THE GENESIS OF THE SINN FEIN MOVEMENT
It may be asserted with truth that the youth of Ireland, in every
generation, are by instinct Separatist, that "their dream is of the swift
sword-thrust," and that therefore in every generation there is the full
material for a Separatist Movement. The question, then, of the adhesion of
any given generation to a Separatist Movement resolves itself practically
into the question of the formation, at the right time, of a Separatist
Movement _with an open policy_; and practically any generation of Irishmen
is liable to be drawn from a moderate movement to a Separatist Movement if
the Separatists should develop a sufficiently attractive and workable open
policy. But, in the absence of that, or in the presence of a more workable
or attractive moderate policy, the mass of the people are more liable to
be deflected to the moderate policy and to leave Separatist principles to
the minority who will not compromise and who will carry on a secret
movement in default of an open one. That minority always exists, and the
key to Irish political history in the years since Fenianism may be found
in the fact that Fenianism has never died out of Ireland since its
foundation in 1858 by James Stephens and Thomas Clarke Luby, and that the
Separatist Minority had always worked through it. Given a suitable open
policy, that minority may become a majority at any time.
Now a Separatist Movement may have a choice of open policies, but it can
have only one kind of secret policy, viz., a policy of arming and
insurrection. And that is why insurrectionary movements which failed at an
attempted insurrection and had no open policy to fall back upon have
invariably been succeeded by moderate movements. Emmet was followed by
O'Connell, Young Ireland by the Tenant Right Parliamentarian Movement,
Fenianism by Parnell.
Fenianism held the field, as a partly secret and partly open movement,
although it had no open policy, for many years after '67, because there
was no moderate policy either workable or attractive put forward. But when
Parnell developed his machine of Opposition in Parliament and Organisation
outside Parliament, and demonstrated that that policy, at any rate, held
some possibility of wresting material concessions from England, there was
a great landslide from the Separatist Movement, which finally went
underground and became again a Separatist minority working in secret. With
the death of Parnell died all chance of the policy of Parliamentarianism
achieving anything for Ireland, but his fighting personality and record
cast a glamour over the Nation for many a year after his death and secured
to his successors something of his authority if, unfortunately, it could
not secure to them his courage or his ability.
The Separatists, however, were reviving, and gradually the younger
generation came into play. The Gaelic League had turned men's thoughts
towards the old independent Ireland when the language and with it native
culture were secure, and that spirit when it sought political expression
naturally found it in Separatist form, and as naturally in literary form.
So that there came a Separatist revival, largely in literary form, and
Literary Societies were established in Dublin, Cork and Belfast which
preached Separation and which fell back upon the propaganda methods of the
Young Irelanders--ballad, lecture, history, with the significant addition
of the language. The movement was to some extent drawn together by the
publication (January, 1896, to March, 1899) at Belfast of the "Shan Van
Vocht," a monthly journal projected and edited by Miss Alice Milligan,
which printed both literary and political matter, but in form was
preponderatingly literary, printed notes of the doings of the various
clubs and societies, and in general kept the scattered outposts of the
movement in touch with one another. The celebration throughout Ireland of
the centenary of '98 gave further impetus to the growing Separatist
sentiment, and when, in 1899, some of the Dublin Separatists established
"The United Irishman," with Mr. Arthur Griffith as editor, the modern
Separatist Movement was definitely on its feet.
The influence of the "United Irishman" in accelerating the development of
the movement and in drawing it together was immediate. Its chief writers
were William Rooney, whose character and whose work were akin to those of
Thomas Davis, with again the significant addition that he knew Irish
fluently, but of course far behind him in ability, and Mr. Griffith, who
brought to the paper a clear, logical, virile and convincing style which
is the best that has come out of Ireland since John Mitchel. The paper
gave the movement expression, acted, so to speak, both as secretary and
organiser, and was very soon in touch with every club and every convinced
Separatist in Ireland, holding them together, encouraging them, increasing
them. Clubs grew, and were gathered together in convention and formed into
an organisation, "Cumann na nGaedheal," which took up organisation work
vigorously, and which, though at the outset in 1902 it had the misfortune
to lose William Rooney, who was its chief inspiration, yet made progress.
Separatists grew more confident, more informed, and more numerous.
The propaganda of Cumann na nGaedheal consisted of the Irish language,
history study, Irish industries, and self reliance generally, with a pious
expression of opinion that everybody ought to have arms. Arming was,
however, no portion of its policy, nor had it any public policy in the
nature of a platform policy. It was, practically speaking, an educational
movement, on the same lines as the Gaelic League, save with a definite
political basis, and was carried on on identical lines--classes (language
and history), lectures, national concerts, and celebrations of national
anniversaries. As such, its influence was limited, and the great majority
of the people, who will not go to classes or lectures and are reachable
only through some public platform and platform policy, were quite
untouched by it. Its members were practically wholly young men and young
women with a studious or intellectual bent, and although the "United
Irishman" was a very severe and very pungent critic of the Irish
Parliamentary Party, yet "Cumann na nGaedheal" and the Party never crossed
swords, because their spheres of action were so widely different that they
had no point of contact. Neither set of followers was reachable by the
other propaganda.
Although, however, they had no direct point of contact, the
Parliamentarian movement began to be conscious of the growing Separatist
movement. Its Press sparred a little with the "United Irishman," and
individual members occasionally met and argued. At that time neither the
Parliamentary Party nor its Press had developed any open Imperialism: and
while in conversation Parliamentarians generally admitted that the
Parliamentarian policy was a compromise and indefensible as such, they
vigorously defended it on the ground that it was the only alternative to
insurrection, which was impracticable: and Separatists, while maintaining
that insurrection was the natural and inevitable culmination of any
national policy, and that all plans and preparations should have it in
view as the ultimate plan, yet could not well contest the argument that in
the then state of the country insurrection was impracticable. After a
couple of years of intensive educational work, therefore, there sprang up
in the rank and file a demand for the framing of a public policy which
should preserve principles and yet be a workable alternative to the
Parliamentarian policy. And that policy was produced by Mr. Arthur
Griffith. He had made, in the "United Irishman," constant references to
the policy by which Hungary had won her freedom from Austria, had
constantly recommended the Parliamentarians--who at the time, be it
remembered, defended their policy only on the ground that there was no
alternative but insurrection--to adopt a similar policy for Ireland. For a
long time he and his friends did not wish to initiate any such policy for
Ireland, holding that it was a policy to be initiated and carried on by
moderate men rather than by extreme men, but one in which all extreme men
might without any sacrifice of principle join. In the first six months of
1904, however, he wrote in the "United Irishman" a series of articles
entitled the "Resurrection of Hungary," in which the history of Hungary's
struggle with and victory over Austria is told with the closest possible
analogy to the affairs of Ireland, and containing a final chapter showing
how a similar policy, applied to Ireland, could be made equally
successful. These articles were republished as a pamphlet and had a wide
circulation, with the result that a demand went up from the readers of the
"United Irishman" that the "Hungarian Policy," as it was then called,
should be adopted as the alternative to armed insurrection and should be
propagated against Parliamentarianism. And, after some manoeuvring, that
was done, and all public Separatist organisations were fused together in
one organisation called "Sinn Fein," governed by an executive called the
"National Council," with its policy as the "Sinn Fein Policy," as the
"Hungarian Policy" had now been renamed.