



Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)









  NEW IRELAND PAMPHLETS. NUMBER THREE
  PRICE TWOPENCE


  THE ISSUE
  The Case for Sinn Fein


  BY LECTOR

  AS PASSED BY CENSOR.


  NEW IRELAND PUBLISHING COMPANY, Limited
  13 FLEET STREET, DUBLIN
  1918




THE ISSUE


=INDEPENDENCE.=

Does Ireland wish to be free? Do we alone among the ancient Nations of
Europe desire to remain slaves? That, and that alone, is the question
which every Irish elector has now to answer. Let us put everything else
out of our minds as irrelevant claptrap. Let nothing distract us from this
single issue of Liberty. We must turn a deaf ear to sentimental whining
about what this or that man did, his length of service, his "fighting on
the floor of the House," and so on. Whatever may have been done in the way
of small doles, petty grants, and big talk, the =fact= is that we are not
Free and the =issue= is, Do we want to be Free?

Why should we be afraid of Freedom? Would any sane adult voluntarily
prefer to be a slave, to be completely in the control and power of
another? Men do not willingly walk into jail; why, then, should a whole
people? The men who are =afraid= of national liberty are unworthy even of
personal liberty; they are the victims of that slave mentality which
English coercion and corruption have striven to create in Ireland. When
Mr. John Dillon, grown tremulous and garrulous and feeble, asked for a
national convention this autumn "to definitely forswear an Irish
Republic," he was asking Ireland to commit an act of national apostasy and
suicide. Would =you= definitely forswear your personal freedom? Will Mr.
John Dillon hand his cheque-book and property over to some stranger and
indenture himself as a serf or an idiot? When he does, but not till then,
we shall believe that the Irish Nation is capable of sentencing itself
cheerfully to penal servitude for all eternity.

It was not always thus. "I say deliberately," said Mr. John Dillon at
Moville in 1904, "that I should never have dedicated my life as I have
done to this great struggle, if I did not see at the end of it the
crowning and consummation of our work--A FREE AND INDEPENDENT IRELAND." It
is sad that, fourteen years later, when the end is in sight, Mr. Dillon
should be found a recreant and a traitor to his past creed. The
degeneration of such a man is a damning indictment of Westminsterism.

Parnell, too save for one short moment when he tried by compromise to fool
English Liberalism but was foiled, proclaimed his belief in Irish
Independence.

This is what Parnell said at Cincinatti on 23rd February, 1880:--

    "When we have undermined English misgovernment, we have paved the way
    for Ireland to take her place among the nations of the earth. And let
    us not forget that that is the ultimate goal at which all we Irishmen
    aim. None of us, whether we be in America or in Ireland, or wherever
    we may be, will be satisfied =until we have destroyed the last link
    which keeps Ireland bound to England=."

Were he alive to-day, when the last link is snapping, on what side would
Parnell be? Would he forswear an Irish Republic or would he proclaim once
more, as he said in Cork (21st Jan., 1885): "No man has a right to fix the
boundary of the march of a Nation. No man has a right to say: Thus far
shalt thou go and no farther. And we have never attempted to fix the _ne
plus ultra_ to the progress of Ireland's nationhood and we never shall."


=IRELAND AND SMALL NATIONS.=

At New York 31st August, 1904, John Redmond declared:--

    "If it were in my power to-morrow by any honourable means to
    absolutely emancipate Ireland, I would do it and feel it my duty to do
    it. (1904, not 1914!) I believe it would be just as possible for
    Ireland to have a prosperous and free separate existence as a nation
    as Holland, Belgium, or Switzerland, or other small nationalities. And
    if it were in the power of any man to bring that result about
    to-morrow by honourable and brave means, he would be indeed a coward
    and a traitor to the traditions of his race did he not do so."

If Holland and Poland and all the other little lands, why not Ireland? Put
that straight question to yourself and you must answer it as John Redmond
did in 1904. Are we alone among the nations created to be slaves and
helots? Are we so incompetent and incapable as not to be able to manage
our own country? Is a people of four millions to be in perpetual bondage
and tutelage to a solicitor and a soldier? Did God Almighty cast up this
island as a sandbank for Englishmen to walk on? Is it the sole mission of
Irish men and women to send beef and butter to John Bull?

Look at the other nations and ask yourself, Why not? Why is not Ireland
free? Are we too small in area? We are double Switzerland or Denmark,
nearly three times Holland or Belgium. Is our population too small--though
it was once double? We are as numerous as Serbia, our population is as
large as that of Switzerland and nearly double that of Denmark or Norway.
Does the difficulty lie in our poverty? Are we too poor to exist as a free
people? The revenue raised =per head= in Ireland is double that of any
other small nation, seven times that of Switzerland! The total revenue of
Ireland is ten times that of Switzerland, three times that of Norway, four
times that of Denmark, Serbia or Finland. Yet all these countries have
their own armies, consuls, etc.; they run themselves as free nations at
far below the cost of servile Ireland. Why? Because there is no other
country pocketing their cash.

Here are some figures:--

                  Area       Population     Revenue
              (thousands of  (Millions)   (Millions L)
                sq. miles)
  Ireland         32-1/2        4-1/3         30
  Belgium         11-1/2        7-1/2         32
  Holland         12-1/2        6-1/2         18-3/4
  Denmark         15-1/2        2-3/4          7-1/2
  Norway         125            2-1/2         10
  Switzerland     16            4              3
  Rumania         53-1/2        7-1/2         24
  Serbia          34            4-1/2          8-1/2
  Finland        126            3-1/4          8-1/2

These figures would suggest that Ireland is a strong military and naval
power among the small nations. And so we are--only the army and navy we
support are not our own; they exist to keep us in slavery, not in freedom.
It is about time we started business on our own.


=DEPENDENT ON ENGLAND?=

The most significant instance of English policy in Ireland is the creation
of the widespread delusion that we are economically dependent on England.
An elaborate network of fraud and deceit has been built up to hide the
truth from our eyes. We are secretly and systematically robbed and we
hardly notice it. The ordinary Irish worker pays at least four shillings a
week to England, he is hardly aware of the fact, so nicely is it done
whenever he buys tobacco or his wife gets tea and sugar, and so on. Though
the average income in England is three times what it is in Ireland, the
notoriously underfed Irish workers have to pay more than twice the English
proportion of indirect taxes on food, etc. We pay England 1/- on every
pound of tea, 1-1/2d. on every pound of sugar, 7d. on every oz. of
tobacco. There is no fuss about it: it is accepted as part of the laws of
nature that tea should be a shilling a pound dearer than it need be. As
for direct taxation--well, even the farmers know what the English
income-tax is. Where does it all go? To England as taxes, profits, rents,
imperial contributions, and trade. As a going concern Ireland is now worth
thirty million a year to its owner, John Bull. There are certain expenses
of administration--police, Castle, secret service, prisons, tax
collectors--and there are, of course, several items of hush-money, dodges
necessary to fool the people, such as "education." But the fact is that a
bigger and bigger profit is being made every year out of this island. More
agricultural materials and products are shipped to England, more Irish
brains are selected for running India, etc., more Irishmen are utilised
for gun-fodder. Sometimes, after much beseeching by resolutions and
deputations, we are graciously presented with a minute fraction of our own
goods. Is it not about time that we recognised in English "grants" our own
country's transmuted plunder? We are as dependent on England as a factory
is on an absentee society lady who is shareholder.

In 1663 began the long series of English laws against Irish trade. Charles
II. closed the English markets to Irish cattle, meat, leather, butter,
etc. Ireland built ships and opened direct trade with Flanders, France,
Spain, the American Colonies. The Navigation Act and the Jacobite War once
more destroyed our mercantile marine and ruined our industries. Ireland
was practically confined by law to the English market. In 1782, 60,000
Volunteers, with arms in their hands, won Free Trade--i.e., the liberty of
Ireland to trade direct with the world. In a few years, bad as our own
Parliament was, the country prospered exceedingly. The Union once more
destroyed our industries and even our tillage and turned Ireland into a
cattle-ranch; our mercantile marine was destroyed. All our trade is in the
hands of English middlemen and we have to sell and buy at England's price.
We are dependent on England, not in the sense that we get anything out of
her, but in the sense that we have allowed her to capture our trade and
cut us off from the world. We have allowed England to become a parasitic
bloodsucker. And because we have done so, we fancy that England is our
sole customer. As if the whole world is not clamouring for meat and butter
and other foodstuffs! In 1912, when England placed her cattle embargo on
Ireland, the prices in the markets of Hamburg and Genoa--after deducting
import duty and the extra cost of transit--were more than 11/- per cwt.
higher than the price paid in England. Had Irishmen then had enough Sinn
Fein spirit, they would soon have discovered who was dependent on whom!

There is no possible argument, moral or economic, against Irish freedom.
"Is Ireland fit to be an independent sovereign nation?" asks Dr. Cohalan,
Bishop of Cork. "Why should it not be, if Belgium is fit to be a sovereign
nation, if Serbia is so fit, if Montenegro--whose King is not much more
than a strong farmer in this country--is fit, all fit to be independent
nations? Then, when putting the question as to Ireland, I would really ask
everyone, men and women, in this country to cease speaking slightingly of
their own race and their own country. I would like every Irishman and
woman, Catholic and Protestant, to answer that question in the
affirmative." We are fit to be free, we have a God-given right to be free,
we mean to be free. But how are we going to get our freedom?


=HOW TO GET THINGS.=

Let us see how we ever got anything from England. Parnell is much quoted
just now. What was his view? This is what he said at Manchester, 15th
July, 1877:--

    "For my part I must tell you that I do not believe in a policy of
    conciliation of English feeling or English prejudices. I believe that
    you may go on trying to conciliate English prejudice until the day of
    judgment, and that you will not get the breadth of my nail from them.
    What did we ever get in the past by trying to conciliate them? Did we
    get the abolition of tithes by the conciliation of our English
    taskmasters? No; it was because we adopted different measures. Did
    O'Connell in his time gain emancipation for Ireland by conciliation? I
    rather think that O'Connell in his time was not of a very conciliatory
    disposition, and that at least during a part of his career he was
    about the best-abused Irishman living."

There is no mistaking the view of Charles Stewart Parnell. Two years later
he repeated his assertion (Tipperary, 21st Sept., 1879):--

    "=It is no use relying upon the Government, it is no use relying upon
    the Irish members, it is no use relying upon the House of Commons.=
    You must rely upon your own determination, that determination which
    has enabled you to survive the famine years and to be present here
    to-day; and, if you are determined, I tell you, you have the game in
    your own hands."

And at the St. Patrick's Day celebration in London in 1884:--

    "I have always endeavoured to teach my countrymen, whether at home or
    abroad, the lesson of =self-reliance=.... Do not rely upon any English
    Party; do not rely even upon the great English democracy, however
    well-disposed they may be to your claims. But rely upon yourselves."

Sinn Fein means self-reliance.

According to Parnell, then, the Irish people secured nothing through Irish
talk at Westminster. Whatever they got, they got by direct action. It is
easy to convince ourselves that Parnell is right. We got Free Trade and
legislative independence in 1782, without any Irish Party at Westminster,
with the help of 60,000 Volunteers. In 1829 Catholic Emancipation was won
by O'Connell in Clare, before he ever set foot in Westminster, because he
had the Irish people and the Catholic Association behind him. Yet a few
months before the English Government had rejected a Catholic Relief Bill
with scorn. Here are Peel's words:--

    "In the course of the last six months, England, being at peace with
    the whole world, has had five-sixths of the infantry force of the
    United Kingdom occupied in maintaining the peace and in police duties
    in Ireland. I consider the state of things which requires such an
    application of military force much worse than open rebellion. If this
    be the state of things at present, let me implore of you to consider
    what would be the condition of England in the event of war. Can we
    forget in reviewing the state of Ireland what happened in 1782?"

The Prime Minister was evidently unmoved by all the eloquent appeals for
justice to Irish Catholics; he moved very rapidly when Irishmen showed
signs of =doing= something. The Duke of Wellington, in May, 1829, made a
similar confession:--

    "If you glance at the history of Ireland during the last ten years,
    you will find that agitation really means something short of
    rebellion; that and no other is the exact meaning of the word. It is
    to place the country in that state in which its government is utterly
    impracticable except by means of an overawing military force."

Not such a far cry after all from the Iron Duke to the Tin Viscount!

Tithes were abolished in 1838, again not by a Parliamentary Party, but by
the people themselves after a bloody seven years' war.

Then came Disestablishment in 1869. How did that come? When in 1868
Gladstone proposed his Church resolution, a hundred Irish members
voted--fifty-five for and forty-five against! Obviously Disestablishment
was not carried by Irish representation at Westminster. Let Gladstone
himself tell us what carried it:--

    "Down to the year 1865 and the dissolution of that year, the whole
    question of the Irish Church was dead. Nobody cared about it, nobody
    paid attention to it in England. Circumstances occurred which drew
    attention of the people to the Irish Church. I said myself in 1865,
    and I believed, that it was out of the range of practical politics."

In other words, Fenianism secured Irish Church Disestablishment. Lord
Derby, writing from the opposite camp, agreed with Gladstone:--

    "A few desperate men, applauded by the whole body of the Irish people
    for their daring, showed England what Irish feeling really was, made
    plain to us the depth of a discontent whose existence we had scarcely
    suspected, and =the rest followed, of course=."

Let us hear the same two unimpeachable witnesses concealing the Land
Question. "I must make one admission," said Gladstone, "and that is that
without the Land League the Act of 1881 would not at this moment be on the
Statute Book." "Fixity of tenure," said Lord Derby, "has been the direct
result of two causes: Irish outrage and parliamentary obstruction. The
Irish know it as well as we. Not all the influence and eloquence of Mr.
Gladstone would have prevailed on the English House of Commons to do what
has been done in the matter of Irish tenant right, if the answer to all
objections had not been ready: How else are we to govern Ireland?" In
plain English, every concession wrung from England has been secured simply
by making the English Government otherwise impossible in Ireland.


=THE FAILURE OF PARLIAMENTARIANISM.=

If this be so, what is the use of sending Irishmen over to talk at
Westminster? That is the question which we have to face squarely. In the
hand of a genius like Parnell, the parliamentary policy secured a
temporary success, because, with the help of Joe Biggar, the Fenian, he
played the game in his own way--by parliamentary obstruction--and because
he secured the co-operation of the anti-parliamentary Nationalists. But
even he only looked upon the experiment as a temporary expedient. "Have
patience with me," he said to a Fenian in 1877; "give me a trial for three
or four years; then if I cannot do anything, I will step aside." He made a
very striking declaration in November, 1880, when the freedom of Limerick
was conferred on him:--

    "I am not one of those who believe in the permanence of an Irish Party
    in the English Parliament. I feel convinced that sooner or later the
    influence which every English Government has at its command--the
    powerful and demoralising influence--sooner or later--will sap the
    best Party you can return to the House of Commons. I don't think we
    ought to rely too much on the permanent independence of an Irish Party
    sitting at a distance from their constituencies and legislating, or
    attempting to legislate, for Ireland at Westminster. But I think it
    possible to maintain the independence of our Party by great exertions
    and by great sacrifices on the part of the constituencies of
    Ireland--while we are making a short, sharp, and I trust decisive,
    struggle for the restoration of our legislative independence."

There could not be a more striking condemnation of Westminsterism from the
lips of Ireland's greatest parliamentary leader. What would he not have
said could he have foreseen the Liberal alliance, the pledge-breaking, the
jobbing, the L400 a year! "If the young men of Ireland have trusted me,"
said Parnell at Kilkenny, December, 1890, "it is because they know that I
am not a mere Parliamentarian." Ireland, young and old, has since then had
good cause to distrust mere Parliamentarianism.

The test of any policy is its practical result. What has Westminsterism
got for us? For 47 years we have had an Irish Party, for 118 years Ireland
has been represented in the English Parliament. We have given the
experiment a fair trial; it is high time to take stock. When the Party
started in 1871 our population was 5-1/2 millions; since then over 2-1/4
millions have emigrated; there are now only 4-1/3 millions in the country.
In 1871 there were 5,620,000 acres in tillage; now there are less than
4,900,000. In 1871 the poor rate was 2s. 6d. per head, now it is over 5s.
In 1871 the taxation of Ireland was L1 5s. 7d. per head; to-day it is
about L7. Apply any rational test you like, and find if you can any single
good we have got by sending Irish talkers to Westminster. The Irish Party,
of course, attribute everything to themselves. But this electioneering
dodge--never used by Parnell--is getting a trifle thin. Even Mr. Redmond
wrote in 1902: "Despite the efforts made by Isaac Butt and other Irish
members between 1871 and 1876, nothing was done in the direction of land
reform until the Land League came." The Local Government Act of 1898 was
drafted secretly by the Government and came as a surprise to the Party; it
was even opposed by John Redmond. The Party never asked for Old Age
Pensions, and when these were proposed they confined themselves to the
remark that if extended to Ireland half-a-crown a week would be enough.
Parliament has spent thirty-three years drafting Home Rule Bills; they
have all come to nothing. In three weeks Irish Conscription was passed in
spite of the Party. Where was Conscription defeated--in Ireland or in
Westminster? And if the organised opposition and resistance of the Nation,
especially of Labour, made Conscription impossible, does it not teach us
that our real power is here at home in Ireland? The Party made vain
efforts to secure justice for the Irish teachers. The teachers took the
matter into their own hands and won at once; had they been more
determined, they would have done better still. In 1847-'48, while Irishmen
talked in Parliament, Mitchel proposed to =do= something here in Ireland,
to keep our own food here for our own people. Ireland did not realise her
true salvation then, and the consequences were terrible. Seventy years
later the same gospel is being preached under a new name. Are we going to
listen to-day?

Why, indeed, argue against Parliamentarianism at all? Its very adherents
have abandoned all defence of it. On 3rd December, 1917, Mr. Dillon said
in the English House of Commons: "Our position in this House is made
futile, we are never listened to." Next day Mr. Devlin declared: "I do not
often come to this House, because I do not believe it is worth coming to."
These men are merely re-echoing from their own experience the parting
words of Michael Davitt as he left the English Parliament (Oct., 1899):--

    "I have for four years tried to appeal to the sense of justice in this
    House of Commons on behalf of Ireland. I leave, convinced that no just
    cause, no cause of right, will ever find support from this House of
    Commons unless it is backed up by force."


=THE FUTILITY OF TALK.=

Let us consider the whole policy in a sane, business-like way. John Bull
runs his Other Island purely as a lucrative investment; he makes a good
profit by the concern. Ireland is simply an Area for supplying beef and
mutton, oats and butter, timber and men. We, Irish men and women, exist
merely to be exploited. Well, we know it; what have we done? How have we
striven to oust this big profiteer who sweats and coerces us? We were once
an independent concern, we managed our own affairs. Then John Bull annexed
us; by means of bribes and promises and threats he turned out the Irish
directors. Arrangements were made by which 100 Irishmen were admitted to
the English Employers' Federation 600 strong. And for 118 years these
Irishmen have been talking there, making speeches and petitions and
harangues. And we? What have we been doing? Oh, yes, now and then the
Irish--that is, John Bull's workingmen--got restive and made things
unpleasant. So they got some concessions: Emancipation, Land Acts, etc.
But still they always turned again to talk; with 80 Irishmen talking to
600 Englishmen they were told that they would be quite safe. Weren't we
"represented" at Westminster? Whenever these, our representatives,
definitely proposed anything, they were, of course, beaten; but if the
majority against them was less than 200, they always raised a deafening
cheer. It is so nice to be beaten by only 150, whereas if we were not
"represented" we should be beaten by 230--which would be dreadful. Then we
were told that what was said in Parliament reached the world--as if Mr.
King had not told more truth about us in Parliament than the whole Irish
Party, as if Hansard is not censored, as if Dr. McCartan, Mrs.
Sheehy-Skeffington and others have not said more in America than twenty
Westminsters could convey--not to mention T. P. O'Connor's performances!
To what depths are we reduced, when Westminsterism is excused only as a
means of getting into Hansard!

Do we really think that a handful of Irishmen by merely talking can
persuade eight times their number of Englishmen to take their grip off
this country, to cease exploiting us, to give up their fat profits? Is it
not, to say the least, more likely that the English majority, far cleverer
and more powerful, will succeed in cajoling, bribing and fooling the few
Irish flies who walk into the spiders' parlour? =In fact, was not the Act
of Union specially designed for this very purpose?= To swallow a powerless
Irish minority in an English Parliament, to give them facilities for
talking and letting off steam that thereby the Irish people might be
beguiled into doing nothing else. By providing a sham outlet for our
energies, by diverting our attention into wordy warfare, the English
Parliament has succeeded for 118 years in preventing us from seeing the
obvious truth that the English Government can only be made unworkable =in
Ireland=.

The very genius of Parnell has done us harm by intensifying the illusion.
He succeeded for a while, where Butt failed, because he adopted
unparliamentary methods in Parliament. For a time, by persistent
obstruction, Parnell made Government unworkable, even in England. He was
beaten in the end; obstruction is no longer possible; we have reverted to
the mock debates of Isaac Butt. Things are even much worse; for the whole
Party system has made Parliament a fraud and a farce. The House of Commons
has lost its independence to a caucus which controls the jobs and the
party funds. The latest development, whereby Messrs. Lloyd George and
Bonar Law have arranged to wipe out the Opposition, makes the further
presence of a few Irish Nationalists a jocose anachronism.

The English Coalition would, however, still like the eighty Irishmen to
come and hobnob with them. England is far keener on their attendance than
Ireland ever was. Those who oppose the Westminster policy are mostly in
English prisons; absenteeism is treason felony. English aeroplanes drop
leaflets printed (at our expense) by the English Government to denounce
the policy of abstention, to show that it is folly. The English foreign
propaganda tirelessly advertises the presence of Mr. Dillon and Co. in
Westminster as the surest proof of England's kindness to us, and of Irish
loyalty to the Empire. The Irish Party think that their attendance is good
for Ireland, the English Government is quite certain that it is good for
England, everyone agrees that it cannot be good for both. Which, do you
think, knows the situation best: the English Government, whose policy of
exploiting us has been hitherto so eminently successful, or the Irish
Party which has been so often taken in, outwitted, bribed and duped? It is
worth pondering over.


=THE ALTERNATIVE.=

Undoubtedly in most minds the great objection to the Abstention Policy is
that it seems a mere negation; it seems to leave a horrible blank. What!
No Irish Representatives at Westminster? Are we to allow Carson to
represent us? And so on. Let us look at the thing calmly. Why do we want
to be "represented" at all? We must first answer that question. For
instance, we have no desire to be "represented" in Timbuctoo or in the
Moon; but some Irish people find it consoling to feel that they are
represented in England. If not, they feel something dreadful will happen:
the income-tax will be trebled, we shall all be coerced and conscripted.
Well, as things have hitherto been, the Irish Party have never succeeded
in staving off a penny of our taxation. Twenty-four years ago an
Anglo-Irish Commission found that England was plundering Ireland of two
and three-quarter millions a year in excess of the amount of plunder
sanctioned by the Union. From that day to this we have never secured the
remission of one penny of this plunder; on the contrary, it has been
increased tenfold. And all this time we have been strongly "represented"
at Westminster. We have been paying heavily for the privilege! As for
coercion--did the Party ever prevent it? For years past they might have
got the Crimes Act abolished, they didn't or couldn't. Conscription was
passed swiftly in spite of our "representatives"--but somehow it did not
come off. Now, that is worth thinking on. Conscription, like Coercion Acts
and Budgets, danced through our representatives, yet we ourselves beat it.
How? By electing our own little parliament in Dublin (we called it the
Mansion House Conference, of course, for decency's sake), by voting taxes
to it (we called them the Defence Fund), by organising the country so
effectively that the English-made law was seen to be impossible and
unworkable. What an object-lesson if only we will learn from it. The
anti-conscription campaign is Sinn Fein in a nutshell. Even the Party
developed a momentary backbone; the members came back to Erin and actually
left us "unrepresented" in London--and we hardly noticed the dreadful
fact!

The Abstention Policy means, therefore, that we give up the sham battle
and take up the real struggle in grim earnest. We cease to rely on talk as
an effective economic or political defence, we begin to DO something, to
rely on ourselves. There is only one way of putting an end to English
tyranny in Ireland, and that is, not by scolding at it from the other side
of the Irish Sea, but by making it unworkable over here.

Do we mean the use of physical force? This is a difficulty which at once
arises in discussing the abstention policy. This is chiefly due to the
hysterical asseveration of Mr. John Dillon, whose chief electioneering
argument--apart from abuse--is that the only alternative to Westminster is
Rebellion. It seems rather curious, doesn't it, that we cannot sit tight
here in our own country and win independence as Hungary did under Deak.
But perhaps Mr. Dillon means that if we were not distracted and bamboozled
by the fighting on the floor of the House, we would not so tamely
acquiesce in our oppression; and probably Mr. Dillon is right. But, after
all, conscription was beaten without rebellion, and Mr. Dillon's adherence
(however lukewarm) to the Mansion House Committee showed that he believed
it could be beaten without physical force. And when Mr. Dillon signed the
No-Rent Manifesto he was, though he knew it not, a staunch upholder of
Sinn Fein:--

    "Against the passive resistance of an entire population, military
    power has no weapons.... No power on earth except faint-heartedness on
    your own part, can defeat you.... The world is watching to see whether
    all your splendid hopes and noble courage will crumble away at the
    first threat of a cowardly tyranny.... Stand together in the face of
    the brutal and cowardly enemies of your race.... Stand passively,
    firmly, fearlessly by, while the armies of England may be engaged in
    their hopeless struggle against a spirit which their weapons cannot
    touch.... The Government will