It would be very instructive to examine in its breadth and depth, in its
connotations as well as in its denotations, the Irish definition of
freedom; and I propose to do this in a sequel to the present essay. For
my immediate purpose it is sufficient to state that definition merely as
a principle involving essentially the idea of Independence, Separation,
a distinct and unfettered national existence.
The conception of an Irish nation has been developed in modern times
chiefly by four great minds. On a little reflection one comes to see
that what has been contributed by other minds has been almost entirely
by way of explanation and illustration of what has been laid down by the
four master minds; that the four have been the Fathers, and that the
others are just their commentarists. Accordingly, when I have named the
four names, there will be hardly any need to name any other names.
Indeed, it will be difficult to think of names that can be named in the
same breath with these, difficult to think of men who have reached
anything like the same stature or who have stretched out even half as
far.
The names are those of Theobald Wolfe Tone, Thomas Davis, James Fintan
Lalor, and John Mitchel.
It is a question here of political teachers, not of mere political
leaders. O’Connell was a more effective political leader than either
Lalor or Mitchel, but no one gives O’Connell a place in the history of
political thought. He did not propound, he did not even attempt to
propound, any body of political truths. He was a political strategist of
extraordinary ability, a rhetorician of almost superhuman power. But we
owe no political doctrine to O’Connell except the obviously untrue
doctrine that liberty is too dearly purchased at the price of a single
drop of blood. The political position of O’Connell--his falling back on
the treaty of 1782-3--was not the statement of any national principle,
the embodiment of any political truth--it was an able, though as it
happened unsuccessful, strategical move.
Parnell must be considered. If one had to add a fifth to the four I have
named, the fifth would inevitably be Parnell. Now, Parnell was less a
political thinker than an embodied conviction; a flame that seared, a
sword that stabbed. He deliberately disclaimed political theories,
deliberately confined himself to political action. He did the thing that
lay nearest to his hand, struck at the English with such weapons as were
available. His instinct was a Separatist instinct; and, far from being
prepared to accept Home Rule as a “final settlement between the two
nations,” he was always careful to make it clear that, whether Home Rule
came or did not come, the way must be left open for the achievement of
the greater thing. In 1885 he said:
“It is given to none of us to forecast the future, and just as
it is impossible for us to say in what way or by what means the
national question may be settled--in what way full justice may
be done to Ireland--so it is impossible for us to say to what
extent that justice should be done. We cannot ask for less than
the restitution of Grattan’s Parliament, with its important
privileges and wide and far-reaching constitution. We cannot,
under the British constitution, ask for more than the
restitution of Grattan’s Parliament, but no man has a right to
fix the boundary of the march of a nation. No man has a right to
say ‘Thus far shalt thou go, and no further’; and we have never
attempted to fix the _ne plus ultra_ to the progress of
Ireland’s nationhood, and we never shall. But, gentlemen, while
we leave these things to time, circumstances, and the future, we
must each one of us resolve in our own hearts that we shall at
all times do everything that within us lies to obtain for
Ireland the fullest measure of her rights. In this way we shall
avoid difficulties and contentions amongst each other. In this
way we shall not give up anything which the future may put in
favour of our country; and while we struggle to-day for that
which may seem possible for us without combination, we must
struggle for it with the proud consciousness that we shall not
do anything to hinder or prevent better men who may come after
us from gaining better things than those for which we now
contend.”
And again, in the same year:
“Ireland a nation! Ireland has been a nation: she is a nation;
and she shall be a nation.... England will respect you in
proportion as you and we respect ourselves. They will not give
anything to Ireland out of justice or righteousness. They will
concede you your liberties and your rights when they must and no
sooner.... We can none of us do more than strive for that which
may seem attainable to-day; but we ought at the same time to
recollect that we should not impede or hamper the march of our
nation; and although our programme may be limited and small, it
should be such a one as shall not prevent hereafter the fullest
realisation of the hopes of Ireland; and we shall, at least if
we keep this principle in mind, have this consolation that,
while we may have done something to enable Ireland in some
measure to retain her position as a nation, to strengthen her
position as a nation, we shall have done nothing to hinder
others who may come after us from taking up the work with
perhaps greater strength, ability, power, and advantages than we
possess, and from pushing to that glorious and happy conclusion
which is embodied in the words of the toast which I now ask you
to drink--‘Ireland a nation’!”
These words justify me in summoning the pale and angry ghost of Parnell
to stand beside the ghosts of Tone and Davis and Lalor and Mitchel. If
words mean anything, these mean that to Parnell the final and inevitable
and infinitely desirable goal of Ireland was Separation; and that those
who thought it prudent and feasible, as he did, to proceed to Separation
by Home Rule must above all things do nothing that might impair the
Separatist position or render the future task of the Separatists more
difficult. Of Parnell it may be said with absolute truth that he never
surrendered the national position. His successors have surrendered it.
They have written on his monument in Dublin those noble words of his,
that no man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation;
and then they have accepted the Home Rule Act as a “final settlement”
between Ireland and England. It is as if a man were to write on a
monument “I believe in God and in Life Everlasting” and then to sell his
chance of Heaven to the Evil One for a purse, not of gold, but of
I.O.U.’s.
If I could think of any other name that, with due regard for proportion,
could be named with the great names, I should name it and proceed to
examine its claims. But I can think of no other name. I can think of
heroic leaders like Emmet; I can think of brilliant rhetoricians like
Meagher; I can think of able and powerful publicists like Duffy; I can
think of secret organisers like Stephens: and all these were Separatist.
But I cannot think of anyone who has left behind him a _body of
teaching_ that requires to be examined. Emmet’s mind was as great as any
of the four minds except Tone’s, but we have not its fruits; only an
indication of its riches in his speech from the dock, and of its
strength and sanity in the draft proclamation for his Provisional
Government.
I can think, again, of three great political thinkers of Anglo-Ireland
before Tone: Berkeley, Swift, and Burke. And from the writings of these
three I could construct the case for Irish Separatism. But this would be
irrelevant to my purpose. I am seeking to find, not those who have
thought most wisely about Ireland, but those who have thought most
authentically for Ireland, the voices that have come out of the Irish
struggle itself. And those voices, subject to what I have said as to
Parnell, are the voices of Tone, of Davis, of Lalor, of Mitchel.
Let us see what they have said.