SINN FEIN--ITS ORIGINAL MEANING AND PURPOSE
Sinn Fein had a comparatively small and unimportant beginning. It was
not heralded into existence by any great flourish of trumpets nor for
many years had it any considerable following among the masses of the
Nationalists. It is more than doubtful, if there had been normal
political progress in Ireland, whether Sinn Fein would ever have made
itself into a great movement. It was, in the first instance, the
disappointments and humiliations which the debilitated Irish Party had
brought to the national movement and the utter disrepute into which
Parliamentarianism had fallen as a consequence that moved the thoughts
of Ireland's young manhood to some nobler and better way of serving
the Motherland. But it was the rebellion of Easter Week which
crystallised and fused all these various thoughts and ideals into one
direct channel of action and made Sinn Fein the mightiest national
force that has perhaps arisen in Ireland since first the English set
foot upon our shores for purposes of conquest.
Sinn Fein, as a political organisation, did not exist until 1905, but
the originator of it, Mr Arthur Griffith, had established in Dublin,
in 1899, a weekly paper called _The United Irishman_. This was
the title of the paper which John Mitchell had founded to advocate the
policy of the Young Irelanders and was, therefore, supposed to favour
to some extent a movement along those lines. Its appeal was mainly to
the young and intellectual and to those extremists who were out of
harmony with the moderate demands of the Parliamentary Party. Its
first editorial gave an index to its teachings and aims. "There
exists," it declared, "has existed for centuries and will continue to
exist in Ireland a conviction hostile to the subjection or dependence
of the fortunes of this country to the necessities of any other; we
intend to voice that conviction. We bear no ill-will to any section of
the Irish political body, whether its flag be green or orange, which
holds that tortuous paths are the safest for Irishmen to tread; but
knowing we are governed by a nation which religiously adheres to 'the
good old rule, the simple plan, that those may take who have the power
and those may keep who can,' we, with all respect for our friends who
love the devious ways, are convinced that an occasional exhibition of
the naked truth will not shock the modesty of Irishmen and that a
return to the straight road will not lead us to political
destruction.... In these later days we have been diligently taught
that, by the law of God, of Nature and of Nations, we are rightfully
entitled to the establishment in Dublin of a legislative assembly,
with an expunging angel watching over its actions from the Viceregal
Lodge. We do not deprecate the institution of any such body, but we do
assert that the whole duty of an Irishman is not comprised in
utilising all the forces of his nature to procure its inception." It
continued: "With the present-day movements outside politics we are in
more or less sympathy," and it particularly specified the Financial
Reformers and the Gaelic League, adding, however: "We would regret any
insistence on a knowledge of Gaelic as a test of patriotism." Finally
it said: "Lest there might be any doubt in any mind, we will say that
we accept the Nationalism of '98, '48 and '67 as the true Nationalism,
and Grattan's cry 'Live Ireland. Perish the Empire' as the watchword
of patriotism." Thus its creed was the absolute independence of
Ireland, and though it did not advocate the methods of armed
revolution, it opened its columns to those Nationalists who did. It
preached particularly the doctrine of self-reliance and independence.
It attached more importance to moral qualities than to mere political
action. It was free in its criticism of persons or parties who it
considered were setting up false standards for the guidance of the
people. It derided the policy of the Irish Party as "half-bluster and
half-whine," and when Mr Redmond spoke rhetorically of "wringing from
whatever Government may be in power the full measure of a nation's
rights," it bluntly told him he was talking "arrant humbug." It made
the development of Irish industries one of the foremost objects of its
advocacy. It courageously attacked the Catholic clergy for the faults
it saw, or thought it saw, in them. They were told they took no
effective steps to arrest emigration--that they next to the British
Government were responsible for the depopulation of the country; that
they failed to encourage Irish trade and manufactures and that they
"made life dull and unendurable for the people." And so on and so
forth it continued its criticisms with remarkable candour and
consistency.
It came early into conflict with the Castle authorities on account of
its vigorous propaganda against recruiting for the army and it
published the text of an anti-recruiting pamphlet for the distribution
of which prosecutions were instituted. It was found difficult,
however, to obtain convictions against those who distributed these
pamphlets, and even in Belfast a jury refused to bring in a conviction
on this charge at the instance of the Crown. _The United
Irishman_ was seized by the authorities and only got an excellent
advertisement into the bargain.
Meanwhile an organisation of Irishmen who shared the views of the
paper was being gradually evolved, and in 1900 the first steps were
taken in the foundation of Cumann na n Gaedhal. Its objects were to
advance the cause of Ireland's national independence by (1)
cultivating a fraternal spirit amongst Irishmen; (2) diffusing
knowledge of Ireland's resources and supporting Irish industries; (3)
the study and teaching of Irish history, literature, language, music
and art; (4) the assiduous cultivation and encouragement of Irish
games, pastimes and characteristics; (5) the discountenancing of
anything tending towards the Anglicisation of Ireland; (6) the
physical and intellectual training of the young; (7) the development
of an Irish foreign policy; (8) extending to each other friendly
advice and aid, socially and politically; (9) the nationalisation of
public boards. It was felt, however, that the ends of Cumann na n
Gaedhal were remote and that something more was needed to bring the
new policy into more intimate connection with political facts. This
was supplied by Mr A. Griffith when he outlined, in October, 1902,
what came to be known afterwards as the Hungarian policy. This policy
was, in effect, a demand that the members of the Irish Parliamentary
should abstain from attendance at Westminster, which was declared to
be "useless, degrading and demoralising," and should adopt the policy
of the Hungarian Deputies of 1861 and, "refusing to attend the British
Parliament or to recognise its right to legislate for Ireland, remain
at home to help in promoting Ireland's interests and to aid in
guarding its national rights."
A pamphlet by Mr Griffith, entitled _The Resurrection of
Hungary_, was prepared and published, which expounded the details of
the new policy. Mr R.M. Henry, in his admirable book, _The
Evolution of Sinn Fein_ (to which I express my indebtedness for
much of what appears in this chapter), tells us that the pamphlet, as
a piece of propaganda, was a failure, and produced no immediate or
widespread response. Mr Henry also takes exception to the fact of Mr
Griffith putting forward the Hungarian policy as an original idea. "It
had," he writes, "been advocated and to a certain extent practised in
Ireland long before the Hungarian Deputies adopted it," and he quotes
matter to show that Thomas Davis was the real author of the policy of
Parliamentary abstention and wonders why the credit was not given to
the Irishman instead of the Hungarian Franz Deák.
The claim of Mr Griffith at this stage was that the independence of
Ireland was to be based not upon force but upon law and the
constitution of 1782: "His claim was not a Republic, but a national
constitution under an Irish Crown" (Mr R.M. Henry). Finally _Sinn
Fein_, which, literally translated, means "Ourselves," was formally
inaugurated at a meeting held in Dublin on 28th November 1905, under
the chairmanship of Mr Edward Martyn and was defined as: "National
self-development through the recognition of the rights and duties of
citizenship on the part of the individual and by the aid and support
of all movements originating from within Ireland, instinct with
national tradition and not looking outside Ireland for the
accomplishment of their aims."
Sinn Fein had now formally constituted itself into a distinct Party,
with a definite policy of its own, and _The United Irishman_
ceasing to exist, a new organ was established, called _Sinn
Fein_. But though Mr Griffith may found a Party, he was not so
fortunate in getting followers. The Parliamentarians had not yet begun
to make that mess of their position which they did so lamentably
later. That self-reliant spirit was not abroad which came when a
manlier generation arose to take their stand for Ireland.
Canon Hannay paints a peculiarly unpleasant picture of the state of
Ireland at this time. "Never," he writes, "in her history was Ireland
less inclined to self-reliance. The soul of the country was debauched
with doles and charities. An English statesman might quite truthfully
have boasted that Ireland would eat out of his hand. The only thing
which troubled most of us was that the hand, whether we licked it or
snarled at it, was never full enough. The idea of self-help was
intensely unpleasant, and as for self-sacrifice!" The note of
exclamation sufficiently conveys the writer's meaning.
The Sinn Fein organisation as a national movement made very little
progress and exercised no considerable influence in affairs. But its
principles undoubtedly spread, particularly among the more earnest and
enthusiastic young men in the towns. The one Parliamentary election it
contested--that of North Leitrim, where the sitting member, Mr C.J.
Dolan, resigned, declared himself a convert to the new movement and
offered himself for re-election--proved a costly failure. It
established a daily edition of _Sinn Fein_, but this also had no
success and had to be dropped. For some following years Sinn Fein
could be said merely to exist as a name and nothing more. The country
had dangled before it the project of the triumph of Parliamentarianism
and it discouraged all criticism of "the Party," no matter how just,
honest or well-intended. In April 1910, _Sinn Fein_ announced, on
behalf of its Party, that Mr John Redmond, having now the chance of a
lifetime to obtain Home Rule, "will be given a free hand, without a
word said to embarrass him." Sinn Fein took no part in the elections
of 1910. "This," says Mr Henry, "was not purely an act of
self-sacrifice. In fact, Sinn Fein was never at so low an ebb." Its
attitude towards the Home Rule, which now seemed inevitable, was
stated as follows:--"No scheme which the English Parliament may pass
in the near future will satisfy Sinn Fein--no legislature created in
Ireland which is not supreme and absolute will offer a basis for
concluding a final settlement with the foreigners who usurp the
Government of this country. But any measure which gives genuine, if
even partial, control of their own affairs to Irishmen shall meet with
no opposition from us and should meet with no opposition from any
section of Irishmen."
From now onward until 1914 the Sinn Fein Movement was practically
moribund and its name was scarcely heard of. When it appeared again as
an active force it was not the old Sinn Fein Movement that was there.
As Canon Hannay justly remarks: "It cannot be said with any accuracy
that Sinn Fein won Ireland. Ireland took over Sinn Fein. Indeed,
Ireland took over very little of Sinn Fein except the name." And this
is the literal truth.