Newspaper Page Text
God speed, then, its mission,
* And hasten the hour When true men shall feel That, “in union there’s power/’ And, hand clasped in hand, Strike for Erin again, And sunder forever Cursed Tyranny’s chain. John, brothers, join, etc. H. J. M. GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE. The Editors, in reply to many commendations and some objec tions, respecting the latitude allowed to writers in the General Correspondence of this journal, have to state, that, in their judg ment, one of the most necessary and important of the objects which they ought to accomplish is, to allow honest and earnest men to express their opinions respecting the great questions of Irish liberty and universal liberty without let or hindrance of any kind. We utter our opinions in the Editorials. Whether they are true or false, right or wrong, let the public judge. The public utters its opinions in the Correspondence. If they are in our favor, we are glad. If they are not, we are neither such cowards nor slaves as to fear their full and free utterance. We open our columns to all, without leaning to any; and thus supply a channel for the publica tion of opinions of all shades, to be found in no other journal in America. We have but one request to make—that our correspond ents will condenne their remarks, as our space is not unlimited, and that they will give us as few words and as many ideas as possible. The less commendation of (middling good; men. the better. A Republic in England. Washington, D. C., March 28, 1868. To the Editors of The Irish Republic. Gentlemen : In the present day men recognize, as never before, the unity of Liberty. When in a late editorial you spoke of the probability of an English Republic being twin born with the hoped-for Irish nationality, you showed that perception of what is without doubt the race’s next great step, had at least come to you. But judging from the universal principles you advocate, I give you credit lor a more clean and logical deduction, which can lead to no conclusion other than the fact that out of the present struggles which rend the British Empire with their anarchical throes—the Fenian • conspiracy,the labor contest, the Reform movements, Sheffield, Hyde Park, Manchester, with its gray wall yawning over the graves of men in whose execution the English oligarchy signed its own death-warrant—there is to grow not only and solely national Liberty for Ireland, but enfranchisement and genuine Democracy for England also. But I intended to call attention to the following sentence from the second of those remarkable articles on Fenianism which Tinsley’s (London) Magazine has published. After a reference to James Stephens, of the justice of which this writer knows nothing, the article says : “ If Fenianism ever succeeds it must be while England is engaged in a war with some other nation. Only those truly in earnest have the patience to wait for such an opportunity.” An Englishman born, a lover of liberty always and to every people, an American citizen who studies affairs from the comprehensive and continental standpoint our compar atively isolated position affords, perhaps I may be allowed to suggest that there is another and even grander way of making Fenianism succeed, than that of the magazinist’s referred to. A recent visit to Great Britain, and wide mingling while therewith the most advanced politicians, and above all with representative workingmen, confirms me in hope long entertained, and convinces me that the shortest road to the nationality and liberty of Ireland is to begin the work of republicanization in Great Britain itself. Irish Republican leaders—the wielders of that Fenian Organization which the observant mind must recognize as the first formidable Democratic conspiracy which ever threatened the safety of the haughtiest obligarchy and empire of the world—have now the chance of grandly aiding to uplift oppression from the necks of those who have been used in oppressing them. There is coming into shape, power, life, in England, for the first time in her history, a genuine Democratic party. There have been English Democrats, but they have had no party following heretofore. It does not yet bear the name, nor is it altogether conscious of its strength, but in a thou sand ways the proof is visible that a Democratic movement is forming among the English masses. One half of the ability, patience, sacrifices, money, ex pended now, (that has hitherto been spent in Ireland,) in developing this Republicanism in Great Britain, will produce astonishing results. The elements are there; they only need directing hands. Because they have not yet found them, the English masses still follow the so-called Liberal leaders— men who in the main are but the bridge over which, from feudalism to democracy, the English, as well as the Irish, are slowly but surely advancing. While in England I talked with scores of representative men of the masses. I know what I speak, when uttering the conviction that in the near future, the establishment of a Federal Republic formed by England, Ireland and Scotland, is a work of easier attainment than it has so far been to organize the Irish people, and make available for an Irish Republic, the undying love and sacrificial heroism which has risen again and again to assert their nationality, though even centuries of oppression have been piled upon them. Yours for the universal Republic, Richard J. Hinton. -i\mm t St. Patrick’s Day in Missouri. St. Louis, Mo., March 20, 3808. . To the Editors of The Irish Republic. Gentlemen : I presume your readers will be very much interested to know how the national holiday was celebrated in this place. Well, then, some spent the day and celebrated gloriously with banners flying, drums beating, and with all the other et ceterae usually displayed by men who concentrate all their power and give vent to their long pent-up feelings in a single yearly outburst of patriotism. And some of us, too, spent the day quietly enough and sadly. Plie thought of being exiles, without a country to call our own ,the best of our race banished, imprisoned and hanged tor daring to appear men ; the thought of all this, and more, too, made some of us feel sad. Besides, too, the hard winter just passod through has left many of our people without heart and without the means of indulging in the expensive luxury of a modern American Patrick’s Day celebration. The day was fine and breezy, and the streets well filled with the usual cortege of ragged boys, idle men and patriotic women. The different societies were Well represented in numbers. There Were the Shamrock Sons, Hibernians, Teetotal, Stone masons and Hod-carriers^--headed by their respective bands of music. (By the way, the “Emmet Coronet Band,” com posed of fine young fellows, was one of the best in the pro cession. This band is a national institution and ought to be encouraged.) As one of the outsiders looking calmly on, I could not help reflecting on the meaningless display of stout men who, if they were but Fenians, would exert a powerful influence for Ireland’s good. But, no! They are too wise, and the struggle for existence against damned poverty, entailed on .them by the tyrant of their race, makes cowards of a portion of our countrymen, and dissipation and blackguardism make another portion of them, generally the sons of the former, indifferent alike to the call of God and country. It is hard to be obliged to differ thus with our country people, but everyone knows that Irish men in these days of their country’s troubles, do not dis charge their duty to Ireland by parading the streets on one day in the year, and glutting themselves in the night with dainty food and costly wines. I must not omit to mention the great event of the day’s celebration. I mean, of course, the’ banquet which was given by the Knights of St. Patrick. This was got up regardless of expense. Tickets were ten dollars each. The gallant Knights intended, and I believe they succeeded, in throwing the St. George’s and St. Andrew’s societies, and all the other fellows, completely in the shade by the bounti fulness of their feast, and above all, by the length, number and brilliancy of their speeches. Here, again, I feel obliged to pause and moralize a little—I slia’n’t say fault find. I would like to ask the Knights and such as’they, who claim to be representative Irishmen, what good do banquets and speeches to Ireland or the Irish people? Is it sensible, is it decent for men to blab about our country’s ancient glories, while she is at this day the most distressed nation on the globe ? Is it decent to spend thousands of money in empty, vain-glorious display, and in eating and drinking, while thousands of their poor countrymen, out of employment, are the recipients of charity and the most numerous patrons of the charity soup kitchens which the goodness of strangers has established in the town ? But what, it may be asked, would we have those men to do? I would have them to be consistent with themselves, to be in act and deed what they are in name: Irishmen. 1 con sider it to be the duty of every Irishman, worthy the name, to labor constantly the whole year round for Ireland’s free dom and for the good of our countrymen. Working and talking by fits and starts never accomplished any real good. Let those men who make line speeches and praise themselves once a year, join some Fenian Circle, and then they will be doing some good for Ireland. If we are not united as a Brotherhood, they will make us so; if we are poor, we will be enriched by their acquisition ; if we are not honest, they will watch us, and thus defeat our dishonest designs; if our leaders are incompetent, their numbers can furnish plenty possessing the requisite amount of brains along with prac tical administrative and other abilities. We are not Fenians because of the name. If any name sounds to them better than Fenian, why, we will give this up, if by so'doing we can unite our countrymen to us for our country’s and freedom’s sake. If the plans of our Organization are foolish or imperfect, let us, by all means, have the aid of the superior wisdom which exists in our midst, though unused, to render those plans more perfect. As long, then, as they will not offer us their wise hints nor aid us by their presence or their counsel, these are fault-finders. It is the greatest impudence in men to upbraid our Organization for lack of union, who them selves have always kept aloof from every decent movement of their countrymen for nationality. The Brotherhood is not, I must say, flourishing very well here, just now. It is hard to say who is to blame for the want of life and energy so apparent here. I have hopes, however, of being able to tell you in a very short time a dif ferent story. In the meantime, we will never despair of the cause while there live such good men and true men as are known to be here. Have you noticed the new way which John Mitchel ad vises of freeing Ireland from England’s presence and rule?— ask them to go out of it. Why didn’t we think of that before ? Occasional. - <!«»!>-■ A Reply to Mr. Blakeney’s Letter, Answered. NO. IV. Dunkirk, N. Y., March 30,1868. To the Editors of The Irish Republic. Gentlemen : I find in your paper of the 28th instant a pro fessed “ reply ” to my first letter as it appeared in your issue of the 28th January last. This reply is without the name of its author, but it bears the accidental nom deplume of “ Hy dalgo,” wherewith I must be content. This correspondent has made the mistake of not taking up the point to which the remarks in that letter were directed. Pie speaks of the will of the Irish people. I spoke not of their ivill, but of their weakness, and its cause. Nobody doubts the people’s good will to be freed from oppression; they have given proof of it in the many abortive attempts made to carry it out. But all attempts of the kind having ended in disastrous failure, 1 became persuaded that the cause of these failures was the true object to which the attention of good and true men should henceforth be turned, that when found, if found it could be, the true remedy might be ap plied. As to reading Ireland’s indictment against England over and over, always and forever, the thing is unnecessary, is mere waste ; it stirs up no new sympathy—does no good. The world’s verdict against the criminal—England—has long since been rendered; nothing remains but the punish ment, and when this cannot be inflicted, the cause of the failure should be sought for. Governmental abuse is an or dinary and removable evil; all governments will abuse when they have to deal with a people that lack the power of suc cessful resistance. When resistance is impossible, the cause of this is the true object of inquiry. I thought, and every day’s reflection on the subject only confirms my opinion, that the cause of Ireland’s weakness is to be found in the religious teachings to which its people, i for generations back have been exclusively subject. I feel that this can be demonstrated before an impartial world. But there is an obstacle in the Way^-the thing would give pain—it would wound the honest but deep-rooted, the all pervading but unfortunate prejudices of a people having already more than their share of suffering. These consider ations have weight, so that if the subject be approached at all, it can only be by allusions ftnd lifeless generalities, I return to Hydalgo’s “ reply.” Archbishop Hughes published to the world his opinion that “the Irish, if Protestant, would upset British rule in Ireland in forty-eight hours.” Now, the essential thing here, is the value of this opinion. Respecting this value, I enter tained and expressed no doubt, but the direct reverse. If 1 speculated doubtingly (which I did) touching the possible motive that produced the public expression of that important Archiepiscopal opinion, its value could not be affected by my doing so. However, Hydalgo has seized on this unimpor tant circumstance with suspicious eagerness and parades it with an empty triumph. His motive in acting thus may be good, but the performance is not decidedly creditable. Hydalgo asks, (I condense his argument,) if the Govern ment knew that Protestantism would upset its authority in Ireland, why did it take such pains to implant it firmly in the country ? why should its great statesmen play the part of such consummate fools ? Answer. The Government did not fear the hostile exercise of Protestant power in Ireland, for it never dreamt of provoking it by unjust legislation or other wise. “On the contrary, its settled policy was and is to se cure that power on its own side by its friendly treatment of those who possessed it. As the Government is aware of the power which Ireland, “ if Protestant,” could wield when pro voked, so is it equally aware of the (just) ill-will, and, alas ! utter helplessness of Catholic Ireland. There is another source of irritation; the Government knows that Catholic Ireland loves a foreign potentate better than it loves its own, even were its own a Catholic to the backbone, namely, His Holiness of Rome. It is hoped that this may partly explain Hydalgo’s puzzle. In order to show the want of patriotism in the Protestants of Ireland, he refers to their refusal to accept the repeated and earnest invitations of Mr. O’Connell to a union with the Catholics in his moral force policy. They may not have had the will to do what Mr. O’Connell wanted them to do, but this would not prove them destitute of that power which alone was the theme of my remarks. And why, if I must speak of it, had they not the will f It is notorious that Mr. O’Connell was an enemy to Republicanism and the slave of Catholic churchmen; carrying a priest about with him, wherever he went. Surely, our common prejudices being taken into consideration, it is not so very surprising that the Protestants of the North declined to fall in with a man of this stamp. “Had they,” Hydalgo goes on to say, “united their efforts with the Catholics, Ireland would be long since free from English domination.” Well, and why did they not? They had, perhaps, a lesson in history before their eyes which may have served to determine their refusal. Possibly the following, as related by Mr. O’Connell himself, in his Memoires on Ireland, Native and Saxon, Vol. I. Speak ing of the state of things in 1793, when Republicanism threat ened nearly every State in Europe, he says: “The revolu tionary war was about to commence—the flames of Republic anism had spread far and near. It was eagerly caught up amongst the Protestant and especially among the Presbyte rian population of the North of Ireland. Belfast was its warmest focus; it was the deep interest of the British Govern ment to detach the wealth and intelligence of the Catholics of Ireland from the Republican party. This policy was adopted. The Catholics were conciliated. The Catholic nobility, gentry, mercantile, and other educated classes, almost to a man, separated from the Republican party. That which would otherwise have been a revolution, became only an un successful rebellion.” They were “conciliated.” Faith, it was aisily done. Jack Downing was once in a great way about obtaining the Presidency of these United States; at length President Jackson gave him a pair of cast off’ breeches. He was “conciliated;” he went home scarcely able to restrain his joy. If I am guilty of a historical blunder, here, Hy dalgo is just the one to set me right. As a further reply to the drift of my remarks, he refers to a number of historical events, about which I might be able and even proud to agree with him, without being one step nearer to the settlement of the point which I have in view, and which is, the helplessness of Ireland and its cause—the process by which, like the barberizing of Samson, the people have been shorn of their strength. He speaks of “ the great Jesuit, Suarez, the prince of theologians, St. Thomas Ac quinas,” etc., as teaching that people may, under certain circumstances, attempt the overthrow of unjust governments. The poor, suffering people of Ireland know nothing of these great saints and theological doctors—don’t need their teach ing about what is lawfid to do against a villainous government. What they want is power, and that the theological doctors have taken good care the common people shall never have. Does the Church know that the conduct of the British Gov ernment justifies armed resistance? Why, then, does it, every Sunday, pray for that Government? Why does it persecute the Fenians? Oh, the “fair prospect of success” is not in view. And when will it? Never, if the well housed and well-fed priesthood can help it. Whenever the people move, their lordships the bishops find something to disapprove of. There will be the crime of secrecy, of “ lati tudinarian or infidel tendencies,” the want of a “ reasonable chance of success,” or something else. When, recently, all the bishops in the world went to Rome, what did they go there for? They went there very probably for the purpose of getting the Pope to head them in a grand petition to the British Government in favor of the most faithful Catholic nation on earth—one that “ never vet gave birth to a heresy”—poor old Ireland. No, no. They went there on a more sublime and patriotic mission. It was to see that the title of saint should be given by Irishmen to a pious Italian ecclesiastic who lived a hundred and fifty years ago, more or less; who invented and promulgated tlie'most approved method of self-denial, mortification, etc., much needed bv the Irish; who inflicted on his brother John (also a priest) five fits of the fever-and-ague, for eating, contrary to rule, five figs of his own—exactly a shake for each fig; and of whom it is recorded, as one among his extraordinary virtues, (“Life of Blessed Paul of the Cross,”) that he “never looked in a woman’s lace!” The meeting was, I believe, “a success,” so that we, Irish, have now another saint to venerate for having taught us what we didn’t know before—how tq I fast and pray, God be praised !