collecting taxes, the taxed country being placed in
the position of a person of infirm mind whose affairs are regulated by
trustees. No finality could be looked for in such an arrangement, not
even a temporary satisfaction."

The genesis of this passage should be told, for it had importance in the
history of the Convention; and also it conveys an idea of the limits to
which Redmond carried self-effacement. It is important because it acted
on Ulster like a red rag shown to a bull. Obviously, if this were the
Nationalist view, then the Home Rule Act could not be said to give
self-government--for under its system of contract finance Ireland
certainly had not control of her fiscal and economic policy. A measure
accepted with enthusiasm in 1912 was now regarded as impossible of
giving "even a temporary satisfaction."

What had happened was this. The Chairman in his tireless efforts to
bring about agreement had addressed two sets of questions, to the
Nationalists and to the Ulstermen respectively, by answering which he
hoped they might clear the air. The direct answers for the Nationalists
were drafted by Mr. Russell, but were shown to Redmond, Mr. Devlin and
the Bishop of Raphoe. It was, however, suggested that as an addendum a
summary should be added. Redmond did not ask to see this addition, and
it was not shown to him. It led off with the paragraph which has been
quoted. The fact that he allowed anything in any stage of such a
negotiation to go out in his name without his own revision marks the
loosening of grip--a tired man.

His exertions for the past years, the past ten years at least, had been
tremendous: they had been redoubled from 1912 to 1916. Towards the end,
one resource had been failing him--the chief of all. A leader when he is
well followed gives and takes; there is interchange of energy. For more
than a year now Redmond had lacked the moral support, the almost
physical stimulus, which comes from the ready response of followers.
Labour at no time came easy to him, there was much inertia in his
temperament; and the part which he had laid out for himself in the
Convention as merely an individual member did not impose on him the same
unremitting vigilance as if he acted as leader. Yet, the leadership was
his; if he did not exercise it, no one else could; and this incident
shows that his abnegation of leadership was not a mere phrase.

On November 22nd the Grand Committee reassembled to hear the report from