referring specifically to the Milltown meeting:19

I find, for instance, that the first resolution was moved by a clerk in a commercial house in Dublin [Brennan], and seconded by a person who is stated to be a discharged schoolmaster [O'Sullivan]. Another resolution was moved by a convict at large upon a ticket-of-leave [Davitt], and seconded by a person who is described as the representative of a local newspaper [Daly] and so on. It is, however, unfortunately the case that many tenant farmers were induced to attend the meeting and applaud the very objectionable sentiments uttered by the speakers.

At a meeting in Castlebar on i6 August Davitt founded the Mayo Land League. Davitt mentions, along with Daly and Louden, three fenian colleagues-Thomas Brennan, Patrick Egan and Matthew Harris -as the main organizers of the meeting.20 By occupation, Thomas Brennan was an auditor to a Dublin milling company,2 of which Patrick Egan was the managing director;22 Matthew Harris was a builder from Ballinasloe.23 A large number of tenant farmers were

present at the meeting, but townsmen were also well represented. According to the minutes of this meeting, the floor was taken by Louden and Davitt, along with three townsmen and two farmers from different parts of the county. A five-man executive was appointed, consisting entirely of persons from Mayo, but only one of them, P. W.

Nally, could legitimately claim the occupation of farmer.24

19 Hansard 3, ccxlvii, cols 434, 694-5- 20 Davitt, Fall of feudalism, p. I64. 2 John Mallon, superintendent of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, to

the commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, x9 Feb. i88o (S.P.O., C.S.O., R.P. I880/5271). 22 Dictionary of American biography (New York, 1930), v, 51.

23 Special comm. 1888 proc., i, 55. 24 Connaught Telegraph, i6 Aug. 1879. The others who took the floor

were William Judge, a shopkeeper from Claremorris (Slater's, i881, c, 36), P. J. Monahan, a shopkeeper and hotel-owner from Ballinrobe (Slater's, i88s, c, 16), Thomas Reilly, a shopkeeper from Balla (V.O., Balla, 1869, P- 39), Patrick Ryan, a farmer from Ballyhean (V.O., Ballyhean, 1865, p. 69), and Stephen Heskin, a farmer from The Neale (V.O., Neale, 1869, pp 7, 9, 51-2). The executive consisted of John J. Louden, James Daly, P. W. Nally and Hugh Feeney, a shopkeeper and publican from Castlebar (Slater's, 188z, c. 29-30). It is true that both Louden and Daly held farm land, but they were not principally farmers.




It would seem that the people who were instrumental in the first few months of the agitation fell into two groups: first, persons from outside Mayo, not one of whom was a farmer; and, secondly, local persons, the majority of whom were not farmers. Early meetings were organized by 'outsiders' and townsmen; they were commonly held in towns; and most of the speakers were either 'outsiders' or townsmen. In addition, many of the spectators were town inhabitants. This fact was alluded to by G. E. Hillier, the inspector-general of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who, in his report to the chief secretary in October 1879, included this observation :25

It should be remembered that the attendance at these [land] meetings has not been confined to the tenant farmers and labourers, but that it includes the shopkeepers, their assistants and the town population-the classes notoriously the most disaffected-particularly in the western counties.

Some of the local people who helped organize meetings had fenian connections, but many were of less radical persuasion. Home rulers and members of the clergy were soon drawn into the movement. As early as June 1879 what the Connaught Telegraph referred to as 'a very large and influential meeting of priests, merchants and tenant farmers of Claremorris' was held to make preparations for an open- air demonstration.26 This gathering seems to have been the work of both fenians and less radical interests,27 but it was not long before local groups with moderate political views were organizing their own demonstrations. For example, in October 1879 a meeting was held in Roscommon of persons interested in organizing a county demonstration.28 Matthew Harris, the fenian, was present at this meeting, but he must have felt somewhat out of place. The proceedings were opened by L. M. Hynes, a Roscommon shopkeeper and a justice of the peace.2" In the chair was T. A. P. Mapother, a local landowner and also a justice of the peace.30 Others who took the floor were: a

25 Report of the inspector-general of the Royal Irish Constabulary, 30 Oct. 1879 (S.P.O., C.S.O., R.P. 188o/13905)-

26 Connaught Telegraph, 21 June 1879, p. 5. 27 C. J. Woods, 'The catholic church and Irish politics, 1879-92 ',

unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, j968, p. 37. 28 Roscommon Journal, 25 Oct. 879, p. 2. 29 Slater's, r88r, c, 61-2. :o Return of owners of land of one acre and upwards ..., p. 317

[C 1492], H.C. 1876, lxxx.

B




landowner, two shopkeepers and a newspaper proprietor.8" The chairman expressed his desire that the demonstration be attended by landlords as well as tenants, and when it was held on 17 November the speakers included the two Roscommon members of parliament, both of whom were landowners.82

The willingness of a few liberal-minded or politically motivated landowners to be associated with the movement is indicative of the fact that tenant farmers had not yet become involved to the extent that landowning interests were significantly threatened. The majority of farmers had still not been drawn into the movement and were still forced to rely on traditional modes of agrarian protest, such as rent petitions, threats, violent outrage and mob resistance. At this stage in the agitation, these activities involved only very primitive kinds of political organization. They consisted primarily of scattered and spontaneous acts of defiance, for which the government had, if not a perfect, certainly a partial remedy: more police and more troops. Threatened landlords, landgrabbers and process-servers could be protected by police escorts, and during the first half of I88o over 200

process-servers received such protection in Connaught alone.83 Ultimately a notice could be served or an eviction carried out, even if the government had to use hundreds of police, backed up by armed cavalry, to enforce the law.

A more serious threat to the existing order would arise if large numbers of farmers were at the same time actively involved in a politically organized movement against rent. This involvement would make it possible for primitive forms of protest to become part of a political movement, and for farmers to become, in this manner, a politicized group. The term politicization, as it is being used in this article, is meant to describe the process whereby a social group becomes capable of both making demands and exerting pressures on

8' These four were: Major J. T. D'Arcy, a landowner from Ballina- sloe (Return of owners of land ..., p. 315), Francis Finlay, a shopkeeper in Roscommon (Slater's, 1881, c, 6I), George Fannon, also a shopkeeper in Roscommon (Slaters, 188s, c, 62) and William Tully, the proprietor of the Roscommon Journal (Slater's, 188,, c, 62). A man referred to as Dr Fox also took the floor, but his occupation could not be determined; he was not listed in Slater's, 188z, nor in the Irish Medical Directory, 1879 (Dublin, I879).

82 Roscommon Journal, 22 Nov. 1879, p. 2- S Return of the number of police employed in protecting process

servers from ist January to 3oth June s88o, as reported by the constabulary, p. 2, H.C. 1880 (sess. 2, 280), Ix, 451.



THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE LAND LEAGUE 463 governments. A politicized group must be able to exert some form of pressure, but it must also be able to combine this pressure with a reasonably explicit statement of demands. It was precisely this combination of pressure and demands that constituted the most important accomplishment of the Land League. Among the pressures the league employed were to be found relatively new (although not unprecedented) tactics, such as a general refusal to pay rents and boycotting. At the same time, the league incorporated traditional modes of protest, but modes of protest that were no longer spontaneous and unco- ordinated. Instead of hastily gathered mobs, evictions were resisted by large and well organized assemblies, of which the Dempsey demonstration in County Mayo was one of the earliest and most impressive. In this instance, the members of the crowd were described by the resident magistrate as 'much more determined and earnest than on any former occasion, and much more under the control of the persons directing their movements '."

Even agrarian outrages became a part of the political movement and, consequently, the number of outrages increased, from one year to the next, during the three main years of the agitation." What is more important, however, is that, while outrages motivated by personal vengeance were still common, equally often outrages were part of a well organized campaign, directed and publicized by the Land League. Certainly the crimes for which persons were arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act were predominantly of this kind. If we examine the descriptions of these crimes (provided in the Irish crimes records), we find that for only i2.o% of the violent outrages is there any mention, or even suggestion, of a personal motive. Of similar interest is the finding (shown in Table 4) that when the type of arrest is cross-tabulated with occupation, farmers are numerous, not only among those committing violent outrage, but equally among those taking part in what I have called 'non-violent intimidation ' and 'illegal meeting'. In this respect, they contrast with artisans and

4 Arthur Wyse to chief secretary (copy), 23 Nov. 1879 (S.P.O., C.S.O., R.P. 188o/20o61). 11 The number of agrarian outrages reported by the constabulary were as follows: 1879: 863; i88o: 2,590; I881 : 4,439; reported in Return of the outrages reported to the Royal Irish Constabulary office from ist January 1844 to 31st December i88o, p. 23 [C 2756], H.C. 1881, lxxvii, 909; Return of the number of agrarian offences in each county reported to the constabulary ofice in each month of the year 1881 . .., p. 3, H.C. 1882 (8), lv, 3.




non-farm labourers, and also with unspecified labourers, who seem to have done little more in the Land League than perpetrate violent crimes. Because farmers did more than commit outrage, outrage itself became more effective. Farmers were now able to make clear why they were angry and to leave no room for doubt as to why outrages were being committed. Agrarian crime became one method by which the decrees of the Land League were enforced and also meant that the government could ignore demands made by the league only at its peril, and at the peril of every landlord and land agent in the west of Ireland. Agrarian outrage in Ireland had never before been used effectively in this way.

Such politicization of traditional modes of agrarian protest did not, of course, occur overnight. Although some evidence of it could be found in the first year of the agitation (such as the Dempsey demonstration), in general it did not take place until local Land League branches came into existence. While Davitt's claim that one thousand branches were eventually formed may be an exaggeration," he certainly could have boasted that a larger number of local associations were affiliated to the Land League than to any previous tenant organization in Ireland. Among the Land League papers in the National Library, it is possible to find returns (eviction reports, financial statements, etc.) from over one hundred and fifty different branches, and the absence of returns from several well-known branches indicates that this list is far from complete."

The date at which local bodies were established varied greatly from area to area. Some towns, such as Kilkenny and Ballinasloe, had tenant defence clubs through most of the seventies. A few more clubs were organized in 1878, well before the Land League was formed, and in Claremorris a Tenant Defence Association was established as early as July 1879.8" On the other hand, in several areas that were studied closely, branches were slow in getting started. What is even more interesting, branches in large towns were sometimes not the first to be formed in their locality. For example, a week after the Irish National Land League was founded in October, the Ougha- vale Tenants' Defence Club was formed in a small parish near Westport; it was not until 20 November that the town of Westport organized a similar association. Before the new year a tenant defence association existed in Keelogues outside Castlebar, but it was not

86 Davitt, Fall of feudalism, p. 30 1. " N.L.I., Irish National Land League papers, MS 829I; PC 658-60. 88 Connaught Telegraph, 26 July 1879, p. 5.



THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE LAND LEAGUE 465 until the middle of January that a Land League branch was organized in the town of Castlebar itself.8 In the town of Roscommon there was no Land League branch before October I88o. Yet branches had been established in two smaller towns nearby in June I88o, and by the end of September several branches existed in adjacent parishes."' Although these parish branches were formed with the assistance of townsmen, they do not seem to have fallen under the latter's direction. For three parish branches in this county it was possible to determine the occupation of at least two persons on the executive: in each case they were farmers.'"

If parish branches in Roscommon were found to be typical of those in other areas, it would be necessary to conclude that townsmen by no means entirely dominated local branch activity. Actually it is not difficult to think of a reason why this should be the case: towns, as suggested before, were already the centres of political activity in the agrarian counties. It is probable, therefore, that townsmen did not need a Land League branch. The very mutual proximity of townsmen enabled them to communicate with one another more easily than could farmers. In addition, most towns had a number of formal associations that might be used for organizational purposes. Of special importance was the town council. Ostensibly, this body existed to look after public works, but in addition it had become a general forum for the political organization of townsmen. Radical townsmen had taken over the Roscommon town council completely; in fact, no less than three town commissioners, including the chairman, were eventually arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act.'4 More- over, existing political clubs, such as home rule associations, almost

89 Ibid., I Nov. 1879, p. 3; 15 Nov. 1879, p. 5; 3 Jan. i88o, p. 4; 17 Jan. 1880, p. 5.

40 Roscommon Journal, I6 Oct. I88o, p. 2; 3 July I88o, p. I; 7 Aug. i88o, p. 2; 4 Sept. i88o, p. 2.

41 Executive of Fuerty branch referred to in Roscommon Journal, 4 Sept. I88o, p. 2 : Andrew O'Leary (V.O., Athleague West, I866, p. 55) and J. Kilroe (V.O., Fuerty, I88o, p. 23); executive of Kilglass branch referred to in Roscommon Journal, 16 Apr. 1881, p. 2: Stephen Cox (V.O., Ballygarden, I865, p. 2) and Patrick Cox (V.O., Kilglass North, 1872, p. io); executive of Kilgefin branch referred to in Irish crimes records, I881, ii, 268-9: John Dolan and William Hanly. Since this article was written the author has collected a larger sample of fifty-three members of seven different branches in Connaught: all but six were farmers, at least as judged by their land holdings.

42 These three were: Luke P. Hayden, Michael Noud and Patrick Burke; referred to in Roscommon Journal, 29 Oct. 1881, p. 2.




always met in towns, and town people frequently provided the leadership for these bodies.

Farmers, on the other hand, possessed no comparable set of structures for political participation and expression. There was nothing analogous to the town council. Quite prosperous farmers sometimes sat on the local board of guardians; still, this was anything but a tenant farmers' association. As already noted, tenant clubs existed in the I870s, but many counties did not have a club, and few had more than one; most of the clubs formed in 1878 lasted only a short time. Farmers infrequently belonged to political party organizations, and were poorly represented in the home rule movement. Unlike townsmen, farmers desperately needed Land League branches. Otherwise, they would have continued to rely on townsmen for political direction and would not have become politicized themselves. For most farmers participation in the movement would have been limited to agrarian outrage and attendance at mass meetings. As suggested earlier, the politicization of farmers depended on an effective combination of demands and pressures, and this combination required the active political participation of farmers. Only through local branches could such participation have been realized.

The manner in which local branches were organized has been introduced into the discussion in order to demonstrate that townsmen did not do everything, and that farmers themselves contributed to the movement, with the result that they became a politicized group. Nevertheless, at no time did townsmen fade into the background. Rather, disaffected townsmen and farmers worked together to stir up trouble and challenge the land system in their locality. If we take a second look at Table 4, we notice that townsmen engaged in every type of Land League activity. A closer examination of this table will reveal the ways in which townsmen were able to contribute to the organisation of political activity. For example, the crimes of which innkeepers and publicans were suspected often fall into the category that I have called 'threatening letters and notices', which includes no-rent and boycott notices. Innkeepers and publicans contribute a larger percentage to this type of arrest than does any other occupational group in the table, primarily, although not exclusively, because their business establishments could be used for posting Land League placards. Their establishments could also be used as gathering places, so it is not surprising that a relatively large percentage were arrested for illegal meeting, which usually meant holding Land League



rHE

SOCIAL

COMPOSITION

OF THE

LAND

LEAGUE

467

*-*%

$-4

3

v s

?er

editors

-

.

.

2

:orrespondents

04

V

0-.

'-

led

labourers

,-

--

2

and

non-

labourers

,

;

-

ers

andon-

r

O

.

Oans

"kers

and

..~-

and

busi aness

-

--

=

Oetor

CO

V

2

o

c,-"

-,

gricultural

Q

-z

-

. 01

I

-

I

co

4s, 04-

~ 4)

,.4

"

%--,

....

N

o

1--I9,-




meetings, but also included a few cases of participation in secret societies.

Traders and business proprietors were less energetic in the above activities, but were ahead of all other townsmen in non-violent intimidation, partly because this category includes boycotting, and business proprietors were in an advantageous position to contribute to boycotts. In the town of Roscommon, shopkeepers were instrumental in organizing a boycott against James White, a large farmer and land agent, forcing him to buy supplies through Findlater's in Dublin.48 Where traders and business proprietors stand out even more is in the category of 'seditious speeches and writings', which includes, in addition to these activities, a few cases of arrests simply for treason. Whereas seditious speeches and writings accounted for only 4.6% of the total arrests in Table 4, 9.6% of the traders and business proprietors were arrested for activities of this kind. Why they should be so well represented in this category is not immediately obvious. I can only suggest that perhaps they were generally more prosperous and, therefore, more prominent in their communities than, for example, publicans, with the result that they often found a place on speakers' platforms. An additional factor may have been that shops were ideal places for contacting members of the community and for organizing open-air meetings. We have already seen that shopkeepers were instrumental in organizing some of the early meetings in Mayo and Roscommon. If shopkeepers were, as a rule, the organizers of meetings, it would not be surprising if they also made speeches at these meetings. News- paper editors and correspondents also had a relatively large percentage in the category of seditious speeches and writings. Although their number is too small to allow for any generalization about their role, this finding is certainly consistent with common sense, since the newspaper vocation could readily lend itself to seditious writings.

In so far as it is possible to rely on this evidence, we may conclude that traders and business proprietors, perhaps in conjunction with newspaper editors and correspondents, provided the major spokesmen for the Land League movement. Open-air meetings did not die out once Land League branches came into being. Probably the local organizers, and certainly the local speakers, were predominantly shopkeepers. In this sense, they were the leaders of the movement. Without them

4 Roscommon Journal, 4 Dec. I880, p. 2; 19 Mar. 1881, p. 2; additional information was obtained by interview with James White, grandson of James White, 23 Jan. 1971, Clooneenbane, Fuerty, Co. Roscommon.



THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE LAND LEAGUE 469 there would not have been a Land League, since no other urban social group could so easily have identified its interests with those of farmers. They played a crucial role. Farmers became politicized as a result of the Land League, but townsmen, above all, shopkeepers, initiated the movement and provided it with badly needed leadership. In 1879-82, the political organization of agrarian society was achieved through an alliance of farmers and a discontented segment of the town population.

SAM CLARK



Documents

The Social Composition of the Land League