Michael Davitt to Richard Barry O'Brien, 6th December 1893. IE TCD MS 9377/1063

[1] IE TCD MS 9377/1063: Letter from Michael Davitt, Ballybrack, Co. Dublin, Ireland to Richard Barry O'Brien dated 6th Decemebr 1893 containing notes on O'Brien's book 'The life of Charles Stewart Parnell, 1846-1891': "1. There was no alliance of any kind, actual or tacit, between Parnell and the Executive Body of any section of the Fenian or Clan-na-Gael organisations. Individual Fenians and Clansmen helped in large numbers the Land League movement some on the merits of the agitation itself, some for ulterior revolutionary aims, more with the purpose of 'obtaining its control in the interest of the revolutionary organisation if possible. 2. I cannot with any certainty say whether it was Devoy who first suggested the 'New Departure' to me or me to Devoy. I have absolutely no personal or political feeling in this matter as it is only my regard for the interests of historical truth which prevents me saying it was I who first proposed the idea to devoy. In his book "The Land of Eire" he says that it was himself, Breslin &c who broached the proposal to me on my visit to New York in 1878. The records of public action in the matter would rather the origin upon me, but it is only right to consider Devoy's statements as well as mine. 3. Devoy followed me verso the Atlantic in 1878 and visited his father & sisters in Dublin, where he also had two interviews with Parnell, I being present at both. there was a meeting of the Directory of the Fenian Organisation in Paris subsequently at which Devoy & myself were present, as stated by me in my evidence at the Times Commission. The New Departure policy was debated & rejected. Only Devoy & myself being in its favour. It was however left optional with officers of the revolutionary body to take part in the open movement or not, as they felt inclined - such as did so act to be of course held responsible for acts or words deemed to be injurious tot he revolutionary cause. This Paris meeting of the Supreme Council of the I.R.B. was only in 1879 - about a year after I had just met Devoy, and subsequently to Devoy's interviews with Parnell and myself in Dublin. - The first "Old Fenian" to work on policy of parallel action. Between the revolutionary and constitutional parties was, unquestionably, O'Connor Power. He was a member of the Supreme Council when he was reutrned to Parliament for Mayo in (I think) 1873. Biggar, John Barry and Pat Egan were also members of this Council and favoured such dual action. These however were all ejected from the Supreme Council for such policy just before my release from Dartmoor by the men who subsequently refused (in the terms given above) to approve of Devoy's & my proposal. - Of course the 'New Departure' differed in scope of operations and line of policy from that of O'Connor Power but not in the essential purpose of making both lines of action converge towards the achievement of it in some form of national self-gov. - Brennan & Egan had agreed to support such a policy before I left Ireland in 1878 for America & before I saw Devoy. They like Devoy & myself were disgusted as the narrowness of the old Fenian plan of action - "secret" [rat?]-hole conspiracy and jealous antagonism of the Radical or Biggar-Parnell Consitutionalism and in fact the way was clear in Ireland for another trial of the plan of aciton which had failed (for want of a Parnell-Biggar Parliamentary line of action) when tried before the time by O'C. Power, Egan & others. - Devoy had assailed O'Connor Power for going into Parliament and was strongly opposed to the line which was taken by those "Old Fenians" (Egan, Barry, Power &c) who tried to do in Butts days what was successfully done in Parnell's time. - I was the first "Old Fenian" with whom Devoy discussed the new policy, but as I have told you already we were both reapers of others' sowing. - Dr. Carroll was favourable to the New Departure at first, but when he saw in Parnell's line of action in America in 1880 that P. wanted only to use the support of men of revolutionary views for constitutional ends and fearing that the League would be the death of the Clan-na-Gael he drew out and become a pronounced opponent of the Land League. He retired in I think 1881 and has taken no part in any movement since. 4. Devoy always remained a Fenian. His object in the New Republic was to strengthen the revolutionary force; to recruit the Fenian organisation, to get some credit, through benefits conferred upon the people, for ordained men & ideas, and to use the public platform here in Ireland for the propagation of advanced Nationalist principles as against those of Federal Home Rule to which he was opposed. Devoy wanted the Consitutional movement to be "bossed" by the revolutionary and all [?] trouble which the League got into in America over its reputed connection with the Clan-na-Gael was in consequence of Devoy's endeaours to carry out his original purpose. I differed with him practically at the start and hence his enmity towards me. I saw that such a policy would necessarily imply and active connection and alliance and that the work of the Land League and of the Parliamentary Party would be handicapped by connection with an illegal organisation - that Parnell & the constitiutional wing would be involved in any action taken by the revolutionary wing in Ireland or America. - The Times tried to prove that Devoy's plan had been adopted at the beginning. The fact is it had not. what connection did exist between the constitiutional & revolutionary bodies worked all the good that could have been got from Devoy's scheme and avoided the complications and responsibilities and dangers which it would have entailed. - To answer your query about my "concession" to "constitiutionalism" we would have to arrange our terminology first. I am modest enough to claim that I am the most radical "revolutionist" produced by the Fenian movement, if by revolutionist we use to understand one who goes in for fundamental change and to workk against the old order of things. I "left" the Fenians - when I was expelled for having joined Parnell in the Land League. I am more of a revolutionary today than I was 30 years ago in my opinion. I believe that consitutional media is infinitely more effective on these countries for real revolutionary work than conspiracies or secret societies. - This is the extent of my concession to constitiutionalism. 5. Yes several Fenians & Clan-na-Gael men helped in the Land League agitation and gave monetary assistance to Parnell. Devoy had nothing whatever to do with the work of starting the agitation which led up to the formation of the Land League. The agitation began in Mayo as a result of the bad harvests of 1877-78. I suggested the Irishtown meeting, wrote out the Resolutions & defrayed part of the expense. I also got Brennan, O'Connor Power and John Ferguson of Glasgow to attend as speakers. With all this Devoy had no connection. - Similarly with the actual organisation of the Land League. - Egan & Brennan had been expelled the Fenian movement before the 'New Departure' was launched, Boyton never was a Fenian. Sheridan was and tried to use his position as organiser for the interests of the secret movement. So did Frank Byrne after the Coercion Act of 1881. John Walsh of Balla had ceased to be a member of the Fenian organisation like Brennan, Egan &c. 6. Patrick Ford was neither a Fenian nor member of the C. n. Gael. Being always a very strict Catholic he would not take an oath to any secret authority. 7. Yes thousands of men in America who were Fenians or members of the C. n. Gael joined Branches of the Land League and subscribed to the funds. No member of the C. n. Gael was debarred from joining the Land League. It was otherwise here in Ireland as I have pointed out, but members of the I.R.B. did in large numbers nevertheless help out the Land League. - In America the Revolutionary Party advocated the monetary help of Parnell & the League in their circulars to the Camps of the C. n. Gael. 8. Practically as you have put it, only O'Leary, Luby, Stephens & Kickham exerted very little influence of any kind and were not the dangerous Fenian opponents of the New Departure. The active leaders (whose names I cannot give) over here were always trying to smash up the League. O'Leary, Kickham &c were more [controversial?] than operative enemies. - The New Departure did undoubtedly "demoralise" in a sense the Fenian movement over here, as it took thousands of members from the secret into the open Land League movement. In America owing to the more enlightened policy of the C. n. Gael in not antagonising the League the recruiting went somewhat in the other direction; but whereas the Clan-naGeal had not at any time of its exitence 20,000 members the American Land League in 1882 had a membership of over 200,000. 9. Yes, Parnell would never join either a secret conspiracy or revolutionary body, but he wisely invited all Irishmen to help as such, in the work of the League up to the Kilmainham Treaty. After that he was afraid of big combinations and especially of the remotest contact with American organisations. Of course he knew all along that Fenians &c were helping with money &c. - It would not be correct to say that there was [external?] "cooperation" between Parnell & certain Fenians, as "cooperation" would imply understanding or agreement and there was none of that in the relations which existed. Parnell shut his eyes and held out his hand for money & help. - I never heard Parnell ever hint at the possibility of or desire for separation. - I haev heard him speak with the utmost contempt of the actual fighting done against England in Ireland. He invariably took up the position (in private conversation or discussion on the subject) that all this generation could hope to achieve was Home Rule and he held that if Ireland got that all desire for total separation would vanish. [2] - Yes he would have worked the Constitution of 1886 honestly &