<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "/dtds/tei/p4x/teicelt.dtd" [
<!ENTITY % TEIbase "TEI.prose">
]>
<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" sortas="collins, michael">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-Irish
	    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>Michael Collins</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">&Aacute;rd 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 &Aacute;rd-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>
