In this as in other respects a comparison with the theory and practice
of German administration may help to place the policy of the United
Kingdom in its proper light. When at the Congress of Vienna, 1815,
Prussia definitely acquired her present share of Polish territory, King
Friedrich Wilhelm III promised for himself and his successors, "on my
kingly word," that the Poles should have religious freedom, the use of
the Polish language in administration, in the Law Courts and in the
schools, and be in all respects on an equality with their German
fellow-citizens. We have already seen how these promises were kept in
regard to the vital question of the ownership of land. They have been no
less flagrantly broken in regard to the national language. The use of
Polish is strictly prohibited at all public meetings. No Polish deputy
to the Reichstag may address his constituents in the only language they
understand. Since 1873 German alone may be taught in the national
schools. The language of instruction must be German wherever half the
pupils are capable of understanding it, and after 1928 it is decreed
that no other language must be heard in the schoolroom. A decree of 1899
forbids teachers to use Polish even in their own family circles. Anyone
who is caught teaching Polish, even gratuitously, is punished by fine or
imprisonment. Polish literature found in the houses of private persons
is confiscated, and its possessors imprisoned, if the police consider it
to bear the least trace of any propagandist character.[*]
[Footnote *: "The Evolution of Modern Germany," by W. H. Dawson, brings
together in its twenty-third chapter most of the facts relating to this
question. See especially a letter from a prominent member of the Polish
aristocracy quoted on p. 475.]
All this, it will be seen, is merely the drastic execution tion of the
policy laid down by Treitschke, the prophet of modern Germany, and more
recently urged by the most popular living representative of Prussian
ideals, H. S. Chamberlain.
"There is," writes Chamberlain, "no task before us so important as
that of forcing the German language on the world (_die deutsche
Sprache der Welt aufzuzwingen_.)" The German has "a twofold duty"
laid on him: "never must a German abandon his own speech, neither he
nor his children's children; and in every place, at every time, he
must remember to compel others to use it until it has triumphed
everywhere as the German Army has done in war. ... So far as the
German Empire extends, the clergy must preach in German alone, in
German alone the teacher must give his lessons ... Mankind must be
made to understand that anyone who cannot speak German is a
pariah."[*]
[Footnote *: "Kriegsaufsaetze," 1914.]
Such are the ideals and such the practice of the people whom Roger
Casement and one or two other enthusiasts for Gaelic culture in Ireland
have sought to make the dominant power in that country, because it will
rid them of "English" rule.
Let us now see what "English" rule (it is not really English at all, but
the rule of the United Kingdom) is actually like in regard to this
particular subject. Up to the decade 1830-40 it may be said that the
Irish language was spoken by fully half the population of Ireland. No
restrictive measures were in force against it. But during that decade a
general system of elementary education was introduced, and in the Board
Schools the language withered away with astonishing rapidity. At the
last census (1911) only 16,000 persons were recorded as speaking Irish
alone, while the number of those who knew anything of the language was
only about 13 per cent. of the population. Whether this change was a
blessing or a bane to Ireland is a subject which is outside the range of
this discussion, but whatever it was the Irish people themselves had a
full share of responsibility for the result. With scarcely an exception,
the abandonment of Irish was approved by the clergy, the political
leaders, and the masses of the people "The killing of the language,"
writes Dr. Douglas Hyde, "took place under the eye of O'Connell and the
Parliamentarians, and, of course, under the eye and with the sanction of
the Catholic priesthood and prelates ... From a complexity of causes
which I am afraid to explain, the men who for the last sixty years have
had the ear of the Irish race have persistently shown the cold shoulder
to everything that was Irish and racial."[*] Their attitude is easily
understood. Irish had long ceased to be used for literary purposes. No
Irish newspapers, no Irish books were printed; English was regarded as
the only available key to the world of modern culture, and Ireland
became an English-speaking country without a struggle and almost without
a regret.
[Footnote *: "Beside the Fire," pp. xliii, xliv (1890). Dr. Hyde was the
first president of the Gaelic League, and is now Professor of Modern
Irish in the National University.]
In the early 'nineties, however, a popular movement took shape for the
rescue of what still remained of the language and for its restoration,
so far as was practically possible. Classes for the study of Irish were
formed all over the country, folk-tales were collected, MSS. of
half-forgotten poets were disinterred and edited, the first scholarly
and adequate dictionary of modern Irish was compiled,[*] and plays,
poems, and stories began to be written in the re-discovered language.
These activities were mostly organised and directed by the Gaelic
League, a body founded in 1893. One can easily imagine how a Prussian
Government would have dealt with such a movement, especially as a
certain disaffected element in the country immediately began to make use
of it for its own ends. The British Government looked on not only calmly
but approvingly. When a general demand arose for the effective teaching
of Irish in the elementary schools--though at this time only about
21,000 old people were recorded in the census as ignorant of English--it
was at once agreed to. Irish had been permitted and paid for, though not
markedly encouraged, since 1879. It was now placed on a list of subjects
which might be taught in school hours, and extra fees were allotted for
teaching it at the rate of ten shillings per pupil--twice the amount
allowed for French, Latin, or music. Grants are also made to certain
colleges where teachers of the language can be trained. All this began
in 1901, and since that time over 12,000 pounds a year has been paid for
Irish teaching directly from Imperial funds--about twice the amount
collected in the same period by voluntary contributions from Ireland and
the rest of the world. Nor is this the limit of the grant; it is limited
only by the willingness of school managers and parents to make use of
it. Indirectly, the State is paying much more, for the various
professorships and lectureships in Irish subjects--language history,
archaeology, and economies--established under the National University
account for well over 3,500 pounds a year. Taking the direct expenditure
on elementary education alone, the State has paid for Irish teaching
since 1879 a sum of no less than 209,000 pounds. It may therefore be
claimed that in cultivating her ancient language and native traditions,
Ireland enjoys the fairest and most liberal treatment ever accorded to a
small nationality incorporated in a great Empire.
[Footnote *: By the Rev. P. S. Dineen; published by the Irish Tests
Society.]