New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-11-01
THE NEW IRISH LEAGUE.
MIR. PARNELL AND Mr.. DAVrTT-IhEih
oTTARREL, AND THEIR PROGRAMMES.

Various were
ference" held yesterday in Dublin, but about one
at least there is no doubt and not Inuch conceai-
ment Mr.. Parnell hsd resolved TO CRUSH 'no
mutinesrs AGAINST his personal leadership, ana nc
did IL. With his remarkable capacity Tor working
:, machine. he WAS tolerably sure to MAINTAIN ms
ascepdancy in any organization OF which ne cared
TO retain control If be had thought hit to Keep the
flag of the Land League flying he could nave done
that But ii seemed to Mr. Parnel. for many suiii-
Gent reasons that the time had come to admit the
defeat of the League and Ito replace 1T by BODY
fresh in vitality.
The Irish National League, which takes up the
work left by the Land League aud succeeds 10 lts
funds, starts Of with the immense advantage OF
novelty. 1t escapes the brand OF discredit' its
very title mplesa broad aim and appeals to the en-
thusasts in America whose money Is wanted ~
puts out a programme skilfuly and literally drawn
up with something to please oil tastes. Above all,
it is Organized throughout in MIR. Parnes interest
and according TO his plan. The whole business was
really managed IN private; as much as II IL hau
been transacted In Tammany Hall. whoever Is
opposed to NJ, Parnell had to take BACK seat
Yesterday II he were person OF influence ike
Mr.. Davitt, he WAS allowed hearing bu' II no
undertook to interfere with the organization Oh the
new League he was promptly voted down, Or rs III
Mr.. Davitts case, came down himself peloro LILO
shot WAS fired The founder of the Land League
has no real share In constituting Its successor S
presence alters nothing. shapes nothing. All MI
Da, lit can do is to make MIR. Parnells triumph
moro signal. He walks IN his rivafs processloh'
not as cO-leader but as a captive.
take it tho truth is that Mr.. Davtts influence
over the Irish has decreased. Over those classes
who have been foremost in agrarian agitation, the
tenant farmers it has pretty much vanished. Iney
have come to regard Mr.. Davitt as visionary,
dreamer q theorist even an opponent, anu an ad-
yocate of imprqcticabe schemes, or OF schemes
which the tenant farmers would particularly us
like to see put into practice. They do not want .o
land nationalzed," if one must use WORD which
ia only rhetorical cloak for communism. 'lney
want il for themselves. Mr.. Davitt thinks the lanu
of Ireland ought to belong to the people OF eahu.
Mr. Parnell thinks it ought 10 belong to one class OF
the people. He defined his position clearly enough
Yesterday No solution of the land question" said
Mr.. Parnell, "can be accepted as final one that
does not insure the occupying farmers the right OF
becoming owners by purchase of the holdings which
thew now occupy as tenants" That is n double
barrellsd shot one for Nh Davitt and another for
the Land Act of 1881.
MIR. Parnel IN short means it to be clearly I'M
derstood that he remains fO1 the present the cnam-
pion of the tenantfarmeIs They have STOOD by
him and he stands by them His coquetrles Win
the laborers on the one hand aSd the shOpkeepers
ON the other coquetrIes merely,-the hlrta-
lions that filed Up uncertain half-hour. MI
Dayitt's statement WAS just as explicit as Mr. Far
nells "TheIe can be no final or satisfactory set
tlemeptD saws Mr.. Davitt, until the land of Ire
land stolen from the people of Ireland be restored
to them" This arrangement would leave but IA
verv small fraction of It in the hands of the present
occupiers-the coo, 700 tenant-tarmers Having
fuIl share of human nature among them, they
would naturally prefer to get The whole under MI
Paruells ARRANGEMENT, rather than tenth or an
eighth under Mr.. Davitts. And at present the
man who can command the allegiance 'ot the
tenapt-farmers is master of the situation. That
perhaps sufficiently explains the overthrow of Mr..
Davitt and the triumph of Mr.. Parnell.
1t need not, however. be supposed that the two
League founders mean to oppose each other in
public. Mr. Davitt is clearly man of some gen.
erosity of nature and Mr. Parnoll has gift OF cool
calculation which makes him reluctant to ALLEVIATE
anvbody from whom any sort of help is TO be
pxpected And 1t happens that, divided as they
are on the land question, they have one object III
common, which is Irish independence. One
autipathy also In common, which is England
They are quite able to agree in working fol Home
Rule, and in any line of policy which may damage
or discredit or annoy England. On the methods of
doing this they are as much at issue as they are
on the land question. Mr. Davitt has nc confidence
in Parliamentary methods. MI. Parnell considers
that for the present the main work Is to be done IN
Iarliament Mr.. Davitt insists-naturally enough
from his naturalization point of view, that it is
useless to try to improve the Land Act" imDos-
slple to improve a lallure," are his words Mr. Par
nell declares that the very first thing he means to
try for is 10 carry an amendment of that Act Be-
tween men whose views on fundamental points OF
policy are so irreconclabe, split would be certain
we're it not Tor the tie of hatred which binds them
together.
It is pretty clear from Mr. Parnelps speech that
the Home Rule part of his programme is not to be
pushed at present. 1t is useful TO him and COLI
genial to bin ~ declaration of an ultimate purpose
and neither he nor ybody else is likely to forget his
memorable reference to it the one thing for which
in reality he " took his coat off," His American
admirers need not doubt his sincerity on this point
If they like to give money on the strength OF
conviction that this patriotic purpose OF breaking
ND the English Empire burns steadily in Mr. Par
pelPs bose IN, we'll and good. But Mr.. Parnel for
the present will use such money as he can get for
other objects. There indeed, manifest contra
diction in the terms of his programme. He begins
by demanding what he calls the restitution to the
Irish people of the right to manage their own affairs
in a Parliament elected by the people. If he can
get that he need not be at the trouble of worrying
the Imperial Parliament to grant to Ireland local
self-government, lapdlaw reform, extension of the
franchise and the encouragement of Irish indus
tries. II, on the other hand. Parliament should
concede all these latter demands the bottom would
fall out of the Home Rule agitation But don't
know that the National League will be less liked in
Ireland because its programme has logical flaw in
it.
No doubt Mr. Parnells schedule includes many
items which some day will make part of an Irish
Reform BILL Local self. government does not exist
in complete and rational scheme either in Eng
and or Ireland Both will obtain it. If Ireland