<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 PUBLIC "-//TEI P3//DTD Main Document Type 1994-05//EN" [

<!ENTITY % TEI.extensions.dtd PUBLIC "-//CELT//DTD Extensions to the TEI//EN">

<!ENTITY % TEI.corpus             'INCLUDE'>
<!ENTITY % TEI.prose              'INCLUDE'>
<!ENTITY % TEI.transcr            'INCLUDE'>
<!ENTITY % TEI.textcrit           'INCLUDE'>
<!ENTITY % TEI.names.dates        'INCLUDE'>
<!ENTITY % TEI.linking            'INCLUDE'>
<!ENTITY % TEI.figures            'INCLUDE'>

<!ENTITY % ISOlat1 public "ISO 8879:1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN">
<!ENTITY % ISOlat2 public "ISO 8879:1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 2//EN">
<!ENTITY % ISOnum  public "ISO 8879:1986//ENTITIES Numeric and Special
Graphic//EN">
<!ENTITY % ISOpub  public "ISO 8879:1986//ENTITIES Publishing//EN">
<!ENTITY % ISOdia  public "ISO 8879:1986//ENTITIES Diacritical Marks//EN">
%ISOlat1; %ISOlat2; %ISOnum; %ISOpub; %ISOdia;

<!ENTITY % TEI.extensions.ent PUBLIC "-//CELT//ENTITIES Extensions to the
TEI//EN">
]>
<TEI.2 id="E900001-001">
<teiHeader creator="Margaret Lantry" status="update" date.created="1996-10-26" date.updated="2010-04-23">
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title type="uniform">The Path to Freedom</title>
<title type="gmd">An electronic edition</title>
<author id="MC">Michael Collins</author>
<respStmt>
<resp>Electronic edition compiled by</resp>
<name id="ML">Margaret Lantry</name>
</respStmt>
<funder>University College Cork: Department of History</funder>
</titleStmt>
<editionStmt>
<edition n="2">Second draft.</edition>
<respStmt>
<resp>Proof corrections by</resp>
<name>Margaret Lantry</name>
<name>Fidelma Maguire</name>
</respStmt>
</editionStmt>
<extent><measure type="words">39190</measure></extent>
<publicationStmt>
<publisher>CELT: Corpus of Electronic Texts</publisher>
<address>
<addrLine>College Road, Cork, Ireland&mdash;http://www.ucc.ie/celt</addrLine>
</address>
<date>1996</date>
<date>2010</date>
<distributor>CELT online at University College Cork, Ireland</distributor>
<idno type="celt">E900001-001</idno>
<availability status="restricted">
<p>Available with prior consent of the CELT programme for purposes of academic research and teaching only.</p>
<p>Text made available to the CELT programme for purposes of academic research and teaching only, by courtesy of Mercier Press Ltd.
Original hardcopy &copy; copyright to Mercier Press Ltd.</p>
</availability>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<listBibl>
<head>Editions</head>
<bibl n="1">Michael Collins, The path to freedom (Dublin: Talbot Press and London: T. Fisher Unwin 1922). 153pp.</bibl>
<bibl n="2">Michael Collins, The path to freedom (Cork 1968). 127pp.</bibl>
<bibl n="3">Michael Collins, The path to freedom (Cork 1996) 3&ndash;133, with an introduction by Tim Pat Coogan.</bibl>
</listBibl>
<listBibl>
<head>Sources, comment on the text, and secondary literature</head>
<bibl n="1">D. H. Akenson and F. P. Fallin, The Irish civil war and the drafting of the Irish constitution, &Eacute;ire-Ireland, 1&ndash;2, 4 (1970).</bibl>
<bibl n="2">Sir G. Arthur, General Sir George Maxwell (London 1932).</bibl>
<bibl n="3">B. Ash, The lost dictator (London 1968).</bibl>
<bibl n="4">Tom Barry, Guerilla days in Ireland (Tralee 1962).</bibl>
<bibl n="5">Tom Barry, The reality of Anglo-Irish war (Tralee 1974).</bibl>
<bibl n="6">Robert Barton, The truth about the treaty (Dublin n.d.).</bibl>
<bibl n="7">Piaras B&eacute;asla&iacute;, Michael Collins and the making of a new Ireland (2 vols, Dublin 1926).</bibl>
<bibl n="8">Piaras B&eacute;asla&iacute;, How it was done--IRA intelligence: Dublin's fighting story, 1916&ndash;21 (Dublin 1926).</bibl>
<bibl n="9">Lord Beaverbrook (Max Aitken), Decline and fall of Lloyd George (London 1963).</bibl>
<bibl n="10">Richard Bennett, The Black and Tans (London 1970).</bibl>
<bibl n="11">J. Bowyer Bell, The secret army: the IRA 1916&ndash;79 (Dublin 1983).</bibl>
<bibl n="12">J. Bowyer Bell, The Irish troubles (Dublin and NY 1993).</bibl>
<bibl n="13">Earl of Birkenhead (F. E. Smith), The life of F. E. Smith: first earl of Birkenhead (London 1959).</bibl>
<bibl n="14">Marcus Bourke, John O'Leary (Tralee, 1967).</bibl>
<bibl n="15">Marcus Bourke, The O'Rahilly (Tralee, 1967).</bibl>
<bibl n="16">John Bowman, De Valera and the Ulster question, 1917&ndash;1973 (Oxford 1982).</bibl>
<bibl n="17">D. G. Boyce, British conservative opinion, the Ulster question, and the partition of Ireland, Ir Hist Stud 17 (1970&ndash;71) 89&ndash;112.</bibl>
<bibl n="18">D. G. Boyce, Englishmen and Irish troubles (London 1972).</bibl>
<bibl n="19">D. G. Boyce, Nationalism in Ireland (Dublin, 1982).</bibl>
<bibl n="20">D. G. Boyce, Separatism and Irish nationalist tradition, ed. C. H. Williams (Cardiff 1982).</bibl>
<bibl n="21">Andrew, Boyle, The riddle of Erskine Childers (London 1977).</bibl>
<bibl n="22">Kevin Boyle, The Tallents report on the Collins-Craig pact of 30 March 1922, Ir Jurist 12 (1977) 148&ndash;75.</bibl>
<bibl n="23">Dan Breen, My fight for Irish freedom (Dublin 1924, repr. Tralee 1964).</bibl>
<bibl n="24">Michal Brennan, The war in Clare (Dublin 1980).</bibl>
<bibl n="25">Robert Brennan, Allegiance (Dublin 1950).</bibl>
<bibl n="26">Mary C. Bromage, De Valera and the march of a nation (London 1956).</bibl>
<bibl n="27">Mary C. Bromage, Churchill and Ireland (Notre Dame IN 1964).</bibl>
<bibl n="28">P. Buckland, Irish unionism I: the Anglo-lrish and the new Ireland (Dublin 1972).</bibl>
<bibl n="29">P. Buckland, Irish unionism II: the origins of Northern Ireland 1800&ndash;1922 (Dublin 1973).</bibl>
<bibl n="30">P. Buckland, The factory of grievances: devolved government in Northern Ireland, 1921&ndash;1939 (Dublin 1979).</bibl>
<bibl n="31">P. Buckland, James Craig (Dublin 1980).</bibl>
<bibl n="32">C. E. Callwell, Field marshal Sir Henry Wilson: his life and diaries (2 vols, London 1927).</bibl>
<bibl n="33">F. M. Carroll, The American committee for relief in Ireland, 1920&ndash;1922, Ir Hist Stud 23 (1982) 30&ndash;49.</bibl>
<bibl n="34">F. M. Carroll, American opinion and the Irish question (Dublin and NY 1978).</bibl>
<bibl n="35">Max Caulfield, The Easter rebellion (London 1964, repr. London 1965).</bibl>
<bibl n="36">Winston Churchill, Lord Randolph (2 vols, London 1906).</bibl>
<bibl n="37">Winston Churchill, The aftermath (London 1929.</bibl>
<bibl n="38">Kathleen Clarke, Revolutionary women (Dublin 1991).</bibl>
<bibl n="39">Michael Collins, Arguments for the treaty (Dublin 1922).</bibl>
<bibl n="40">Michael Collins, Free State or chaos (Dublin 1922).</bibl>
<bibl n="41">Michael Collins, The path to freedom (Dublin and London 1922, repr. Cork 1996).</bibl>
<bibl n="42">Padraig Colum, Arthur Griffith (Dublin 1959).</bibl>
<bibl n="43">Ian Colvin, Life of Lord Carson (London 1934).</bibl>
<bibl n="44">T. P. Coogan, Ireland since the rising (London 1966).</bibl>
<bibl n="45">T. P. Coogan, The I.R.A. (London 1970, repr. 1970).</bibl>
<bibl n="46">T. P. Coogan, Michael Collins: a biography (London 1990) [This outstanding biography contains an excellent bibliography (461&ndash;68) of the primary and secondary sources on Michael Collins's life and work].</bibl>
<bibl n="47">T. P. Coogan, De Valera: Long Fellow, Long Shadow (London 1993) [An able revisionist biography with an excellent bibliography (751&ndash;59) of primary and secondary sources].</bibl>
<bibl n="48">Elizabeth Coxhead, Lady Gregory (London 1961).</bibl>
<bibl n="49">Se&aacute;n Cronin, Ideology of the I.R.A. (Ann Arbor MI 1972).</bibl>
<bibl n="50">Se&aacute;n Cronin, The McGarrity papers (Tralee 1972).</bibl>
<bibl n="51">Se&aacute;n Cronin, Washington's Irish policy, 1916&ndash;86 (Dublin 1987).</bibl>
<bibl n="52">F. P. Crozier, Impressions and recollections London 1930).</bibl>
<bibl n="53">F. P. Crozier, Ireland for ever (London 1932).</bibl>
<bibl n="54">Joseph Curran, The birth of the Irish Free State, 1921&ndash;23 (Alabama 1988).</bibl>
<bibl n="55">L. P. Curtis, Anglo-Saxons and Celts, Studies in British History and Culture, Connecticut Conference on British Studies 1968).</bibl>
<bibl n="56">L. P. Curtis, The Anglo-Irish predicament, 20th-Century British History and Culture,  Vol. ii, 1970, 37&ndash;93.</bibl>
<bibl n="57">Charles Dalton, Charles with the Dublin brigades 1917&ndash;21 (London 1929).</bibl>
<bibl n="58">P&aacute;draig de B&uacute;rca and John F. Boyle, Free State or republic? (Dublin and London 1922).</bibl>
<bibl n="59">Eamonn de Valera, The alternative to the treaty: document no. 2 (Dublin 1923).</bibl>
<bibl n="60">[Eamonn de Valera et al.], The Anglo-Irish Treaty and de Valera's Alternative (Dublin: Irish Nation Committee 1924).</bibl>
<bibl n="61">Terence de Vere White, Kevin O'Higgins (London 1948).</bibl>
<bibl n="62">Liam Deasy, Towards Ireland free (Cork 1979).</bibl>
<bibl n="63">Ruth Dudley Edwards, Patrick Pearse: the triumph of failure (Dublin 1981).</bibl>
<bibl n="64">J. P. Duggan, A history of the Irish army (Dublin 1991).</bibl>
<bibl n="65">David T. Dwane, Early life of Eamon de Valera (Dublin and London 1922).</bibl>
<bibl n="66">T. Ryle Dwyer, Eamon de Valera (Dublin 1980).</bibl>
<bibl n="67">T. Ryle Dwyer, Michael Collins and the Treaty (Cork 1981).</bibl>
<bibl n="68">T. Ryle Dwyer, De Valera's darkest hour, 1919&ndash;32 (Cork 1982).</bibl>
<bibl n="69">T. Ryle Dwyer, Michael Collins: the man who won the war (Cork 1990).</bibl>
<bibl n="70">St John Ervine, Craigavon: Ulsterman (London 1949).</bibl>
<bibl n="71">Charlotte Fallon, Soul of fire (Cork 1986).</bibl>
<bibl n="72">Ronan Fanning, Irish Department of Finance (Dublin 1978).</bibl>
<bibl n="73">Ronan Fanning, Independent Ireland (Dublin 1983).</bibl>
<bibl n="74">Se&aacute;n Feehan, Michael Collins: murder or accident (Cork 1981).</bibl>
<bibl n="75">Darrell Figgis, Recollections of the Irish war (London 1927).</bibl>
<bibl n="76">Desmond FitzGerald, Memoirs, ed. Garrett FitzGerald (London 1969).</bibl>
<bibl n="77">David Fitzpatrick, Politics and Irish life, 1913&ndash;21 (Dublin 1977).</bibl>
<bibl n="78">Margery Forester, Michael Collins--the lost leader (London 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="79">Roy Foster, Modern Ireland, 1600&ndash;1972 (London 1988).</bibl>
<bibl n="80">Frank Gallagher, The partition of Ireland (Dublin 1947).</bibl>
<bibl n="81">Frank Gallagher, The indivisible island (London 1957).</bibl>
<bibl n="82">Frank Gallagher, The Anglo-Irish treaty (London 1965).</bibl>
<bibl n="83">Tom Garvin, The evolution of Irish nationalist politics (Dublin 1981).</bibl>
<bibl n="84">Anthony Gaughan, Austin Stack: portrait of a separatist (Tralee 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="85">Martin Gilbert, Winston Churchill iii: the challenge of war, 1914&ndash;1916 (London 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="86">Martin Gilbert, World in torment: W. S. Churchill, 1917&ndash; 22 (London 1990).</bibl>
<bibl n="87">James Gleeson, Bloody Sunday (Dublin 1962).</bibl>
<bibl n="88">Oliver St John Gogarty, As I was going down Sackville Street (London 1937).</bibl>
<bibl n="89">Maurice Goldring, Faith of our fathers (Dublin 1982).</bibl>
<bibl n="90">Desmond Greaves, The life and times of James Connolly (London 1961).</bibl>
<bibl n="91">Desmond Greaves, Liam Mellowes and the Irish revolution (London 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="92">Denis Gwynn, De Valera (London 1933).</bibl>
<bibl n="93">Stephen Gwynn, The life of John Redmond (London 1932).</bibl>
<bibl n="94">D. W. Harkness, The restless dominion (London and New York 1970).</bibl>
<bibl n="95">Michael Hayes, Dail Eireann and the Irish Civil War, Studies [Dublin] (1969).</bibl>
<bibl n="96">Robert Mitchell Henry, The evolution of Sinn Fein (Dublin n.d).</bibl>
<bibl n="97">Bulmer Hobson, Ireland yesterday and tomorrow (Tralee 1968).</bibl>
<bibl n="98">David Hogan, Four glorious years (Dublin 1953).</bibl>
<bibl n="99">Michael Holroyd, Bernard Shaw, III: 1918&ndash;50 (London 1991).</bibl>
<bibl n="101">E. Holt, Protest in arms, 1916&ndash;21 (London 1960).</bibl>
<bibl n="102">Michael Hopkinson, Green against green (Dublin 1988).</bibl>
<bibl n="103">Michael Hopkinson, The Craig-Collins pact of 1922: Two attempted reforms of Northern Ireland government, Ir Hist Stud 27/106 (1990) 145&ndash;58.</bibl>
<bibl n="104">J. J. Horgan, Parnell to Pearse (Dublin 1948).</bibl>
<bibl n="105">Tom Jones, Whitehall diaries iii: Ireland 1918&ndash;25, ed. K. Middlemas (Oxford 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="106">Tom Jones, Lloyd George (Cambridge MA 195l).</bibl>
<bibl n="107">Robert Kee, The green flag (London 1972).</bibl>
<bibl n="108">Michael Laffan, The partition of Ireland (Dundalk 1983).</bibl>
<bibl n="109">Sheila Lawlor, Britain and Ireland, 1914&ndash;23 (Dublin 1981).</bibl>
<bibl n="110">Emmet Larkin, James Larkin (London and Cambridge MA 1965).</bibl>
<bibl n="112">John Lavery, The life of a painter (London 1940).</bibl>
<bibl n="113">Joseph Lee and Gear&oacute;id &Oacute; Tuathaigh, The age of de Valera (Dublin 1982).</bibl>
<bibl n="114">Joseph Lee (ed), Towards a sense of place (Cork 1985).</bibl>
<bibl n="115">Joseph Lee, Ireland 1912&ndash;1985 (Cambridge 1989).</bibl>
<bibl n="116">Louis Le Roux, Tom Clarke and the Irish freedom movement (Dublin 1926).</bibl>
<bibl n="117">Louis Le Roux, Patrick H. Pearse, tr. Desmond Ryan (Dublin 1932).</bibl>
<bibl n="118">David Lloyd George, War memoirs (2 vols, London 1934).</bibl>
<bibl n="119">Lord Longford and T. P. O'Neill, Eamon de Valera (Dublin and London 1970).</bibl>
<bibl n="120">Frank Pakenham (Lord Longford), Peace by ordeal (London 1935, repr. London 1972).</bibl>
<bibl n="121">Diarmuid Lynch (ed), Florence O'Donoghue (Cork 1957).</bibl>
<bibl n="122">Diarmuid Lynch, The IRB and the 1916 rising (New York n.d.).</bibl>
<bibl n="123">F. S. L. Lyons, Ireland since the famine (London 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="124">J. B. Lyons, Oliver St John Gogarty (Dublin 1980).</bibl>
<bibl n="125">J. B. Lyons, Tom Kettle (Dublin 1983).</bibl>
<bibl n="126">Dorothy Macardle, The Irish republic (London 1937, repr. Dublin 1951).</bibl>
<bibl n="127">Sir Nevil Macready, Annals of an active life (2 vols, London 1924).</bibl>
<bibl n="128">Patrick MacCartan, With de Valera in America (New York, 1932).</bibl>
<bibl n="129">Sinead McCoole, Hazel: a Life of Lady Lavery, 1880&ndash;1935 (Dublin 1996).</bibl>
<bibl n="130">Oliver MacDonagh, Ireland: the union and its aftermath (London 1977).</bibl>
<bibl n="131">Kathleen Keyes McDonnell, There is a bridge at Bandon (Cork 1972).</bibl>
<bibl n="132">M. J. MacManus, Eamon de Valera (Dublin 1944).</bibl>
<bibl n="133">John McCann, War by the Irish (Tralee 1946).</bibl>
<bibl n="134">J. P. McCracken, Representative government in Ireland (Oxford 1958).</bibl>
<bibl n="135">John McColgan, British policy and the Irish administration, 1920&ndash;22 (London 1983).</bibl>
<bibl n="136">Uinseann Mac Eoin, Survivors (Dublin 1987).</bibl>
<bibl n="137">Uineann Mac Eoin, Harry (Dublin 1985).</bibl>
<bibl n="138">Deirdre Mac Mahon, Republicans and imperialists (London and New Haven CI 1984).</bibl>
<bibl n="139">James Mackay, Michael Collins: a life (Edinburgh 1996).</bibl>
<bibl n="140">Edward Marjoribanks, Life of Lord Carson (London 1932).</bibl>
<bibl n="141">Nicholas Mansergh, The Irish question 1840&ndash;1921 (London 1965).</bibl>
<bibl n="142">F. X. Martin (ed), The Irish Volunteers, 1913&ndash;15 (Dublin 1963).</bibl>
<bibl n="143">F. X. Martin (ed). Howth gun-running (Dublin 1964).</bibl>
<bibl n="144">F. X. Martin, Leaders and men of the Easter rising: Dublin 1916 (London 1965).</bibl>
<bibl n="145">David Miller, Queen's rebels (Dublin 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="146">Jeremiah Mee, Memoirs of constable Jeremiah Mee, RIC (Dublin 1975).</bibl>
<bibl n="147">Mitchell and &Oacute; Snodaigh, Irish political documents, 1916&ndash;49 (Dublin 1985).</bibl>
<bibl n="148">The Irish civil war: an illustrated history (Dublin 1991).</bibl>
<bibl n="149">Maurice Moynihan, Speeches and statements of Eamonn de Valera, 1917&ndash;73 (Dublin and NY 1990).</bibl>
<bibl n="150">Brian P. Murphy, Patrick Pearse and the lost republican ideal (Dublin 1991).</bibl>
<bibl n="151">Anne Barry Murphy, The political philosophy of Michael Collins. Unpublished MA Diss. NUI/UCC 1988.</bibl>
<bibl n="152">Eoin Neeson, The civil war in Ireland, 1922&ndash;1923 (Cork 1967).</bibl>
<bibl n="153">Eoin Neeson, The life and death of Michael Collins (Cork 1968).</bibl>
<bibl n="154">David Neligan, The spy in the castle (London 1968).</bibl>
<bibl n="155">&Iacute;osold N&iacute; Dheirg, The story of Michael Collins (Cork 1978).</bibl>
<bibl n="156">John  O'Beirne-Ranelagh, The I.R.B.: from the treaty to 1924, Ir Hist Stud 20 (1976) 26&ndash;39.</bibl>
<bibl n="157">Conor Cruise O'Brien, States of Ireland (London 1974).</bibl>
<bibl n="158">Liam &Oacute; Briain, Cuimhn&iacute; Cinn (Dublin 1951).</bibl>
<bibl n="159">Leon &Oacute; Broin, Dublin Castle and the 1916 rising (London 1966).</bibl>
<bibl n="160">Leon &Oacute; Broin, The chief secretary (London 1969).</bibl>
<bibl n="161">Leon &Oacute; Broin, Fenian fever (London 1979).</bibl>
<bibl n="162">Leon &Oacute; Broin, Michael Collins (Dublin 1980).</bibl>
<bibl n="163">Se&aacute;n T. &Oacute; Ceallaigh, Se&aacute;n T., ed. P&aacute;draig &Oacute; Conluain (Galway 1963).</bibl>
<bibl n="164">Leon &Oacute; Broin, Revolutionary underground: the story of the I.R.B. 1858&ndash;1924 (Dublin 1976).</bibl>
<bibl n="165">Leon &Oacute; Broin, No man's man (Dublin 1982).</bibl>
<bibl n="166">Leon &Oacute; Broin (ed), In great haste: the letters of Michael Collins and Kitty Kiernan (Dublin 1983, rev. ed. illustrated, by Cian &Oacute; hEigeartaigh, Dublin 1996).</bibl>
<bibl n="167">Leon &Oacute; Broin, Protestant nationalism in Ireland (Dublin 1985).</bibl>
<bibl n="168">Batt O'Connor, With Michael Collins in the fight for Irish independence (London 1929.</bibl>
<bibl n="169">Frank O'Connor, The big fellow (rev. ed. Dublin 1965, repr. London 1969).</bibl>
<bibl n="170">Ulick O'Connor, A terrible beauty is born (London 1975).</bibl>
<bibl n="171">Ulick O'Connor, Oliver St John Gogarty (London 1964).</bibl>
<bibl n="172">Florence O'Donoghue, No other law: the story of Liam Lynch and the Irish republic, 1916&ndash;23 (Dublin 1954).</bibl>
<bibl n="173">Florence O'Donoghue, Tom&aacute;s MacCurtain (Tralee 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="174">Se&aacute;n O'Faolain, De Valera (Harmondsworth 1939).</bibl>
<bibl n="175">Patrick O'Farrell, Ireland's English question (New York 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="176">P. S. O'Hegarty, The victory of Sinn Fein (Dublin 1924).</bibl>
<bibl n="177">P. S. O'Hegarty, The indestructible nation (Dublin 1918).</bibl>
<bibl n="178">P. S. O'Hegarty, A history of Ireland under the union, 1801&ndash;1922 (London 1952).</bibl>
<bibl n="179">Kevin O'Higgins, The new de Valera (Dublin 1922).</bibl>
<bibl n="180">Se&aacute;n &Oacute; L&uacute;ing, Art &Oacute; Gr&iacute;ofa (Dublin 1953).</bibl>
<bibl n="181">Sean O'Mahony, Frongoch: university of revolution (Dublin 1987).</bibl>
<bibl n="182">Earnan O'Malley, The singing flame (Dublin 1978).</bibl>
<bibl n="183">Earnan O'Malley, On another man's wound (Dublin 1979).</bibl>
<bibl n="184">Earnan O'Malley, Raids and rallies (Dublin 1982).</bibl>
<bibl n="185">Muiris &Oacute; M&oacute;rdha, T&uacute;s agus f&aacute;s &Oacute;glach na h&Eacute;ireann, tr. Liam &Oacute; Rinn (Dublin 1936).</bibl>
<bibl n="186">M&aacute;ire O'Neill, A biography of Jennie Wyse-Power (Dublin 1991).</bibl>
<bibl n="187">T. P. &Oacute; Neill and P&aacute;draig &Oacute; Fiannachta, De Valera (2 vols, Dublin 1970) [Irish recensions of Longford and O'Neill above, with significant variants].</bibl>
<bibl n="188">Alfred O'Rahilly, The case for the treaty (?Dublin n.d.).</bibl>
<bibl n="189">Kevin O'Shiel, Handbook of the Ulster question (Dublin 1923).</bibl>
<bibl n="190">Donal O'Sullivan, The Irish Free State and its senate (London 1940).</bibl>
<bibl n="191">Lord George Riddell, Intimate diary of the peace conference (London 1933).</bibl>
<bibl n="192">Patrick Riddle, Fire over Ulster (London 1970).</bibl>
<bibl n="193">Desmond Ryan, Remembering Sion (London 1934).</bibl>
<bibl n="194">Desmond Ryan, Unique dictator (London 1936).</bibl>
<bibl n="195">Desmond Ryan, Michael Collins and the invisible army (London 1932, repr. Tralee n.d.).</bibl>
<bibl n="196">Desmond Ryan, The rising (4th ed. Dublin 1966).</bibl>
<bibl n="197">Meda Ryan, The Tom Barry story (Cork 1982).</bibl>
<bibl n="198">Meda Ryan, The real chief: the story of Liam Lynch (Cork 1986).</bibl>
<bibl n="199">Meda Ryan, The day Michael Collins was shot (Dublin 1989).</bibl>
<bibl n="200">Meda Ryan, Michael Collins and the women in his life (Cork 1996).</bibl>
<bibl n="201">C. P. Scott (ed), T. Wilson: political diaries, 1911&ndash;28 (London 1970).</bibl>
<bibl n="202">Hereward Senior, Orangeism in Ireland and Britain (London 1966).</bibl>
<bibl n="203">G. B. Shaw, How to settle the Irish question (Dublin 1917).</bibl>
<bibl n="204">G. B. Shaw, Autobiography, 1898&ndash;1950 (London 1970).</bibl>
<bibl n="205">G. B. Shaw, Collected letters iii (London 1985).</bibl>
<bibl n="206">Francis Stevenson (ed), Lloyd George: a diary (London 1971).</bibl>
<bibl n="207">Hugh Shearman, Not an inch (London 1942).</bibl>
<bibl n="208">A. T. Q. Stewart, The Ulster crisis (London 1967).</bibl>
<bibl n="209">A. T. Q. Stewart, Edward Carson (Dublin 1981).</bibl>
<bibl n="210">C. J. Street, The administration of Ireland, 192O (London 1921).</bibl>
<bibl n="211">C. J. Street, Ireland in 1922 (London 1922).</bibl>
<bibl n="212">Hayden Talbot, Michael Collins' own story (London 1932).</bibl>
<bibl n="213">Rex Taylor, Michael Collins (London 1958, repr. London 1961).</bibl>
<bibl n="214">Rex Taylor, Assassination: the death of Sir Henry Wilson (London 1961).</bibl>
<bibl n="215">Michael Tierney, Eoin MacNeill: scholar and man of action, 1867&ndash;1945, ed. F. X. Martin (Oxford 1980).</bibl>
<bibl n="216">Charles Townshend, The British campaign in Ireland, 1919&ndash;21 (Oxford 1975).</bibl>
<bibl n="217">Charles Townshend, Political violence in Ireland (Oxford 1983).</bibl>
<bibl n="218">Maryann Valulis, General Richard Mulcahy: portrait of a revolutionary (Dublin 1922).</bibl>
<bibl n="219">Maryann Valulis, Almost a rebellion (Cork 1985).</bibl>
<bibl n="220">Alan J. Ward, Ireland and Anglo-American relations, 1899&ndash;1921 (Toronto 1969).</bibl>
<bibl n="221">Margaret Ward, Unmanageable revolutionaries (Dingle 1983).</bibl>
<bibl n="222">K. C. Wheare, The statute of Westminster and dominion status (Oxford 1938, 5th ed. Oxford 1953).</bibl>
<bibl n="223">T. D. Williams (ed), The Irish struggle, 1916&ndash;26 (London 1966).</bibl>
<bibl n="224">Padraig Yeats and Jimmy Wren, Michael Collins (Dublin 1989).</bibl>
<bibl n="225">Carlton Younger, Ireland's civil war (London 1968, repr. London 1970).</bibl>
<bibl n="226">Carlton Younger, A state of disunion (London 1972).</bibl>
<bibl n="227">Carlton Younger, Arthur Griffith (Dublin 1981).</bibl>
</listBibl>
<listBibl>
<head>The edition used in the digital edition</head>
<biblFull>
<titleStmt>
<title level="m">The Path to Freedom</title>
<author>Michael Collins</author>
</titleStmt>
<editionStmt>
<edition>First edition, reprint with an introduction by Tim Pat Coogan.</edition>
</editionStmt>
<extent>vii&ndash;xx + 1&ndash;2 + 3&ndash;133pp</extent>
<publicationStmt>
<publisher>Mercier Press</publisher>
<pubPlace>Cork</pubPlace>
<date>1996</date>
</publicationStmt>
</biblFull>
</listBibl>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<projectDesc>
<p>CELT: Corpus of Electronic Texts</p>
</projectDesc>
<samplingDecl>
<p>The whole of the author's text has been used. The introduction by Tim Pat Coogan has also been retained.</p>
</samplingDecl>
<editorialDecl>
<correction status="high">
<p>Text has been checked, proof-read twice, and parsed using
SGMLS.</p>
</correction>
<normalization>
<p>No normalization has been done.</p>
</normalization>
<quotation>
<p>Quotation marks are rendered <emph>q</emph>. Where quotation marks are used to highlight words these are tagged <emph>hi</emph>. Lengthy quotations are embedded as separate texts.</p>
</quotation>
<hyphenation>
<p>The editorial practice of the hard-copy editor has been retained. Soft hyphens have not been retained.</p>
</hyphenation>
<segmentation>
<p><emph>div0</emph>=the whole text; <emph>div1</emph>=the individual chapter.</p>
</segmentation>
<interpretation>
<p>Names of persons (given names), and places are not
tagged. Terms for cultural and social roles are not tagged.</p>
</interpretation>
</editorialDecl>
<refsDecl>
<state gi="DIV1" freq="1" label="Chapter" unit="Chapter">
<state gi="PB" freq="1" label="Page" unit="Page">
</refsDecl>
</encodingDesc>
<profileDesc>
<creation>By Michael Collins <dateRange from="1921" to="1922" exact="both">1921&ndash;22</dateRange></creation>
<langUsage> 
<language id="en">The text is wholly in English apart from technical terms in
Irish.</language>
<language id="ga">Occasional technical terms e.g. Sinn F&eacute;in and
D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann.</language>
<language id="la">Two words of a Latin tag.</language>
</langUsage>
<!--<textClass>
<keywords>
<term>political</term>
<term>tract</term>
<term>prose</term>
<term>20c</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>-->
</profileDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change>
<date>2010-04-23</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Beatrix F&auml;rber</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Conversion script run; header updated; new wordcount made; file parsed.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>2008-08-29</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Beatrix F&auml;rber</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>File validated; keywords added.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>2005-08-25</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Julianne Nyhan</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Normalised language codes and edited langUsage for XML conversion</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>2005-08-04T14:31:55+0100</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Peter Flynn</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Converted to XML</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1997-08-20</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Margaret Lantry</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Header restructured; text normalized using SGMLNORM and parsed using NSGMLS.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1997-08-14</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Margaret Lantry</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Corrections to header structure and structural markup.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1997-08-12</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Margaret Lantry</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Occasional Irish phrases tagged.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1996-12-05</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Mavis Cournane</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Text parsed using SGMLS. </item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1995-12-05</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Donnchadh &Oacute; Corr&aacute;in</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Header revised and proofed; bibliography added to the
header and extended. </item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1995-12-04</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Donnchadh &Oacute; Corr&aacute;in</name>
<resp>ed. </resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Text proofed and markup revised and extended.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1995-12-03</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Fidelma Maguire</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Text proofed.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1996-10-27</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Margaret Lantry</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Structural markup added. Text donated to CELT.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1996-10-26</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Margaret Lantry</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Outline header constructed.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1996-10-14</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Margaret Lantry</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>First proofing and markup.</item>
</change>
<change>
<date>1996-10-12</date>
<respStmt>
<name>Margaret Lantry</name>
<resp>ed.</resp>
</respStmt>
<item>Text captured by scanning.</item>
</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text n="E900001-001">
<front>
<div type="halftitle">
<head>The Path to Freedom</head>
<p></p>
</div>
<pb n="vii">
<div type="foreword">
<head>FOREWORD</head>
<p>America's loss was to be Ireland's gain. For if Michael
Collins had taken his brother Pat's advice, the Republic of Ireland
might not exist today. Watching the storm clouds of World War I gather
over Europe, Pat had written to Michael from Chicago urging his young
brother to leave his job in a London financial institution and come to
join him in America. Had they teamed up, one is tempted to speculate
that one of the all-time great Pat-and-Mike success stories might have
resulted. As it was, Pat became a captain of police in Chicago and
Michael went on to destroy the Irish police force, the armed Royal
Irish Constabulary (R.I.C.). In doing so he laid the foundations for
today's unarmed Irish police, the Garda S&iacute;och&aacute;na or
Civic Guard.</p>
<p>In the early stages of World War I, the then twenty-six
year-old Collins agonised over Pat's letters inviting him to America.
He took long lonely walks through London's dockland, seeing the ships
leave for the New World, wondering should he go himself. War meant
conscription would come, bringing with it an<pb n="viii">
 unthinkable choice: to become a conscientious objector,
a course repugnant to his warrior soul, or to don a British uniform
and fight for the Crown.</p>
<p>Collins solved the problem in his own inimitable way. He
put on an Irish uniform and went to fight for Ireland, in the 1916
Easter Rebellion in Dublin. He was captured and sent to Frongoch
Internment Camp in Wales, the Republican University as it was known.
It was here, in prison, that he began to think out a new philosophy of
warfare and to re-organise the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the
I.R.B., which later spearheaded the fight for Irish independence and
led to the creation of modern Ireland. He was also the founder of
modern urban guerilla warfare, the first freedom fighter, or urban
terrorist. Mao Tse tSung studied his methods. And Yatzik Shamir, the
former Prime Minister of Israel, was so impressed with Collins that
not alone did he study him, he took the codename <hi rend="quotes">Micail</hi> for his Irgun unit during the Israeli war of
independence against the British.</p>
<p>Before considering his career and writings, I must briefly
diverge to look at Collins' origins and examine what led him to a
London counting house in the first place. He was born, the youngest of
eight children, on a ninety-acre farm, a good holding for Catholics of
the time, near Clonakilty in West Cork in 1890, to a remarkable set of
parents. His father was nearly forty years older than his mother,
Marianne, and was in his seventy-sixth year when Michael arrived.
Neither parent had much formal education but they both knew French,
Latin, Greek, Irish and English. And, apart from being an expert
farmer and veterinarian,<pb n="ix">
 Michael senior was also noted for his knowledge of
astronomy, mathematics, and for his skill as a builder. The Collins,
or the O'Coileain as they were known in Irish, were once a very
considerable Munster clan. And the family, both in Michael Collins'
day and in our own, is recognised as being unusually intelligent and
well-doing.</p>
<p>However Michael senior died when young Michael was six,
leaving Marianne to run the farm and look after the eight children.
One by one, all the children were forced to emigrate, until only
Johnny, who ran the farm after Marianne contracted cancer, and
Michael, who was then fourteen, were left at home.</p>
<p>There was at the time a tradition of recruiting for the
British postal service in the Clonakilty area. When a baby boy was
born, the neighbours' first comment on looking into the pram was
<q>musha 'tis the fine sorter he'll make</q>. Collins attended a class
in Clonakilty which prepared pupils for the post office exams, and, at
the age of sixteen, crossed over to London to live with his sister
Hannie and take up work as a boy clerk in Kensington Post Office
Savings Bank.</p>
<p>Collins became very active in the Irish-Ireland life of
London, joining the Gaelic League to learn Irish, and the Gaelic
Athletic Association to play Gaelic football and hurling, one of the
most skilful and dangerous stick games in the world. He was a natural
athlete, a particularly fine hurler, with a cloud-burst temperament
that meant he either initiated or was drawn to any fights that broke
out on the field. His deep belief in these associations and commitment
to Gaelic culture are clear in his essay <title>Freedom Within <pb n="x"> Grasp, For Ourselves to Achieve It</title>. He
found time too to continue his studies and to become a regular theatre
goer, a particular fan of George Bernard Shaw. He was an omnivorous
reader, mopping up anything he could find in the way of Irish
nationalist literature and a variety of other authors including
Conrad, Arnold Bennet, Chesterton, Hardy, Meredith, Swinburne as well
as Irish literary figures such as Wilde, Yeats, P&aacute;draic Colum
and James Stephens.</p>
<p>And now we come to the point where Collins' shadow begins
to fall across contemporary Ireland. In or around 1914 he was sworn
into the oath-bound secret society, the Irish Republican Brotherhood,
by a fellow Corkman, Sam Maguire. The then political situation was
that Ireland had lost its parliament under the Act of Union of 1800.
Its culture, industry and population had suffered grievously as a
result, the Great Famine is only one of the many ills on which we need
not dwell here. But in 1914 Ireland seemed to be in a fair way of
getting its own government back again. At Westminster the Irish
Parliamentary Party, the constitutionalist wing of Irish nationalist
self-assertion, had brought Home Rule to the Statute Book under the
leadership of John Redmond. Ireland seemed to be on the verge of
achieving its own parliament. But there was opposition.</p>
<p>In the north of the country, the Protestants of
North-Eastern Ulster clung to their Scottish ancestry and British
links. They wanted to remain in union with Westminster just exactly as
do the unionists of today. More importantly, like today's unionists,
they were backed to the point, and some would say beyond<pb n="xi">
 the point, of treason in this attitude by the British
Conservative Party. The Tories dealt a death blow to Home Rule, which
had been passed by a democratically elected majority in the House of
Commons, by two major acts of defiance of Parliament. One was their
sponsorship of the illegal gun running at Larne which put teeth into
the Protestants' resolution to resist. The second was their even more
efficacious sponsorship of a move within the British Army to refuse to
proceed against their rebellious co-religionists, known as the Curragh
mutiny.</p>
<p>The Conservatives were not acting out of affection for the
Ulster Protestants. But they used the Orangemen, as they were known
after the Orange society to which so many of them belonged, as a
weapon in domestic British politics to undermine the Liberal
Government led by Prime Minister Asquith which had been driven to
sponsor Home Rule through dependence on Irish Party support for its
majority. The tactic, known as playing the Orange Card, was invented
by Randolph Churchill, Winston's father. He coined the phrase
<q>Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right</q>. As his grandson,
also called Randolph, wrote sixty years later: <q>that pithy phrase
explains why Ulster is part of the United Kingdom today</q>.</p>
<p>The I.R.B., or Fenian movement, distrusted British politics
and politicians as a matter of dogma. The Fenians did not accept that
Britain would ever confer Home Rule, or any form of independence on
Ireland unless it were forced to, not by parliamentary methods, but by
physical force. For those with a taste for symbolism I may digress to
remark that<pb n="xii">
 the constitutionalist John Redmond is now seldom heard of
in Ireland. Today Ireland's premier sporting trophy is the Sam Maguire
Cup which is played for each year in the All-Ireland Football Final at
Croke Park. And Northern Ireland is still something of a political
football.</p>
<p>However to revert to Michael Collins. In his every-day
working life Collins sought to broaden his range of experience by
moving from the Post Office to a firm of stockbrokers, Horne and Co,
from there to a clerkship in the Board of Trade and finally, perhaps
because of his brother Pat's urgings, he moved, to gain a flavour of
American business life, to the Guaranty Trust Company of New York's
London Office where war found him.</p>
<p>He found his own war in Dublin in Easter 1916. It was a
rebellion that should not have been allowed to happen. Had Home Rule
for all Ireland not been aborted by the strength of the
unionist/conservative alliance, there would have been no subsequent
Anglo-Irish war, no civil war, no Partition and no I.R.A., or Northern
Ireland problem today. But that searing week of flame and folly during
Easter 1916 claimed the lives of some of the people Collins most
admired: Tom Clarke, James Connolly, Sean Hurley, Se&aacute;n
MacDiarmada, Joseph Plunkett. To him their deaths were a debt owed, a
charge against freedom, which England would repay. However, he would
not present his bill for retribution by means of conventional
warfare.</p>
<p>He still believed in fighting. In the parliamentary game as
played at Westminster the rules were so arranged that the outnumbered
Irish nationalists<pb n="xiii">
 always lost. Collins now understood also that static
warfare, i.e. seizing a stronghold, be it a building such as Dublin's
General Post Office in which he fought during the rebellion, or a
mountain top, and then slugging it out with rifles and shot guns
against an adversary who possessed heavy artillery, would continue to
provide the Irish with heroes and martyrs&mdash;and the British with
victories.</p>
<p>Instead Collins evolved a new concept of guerilla warfare
based not on the capture of the enemy's bricks and mortar, but of its
information. Traditionally, Dublin Castle, the seat of British
administration in Ireland, had used a network of spies and informers
to infiltrate and then snuff out movements directed at securing Irish
independence. Collins perfected a system of spying on the spies. Every
important branch of the Castle system, be it banking, policing, the
railways, the postal service, was infiltrated by his agents. They were
not highly trained, C.I.A.-style operatives, but ordinary men and
women, people whom nobody had ever taken notice of before. Collins
gave them a belief in themselves, a courage they did not know they
possessed, and they in return gave him a complete picture of how their
masters operated.</p>
<p>A secretary in Military Intelligence saw to it that Collins
had a copy of the Colonel's orders to the Captain before the officer
received the originals. A railway porter carried dispatches, the
docker smuggled in revolvers, the detective told him who the informers
were&mdash;and the Squad used the revolvers to deal with them. The
Squad was his particular brainchild. For the first time in her history
the Irish had a team of<pb n="xiv">
 assassins trained to eliminate informers. I once handled
the weapons used by the Squad, parabellums, '45s, Colt revolvers, and
it was quite a chilling moment to be told: <q>Each of those revolvers
killed at least six men</q>. I later realised of course that, in the
scale of modern warfare, the totals were tiny. Collins was careful
about wasting human life. He struck selectively, to achieve the
maximum political and psychological advantage. As he said himself,
<q>England could always replace a detective. But the man can not step
into the dead man's shoes&mdash;and his knowledge</q>. He thus
demoralised the hitherto invincible Royal Irish Constabulary, the
armed police force which operated from fortified barracks and held
Ireland for the Crown.</p>
<p>Action was not confined to Dublin. Generalised warfare
broke out all over the country as the British introduced new men and
new methods in a vain effort to counter the guerilla tactics of
Collins' Active Service Units and the Flying Columns of Volunteers,
which lived on the run, eating and sleeping where they could.</p>
<p>Held back from making a full scale use of their Army by the
force of world opinion, largely Irish-American opinion, the British
tried to fight a <hi rend="quotes">police war</hi> carried on by
hastily formed forces of ex-service men and officers troubled by
little discipline and less conscience. The Black and Tans and the
Auxiliaries wrote new chapters of horror in the bloodstained story of
the Anglo-Irish relationship. Reprisals for the activities of Collins
and his colleagues included the burning of homes and creameries,
random murder<pb n="xv">
 and the widespread use of torture. Through it all Collins
lived a <q>life on the bicycle</q>. The most wanted man in Europe, he
smiled his way through a hundred hold-ups never wearing a disguise,
never missing an appointment, never certain where he would spend the
night.</p>
<p>One of his central ideas was derived from G.K. Chesterton's
<title>The Man Who Was Thursday</title>. He was given the book by
Joseph Plunkett, his immediate superior in 1916. Plunkett, who was
dying of tuberculosis, took part in the fighting and was married in
his cell, ten minutes before facing a firing squad. Obviously any
relic of such a figure would be prized by his lieutenant. And Collins
prized in particular the advice of the Chief Anarchist in the
Chesterton book: <q>if you don't seem to be hiding nobody hunts you
out</q>. Accordingly, Collins never seemed to be hiding. He always
wore good suits, neatly pressed. And time after time, this young
businessman was passed through police cordons unsearched, with his
pockets stuffed with incriminating documents. It seems to be an iron
law with policemen both in Collins' time and ours, that terrorists are
not expected to wear pin-striped suits and clean collars and ties.</p>
<p>He had a network of safe houses and secret rooms where he
transacted business. One room I examined was reached by pulling a
lever which caused the bottom half of a kitchen dresser to swing
upwards on hinges. Collins used to work in the house, until it was
raided and then slip into the secret room and work away until the
soldiers surrounding the house moved out of the garden. None of them
ever realised that<pb n="xvi"> there was an unaccounted for window in the back wall of the house.</p>
<p>In addition to his campaign of warfare Collins ran a
national loan which was banned by the British so that its
advertisement or sale became illegal. Yet the loan was fully
subscribed and every subscriber got a receipt. He was President of the
omnipresent I.R.B. which regarded him as the real President of the
Irish Republic, and Minister for Finance in the <frn lang="ga">Sinn
F&eacute;in</frn> Cabinet. In addition, he was Director of Intelligence
of the Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.). Any one of those jobs would
have consumed the energy of an ordinary man, but Collins combined them
all efficiently and effectively.</p>
<p>He combined a mind like a laser beam with a hawk-like eye
for detail. Nothing escaped his attention. Everything attracted his
interest. Shaw's latest play, the way the Swiss organised a Citizen
Army, Benjamin Franklin's proposals for dealing with loyalists, or the
latest edition of <title>Popular Mechanics</title>. An article in this
journal in November of 1920 led to the first use in warfare of the
Thomson gun. Collins saw the article on the recently invented weapon
and had enquiries made about <q>this splendid thing</q><note n="1" type="foot">Described by Sean Cronin, The McGarrity Papers,
Anvil Books, Tralee, Co. Kerry, 1978, p. 98. </note>, which led to the
Irish-American leader Joseph McGarrity of Philadelphia buying five
hundred of the weapons. Two Irish-American ex-officers were sent to
Ireland to train the I.R.A. in the use of the weapons. Only a handful
got through the American customs, but these were duly used in a number
of Dublin ambushes.</p>
<p>Collins was tough and abrasive with his male, and sometimes
female, colleagues. But he was gentle and<pb n="xvii">
 playful with children and old people. Throughout the
eighteen months that Eamon de Valera was in America, on a propaganda
and fund-raising mission, which lasted most of the Anglo-Irish war,
Collins risked his life to call each week to his absent chief's
family, bringing them money and companionship.</p>
<p>Eventually the war effort that Collins had spear-headed
drove the British to a conference table and a settlement as
foreseeable as it was unpalatable to many Irishmen and women, a
partitioned Irish Free State that would owe allegiance to the Crown.
It was a deal which had been foreshadowed to de Valera in four days of
talks between himself and Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, in
London during July 1921. But de Valera did not want to be the man who
faced up to the implications of that deal. Instead he repaid the
kindness Collins had shown his family in Machiavellian fashion. He
stayed away himself from the opprobrious negotiations but manipulated
Collins into going to London as part of the delegation which signed
the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 6th, 1921, the constitutional
foundation document of modern Ireland. Collins, who took the leading
part in the Treaty's negotiation, faced one of the most powerful
British delegations ever assembled. Winston Churchill only ranked
fourth on the team which was led by Lloyd George and included the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead and the leader of the Conservative Party
Austen Chamberlain. Subsequently Collins became Chairman of the
Executive Council (in effect the Government) of the Irish Free State
which emerged, and, later, Commander-in-Chief of the Army.</p>
<pb n="xviii">
<p>The Treaty did not yield the Republic he had hoped for but
it provided what Collins prophetically termed a <q>stepping stone</q>
to today's Irish Republic. All the other stepping stones to the
tragedy of today's Northern Ireland situation were part of that
negotiation too. In a very real sense Collins' premature death was
caused by the forces which still rage about the North-Eastern corner
of the land and people he fought for. The story of his life explains
present day news from Belfast. He was forced into an impossible,
janus-faced policy. On the one hand, as head of the infant Provisional
Government of Southern Ireland, he argued fiercely for the Treaty's
potential for democracy and freedom as we can read in many of his
articles and speeches. He engaged in civil war to defend it against de
Valera and his former comrades in the I.R.A.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the plight of the Catholics in Northern
Ireland, subject to pogrom and prejudice, drove him to arm secretly
the I.R.A. in the North. He did everything in his power to destabilise
the northern state. He organised burnings, raids, kidnappings; and
once, when some of his followers faced execution, he sent two former
members of the Squad over to England to shoot the British executioners
who were detailed to hang them. At the last moment the I.R.A. men were
reprieved. So were the hangmen.</p>
<p>One of the great questions of Irish history is: If Collins
had lived longer would he have brought fire or prosperity to his
country? Or would he have died of drink or disillusionment at the
effects of the civil war which broke out over the terms of the Treaty?
Certainly he had more business acumen and vision than<pb n="xix">
 any of his contemporaries. He foresaw a role for Ireland
in Europe long before the E.U. was ever heard of. He preaches in one
essay that Ireland should study the lessons of German scientific
advancement, Danish agriculture, and bring them back home to develop a
distinctive Irish economy and culture of its own. He loved the Irish
language, but not merely as a medium of expression. As we learn in
<title>Distinctive Culture, Ancient Irish Civilization</title> he saw
in the language a method of thinking and ultimately of acting, more
suited to Ireland than the Anglo-Saxon inheritance. He believed in
personal initiative, writing in <title>Building Up Ireland, Resources
To Be Developed</title></p>
<qt><p>Millionaires can spend their surplus wealth
bestowing libraries broadcast upon the world. But who will say that
the benefits accruing could be compared with those arising from a
condition of things in which the people themselves everywhere, in the
city, town, and village were prosperous enough to buy their own books
and to put together their own local libraries in which they could take
a personal interest and acquire knowledge in proportion to that
interest.</p></qt>
<p>Tragically we will never know how this
marvellous man might have developed. For as the German poet Heine once
remarked, the Irish always pull down a noble stag. Our Irish Siegfried
kept his appointment in Samarra a couple of months short of his
thirty-second birthday in a remote Cork valley known in Irish as
Be&aacute;l na mBl&aacute;th, the Mouth of Flowers. He died during<pb n="xx"> the Civil War not far from where he was born, in an ambush
laid by a former comrade in arms, a man who during the Anglo-Irish War
had undergone sadistic tortures at the hands of British Intelligence
Officers rather than betray his boyhood friend, Michael Collins.
Collins' career is a paradigm of the tragedy of modern Ireland, the
suffering, the waste of talent, the hope, the bedevilling effects of
history and nomenclature whereby one man's terrorist is another man's
freedom fighter. Like Prometheus, Collins stole fire. Like Prometheus
he paid for his feat and much of what he set about doing remains
undone. But his name burns brightly wherever the Irish meet. Michael
Collins was the man who made modern Ireland
possible.</p>
<signed>Tim Pat Coogan</signed>
</div>
<pb n="1">
<div type="Publisher's Note">
<head>Publisher's Note to the Original Edition</head>
<p>The following Notes drafted by General Collins early
in August and apparently intended for public utterance, probably to <frn lang="ga">An
D&aacute;il</frn>, were without correction by him. Obviously no one can now
say what the changing circumstances might have caused him to alter or
add.</p>
<p>The Notes are now printed as an introduction to the
articles written by General Collins.</p>
</div>
</front>
<body>
<div0 type="pol-tract" lang="en">
<pb n="3">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>Notes by General Michael Collins<lb>
<date value="1922-08">August, 1922</date></head>
<p>After a national struggle sustained through many
centuries, we have today in Ireland a native Government deriving its
authority solely from the Irish people, and acknowledged by England
and the other nations of the world.</p>
<p>Through those centuries&mdash;through hopes and through
disappointments&mdash;the Irish people have struggled to get rid of a
foreign Power which was preventing them from exercising their simple
right to live and to govern themselves as they pleased&mdash;which
tried to destroy our nationality, our institutions, which tried to
abolish our customs and blot out our civilization,&mdash;all that made
us Irish, all that united us as a nation.</p>
<p>But Irish nationality survived. It did not perish when
native government was destroyed, and a foreign military despotism was
set up. And for this reason, that it was not made by the old native
government and it could not be destroyed by the foreign usurping
government. It was the national spirit which created the old native
government, and not the native government which created the national
spirit. And nothing that the<pb n="4">
 foreign government could do could destroy the national
spirit.</p>
<p>But though it survived, the soul of the nation drooped
and weakened. Without the protection of a native government we were
exposed to the poison of foreign ways. The national character was
infected and the life of the nation was endangered. We had armed
risings and political agitation. We were not strong enough to put out
the foreign Power until the national consciousness was fully re-
awakened. This was why the Gaelic Movement and Sinn F&eacute;in were
necessary for our last successful effort. Success came with the
inspiration which the new national movement gave to our military and
political effort. The Gaelic spirit working through the <frn lang="ga">D&aacute;il</frn>
and the Army was irresistible.</p>
<p>In this light we must look at the present situation.</p>
<p>The new spirit of self-reliance and our splendid unity,
and an international situation which we were able to use to our
advantage, enabled our generation to make the greatest and most
successful national effort in our history.</p>
<p>The right of Ireland as a nation under arms to decide its
own destiny was acknowledged. We were invited to a Peace Conference.
With the authority of Ireland's elected representatives negotiations
were entered into between the two belligerent nations in order to find
a basis of peace.</p>
<p>During the war we had gathered strength by the justice of
our cause, and by the way in which we had carried on the struggle. We
had organised our own government, and had made the most of our
military<pb n="5">
 resources. The united nation showed not only endurance and
courage but a humanity which was in marked contrast with the conduct
of the enemy. All this gave us a moral strength in the negotiations of
which we took full advantage.</p>
<p>But in any sane view our military resources were terribly
slender in the face of those of the British Empire which had just
emerged victorious from the world war. It was obvious what would have
been involved in a renewal of armed conflict on a scale which we had
never met before. And it was obvious what we should have lost in
strength if the support of the world which had hitherto been on our
side had been alienated, if Ireland had rejected terms which most
nations would have regarded as terms we could honourably accept.</p>
<p>We had not an easy task.</p>
<p>We were faced with a critical military situation over
against an enemy of infinitely greater potential strength. We had to
face the pride and prejudice of a powerful nation which had claimed
for centuries to hold Ireland as a province. We had to face all the
traditions, and political experience, and strength of the British
nation. And on our flank we had a section of our own people who had
identified their outlook and interests with those of Britain.</p>
<p>It may be claimed that we did not fail in our task. We
got the substance of freedom, as has already been made real before our
eyes by the withdrawal of the British power.</p>
<p>And the people approved. And they were anxious to use the
freedom secured. <emph>The national instinct was <pb n="6"> sound</emph>&mdash;that the essence of our
struggle was <emph>to secure freedom to order our own
life</emph>, without attaching undue importance to the formulas under
which that freedom would be expressed. The people knew that our
government could and would be moulded by the nation itself according
to its needs. The nation would make the government, not the government
the nation.</p>
<p>But on the return of Ireland's representatives from
London, Mr. de Valera, who was then leader of the nation, condemned
the Treaty in a public statement, while supporting similar proposals
for peace which he described as differing <q>only by a shadow</q>.</p>
<p>But he, and all the Deputies, joined in discussing and
voting on the Treaty, and after full discussion and expressions of
opinion from all parts of the country, the Treaty was approved.</p>
<p>And Mr. de Valera declared that there was a
constitutional way of solving our differences. He expressed his
readiness to accept the decision of the people. He resigned office,
and a Provisional Government was formed to act with <frn lang="ga">D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann</frn>.</p>
<p>Two duties faced that Government:
<list>
<item n="1">To take over the Executive from the English,
and to maintain public order during the transition from foreign to
native government; and</item>
<item n="2">To give shape in a constitution to the
freedom secured. </item>
</list></p>
<p>If the Government had been allowed to carry out these
duties no difficulty would have arisen with<pb n="7">
 England, who carried out her part by evacuating her army
and her administration. No trouble would have arisen among our own
people. And the general trend of development, and the undoubted
advantages of unity, would have brought the North-East quietly into
union with the rest of the country, as soon as a stable national
government had been established into which they could have come with
confidence.</p>
<p>Mr. de Valera, and those who supported him in the <frn lang="ga">D&aacute;il</frn>, were asked to take part in the interim
government, without prejudice to their principles, and their right to
oppose the ratification of the Treaty at the elections.</p>
<p>They were asked to help in keeping an orderly united
nation with the greatest possible strength over against England,
exercising the greatest possible peaceful pressure towards the union
of all Ireland, and with the greatest amount of credit for us in the
eyes of the world, and with the greatest advantage to the nation
itself in having a strong united government to start the departments
of State, and to deal with the urgent problems of housing, land,
hunger, and unemployment.</p>
<p>They did not find it possible to accept this offer of
patriotic service.</p>
<p>Another offer was then made.</p>
<p>If they would not join in the work of transition, would
they not co-operate in preserving order to allow that transition
peacefully to take place? Would they not co-operate in keeping the
army united, free from political bias, so as to preserve its strength
for the proper purpose of defending the country in the exercise of its
rights?</p>
<pb n="8">
<p>This also was refused.</p>
<p>It must be remembered that the country was emerging from
a revolutionary struggle. And, as was to be expected, some of our
people were in a state of excitement, and it was obviously the duty of
all leaders to direct the thoughts of the people away from violence
and into the steady channels of peace and obedience to authority. No
one could have been blind to the course things were bound to take if
this duty were neglected.</p>
<p>It was neglected, and events took their course.</p>
<p>Our ideal of nationality was distorted in hair-splitting
over the meaning of <hi rend="quotes">sovereignty</hi> and other
foreign words, under advice from minds dominated by English ideas of
nationality; and, led away, some soon got out of control and betook
themselves to the very methods we had learned to detest in the English
and had united to drive out of the country.</p>
<p>By the time the <frn lang="ga">Árd Fheis</frn>
met the drift had become apparent. And the feeling in favour of
keeping the national forces united was so strong that a belated
agreement was arrived at. In return for a postponement of the
elections, the Anti- Treaty Party pledged themselves to allow the work
of the Provisional Government to proceed.</p>
<p>What came of that pledge?</p>
<p>Attempts to stampede meetings by revolver shootings, to
wreck trains, the suppression of free speech, of the liberty of the
Press, terrorisation and sabotage of a kind that we were familiar with
a year ago. And with what object; With the sole object of preventing
the people from expressing their will, and of making the government of
Ireland by the representatives of<pb n="9">
 the people as impossible as the English Government was made
impossible by the united forces a year ago.</p>
<p>The policy of the Anti-Treaty Party had now become
clear&mdash;to prevent the people's will from being carried out
because it differed from their own, to create trouble in order to
break up the only possible national government, and to destroy the
Treaty with utter recklessness as to the consequences.</p>
<p>A section of the army, in an attempt at a military
despotism, seized public buildings, took possession of the Chief
Courts of Law of the Nation, dislocating private and national
business, reinforced the Belfast Boycott which had been discontinued
by the people's government, and <hi rend="quotes">commandeered</hi>
public and private funds, and the property of the people.</p>
<p>Met by this reckless and wrecking opposition, and yet
unwilling to use force against our own countrymen, we made attempt
after attempt at conciliation.</p>
<p>We appealed to the soldiers to avoid strife, to let the
old feelings of brotherhood and solidarity continue.</p>
<p>We met and made advances over and over again to the
politicians, standing out alone on the one fundamental point on which
we owed an unquestioned duty to the people&mdash;that we must maintain
for them the position of freedom they had secured. We could get no
guarantee that we would be allowed to carry out that duty.</p>
<p>The country was face to face with disaster, economic
ruin, and the imminent danger of the loss of the position we had won
by the national effort. If order could not be maintained, if no
National Government was to be allowed to function, a vacuum would be
created, into which the English would be<pb n="10">
 necessarily drawn back. To allow that to happen would have
been the greatest betrayal of the Irish people, whose one wish was to
take and to secure and to make use of the freedom which had been
won.</p>
<p>Seeing the trend of events, soldiers from both sides met
to try and reach an understanding, on the basis that the people were
admittedly in favour of the Treaty, that the only legitimate
government could be one based on the people's will and that the
practicable course was to keep the peace, and to make use of the
position we had secured.</p>
<p>Those honourable efforts were defeated by the
politicians. But at the eleventh hour an agreement was reached between
Mr. de Valera and myself for which I have been severely
criticised.</p>
<p>It was said that I gave away too much, that I went too
far to meet them, that I had exceeded my powers in making a pact
which, to some extent, interfered with the people's right to make a
free and full choice at the elections.</p>
<p>It was a last effort on our part to avoid strife, to
prevent the use of force by Irishmen against Irishmen. We refrained
from opposing the Anti-Treaty Party at the elections. We stood aside
from political conflict, so that, so far as we were concerned, our
opponents might retain the full number of seats which they had held in
the previous <frn lang="ga">D&aacute;il</frn>. And I undertook, with
the approval of the Government, that they should hold four out of the
nine offices in the new Ministry. They calculated that in this way
they would have the same position in the new <frn lang="ga">D&aacute;il</frn> as in the old. But their calculations
were upset by the people themselves, and<pb n="11">
 they then dropped all pretence of representing the people,
and turned definitely against them.</p>
<p>The Irregular Forces in the Four Courts continued in
their mutinous attitude. They openly defied the newly expressed will
of the people. On the pretext of enforcing a boycott of Belfast goods,
they raided and looted a Dublin garage, and when the leader of the
raid was arrested by the National Forces, they retaliated by the
seizure of one of the principal officers of the National Army.</p>
<p>Such a challenge left two courses open to the National
Government: either to betray its trust and surrender to the mutineers,
or to fulfil its duty and carry out the work entrusted to it by the
people.</p>
<p>The Government did its duty. Having given them one last
opportunity to accept the situation, to obey the people's will, when
the offer was rejected the Government took the necessary measures to
protect the rights and property of the people and to disperse the
armed bands which had outlawed themselves and were preying upon the
nation.</p>
<p>Unbelievers had said that there was not, and had never
been, an Irish Nation capable of harmonious, orderly development. That
it was not the foreign invader but the character of the Irish
themselves which throughout history had made of our country a scene of
strife.</p>
<p>We knew this to be a libel. Our historians had shown our
nationality as existing from legendary ages, and through centuries of
foreign oppression.</p>
<p>What made Ireland a nation was a common way of life,
which no military force, no political change could<pb n="12">
 destroy. Our strength lay in a common ideal of how a
people should live, bound together by mutual ties, and by a devotion
to Ireland which shrank from no individual sacrifice. This
consciousness of unity carried us to success in our last great
struggle.</p>
<p>In that spirit we fought and won. The old fighting spirit
was as strong as ever, but it had gained a fresh strength in
discipline in our generation. Every county sent its boys whose
unrecorded deeds were done in the spirit of Cuchulain at the Ford.</p>
<p>But the fight was not for one section of the nation
against another, but for Ireland against the foreign oppressor. We
fought for that for which alone fighting is really justified&mdash;for
national freedom, for the right of the whole people to live as a
nation.</p>
<p>And we fought in a way we had never fought before, and
Ireland won a victory she had never won before.</p>
<p>The foreign Power was withdrawn. The civil administration
passed into the hands of the elected representatives of the people.
The fight with the English enemy was ended. The function of our armed
forces was changed. Their duty now was to preserve the freedom
won&mdash;to enable the people to use it, to realise that for which
they had fought&mdash;a free, prosperous, self-governing Gaelic
Ireland.</p>
<p>Differences as to political ideals such as remained or
might develop amongst us&mdash;these were not a matter for the army,
these were not a matter for force, for violence.</p>
<p>Under the democratic system which was being established
by the representatives of the people&mdash;the freest and most
democratic system yet devised&mdash;the<pb n="13">
 rights of every minority were secured, and the fullest
opportunity was open for every section of opinion to express and
advocate its views by appeal to reason and patriotic sentiment.</p>
<p>In these circumstances, the only way in which individual
views could be rightly put forward by patriotic Irishmen was by
peaceful argument and appeal. The time had come when the best policy
for Ireland could be promoted in ways which would keep the nation
united&mdash;strong against the outside world, and settling its own
differences peacefully at home.</p>
<p>To allow such a situation to develop successfully
required only common sense and patriotism in the political leaders. No
one denied that the new Government had the support of the people.</p>
<p>Of all forms of government a democracy allows the
greatest freedom&mdash;the greatest possibilities for the good of all.
But such a government, like all governments, must be recognised and
obeyed.</p>
<p>The first duty of the new Government was to maintain
public order, security of life, personal liberty, and property.</p>
<p>The duty of the leaders was to secure free discussion of
public policy, and to get all parties to recognise that, while they
differed, they were fellow-citizens of one free State. It should have
been the political glory of Ireland to show that our differences of
opinion could express themselves so as to promote, and not to destroy,
the national life.</p>
<p>The army had to recognise that they were the servants and
not the masters of the people&mdash;that their function was not to
impose their will on the people but to secure to the people<pb n="14">
 the right to express their own will and to order their
lives accordingly.</p>
<p>All this might indeed appear obvious to all patriotic
persons.</p>
<p>But with the removal of the pressure of the English
enemy, the spirit of order, and unity, and devotion to Ireland as a
whole was suddenly weakened in some directions. The readiness to fight
remained after the occasion for fighting was gone. Some lost grasp of
the ideal for which they had fought and magnified personal differences
into a conflict of principles.</p>
<p>The road was clear for us to march forward, peaceful and
united, to achieve our goal and the revival of our Gaelic
civilization. The peace and order necessary for that progress was
rudely broken. The united forward movement was held up by an outbreak
of anarchic violence.</p>
<p>The nation which had kept the old heroic temper, but had
learnt to govern it so that violence should be directed against the
national enemy, and its differences should be matters of friendly
rivalry, found itself faced with a small minority determined to break
up the national unity and to destroy the government in which the
nation had just shown its confidence.</p>
<p>They claimed to be fighting for the nation. That might be
possible if there were any enemies of the nation opposing them. There
are not. Resolved to fight, they are fighting, not against an enemy,
but against their own nation. Blind to facts, and false to ideals,
they are making war on the Irish people.</p>
<p>To conceal this truth they claim to be opposing the
National Government which they declare to be a<pb n="15">
 usurpation. In view of the elections this is absurd
enough. No one can deny that the present Government rests on the will
of the people, the sole authority for any government. And what was the
usurpation they complained of? Simply that the Government refused to
allow authority to be wrested from it by an armed minority. If it is
not right for a National Government to keep public order, to prevent
murder, arson, and brigandage, what are the duties of a
government?</p>
<p>But it is not the fact that they have directed their
fight against the National Government and the National Army. It was
against the Irish people themselves that they directed their
operations.</p>
<p>The anti-national character of their campaign became
clear when we saw them pursuing exactly the same course as the English
Black and Tans. They robbed and destroyed, not merely for the sake of
loot, and from a criminal instinct to destroy (though in any candid
view of their operations these elements must be seen to have been
present) but on a plan, and for a definite purpose. Just as the
English claimed that they were directing their attack against a
<q>murder gang</q>, so the irregulars claim that they are making war
on a <q>usurping</q> government.</p>
<p>But, in reality, the operations and the motives in both
cases were, and are, something quite different&mdash;namely, the
persecution and terrorism of the unarmed population, and the attempt
by economic destruction, famine, and violence, to <q>make an
appropriate hell</q> in Ireland, in the hope of breaking up the
organised National Government and undermining the loyalty of the
people.</p>
<pb n="16">
<p>And of what is it all the inevitable outcome? Of the
course to which the unthinking enthusiasm of some was directed when
they were told repeatedly that it might be necessary to turn their
arms against their brothers and to wade through Irish blood.</p>
<p>But the true nature of the whole movement has now
demonstrated itself so that no one can doubt it. A tree is known by
its fruits&mdash;we have seen the fruits. The Irish people will be
confirmed in its conviction that those fruits are deadly. They will
have no sympathy with anarchy and violence.</p>
<p>The Irish people know that true Irish nationality does
not express itself in these ways. They know it is the Government, and
not those who call themselves Republicans, who are upholding the
national ideal.</p>
<p>The tactics of disruption and disorder were anti-national
in paralysing the energies which were needed for building up the new
Ireland.</p>
<p>Worse still, their violence and the passions it aroused
have broken up the united concentration on the revival of our language
and of our Irish life.</p>
<p>Worst of all, their action has been a crime against the
nation in this&mdash;that the anarchy and ruin they were bringing
about was undermining the confidence of the nation in itself. So far
as it succeeded it was proving that our enemies were right, that we
were incapable of self-government. When left to ourselves in freedom
we could show nothing of the native civilization we had claimed as our
own.</p>
<p>The Black and Tans with all their foreign brutality were
unable to make of Ireland <q>an appropriate hell</q>. The irregulars
brought their country to the brink of a<pb n="17">
 real hell, the black pit in which our country's name and
credit would have sunk, in which our existence as a distinct nation,
<emph>our belief in ourselves as a nation</emph> might have
perished for ever. If they had succeeded in destroying the National
Government, and reducing the country to anarchy, the greatest evil
would have been, not that the English would have come back, that would
indeed have been terrible enough, <emph>but that they
would have been welcomed back, that they would have come not as
enemies, but as the only protectors who could bring order and
peace</emph>.</p>
<p>For hundreds of years we had preserved our national
hopes. We were on the point of achieving them, but when the real test
came the national consciousness lapsed in the minds of some whom the
nation had trusted. The wrong done was not merely to the material
prospects of the nation <emph>but to its soul</emph>.</p>
<p>The calamity was unnecessary. There lies the wrong to the
nation. A simple acceptance of the people's will! That was all that
was asked of them. What principle could such an acceptance have
violated?</p>
<p>All further measures necessary will be taken to maintain
peace and order.</p>
<p>We have to face realities.</p>
<p>There is no British Government any longer in Ireland. It
is gone. It is no longer the enemy. We have now a native government,
constitutionally elected, and it is the duty of every Irish man and
woman to obey it. Anyone who fails to obey it is an enemy of the
people and must expect to be treated as such.</p>
<p>We have to learn that attitudes and actions which were
justifiable when directed against an alien<pb n="18">
 administration, holding its position by force, are wholly
unjustifiable against a native government which exists only to carry
out the people's will, and which can be changed the moment it ceases
to do so.</p>
<p>We have to learn that freedom imposes
responsibilities.</p>
<p>This parliament is now the controlling body. With the
unification of the administration it will be clothed with full
authority. Through the parliament the people have the right, and the
power, to get the constitution, the legislation, and the economic and
educational arrangements they desire. The courts of law, which are now
our own courts, will be reorganised to make them national in
character, and the people will be able to go to them with confidence
of receiving justice.</p>
<p>That being so, the Government believes it will have the
whole force of public opinion behind it in dealing sternly with all
unlawful acts of every kind, no matter under what name of political or
patriotic, or any other policy that may be carried out.</p>
<p>The National Army, and the new Irish Police Force, acting
in obedience to the Administration, will defend the freedom and rights
of the Nation, and will put down crime of whatever nature, sectarian,
agrarian or confiscatory.</p>
<p>In the special circumstances I have had to stress the
Government's determination to establish the foundations of the state,
to preserve the very life of the Nation. But a policy of development
is engaging the attention of all departments, and will shortly be made
known.</p>
<p>We have a difficult task before us. We have taken over an
alien and cumbersome administration. We<pb n="19">
 have to begin the upbuilding of the nation with foreign
tools. But before we can scrap them we must first forge fresh Gaelic
ones to take their place, and must temper their steel.</p>
<p>But if we will all work together in a mutually helpful
spirit, recognising that we all seek the same end, the good of
Ireland, the difficulties will disappear.</p>
<p>The Irish Nation is the whole people, of every class,
creed, and outlook. We recognise no distinction. It will be our aim to
weld all our people nationally together who have hitherto been divided
in political and social and economic outlook.</p>
<p>Labour will be free to take its rightful place as an
element in the life of the nation. In Ireland more than in any other
country lies the hope of the rational adjustment of the rights and
interests of all sections, and the new government starts with the
resolve that Irish Labour shall be free to play the part which belongs
to it in helping to shape our industrial and commercial future.</p>
<p>The freedom, strength, and greatness of the nation will
be measured by the independence, economic well-being, physical
strength and intellectual greatness of the people.</p>
<p>A new page of Irish history is beginning.</p>
<p>We have a rich and fertile country&mdash;a sturdy and
intelligent people. With peace, security and union, no one can foresee
the limits of greatness and well-being to which our country may not
aspire.</p>
<p>But it is not only within our country that we have a new
outlook. Ireland has now a recognised international status. Not only
as an equal nation in association<pb n="20">
 with the British nations, but as a member of the wider
group forming the League of Nations. As a member of these groups,
Ireland's representatives will have a voice in international affairs,
and will use that voice to promote harmony and peaceful intercourse
among all friendly nations.</p>
<p>In this way Ireland will be able to play a part in the
new world movement, and to play that part in accordance with the old
Irish tradition of an independent distinctive Irish nation, at
harmony, and in close trading, cultural, and social relations, with
all other friendly nations.</p>
<p>In this sense our outlook is new. But our national aim
remains the same&mdash;a free, united Irish nation and united Irish
race all over the world, bent on achieving the common aim of Ireland's
prosperity and good name.</p>
<p>Underlying the change of outlook there is this continuity
of outlook.</p>
<p>For 700 years the united effort has been to get the
English out of Ireland. For this end, peaceful internal development
had to be left neglected, and the various interests which would have
had distinct aims had to sink all diversity and unite in the effort of
resistance, and the ejection of the English power.</p>
<p>This particular united effort is now at an end. But it is
to be followed by a new united effort for the actual achievement of
the common goal. The negative work of expelling the English power is
done. The positive work of building a Gaelic Ireland in the vacuum
left has now to be undertaken.</p>
<p>This requires not merely unity, but diversity in unity.
Each Irish interest, each phase of Irish life,<pb n="21">
 industrial, commercial, cultural, social, must find
expression and have a voice in the development of the country, partly
by the government, and partly by co-operation and individual
effort.</p>
<p>But they must express themselves and use their influence,
not in hostility to one another, but in co-operation. And in
furthering their special aims, they must do so in the light of the
common ideal&mdash;a united, distinctive Irish nationality.</p>
<p>And there must be, to reach this ideal, and particularly
so at this moment, allegiance to and support of the National
Government, democratically elected. At least to the extent of
assisting it to restore and maintain peace and public order, rights of
life and property according to law, freedom for all individuals,
parties, and creeds, to express themselves lawfully.</p>
<p>This is why we claim that the measures to restore order
which we have taken are not repressive. They are seen to be carrying
the liberative movement to completion, clearing away the d&eacute;bris
in order to lay firm and solid the foundations on which to build the
new Ireland.</p>
<p>Those who are restoring order, not those who tried to
destroy it, are the preservers of Irish nationality. Fidelity to the
real Ireland lies in uniting to build up a real Ireland in conformity
with our ideal, and not in disruption and destruction as a sacrifice
to the false gods of foreign-made political formulas.</p>
<p>The ideal is no good unless it lights our present path.
Otherwise it is but a vain sentiment, or misleading will-o'-the-wisp.
We can all be faithful to what is our national ideal&mdash;the Ireland
of poetic tradition,<pb n="22">
 and the future Ireland which will one day be&mdash;the
best of what our country was, and can be again, and the perfect
freedom in which it alone can be the best.</p>
<p>It is because this ideal is not a fact now, that we must
be faithful to it, and our faithfulness to it consists in making it a
fact so far as we can in ourselves and in our day.</p>
<p>Accepting the freedom which we have here and now is to
recognise facts and is to be faithful to the national ideal as taking
the best practical means to achieve as much as we can of the ideal at
the moment. We grasp the substance of freedom, and are true to Ireland
in using that freedom to make an actual Ireland as near to the ideal
one as possible. We have not got, and cannot get now at the moment,
(certainly cannot get without sacrificing the hope of things more
important and essential for our true ideal)&mdash;the political
Republic. If we had got it, we should not necessarily be much further
forward towards our true goal&mdash;a Gaelic Ireland.</p>
<p>We must be true to facts if we would achieve anything in
this life. We must be true to our ideal, if we would achieve anything
worthy. The Ireland to which we are true, to which we are devoted and
faithful, is the ideal Ireland, which means there is always something
more to strive for. The true devotion lies not in melodramatic
defiance or self-sacrifice for something falsely said to exist, or for
mere words and formalities, which are empty, and which might be but
the house newly swept and garnished to which seven worse devils
entered in. It is the steady, earnest effort in face of actual
possibilities towards the solid achievement of<pb n="23">
 our hopes and visions, the laying of stone upon stone of a
building which is actual and in accordance with the ideal pattern.</p>
<p>In this way, what we can do in our time, being done in
faithfulness to the traditions of the past, and to the vision of the
future, becomes significant and glorified beyond what it is if looked
at as only the day's momentary partial work.</p>
<p>This is where our Irish temperament, tenacity of the
past, its vivid sense of past and future greatness, readiness for
personal sacrifice, belief and pride in our race, can play an unique
part, if it can stand out in its intellectual and moral strength, and
shake off the weaknesses which long generations of subjection and
inaction have imposed upon it.</p>
<p>Let the nation show its true and best character: use its
courage, tenacity, clear swift intellect, its pride in the service of
the national ideal as our reason directs us.</p>
</div1>
<pb n="25">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head><q>Advance and use our liberties</q></head>
<p>In my opinion the Truce of July, 1921, could have been
secured in December, 1920, at the time His Grace Archbishop Clune
endeavoured to mediate, but the opportunity was lost through the too
precipitate action of certain of our public men and public bodies.</p>
<p>The actions taken indicated an over-keen desire for
peace, and although terms of Truce were virtually agreed upon, they
were abandoned because the British leaders thought those actions
indicated weakness, and they consequently decided to insist upon
surrender of our arms. The result was the continuance of the struggle.
British aggression went on unabated and our defence was kept up to the
best of our ability.</p>
<p>I am not aware of any negotiations that preceded the
Truce of July. I do know there was much visiting by well-meaning, but
unauthorised persons. So far, however, as my knowledge goes, these did
not have any effect on the communication from Mr. Lloyd George to
President de Valera which opened<pb n="26">
 up the period of correspondence between the two
Governments and the subsequent negotiations in London. If there were
any official conversations prior to the Lloyd George Letter, they took
place entirely without my knowledge.</p>
<p>It has been variously stated that the Treaty was signed
under duress.</p>
<p>I did not sign the Treaty under duress, except in the
sense that the position as between Ireland and England, historically,
and because of superior forces on the part of England, has always been
one of duress.</p>
<p>The element of duress was present when we agreed to the
Truce, because our simple right would have been to beat the English
out of Ireland. There was an element of duress in going to London to
negotiate. But there was not, and could not have been, any personal
duress.</p>
<p>The threat of <q>immediate and terrible war</q> did not
matter overmuch to me. The position appeared to be then exactly as it
appears now. The British would not, I think, have declared terrible
and immediate war upon us.</p>
<p>They had three courses of action open to them. First, to
dissolve the parliaments and put their proposals before the country;
second, to resume the war by courting openly and covertly breakages of
the Truce (these breakages of the Truce might easily have come from
either side); thirdly, to blockade Ireland, and at the same time
encourage spasmodic internal conflict.</p>
<p>The first course of action seemed to me to be the most
likely, and, as a result of a political win on our<pb n="27">
 side either No. 2 or No. 3 would have been very easily
managed by the British. A political reverse would have been more
damaging to us than either 2 or 3.</p>
<p>The threat of immediate and terrible war was probably
bluff. The immediate tactics would surely have been to put the offer
of July 20, which the British considered a very good offer, before the
country, and, if rejected, they would have very little difficulty in
carrying their own people into a war against Ireland.</p>
<p>Another thing I believe is that on resumption of
hostilities the British would have been anxious to fight with us on
the basis of belligerent rights. In such circumstances, I doubt if we
would have been able to carry on a conflict with the success which had
previously attended our efforts. I scarcely think that our resources
would have been equal to bearing belligerent rights and
responsibilities.</p>
<p>I am not impressed by the talk of duress, nor by threats
of a declaration of immediate and terrible war. Britain has not made a
declaration of war upon Egypt, neither has she made a declaration of
war upon India. But is the conflict less terrible because of the
absence of such declaration?</p>
<p>We must not be misled by words and phrases.
Unquestionably the alternative to the Treaty, sooner or later, was
war, and if the Irish Nation had accepted that, I should have gladly
accepted it. The opponents of the Treaty have declared over and over
again that the alternative to the Treaty was not war.</p>
<p>In my judgement, this was misleading the Irish Nation.
The decision of the Irish Nation should not be given on a false basis.
That was, and is, my own<pb n="28">
 attitude, and if indeed, it be true, as the antagonists of
the Treaty say, that the alternative to the Treaty was not war, where,
then, is the heroism? Where, then, is the necessity for the future
sacrifices that have been talked of so freely?</p>
<p>To me it would have been a criminal act to refuse to
allow the Irish Nation to give its opinion as to whether it would
accept this settlement or resume hostilities. That, I maintain, is a
democratic stand. It has always been the stand of public
representatives who are alive to their responsibilities.</p>
<p>The Irish struggle has always been for freedom&mdash;
freedom from English occupation, from English interference, from
English domination&mdash;not for freedom with any particular label
attached to it.</p>
<p>What we fought for at any particular time was the
greatest measure of freedom obtainable at that time, and it depended
upon our strength whether the claim was greater than at another time
or lesser than at another time.</p>
<p>When the national situation was very bad we lay inert;
when it improved a little we looked for Repeal of the Union; when it
receded again we looked for Home Rule under varying trade names; when
it went still worse we spoke of some form of devolution. When our
strength became greater our aim became higher, and we strove for a
greater measure of freedom under the name of a Republic. But it was
freedom we sought for, not the name of the form of government we
should adopt when we got our freedom.</p>
<p>When I supported the
approval of the Treaty at the meeting of D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann I
said it gave us freedom&mdash;<pb n="29">
 not the ultimate freedom which all nations hope for and
struggle for, but freedom to achieve that end. And I was, and am now,
fully alive to the implications of that statement.</p>
<p>Under the Treaty Ireland is about to become a fully
constituted nation. The whole of Ireland, as one nation, is to compose
the Irish Free State, whose parliament will have power to make laws
for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, with an
executive responsible to that parliament.</p>
<p>This is the whole basis of the Treaty. It is the bedrock
from which our status springs, and any later Act of the British
Parliament derives its force from the Treaty only. We have got the
present position by virtue of the Treaty, and any forthcoming Act of
the British Legislature will, likewise, be by virtue of the
Treaty.</p>
<p>It is not the definition of any status which would secure
to us that status, but our power to make secure, and to increase what
we have gained; yet, obtaining by the Treaty the constitutional status
of Canada, and that status being one of freedom and equality, we are
free to take advantage of that status, and we shall set up our
Constitution on independent Irish lines. And no conditions mentioned
afterwards in the Treaty can affect or detract from the powers which
the mention of that status in the Treaty gives us, especially when it
has been proved, has been made good, by the withdrawal out of Ireland
of English authority of every kind.</p>
<p>In fact England has renounced all right to govern
Ireland, and the withdrawal of her forces is the proof<pb n="30">
 of this. With the evacuation secured by the Treaty has
come the end of British rule in Ireland. No foreigner will be able to
intervene between our Government and our people. Not a single British
soldier, nor a single British official, will ever step again upon our
shores, except as guests of a free people.</p>
<p>Our Government will have complete control of our army,
our schools, and our trade. Our soldiers, our judges, our ministers
will be the soldiers, judges, and ministers of the Irish Free State.
We can send our own ambassadors to Washington, to Paris, to the
Vatican; we can have our own representatives on the League of Nations
(if we wish).</p>
<p>It was freedom we fought for&mdash;freedom from British
interference and domination. Let us ask ourselves these few questions:
Are the English going? To what extent are they going? If the Treaty is
put into operation will they, for all practical purposes, be gone?</p>
<p>The answer to the first question is to be seen in the
evacuation that is proceeding apace. We claimed that the Treaty would
secure this evacuation. The claim is being fulfilled. The Auxiliaries
are practically gone. The regular British military forces are rapidly
following them. The answer to the second and third questions is that
they remain for negligible purposes in that the extent to which they
remain is negligible.</p>
<p>We shall have complete freedom for all our purposes. We
shall be rid completely of British interference and British rule. We
can establish in its place our own rule, and exactly what kind of rule
we like. We can restore our Gaelic life in exactly what form we like.
We can keep what we have gained and make it secure<pb n="31">
 and strong. The little we have not yet gained we can go
ahead and gain.</p>
<p>All other questions are really questions of arrangement,
in which our voice shall be the deciding voice. Any names, any
formulas, any figureheads, representing England's wish to conceal the
extent of her departure, to keep some pretence of her power over us,
which is now gone, will be but names, formulas, figureheads. England
exercised her power over us simply by the presence of her
forces&mdash;military forces, police forces, legal, and social
forces.</p>
<p>Is it seriously to be suggested that in the new order,
some functionary, no matter what we may call him, will serve the
purpose of all these forces, or, apart from him, the particular
interpretation of the words of a document?</p>
<p>The British Government could only be maintained by the
presence of British forces. Once these are gone the British Government
can no longer arrange the form our National Government and our
National life will take, nor can they set any limits to either. If we
wish to make our nation a free and a great and a good nation we can do
so now. But we cannot do it if we are to fight among ourselves as to
whether it is to be called Saorst&aacute;t or Poblacht.</p>
<p>Whatever the name or the political phraseology, we cannot
restore Ireland without a great united effort.</p>
<p>Any difficulty now in making a noble Irish-Ireland will
lie in our people themselves and in the hundreds of years of
anglicisation to which we have been subjected. The task before us,
having got rid of the British, is to get rid of the British
influences&mdash;to<pb n="32">
 de-anglicise ourselves; for there are many among us who
still cling to English ways, and any thoughtlessness, any
carelessness, will tend to keep things on the old lines&mdash;the
inevitable danger of the proximity of the two nations.</p>
<p>Can any restriction or limitation in the Treaty prevent
us making our nation great and potent? Can the presence of a
representative of the British Crown, depending on us for his
resources, prevent us from doing that? Can the words of a document as
to what our status is prevent us from doing that? One thing only can
prevent us&mdash;disunion among ourselves.</p>
<p>Can we not concentrate and unite, not on the negative,
but on the positive, task of making a real Ireland distinct from
Britain&mdash;a nation of our own?</p>
<p>The only way to get rid of British contamination and the
evils of corrupt materialism is to secure a united Ireland intent on
democratic ways, to make our free Ireland a fact, and not to keep it
for ever in dreamland as something that will never come true, and
which has no practical effect or reality except as giving rise to
everlasting fighting and destruction, which seem almost to have become
ends in themselves in the mind of some&mdash;some who appear to be
unheeding and unmindful of what the real end is.</p>
<p>Ireland is one&mdash;perhaps the only&mdash;country in
Europe which has now living hopes for a better civilization. We have a
great opportunity. Much is within our grasp. Who can lay a finger on
our liberties?</p>
<p>If any power menaces our liberties, we are in a stronger
position than before to repel the aggressor. That position will grow
stronger with each year of<pb n="33">
 freedom if we will all unite for the aims we have in
common.</p>
<p>Let us advance and use these liberties to make Ireland a
shining light in a dark world, to reconstruct our ancient civilization
on modern lines, to avoid the errors, the miseries, the dangers, into
which other nations, with their false civilizations, have fallen.</p>
<p>In taking the Treaty we are not going in for the
flesh-pots of the British Empire&mdash;not unless we wish to. It is
futile to suppose that all these tendencies would disappear under
freedom by some other name, or that the government of an externally
associated nation, or of a Republic, any more than a Free State, would
be able to suppress them, and to force Gaelicism upon the nation.</p>
<p>Whatever form of free government we had, it would be the
Government of the Irish Nation. All the other elements, old Unionists,
Home Rulers, Devolutionists, would have to be allowed freedom and
self- expression. The only way to build the nation solid and Irish is
to effect these elements in a friendly national way&mdash;by
attraction, not by compulsion, making them feel themselves welcomed
into the Irish Nation, in which they can join and become absorbed, as
long ago the Geraldines and the de Burgos became absorbed.</p>
<p>The Treaty is already vindicating itself. The English
Die-hards said to Mr. Lloyd George and his Cabinet: <q>You have
surrendered</q>. Our own Die-hards said to us: <q>You have
surrendered</q>. There is a simple test. Those who are left in
possession of the battlefield have won.</p>
</div1>
<pb n="35">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>ALTERNATIVE TO THE TREATY</head>
<head>Ireland <q>A Mother Country</q></head>
<head>Document No. 2 Analysed</head>
<p>The main difference between the Treaty and the
alternative proposals put forward by Mr. de Valera (known as Document
No. 2) is that one is signed by the Plenipotentiaries of both nations
and has been approved by the representatives of both nations; the
other is not signed.</p>
<p>In my belief it would not be signed in its present form;
not, indeed, that it contains much that is not in the Treaty, nor that
it contains much that England objects to, but simply that in its
construction it is too loose. Undoubtedly, in the application of its
details we should constantly have been faced with conflicting
interpretations leading to inevitable discordance.</p>
<p>It was claimed for the document by its sponsors that it
would be approved by the English people; that, on the other hand,
England never kept a Treaty, nor would she keep the present Treaty.
The inference, of course, is that England would keep a Treaty which
she had not signed but would not keep a Treaty which she had
signed.</p>
<pb n="36">
<p>The document was not drafted by Mr. de Valera. There is
little difficulty in guessing the author. Dominionism tinges every
line. No Irishman who understands the tradition and the history of
Ireland would think or write of his country's aspirations in the terms
used in this document. In the official laudation given it by the organ
of its supporters the following occurs:</p>
<p>Clauses 3 and 4 must be read together. What they mean is
this, that the association in matters of <hi rend="quotes">common
concern</hi> shall be a free one, not binding Ireland to submit to the
decisions either of the British alone or of a majority of the States
of the Commonwealth of which Britain is one.</p>
<p>"It is on that footing that an Irish representative would
attend meetings of the body known as the <hi rend="quotes">Imperial
Conference</hi>, consisting of Dominion Premiers and British Cabinet
Ministers to discuss and co-operate in matters of <hi rend="quotes">common concern</hi>. That is the footing on which the
Commonwealth States act together now, and the words within quotation
marks at the end of Clause 4 are taken from what is known as the
Constitutional Resolution passed at the Imperial Conference of
1917.</p>
<p>It will be seen that the Commonwealth States, including
Britain are bound to <hi rend="quotes">consultation</hi> and no more.
They are free to take action <q>as their several Governments may
determine</q>&mdash;a partnership based on individual freedom. Ireland
would be in the same position.</p>
<pb n="37">
<p>Thus, Ireland is by our own free offer, under this
document, represented at the Imperial Conference. Our status is taken
from a Constitutional Resolution passed at an Imperial Conference. The
outlook of the author of the document is bounded entirely by the
horizon of the British Empire.</p>
<p>This is not my stand, and at a Conference in London with
the British representatives I made it quite clear that Ireland was A
MOTHER COUNTRY, with the duties and responsibilities and feelings and
devotions of a mother country.</p>
<p>This simple statement had more effect on the British
delegates than all the arguments about Dominion status, or all the
arguments basing the claim of our historic nation on any new-found
idea. Irish nationhood springs from the Irish people, not from any
comparison with any other nation, not from any equality&mdash;inherent
or acquired&mdash;with any other nation.</p>
<p>Clause 1 of the document, which states: <q>That the
legislative, executive and judicial authority of Ireland shall be
derived solely from the people of Ireland</q>, is a declaration of
rights more suitable to form the basis of the Constitution of a free
nation than to be incorporated in a Treaty of Peace between two
nations that had been at war.</p>
<p>The opponents of the Treaty were most insistent on the
argument that it was Britain (by passing the Treaty through her
parliament) who conferred on us the Rights and Powers of the Treaty.
But we definitely stipulate for a like British acquiescence in
Document No. 2.</p>
<pb n="38">
<p>That is clear from the clause asking for ratification by
the British Parliament. British ratification is a legal thing. It is
no worse in one case than in the other. It is no better either. But
surely no one recognises any right in Britain to agree or to disagree
with that fundamental principle of freedom which concerns the people
of Ireland alone.</p>
<p>In fact, the Treaty secures this position. Under the
Treaty the English will no longer have any legislative, executive, or
judicial authority in Ireland.</p>
<p>All such authority will be vested in the Parliament of
Ireland, which alone will have power to make laws for the peace,
order, and good government of Ireland.</p>
<p>Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the document are all a loose
paraphrase of the Treaty, dangerous and misleading in their looseness.
They read:
<list>
<item n="2"><q>That for purposes of <hi rend="quotes">common concern</hi> Ireland shall be associated with the
States of the British Commonwealth, viz., the Kingdom of Great
Britain, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the
Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa</q>. </item>
<item n="3"><q>That while voting as an associate, the
rights, status, and privileges of Ireland shall be in no respect less
than those enjoyed by any of the component States of the British
Commonwealth</q>. </item>
<item n="4"><q>That the matters of <hi rend="quotes">common concern</hi> shall include Defence, Peace and
War, Political Treaties, and all matters now treated as of <pb n="39">
<hi rend="quotes">common concern</hi> amongst the States of the
British Commonwealth, and that in these matters there shall be between
Ireland and the States of the British Commonwealth such concerted
action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may
determine</q>. </item>
</list></p>
<p>Under these clauses Ireland would be committed to an
association so vague that it might afford grounds for claims by
Britain which might give her an opportunity to press for control in
Irish affairs as <hi rend="quotes">common concerns</hi>, and to use,
or to threaten to use, force. The Irish people could not have been
asked, and would not have agreed, to commit themselves to anything so
vague.</p>
<p>Clause 4 does not mend the matter; it makes it worse, as
<hi rend="quotes">common concern</hi> may include anything else
besides the things named. In fact, it is common knowledge that there
are many common concerns in the inter-dealings between the various
States of the Commonwealth.</p>
<p>This is a very vital point. We know that there are many
things which the States of the British Commonwealth can afford to
regard as <hi rend="quotes">common concerns</hi> which we could not
afford so to regard. This is where we must be careful to protect
ourselves as best we can against the disadvantages of geographical
propinquity This is where we had to find some form of association
which would safeguard us, as far as we could be safeguarded, in
somewhat the same degree as the 3,000 miles of ocean safeguards
Canada.</p>
<p>And it is obvious that the <q>association with the
British Commonwealth</q> mentioned in the British<pb n="40">
 Prime Minister's invitation, which was accepted by Mr. de
Valera on behalf of D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann, meant association of a
different kind from that of mere alliance of isolated nations, and now
to suggest otherwise is not straightforward.</p>
<p>The question was of an association which would be
honourable to Ireland, which would give us full freedom to manage our
own affairs, and prevent interference by Britain; which would give the
maximum security that this freedom would be observed (and we may be
trusted to see that it is so observed), and which would be acceptable
to Ireland as recognising her nationhood.</p>
<p>We negotiated from the standpoint of an independent
sovereign nation, with a view to finding means of being honourably
associated with the British group of nations in a way in which we were
not associated with them before the negotiations.</p>
<p>The link which binds that group is a link which binds
free nations in a voluntary association. This is what we obtained in
the Treaty&mdash;freedom within our nation, freedom of association
without.</p>
<p>The external association mentioned in Document No. 2 has
neither the honesty of complete isolation (a questionable advantage in
these days of warring nationalities when it is not too easy for a
small nation to stand rigidly alone) nor the strength of free
partnership satisfying the different partners. Such external
association was not practical politics.</p>
<p>Actually in this regard the terms of the Treaty are less
objectionable than the formulas of the document. Restrictions in the
Treaty there unquestionably are.<pb n="41">
 Restrictions in Document No. 2 equally unquestionably
there are. <emph>But the Treaty will be operative, and the
restrictions must gradually tend to disappear as we go on more and
more strongly solidifying and establishing ourselves as a free
nation</emph>.</p>
<p>Clause 5. <q>That in virtue of this association of
Ireland with the States of the British Commonwealth citizens of
Ireland in any of these States shall not be subject to any
disabilities which a citizen of one of the component States of the
British Commonwealth would not be subject to, and reciprocally for
citizens of these States in Ireland</q> is unintelligible, and does
not meet the Irish wish to have some sentimental and racial ties with
all the children of our race. The expression <hi rend="quotes">common
citizenship</hi> in the Treaty is not ideal, but it is less
indefinite, and it does not attempt to confine Ireland's mother claims
to the States of the British Commonwealth.</p>
<p>Clause 6. <q>That for purposes of association, Ireland
shall recognise his Britannic Majesty as head of association</q> gives
the recognition of the British Crown&mdash;a recognition which is as
precise as any given in the Treaty.</p>
<p>It was after discussion of this clause that Mr. de
Valera's alternative oath was produced. That oath, which has already
been published, was incorporated in a document submitted to the
British by the Irish delegation. It reads as follows:<pb n="42">
 <q>I do swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of Ireland and to the Treaty of Association of Ireland
with the British Commonwealth of Nations, and to recognise the King of
Great Britain as head of the Associated States</q>. It was explained
at the D&aacute;il debate by one of the foremost anti-Treatyites that
the King of Great Britain could be regarded as a managing director,
the explanation being that in these modern days industrial concerns
were amalgamating and entering into agreements, etc.</p>
<p>The King of Great Britain would then occupy the same
relative position towards the Associated States as a managing director
occupied towards associated businesses. Whereupon it was very wisely
pointed out by a journalist who was listening to the debate that a
managing director is one who manages and directs. After all, whatever
we may say of royal prerogatives, or anything of that kind, no modern
democratic nation is managed and directed by one ruler.</p>
<p>Plain people will not be impressed by this managing
director nonsense. Plain people will see no difference between these
oaths.</p>
<p>We must always rely upon our own strength to keep the
freedom we have obtained and to make it secure. And the constitutional
status of Canada, defined in the Treaty, gives us stronger assurance
of our immunity from interference by Britain than the indefinite
clauses in Document No. 2.</p>
<p>These clauses have nothing effective to back them.<pb n="43">
 They have practically all the disadvantages of the Treaty.
It is too uncertain to have our future relationship based on <hi rend="quotes">ifs</hi> and <hi rend="quotes">unless</hi> and terms
like <q>so far as our resources permit</q>. These attempts at
improvement are nothing but dangerous friction spots which it is the
interest of Ireland to avoid.</p>
<p>Much has been said by the opponents of the Treaty about
<q>buttressing up the British Empire</q>. All these defence clauses in
Document No. 2 are open to exactly the same attack. Under these
clauses we could not assist an Indian or Egyptian craft that happened
to get into Irish waters. These countries are at war with Britain, and
we should be bound by our proffered agreement to help Britain.</p>
<p>Under the Treaty we should have a representative on the
League of Nations (if we approved of a League of Nations), and that
representative would have a real power to prevent aggression against
Egypt and India.</p>
<p>To deal with Clauses 7 and 10 together, these clauses
have reference to the matter of defence, and to the ordinary observer
there is little difference between them and the clauses of the Treaty
covering the same subject.</p>
<p>The Treaty secures that the harbours at certain ports can
be used only for purposes of common defence, and not for any purpose
of interfering with Irish freedom (and, again, we may be trusted to
ensure that this shall be so).</p>
<p>There is one other thing under these clauses that I
should like to explain from my own knowledge of how the matter arose.
The British representatives made it quite clear to us that the British
people could not, or<pb n="44">
 would not, for the sake of their own safety, allow any
Irish Government to build submarines. Document No. 2 concedes this
British claim fully. Britain does not mind if we build a dreadnought
or two, a battleship or two. One submarine would be a greater menace
to her than these. Document No. 2, therefore, gives way to her on the
only point that really matters. Such a concession to British
necessity, real or supposed, is nothing but dishonesty. Let us agree,
if need be, that we shall not build submarines; but don't let us
pretend that we are doing it from any motive other than the real
motive.</p>
<p>The remaining clauses seem nothing but a repetition of
the clauses of the Treaty, with only such slight verbal alterations as
no one but a factionist looking for means of making mischief would
have thought it worth while to have risked wrecking the Treaty
for.</p>
<p>It is fair criticism that the Treaty contains obsolete
phraseology no longer suited to the status of freedom and equality of
the States of the British Commonwealth and out of touch with the
realities of our freedom. But phraseology does not alter the fact of
our freedom, and we have the right and will exercise the right, to use
a form of words to secure an interpretation more in accordance with
the facts.</p>
<p>As an improvement on the Treaty Document No. 2 is not
honest. It may be more dictatorial in language. It does not contain in
principle a <q>greater reconciliation with Irish national
aspirations</q>. It merely attaches a fresh label to the same parcel,
or, rather, a label written, on purpose, illegibly in the hope of
making belief that the parcel is other than it is.</p>
</div1>
<pb n="45">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>THE PROOF OF SUCCESS</head>
<head>What the Rising of 1916 did</head>
<head>Disunion Danger</head>
<p>Ireland is an ancient nation which from earliest times
had a distinct civilization. What made Ireland what she was was her
people living within the whole island as a separate and distinct
community, or nation, by virtue of a common system of law and culture
and traditions and ways of life and not depending upon any particular
political constitutions. While this lasted strangers who came were
absorbed, and the national ways were not interfered with, and were
such, by their attractiveness, as to enable strangers to become Irish
easily and thoroughly.</p>
<p>Then came English interference, and her policy of robbery
and exploitation, and when she had <hi rend="quotes">conquered</hi> us
sufficiently she began to carry out her policy&mdash;to use us to feed
and enrich herself. But having a complete nationhood of our own, which
Britain had to acknowledge or to trample out of existence, and having
a social system which suited us, and which gave our people security in
all their rights and privileges, England found the execution of her
policy, though helped by our geographical propinquity, a less<pb n="46">
 easy task in Ireland than in her colonies, where there was
no separate nationhood and no difference of social polity.</p>
<p>England's idea was to make Ireland an English province.
For her purposes Irish civilization was to be completely blotted out.
The Gael was to go. Our lands were to be confiscated and given to
aliens. Our industries were to be effectively destroyed. Everything
that tended to remind us of the past, everything that tended to retain
our Irish outlook, everything that helped to keep us a distinct
people, everything that tended to keep alive in us our memories of our
Gaelic civilization and of our Irish nationality, freedom, and
prosperity, was to be obliterated.</p>
<p>Her method even then was to divide and rule, setting
chief against chief, as later she set religion against religion.</p>
<p>This policy could not succeed while we had a land system
by which men's rights in the land were secure and impregnable. By
means of wholesale commandeering the land was taken from the people,
and the feudal system of tenure, a system admirably suited for the
purpose of enslavement, was imposed. The free men of Ireland, whose
rights had been rooted in the soil, became the tenants, the serfs, of
the usurpers, and were completely at the mercy of their new masters,
the landlords, who joined with the enemy in the policy of robbing,
exploiting, and exterminating the Irish people.</p>
<p>When England had succeeded in uprooting the old Irish
system of land tenure under which everyone securely enjoyed land to
cultivate and common rights of grazing, she had taken the biggest step
in<pb n="47">
 our subjection. It was only in so far as it attempted to
reverse that subjection that the land campaign of the Davitt period
was justified.</p>
<p>Some historian has yet to take up this aspect of the land
struggle and discover a national spirit seeking to manifest itself in
apparently strange ways. Were it not for this the killing of landlords
would have been murder. The people undoubtedly regarded it in this
way. The landlords were the agents who had taken away the liberties of
the common folk, and the common folk hit at the agent whom they
recognised as the common enemy.</p>
<p>They took first things first. They did the job which was
immediately to their hands. In our generation we have no longer to
shoot landlords, for landlords as they were known have mostly gone. In
the same way we hope that the next generation will have no necessity
to shoot an enemy, for the enemy will have gone.</p>
<p>In furtherance of the same policy the suppression of our
industries was also necessary if Britain's desire was to be realised.
It was doubly necessary. Our manufacturers competed too successfully
with hers, and it was to be our privilege to exist, not as an
industrial people, but for the purpose of providing England with an
abundance of food.</p>
<p>The destruction of our democratic Gaelic social system,
the discouragement, the prohibition of all enterprise, leaving us only
a slave life on the land, and the imposition upon us of an alien
language, alien laws, alien ideas, made our subjugation complete. Our
economic subjection was necessary that we might serve Britain's
purposes. Our spiritual subjection was<pb n="48">
 no less necessary that we might learn to forget our former
national and economic freedom and acquiesce and grow passive in our
servitude.</p>
<p>And we learned our lesson. We forgot our freedom. We
forgot our language. We forgot our own native Irish ways. We forgot
our Irish love and veneration for things of the mind and character,
our pride in learning, in the arts for which we had been famous, in
military skill, in athletic prowess, in all which had been our glory
from the days of Cormac MacArt and St. Patrick and before them.</p>
<p>We became the degraded and feeble imitators of our
tyrants. English fashions, English material tastes and customs were
introduced by the landlord class or adopted by them, and by a natural
process they came to be associated in the minds of our people with
gentility. The outward sign of a rise in the social scale became the
extent to which we cast off everything which distinguished us as Irish
and the success with which we imitated the enemy who despised us.</p>
<p>And slavery still exists.</p>
<p>To-day in Ireland, although through improved economic
conditions, which have been world-wide and in which it was not
possible altogether to prevent us sharing, helped by a better living
on the land, bought very dearly by the purchase back again of a great
part of our country from those who had never any right to it, we have
been lifted out of the worst slough of destitution; although we have
been turning our eyes towards the light of liberty and learning to
lift our heads again as Irish men and Irish women with a land of our
own, and with traditions and hopes of which no<pb n="49">
 nation need feel ashamed, yet still from east to west,
from north to south, we are soaked, saturated, and stupefied with the
English outlook.</p>
<p>Only slowly, laboriously, do we turn in our chains and
struggle to free ourselves from the degrading lie that what is English
is necessarily respectable, and what is Irish, low and mean. Even at
this moment when our daily papers and our weekly papers are writing of
our newly-won freedom and rejoicing over our national hopes, they
continue to announce in their leading columns the movements of English
society and the births and marriages of upper-class English
nonentities.</p>
<p>But by the completeness with which England converted us
into hewers of wood and drawers of water, she in the end defeated her
own purpose.</p>
<p>Feebly resisting at the moments when we were less
completely crushed, when a brief interval came between the long
periods of starvation, when we had a moment in which we could reflect
upon our condition, we gradually awoke to the cause of our miseries,
and we grew to learn if we would be economically free we must be
nationally free, and if we would be spiritually free we must be
nationally free.</p>
<p>The coming and the presence of the English had deprived
us of life and liberty. Their ways were not our ways. Their interests
and their purposes meant our destruction. We must turn back again the
wheels of that infamous machine which was destroying us. We must get
the English out of Ireland.</p>
<p>Our efforts at first were naturally timid, and they were
often futile because we were too much concerned<pb n="50">
 with the political side&mdash;confused in this by the
example of England where nationality was always expressed that way,
and was principally a matter of political organisation.</p>
<p>Repeal of the Union was little more than a cry gaining
what real strength it had from the more vigorous hostility of the
Young Ireland movement, which revived our old literature, which
recovered Irish history, and spread a new spirit. That spirit was not
wholly martial, but what Irishman will say to-day that it was not
beneficial, even so?</p>
<p>The Fenians came and once and for all raised the banner
of Ireland's freedom, with a definite military policy which, though
unsuccessful at the time, had its full effect in bringing before men's
minds the real road to Irish salvation.</p>
<p>The Fenian idea left a torch behind it with which Tom
Clarke and Se&aacute;n MacDermott kindled the fires of Easter Week,
and, though seemingly quenched, these were soon blazing brightly again
at Solohead, at Clonfin, at Macroom, at Dublin, at many a place in
Clare, in Mayo, and Monaghan, and Donegal during the recent
struggle.</p>
<p>After the Fenians, years of death again, while famine
raged over the land, till Parnell emerged to struggle for independence
under the name of Home Rule which, though accompanied by the social
and economic revolt of Davitt's national land policy, was bringing us
back again to the dangerous idea of seeking freedom by means of some
form of political weapon.</p>
<p>The weakness inherent in Parnell's policy was obviated by
his intense personal hostility to the English.<pb n="51">
 He never forgot the end in the means. But it lost that
saving protection when it fell into the hands of those who succeeded
him and who, in the lotus-like atmosphere of the Westminster
Parliament, forgot the national spirit and lost touch with the minds
and feelings of their countrymen.</p>
<p>The collapse came when in the hands of weaker men the
national effort became concentrated at the foreign parliament on
English political lines. The methods adopted by the parliamentarians,
the forum they had chosen, made their crumbling an easy matter, and
from the English point of view it greatly helped division in their
ranks, and with division came the inevitable dissipation of
energy.</p>
<p>We would have an identical situation to-day had we chosen
the same methods and fought on the same battlefield for the last five
years. In that parliamentary period, however, the people at home were
growing in national consciousness and in strength and courage. The
Gaelic revival and the learning of our national tongue were teaching a
new national self-respect. We recalled the immortal tales of our
ancient heroes, and we began to look to a future in which we could
have a proud, free, distinct nation worthy of the past.</p>
<p>We learned that what we wanted was not a political form
of Home Rule or any other kind or form of Home Rule, but a revival of
Gaelic life and ways. Economic thought and study showed us that the
poverty which afflicted us came from the presence of the English and
their control over us; had come from landlordism and the drain of
English taxation, the neglect of Irish<pb n="52">
 resources, and the obstruction to Irish industries by the
domination of the English Parliament. And we saw that we must manage
these things for ourselves.</p>
<p>And, besides the hope of material emancipation, we grew
to think of love of our land, and all that it had given us and had
still to give us, and what we could make of it when it was our own
once more. And we became filled with a patriotic fervour before which,
when the time came, force would prove impotent. The expression of this
new hope and new courage manifested itself in the Easter Week
Rising.</p>
<p>The leaven of the old Fenianism had been at work in our
midst. Tom Clarke, a member of the old Fenian Brotherhood, came out
from jail after sixteen years' penal servitude to take up the work
where he had left it off.</p>
<p>Se&aacute;n MacDermott, tramping through Ireland,
preached the Fenian gospel of a freedom which must be fought for,
enrolled recruits, and, by his pure patriotism and lovable unselfish
character, inspired all with whom he came in contact to emulate him
and to be worthy of his teaching.</p>
<p>Our army was in existence again. It was not brought into
being, as is wrongfully supposed, by the example of Carson's
recruiting in North-East Ulster. It needed no such example. It was
already in being&mdash;the old Irish Republican Brotherhood in fuller
force.</p>
<p>But England's manufactured resistance in the North-East
enabled our soldiers to come out into the open, with the advantage in
1916 of a Rising starting unexpectedly from the streets instead of
from underground. England was unable or unwilling to interfere<pb n="53">
 with her own Orange instruments, and she did not dare,
therefore, to suppress ours.</p>
<p>Armed resistance was the indispensable factor in our
struggle for freedom. It was never possible for us to be militarily
strong, but we could be strong enough to make England uncomfortable
(and strong enough to make England too uncomfortable). While she
explains the futility of force (by others) it is the only argument she
listens to. For ourselves it had that practical advantage, but it was
above all other things the expression of our separate nationhood.</p>
<p>Unless we were willing to fight for our Nation, even
without any certainty of success, we acquiesced in the doctrine of our
national identity with England. It embodied, too, for us the spirit of
sacrifice, the maintenance of the ideal, the courage to die for it, so
that military efforts were made in nearly every generation. It was a
protest, too, against our anglicisation and demoralisation, a
challenge of spirit against material power, and as such bore
fruit.</p>
<p>The Rising of 1916 was the fruit.</p>
<p>It appeared at the time of the surrender to have failed,
but that valiant effort and the martyrdoms which followed it finally
awoke the sleeping spirit of Ireland.</p>
<p>It carried into the hearts of the people the flame which
had been burning in those who had the vision to see the pit into which
we were sinking deeper and deeper and who believed that a
conflagration was necessary to reveal to their countrymen the road to
national death upon which we were blindly treading.</p>
<p>The banner of Ireland's freedom had been raised and was
carried forward. During the Rising the leaders<pb n="54">
 of Easter Week <q>declared a Republic</q>. But not as a
fact. We knew it was not a fact. It was a wonderful
gesture&mdash;throwing down the gauntlet of defiance to the enemy,
expressing to ourselves the complete freedom we aimed at, and for that
reason was an inspiration to us.</p>
<p>If the impossible had happened, and the Rising had
succeeded, and the English had surrendered and evacuated the country,
we would then have been free, and we could then have adopted the
republican form of government, or any other form we wished. But the
Rising did not succeed as a military venture. And if it had succeeded
it would have been the surrender and the evacuation which would have
been the proof of our success, not the name for, nor the form of, the
government we would have chosen. If we had still a descendant of our
Irish Kings left, we would be as free, under a limited monarchy, with
the British gone, as under a Republic.</p>
<p>The form of our government is our domestic Irish concern.
It does not affect the fact of our national freedom. Our national
freedom depends upon the extent to which we reverse the history of the
last 700 years, the extent to which we get rid of the enemy and get
rid of his control over our material and spiritual life.</p>
</div1>
<pb n="55">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>FOUR HISTORIC YEARS</head>
<head>The Story of 1914-1918</head>
<head>How Ireland Made her Case Clear</head>
<p>The period from 1914 to 1918 is an important one in the
struggle for Irish freedom. It was a transition period. It saw a
wholesome and necessary departure from the ideas and methods which had
been held and adopted for a generation, and it is a period which is
misread by a great many of our people, even by some who helped that
departure, and who helped to win the success we have achieved.</p>
<p>The real importance of the Rising of 1916 did not become
apparent until 1918. It is not correct to say now that the assertion
of the republican principle which was stated by the leaders of the
Rising was upheld as the national policy without a break. The
declaration of a Republic was really in advance of national thought,
and it was only after a period of two years' propaganda that we were
actually able to get solidarity on the idea.</p>
<p>The European War, which began in 1914, is now generally
recognised to have been a war between two rival empires, an old one
and a new, the new becoming such a successful rival of the old,
commercially<pb n="56">
 and militarily, that the world-stage was, or was thought
to be, not large enough for both.</p>
<p>Germany spoke frankly of her need for expansion, and for
new fields of enterprise for her surplus population. England, who
likes to fight under a high-sounding title, got her opportunity in the
invasion of Belgium. She was entering the war <q>in defence of the
freedom of small nationalities</q>.</p>
<p>America at first looked on, but she accepted the motive
in good faith, and she ultimately joined in as the champion of the
weak against the strong. She concentrated attention upon the principle
of <hi rend="quotes">self-determination</hi> and <hi rend="quotes">the
reign of law based upon the consent of the governed</hi>.</p>
<p><q>Shall</q>, asked President Wilson, <q>the military
power of any nation, or group of nations, be suffered to determine the
fortunes of peoples over whom they have no right to rule except the
right of force?</q></p>
<p>But the most flagrant instance of the violation of this
principle did not seem to strike the imagination of President Wilson,
and he led the American nation&mdash;peopled so largely by Irish men
and women who had fled from British oppression&mdash;into the battle
and to the side of that nation which for hundreds of years had <hi rend="quotes">determined the fortunes</hi> of the Irish people against
their wish, and had ruled them, and was still ruling them, by no other
right than the right of force.</p>
<p>There were created by the Allied Powers half-a-dozen new
Republics as a demonstration of adherence to these principles. At the
same time, England's military subjection of Ireland continued. And
Ireland<pb n="57">
 was a nation with claims as strong as, or stronger than,
those of the other small nations.</p>
<p>This subjugation constituted a mockery of those
principles, yet the expression of them before the world as principles
for which great nations were willing to pour out their blood and
treasure gave us the opportunity to raise again our flag of freedom
and to call the attention of the world to the denial of our claim.</p>
<p>We were not pro-German during the war any more than we
were pro- Bulgarian, pro-Turk, or anti-French. We were anti-British,
pursuing our age-long policy against the common enemy. Not only was
this our policy, but it was the policy that any weak nation would have
pursued in the same circumstances. We were a weak nation kept in
subjection by a stronger one, and we formed and adopted our policy in
light of this fact. We remembered that England's difficulty was
Ireland's opportunity, and we took advantage of her engagement
elsewhere to make a bid for freedom.</p>
<p>The odds between us were for the moment a little less
unequal. Our hostility to England was the common factor between
Germany and ourselves. We made common cause with France when France
was fighting. We made common cause with Spain when Spain was fighting
England. We made common cause with the Dutch when the Dutch were
fighting England.</p>
<p>It so happened that on this occasion England had put a
weapon into our hands against herself. The observation of the world
was focused upon the mighty European War. We could call attention to
the difference<pb n="58">
 between England's principles as expounded to the world and
her practice as against ourselves. We were put into the position of
being able to force her to recognise our freedom or to oppress us for
proclaiming that simple right.</p>
<p>Our position was our old position. Our aim was our old
aim. Our intention was simply to secure liberation from the English
occupation and that which it involved.</p>
<p>The Rising expressed our right to freedom. It expressed
our determination to have the same liberty of choice in regard to our
own destinies as was conceded to Poland or Czecho-Slovakia, or any
other of the nations that were emerging as a result of the new
doctrines being preached. The Republic which was declared at the
Rising of Easter Week, 1916, was Ireland's expression of the freedom
she aspired to. It was our way of saying that we wished to challenge
Britain's right to dominate us.</p>
<p>Ireland wished to make it clear that she stood for a form
of freedom equal to that of any other nation. Other nations claimed
freedom, and their claims were conceded. Ireland's claim was no less
strong than the claim of any nation. We had as good a right to
recognition as Poland has. The position we adopted expressed our
repudiation of the British government.</p>
<p>The British form of government was monarchical. In order
to express clearly our desire to depart from all British forms, we
declared a Republic. We repudiated the British form of government, not
because it was monarchical, but because it was British. We would have
repudiated the claim of a British Republic<pb n="59">
 to rule over us as definitely as we repudiated the claim
of the British monarchy.</p>
<p>Our claim was to govern ourselves, and the expression of
the form of government was an answer to the British lie that Ireland
was a domestic question. It was a gesture to the world that there
could be no confusion about. It was an emphasis of our separate
nationhood and a declaration that our ultimate goal was and would
continue to be complete independence.</p>
<p>It expressed our departure from the policy of
parliamentary strategy at Westminster. That policy had failed, as it
was bound to fail. It had two evils involved in it. While claiming
rightly to be a distinct nation, we had been acquiescing by our
actions in the convenient British doctrine that we were a British
province and an integral part of the United Kingdom&mdash;an
acquiescence which gave Mr. Lloyd George the opportunity to question
our right to freedom because for over a hundred years, he said, we had
sent representatives to Westminster, and soldiers to fight in every
British war.</p>
<p>And it had the evil effect of causing our people to look
to England for any ameliorative government, and even for the <hi rend="quotes">gift</hi> of an instalment of freedom, and away from
their own country, from themselves, who alone could give to themselves
these things. So we sank more and more into subjection during this
period, and it was only by a great educational effort that our
national consciousness was re-awakened.</p>
<p>We were to learn that freedom was to be secured by
travelling along a different road; that instead of it<pb n="60">
 being possible for the English to bestow freedom upon us
as a gift (or by means of any Treaty signed or unsigned) that it was
their presence alone which denied it to us, and we must make that
presence uncomfortable for them, and that the only question between us
and them was the terms on which they would clear out and cease their
interference with us.</p>
<p>But we started along the new road, the only one that
could lead to freedom, at first with faltering steps, half doubtingly
looking back at the old paths which had become familiar, where we knew
the milestones at which we had been able to shift the burden from one
shoulder to another.</p>
<p>The Easter Week Rising pointed out the road. But after
that declaration of a Republic and all that it meant of repudiation of
Britain, we lapsed into the old way, or took but uncertain steps upon
the new one.</p>
<p>When the first by-election after the Rising took place in
North Roscommon in 1917, so much had the Republic of Easter Week been
forgotten and so little had its teachings yet penetrated to the minds
of the people, that, though the candidate was Count Plunkett, whose
son had been martyred after the Rising, he was returned only on the
ground of his opposition to the Irish Party candidate.</p>
<p>Abstention from attendance at the British Parliament was
the indispensable factor in the republican ideal&mdash;the repudiation
of foreign government. But it was only after his election that the
Count declared his intention not to go to Westminster, and the
announcement was not received very enthusiastically by some of the
most energetic of his supporters.<pb n="61">
 They had returned a man, it was said, <q>who did not
intend to represent them anywhere</q>. Not only the people, but even
some who had been engaged in the Rising hardly grasped the new
teaching.</p>
<p>This election and others which followed were not won on
the policy of upholding a Republic, but on the challenge it made to
the old Irish Party.</p>
<p>There was at this stage no unity of opinion on the policy
of abstention among the various elements which formed the opposition,
which were joined together only on opposition to the Redmondites. At
what was known as <hi rend="quotes">the Plunkett Convention</hi> an
effort was made to get all the parts of the opposition united on such
a policy but the divergence of opinion was so great that, to avoid a
split, it was declared that there should be no greater union than a
loose co-operation.</p>
<p>The North Roscommon and the South Longford elections were
fought on the basis of this agreement, and there was no definite
united policy until the merging of all the sectional organisations
with Sinn F&eacute;in which occurred just prior to the great
Árd-Fheis of 1917.</p>
<p>At the South Longford election Mr. Joe McGuinness, who
was then still in penal servitude, was elected on the cry: <q>Put him
in to get him out</q>. Abstention was put forward, but was so little
upheld that he was returned with a majority of only 27.</p>
<p>At the East Clare election, though Mr. de Valera put
forward the abstentionist policy and was elected by a large majority,
he issued no election address, and at the three elections which
followed in South Armagh,<pb n="62">
 Waterford, and East Tyrone, the abstentionists were
defeated.</p>
<p>But the people were becoming educated, and the union of
all the various sects and leagues in the big organisation of Sinn
F&eacute;in, as we have seen, defined the national policy as
definitely abstentionist.</p>
<p>The Republic of Easter Week had not lived on, as is
supposed, supported afresh at each election, and endorsed finally in
the General Election of 1918. But the people grew to put their trust
in the new policy, and to believe that the men who stood for it would
do their best for Ireland, and at the General Election of 1918, fought
on the principle of self-determination, they put them in power.</p>
</div1>
<pb n="63">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>COLLAPSE OF THE TERROR </head>
<head>British Rule's Last Stages</head>
<head>What the Elections Meant</head>
<p>We have seen how in ancient Ireland the people were
themselves the guardians of their  land, doing all for themselves
according to their own laws and customs, as interpreted by the
Brehons, which gave them security, prosperity, and national greatness,
and how this was upset by the English determination to blot out Irish
ways, when came poverty, demoralisation and a false respect for
English standards and habits.</p>
<p>The English power to do this rested on military
occupation and on economic control. It had the added advantage of
social influence operating upon a people weakened and demoralised by
the state of dependence into which the English occupation had brought
them.</p>
<p>Military resistance was attempted. Parliamentary strategy
was tried. The attempts did not succeed. They failed because they did
not go to the root of the question.</p>
<p>The real cure had to be started&mdash;that the people
should recover belief in their own ways and ideas and put them into
practice. Secret societies were formed<pb n="64">
 and organised. The Land League came into existence. The
Gaelic League came. Sinn F&eacute;in grew and developed. All these
societies did much. But the effort had to be broadened into a national
movement to become irresistible. It became irresistible in the
Republican movement when it was backed by sufficient military force to
prevent the English forces from suppressing the national revival.</p>
<p>The challenge of Easter Week and its sacrifices increased
the growing national self-belief. All these things made a resistance
against which the English, with their superior forces, pitted
themselves in vain.</p>
<p>Ireland's story from 1918 to 1921 may be summed up as the
story of a struggle between our determination to govern ourselves and
to get rid of British government and the British determination to
prevent us from doing either. It was a struggle between two rival
Governments, the one an Irish Government resting on the will of the
people and the other an alien Government depending for its existence
upon military force&mdash;the one gathering more and more authority,
the other steadily losing ground and growing ever more desperate and
unscrupulous.</p>
<p>All the history of the three years must be read in the
light of that fact.</p>
<p>Ireland had never acquiesced in government by England.
Gone for ever were policies which were a tacit admission that a
foreign Government could bestow freedom, or a measure of freedom, upon
a nation which had never surrendered its national claim.</p>
<p>We could take our freedom. We would set up a Government
of our own and defend it. We would take the<pb n="65">
 government out of the hands of the foreigner, who had no
right to it, and who could exercise it only by force.</p>
<p>A war was being waged by England and her Allies in
defence, it was said, of the freedom of small nationalities, to
establish in such nations <q>the reign of law based upon the consent
of the governed</q>. We, too, proposed to establish in Ireland <q>the
reign of law based upon the consent of the governed</q>.</p>
<p>At the General Election of 1918 the Irish Parliamentary
Party was repudiated by the Irish people by a majority of over 70 per
cent. And they gave authority to their representatives to establish a
National Government. The National Government was set up in face of
great difficulties. D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann came into being.
British law was gradually superseded. Sinn F&eacute;in Courts were set
up. Commissions were appointed to investigate and report upon the
national resources of the country with a view to industrial revival.
Land courts were established which settled long-standing disputes.
Volunteer police were enrolled. (They were real police, to protect
life and property, not military police and police spies to act with an
enemy in attacks upon both.) A loan of &pound;400,000 was raised. The
local governing bodies of the country were directed, inspected, and
controlled by D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann. We established a bank to
finance societies which wished to acquire land.</p>
<p>But these facts must be concealed.</p>
<p>At first the British were content to ridicule the new
Government. Then, growing alarmed at its increasing authority,
attempts were made to check its activities by wholesale political
arrests.</p>
<pb n="66">
<p>The final phase of the struggle had begun.</p>
<p>In the first two years all violence was the work of the
British armed forces who in their efforts at suppression murdered
fifteen Irishmen and wounded nearly 400 men, women, and children.
Meetings were broken up everywhere. National newspapers were
suppressed. Over 1,000 men and women were arrested for political
offences, usually of the most trivial nature. Seventy-seven of the
national leaders were deported.</p>
<p>No police were killed during these two years. The only
disorder and bloodshed were the work of the British forces.</p>
<p>These forces were kept here or sent here by the British
Government to harass the development of Irish self-government. They
were intended to break up the national organisation. They were
intended to goad the people into armed resistance. Then they would
have the excuse which they hoped for. Then they could use wholesale
violence, and end up by the suppression of the national movement.</p>
<p>But they did not succeed.</p>
<p>In the municipal elections in January, 1920, the people
answered afresh. In the rural elections in May and June, 1920, the
people repeated their answer. The people supported their leaders and
their policy by even larger majorities than the majorities given by
the election in November, 1918.</p>
<p>The British Government now decided that a greater effort
was needed. The moment had come for a final desperate campaign.</p>
<p>The leading London newspaper, <title type="periodical">The Times</title>,
declared in a leading article of November 1st, 1920, that it was<pb n="67">
 <q>now generally admitted</q> that a deliberate policy of
violence had been <q>conceived and sanctioned in advance by an
influential section of the Cabinet</q>.</p>
<p>But to admit such a policy was impossible. It was
necessary to conceal the real object of the Reign of Terror, for the
destruction of the national movement, which was about to begin.</p>
<p>First, the ground had to be prepared. In August, 1920, a
law was passed <q>to restore law and order in Ireland</q>. This law in
reality abolished all law in Ireland, and left the lives and property
of the people defenceless before the British forces. It facilitated
and protected&mdash;and was designed to facilitate and
protect&mdash;those forces in the task they were about to undertake.
Coroners' inquests were prohibited, so that no inquiry could be made
into the acts of violence contemplated. National newspapers, that
could not be trusted to conceal the facts and to publish only supplied
information, were suppressed. Newspaper correspondents were
threatened.</p>
<p>The ground prepared, special instruments had to be
selected. <q>It is</q>, said the <title>London Times</title>,
<q>common knowledge that the Black and Tans were recruited from
ex-soldiers for a rough and dangerous task</q>. This <q>rough and
dangerous task</q>, which had been <q>conceived and sanctioned</q> by
the British Cabinet, was to be carried out under three headings.
Certain leading men, and Irish Army officers, were to be murdered,
their names being entered on a list <q>for definite clearance</q>. All
who worked for or supported the national movement were to be
imprisoned, and the general population was to be terrorised into
submission.</p>
<pb n="68">
<p>A special newspaper, <title>The Weekly Summary</title>,
was circulated amongst the Crownage to encourage them in their
<q>rough and dangerous task</q>. As an indication of its intention it
invited them in an early number <q>to make an appropriate hell</q> in
Ireland.</p>
<p>Excuses, for the purpose of concealment, had to be
invented. The public had to be prepared for the coming campaign. Mr.
Lloyd George in a speech in Carnarvon, October 7, 1920, spoke of the
Irish Republican Army as <q>a real murder gang</q>. We began to hear
of <q>steps necessary to put down a murderous conspiracy</q>. <q>We
have got murder by the throat</q>, said Mr. Lloyd George.</p>
<p>The <hi rend="quotes">murders</hi> were the legitimate
acts of self-defence which had been forced upon the Irish people by
English aggression. After two years of forbearance, we had begun to
defend ourselves and the life of our nation. We did not initiate the
war, nor were we allowed to select the battleground. When the British
Government, as far as lay in its power, deprived the Irish people of
arms, and employed every means to prevent them securing arms, and made
it a criminal (in large areas a capital) offence to carry arms, and,
at the same time, began and carried out a brutal and murderous
campaign against them and against their National Government, they
deprived themselves of any excuse for their violence and of any cause
of complaint against the Irish people for the means they took for
their protection.</p>
<p>For all the acts of violence committed in Ireland from
1916 to 1921 England, and England alone, is responsible. She willed
the conflict and fixed the form it was to take.</p>
<pb n="69">
<p>On the Irish side it took the form of disarming the
attackers. We took their arms and attacked their strongholds. We
organised our army and met the armed patrols and military expeditions
which were sent against us in the only possible way. We met them by an
organised and bold guerilla warfare.</p>
<p>But this was not enough. If we were to stand up against
the powerful military organisation arrayed against us something more
was necessary than a guerilla war in which small bands of our
warriors, aided by their knowledge of the country, attacked the larger
forces of the enemy and reduced their numbers. England could always
reinforce her army. She could replace every soldier that she lost.</p>
<p>But there were others indispensable for her purposes
which were not so easily replaced. To paralyse the British machine it
was necessary to strike at individuals. Without her spies England was
helpless. It was only by means of their accumulated and accumulating
knowledge that the British machine could operate.</p>
<p>Without their police throughout the country, how could
they find the men they <hi rend="quotes">wanted</hi>? Without their
criminal agents in the capital, how could they carry out that <hi rend="quotes">removal</hi> of the leaders that they considered
essential for their victory? Spies are not so ready to step into the
shoes of their departed confederates as are soldiers to fill up the
front line in honourable battle. And even when the new spy stepped
into the shoes of the old one, he could not step into the old one's
knowledge.</p>
<p>The most potent of these spies were Irishmen enlisted in
the British service and drawn from the<pb n="70">
 small farmer and labourer class. Well might every Irishman
at present ask himself if we were doing a wrong thing in getting rid
of the system which was responsible for bringing these men into the
ranks of the opponents of their own race.</p>
<p>We struck at individuals, and by so doing we cut their
lines of communication and we shook their morale. And we conducted the
conflict, difficult as it was, with the unequal terms imposed by the
enemy, as far as possible, according to the rules of war. Only the
British Government were attacked. Prisoners of war were treated
honourably and considerately, and were released after they had been
disarmed.</p>
<p>On the English side they waged a sort of war, but did not
respect the laws and usages of war. When our soldiers fell into their
hands they were <hi rend="quotes">murderers</hi>, to be dealt with  by
the bullet or the rope of the hangman. They were dealt with mostly by
the bullet. Strangely enough, when it became <hi rend="quotes">law</hi> that prisoners attempting to escape should be
shot, a considerable larger number of our prisoners <hi rend="quotes">attempted to escape</hi> than when the greatest penalty
to be expected was recapture.</p>
<p>The fact was that when the men whose names were <hi rend="quotes">upon the list</hi> were identified at once, they were
shot at once. When they were identified during a raid, they were taken
away and shot <hi rend="quotes">while attempting to escape</hi>. Or
they were brought to Dublin Castle or other place of detention and
questioned under torture, and on refusing to give information were
murdered because they <hi rend="quotes">revolted</hi>, <hi rend="quotes">seized arms</hi>, and <hi rend="quotes">attacked their
guards</hi>.</p>
<pb n="71">
<p>For these murders no members of the British forces were
brought to justice. The perpetrators were but <hi rend="quotes">enforcing the law</hi>&mdash;<hi rend="quotes">restoring
law and order in Ireland <gap reason="ellipsis"></hi>. No matter now
damaging the evidence, the prisoners were invariably acquitted.
Necessarily so. They were but carrying out the duties which they had
been specially hired at a very high rate of pay to execute.</p>
<p>To excuse the terrible campaign, the world began to hear
of <hi rend="quotes">reprisals</hi>, <hi rend="quotes">the natural
outbreaks of the rank and file</hi>, A campaign which could no longer
be concealed had to be excused&mdash;a campaign in which sons were
murdered before the eyes of their mothers&mdash;in which fathers were
threatened with death and done to death because they would not tell
the whereabouts of their sons&mdash;in which men were made to crawl
along the streets, and were taken and stripped and flogged, and sent
back naked to their homes&mdash;in which towns and villages and homes
were burned, and women and children left shivering in the fields.</p>
<p>Excuses were necessary for such deeds, and we began to
hear of <hi rend="quotes">some hitting back</hi> by <hi rend="quotes">the gallant men who are doing their duty in
Ireland</hi>. The London <title>Westminster Gazette</title> of <date value="1920-10-27">October 27, 1920</date>, published a message from
their own correspondent at Cork which gives an instance of the way in
which these <hi rend="quotes">gallant men</hi> performed their <hi rend="quotes">duty</hi>: <q>A motor lorry of uniformed men, with
blackened faces, arrived in Lixane from the Ballybunion district.
Before entering the village they pulled up at the house of a farmer
named <pb n="72"> Patrick McElligott. His two sons were pulled outside
the door in night attire in a downpour of rain, cruelly beaten with
the butt ends of rifles and kicked. The party then proceeded to the
house of a young man named Stephen Grady, where they broke in the
door. Grady escaped in his night attire through the back window.
Searchlights were turned on him, but he made good his escape through
the fields. His assistant, named Nolan, was knocked unconscious on the
floor with a rifle, and subsequently brought outside the door almost
nude and a tub of water poured over him. The party then broke into the
room where Miss Grady and her mother were sleeping, pulled Miss Grady
out on the road and cut her hair</q>.</p>
<p>The account tells of the burning of the creamery and of
further escapades of the <hi rend="quotes">gallant men</hi> on their
return through the village.</p>
<p>An instance symbolic of the fight, of the devotion and
self- sacrifice on the one side, and the brutish insensibility on the
other, was the murder on <date value="1920-10-25">October 25,
1920</date>, of young Willie Gleeson, of Finaghy, Co. Tipperary.
Officers of the British Army Intelligence Staff raided the house of
his father, looking for another of his sons. Hearing his father
threatened with death if he would not (or could not) disclose where
his son was, Willie came from his bed and offered himself in place of
his father. The offer was accepted, and he was taken out into the yard
and shot dead.</p>
<pb n="73">
<p>On the same night the same party (presumably) murdered
Michael Ryan, of Curraghduff, Co. Tipperary, in the presence of his
sister. Ryan was lying ill in bed with pneumonia and the sister
described the scene in which one officer held a candle over the bed to
give better light to his comrade in carrying out the deed.</p>
<p>Such <hi rend="quotes">reprisals</hi> could not be
explained as <hi rend="quotes">a severe hitting back</hi>, and a new
excuse was forthcoming. They were suggested as a just retribution
falling upon murderers.</p>
<p>Mr. Lloyd George was <q>firmly convinced that the men who
are suffering in Ireland are the men who are engaged in a murderous
conspiracy</q>. At the London Guildhall he announced that the police
were <q>getting the right men</q>. As it became more and more
difficult to conceal the truth the plea of unpremeditation was
dropped, and the violence was explained as legitimate acts of self-
defence.</p>
<p>But when the Terror, growing evermore violent, and,
consequently, ever more ineffective, failed to break the spirit of the
Irish people&mdash;failed as it was bound to fail&mdash;concealment
was no longer possible, and the true explanation was blurted out when
Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law declared that their acts were
necessary to destroy the authority of the Irish National Government
which <q>has all the symbols and all the realities of
government</q>.</p>
<p>When such a moment had been reached, there was only one
course left open for the British Prime Minister&mdash;to invite the
Irish leaders, the <hi rend="quotes">murderers</hi>, and <hi rend="quotes">heads of the murder gang</hi> to discuss with him terms
of peace. The invitation was:<pb n="74">
 <q>To discuss terms of peace&mdash;to ascertain how the
association of Ireland with the community of nations known as the
British Empire may best be reconciled with Irish national
aspirations</q>.</p>
<p>We all accepted that invitation.</p>
</div1>
<pb n="75">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>PARTITION ACT'S FAILURE</head>
<head>Unity as a Means to  Full Freedom</head>
<p>While the Terror in Ireland was at its height the British
Cabinet passed the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, better known as
the Partition Act. It is not quite clear what was in the minds of the
British Prime Minister and his Cabinet in passing this measure. Nobody
representing any Irish constituency voted for it in the British
Parliament.</p>
<p>Nationalist Ireland took advantage of its election
machinery only to repudiate the Act and to secure a fresh mandate from
the people. Otherwise the Act was completely ignored by us. In the Six
Counties almost one-fourth of the candidates were returned in
non-recognition of the Act, while Sir James Craig himself said, they
(he and his friends) accepted the parliament conferred upon them by
the Act only as <q>a great sacrifice</q>.</p>
<p>The Act was probably intended for propaganda purposes. It
might do to allay world criticism&mdash;to draw attention away from
British violence for a month or two longer. At the end of that period
Ireland would, it was hoped, have been terrorised into submission.<pb n="76">
 That desired end gained, a chastened nation would accept
the crumb of freedom offered by the Act. Britain, with her idea of the
principles of self-determination satisfied, would be able to present a
bold front again before the world.</p>
<p>There was, probably, too, an understanding with the
Orange leaders. The act entrenched them (or appeared to) within the
Six Counties. No doubt, both the British and Orange leaders had it in
mind that if a bigger settlement had ultimately to be made with
Ireland, a position was secured from which they could bargain.</p>
<p>In any <hi rend="quotes">settlement</hi> the North-East
was to be let down gently by the British Government. Pampered for so
long they had learned to dictate to and to bully the nation to which
they professed to be loyal. They must be treated with tact in regard
to any change of British policy towards Ireland.</p>
<p>They had been very useful. When the Partition Act failed
to achieve what was expected of it, and when the Terror failed, a real
settlement with Ireland became inevitable. The North-East was now no
longer useful to prevent Irish freedom, but she could be useful in
another way. She could buttress Britain's determination that, while
agreeing to our freedom, Ireland must remain associated with the
British group of nations. Britain's reason for insisting upon this
association is that she believes it necessary for her own national
safety.</p>
<p>Were Britain to go to that, her maximum, it could be
represented to us that the North-East would never acquiesce in more.
It could be represented to them<pb n="77">
 that in such a settlement they would be preserving that
which they professed to have at heart, the sentimental tie with the
Empire to which they were supposed to be attached.</p>
<p>North-East Ulster had been created and maintained not for
her own advantage, but to uphold Britain's policy. Everything was done
to divide the Irish people and to keep them apart. If we could be made
to believe we were the enemies of each other, the real enemy would be
overlooked. In this policy Britain has been completely successful. She
petted a minority into becoming her agents with the double advantage
of maintaining her policy and keeping us divided.</p>
<p>Long ago, setting chief against chief served its purpose
in providing the necessary excuse for declaring our lands forfeited.
Plantations by Britain's agents followed. The free men of Ireland
became serfs on the lands of their fathers. Ireland, by these means,
was converted into a British beef farm, and when by force of change
and circumstances these means became outworn the good results were
continued by setting religion against religion and then worker against
worker.</p>
<p>If we were to be kept in subjection we must be kept
apart. One creed, the creed of the minority, was selected to be used
for the purpose of division and domination. <q>A Protestant garrison
was in possession of the land, magistracy, and power of the country,
holding that property under the tenure of British power and supremacy,
and ready at every instant to crush the rising of the conquered</q>.
Manufactures had become discouraged and destroyed throughout the<pb n="78">
 greater part of Ireland. This was the outcome of British
jealousy, and was in accordance with Britain's settled policy towards
Ireland.</p>
<p>A revival took place during Grattan's Parliament, partly
owing to the war conditions prevailing, but also due to the protection
given to industry by the Parliament. The good effect lived on for a
little (only for a little) after the Union. A deep depression took
place in agriculture at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and
agriculture had become the sole industry of the Catholic population.
This gave the opportunity to point to the supposed superior qualities
of the Protestant industrial worker and to prejudice him still further
against his Catholic countrymen.</p>
<p>But North-East Ulster had not flourished and could not
flourish under a policy devised for English purposes. It has resulted
only in a general decline in prosperity throughout the whole country,
only in an uneconomic distribution of the disappearing wealth, only,
by contrast, in an appearance of prosperity in one section of the
people as compared with the other. The population of Ulster has
decreased by one-third since the 'forties. It is true that the
population of Belfast has increased in the last two generations, but
the two counties of Antrim and Down, in which Belfast is situated,
contain to- day fewer people than before the Famine of 1846-8.
Emigration has steadily increased. The number of emigrants from Down
and Antrim, including Belfast, has in the last ten years more than
doubled that of the preceding ten years.</p>
<p>If there has been any gain in wealth in North-East Ulster
as compared with the rest of Ireland, it is obvious<pb n="79">
 that the wealth has not percolated through to the workers
for their weal. They, too, like their poor countrymen in Connemara,
have to seek better economic conditions in America and other
countries.</p>
<p>Capitalism has come, not only to serve Britain's purpose
by keeping the people divided, but, by setting worker against worker,
it has profited by exploiting both. It works on religious prejudices.
It represents to the Protestant workman any attempt by the Catholic
workman to get improved conditions as the cloak for some insidious
political game.</p>
<p>Such a policy&mdash;the policy of divide and rule, and
the opportunity it gives for private economic oppression&mdash;could
bring nothing but evil and hardship to the whole of Ireland.</p>
<p>If Britain had not maintained her interference and
carried out her policy the planters would have become absorbed in the
old Irish way. Protestant and Catholic would have learned to live side
by side in amity and co-operation. Freedom would have come long ago.
Prosperity would have come with it. Ireland would have taken her
rightful place in the world, the place due to her by her natural
advantages, the place due to her by the unique character of her
people.</p>
<p>Who will not say that from Britain's policy it is the
North-East which has suffered most? She has lost economically and
spiritually. She has suffered in reputation by allowing herself to be
used for anti-national purposes. She might have gained real wealth as
a sturdy and independent section of the population. She exchanged it
for a false ascendancy over her countrymen, which has brought her
nothing but dishonour. A<pb n="80">
 large portion of her fair province has lost all its native
distinctiveness. It has become merely an inferior Lancashire. Who
would visit Belfast or Lisburn or Lurgan to see the Irish people at
home? That is the unhappy fate of the North-East. It is neither
English nor Irish.</p>
<p>But what of the future? The North-East is about to get
back into the pages of Irish history. Being no longer useful to
prevent Irish freedom, forces of persuasion and pressure are embodied
in the Treaty of Peace, which has been signed by the Irish and British
Plenipotentiaries, to induce North-East Ulster to join in a united
Ireland.</p>
<p>If they join in, the Six Counties will certainly have a
generous measure of local autonomy. If they stay out, the decision of
the Boundary Commission, arranged for in Clause 12, would be certain
to deprive <hi rend="quotes">Ulster</hi> of Fermanagh and Tyrone.</p>
<p>Shorn of those counties, she would shrink into
insignificance. The burdens and financial restrictions of the
Partition Act will remain on North-East Ulster if she decides to stay
out. No lightening of these burdens or restrictions can be effected by
the English Parliament without the consent of Ireland. Thus, union is
certain. The only question for North-East Ulster is&mdash;How
soon?</p>
<p>And that how soon may depend largely upon us, upon
ourselves of Nationalist Ireland. What if the Orangemen were to get
new allies in place of the departing British?</p>
<p>The opposition of Mr. de Valera and his followers to the
Treaty is already prejudicing the chances of unity. As the division in
our own ranks has become more<pb n="81">
 apparent, the attitude of Sir James Craig has hardened.
The organised ruffianism of the North-East has broken out afresh.
British troops have been hurried to Ulster. The evacuation has been
suspended.</p>
<p>So long as there are British troops in Ireland so long
will the Orangemen hold out. While they can look to Britain they will
not turn towards the South. They are not giving up their ascendancy
without a struggle. Any Irishman who creates and supports division
amongst us is standing in the way of a united Ireland. While the
Treaty is threatened the British will remain. While the British remain
the North-East will keep apart. Just as the evil British policy of
divide and rule is about to end for ever, we are threatened with a new
division, jeopardising the hopes of Irish rule.</p>
<p>No geographical barrier could have succeeded in dividing
Ireland. The four or six counties are not counties of Great Britain;
they are counties of Ireland. While Britain governed Ireland the
North-East could remain apart, she giving allegiance where we gave
revolt. Once England surrenders her right to govern us (as she has
done under the Treaty) she surrenders her power to divide us. With the
British gone the incentive to division is gone.</p>
<p>The fact of union is too strong to be interfered with
without the presence of the foreigner bent on dividing us. With the
British gone the Orangeman loses that support which alone made him
strong enough to keep his position of domination and isolation.
Without British support he becomes what he is, one of a minority in
the Irish Nation. His rights are the same<pb n="82">
 as those of every Irishman, but he has no rights other
than those.</p>
<p>But Britain leaves behind a formidable legacy in the
partition of view. That is there and it has to be dealt with. It is
for us, to whom union is an article of our national faith, to deal
with it.</p>
<p>Once the British are gone, I believe we can win our
countrymen to allegiance to our common country. Let us convince them
of our good will towards them. The first way of doing this is unity
among ourselves.</p>
<p>We have the task before us to impregnate our northern
countrymen with the national outlook. We have a million Protestant
Irishmen to convert out of our small population of four-and-a-half
millions. Is not that incentive enough to cause us to join together to
win a far greater victory than ever we got against the British? If we
could have won that victory, there would have been no enemy to
vanquish.</p>
<p>The tendency of the sentiment in the North-East, when not
interfered with, was national, and in favour of freedom and unity. In
that lies our hope.</p>
<p>It is this serious internal problem which argues for the
attainment of the final steps of freedom by evolution rather than by
force&mdash;to give time to the North-East to learn to revolve in the
Irish orbit and to get out of the orbit of Great Britain&mdash;in
fact, internal association with Ireland, external association with
Great Britain.</p>
<p>In acquiescing in a peace which involved some
postponement of the fulfilment of our national sentiment, by agreeing
to some association of our Irish nation with the British nations, we
went a long way<pb n="83">
 towards meeting the sentiment of the North-East in its
supposed attachment to Great Britain. With such association Britain
will have no ground (nor power) for interference, and the North-East
no genuine cause for complaint.</p>
<p>Had we been able to establish a Republic at once (we are
all now agreed that that was not possible), we would have had to use
our resources to coerce North-East Ulster into submission. Will anyone
contend that such coercion, if it had succeeded, would have had the
lasting effects which conversion on our side and acquiescence on
theirs will produce?</p>
<p>The North-East has to be nationalised. Union must come
first, unity first as a means to full freedom. Our freedom then will
be built on the unshakable foundation of a united people, united in
every way, in economic co-operation, and in national outlook.</p>
<p>I have emphasised our desire for national unity above all
things. I have stated our desire to win the North-East for Ireland. We
mean to do our best in a peaceful way, and if we fail the fault will
not be ours.</p>
<p>The freedom we have secured may unquestionably be
incomplete. But it is the nearest approach to an absolutely
independent and unified Ireland which we can achieve amongst ourselves
at the present moment. It certainly gives us the best foothold for
final progress.</p>
<p>Let us not waste our energies brooding over <emph>the more we might have got</emph>. Let us look upon <emph>what we have got</emph>. It is a measure of freedom with
which we can make an actual, living Ireland when left to our selves.
Let us realise that the free Ireland obtained by<pb n="84">
 the Treaty is the greatest common measure of freedom
obtainable now, and the most pregnant for future development.</p>
<p>The freedom we have got gives us scope for all that we
can achieve by the most strenuous united effort of the present
generation to rebuild Ireland.</p>
<p>Can we not all join together to save the Irish
ideal&mdash;freedom and unity&mdash;and to make it a reality?</p>
</div1>
<pb n="85">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>WHY BRITAIN SOUGHT IRISH PEACE</head>
<head>Her Failure to Subjugate Us</head>
<head>Making of Treaty</head>
<p>Peace with Ireland, or a good case for further, and what
would undoubtedly have been more intensive, war, had become a
necessity to the British Cabinet. Politicians of both the great
historic parties in Britain had become united in the conviction that
it was essential for the British to put themselves right with the
world. Referring to the peace offer which Mr. Lloyd George, on behalf
of his Cabinet and Parliament, had made to Mr. de Valera in July, 1921
(an offer which was not acceptable to the Irish people) Mr. Churchill
said on September 24th at Dundee: <q>This offer is put forward, not as
the offer of a party government confronted by a formidable opposition
and anxious to bargain for the Irish vote, but with the united
sanction of both the historic parties in the State, and, indeed, all
parties. It is a national offer</q>.</p>
<p>Yes. It was a national offer, representing the necessity
of the British to clean their Irish slate. The Premiers of the Free
Nations of the British Commonwealth were in England fresh from their
people. They were able to<pb n="86">
 express the views of their people. The Washington
Conference was looming ahead. Mr. Lloyd George's Cabinet had its
economic difficulties at home. Their relationships with foreign
countries were growing increasingly unhappy, the recovery of world
opinion was becoming&mdash;in fact, had become&mdash;indispensable.
Ireland must be disposed of by means of a <hi rend="quotes">generous</hi> peace. If Ireland refused that settlement,
we could be shown to be irreconcilables. Then, Britain would again
have a free hand for whatever further actions were necessary <q>to
restore law and order</q> in a country that would not accept the
responsibility of doing so for itself.</p>
<p>This movement by the British Cabinet did not indicate any
real change of heart on the part of Britain towards Ireland. Any
stirrings of conscience were felt only by a minority. This minority
was largely the same minority that had been opposed to Britain's
intervention in the European War. They were the peaceful group of the
English people that is averse from bloodshed on principle, no matter
for what purpose, or by whom, carried out. They were opposed to the
killing we had to do in selfdefence quite as much as they were opposed
to the aggressive killing of our people by the various British agents
sent here. These pacifists were almost without any political power and
had very little popular support.</p>
<p>Peace had become necessary. It was not because Britain
repented in the very middle of her Black and Tan terror. It was not
because she could not subjugate us before world conscience was
awakened and was able to make itself felt. <q>The progress of the
coercive attempts made by the Government have proved in a <pb n="87">
high degree disappointing</q>, said Lord Birkenhead, frankly, in the
British House of Lords on August 10.</p>
<p>What was the position on each side? Right was on our
side. World sympathy was on our side (passive sympathy, largely). We
had shown a mettle that was a fair indication of what we could do
again if freedom were denied us. We were united; we had taken out of
the hands of the enemy a good deal of government. We knew it would be
no easy matter for him to recover his lost ground in that regard. We
had prevented the enemy so far from defeating us.</p>
<p>We had not, however, succeeded in getting the government
entirely into our hands, and we had not succeeded in beating the
British out of Ireland, militarily.</p>
<p>We had unquestionably seriously interfered with their
government, and we had prevented them from conquering us. That was the
sum of our achievement.</p>
<p>We had reached in July last the high-water mark of what
we could do in the way of economic and military resistance.</p>
<p>The British had a bad case. World sympathy was not with
them. They had been oppressing us with murderous violence. At the same
time they preached elsewhere the new world doctrine of <hi rend="quotes">government by consent of the governed</hi>. They, too,
had reached their high-water mark. They had the power, the force, the
armament, to re-conquer us, but they hesitated to exercise that power
without getting a world mandate. But, though they had failed in their
present attempt, their troops were still in possession of our island.
At the time of the Truce they were, in fact, drafting additional and
huge levies into Ireland.</p>
<pb n="88">
<p>We had recognised our inability to beat the British out
of Ireland, and we recognised what that inability meant. Writing in
the weekly called <title>The Republic of Ireland</title> on 21st
February last, Mr. Barton, a former member of the <frn lang="ga">D&aacute;il</frn> Cabinet, stated, that, before the Truce
of July 11th it <q>had become plain that it was physically impossible
to secure Ireland's ideal of a completely isolated Republic otherwise
than by driving the overwhelmingly superior British forces out of the
country</q>.</p>
<p>we also recognised facts in regard to North-East
Ulster.We clearly recognised that our national view was not shared by
the majority in the four north-eastern counties. We knew that the
majority had refused to give allegiance to an Irish Republic.</p>
<p>Before we entered the Conference we realised these facts
among ourselves. We had abandoned, for the time being, the hope of
achieving the ideal of independence under the Republican form.</p>
<p>It is clear, that the British on their side knew that
unless we obtained a real, substantial freedom we would resist to the
end at no matter what cost. But they also knew that they could make a
<hi rend="quotes">generous</hi> settlement with us. They knew equally
well that an offer of such a settlement would disarm the world
criticism which could no longer be ignored. They knew they could do
these two major things and still preserve the <hi rend="quotes">nations of the British Commonwealth</hi> from violent
disruption.</p>
<p>The British believed (and still believe) that they need
not, and could not, acquiesce in secession by us, that they need not,
and could not, acquiesce in the<pb n="89">
 establishment of a Republican government so close to their
own shores. This would be regarded by them as a challenge&mdash;a
defiance which would be a danger to the very safety of England
herself. It would be presented in this light to the people of England.
It would be represented as a disruption of the British Empire and
would form a headline for other places. South Africa would be the
first to follow our example and Britain's security and prestige would
be gone. The British spokesmen believed they dared not agree to such a
forcible breaking away. It would show not only their Empire to be
intolerable, but themselves feeble and futile.</p>
<p>Looking forward through the operation of world forces to
the development of freedom, it is certain that at some time
acquiescence in the ultimate separation of the units will come. The
American colonies of Britain got their freedom by a successful war.
Canada, South Africa, and the other States of the British Commonwealth
are approaching the same end by peaceful growth. In this Britain
acquiesces. Separation by peaceful stages of evolution does not expose
her and does not endanger her.</p>
<p>In judging the merits, in examining the details, of the
peace we brought back these factors must be taken into
consideration.</p>
<p>Before accepting the invitation sent by Mr. Lloyd George,
on behalf of his Cabinet, to a Conference, we endeavoured to get an
unfettered basis for that Conference. We did not succeed. It is true
we reasserted our claim that our Plenipotentiaries could only enter
such a Conference as the spokesmen of an independent Sovereign State.
It is equally true that this claim<pb n="90">
 was tacitly admitted by Britain in inviting us to
negotiate at all, but the final phase was that we accepted the
invitation <q>to ascertain how the association of Ireland with the
group of nations known as the British Commonwealth may best be
reconciled with Irish national aspirations</q>.</p>
<p>The invitation opened up the questions, What is the
position of the nations forming the British Commonwealth, and how
could our national aspirations best be reconciled with associations
with those nations? Legally and obsoletely the nations of the
Commonwealth are in a position of subservience to Britain.
Constitutionally they occupy to- day a position of freedom and of
equality with their mother country.</p>
<p>Sir Robert Borden, in the Peace Treaty debate in the
Canadian House on September 2nd, 1919, claimed for Canada a
<q>complete sovereignty</q>. This claim has never been challenged by
Britain. It has, in fact, been allowed by Mr. Bonar Law. General
Smuts, in a debate on the same subject in the Union House on September
10th, 1919, said: <q>We have secured a position of absolute equality
and freedom, not only among the other States of the Empire, but among
the other nations of the world</q>.</p>
<p>In other words, the former dependent Dominions of the
British Commonwealth are now free and secure in their freedom.</p>
<p>That position of freedom, and of freedom from
interference, we have secured in the Treaty. The Irish
Plenipotentiaries forced from the British Plenipotentiaries the
admission that our status in association with the British nations
would be the constitutional status of Canada.</p>
<pb n="91">
<p>The definition of that status is the bedrock of the
Treaty. It is the recognition of our right to freedom, and a freedom
which shall not be challenged.</p>
<p>No arrangements afterwards mentioned in the Treaty,
mutual arrangements agreed upon between our nation and the British
nation, can interfere with or derogate from the position which the
mention of that status gives us.</p>
<p>The Treaty is but the expression of the terms upon which
the British were willing to evacuate&mdash;the written recognition of
the freedom which such evacuation in itself secures.</p>
<p>We got in the Treaty the strongest guarantees of freedom
and security that we could have got on paper, the strongest guarantees
that we could have got in a Treaty between Great Britain and
ourselves. The most realistic demonstration of the amount of real
practical freedom acquired was the evacuation of the British troops
and the demobilisation of the military police force. In place of the
British troops we have our own army. In place of the Royal Irish
Constabulary we are organising our own Civic Guard&mdash;our own
People's Police Force.</p>
<p>These things are the things of substance; these things
are the safe and genuine proof that the status secured by the Treaty
is what we claim it to be. They are the plainest definition of our
independence; they are the clearest recognition of our national
rights. They give us the surest power to maintain both our
independence and rights.</p>
<p>It is the evacuation by the British which gives us our
freedom. The Treaty is the guarantee that that<pb n="92">
 freedom shall not be violated. The States of the British
Commonwealth have the advantage over us of distance. They have the
security which that distance gives. They have their freedom. Whatever
their nominal position in relation to Britain may be, they can
maintain their freedom aided by their distance.</p>
<p>We have not the advantage of distance. Our nearness would
be a disadvantage to us under whatever form, and in whatever
circumstances, we had obtained our freedom (in case of a feeling of
hostility between the two countries, the nearness is, of course, more
than a disadvantage to us&mdash;it is a standing danger). It was the
task of the Plenipotentiaries to overcome this geographical condition
in so far as any written arrangement could overcome it.</p>
<p>We succeeded in securing a written recognition of our
status. The Treaty clauses covering this constitute a pledge that we
shall be as safe from interference as Canada is safe owing to the fact
of her four thousand miles of geographical separation.</p>
<p>Our immunity can never be challenged without challenging
the immunity of Canada. Having the same constitutional status as
Canada, a violation of our freedom would be a challenge to the freedom
of Canada. It gives a security which we ought not lightly to despise.
No such security would have been reached by the external association
aimed at in Document No. 2.</p>
<p>The Treaty is the signed agreement between Britain and
ourselves. It is the recognition of our freedom by Britain, and it is
the assurance that, having withdrawn her troops, Britain will not
again attempt to interfere with that freedom. The free nations of the<pb n="93">
 Commonwealth are witnesses to Britain's signature.</p>
<p>The occupation of our ports for defensive purposes might
appear to be a challenge to our security. It is not. The naval
facilities are granted by us to Britain, and are accepted by her in
the Treaty as by one independent nation from another by international
agreement. For any purpose of interference with us these facilities
cannot be used.</p>
<p>At the best, these facilities are, the British say,
necessary for the protection of the arteries of their economic and
commercial life. At the worst, they are but the expression of the fact
that we are at present militarily weaker. Negotiations, therefore
treaties, are the expressions of adjustments, of agreements, between
two nations as to the terms on which one side will acquiesce in the
proposals of the other.</p>
<p>The arrangement provided in the Treaty in regard to
North-East Ulster is also but a matter of agreement between ourselves
and Britain. It is an agreement by us that we will deal with the
difficulty created by Britain. It is an assurance that we will give
the North-East certain facilities to enable them to take their place
willingly in the Irish Nation.</p>
<p>The maligned Treaty Oath was a further admission wrung
from Britain of the real relationship between the British nations.
Canada and South Africa continue to swear allegiance to King George,
his heirs, successors, etc. They give an oath in keeping with their
obsolete position of independence, but out of keeping with their
actual position of freedom. Mr. de Valera's alternative oath
recognised the King of England as head of the Association&mdash;a head
inferring subordinates. The<pb n="94">
 Treaty Oath, however, expresses faithfulness only as
symbolical of that association, and is, therefore, really a
declaration that each party will be faithful to the compact.</p>
<p>The Irish Plenipotentiaries have been described as
<q>incompetent amateurs</q>. They were, it is said, cajoled and
tricked by the wily and experienced British Prime Minister. By means
of the fight we put up in the war, by means of the fight we put up in
the negotiations, we got the British to evacuate our country. Not only
to evacuate it militarily, but to evacuate it socially and
economically as well. In addition, we got from the British a signed
undertaking to respect the freedom which these evacuations give
us.</p>
<p>We acquiesced, in return, to be associated with the
British Commonwealth of Nations for certain international purposes. We
granted to Britain certain naval facilities.</p>
<p>There is the bargain. It is for the Irish and for our
friends the world over to judge whether the <q>incompetent
amateurs</q> who formed the Irish delegation of Plenipotentiaries
forgot their country in making it. If our national aspirations could
only have been expressed by the full Republican ideal, then they were
not, and never could be, reconciled with what was understood by
<q>association with the group of nations known as the British
Empire</q>.</p>
<p>By accepting that invitation we agreed, however some may
now deceive themselves and attempt to deceive others, that we would
acquiesce in some association. In return for that acquiescence we
expected something tangible&mdash;evacuation, abandonment of<pb n="95">
 British aggression. If we had been martially victorious
over Britain there would have been no question of such
acquiescence.</p>
<p>Now, if that is so, and it is so, the surrender of some
national sentiment was for the time unavoidable. The British Empire,
the British Commonwealth, or the British League of Free
Nations&mdash;it does not matter what name you call it&mdash;is what
it is. It is what it is, with all its trappings of feudalism, its
symbols of monarchy, its feudal phraseology, its obsolete oaths of
allegiance, its King a figurehead having no individual power as King,
maintaining the unhealthy atmosphere of mediaeval subservience
translated into modern snobbery. All this is doubly offensive to us,
offensive to our Gaelic instincts of social equality which recognises
only an aristocracy of the mind, and offensive from the memories of
hundreds of years of tyranny carried out in the name of the British
King.</p>
<p>Those who could not, or who would not, look these facts
in the face blame us now, and more than blame us. They find fault with
us that, in agreeing to some kind of association of our nation with
the British nations, we were not able, by the touch of a magic wand,
to get rid of all the language of Empire. That is not a fair attitude.
We like that language no more, perhaps less, than do those who wish to
make us responsible for its preservation. It is Britain's affair, not
ours, that she cares to preserve these prevarications.</p>
<p>Let us look to what we have undoubtedly gained and not to
what we might have gained. Let us see how the maximum value can be
realised from that gain. If we would only put away dreams, and face
realities,<pb n="96">
 nearly all the things that count we have now for our
country.</p>
<p>What we want is that Ireland shall be Ireland in spirit
as well as in name. It is not any verbiage about sovereignty which can
assure our power to shape our destinies. It is to grasp everything
which is of benefit to us, to manage these things for ourselves, to
get rid of the unIrish atmosphere and influence, to make our
government and restore our national life on the lines which suit our
national character and our national requirements best. It is now only
fratricidal strife which can prevent us from making the Gaelic Ireland
which is our goal.</p>
<p>The test of the Government we want is whether it conforms
with Irish tradition and national character? Whether it will suit us
and enable us to live socially and prosper? Whether we can achieve
something which our old free Irish democratic life would have
developed into?</p>
<p>We have shaken off the foreign domination which prevented
us from living our own life in our own way. We are now free to do
this. It depends on ourselves alone whether we can do it.</p>
</div1>
<pb n="97">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>DISTINCTIVE CULTURE</head>
<head>Ancient Irish Civiliation</head>
<head>Glories of the Past</head>
<p>It was not only by the British armed occupation that
Ireland was subdued. It was by means of the destruction, after great
effort, of our Gaelic civilization. This destruction brought upon us
the loss almost of nationality itself. For the last 100 years or more
Ireland has been a nation in little more than in name.</p>
<p>Britain wanted us for her own economic ends, as well as
to satisfy her love of conquest. It was found, however, that Ireland
was not an easy country to conquer, nor to use for the purposes for
which conquests are made. We had a native culture. We had a social
system of our own. We had an economic organisation. We had a code of
laws which fitted us.</p>
<p>These were such in their beauty, their honesty, their
recognition of right and justice, and in their strength, that
foreigners coming to our island brought with them nothing of like
attractiveness to replace them. These foreigners accepted Irish
civilization, forgot their own, and eagerly became absorbed into the
Irish race.</p>
<pb n="98">
<p>Ireland, unlike Britain, had never become a part of the
Roman Empire. Even if the Romans had invaded Ireland, and had been
able to get a foothold, it is not probable that they would have
succeeded in imposing their form of government. At that time our
native civilization had become well advanced. It had advanced far past
the primitive social state of the Britons and of other of the North
European peoples.</p>
<p>And it had, through its democratic basis, which would
have been strengthened and adapted as time went on, a health and
permanence which would have enabled it to withstand the rivalry of the
autocratic government of Rome, which always had in it the seeds of
decay.</p>
<p>The Romans invaded Britain and imposed their government
till it was destroyed by fresh invaders. And the history of England,
unlike the history of Ireland, was one in which each new invasion
altered the social polity of the people. Foreigners were not absorbed
as in Ireland. England was affected by every fresh incursion, and
English civilization to-day is the reflection of such changes.</p>
<p>The Roman armies did not come to Ireland. But Ireland was
known to the merchants of the Empire, who brought with them not only
commerce but art and culture. Ireland took from them what was of
advantage, and our civilization went on growing in strength and
harmony. It grew more and more to fit the Irish people, and became the
expression of them. It could never have been destroyed except by
deliberate uprooting aided by military violence.</p>
<p>The Irish social and economic system was democratic.<pb n="99">
 It was simple and harmonious. The people had security in
their rights, and just law. And, suited to them, their economic life
progressed smoothly. Our people had leisure for the things in which
they took delight. They had leisure for the cultivation of the mind,
by the study of art, literature, and the traditions. They developed
character and bodily strength by acquiring skill in military exercise
and in the national games.</p>
<p>The pertinacity of Irish civilization was due to the
democratic basis of its economic system, and the aristocracy of its
culture.</p>
<p>It was the reverse of Roman civilization in which the
State was held together by a central authority, controlling and
defending it, the people being left to themselves in all social and
intellectual matters. Highly organised, Roman civilization was
powerful, especially for subduing and dominating other races, for a
time. But not being rooted in the interests and respect of the people
themselves, it could not survive.</p>
<p>Gaelic civilization was quite different. The people of
the whole nation were united, not by material forces, but by spiritual
ones. Their unity was not of any military solidarity. It came from
sharing the same traditions. It came from honouring the same heroes,
from inheriting the same literature, from willing obedience to the
same law, the law which was their own law and reverenced by them.</p>
<p>They never exalted a central authority. Economically they
were divided up into a number of larger and smaller units. Spiritually
and socially they were one people.</p>
<pb n="100">
<p>Each community was independent and complete within its
own boundaries. The land belonged to the people. It was held for the
people by the Chief of the Clan. He was their trustee. He secured his
position by the will of the people only. His successor was elected by
the people.</p>
<p>The privileges and duties of the chiefs, doctors,
lawyers, bards, were the same throughout the country. The schools were
linked together in a national system. The bards and historians
travelled from one community to another. The schools for the study of
law, medicine, history, military skill, belonged to the whole nation,
and were frequented by those who were chosen by each community to be
their scholars.</p>
<p>The love of learning and of military skill was the
tradition of the whole people. They honoured not kings nor chiefs as
kings and chiefs, but their heroes and their great men. Their men of
high learning ranked with the kings and sat beside them in equality at
the high table.</p>
<p>It was customary for all the people to assemble together
on fixed occasions to hear the law expounded and the old heroic tales
recited. The people themselves contributed. They competed with each
other in the games. These assemblies were the expression of our Irish
civilization and one of the means by which it was preserved.</p>
<p>Thus Ireland was a country made up of a large number of
economically independent units. But in the things of the mind and
spirit the nation was one.</p>
<p>This democratic social polity, with the exaltation of the
things of the mind and character, are the essence<pb n="101">
 of ancient Irish civilization, and must provide the
keynote for the new.</p>
<p>It suited our character and genius. While we were able to
preserve it no outside enemy had any power against us. While it
survived our subjection was impossible. But our invaders learned its
strength and set out to destroy it.</p>
<p>English civilization, while it may suit the English
people, could only be alien to us. It is English civilization,
fashioned out of their history. For us it is a misfit. It is a
garment, not something within us. We are mean, clumsy, and ungraceful,
wearing it. It exposes all our defects while giving us no scope to
display our good qualities. Our external and internal life has become
the expression of its unfitness. The Gaelic soul of the Irish people
still lives. In itself it is indestructible. But its qualities are
hidden, besmirched, by that which has been imposed upon us, just as
the fine, splendid surface of Ireland is besmirched by our towns and
villages&mdash;hideous medleys of contemptible dwellings and mean
shops and squalid public-houses, not as they should be in material
fitness, the beautiful human expressions of what our God-given country
is.</p>
<p>It is only in the remote corners of Ireland in the South
and West and North-West that any trace of the old Irish civilization
is met with now. To those places the social side of anglicisation was
never able very easily to penetrate. To-day it is only in those places
that any native beauty and grace in Irish life survive. And these are
the poorest parts of our country!</p>
<p>In the island of Achill, impoverished as the people are,
hard as their lives are, difficult as the struggle for<pb n="102">
 existence is, the outward aspect is a pageant. One may
see processions of young women riding down on the island ponies to
collect sand from the seashore, or gathering in the turf, dressed in
their shawls and in their brilliantly-coloured skirts made of material
spun, woven, and dyed, by themselves, as it has been spun, woven, and
dyed, for over a thousand years. Their cottages also are little
changed. They remain simple and picturesque. It is only in such places
that one gets a glimpse of what Ireland may become again, when the
beauty may be something more than a pageant, will be the outward sign
of a prosperous and happy Gaelic life.</p>
<p>Our internal life too has become the expression of the
misfit of English civilization. With all their natural intelligence,
the horizon of many of our people has become bounded by the daily
newspaper, the public-house, and the racecourse. English civilization
made us into the stage Irishman, hardly a caricature.</p>
<p>They destroyed our language, all but destroyed it, and in
giving us their own they cursed us so that we have become its slaves.
Its words seem with us almost an end in themselves, and not as they
should be, the medium for expressing our thoughts.</p>
<p>We have now won the first victory. We have secured the
departure of the enemy who imposed upon us that by which we were
debased, and by means of which he kept us in subjection. We only
succeeded after we had begun to get back our Irish ways, after we had
made a serious effort to speak our own language, after we had striven
again to govern ourselves. We can only keep out the enemy, and all
other enemies, by completing that task.</p>
<pb n="103">
<p>We are now free in name. The extent to which we become
free in fact and secure our freedom will be the extent to which we
become Gaels again. It is a hard task. The machine of the British
armed force, which tried to crush us, we could see with our physical
eyes. We could touch it. We could put our physical strength against
it. We could see their agents in uniform and under arms. We could see
their tanks and armoured cars.</p>
<p>But the spiritual machine which has been mutilating us,
destroying our customs, and our independent life, is not so easy to
discern. We have to seek it out with the eyes of our mind. We have to
put against it the whole weight of our united spiritual strength. And
it has become so familiar, how are we to recognise it?</p>
<p>We cannot, perhaps. But we can do something else. We can
replace it. We can fill our minds with Gaelic ideas, and our lives
with Gaelic customs, until there is no room for any other.</p>
<p>It is not any international association of our nation
with the British nations which is going to hinder us in that task. It
lies in our own hands. Upon us will rest the praise or blame of the
real freedom we make for ourselves or the absence of it.</p>
<p>The survival of some connection with our former enemy,
since it has no power to chain us, should act as a useful irritant. It
should be a continual reminder of how near we came to being, indeed, a
British nation. No one now has any power to make us that but ourselves
alone.</p>
<p>We have to build up a new civilization on the foundations
of the old. And it is not the leaders of the Irish<pb n="104">
 people who can do it for the people. They can but point
the way. They can but do their best to establish a reign of justice
and of law and order which will enable the people to do it for
themselves.</p>
<p>It is not to political leaders our people must look, but
to themselves. Leaders are but individuals, and individuals are
imperfect, liable to error and weakness. The strength of the nation
will be the strength of the spirit of the whole people. We must have a
political, economic, and social system in accordance with our national
character.</p>
<p>It must be a system in which our material, intellectual,
and spiritual needs and tastes will find expression and satisfaction.
We shall then grow to be in ourselves and in what we produce, and in
the villages, towns, and cities in which we live, and in our homes, an
expression of the light which is within us, as now we are in nearly
all those things an indication of the darkness which has enveloped us
for so long.</p>
<p>Economically we must be democratic, as in the past. The
right of all the people must be secure. The people must become again
<q>the guardians of their law and of their land</q>. Each must be free
to reap the full reward of his labour. Monopoly must not be allowed to
deprive anyone of that right.</p>
<p>Neither, through the existence of monopoly, must capital
be allowed to be an evil. It must not be allowed to draw away all the
fruits of labour to itself. It must fulfil its proper function of
being the means by which are brought forth fresh and fuller fruits for
the benefit of all.</p>
<p>With real democracy in our economic life, country
districts would become again living centres. The<pb n="105">
 people would again be co-operating in industry, and
co-operating and competing in pleasure and in culture. Our
countrysides would cease to be the torpid deserts they are now, giving
the means of existence and nothing more.</p>
<p>Our Government must be democratic in more than in name.
It must be the expression of the people's wishes. It must carry out
for them all, and only, what is needed to be done for the people as a
whole. It must not interfere with what the people can do for
themselves in their own centres. We must not have State Departments
headed by a politician whose only qualification is that he has climbed
to a certain rung in the political ladder.</p>
<p>The biggest task will be the restoration of the language.
How can we express our most subtle thoughts and finest feelings in a
foreign tongue? Irish will scarcely be our language in this
generation, not even perhaps in the next. But until we have it again
on our tongues and in our minds we are not free, and we will produce
no immortal literature.</p>
<p>Our music and our art and literature must be in the lives
of the people themselves, not as in England, the luxury of the few.
England has produced some historians, many great poets, and a few
great artists, but they are the treasures of the cultured minority and
have no place in the lives of the main body of the English people.</p>
<p>Our poets and artists will be inspired in the stimulating
air of freedom to be something more than the mere producers of verse
and painters of pictures. They will tea ch us, by their vision, the
noble race we<pb n="106"> may become, expressed in their poetry and
their
pictures. They will inspire us to live as Irish men and Irish women
should. They have to show us the way, and the people will then in
their turn become the inspiration of the poets and artists of the
future Gaelic Ireland.</p>
<p>Our civilization will be glorious or the reverse,
according to the character of the people. And the work we produce will
be the expression of what we are. Our external life has become the
expression of all we have been deprived of&mdash;something shapeless,
ugly, without native life. But the spark of native life is still there
and can be fanned into flame.</p>
<p>What we have before us is the great work of building up
our nation. No soft road&mdash;a hard road, but inspiring and
exalting. Irish art and Irish customs must be revived, and must be
carried out by the people themselves, helped by a central Government,
not controlled and managed by it; helped by departments of music, art,
national painting, etc., with local centres connected with them.</p>
<p>The commercialising of these things&mdash;art,
literature, music, the drama&mdash;as is done in other countries, must
be discouraged. Everybody being able to contribute, we would have a
skilled audience, criticising and appreciating, and not only, as in
England, paying for seats to hear famous performers, but for real
appreciative enjoyment and education.</p>
<p>Our national education must provide a balance of the
competing elements&mdash;the real education of the faculties, and
storing the mind with the best thoughts of the great men of our own
and other nations. And<pb n="107">
 there must be education by special training for trades
and professions for the purpose of scientific eminence in medicine,
law, agriculture, and commerce.</p>
<p>And, as fit habitations for healthy minds, we must have
healthy bodies. We shall have these by becoming again skilled in
military prowess and skilled in our Gaelic games, which develop
strength and nerve and muscle. They teach us resource, courage, and
co-operation. These games provide for our civil life those qualities
of ingenuity and daring which military training teaches for the
purposes of war.</p>
<p>Our army, if it exists for honourable purposes only, will
draw to it honourable men. It will call to it the best men of our
race&mdash;men of skill and culture. It will not be recruited as so
many modern armies are, from those who are industrially useless.</p>
<p>This will certainly be so, for our army will only exist
for the defence of our liberties, and of our people in the exercise of
their liberties. An Irish army can never be used for the ignoble
purpose of invasion, subjugation, and exploitation.</p>
<p>But it is not only upon our army that our security will
depend. It will depend more upon the extent to which we make ourselves
invulnerable by having a civilization which is indestructible. That
civilization will only be indestructible by being enthroned in the
lives of the people, and having its foundation resting on right,
honesty, and justice.</p>
<p>Our army will be but secondary in maintaining our
security. Its strength will be but the strength of real
resistance&mdash;the extent to which we build up within ourselves what
can never be invaded and what can<pb n="108">
 never be destroyed&mdash;the extent to which we make
strong the spirit of the Irish Nation.</p>
<p>We are a small nation. Our military strength in
proportion to the mighty armaments of modern nations can never be
considerable. Our strength as a nation will depend upon our economic
freedom, and upon our moral and intellectual force. In these we can
become a shining light in the world.</p>
</div1>
<pb n="109">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>BUILDING UP IRELAND</head>
<head>Resources to be Developed</head>
<p>Mr. de Valera, in a speech he made on February 19, warned
the people of Ireland against a life of ease, against living
practically <q>the life of the beasts</q>, which, he fears, they may
be tempted to do in Ireland under the Free State.</p>
<p>The chance that materialism will take possession of the
Irish people is no more likely in a free Ireland under the Free State
than it would be in a free Ireland under a Republican or any other
form of government. It is in the hands of the Irish people
themselves.</p>
<p>In the ancient days of Gaelic civilization the people
were prosperous and they were not materialists. They were one of the
most spiritual and one of the most intellectual peoples in Europe.
When Ireland was swept by destitution and famine the spirit of the
Irish people came most nearly to extinction. It was with the improved
economic conditions of the last twenty years or more that it has
reawakened. The insistent needs of the body more adequately satisfied,
the people regained desire once more to reach out to the higher things
in which the spirit finds its satisfaction.</p>
<pb n="110">
<p>What we hope for in the new Ireland is to have such
material welfare as will give the Irish spirit that freedom. We want
such widely diffused prosperity that the Irish people will not be
crushed by destitution into living practically <q>the lives of the
beasts</q>.</p>
<p>They were so crushed during the British occupation that
they were described as being <q>without the comforts of an English
sow</q>. Neither must they be obliged, owing to unsound economic
conditions, to spend all their powers of both mind and body in an
effort to satisfy the bodily needs alone. The uses of wealth are to
provide good health, comfort, moderate luxury, and to give the freedom
which comes from the possession of these things.</p>
<p>Our object in building up the country economically must
not be lost sight of. That object is not to be able to boast of
enormous wealth or of a great volume of trade, for their own sake. It
is not to see our country covered with smoking chimneys and factories.
It is not to show a great national balance-sheet, nor to point to a
people producing wealth with the self-obliteration of a hive of
bees.</p>
<p>The real riches of the Irish nation will be the men and
women of the Irish nation, the extent to which they are rich in body
and mind and character.</p>
<p>What we want is the opportunity for everyone to be able
to produce sufficient wealth to ensure these advantages for
themselves. That such wealth can be produced in Ireland there can be
no doubt: <q>For the island is so endowed with so many dowries of
nature, considering the fruitfulness of the soil, the ports, the
rivers, the fishings, and especially the race <pb n="111"> and
generation of men, valiant, hard, and active, as it is not easy to
find such a confluence of commodities</q>. Such was the impression
made upon a visitor who came long ago to our island. We have now the
opportunities to make our land indeed fruitful, to work up our natural
resources, to bring prosperity for all our people.</p>
<p>If our national economy is put on a sound footing from
the beginning it will, in the new Ireland, be possible for our people
to provide themselves with the ordinary requirements of decent living.
It will be possible for each to have sufficient food, a good home in
which to live in fair comfort and contentment. We shall be able to
give our children bodily and mental health; and our people will be
able to secure themselves against the inevitable times of sickness and
old age.</p>
<p>That must be our object. What we must aim at is the
building up of a sound economic life in which great discrepancies
cannot occur. We must not have the destitution of poverty at one end,
and at the other an excess of riches in the possession of a few
individuals, beyond what they can spend with satisfaction and
justification.</p>
<p>Millionaires can spend their surplus wealth bestowing
libraries broadcast upon the world. But who will say that the benefits
accruing could compare with those arising from a condition of things
in which the people themselves everywhere, in the city, town, and
village, were prosperous enough to buy their own books and to put
together their own local libraries in which they could take a personal<pb n="112">
 interest and acquire knowledge in proportion to that
interest?</p>
<p>The growing wealth of Ireland will, we hope, be diffused
through all our people, all sharing in the growing prosperity, each
receiving according to what each contributes in the making of that
prosperity, so that the weal of all is assured.</p>
<p>How are we to increase the wealth of Ireland and ensure
that all producing it shall share in it? That is the question which
will be engaging the minds of our people, and will engage the
attention of the new Government.</p>
<p>The keynote to the economic revival must be development
of Irish resources by Irish capital for the benefit of the Irish
consumer in such a way that the people have steady work at just
remuneration and their own share of control.</p>
<p>How are we to develop Irish resources? The earth is our
bountiful mother. Upon free access to it depends not only agriculture,
but all other trades and industries. Land must be freely available.
Agriculture, our main industry, must be improved and developed. Our
existing industries must be given opportunities to expand. Conditions
must be created which will make it possible for new ones to arise.
Means of transit must be extended and cheapened. Our harbours must be
developed. Our water-power must be utilised; our mineral resources
must be exploited.</p>
<p>Foreign trade must be stimulated by making facilities for
the transport and marketing of Irish goods abroad and foreign goods in
Ireland. Investors must be urged and encouraged to invest Irish
capital in<pb n="113">
 Irish concerns. Taxation, where it hinders, must be
adjusted, and must be imposed where the burden will fall lightest and
can best be borne, and where it will encourage rather than discourage
industry.</p>
<p>We have now in Ireland, owing to the restrictions put
upon emigration during the European war, a larger population of young
men and women than we have had for a great many years. For their own
sake and to maintain the strength of the nation room must and can be
found for them.</p>
<p>Agriculture is, and is likely to continue to be, our
chief source of wealth. If room is to be found for our growing
population, land must be freely available. Land is not freely
available in Ireland. Thousands of acres of the best land lie idle or
are occupied as ranches or form part of extensive private estates.</p>
<p>Side by side with this condition there are thousands of
our people who are unable to get land on which to keep a cow or even
to provide themselves and their families with vegetables.</p>
<p>If the ranches can be broken up, if we can get the land
back again into the hands of our people, there will be plenty of
employment and a great increase in the national wealth.</p>
<p>If land could be obtained more cheaply in town and
country the housing problem would not present so acute a problem.
There are large areas unoccupied in towns and cities as well as in
country districts. When the Convention sat in 1917 it was found that
in urban areas alone, 67,000 houses were urgently needed. The figure
must at the present moment be considerably higher. To ease the<pb n="114">
 immediate situation, the Provisional Government has
announced a grant to enable a considerable number of houses to be
built. This grant, although seemingly large, is simply a recognition
of the existence of the problem.</p>
<p>For those who intend to engage in agriculture we require
specialised education. Agriculture is in these days a highly technical
industry. We have the experiences of countries like Holland, Germany,
Denmark to guide us. Scientific methods of farming and stock-raising
must be introduced. We must have the study of specialised chemistry to
aid us, as it does our foreign competitors in the countries I have
named. We must establish industries arising directly out of
agriculture, industries for the utilisation of the by-products of the
land&mdash;bones, bristles, hides for the production of soda glue, and
other valuable substances.</p>
<p>With plenty of land available at an economic rent or
price such industries can be established throughout the country
districts, opening up new opportunities for employment.</p>
<p>Up to the sixteenth century Ireland possessed a colonial
trade equal to England's. It was destroyed by the jealousy of English
ship- owners and manufacturers, and, by means of the Navigation Laws,
England swept Ireland's commerce off the seas. It is true that these
Navigation Laws were afterwards removed. But the removal found the
Irish capital which might have restored our ruined commerce drained
away from the country by the absence of opportunities for utilising
it, or by absentee landlordism, or in other ways.</p>
<pb n="115">
<p>The development of industry in the new Ireland should be
on lines which exclude monopoly profits. The product of industry would
thus be left sufficiently free to supply good wages to those employed
in it. The system should be on co-operative lines rather than on the
old commercial capitalistic lines of the huge joint stock companies.
At the same time I think we shall safely avoid State Socialism, which
has nothing to commend it in a country like Ireland, and, in any case,
is monopoly of another kind.</p>
<p>Given favourable conditions, there is a successful future
for dressed meat industries on the lines of the huge co-operative
industry started in Wexford; while there are many opportunities for
the extension of dairying and cheese-making.</p>
<p>The industries we possess are nearly all capable of
expansion. We can improve and extend all the following:
<list>
<item>Brewing and distilling. </item>
<item>Manufacture of tobacco. </item>
<item>Woollen and linen industry. </item>
<item>Manufacture of hosiery and underclothing. </item>
<item>Rope and twine industry. </item>
<item>Manufacture of boots and shoes, saddlery, and all
kinds of leather articles. </item>
<item>Production of hardware and agricultural
machinery. </item>
<item>Production and curing of fish. </item>
</list></p>
<p>Of manufactured articles &pound;48,000,000 worth are
imported into Ireland yearly. A large part of these could be produced
more economically at home. If<pb n="116">
 land were procurable abundantly and cheaply it would be
necessary also that capital should be forthcoming to get suitable
sites for factories, a more easily obtained supply of power, an
improvement, increase, and cheapening of the means of transport.</p>
<p>There are facilities for producing an enormous variety of
products both for the home and foreign markets, if factories could be
established. These should, as far as possible, be dispersed about the
country instead of being concentrated in a few areas. This disposal
will not only have the effect of avoiding congestion, but will
incidentally improve the status and earnings of the country population
and will enlarge their horizon.</p>
<p>I am not advocating the establishment of an industrial
system as other countries know industrialism. If we are to survive as
a distinct and free nation, industrial development must be on the
general lines I am following. Whatever our solution of the question
may be, we all realise that the industrial <frn lang="la">status
quo</frn> is imperfect. However we may differ in outlook, politically
or socially, it is recognised that one of the most pressing
needs&mdash;if not the most pressing&mdash;is the question of labour
in relation to industry, and it is consequently vitally necessary for
the development of our resources that the position of employers and
employees should rest on the best possible foundation.</p>
<p>And with this question of labour and industry is
interwoven the question of land. It is no less important to have our
foundations secure here. In the development of Ireland the land
question presents itself under four main headings:<pb n="117">
<list>
<item n="1">The completion of purchase of tenanted
lands;</item>
<item n="2">The extension and increase of powers of
purchase of untenanted lands;</item>
<item n="3">The question of congestion in rural
districts;</item>
<item n="4">The utilisation of lands unoccupied or
withheld in urban areas. </item>
</list></p>
<p>For the purpose of such development Ireland has three
great natural resources. Our coal deposits are by no means
inconsiderable. The bogs of Ireland are estimated as having 500,000
million tons of peat fuel. Water-power is concentrated in her 237
rivers and 180 lakes. The huge Lough Corrib system could be utilised,
for instance, to work the granite in the neighbourhood of Galway. In
the opinion of experts, reporting to the Committee on the Water-Power
Resources of Ireland, from the Irish lakes and rivers a total of
500,000 h.p. is capable of being developed.</p>
<p>The magnitude of this is more readily seen if it is
appreciated that to raise this power in steam would require 7,500,000
tons of coal. With the present price of coal it should be a commercial
proposition to develop our water-power as against steam, even though
it did not take the place of steam-power entirely.</p>
<p>Schemes have been worked out to utilise the water-power
of the Shannon, the Erne, the Bann, and the Liffey. It is probable
that the Liffey and the Bann, being closely connected with industrial
centres, can be dealt with at once. With unified control<pb n="118">
 and direction, various sources of water-power could be
arranged in large stations for centralised industries, and the energy
could be redistributed to provide light and heat for the neighbouring
towns and villages.</p>
<p>That the advantages of our water-power are not lost on
some of the keenest minds of the day is shown by the following extract
from a speech made by Lord Northcliffe on St. Patrick's Day, 1917:</p>
<p>The growth of the population of Great Britain has been
largely due to manufactures based on the great asset, black coal.
Ireland has none of the coal which has made England rich, but she
possesses in her mighty rivers white coal of which millions of
horse-power are being lost to Ireland every year <gap reason="ellipsis"> I can see in the
future very plainly prosperous cities, old and new, fed by the
greatest river in the United Kingdom&mdash;the Shannon. I should like
to read recent experts' reports on the Moy, the Suir, and the Lee.</p>
<p>The development of this white power will also enable the
means of communication and transport by rail and road to be cheapened
and extended. And there is an urgent need for cheap transit. Railway
rates and shipping rates are so high that, to take one example, the
cost of transit is prohibitive to the Irish fish trade.</p>
<p>While the Irish seas are teeming with fish, we have the
Dublin market depending upon the English market for its supplies. The
export of Irish fish is decreasing, and the fishing industry is
neither the source of remuneration it should be to those engaged in
it, nor the source of profit it could be to the country.</p>
<pb n="119">
<p>To facilitate the transport of agricultural produce and
commodities generally, a complete system of ways of communication must
be established. The extension and unifying of our railways, linking up
ocean ports and fishing harbours with the interior, is essential. This
system will be worked in connection with our inland waterways, and
will be supplemented by a motor-lorry service on our roads&mdash;and
these also must be greatly improved.</p>
<p>Our harbours must be developed. Ireland occupies a unique
geographical position. She is the stepping-stone between the Old World
and the New. She should therefore, become a great exchange mart
between Europe and America. With Galway harbour improved and developed
so as to receive American liners, passengers could land in Europe one
or two days earlier than by disembarking at Liverpool.</p>
<p>The port and docks of Dublin are already making
arrangements for a great increase in the volume of trade which is
expected with the establishment of an Irish Government in Dublin. They
are improving the port. They have schemes for providing deep water
berthage for the largest ships afloat.</p>
<p>Soon the port of Dublin will be fitted in every way to
receive and deal with all the trade which may be expected with our
growing prosperity. The Board is also reclaiming land at the mouth of
the Liffey, and soon some sixty acres will be available as a building
site. This land is splendidly situated for commercial purposes.</p>
<p>It will be important to create efficient machinery for
the economic marketing of Irish goods. A first step<pb n="120">
 in this direction is the establishment of a clearing
house in Dublin or the most convenient centre. It would form a link
between a network of channels throughout Ireland through which goods
could be transmitted, connecting with another network reaching out to
all our markets abroad. It would examine and take delivery of goods
going out and coming in, dealing with the financial business for both
sides.</p>
<p>Such a concern would require capital and able and
experienced management. With such, its success should be assured. It
would be invaluable in helping our home and foreign trade. And with
improved means of transit in Ireland, and an increase in the number of
direct shipping routes, facilities would be in existence to make it
operate successfully. It is not difficult to see the advantages of
such a house. On the one hand it would be closely associated in
location and business working with a central railway station where the
important trunk lines converged, and on the other conveniently
situated in relation to the National Customs House.</p>
<p>The mineral resources of Ireland have never been properly
tapped. An Irish Government will not neglect this important source of
wealth. The development of mines and minerals will be on national
lines, and under national direction. This will prevent the monopoly by
private individuals of what are purely national resources belonging to
all the people of the nation. The profits from all these national
enterprises&mdash;the working of mines, development of water-power,
etc.&mdash;will belong to the nation for the advantage of the whole
nation.</p>
<pb n="121">
<p>But Irish men and women as private individuals must do
their share to increase the prosperity of the country. Business cannot
succeed without capital. Millions of Irish money are lying idle in
banks. The deposits in Irish joint stock banks increased in the
aggregate by &pound;7,318,000 during the half-year ended <date value="1921-12- 31">December 31, 1921</date>. At that date the total
of deposits and cash balances in the Irish banks was
&pound;194,391,000, to which in addition there was a sum of almost
&pound;14,000,000 in the Post Office Savings Bank. If Irish money were
invested in Irish industries, to assist existing ones, and to finance
new enterprises, there would be an enormous development of Irish
commerce.</p>
<p>The Irish people have a large amount of capital invested
abroad. With scope for our energies, with restoration of confidence,
the inevitable tendency will be towards return of this capital to
Ireland. It will then flow in its proper channel. It will be used for
opening up new and promising fields in this country. Ireland will
provide splendid opportunities for the investment of Irish capital,
and it is for the Irish people to take advantage of these
opportunities.</p>
<p>If they do not, investors and exploiters from outside
will come in to reap the rich profits which are to be made. And, what
is worse still, they will bring with them all the evils that we want
to avoid in the new Ireland.</p>
<p>We shall hope to see in Ireland industrial conciliation
and arbitration taking the place of strikes, and the workers sharing
in the ownership and management of businesses.</p>
<pb n="122">
<p>A prosperous Ireland will mean a united Ireland. With
equitable taxation and flourishing trade our North-East countrymen
will need no persuasion to come in and share in the healthy economic
life of the country.</p>
</div1>
<pb n="123">
<div1 type="Chapter">
<head>FREEDOM WITHIN OUR GRASP</head>
<head>For Ourselves to Achieve It</head>
<head>Work of Gaelic League and <frn lang="ga">Sinn F&eacute;in</frn></head>
<p>The freedom which has been won is the fruit of the
national efforts of this generation and of preceding ones, and to
judge the merits of that fruit it is necessary to recall those
efforts. It is necessary to look back, and to see each one arising out
of each loss which the nation sustained.</p>
<p>We see them working along their separate but converging
lines&mdash;some mere trickling streams, others broad tributaries, but
all which had sufficient strength and right direction reaching,
becoming merged in, and swelling the volume of the river which flows
on to freedom.</p>
<p>Up to the Union English interference in Ireland had
succeeded only in its military and economic oppression. The national
spirit survived. The country had been disarmed after the Treaty of
Limerick. The land of Ireland had been confiscated. Native industry
and commerce were attacked and had been crippled or destroyed, but
Gaelic nationality lived on. The people spoke their own language,
preserved their Gaelic customs and ways of life, and remained united
in their common<pb n="124">
 traditions. They had no inducement to look outside their
own country, and entrenched behind their language and their national
traditions, they kept their social life intact. Ireland was still the
Ireland of the wholly distinctive Irish people.</p>
<p>The efforts of resistance made by the nation were the
expressions of what had been robbed from the nation. There were
military uprisings to resist some new oppression, but these were also
the unconscious protests of a nation's right to defend itself by force
of arms. There were also peaceful attempts to recover economic, or
political, or religious freedom through the Parliament in Dublin.</p>
<p>With the Union came upheaval. The scene of government was
transferred to England. The garrison which was becoming Gaelicised
towards the end of the eighteenth century, turned away from Ireland
with the destruction of the Dublin Parliament, and made London their
Capital.</p>
<p>With Catholic Emancipation and the <hi rend="quotes">right</hi> to have representatives of the Irish people
to sit in the foreign parliament, the national spirit was at last
invaded. People began to look abroad. The anglicisation of Ireland had
begun.</p>
<p>The English language became the language of education and
fashion. It penetrated slowly at first. It was aided by the National
Schools. In those schools it was the only medium of education for a
people who were still Gaelic-speaking.</p>
<p>Side by side with this peaceful penetration, the Irish
language decayed, and when the people had adopted a new language and
had come to look to England<pb n="125">
 for Government, they learned to see in English customs
and English culture the models upon which to fashion their own.</p>
<p>The <hi rend="quotes">gifts</hi> wrung for Ireland
(always wrung by agitation more or less violent in Ireland itself, and
never as a result of the oratory of the Irish representatives in the
British Parliament), Catholic Emancipation, Land Acts, Local
Government, where not actually destructive in themselves of the Gaelic
social economic system, helped in the denationalisation process.</p>
<p>These things undoubtedly brought ameliorative changes,
but the people got into the habit of looking to a foreign authority,
and they inevitably came to lose their self-respect, their
self-reliance, and their national strength.</p>
<p>The system made them forget to look to themselves, and
taught them to turn their backs upon their own country. We became the
beggars of the rich neighbours who had robbed us. We lost reverence
for our own nation, and we came very near to losing our national
identity.</p>
<p>O'Connell was the product of the Ireland which arose out
of this perversion. Prompted by the Young Irelanders, and urged on by
the zeal of the people, stirred for the moment to national
consciousness by the teaching of Davis, he talked of national liberty,
but he did nothing to win it. He was a follower and not a leader of
the people. He feared any movement of a revolutionary nature. Himself
a Gaelic speaker, he adopted the English language, so little did he
understand the strength to the nation of its own native language. His<pb n="126">
 aim was little more than to see the Irish people a free
Catholic community.</p>
<p>He would have Ireland merely a prosperous province of
Britain with no national distinctiveness. Generally speaking, he
acquiesced in a situation which was bringing upon the Irish nation
spiritual decay.</p>
<p>The Young Irelanders, of whom Thomas Davis was the
inspiration, were the real leaders.</p>
<p>They saw and felt more deeply and aimed more truly. Davis
spoke to the soul of the sleeping nation&mdash; drunk with the waters
of forgetfulness. He sought to unite the whole people. He fought
against sectarianism and all the other causes which divided them.</p>
<p>He saw that unless we were Gaels we were not a nation.
When he thought of the nation he thought of the men and women of the
nation. He knew that unless they were free, Ireland could not be free,
and to fill them again with pride in their nation he sang to them of
the old splendour of Ireland, of their heroes, of their language, of
the strength of unity, of the glory of noble strife, of the beauties
of the land, of the delights and richness of the Gaelic life.</p>
<p><q>A nationality founded in the hearts and intelligence
of the people,</q> he said, <q>would bid defiance to the arms of the
foe and guile of the traitor. The first step to nationality is the
open and deliberate recognition of it by the people themselves. Once
the Irish people declare the disconnection of themselves, their
feelings, and interests from the men, feelings, and interests of
England, they are in march for freedom</q>.</p>
<p>That was the true National Gospel. <q>Educate that you
may be free</q>, he said. <q>It was only by baptism at <pb n="127">
the fount of Gaelicism that we would get the strength and ardour to
fit us for freedom</q>.</p>
<p>The spirit of Davis breathed again in those who succeeded
to his teaching, and who, directed by that inspiration, kept the
footsteps of the nation on the right road for the march to
freedom.</p>
<p>The Union was accompanied by both economic and national
decay, and the movements of the nineteenth century were the outcome of
those two evils.</p>
<p>But one was more a political than a national movement,
unconscious of, or indifferent to, the fact that the nation was
rapidly dying. Its policy was to concentrate on England and agitate
for measures of reform and political emancipation. It was pleading to
the spoilers for a portion of the spoils they had robbed from us.</p>
<p>But those who had succeeded to the teachings of Davis saw
that if we continued to turn to England the nation would become
extinct. We were tacitly accepting England's denial of our nationhood
so useful for her propaganda purposes. We were selling our birthright
for a mess of pottage.</p>
<p>They saw that the nation could only be preserved and
freedom won by the Irish people themselves. We needed to become strong
within our nation individually as the self-respecting, self-reliant
men and women of the Irish nation; otherwise, we would never get into
the <q>march for freedom</q>.</p>
<p>The new movements were distinct, yet harmonious. They
were all built on the same foundation&mdash; the necessity for
national freedom. They all taught that the people must look to
themselves for economic<pb n="128">
 prosperity, and must turn to national culture as a means
to national freedom.</p>
<p>They reached out to every phase of the people's lives,
educating to make them free. No means were too slight to use for that
purpose. The Gaelic Athletic Association reminded Irish boys that they
were Gaels. It provided and restored national games as an alternative
to the slavish adoption of English sport.</p>
<p>The Gaelic League restored the language to its place in
the reverence of the people. It revived Gaelic culture. While being
non- political, it was by its very nature intensely national. Within
its folds were nurtured the men and women who were to win for Ireland
the power to achieve national freedom. Irish history will recognise in
the birth of the Gaelic League in 1893 the most important event of the
nineteenth century. I may go further and say, not only the nineteenth
century, but in the whole history of our nation. It checked the
peaceful penetration and once and for all turned the minds of the
Irish people back to their own country. It did more than any other
movement to restore the national pride, honour, and self-respect.
Through the medium of the language it linked the people with the past
and led them to look to a future which would be a noble continuation
of it.</p>
<p>The <frn lang="ga">Sinn F&eacute;in</frn> movement was both economic and
national, meeting, therefore, the two evils produced by the Union.
Inspired by Arthur Griffith and William Rooney, it grew to wield
enormous educational and spiritual power. It organised the country. It
promoted what came to be known as the <q>Irish-Ireland Policy</q>. It
preached the recreation of Ireland built upon the<pb n="129">
 Gael. It penetrated into Belfast and North-East Ulster,
and was doing encouraging educational work, and was making the
national revival general when the World War broke out in 1914.</p>
<p>If that work could have been completed, the freedom which
has been won would have been completed. Until Ireland can speak to the
world with a united distinctive voice, we shall not have earned, and
shall not get, that full freedom in all its completeness which
nations, that are nations, can never rest until they have
achieved.</p>
<p>The <frn lang="ga">Sinn F&eacute;in</frn> movement was not militant, but the
militant movement existed within it, and by its side. It had for its
advocates the two mightiest figures that have appeared in the whole
present movement&mdash;Tom Clarke and Se&aacute;n MacDermott.</p>
<p>The two movements worked in perfect harmony.</p>
<p>Rooney preached language and liberty. He inspired all
whom he met with national pride and courage. <q>Tell the world bravely
what we seek</q>, he said. <q>We must be men if we mean to win</q>. He
believed that liberty could not be won unless we were fit and willing
to win it, and were ready to suffer and die for it.</p>
<p>He interpreted the national ideal as <q>an Irish State
governed by Irishmen for the benefit of the Irish people</q>. He
sought to impregnate the whole people with <q>a Gaelic-speaking
Nationality</q>. <q>Only then could we win freedom and be worthy of
it; freedom&mdash;individual and national freedom&mdash;of the fullest
and broadest character; freedom to think and act as it best beseems;
national freedom to stand equally with the rest of the world</q>.</p>
<pb n="130">
<p>He aimed at weaving Gaelicism into the whole fabric of
our national life. He wished to have Gaelic songs sung by the children
in the schools. He advocated the boycotting of English goods, always
with an eye to the spiritual effect. <q>We shall need to turn our
towns into something more than mere huxters' shops, and as a natural
consequence wells of anglicisation poisoning every section of our
people</q>.</p>
<p>Only by developing our own resources, by linking up our
life with the past, and adopting the civilization which was stopped by
the Union could we become Gaels again, and help to win our nation
back. As long as we were Gaels, he said, the influence of the
foreigner was negligible in Ireland. Unless we were Gaels we had no
claim to occupy a definite or distinct place in the world's life.</p>
<p><q>We most decidedly do believe that this nation has a
right to direct its own destinies. We do most heartily concede that
men bred and native of the soil are the best judges of what is good
for this land. We are believers in an Irish nation using its own
tongue, flying its own flag, defending its own coasts, and using its
own discretion when dealing with the outside world. But this we most
certainly believe can never come as the gift of any parliament,
British or otherwise; it can only be won by the strong right arm and
grim resolve of men</q>. <q>Neglect no weapon,</q> he urged, <q>which
the necessities and difficulties of the enemy force him to abandon to
us, and make each <hi rend="quotes">concession</hi>a stepping-stone to
further things</q>.</p>
<p>Rooney spoke as a prophet. He prepared the way and
foresaw the victory, and he helped his nation to<pb n="131">
 rise, and, by developing its soul, to get ready for
victory.</p>
<p>A good tree brings forth good fruit&mdash;a barren one
produces nothing. The policy represented by O'Connell, Isaac Butt, and
John Redmond ended in impotence.</p>
<p>The freedom which Ireland has achieved was dreamed of by
Wolfe Tone, was foreseen by Thomas Davis, and their efforts were
broadened out until they took into their embrace all the true national
movements by the <q>grim resolve</q> of William Rooney, supported
later by the <q>strong right arm</q> of the Volunteers.</p>
<p>All the streams&mdash;economic, political, spiritual,
cultural, and militant&mdash;met together in the struggle of 1916-21
which has ended in a Peace, in which the Treaty of Limerick is wiped
out by the departure of the British armed forces, and the
establishment of an Irish Army in their place. In which the Union is
wiped out by the establishment of a free native Parliament which will
be erected on a Constitution expressing the will of the Irish
people.</p>
<p>With the Union came national enslavement. With the
termination of the Union goes national enslavement, if we will.
Freedom from any outside enemy is now ours, and nobody but ourselves
can prevent us achieving it.</p>
<p>We are free now to get back and to keep all that was
taken from us. We have no choice but to turn our eyes again to
Ireland. The most completely anglicised person in Ireland will look to
Britain in vain. Ireland is about to revolve once again on her own
axis.</p>
<pb n="132">
<p>We shall no longer have anyone but ourselves to blame if
we fail to use the freedom we have won to achieve full freedom. We are
now on the natural and inevitable road to complete the work of Davis
and Rooney, to restore our native tongue, to get back our history, to
take up again and complete the education of our countrymen in the
North-East in the national ideal, to renew our strength and refresh
ourselves in our own Irish civilization, to become again the Irish men
and Irish women of the distinctive Irish nation, to make real the
freedom which Davis sang of, which Rooney worked for, which Tom Clarke
and Se&aacute;n MacDermott and their comrades fought and died for.</p>
<p>The British have given up their claim to dominate us.
They have no longer any power to prevent us making real our freedom.
The complete fulfilment of our full national freedom can, however,
only be won when we are <hi rend="quotes">fit and willing</hi> to win
it.</p>
<p>Can we claim that we are yet fit and willing? Is not our
country still filled with men and women who are unfit and unwilling?
Are we all yet educated to be free? Has not the greater number oF us
still the speech of the foreigner on our tongues? Are not even we, who
are proudly calling ourselves Gaels, little more than imitation
Englishmen?</p>
<p>But we are free to remedy these things. Complete
liberty&mdash;what it stands for in our Gaelic
imagination&mdash;cannot be got until we have impregnated the whole of
our people with the Gaelic desire. Only then shall we be worthy of the
fullest freedom.</p>
<p>The bold outline of freedom has been drawn by the
glorious efforts of the last five years; only the details<pb n="133">
 remain to be filled in. Will not those who co-operated in
the conception and work of the masterpiece help with the finishing
touches? Can we not see that the little we have not yet gained is the
expression of the falling short of our fitness for freedom? When we
make ourselves fit we shall be free. If we could accept that truth we
would be inspired again with the same fervour and devotion by our own
<q>grim resolve</q> within the nation to complete the work which is so
nearly done.</p>
</div1>
</div0>
</body>
</text>
</TEI.2>