From The Irish Nation and Peasant, February 5, 1910.
Arthur Griffith has come in for a good deal of criticism in the ‘Nation’ of late. Mixed up largely with Arthur Griffith in this criticism is the National Council of Sinn Féin. The particular matter which concerns me now is the imputation of weakness and treachery against Arthur Griffith and Sinn Féin for even harbouring a suggestion that Sinn Féin should ally itself to any brand of Parliamentarianism. I hope I shall not be expected to locate the particular articles or paragraphs which have conveyed this imputation to my mind. To put my own view in a nutshell, I believe thoroughly in the policy of joining with any section of our countrymen for the obtaining of a large material benefit to the country. The Fenians aided Parnell. At least they did not hamper him with criticisms and heap him with abuse. John Redmond and Sinn Féin are the political descendants of Parnell and the Fenians. It is vain to expect as much forbearance now as in the days when Parnell’s methods seemed to have brought Home Rule within actual reach.
Sinn Féin and Home Rule not Hostile ideals.
But, it will be said, Sinn Féin stands for complete independence and will have no talk of half-measures. Sinn Féin acknowledges no connection with England. Sinn Féin regards the withdrawal of her representatives from Westminster as a political principle of vital importance to the moral life of the nation. Consequently there can be no truck with Parliamentarianism. These things may be true. They are true, but not in the absolute sense in which they are sometimes interpreted. But assuming their absolute truth, Parliamentarianism still remains a great force in the country, better organised and better supported financially than Sinn Féin. ‘Home Rule’ is still an inspiration to the people of Ireland. Opposition, violent opposition, to those who still stick to that standard is likely to anger, and has already angered, many earnest people who never bother themselves with the relative merits of methods. ‘Home Rule’ is a rallying-cry, an inspiration, a reminder of younger, stronger fighting days. ‘Sinn Féin’ is to them like the red rag to the bull. In their minds Sinn Féin and Home Rule are hostile ideals, differing as widely as the Poles. Instead of which they merely represent different methods. Is Sinn Féin to ignore these obvious facts, or should it boldly recognise them and act accordingly. If they are to be ignored, how can co-operation for any purpose be carried out? The rank and file who follow John Redmond require to be educated to see the possibilities of political effort at home—as well as in Westminster. But once their would-be teachers hold aloft the banner of Sinn Féin the pupils scamper off in alarm. Is it not worth while to seek some means of influencing these classes? That means, as far as I can see, can only be procured through some formal compact with, or recognition of, the constitutional movement. That such compact or recognition is not inconsistent with political Sinn Féin as preached by its founder is easily seen on reference to that remarkable pamphlet, ‘The Resurrection of Hungary: A Parallel for Ireland.’
Hungarian Example.
As I understand the case, the Hungarians would seem to have been divided in their aims and methods much as we are ourselves. There seems to have been at all times and to be at the present time a body of intransigents whom only complete separation from Austria would satisfy. On the other hand there were those who believed in the policy of persuasion, who were not violently opposed to Austria, but rather to the maladministration of the laws by the Austrians, who finally desired only equality with the Austrians and the union of the two crowns. Nowhere can I trace among the Separatists and Unionists of Hungary that feeling of hostility to each other which unhappily prevails amongst the corresponding sections of our people. Any effort by Arthur Griffith or Sinn Féin to bring about such a desirable rapprochement of parties is surely more to be admired than condemned.
On page 77 of the pamphlet the author describes the present (1904) state of parties as follows:
‘All parties, however, differing on the degree of conviction which should exist between Austria and Hungary, work together for the material and moral good of the nation.’
Again, Szechenyi was a noble. Deak was of the middle class, while Kossuth was of the people. All worked together regardless of their individual ultimate aims. Enough that they were all travelling the same road. Szechenyi, though a noble and no hater of Austrian rule, became the leader of the people. His main desire was the reform of his own class and the improvement of his country from within, without regard to great political reforms. When he reached the point at which Austria barred the way he hesitated and was lost. But mark. Up to this point—
‘…in great good friendship Szechenyi and the Intransigents worked together until the point was reached—and Austria barred the way.’
Deak was a politician and mild democrat.
‘Neither did he hate Austria, only Austrian oppression. He was willing to see Hungary linked with Austria, provided the link was one of friendship, not of steel. Kossuth was the foe of all links. His ambition was to see Hungary an independent republic.’
Yet these two men laboured unceasingly together for all matters upon which they were agreed.
An Effort to Bridge Over Political Differences.
The whole moral of Mr. Griffith’s pamphlet is that all parties can and should work together to secure those reforms upon which they are agreed. To this end Sinn Féin has always preached the necessity of uniting about such matters as the industrial and language revivals, the temperance movement, nationalisation of the railways, etc., etc. But no sooner does the Executive of Sinn Féin dare to discuss a proposal armed apparently at some sort of co-operation with other political parties than the critics dip their pens in ink to blacken the political character of those who were so ‘tempted.’ My regret is that whatever rapprochement was mooted did not come nearer to a practical effort. Of course I do not approve of secret negotiations, etc., etc. Nor have I any respect for those (if any) who attach the smallest iota of importance to the doings or sayings of James Brady. But I do approve any honest effort to bridge over political differences. The younger believers in Parliamentary effort to-day recognise the importance of Sinn Féin in Ireland as well as the party in Westminster. Sinn Féiners draw the line at Westminster. To my lay mind, expressing itself now for the first time with regard to political matters, the obstacles to political co-operation do not seem insurmountable. For many years a great depth of bitterness separated the Parnellites and the anti-Parnellites, but unity came in the end. I am young enough, and optimistic enough, to believe that with patience and common sense a way might be found of uniting all Nationalists for the furtherance of those objects which they hold in common. Above all, such mutual forbearance as must precede co-operation is clearly inculcated in the pamphlet which inspired the whole Sinn Féin movement.
No charge of inconsistency, therefore, lies against Arthur Griffith for introducing to the Executive of Sinn Féin proposals aimed at co-operation among brother Nationalists. Rather do I condemn him for not having ere this placed before the country the terms of an entente cordiale between all the Nationalists of Ireland. How this might be done or even begun, is not my present concern, but merely to suggest to readers of the ‘Nation’ that neither the National Council nor Arthur Griffith were false to their political professions in entertaining proposals of union with a section of our Nationalist countrymen whose methods are not ours.
ÉAMONN CEANNT.