II

First to brush away a cobweb. It has been maintained that Davis would

have been satisfied with what is called a Federal settlement. The only

authority for this view seems to be the following passage in Gavan

Duffy’s _Young Ireland_: “Some of them [the “moderate men” who are

always with us] came to the conclusion that an Irish Legislature for

purely Irish purposes, as a sort of chapel of ease to the Imperial

Parliament, ought to be demanded. Mr. Sharman Crawford, on behalf of

himself and others unnamed, but understood to include members of both

Houses, announced that he desired the establishment of a Federal Union

between England and Ireland. He wished to see a ‘local body for the

purpose of local legislation, combined with an Imperial representation

for Imperial purposes’; and he considered that no ‘Act of the Imperial

Parliament having a separate action as regards Ireland should be a law

in Ireland unless passed or confirmed by her own legislative body.’ It

is a fact worthy to be pondered on that Davis was favourable to this

experiment. He desired and would have fought for independence, but he

was so little of what in later times has been called ‘an

irreconcilable,’ that such an alternative was not the first, but the

last, resource he contemplated. He desired to unite and elevate the

whole nation, and he would have accepted Federation as the scheme most

likely to accustom and reconcile Protestants to self-government, and as

a sure step towards legislative independence in the end.”

Thus Duffy on Davis. In a moment we shall let Davis speak for himself.

When Davis, in 1842, leaped into his place in Irish politics as the

chief influence on the staff of the _Nation_, all Ireland was organised

in the greatest constitutional movement and under the greatest

constitutional leader known to history. The demand of that movement was

for Repeal of the Union. Separatism was only an inarticulate faith of

the common people, remembered for the rest by a few noble old men like

Robert Holmes, by a few fiery exiles like Miles Byrne. The _Nation_

ranged itself under O’Connell’s banner, though from the beginning its

writers descried a wider horizon than O’Connell ever did or could. In

1843 O’Connell made what Duffy calls the “portentous” announcement that

he felt “a preference for the Federative plan, as tending more to the

utility of Ireland and the maintenance of the connection with England

than the proposal of simple Repeal.” Davis was away from Dublin, but

Duffy, in a personal letter to O’Connell, which he printed as a leading

article in the _Nation_, objected to the change of policy foreshadowed,

and insisted that “the Repeal Association had no more right to alter the

constitution on which its members were recruited than the Irish

Parliament had to surrender its functions without consulting its

constituents.” When Davis returned to town he “cordially accepted,” says

Duffy, the policy of resistance.

Davis soon spoke in the _Nation_. He welcomed the overtures of the

Federalists, but as to his own position and the _Nation’s_ position he

had no doubt. He settled it in one sentence:

“Let the Federalists be an independent and respected party, the

repealers an unbroken league--our stand is with the latter.”

So that, as between Federalism and Repeal, Davis defined himself a

Repealer. But was he not something more?

Davis died before Young Ireland had reached its full political stature

or found its full political voice. Just as the United Irishmen spoke

first the language of constitutionalism, so did the Young Irelanders.

Davis, as their spokesman, spoke their official language, but he hinted,

and more than hinted, at a fuller utterance. Mitchel, who took up

Davis’s post in 1845, spoke the fuller utterance, but at his fullest he

said nothing that had not been just as fully implied by Davis. For Davis

was a Separatist.

Davis wrote of Tone that he was “the wisest ... of our last generation.”

And he applied the adjective “wise” to Tone in contradistinction to

Grattan, whom in the same sentence he called “the most sublime” of the

last generation. Now, Tone was the Separatist and Grattan was the

British-Connectionist. When Davis wrote of Tone that he was wiser than

Grattan he did not mean that he was more worldly-wise, that he was an

abler business man; for Tone died a pauper and Grattan died wealthy;

Tone died in a dungeon and his body with difficulty obtained Christian

burial, Grattan was buried with pomp in Westminster Abbey. Davis meant

that Tone was a wiser statesman than Grattan, that Separation was a

wiser policy for Ireland than British-Connectionism. And he meant that

he, Davis, was a disciple of Tone.

In the light of this recognition such a passage as the following, which

were otherwise mere froth and foam, becomes full of substance:

“This is the history of two years never surpassed in importance

and honour. This is a history which our sons shall pant over and

envy. This is a history which pledges us to perseverance. This

is a history which guarantees success.

“Energy, patience, generosity, skill, tolerance, enthusiasm,

created and decked the agitation. The world attended us with its

thoughts and prayers. The graceful genius of Italy and the

profound intellect of Germany paused to wish us well. The fiery

heart of France tolerated our unarmed effort, and proferred its

aid. America sent us money, thought, love--she made herself a

part of Ireland in her passions and her organisations. From

London to the wildest settlement which throbs in the tropics or

shivers nigh the Pole, the empire of our mis-ruler was shaken by

our effort. To all earth we proclaimed our wrongs. To man and

God we made oath that we would never cease to strive till an

Irish nation stood supreme on this island. The genius which had

organised us, the energy which laboured, the wisdom that taught,

the manhood which rose up, the patience which obeyed, the faith

which swore, and the valour that strained for action, are here

still, experienced, recruited, resolute.

“The future shall realise the promise of the past.”

This is Davis’s passionate appeal to his own; and here is how he talks

to the enemy:

“And if England will do none of these things, will she allow us,

for good or ill, to govern ourselves, and see if we cannot

redress our own griefs? ‘No, never, never,’ she says, ‘though

all Ireland cried for it--never! Her fields shall be manured

with the shattered limbs of her sons, and her hearths quenched

in their blood; but never, while England has a ship or a

soldier, shall Ireland be free.’

“And this is your answer? We shall see--we shall see!

“And now, Englishmen, listen to us! Though you were to-morrow to

give us the best tenures on earth--though you were to equalise

Presbyterian, Catholic, and Episcopalian--though you were to

give us the amplest representation in your Senate--though you

were to restore our absentees, disencumber us of your debt, and

redress every one of our fiscal wrongs--and though, in addition

to all this, you plundered the treasuries of the world to lay

gold at our feet, and exhausted the resources of your genius to

do us worship and honour--still we tell you--we tell you, in the

names liberty and country--we tell you, in the name of

enthusiastic hearts, thoughtful souls, and fearless spirits--we

tell you, by the past, the present, and the future, we would

spurn your gifts, if the condition were that Ireland should

remain a province. We tell you, and all whom it may concern,

come what may--bribery or deceit, justice, policy, or war--we

tell you, in the name of Ireland, that Ireland shall be a

nation!”

Now, when Davis told England that, come bribery or deceit, justice,

policy, or war, _Ireland shall be a nation_; when Davis reminded the men

of Ireland that they had sworn “never to cease to strive until ‘_an

Irish nation stood supreme on this island_,’” he meant what he said. By

an Irish nation “standing supreme” he did really mean a Sovereign Irish

State living her own life, mistress of her own destinies, defending her

own shores, with her ambassadors in foreign capitals and her flag on the

seas. He tells us that he meant this. The most important of Davis’s

political articles are those in which he develops a foreign policy for

Ireland. And the most significant passage in all Davis’s political

writings is this (the italics are his own):

“Again, it is peculiarly needful for _Ireland_ to have a Foreign

Policy. Intimacy with the great powers will guard us from

English interference. Many of the minor German States were too

deficient in numbers, boundaries, and wealth to have outstood

the despotic ages of Europe, but for those foreign alliances,

which, whether resting on friendship or a desire to preserve the

balance of power, secured them against their rapacious

neighbours. And now time has given its sanction to their

continuance, and the progress of localisation guarantees their

future safety. When Ireland is a nation she will not, with her

vast population and her military character, require such

alliances as a _security_ against English _re-conquest_; but

they will be useful in banishing any _dreams of invasion_ which

might _otherwise_ haunt the brain of our old enemy.”

As a Separatist utterance this is as plenary as anything in Tone. The

“Irish nation” contemplated by Davis pre-supposed the breaking of the

English connection, for it was to have military resources sufficient to

guard against “an English _re-conquest_,” and was to seek foreign

alliances in order to banish any “_dreams of invasion_” cherished by

“our old enemy.”

To Davis, as to Tone, England was “the enemy.” Davis was as anti-English

as Tone, and, for all his gentleness and charity, more bitter in the

expression of his anti-Englishism than Tone was. To him the English

language was “a mongrel of a thousand breeds.” Modern English literature

was “surpassed” by French literature.

“France is an apostle of liberty--England the turnkey of the

world. France is the old friend, England the old foe, of

Ireland. From one we may judge all. England has defamed _all

other countries_ in order to make us and her other slaves

content in our fetters.”

Davis saw as clearly as Tone saw that the English connection is the

never-failing source of Ireland’s political evils, and he stated his

perception as clearly as Tone did.

“He who fancies some intrinsic objection to our nationality to

lie in the co-existence of two languages, three or four great

sects, and a dozen different races in Ireland, will learn that

in Hungary, Switzerland, Belgium, and America, different

languages, creeds, and races flourish kindly side by side, and

he will seek in English intrigues the real well of the bitter

woes of Ireland.”

Again:

“Germany, France, and America teach us that English economics

are not fit for a nation beginning to establish a trade, though

they may be for an old and plethoric trader; and, therefore,

that English and Irish trading interests are directly opposed.”

Yet again:

“The land tenures of France, Norway and Prussia are the reverse

of England’s. They resemble our own old tenures; they better

suit our character and our wants than the loose holdings and

servile wages system of modern England.”

And finally:

“We must believe and act up to the lesson taught by reason and

history, that England is our interested and implacable enemy--a

tyrant to her dependants--a calumniator of her neighbours, and

both the despot and the defamer of Ireland for near seven

centuries.”

It has thus been established, and established by his own words, first,

that as between Federalism and Repeal Davis was a Repealer: but,

secondly, that as between Repeal and Separation Davis was a Separatist.

In other words, he held the national position which Tone held, which

Lalor and Mitchel held, which the Fenians held, which the Irish

Volunteers hold. The fact that he would have accepted and worked on with

Repeal in no wise derogates from his status as a Separatist, any more

than the fact that many of us would have accepted Home Rule (or even

Devolution) and worked on with it derogates from our status as

Separatists. Home Rule to us would have been a means to an end: Repeal

to Davis would have been a means to an end.

In one of the phrases in which such men as he give watchwords to the

generations, a phrase which strangely anticipates the most famous of

Parnell’s phrases, Davis tells us what that end was:

“Ireland’s aspiration is for unbounded nationality.”

I have shown what he meant by “unbounded nationality”; he meant

sovereign nationhood, he meant spiritual, intellectual, and political

independence. The word “nationality” I have used here and elsewhere for

the inner thing which is a nation’s soul, and the word “nationhood” I

have made to include both that inner thing and the outer status,

political independence. It is obvious that Davis uses the term

“nationality” in the sense in which I use the term “nationhood,” for if

he meant only the inner spiritual thing his phrase would be meaningless.

In order to the proper adjustment of values we may now usefully set

down:

First, that the Federalism with which O’Connell dallied for a moment,

but which Davis and Young Ireland protested against and O’Connell

promptly disowned, abandoning it, indeed, with the contemptuous phrase:

“federalism is not worth _that_” (snapping his fingers), contemplated a

domestic Irish legislature to deal with domestic Irish affairs, adequate

Irish representation in an Imperial Parliament, and _power of veto in

the Irish Parliament over acts of the Imperial Parliament having a

separate action as regards Ireland_. It was thus a vastly bigger thing

than modern Home Rule, which reserves everything of real importance from

the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament, which, far from giving the

Irish Parliament a veto over the acts of the Imperial Parliament

regarding Ireland, gives the Imperial Parliament a veto over all acts of

the Irish Parliament, and which preserves intact the power of the

Imperial Parliament to pass all sorts of laws binding Ireland and to

impose all sorts of taxation on Ireland, the Irish representation in the

Imperial Parliament to be a negligible quantity.

Secondly, that the Repeal of the Union, which, apart from his momentary

aberration into Federalism, was O’Connell’s life-long demand,

contemplated a Sovereign Irish Parliament co-ordinate with the English

Parliament and with absolute control of Irish taxation; and while there

was to be a common king, army, navy, and foreign policy, not a penny was

to be raised from Ireland for the financing of those concerns except by

the vote of the Irish Parliament. It will be seen that Repeal was as

much a bigger thing than the Home Rule of 1914 as O’Connell was a

greater man than Mr. Redmond. Repeal contemplated a sovereign

co-ordinate Parliament; Home Rule specifically contemplated a

subordinate Parliament. Under Repeal the Imperial Parliament would have

had no jurisdiction over any man of Ireland, over any sod of Ireland’s

soil, over any shilling of Ireland’s money; under Home Rule the

jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament over these things and all other

things in Ireland was to have been absolute, for the Act laid down

(Clause One) that “the supreme power and authority of the Parliament of

the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all

persons, matters and things in Ireland, and every part thereof.”

Thirdly, that even the noble and semi-independent status which would

have been secured to Ireland by Repeal was not sufficient for Tone, who

rose against the very constitution which Repeal sought to restore; for

Davis, who aspired to “unbounded nationality”; for Lalor, whose object

was “not to repeal the Union but the conquest,” and who “for Repeal had

never gone into agitation and would never go into insurrection”; for

Mitchel, who, far from accepting that partnership in the British Empire

on which Repeal was founded, avowed it as his aim in life to utterly

destroy the British Empire. What was it that these men wanted? They

wanted Separation; they wanted “to BREAK the connection with England,

the never-failing source of all our political evils.” Davis’s

principles, then, were Tone’s; and as to methods. That Davis would have

achieved Irish nationhood by peaceful means if he could, is undoubted.

Let it not be a reproach against Davis. Obviously, if a nation can

obtain its freedom without bloodshed, it is its duty so to obtain it.

Those of us who believe that, in the circumstances of Ireland, it is not

possible to obtain our freedom without bloodshed will admit thus much.

If England, after due pressure, were to say to us, “Here, take Ireland,”

no one would be so foolish as to answer, “No, we’d rather fight you for

it.” But things like that do not happen. One must fight, or at least be

ready to fight. And Davis knew this:

“The tribune’s tongue and poet’s pen

May sow the seed in slavish men;

But ’tis the soldier’s sword alone

Can reap the harvest when ’tis grown.”

And Davis was ready to fight. No one knew better than he that England

would yield only to force or the threat of force; and that England,

having once yielded, could be held to her bargain only by force. The

nation that he visioned was to be an armed nation; and armed for the

precise purpose of preventing any “reconquest” by England. No one saw

more clearly than Davis that Ireland made her mistake of mistakes when

her Volunteers abdicated their arms. Referring to Madden’s defence of

Grattan against Flood on the question of Simple Repeal, Davis writes:

“This is unanswerable, but Grattan should have gone further. The

revolution was effected mainly by the Volunteers, whom he had

inspired; arms could alone have preserved the constitution.

Flood was wrong in setting value on one form--Grattan in relying

on any; but before and after ’82 Flood seems to have had

glimpses that the question was one of might, as well as of

right, and that national laws could not last under such an alien

army.

“Taken as military representatives, the Convention at the

Rotunda was even more valuable than as a civic display. Mr.

Madden censures Grattan for having been an elaborate neutral

during these Reform dissensions; but that the result of _such_

neutrality ruined the Convention proves the comparative want of

power in Flood, who could have governed that Convention in spite

of the rascally English and the feeble Irish Whigs. Oh, had Tone

been in that council!”

The astonishing thing about Davis is that, writing in the still

constitutional _Nation_ of 1842-5, he was able to express his Separatist

faith so clearly, and to avow so openly his readiness to fight for that

faith. It took Duffy three years longer to reach the point which had

been reached in 1845 by his dead friend.