CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THE GREIL MEMORIAL 
 
 BOOK fund: established in - 
 
 1933 BY TRIENDS OF RoMAN 
 
 Jacob Greil of the class of 
 19x1 to provide means for 
 the purchase and care of 
 books pertaining to world 
 peace and kindred subjects 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 DA 962.M13 1920 
 
 Some ethical questions of peace and war. 
 
 3 1924 028 174 161 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028174161 
 
SOME ETHICAL QUESTIONS OF 
 PEACE AND WAR 
 
NIHIL OBSTAT: 
 
 Thomas Berch, Abb; O.S.B. 
 Censor deputatus. 
 
 Cum consensu Rmi Ordinarii Dublinsnsis. 
 
 IMPRIMATUR: 
 
 Edm. Can. Surmont 
 Fie, -Gen. 
 
 Wbstmonasterii, die 4 JuLii, 1919. 
 
SOME 
 ETHICAL QUESTIONS 
 OF PEACE AND WAR 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO IRELAND 
 
 REV. WALTER McDONALD, D.D. 
 
 Prefect of the Dunboyne EstablisAment, St. Patrick's 
 College, Maynooth 
 
 LONDON 
 
 BURNS, GATES & WASHBOURNE, LTD. 
 
 28 ORCHARD STREET, W., and 
 
 8-10 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.G. 
 
 1920 
 
txrlf-f ■ 
 
 First Edition . . . October, igig 
 Second Edition , , January, 1020 
 
 Third Edition . , . May, igso 
 
 
 nil 
 
 
 nV 
 
PREFACE 
 
 MOST of the questions raised in this little 
 book are new ; at least in the sense that, 
 as far as I know, they have not been 
 dealt with hitherto in scientific fashion and on 
 Catholic Hnes. We are not, however, left with- 
 out guidance, of general principles ; which need 
 to be applied with caution to cases undreamt 
 of, or certainly not investigated, by our fathers 
 in the schools. 
 
 This has been attempted of late, in some cases ; 
 I doubt whether with sufficient detachment. 
 The atmosphere is too fuU of passion, and will 
 be for long. Our successors will see more 
 clearly ; and will make, for all sides, allowances 
 too generous for such as have lived through these 
 last dreadful years. 
 
 And yet, as the whole world is talking of these 
 questions, the Catholic schools of ethics should 
 not ignore them. Not that on any of them 
 one can hope to say the last word ; but that, 
 surveying them from different angles, one may 
 direct attention to aspects that might be over- 
 looked, and so contribute to a fuller view and a 
 more equitable decision. 
 
 As some of the opinions here advanced run 
 counter to the feelings of many Irishmen, I 
 deem it well to say, that, shoidd it come to 
 boasting, — as St. Paul wrote, in like circumstances, 
 when he had something unpalatable to tell 
 
10 PREFACE 
 
 his countrjonen, — few can show a strain of 
 Gaelic blood more ancient and pure than mine. 
 According to Professor MacNeill, Ossory was a 
 pre-Milesian kingdom ; while Ivferk in Ossory, 
 to which I belong, he identifies with the Lagin 
 des Gabair, a still more ancient people. 
 
 To judge from the recorded lists of princes 
 of both territories, Domnal was a common name 
 therein, at the time when such names became 
 surnames. It still clings to a hill and a glen in 
 Iverk. And as for the women of my ancestry, 
 as far as they can be traced, not one of them bore 
 a non-Irish maiden name. My Christian name, 
 however, indicates that there was a mixture 
 somewhere. 
 
 Of my forbears, moreover, none, as far as I 
 can learn, ever took service of any kind under 
 the English, or got any special favour from them. 
 Whatever pay they received was the price of farm 
 produce ; and came ultimately, to them as to their 
 neighbours, then as now, from Britain. In that 
 sense I was brought up on British gold, and 
 should deem it shame not to recognise the 
 obligation. Otherwise I owe England nothing, 
 except fair play; nor have I the least hope, or 
 desire, of any special favour from her. 
 
 To my own people, of the Gael, is due the 
 best I have : truth ; if, indeed, I have it. A 
 little south of Iverk, among the Deisi, there is a 
 proverb, — ^first uttered, folk say, by a rock that split 
 in delivery : — ^Truth is bitter. Like other bitter 
 things, it is wholesome : in politics and economics, 
 as in things spiritual, it and it alone makes us free. 
 
CONTENTS 
 PARI I.— QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 Of Certain Recent Statements Made by Re- 
 presentative Irish Catholics ; and of 
 Some Questions Raised thereby 
 
 I. Ireland a Nation ? — 2. The Mansion House Conference. — 
 3. The Irish Parliamentary Party. — 4. The Nationalist 
 Section of the Convention. — ^5. Certain University 
 Professors and Other Well-known People. — 6. The Sinn 
 Fein Clergy. — 7. The Episcopal Body.— S. The Professor 
 of Catholic Theology, National University. — 9. A May- 
 nooth Professor of Philosophy. — 10. " The Irish Theolo- 
 gical Quarterly " pp. zi-30 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 Of whether Ireland was ever a United and 
 Fully Independent Nation 
 
 I, Some Conditions of Nationhood. — 2. Unity of Rule. — ^3. No 
 such Unity in Ancient Ireland. — ^4. Independence of 
 Leinster. — 5. The Kingdom of Ossory. — 6, Analogy of the 
 Holy See.— 7. The British Colonies. — 8. Late and Arrested 
 Development ...... pp. 31-40 
 
12 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 Of whether Ireland ever Acquiesced in Loss 
 OF Independence 
 
 I. Two Periods of Irish History. — 2. Henry H. — 3. Richard H 
 — 4. The Tudors. — ^5. Great Chiefs Become Earls. — 6. 
 The Stuarts. — "]. The Repeal Movement. — 8. The Fenian 
 Brotherhood. — 9. The Home Rule Movement. — 10. Answer 
 to the Question Proposed .... pp. 41—52 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 Of the Possibility of Loss of Nationhood 
 
 WITHOUT acquiescence ; AND OF PRESCRIP- 
 TION between Nations 
 
 I. The Question. — 2, The Milesian Conquest of Ireland. — 
 3. Conquest by the Normans. — ^4. Conquests by White 
 Men Generally. — 5. Teaching of Lessius. — 6. Prescription 
 between Nations. — 7. Acquiescence not Necessary. — 8. 
 Time Required ...'... pp. 53-61 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 Of Three Degrees of Conquest ; and of the 
 Efficacy of Forced Consent to Transfer 
 of Authority 
 
 I. Indirect Authority of Usurper. — 2. Three Degrees of Con- 
 quest. — 3. Effect of Forced Acquiescence. — ^4. Ireland not 
 like Belgium ...... pp. 62—69 
 
CONTENTS 13 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 Of the Effect of a Transfer of Jurisdiction 
 Secured by Corruption 
 
 I, Lack of Theological Authority. — 2. Analogies. — 3. Election 
 of Unworthy ClergTmen to Ecclesiastical Benefices. — ^4. 
 Ethics of Agency. — 5. Commission of Grattan's Parlia- 
 ment. — 6. Principle Suggested . . . pp. 70-77 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 Of how a People hitherto Independent may 
 be Bound to Union with Others ; and 
 of how This may be Secured 
 
 r. Application of the Principle of Development. — 2. Self- 
 Determination and Self-Defence.-^3. Pre-Milesian States 
 of Ireland : The United States. — 4. Principle of Combina- 
 tion. — 5. Union May be Secured by Pressure. — 6. Appli- 
 cation to Modern Ireland.-^. Irish Trade Dependent on 
 That of England.— 8. Who Saved our Trade J— 9. Other 
 Small Nations. — 10. Utilitarianism . . pp. 78-89 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 Of Some Conditions of Complete Self- 
 Determination 
 
 I. The Principle of Self-Determination. — 2. The Principle 
 Conditioned. — 3. Development. — ^4. Principle running 
 through all Forms of Life. — 5. Independence and Com- 
 petition. — 6. Need of Combination Relative. — 7. War of 
 Competition but Commencing. — 8. A Question of Business 
 
 pp. 90-99 
 
H CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 Of the Principle of Home Rule ; and of 
 Colonial Home Rule 
 
 1. Majority Rule. — 2. Local Self -Government. — 3. Home Rule. 
 — 4. Conflicting Principles. — 5. Colonial Home Rule, for 
 Colonies. — 6. Nationalist Demand at Convention. — 7. Con- 
 trol of Customs. — 8. Do Separate Tariffs Make for Imperial 
 Strength? — 9. Risk in Common Tariff . pp. loo-iio 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 Of Majority Rule and the Ulster Question 
 
 I. Principles to be Harmonised. — 2. Where Minorities Must be 
 Ruled. — 3. The Common Local Government which we 
 Call Home Rule. — ^4. Application to Ulster. — 5. Limita- 
 tion of the Ulster Claim. — 6. Separation . pp. 111-116 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 Of the Basis of Taxation ; and of the 
 fr Financial Relations between Great 
 
 Ij Britain and Ireland 
 
 I. The Question, in Relation to Ireland. — 2. Report of the 
 Childers Commission. — 3. Overtaxation Coincident with 
 Poverty. — \. Change Introduced by Sir William Harcourt. 
 — ^5. Basis of Taxation : Duties on Commodities. — 6. 
 Taxation of Luxuries. — 7. Possible Mode of Adjust- 
 ment pp. 117-127 
 
CONTENTS IS 
 
 NOTES 
 
 I. Extracts from Letters of the Prime 
 Minister, Mr. D. Lloyd George, Pro- 
 posing Home Rule for Ireland, with 
 Conditions of the Same 
 
 (i.) Prime Minister to Mr. Redmond . . pp. 128— 131 
 (ii.) Prime Minister to Sir Horace Pluniett . pp. 132—137 
 
 IL Extract from the Report of Ulster 
 Unionist Delegates to the Irish Con- 
 vention . . . • pp- 137-139 
 
 III. The Bishop of Raphoe on Irish Taxation 
 
 pp. 139-141 
 
 PART IL— QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 Of Preparation for War : Conscription 
 
 I. Conscription May be Necessary. — 2. First Ground of Irish 
 Opposition. — 3. Second Ground. — ^4. Third Ground. — ^5. 
 The Government Dared not Enforce.— 6. Fourth Ground 
 of Opposition. — 7. How to Evade Taxes. — 8. Final Reason. 
 — 9. Reform Needed in Ireland — ^and Elsewhere pp. 145-157 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 Of Certain Causes that Justify War 
 
 I. German Invasion of Belgium. — 2. The Principle. — 3. Antici- 
 pating Aggression. — ^4.. The Boer War. — ^5. The United 
 States and Japan.— -6. Protection of Missionaries. — 7. 
 Spheres of Influence. — 8. The Monroe Doctrine. — 9. 
 Missionaries of Commerce. — 10, Self-Determination 
 
 pp. 158-169 
 
i6 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 Of the Pressure that may be Applied to 
 Secure Local Self-Government 
 
 I. The frish Volunteer Movement. — 2. Extreme Demands. — 
 
 3. Principle of Armed Revolution Admitted by Statesmen. 
 — ^4. Question as to Extent of the Principle. — 5. Two 
 Points of Difference.— 6. Non-Catholic Opinion Liberal. — 
 7. Opinion of Irish Catholics. — 8. Author's View 
 
 pp. 170-17S 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 Of the Conduct of War : (i) Of Bombard- 
 ment OF Towns, and of Reprisals 
 
 I. The Difficulty. — z. May Co-operators be slain ? — 3. Grade 
 of Proximity Difficult to Determine. — 4. May such Non- 
 combatants be killed Indirectly f— 3. Air-raidS and Long- 
 range Guns. — 6. Reprisals. — 7. Prisoners, Spies, Traitors, 
 Cowards, and Deserters .... pp. 176-184 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 Of the Conduct of War : (2) Of Blockade 
 
 I. Ethics of Blockade. — 2. Naval Blockade. — 3. Enemy Ships. — 
 
 4. Neutrals Trading virith Enemy Ports. — 5. Blodcade must 
 be Effective. — 6. Mutual Trade of Neutrals : Freedom of 
 the Seas pp. 185—192 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 Of the Conduct of War : (3) Of the Sub- 
 marine 
 
 I. Apart from Blockade. — 2. Cases in Point: Fishing Boats 
 and Hospital Ships, — 3. The Lusitania and the Leinster.— 
 
CONTENTS 17 
 
 4. The German Bloctade. — 5. The Lusitania and LeinsUr 
 again, — 6. Successive Efficiency . . • pp. 103-202 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 Of Some Consequences of War 
 
 iocialist Formula. — 2. Penalties and Indemnities. — 3. Unjust 
 War Waged in Good Faith. — 4. Annexations. — ^5. Annexa- 
 tion and Nationality . . . .pp. 203-210 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Of Ireland since the Union ; and of the Pros- 
 perity OF Holland, Denmark, and other 
 Small Nations 
 
 I. Author's Apology. — 2. Diminishing Population, — ^3. Vanish- 
 ing Industries. — ^4. Holland, Switzerland, and Scandinavia. 
 — ^5. Independence . . . . pp. 211-220 
 
PART I 
 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 19 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 OF CERTAIN RECENT STATEMENTS MADE BY REPRE- 
 SENTATIVE IRISH CATHOLICS ; AND OF SOME 
 QUESTIONS RAISED THEREBY 
 
 !• TRELAND a Nation? — Some time ago a 
 / group of priests, of whom the writer was 
 one, were conversing on Irish politics. The 
 question of union with Great Britain arose ; and 
 when I remarked that Ireland is part of a United 
 Kingdom, and, as such, bound to contribute her 
 fair share, in treasure and military service, to the 
 support and defence of the whole, one of the 
 party annihilated me with the question, more 
 than once repeated : " Are we not a nation ? " 
 It was his only argument ; but it satisfied 
 him. 
 
 2. The Mansion House Conference. — ^When, in 
 the spring of 1918, the Imperial Government 
 proposed to make military service compulsory in 
 Ireland, there was held in the Mansion House, 
 Dublin, a notable conference of lay leaders of 
 the diflEerent sections of Nationalists. A report 
 of the proceedings appeared in the Dublin 
 newspapers of April 19, wherein we were told 
 that " the Conference adopted the following 
 Declaration : — 
 
22 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 " Taking our stand on Ireland's separate and 
 distinct nationhood, and affirming the principle 
 of Uberty, that the Governments of Nations derive 
 their just, powers from the consent of the 
 governed, we deny the right of the British 
 Government, or any external authority, to impose 
 compvJsory service on Ireland against the clearly 
 expressed will of the Irish people. The passing 
 of the Conscription Bill by the British House of 
 Commons must be regarded as a declaration of 
 war on the Irish Nation. ... It is in direct 
 violation of the right of small nationalities 
 to self-determination ; which even the Prime 
 Minister of England . . . himself announced as 
 an essential condition for peace at the Peace 
 Conference ". 
 
 Of those who signed the foregoing v/e know 
 that Messrs. De Valera and Griffith hold that 
 Ireland is a nation in the sense of being fuUy 
 independent, at least de iure. And, of course, if 
 this were so, it would completely justify the 
 opposition of Irishmen to the Conscription Act. 
 But is it Mr. Dillon's view, or Mr. Devlin's, who 
 also signed the Declaration ? Or is it in that 
 sense Mr. Healy, K.C., another of the signa- 
 tories, calls Ireland a nation I 
 
 3. The Irish Parliamentary Party. — On April 
 20, — ^two days after the Mansion House Con- 
 ference, — ^the Irish Parliamentary Party met in 
 Dublin, and passed the following resolution : — 
 *' That the enforcement of compulsory military 
 service on a Nation, without its consent, con- 
 stitutes one of the most brutal acts of tyranny 
 
NATIONALIST LEADERS 23 
 
 and oppression that any government can be 
 guilty of. That the present proposal of Mt. 
 Lloyd George's government, to enforce con- 
 scription on Ireland, is an outrage and a gross 
 violation of the national right of Ireland ". This 
 was repeated, by the same Party, at another 
 meeting held in Dublin on May 17 following. 
 
 Now all these gentlemen, on being introduced 
 to the British House of Commons, — some of 
 them many times, — ^had taken an oath of allegi- 
 ance to the Imperial Government. One wonders 
 what did they mean. It cannot be that they have 
 seen the error of their ways and would not take 
 such an oath now ; for they complain of the 
 Sinn Fein Party for not allowing Irish Members 
 of Parliament to sit at Westminster. 
 
 4. The Nationalist Section of the Convention. — 
 At the recent Convention, the Nationalist section, 
 including a number of Members of ParUament and 
 some Bishops, agreed that " notwithstanding the 
 establishment of an Irish Parliament, or anything 
 contained in the Government of Ireland Act, 
 the supreme power and authority of the Parlia- 
 ment of the United Kingdom shall remain 
 unaffected and undiminished, over all persons, 
 matters, and things in Ireland and every part 
 thereof". Ireland a Nation, in this sense, does 
 not mean Ireland completely independent. In 
 what sense, one wonders, is it a nation to the 
 minds of those members of the Convention ? 
 
 5. Certain University Professors and Other Well- 
 known People. — On May 18, 1918, there appeared 
 in " The Freeman's Journal " a statement drawn 
 
24 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 up by certain well-known people, — Pleaders of 
 thought, presumedly, — ^including Mrs. A. S. 
 Green, and Professors Hyde, Magennis, and 
 O'SuUivan, of the National University. They 
 affirmed that " the decision of the Parliament of 
 the British People to conscribe the manhood of 
 Ireland, — by an order of the English Privy 
 Council, — ^in thus deUberately ignoring our 
 national status, denies it. . . . The treatment 
 which shall be meted out to a small nation, one 
 of the most ancient, affords a crucial test of the 
 sincerity of any Power's adhesion to the cause 
 of world freedom and the rights of nations". 
 Did the Professors, I wonder, mean to affirm 
 that Ireland is completely independent, owing 
 no allegiance to the Parliament of the United 
 Kingdom ? 
 
 6. The Sinn Fein Clergy. — ^At the late parlia- 
 mentary election it was the foremost plank in 
 the Sinn Fein platform that Ireland is de iure 
 a completely independent nation ; and the 
 candidates of the party pledged themselves, if 
 elected, to make it their first business to secure 
 this right. The Dail Eirann, which resulted, 
 and which met in DubUn on Jan. 21, 1919, 
 issued a " Declaration of Independence", whidi 
 was suppressed by the Censor. The substance of 
 the Declaration, I take it, may be gathered from 
 a pubHshed " Message to the Free Nations ", 
 which contains the following : — " Nationally, the 
 race, the language, the customs, and the con- 
 ditions of Ireland, are radically distinct from 
 the EngUsh. Ireland is one of the most ancient 
 
PRIESTS AND BISHOPS 25 
 
 nations in Europe, and she has preserved her 
 national integrity, vigorous and intact, through 
 seven centuries of foreign oppression. She has 
 never relinquished her national rights, and 
 throughout the long era of EngHsh usurpation, 
 she has in every generation defiantly proclaimed 
 her inaUenable right of nationhood, down to the 
 last glorious resort to arms in 1916 ". 
 
 Great numbers of the junior clergy, and a 
 considerable body of their seniors, with some 
 even of the Bishops, supported the Sinn Fein 
 candidates, or voted for them. Some of this, 
 I know, was bluflE — asking, as I have heard one 
 man put it, for more than they hoped to get. 
 Others voted Sinn Fein as for the less of two 
 evils. But many of the priests, and perhaps 
 some of the Bishops, seem to have acted on 
 the conviction that Ireland is ie iure a fully 
 independent nation. Is this really their teach- 
 ing ? 
 
 7. The Episcopal Body. — In the same issue of 
 the Dublin newspapers that contained the Report 
 of the Mansion House Conference, already 
 quoted, there appeared, side by side with that 
 document, a Statement of the Archbishops and 
 Bishops of Ireland, wherein their Lordships 
 complained that " an attempt is being made to 
 force conscription upon Ireland against the wiU 
 of the Irish nation ". Which would seem to 
 imply that, to the mind of the Bishops, Ireland 
 is not bound by any Act of the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment which may have been passed against the 
 vote of a majority of the Irish Members. Is 
 
26 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 this, I wonder, a fair inference from their Lord- 
 ships' statement ? Is it their teaching ? 
 
 8. The Professor of Catholic Theology, National 
 University.— Hhe statement of the Bishops was 
 published on April 19 ; and on the 14th of next 
 month, — when, perhaps, maturer reflection had 
 suggested the advisability of some defence based 
 on scientific principles,-— there appeared in 
 the Dublin newspapers an article on " The 
 Theology of Resistance ", signed " P. Finlay, 
 Professor of Catholic Theology, National Uni- 
 versity of Ireland ". In this article Father 
 Finlay said : — " They [Irish Catholics, with rare 
 exceptions] deny that compulsory military service 
 may ever be imposed by one people upon another ; 
 and they- claim that Ireland is a distinct people 
 from Great Britain. This was evidently in the 
 Bishops' mind when they wrote : * ' An attempt 
 is being made to force conscription upon Ireland 
 against the will of the Irish nation '. It is useless 
 and uimecessary to discuss what constitutes a 
 nation. Whatever it may be — ^natural boundaries, 
 mentahty, religious sympathies, history, race, — - 
 it divides and always has divided Ireland from 
 Great Britain. . . . There are links which unite 
 us ; but they are as nothing when compared vnth 
 the facts which keep us apart. We are far less 
 one with Great Britain than are any of her 
 colonies, — Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, 
 or Australia ". 
 
 Professor Finlay repeated this — more deli- 
 berately, if possible, — a month later, and almost 
 in the same words, in the Jesuit Quarterly, 
 
CLERICAL PROFESSORS 27 
 
 " Studies "• His principle, — ^that compulsory- 
 military service may never be imposed by one 
 people upon another, — ^holds, plainly, o£ fully 
 independent peoples. It did not take a Uni- 
 versity Professor of Theology to teach even 
 plain folk that. But what if such a law were 
 passed by a ParUament common to both ? 
 " Irish Catholics ", he says, "do not deny generally 
 the right of a London ParUament to make laws 
 for Ireland " ; nor, I take it, to impose taxes. 
 It may be, indeed, that while a parliament 
 common to two peoples may legislate for and 
 tax either without their consent, it may not 
 exact compulsory military service. Is this, one 
 wonders, the position ? 
 
 9. A Maynooth Professor of Philosophy. — In 
 June 191 8 " The Irish Ecclesiastical Record " 
 pubUshed an article under the title of " The Con- 
 scription Menace in Ireland and Some Issues 
 Raised by It ". The article was signed by 
 Dr. CofiEey, Professor of Philosophy in Maynooth 
 College ; who indicated three lines on which 
 resistance to conscription was Hkely to be justi- 
 fied. Some would admit the right of the 
 Westminster Parliament to make ordinary laws 
 and impose ordinary taxes, but not the Blood 
 Tax. Others would " justly appeal " to certain 
 historical facts, connected with the Act of 
 Union and what has happened since, " for the 
 purpose of proving that no law of the Imperial 
 Parliament is directly binding on Irishmen ". 
 This line of argument " goes deeper than the 
 first ; and suggests yet a third which goes deeper 
 
28 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 still. It is briefly this : that England possesses 
 no moral right to conscript Irishmen, for the 
 simple reason that England has not now, and 
 never has had, [italics in original] any moral right 
 to rule or govern Ireland ". 
 
 This is plain speaking ; and as it appeared in 
 a monthly ecclesiastical journal which boasts that 
 it is pubUshed under episcopal sanction, while 
 the article was signed by a Professor in a seminary 
 of which the Bishops of Ireland are Trustees, 
 one can hardly be blamed for taking it that the 
 teaching, if not that of their Lordships, is not 
 in any way discountenanced by them. It would 
 not, I fancy, have pleased Cardinal CuUen ; but 
 things may have changed since his time. 
 
 ID. " The Irish Theological Quarterly." — In the 
 following month of July the Editors of " The 
 Irish Theological Quarterly " published a num- 
 ber of unsigned Notes, — editorial comments, 
 plainly, — ^wherein they say that " among the 
 war-aims of the Allies, clearly and strongly 
 asserted by all of them, we find the independence 
 of small nations : can anyone in his senses deny 
 that, among the small nations, Ireland, the 
 oldest of them all, except Greece, has a claim 
 as good as any and better than most ? " Now, 
 Holland and Switzerland are completely inde- 
 pendent ; and as Ireland has a better claim than 
 either, she, too, must be fully independent de 
 iure. One would think that this was plain to 
 " anyone in his senses " ; and yet the writer of 
 these Notes had his doubts — or, at least, appre- 
 hensions. 
 
SINN FEIN ARGUMENT 29 
 
 For he called to mind the official teaching of 
 the Holy See to the effect that members of the 
 Fenian Brotherhood are excommunicated, for 
 plotting against a legitimate government. But 
 the authority against which they plot is the 
 present government of Ireland ; which, there- 
 fore, must be held legitimate, by all who accept 
 the official teaching of the Holy See. One 
 wonders whether it also has suffered change. 
 
 In view of all this, it seems time for Irish 
 Catholics to ask themselves, — ^many of them 
 must be asking, — what is the teaching of the 
 Bishops, priests, schools of Theology, Philosophy, 
 Canon Law, of Rome itself, as to the binding 
 force of laws made by the present ie facto rulers 
 of our country ? Is it true that, as Dr. Coffey 
 has suggested, the Parliament of Westminster 
 has not and never had any moral right to 
 govern us ? 
 
 His argument, — which seems to represent the 
 mind of Sinn Fein, — ^may be reduced to the 
 following syllogism : — ^No fully independent 
 nation ceases to be so de iure, except by the free 
 consent of its people ; but Ireland was at one 
 time a nation fully independent, whUe its 
 people never freely consented to resign that 
 status ; therefore she is de iure fully independent 
 now. 
 
 Here we have as major premiss what purports 
 to be a imiversal principle of Ethics ; par- 
 ticularised in the minor by two statements of 
 fact. And although, perhaps, criticism should 
 begin with the major, as to which alone I can 
 
30 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 claim a.ny special competence, I will ask the 
 reader's forbearance while I deal with the 
 statements of fact in the first place ; under 
 promise of criticising the ethical principle in 
 due course. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 OF WHETHER IRELAND WAS EVER A UNITED AND 
 FULLY INDEPENDENT NATION 
 
 I. ^>/OME Conditions of Nationhood. — Father 
 i \ Finlay, — who, like so many others, jus- 
 ^-"^ tifies Ireland's resistance to conscription 
 on the ground that she is a nation, and, as such, 
 may not, without injustice, be forced into mili- 
 tary service against her will, — decHnes to be 
 drawn into a discussion as to what constitutes a 
 nation. He mentions, as likely constituents, 
 " natural boundaries, mentality, religious sym- 
 pathies, history, race " ; but omits what some 
 may deem still more important — ^the unity that 
 derives from common rule. For lack of which, 
 Ireland, possibly, may not have been a nation in 
 any strict sense, till it was united by England ; 
 when it would lack another no less important 
 constituent — complete self-government. So that, 
 instead of being the most ancient small nation of 
 Europe, except Greece, as the writer in " The 
 Theological Quarterly" represents her, our 
 country would never have been a nation at all. 
 That is, if unity of rule and independence are 
 requisites, of nationhood. 
 
 31 
 
32 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 2. Unity of Rule. — ^Take unity of rule. It can 
 be maintained, I think, with some show of 
 reason, that, despite natural boundaries, distinc- 
 tive mentality, religious sympathies, histoty, 
 race, an9 so on, Greece in the time of Pericles 
 was not a united nation ; nor Italy, while Rome 
 was under the kings, or in the sixteenth centuty ; 
 nor Great Britain, in the time of the Confessor ; 
 nor England under the Heptarchy ; nor Germany 
 immediately before the Franco-Prussian war ; 
 nor the Indian tribes of North America at the 
 coming of the " Mayflower ". Those among 
 us who are growing old have seen two nations 
 formed : Germany and Italy. 
 
 3. No such Unity in Ancient Ireland,. — ^Turning 
 now to the histoty of our own countty, I read : — 
 " In pagan times Ireland must not be regarded 
 as one Mngdom, governed by one king and one 
 common system of laws ; it was rather a con- 
 federation of small states or clans, each making 
 its own laws, raising and spending its own taxes, 
 governed by its own chieftain, and practically 
 independent within its own limits. There was 
 an Ardriy who ruled at Tara ; and who, amongst 
 the various princes, was first in dignity ; but 
 whose authority over these princes — and he 
 claimed some, — ^was shadowy and nominal, and 
 frequently his authority was flouted and his 
 person and office despised ". ^ The position must 
 have been not unlike that which Protestants are 
 so wiUing to accord the Roman Pontiff in Church 
 matters ; which. Catholics strongly insist, woidd 
 
 1 D'Alton, History of Ireland-, i. 19. 
 
SHADOWY AUTHORITY 33 
 
 not make for anything like real unity of govern- 
 ment. 
 
 This was in pagan times, — ^before the coming 
 of St. Patrick, — ^when, according to Professor 
 MacNeill, the latest and best authority, there 
 was not even a shadowy High-King in Erin. 
 "It is almost certain", he writes, ^ "that the 
 high-kingship dates no further back than NiaU 
 of the Nine Hostages (end of the fourth century), 
 in whose descendants it was vested tiU the time 
 of Brian Boramha, a.d. 1002 ". " NiaU, founder 
 of the O'Neill dynasty of Tara, was king 
 of Meath at the time of the captivity [of 
 St. Patrick]. He is the first person who can pos- 
 sibly be recognised as King of AH Ireland. If 
 the high-kingship existed in his time, it was 
 a novelty".^ 
 
 Whenever it began, and as long as it continued, 
 it seems to have been only the " shadowy and 
 nominal " thing described by Dr. D'Alton ; 
 flouted often in the person of the monarch, and 
 despised in his office. Mr. MacNeiU, in one 
 place, represents it as an hegemony : — " The 
 Book of Rights, judged by internal evidence, 
 was composed at a time when the Kingdom of 
 Cashel was putting forward claims to the 
 hegemony, or, as it is commonly called, the 
 monarchy of Ireland ". ^ We know what hege- 
 mony meant in Ancient Greece ; and how little 
 it served to make the Greek States a united 
 
 ^ " New Ireland Review ", xzv. p. i8. 
 * Ibid. p. 331. 
 » Ibid. p. 65. 
 
34 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 nation. Spain had at one time an hegemony 
 in Europe ; which passed, in turn, to Austria, 
 France, England, Germany; without ever 
 welding the nations of Europe into one. The 
 United States has long had an hegemony in 
 America, with a kind of sovereign authority 
 represented by the Monroe doctrine. Yet there 
 are, I believe, more than thirty fully independent 
 nations on the American continent. 
 
 " The high-kingship ", says Mr. MacNeill, in 
 another lecture, " was not an institution of such 
 efficient unity as to inspire greatness of literary 
 design throughout the nation. In the early 
 historical period, the supremacy [hegemony, 
 once more] waved irregularly among four great 
 branches of the race of Niall. But from the 
 middle of the eighth century it steadied down 
 to a regular and recognised alternation between 
 the princes of Cinel Eogain and Clann Cholmain. 
 The new status did not visibly affect the nation 
 at large. The provincial kings gave hostages 
 when they must, and refused them when they 
 dared". 
 
 So, again, Arthur Ua Clerigh, who seems to 
 have made a critical study of the history of our 
 country : — " The Gael remained a clansman 
 when he ought to have been a patriot, and Erin 
 continued to be a ' trembhng sod ' when it 
 ought to have become a homogeneous and har- 
 monious nation". "We do not attach very 
 great importance to the Book of RighU. It was 
 evidently composed, or thoroughly recast, about 
 the time of Cormac mac Cuilenainn [a.d. 900], 
 
LEINSTER INDEPENDENT 35 
 
 and is intended to magnify and exalt Cashel in a 
 secular and religious point of view. Whatever 
 value the book may have as regards the provincial 
 kings, as regards the Ard-Righ it seems to indicate 
 that, at any rate in times of peace, he had no 
 rights except the right of Visitation and Refec- 
 tion ".' " The frequent raids made by the Ard- 
 Righ, not only to lift the boromba but to enforce 
 tribute from every part of Erin, plainly show 
 that, whatever his right may have been, his 
 claims were much more extensive". "The 
 contest [for the overlordship] was renewed again, 
 this time between the O'Connor of Conacht 
 and the O.'Lochlainns of Aileach. Turlough 
 O'Connor . . . crushed the Munster men. 
 But, being attacked in the same year by 
 Muirchertach Ua Lochlainn, he was forced to 
 give him hostages. He renewed the struggle, 
 however, the following year, and maintained it 
 tiU his death, in 1056. The latter was not in 
 position to establish his claim to the shadowy 
 overlordship".^ Note the recurrence of 
 Dr. D'Alton's term, " shadowy ", 
 
 4. Independence of Leinster. ^Th.e High King, 
 it seems, made considerable claims to tribute ; 
 which, however, were not admitted by the sub- 
 kings, who gave only what they were not in 
 position to refuse. Let us hear Dr. Joyce : — 
 
 " He [the High- King, Tuathal] imposed on 
 Leinster an enormous tribute, called the Boruma 
 
 ' " New Ireland Review", ixv. p. 336. 
 * History of Ireland to the Coming of Henry II., pp. 76, 
 263. 389- 
 
36 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 or Boru, to be paid to the Kings of Ireland every 
 second year. The tribute was never yielded 
 without resistance more or less, and for many 
 centuries it was the cause of constant bloodshed". 
 " Laeghaire [Leary], the son of Niall, succeeded 
 in 428. In the fifth year of his reign St. Patrick 
 came to Ireland on his great mission. This king, 
 like many of his predecessors, waged war against 
 the Leinstermen, to exact the Boru tribute ; 
 but they defeated him and took him prisoner. 
 Then they made him swear by the sun and wind 
 and all the elements that he would never again 
 demand the tribute ; and when he had sworn, 
 they set him free". "The Irish kings con- 
 tinued to exact the Boru tribute from the 
 Leinstermen, who struggled manfully against 
 it to the last. But at the earnest solicitation 
 of St. Moling, Finaghta the Festive, who became 
 king in 674, renounced the Boru for himself 
 and his successors".^ 
 
 5. The Kingdom of Ossory. — ^Among those who 
 were subjected to and resisted the claim for 
 tribute were the people of Ossory ; who, accord- 
 ing to Professor MacNeill, were " neither tribu- 
 tary nor subordinate to any of the Irish pro- 
 vincial kings down to the time of the Book of 
 Rights (900 or 1000 a.d.), and acknowledged no 
 suzerainty, except the somewhat shadowy over- 
 lordship — as far as southern Ireland was con- 
 cerned — of the over-kings of Meath ".' Note once 
 more, the recurrence of the term " shadowy ". 
 
 ''■A Concise History of Ireland, pp. 41, 44, 53. 
 * " New Ireland Review ", xxv. p. 76. 
 
OSSORY ALSO 37 
 
 What allegiance the men of Ossory thought 
 they owed the high-king, Brian, — ^who went 
 nearest of all to consolidating the clans, — appears 
 from the onslaught they made on his battered 
 forces returning from Clontarf. It may seem 
 unpatriotic, to one of wider vision ; but they 
 saw in Brian only a Milesian tyrant, who derived 
 his surname, of Boru, from the efficacy vnth. 
 which he lifted the hateful tribute ; which they, 
 an independent people, had steadfastly refused. 
 " Ossory was an independent and unsubdued 
 Pre-Milesian state throughout the entire his- 
 torical period, down to the Norman invasion. 
 Upper Ossory retained its independent and its 
 native rulers till the time of the English confis- 
 cation by Queen Mary, and even later ; and was 
 thus the longest established Celtic principality 
 in the world, with an unbroken history under 
 its own princes of at least 1,200 years''.^ 
 
 These are some of the facts : a sample merely. 
 They show a number of clans, more or less 
 dependent on provincial kings, and under a 
 high-king whose authority all these writers 
 represent as " shadoviry ". Was it sufficient to 
 bind these warring clans into anything like a 
 real nation ? Mr. T. W. Rolleston, in a Note to 
 an article on St. Patrick, writes : — " The ecclesi- 
 astical ' Cursing of Tara ' in the sixth century 
 ended all chance of estabHshing a central monarchy 
 with an effective military system in Ireland".^ 
 
 6. Analogy of the Holy See. — ^During great part 
 
 1 '• New Ireland Review ", xxv. p: 77. 
 
 » " Nineteenth Century ", April 1919, p. 757. 
 
38 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 of the time while this struggle was going on, 
 another over-lordship was being exercised ; that 
 which the Roman Pontiffs claimed over western 
 Europe, in virtue of a donation of the Emperor 
 Constantine, now,recognised as fictitious. Apart, 
 however, from this donation, kings in different 
 countries swore allegiance to the Pope, making 
 him their suzerain, with a right to tribute. In 
 England, for instance, John, " of his own free 
 will, and with the unanimous consent of his 
 barons", as his charter states, granted to Pope 
 Innocent and Innocent's rightful successors, 
 " the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of 
 Ireland, to be hplden by himself and the heirs 
 of his body of the Bishop of Rome in fee, by the 
 annual rent of one thousand marks. . . . He 
 then took, in the usual manner, an oath of fealty 
 to the Pope ; the very same oath which vassals 
 took to their lords ". ^ This, not so very shadowy, 
 suzerainty did not make England a mere province 
 of a greater European nation ruled by the Pope. 
 Much less, I fancy, did the men of Ossory regard 
 themselves as a province of an Irish nation ruled 
 by king Brian. 
 
 7. The British Colonies. — It may be said, I 
 know, that the colonies of Britain form one 
 nation with the mother country ; though they 
 pay no tribute, and would fly to arms, as did 
 those of New England, if it were demanded ; 
 and though they recognise no common bond of 
 rule more substantial than the shadowy over- 
 lordship of the high-kings of Erin. 
 
 ' Lingard, History of England, ii. p. 165. 
 
ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT 39 
 
 But, surely, Australia is not one nation with 
 England in anything like the sense in which 
 England herself is one ; or as England, Scotland, 
 and Wales are now the British Nation. It is 
 but a weak bond, perhaps, that unites the colonies 
 to the mother country ; and it would break, 
 no doubt, if subjected to strain. The strain, 
 however, has not come, so far ; with the result 
 that the bond, feeble as it is, continues. In the 
 case of the Irish clans there was constant tension 
 — ^internecine war ; and we are asked to believe 
 that, whereas one such quarrel, over a tax on 
 tea, separated her American colonies from England; 
 as anything of the kind would separate Canada, 
 S. Airica, or Australia to-morrow ; Leinster 
 remained united v\dth Tara or Cashel after 
 warring with them in succession, over the boru 
 tribute, for several hundred years. 
 
 8. Late and Arrested Development. — ^The truth 
 seems to be that, during all these centuries of 
 inter-tribal warfare, the Irish clans were 
 struggling towards national unity, just like their 
 neighbours in England, France, and elsewhere ; 
 with the difference, unfortunately, that whereas 
 unity was achieved across the Channel, with us 
 no native power grew strong enough to overbear 
 the self-will of the chiefs ; till, too late for 
 nationhood, the clans were welded together and 
 reduced to subjection by the Norman English. 
 This, if not the truth, is so Hke it as to call for 
 evidence to the contrary from those who base 
 Ireland's claim to independence on the fact that 
 she is the most ancient nation in Europe, except 
 
4© QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 Greece. May it be that neither Ancient Greece 
 nor Ancient Ireland was one nation, but many i 
 If, iadeed, we may. call such States as Athens and 
 Ossory naljons. A " principality " we have just 
 heard Ossory designated by Professor MacNeill. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 OF WHETHER IRELAND EVER ACQUIESCED IN LOSS OF 
 INDEPENDENCE 
 
 ^' ^B WO Periods of Irish History. — ^The 
 M second statement of fact contained in 
 the minor premiss of Dr. Coffey's 
 argument, is to the effect that Ireland never 
 freely resigned her status as a fully independent 
 nation. I find it hard to harmonise this with 
 certain incidents in the history of our country. 
 
 Irish history, from the coming of the Normans 
 is divided by Dr. Coffey into two periods ; the 
 earlier from the landing of Strongbow to the 
 Act of Union with Great Britain, in 1800; the 
 later from the Union to the present day. During 
 pre-Union times there was no question of sub- 
 mission except to the King of England : not to 
 any Imperial Parliament. What Parliament 
 there was, to rule us, was Irish — of some kind ; 
 at least Anglo-Irish, Cromwellian, or WiUiamite. 
 From the Union, if we submitted, it was to the 
 King and the Parliament of Westminster. 
 
 2. Henry II. — In the first period we are told 
 that Henry II., almost on his arrival, in 1171, 
 was met, at Waterford, " by Dermot MacCarthy, 
 King of Desmond, who was the first Irish prince 
 
 41 
 
42 OUESTIONS OP PEACE 
 
 to submit and pay tribute. . . . Henry next 
 marched by Lismore to Cashel, where he received 
 the submission of Donall O'Brien of Limerick, 
 and of many others of the southern princes. 
 After this*he returned to Waterford ; and having 
 taken possession of Wexford, he proceeded to 
 Dublin, where he was received in great state. 
 Here he was visited by most of the other Irish 
 princes, all of whom submitted to him. Roderick 
 O'Connor [the High King] did not come, but 
 he sent his submission. The Irish princes and 
 nobles were invited to spend the Christmas with 
 the King in Dublin ; and they were astonished 
 at the magnificence of the display, and much 
 pleased with the attention shown to them- 
 selves ". ^ 
 
 Four years later, Roderick, the High King, 
 " finding that he could . not prevent the daily 
 incursions of the English raiders, determined to 
 claim the protection of King Henry. Accor- 
 dingly, he sent three ambassadors to England, 
 one of whom was Archbishop Laurence O'Toole, 
 and a treaty was arranged between the two kings. 
 Under this treaty, which was signed at Windsor 
 in 1 175, it was agreed that Roderick was to remain 
 king of Connaught, which he was to hold directly 
 as vassal to Henry ; that he was to rule the rest 
 of Ireland as vassal, except the portions held by 
 the EngUsh colony ; and that ■dirough him the 
 other Irish Kings and chieftains were to pay 
 tribute to King Heiuy ". ^ 
 
 ^ ]ojce. Concise History, pp. 85-86. 
 « Ibii. p. 88. 
 
IRISH CHIEFS SUBMIT 43 
 
 3. Richard II. — ^Two centuries passed, and in 
 the reign of Richard II. and the time of Art 
 MacMurrogh, " the Irish chiefs saw that sub- 
 mission was inevitable. At a place called Bally- 
 gorey, near Carlow, Mowbray Earl of Nottingham 
 received the submission of a number of the 
 southern chiefs, in 1395 ; and amongst them 
 Art MacMurrogh, the 'most dreaded of all. 
 The King himself received the northern chiefs 
 at Drogheda. Altogether about seventy-five 
 chiefs submitted to the King and to Mowbray. 
 They were afterwards invited to Dublin, where 
 they were feasted sumptuously for several days 
 by the King, who knighted the four provincial 
 kings : O'Neill of Ulster ; O'Connor of Con- 
 naught ; MacMurrogh of Leinster ; and O'Brien 
 of Thomond. ... As for the submission and re- 
 conciliation of the Irish chiefs, it was aU pure 
 sham. They did not look upon King Richard 
 as their lawful sovereign ; and as the promises 
 they made had been extorted by force, they did 
 not consider themselves bound to keep them ". ^ 
 Not the first " scrap of paper ", I suppose. 
 
 4. The luiors. — ^Passing on to the reign of 
 Henry VIII., we find that " the Irish chiefs 
 showed a general disposition for peace ". The 
 Lord Deputy, St. Leger, " took full advantage 
 of their pacific mood, and by sHlful management 
 induced them to submit. They all acknowledged 
 the King's temporal and spiritual authority. . . . 
 It was resolved to confer on Henry the title of 
 King of Ireland. With this object a parliament 
 
 * Joyce, Concise History^ p. no. 
 
44 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 was assembled in Dublin on the iztla. June, 1541 ; 
 and in order to lend greater importance to its 
 decisions, a number of the leading Irish chiefs 
 were invited to attend it. The Act conferring 
 the title of King of Ireland on Henry and his 
 successors was passed through both Houses rapidly 
 and with perfect unanimity. Titles were con- 
 ferred on many of the chiefs. Conn Bacach 
 O'Neill was made Earl of Tyrone, and his 
 (reputed) son, Ferderagh or Matdiew, was made 
 Baron of Dungannon, with right to succeed as 
 Earl of Tyrone. O'Brien was made Earl of 
 Thomond ; and MacWiUiam Burke, who is 
 commonly known as Ulick-na-gann, was made 
 Earl of Clanrickard. O'DonneU was promised to 
 be made Earl of Tyrconnell ; but the title was 
 not actually conferred till a considerable time 
 after ". ^ 
 
 5. Great Chiefs Become Earls. — One of the 
 most touching incidents in Irish history is what 
 is called the Flight of the Earls — of Tyrone and 
 Tyrconnell ; no longer O'Neill and O'Donnell. 
 The Earldom was a badge of submission : of the 
 chiefs, and, through them, of the whole of Gaelic 
 Ulster. Connaught, at the same period, was 
 under the sway of another earl, Clanrickard ; 
 Munster under three : Desmond, Thomond, and 
 Ormond ; Leinster under KUdare, Ormond, and 
 MacMurrogh. All recognised as their liege the 
 King of England, against whose arbitrary rule 
 the people of England were soon to rebel. 
 
 6. The Stuarts. — " James I. wa? the first 
 
 * Joyce, Concise History, pp. 134-5. 
 
PRO REGE, UNJNIMES 45 
 
 English king who was universally acknowledged 
 by the Irish as their lawful sovereign ". ^ 
 
 The Confederation of Kilkenny has some claim 
 to speak for a united Ireland; yet its motto 
 was Pro Deo, Rege, P atria, Hiberni Unanimes ; 
 the king being the Stuart King of England. At 
 a conference of the clergy of the nation held at 
 Kilkenny in 1642, it was declared that " the 
 war which Cathohcs in Ireland are now waging 
 against sectaries, mainly Puritans, for the defence 
 of the Catholic religion, for the conservation of 
 the prerogatives and royal rights of our Most 
 Serene King Charles, ... is just and lawful". 
 The prelates " summoned a General Assembly, 
 to consist of representatives elected by the 
 Catholic Confederates in all the counties and 
 important towns ". It " met in Kilkenny on 
 the 24th October, 1642. Father Meehan 
 writes : — ' On that day the representatives of the 
 Irish Catholics, deputed by the cities, counties, 
 and towns, were assembling in the City of 
 Kilkenny. ... It was a grand and solemn 
 spectacle ; nor does the history of any country 
 record a more spirit-stirring scene ' ". ^ Among 
 the decrees of this National Assembly, pub- 
 lished by Cardinal Moran,^ we read : — ^" All the 
 inhabitants of Ireland and each of them shall be 
 most faithful to our Sovereign Lord the King, 
 his heires and lawfull successors and shall main- 
 taine, to the utmost of their power, his royall 
 
 "^ Joyce, Ibid. p. 184. 
 
 ' Carrigan, History of the Diocese of Ossory, iii. p. 20. 
 
 ' Sficilegium Ossoriense, ii. p. 9. . 
 
46 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 prerogatives, against his enemies ". His enemies 
 were the ParHament of England. 
 
 Some years later, when the Confederates 
 divided, and Owen Roe O'Neill had been de- 
 nounced hy the Supreme Council as an enemy, 
 a rebel, and a traitor, that representative Irish- 
 man issued a proclamation which concludes 
 thus : — " We conjure all Confederate Cathohcs 
 to co-operate with us against aU factionaries who, 
 despite the oath of association, support rebels, to 
 the prejudice of his Majesty ". ^ 
 
 In less than fifty years after this another 
 assembly, truly national, met in DubHn ; " The 
 Patriot ParUament of 1689", as it is styled by 
 Duffy ; and as to which Davis writes that it 
 " was the first and last which ever sat in Ireland 
 since the EngUsh invasion, possessed of national 
 authority, and complete in all its parts. The 
 King, by law and in fact — ^the King who, by his 
 Scottish descent, his creed, and his misfortunes, 
 was dear (mistakenly or not) to the majority of 
 the then people of Ireland, — ^presided in person 
 over that Parliament. The Peerage consisted 
 of the best blood, Milesian and Norman, of great 
 wealth and of various creeds. The Commons 
 represented the Irish Septs, the Danish towns, 
 and the Anglo-Irish counties and boroughs. 
 No parHament of equal rank, from King to 
 Commons, sat here since ; none sat here before 
 or since so national in composition and condutt ". • 
 
 . * Carrigan, Ibid. p. 30. 
 
 " The Patriot Parliament of 1689, p. 39. fid. hj Six C. G. 
 Du%, in The New Irish Library. 
 
REPEAL MOVEMENT 47 
 
 Its very first Act was one of recognition of the 
 sovereignty of James II., King of England.^ 
 
 7. The Re-peal Movement. — In the second 
 period of our history, from the Union to the 
 present day, one notes three leading movements : 
 (i) for Repeal of the Union, under O'Connell ; 
 (2) for complete independence, ujider the 
 Fenians ; and (3) for Home Rule, under Butt, 
 Parnell, and Redmond. 
 
 It may be argued, I think, with fair show of 
 reason, that O'Connell recognised the Union as 
 valid, and the Parliament of Westminster as 
 having jurisdiction over Ireland. Not a few 
 Sinn Feiners, if I do not mistake, assume that to 
 sit in that ParUament, as O'Connell did, implies 
 such an admission ; which I think reasonable. 
 Those who sit there take an oath of allegiance to 
 the Sovereign, who has no authority apart from 
 the Westminster Parliament ; so that the oath 
 implies recognition of that body as being em- 
 powered to rule, with the King. 
 
 Now consider what O'Connell did when first 
 elected, before Emancipation. " On the oath of 
 abjuration being tendered to him, he read over 
 audibly these words — ' that the sacrifice of the 
 Mass, and the invocation of the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary and other saints, as now practised in the 
 Church of Rome, are impious and idolatrous '. 
 At the subsequent passage, relatively to the 
 falsely imputed Catholic doctrine of the dis- 
 pensing power of the Pope, he again read aloud, 
 and paused. Then, slightly raising his voice, 
 • The Patriot Parliament of 1689, p. 43. 
 
48 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 he bowed, and added : ' I decline, Mr. Clerk, 
 to take this oath. Part of it I know to be false ; 
 another part I do not believe to be true' ".^ 
 Had he regarded as unfounded and untrue the 
 claim of the King and Parliament to make laws 
 for Ireland, he would have been boxmd to treat 
 the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign in the 
 same manner. 
 
 No doubt he proclaimed his intention of doing 
 all in his power, within the constitution, to secure 
 Repeal of the Act of Union. This, however, 
 may be understood in the sense of forcing Parha- 
 ment to renounce authority which it possessed, 
 but which had been acquired inequitably and was 
 unfair towards Ireland. CathoHc ethics supplies 
 many examples of pressure legitimately appUed 
 to secure renunciation of a right that is held 
 vahdly, though inequitably acquired.' 
 
 8. The Fenian Brotherhood.— ^f^, the Repeal 
 agitation gave way to one for complete indepen- 
 dence, initiated by the Young Irelanders and 
 continued by the Fenians. The new movement 
 had the sympathy of the people ; but sympathy 
 only of an inefficacious kind : secundum quidy as 
 we say in Moral Theology. They would like to 
 support the Fenians, if they could do so without 
 peril to soul or body ; but the religious guides, 
 whom they feared and trusted much more than 
 they did the Fenian leaders, assured and con- 
 vinced them that it was criminal to become 
 
 * D'Arcy McGee, History of Ireland, Book xii., Ch. yiii. 
 
 * See my tractate on Sotru Aspects of the Social Question, 
 Book i. 
 
FENIANS CONDEMNED 49 
 
 enrolled as a member of the Fenian Brotherhood. 
 This extinguished Fenianism. 
 
 It was then, and still is, part of the Common 
 Law of the CathoHc Church, promulgated anew 
 recently in every diocese in Ireland, that " those 
 who get enrolled in the Masx)nic Sect, or any 
 other such association which plots against the 
 Church or legitimate civU powers, incur ex- 
 communication ipso facto ". The canon is taken, 
 with a shght verbal change, from the Consti- 
 tution A-postolicae Sedis, promulgated in October 
 1869 ; while on June 12, 1870, the S. Congregation 
 of the Holy Office, or Roman Inquisition, pub- 
 Ushed a decree to the effect that the Fenian 
 Brotherhood was comprised under the censure. 
 As a consequence, Catholic members of that 
 society could not get the sacraments from any 
 Irish priest, or be buried with Church rites, if 
 they died unrepentant. This caused the Fenian 
 spirit to evaporate. 
 
 Accordingly, the authorities of the Church in 
 Ireland taught officially, — enforcing the teaching 
 with the severest penalties at their disposal, — 
 that the government against which the Fenians 
 plotted was legitimate ; and the Irish Catholic 
 laity cried Amen ; reluctantly, no doubt ; but 
 they contrived to say it. 
 
 9. The Home Rule Movement. — ^After this they 
 resumed O'Connell's method, of constitutional 
 agitation; with a change of object: no longer 
 pressing for Repeal, but only for Home Rule. 
 The change is significant ; meaning that those 
 who took part in the new movement, — and they 
 
50 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 were, practically, the entire Catholic body, — 
 recognised the right of the Imperial Parliament 
 to rule Ireland in matters imperial. This was 
 acknowledged implicitly, by the nature of the 
 movement, as distinguished from that for Repeal ; 
 and even expUcitly, in ever so many speeches, 
 deUvered both inside and outside the House of 
 Commons at Westminster by the Irish leaders ; 
 who protested that the movement was not for 
 separation, as the Unionists contended, but only 
 for Irish control of purely Irish affairs. 
 
 Hence I say : first, that Home Rule, as dis- 
 tinguished from Repeal, meant recognition of the 
 jurisdiction of the Parliament of Westminster in 
 aU imperial matters ; and, secondly, that the 
 Gaels of Ireland, for more than forty years, were 
 committed almost unanimously to Home Rule. 
 
 Other speeches, no doubt, were made, — ^by 
 Mr. Parnell, Mr. Redmond, and others, — ^wherein 
 they declared that Home Rule was intended 
 merely as a step towards complete independence ; 
 and behind the statue of ParnelL in Dublin, is 
 engraved a statement which he made to the effect 
 that he was not one to set bounds to the march 
 of the Irish Nation. Neither, I take it, would 
 any man of sense — ^to the development of any 
 nation whatever. The most crusted Tory, when 
 swearing allegiance to King George and his 
 heirs for ever, does not mean that in the process 
 of development it can never suit England to take 
 on a republican form of government. Neither 
 does any loyal Canadian or Austrahan hold that 
 his country, now part of the imperial combing- 
 
PARNELL'S STATEMENT 51 
 
 tion, must remain so always, however its popu- 
 lation and resources may develop. They are loyal 
 during the present stage ; but they set no bounds 
 to the future development of their country. 
 
 And so, I fancy, one can reconcile the speeches 
 of the Irish leaders, by taking them to mean that, 
 whereas, for the present and the near future, 
 Ireland was satisfied to let the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment rule in matters imperial ; they — ^the leaders 
 in question — ^were not going to bind the Irish 
 people to this for ever, no matter how the popu- 
 lation and resources of the country might develop. 
 
 10. Answer to the Question Proposed. — In view 
 of all this evidence, from both periods of our 
 history, — and much more could easily be added, 
 — I find it hard to allow the claim which 
 Dr. Coffey seems to endorse, to the effect that 
 " England has not now, and never has had, any 
 moral right to rule or govern Ireland " ; seeing 
 that " neither the Imperial Parliament since the 
 Union, nor the so-called ' Irish ' Parliament 
 before the Union, had ever any moral authority 
 to govern the Irish nation ". " An Irishman," he 
 proceeds, " adopting this line of argument ", — 
 as Dr. Coffey himself, apparently, does, — " would 
 point out that Ireland was never reaUy conquered, 
 never effectively reduced to complete subjection, 
 tiU the close of the Williamite wars ", But 
 St. Laurence O'Toole, Hugh O'Neill, Roderick 
 O'Donnell, the Confederation of Kilkenny, Owen 
 Roe O'Neill, and the Patriot Parliament of 1689, 
 all had their being before the broken treaty of 
 Limerick ; and all professed allegiance to the 
 
52 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 kings of England ; perhaps because, though 
 their people had not been effectively reduced to 
 complete subjection, those leaders were corrupted 
 by earldoms,and such gewgaws. And in the later 
 period, since the Union, when the priesthood of 
 Ireland not only gave up Repeal for Home Rule, 
 but taught their people to regard the Enghsh 
 Government as legitimate, under pain of excom- 
 munication and eternal death ; perhaps they, 
 too, were " detached from loyalty to the interests 
 of their country by place and patronage, by 
 bribery and corruption, and every other form of 
 appeal to selfish interests " ^. 
 
 Have we not had too much of this corruption 
 charge, levelled against men who, in difficult 
 times, seem to have done their best, according 
 to their Ughts ; which may, no doubt, have 
 deceived them ? One would hke to know what 
 Dr. Coffey himself, — whose eyes are too widely 
 open to be deceived, as his honour is too bright 
 to allow him to accept place or bribe,— would 
 do, if, when seated in the tribunal of Penance, 
 some poor feUow confessed that he was a member 
 of the Fenian Brotherhood ; pleading, as against 
 the decree of the Holy Office, that the English 
 Government in Ireland, against which alone he 
 had plotted, is not legitimate. When we have 
 a pubUc statement on this case, we shall be in 
 position to know what Dr. Coffey, and the theo- 
 logians and canonists who seem to agree with him, 
 really hold as to the binding force of the laws 
 that now emanate from Westminster. 
 I " I. E. Record ", Ibid. p. 489. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 OF THE POSSIBILITY OF LOSS OF NATIONHOOD 
 WITHOUT ACQUIESCENCE ; AND OF PRESCRIPTION 
 BETWEEN NATIONS 
 
 I. ^^"^HE Question. — It is a relief to pass from 
 I those comparatively unimportant ques- 
 tions of history to the broad ethical 
 principle that serves as major premiss in Dr. 
 Coffey's argument : that " an unjust conquest . . . 
 can of itself give no moral right to governing 
 authority : in other words that Might is not 
 Right ; t«at the government ie facto set up by 
 the conquering nation or state, to rule the con- 
 quered nation, is not by the mere fact a de iure 
 or rightful government ; furthermore, that it 
 cannot become so by the mere lapse of time ; 
 that, in order to become so, it must at least 
 govern the subject people in such an equitable 
 manner and with such attention to their common 
 good that it will gradually secure the acquiescence 
 — not of the ascendancy party merely, and not, 
 of course, of all the citizens numerically, for this 
 would be impossible, — but of the masses of the 
 people substantially, so that it can be truly de- 
 scribed as government with the consent of the 
 governed." 
 
 This I have condensed,— rl hope, not unfairly, 
 
 33 
 
54 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 — into the following brief statement : — ^No fully 
 independent nation ceases to be so ie iure unless 
 by the free consent of its people. Let us see how 
 the principle works out in practice. 
 
 2. The Milesian Conquest of Ireland. — Accord- 
 ing to Professor MacNeill, by far the greater 
 part of Ireland, from the time of St. Patrick to 
 the coming of the Normans, was inhabited by 
 what he calls pre-Milesian peoples, whom the 
 Milesian invaders had reduced to subjection. 
 Ossory, he says, was not subdued ; nor the north- 
 east corner of the island, now the counties of 
 Down and Antrim. Everywhere else the pre- 
 Milesians went down ; losing not only poUtical 
 independence but their rights in the soil. They 
 had been independent ; as much as were the 
 Milesian conquerors later, tiU the coming of the 
 Normans. One wonders whether it is Dr. CoflFey's 
 view that the pre-Milesian tribes are still de iure 
 lords of those lost territories. Or did they freely 
 and formally renounce their rights ? Or were 
 they so equitably governed by the Milesians, that 
 they must be held to have acquiesced in their 
 degradation ? 
 
 In this connection it is well to bear in mind 
 that they are, in the main, the same people who 
 could never be brought to acquiesce in the 
 domination of the English; perhaps because 
 they were treated so much more horribly by these. 
 We know what the men of Leinster thought of 
 the Boru tribute ; as well as what any man will 
 think of those who deprived him, or his fathers, . 
 of lordship in the land. 
 
EFFECT OF CONQUEST 55 
 
 3. Conquest by the Normans. — ^When the Nor- 
 mans came, and the Geraldines, for instance, took 
 over so many broad and fertile estates in Leinster 
 and Munster, reducing the Milesian proprietors 
 to the condition of serfs, one wonders whether, 
 in the opinion of Dr. Coffey, the new masters 
 became owners de iure ; or had they the consent 
 of the mass of the Gael ? Could we conceive an 
 Earl of Desmond troubled in conscience over his 
 position, and consulting some professor of ethics 
 of the period, what answer should he receive ? 
 If, to make amends for misdeeds and secure rest 
 for his soul, he were to propose to some Bishop 
 to devote part of his estates, — plundered from 
 some GaeUc proprietor, — to the founding of an 
 abbey or the endowment of a church, would it 
 have been the clergyman's duty to decline, as 
 certain Methodists or Baptists in the United 
 States are said to have refused a donation from 
 Mr. J. D. Rockefeller ? What, one wonders, 
 would Dr. Coffey have done in the circumstances ? 
 What would he do even now ? For injustice, 
 it seems, is not righted by lapse of time, however 
 great, without the consent, or acquiescence, of the 
 person who suffered wrong, or his representative. 
 And Dr. Coffey himself gives us to understand 
 how the Gaelic peasants, — formerly Gaelic land- 
 owners, — ^regarded the title of Cromwellian and 
 WiUiamite spoilers. Perhaps they thought 
 differently of the Normans ; who had despoiled 
 their fathers no less efficaciously or severely. 
 
 4. Conquests by White Men Generally. — ^Turn- 
 ing elsewhere, one sees, beyond the ocean, — ia 
 
5 6 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 America, Africa, Australia, New Zealand ; 
 wherever White Men have settled since the time 
 of Columbus, — ^fertile plains, once owned by 
 Red or Black Men, now held by Whites ; while 
 the former owners look on sullenly, in degrada- 
 tion. Perhaps they were ousted with greater 
 right than the Gaelic proprietors of Ireland ? 
 Or, possibly, the aborigines of North and South 
 America, Africa, Australia, or New Zealand, are 
 so satisfied with the equitable government of 
 their conquerors, as to acquiesce ? Not, of 
 course, this or that unreasonable chief or tribes- 
 man ; but the people as a whole. One would 
 like to have the private opinion, say, of the Red 
 Indians on the matter ; or of an assembly of 
 Zulu chiefs. 
 
 Perhaps, if Dr. Coffey were made Archbishop 
 of New York, or Boston, or Sydney, he would 
 deem it his duty to hand over to the natural 
 heirs of its former proprietors the real estate 
 of the diocese — churches and presbyteries ; 
 diocesan seminary ; and so much other 
 ecclesiastical property. Matters like these, no 
 doubt, disturb the slumbers of the Bishops, 
 priests, and religious who now hold this plunder. 
 How crude the doctrine looks when viewed in 
 this way, in the light of what one sees everywhere 
 around ! 
 
 5. Teaching of Lessius. — ^Let us turn to 
 authority — ^the great Catholic writers on Justice ; 
 among whom Leonard Lessius, the Jesuit, holds 
 a foremost place. He taught at Louvain at the 
 beginning of the seventeenth century ; and puts 
 
TEACHING OF LESSIUS 57 
 
 himself a question to our purpose. Needless to 
 say, the tyrant whom he contemplates may be, 
 not an individual, but a usurping State. 
 
 " Does a tyrant sin by usurping judgment, and 
 are his decisions void ? 
 
 " It is to be noted that a tyrant may be so by 
 usurpation of power (such as he who, without 
 any right, has invaded a country and holds it in 
 bondage) ; while another is so by use of power, 
 being true sovereign otherwise and having 
 legitimate authority. Here we contemplate one 
 who is a tyrant by usurpation and now rules in 
 peace ; the country no longer resisting him, for 
 lack of means. For, as regards the true sovereign, 
 it is plain that he does not sin by usurpation of 
 judgment ; provided he judges according to the 
 laws, even though he govern tyrannically other- 
 wise. 
 
 " Sotus teaches that a tyrant who has invaded 
 a country cannot make any law or pronounce any 
 sentence that binds in conscience ; and that, 
 accordingly, his sentences are void. Francis 
 Victoria holds the contrary. 
 
 " I reply and say : — First : A tyrant of this 
 kind sins by usurpation of judgment, when he 
 gives a decision ; though his sentences are valid 
 and the citizens are bound to obey them, till 
 they have been quashed. 
 
 " The first point is proved, since, by giving 
 judgment, he usurps the power of the sovereign, 
 and acts as sovereign, which he is not in 
 truth. He sins, therefore, by usurpation of 
 judgment ; for whoever usurps the authority of 
 
58 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 another, and intends to use it in trial, sins by 
 usurpation. 
 
 " You will say that he may have sinned, indeed, 
 by invadi^ the sovereignty and usurping that 
 authority ; but that he does not sin afterwards, 
 provided he uses it duly, as is expedient for the 
 State ; since that is deemed to be the mind of 
 the State. Nay, he would sin if he were to omit 
 giving judgment. 
 
 " I reply, by denying the second part of the 
 minor. For he sinned not only by invading 
 the countty, but even afterwards he sins con- 
 tinually, as well he as his heirs, by holding it in 
 bondage subject to themselves ; until, at length, 
 either he is voluntarily received by the kingdom, 
 (as may happen, if it is independent, and subject 
 to no other sovereign) ; or, after a long interval 
 of time, prescription is generated".^ 
 
 ^ " Utrum tyrannus peccet usurpatione iudicii, eiusque 
 sententiae sint irritae. Notandum est, alium esse tytannum 
 usurpatione potestatis, (qualis est, qui absque ullo iure Remp. 
 invasit et oppressam tenet) ; alium usu regiminis, cum alias 
 sit varus Princeps, legitimam potestatem obtinens. Nos hie 
 loquimur de eo qui usurpatione potestatis tyrannus est, et iam 
 in pace imperat ; Repub. non amplius ei resistente virium 
 defectu. Nam de vero Principe constat eum non peccare 
 usurpatione iudicii ; modo secundum leges iucUcet, etiamsi 
 alias tyiannice gubernet. 
 
 " Sotus (Lib. 3, qu. 4, art. 6) docet tyrannum qui Rempub. 
 invasit non posse ferre uUam legem, nee ius dicere, quod obliget 
 in conseientia ; ac proinde sententias eius esse irritas. Con- 
 trarium docet Franciscus Victoria {Relectione de Potestate Civili, 
 num. 23). Pro solutione 
 
 " Respondeo et Dice : — ^Primo, Tyrannus buiusmodi peccat 
 usurpatione iudicii ius dicendo ; sententiae tamen ipsius 
 
PRESCRIPTION 59 
 
 So far Lessius ; who plainly distinguishes two 
 ways in which usurpation which began unjustly 
 may be legitimised : first, by voluntary accepta- 
 tion of the new regime ; and secondly by 
 prescription. 
 
 6. Prescription between Nations. — I know, — 
 and, in any case, the writer in " The Irish 
 Theological Quarterly" reminds us, — that 
 authority can be quoted for the view that there 
 is no prescription as between nations. But one 
 can find authority for the silliest views ; for the 
 view, for instance, that miKtary conscription is 
 never obligatory ; or that it is only in virtue of 
 an act of the State one can transfer the dominion 
 of property after death. 
 
 To give the " Quarterly " writer his due, he 
 
 sunt validae, et tenentur cives illis obtemperare, donee irri- 
 tentur. 
 
 " Prior pars probatur, quia iudicando usurpat sibi potestatem 
 Principis, et gerit se ut verus Princeps, cum revera non sit. 
 Ergo peccat usurpatione iudicii. Qui enim usurpat sibi 
 potestatem alienam, et intendit ea uti in iudicando, peccat 
 usurpatione iudicii. 
 
 " Dices, Ille quidem pecca-vit invadendo principatum et illam 
 auctoritatem sibi usurpando ; non tamen peccat postea, si ea 
 debito modo et ut Reipubl. expedit utatur ; quia ea censetur 
 esse mens Reipubl. Imo si omitteret ius dicere, peccaret. 
 
 " Respondeo negando secundam partem assumpti ; quia non 
 solum peccavit Rempubl. invadendo, sad etiam postea assidue 
 peccat, turn ipse turn eius haeres, earn oppressam sibique 
 subiectam servando ; donee tandem vel sponte a regno 
 suscipiatur, (quod fieri potest, si iUud sit sui iuris, nulli alteri 
 Principi obnoxium), vel longo temporum intervallo tandem 
 nsscatur praescriptio ". — De lustitia et lure, Lib. ii. cap. xxix. 
 Dub. is. 
 
6o QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 does not seem to attach much weight to these 
 authorities ; seeing that he goes on to insist, as 
 a requirement for vaUd prescription, on " peace- 
 ful enjoyment of usurped claims ", and " acknow- 
 ledgment of these by the victims such as never 
 existed in all the troubled years of misrule in 
 Ireland". Even this he proposes merely as a 
 view, that might be, and probably is, held by 
 some ; not necessarily by himself ; who, in the 
 next paragraph adverts to that decree wherein 
 the Holy Office recognises the legitimacy of 
 EngUsh rule in Ireland. In view of which and 
 other such " ecclesiastical facts ", " a cautious 
 signatory" of the protest against conscription 
 for Ireland may " tJiink it just as wise not to 
 involve himself in these dangerous theories ". 
 He will, that is, have sense enough to admit that, 
 whether the Red Indians have or have not 
 acknowledged the claims of the Whites to the 
 woods and lakes and prairies of North America, 
 — and there has been less acknowledgment here 
 than in the case of Ireland, — ^the matter was so 
 definitely settled long ago that it could not be 
 unsettled now without causing such confusion as 
 the law of nature could not allow. 
 
 7. Acquiescence not Necessary. — If it is silly to 
 maintain that there can be no prescription 
 between nations, it is just as silly to require as 
 a condition of vaHdity an acknowledgment of the 
 usurped claims on the part of the victim nation. 
 No plundered people ever yet made such acknow- 
 ledgment ; except, as just explained, in the sense 
 that, where a social upheaval has settled definitely, 
 
CONSENT UNNECESSARY 6i 
 
 so that it cannot be unsettled now without 
 general confusion, it is unreasonable, and there- 
 fore wrong, to be the cause of this. The necessity 
 of avoiding such confusion is at the root of all 
 the natural law of justice, and of every right and 
 obligation whatever. 
 
 Accordingly, I hold it as a principle of ethics 
 that a nation fully independent at one time may 
 become subject to another, usurping, people, 
 without any consent on the part of those who 
 are subjected. In like manner, I hold that a 
 dynasty, such as that of the Bourbons in France 
 or the Stuarts in England, may lose their right 
 to rule, against their consent ; and therefore, of 
 course, without any exercise of the supreme 
 dominion which, tiU they were deprived of it, 
 was held by them alone in the State. 
 
 8. Time Required. — Should you ask, — a not 
 unnatural question, — ^how long it takes to effect 
 such a social upheaval and settlement as I con- 
 template, my answer would be that no definite 
 limit of time can be determined ; any more than 
 for the formation of a species or variety in biology. 
 Such convulsions are usually of gradual and slow 
 development ; but when things have become 
 ripe, the upheaval is catastrophic as a rule. The 
 consequent settlement takes more time ; but 
 not so very long. So it was in France at the time 
 of the great Revolution ; and so also has the 
 upheaval taken place in Russia and Germany. 
 Let us hope that in these countries also the 
 settlement will not be long delayed. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 OF THREE DEGREES OF CONQUEST; AND OF THE 
 EFFICACY OF FORCED CONSENT TO TRANSFER 
 OF AUTHORITY. 
 
 I. TNDIRECT Authority of Usurper. — ^Lessius, 
 / continuing the disquisition already quoted, 
 shows how the decrees of a usurping power 
 may be valid, even before it has been legitimised 
 by consent or prescription ; and how, even when 
 it is not yet legitimate, the conquered people may 
 be bound to submit : — " The usurper's sentences 
 and just commands, though deriving no force 
 from his own autiority, have it otherwise. 
 First, and inchoatdy, from the natural law, 
 which, supposing that state of things, dictates 
 obedience, for the pubUc weal. Otherwise 
 everything wotdd be full of theft and robbery. 
 Secondly, and fully, from the country ; and tius 
 either because, whUe such condition lasts, it 
 [the country] gives him authority by some Hnd of 
 tacit consent ; since it wishes him to administer 
 justice and duly perform the duties of the office 
 which he has usurped ; or, rather, since it tacitly 
 approves whatever acts and commands of his are 
 in conformity with the laws and with common 
 utility : and it wants just sentences, — whereby 
 
 62 
 
INDIRECT AUTHORITY 63 
 
 die disputes of the citizens are settled and the 
 guilty are punished, — to be valid, and the sub- 
 jects to be bound. For unless they were valid 
 and obligatory, no one would obey, except in 
 seeming ; but in secret everyone would do the 
 opposite, to the great inconvenience of the 
 State. But the State can give this force to the 
 sentences and acts of an usurper ; since, though 
 oppressed by tyranny, it is the superior of every- 
 one, and can regard the sentences of the usurper 
 as its own " ^. 
 
 In like manner Dr. CoflFey writes ^ : — " When 
 a nation is thus tyrannically held in subjection 
 by the superior force of a dominant State, and 
 thus unjustly deprived of its own rightful govern- 
 ment, its people are morally bound by the natural 
 law to obey the measures imposed upon them by 
 
 ^ " Eius sententiae et iusta mandata, etsi non habeant vim a 
 tyrannica potestate, habent tamen aliunde ; primo et inchoative 
 a iure naturali, quod, supposito tali rerum statu, dictat esse 
 obtemperandum, propter bonum commune ; alioquin omnia 
 essent plena furtis et latriciniis. Secundo et complete a 
 Republ. ; idque vel quia, durante illo statu, tacito quodam 
 consensu, dat ei auctoritatem, dum vult ut ille iustitiam ad- 
 ministret, et officio usurpato deblto modo fungatur ; vel 
 potius quia tacite approbat eius mandata et acta, legibus et 
 utilitati communi consentanea, et vult sententias iustas, quibus 
 lites civium dirimuntur, et sontes plectuntur, esse validas et 
 subditos obligari. Nisi enim validae essent et obligarent, nemo 
 nisi in specie obtemperaret ; sed quisque occulte faceret 
 contrarium, cum magno Reipubl. incommodo. Potest autem 
 banc vim sententiis et actis tyranni dare, quia est singuloroum 
 superior, etiamsi tyrannice sit oppressa, et iustas tyranni sen- 
 tentias pro suis habere ". Ibid. n. 73. 
 
 » " Irish E. Record", Ibid. p. 488. 
 
64 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 the usurper ; not, indeed, because these measures 
 have themselves the moral force of laws (for they 
 have not), but because and in so far as obedience 
 to these measures is the only means of procuring 
 and safeguarding certain goods which every 
 social community is morally bound to secure, 
 namely, pubUc peace and order, and its own 
 preservation from total extinction through the 
 bootless sacrifice of the lives of its citizens, — a 
 sacrifice which would be the inevitable result 
 of a sustained trial of strength with the usurper ". 
 
 This principle Dr. Coffey applies to the con- 
 dition of Ireland since the Union ; that is, on 
 the supposition, — ^which he seems to endorse, — 
 that laws made by the Imperial Parliament have 
 not of themselves any force to bind the Irish 
 people, for lack of consent on their part. I do 
 not think it unfair to suppose that he would 
 apply the principle no less to the condition of 
 Ireland before the Union, from the time of the 
 Norman conquest; which, as an unjust usurpa- 
 tion, in which the Irish nation never acqmesced, 
 gave no legislative authority. So I understand 
 his argument. 
 
 To the abstract principle I have no objection ; 
 though I have my doubts as to whether it can 
 be applied to the case of Ireland, whether before 
 or after the Union ; and this apart from the 
 evidence, set forth already, of consent to English 
 rule on the part of our people. Suppose tibere 
 was no free consent, but unjust usurpation by 
 England, the question arises whether laws made 
 for Ireland by the usurper would be of them- 
 
DEGREES OF CONQUEST 65 
 
 selves invalid, as being based on pressure unjustly 
 exercised to secure tlie adhesion of the conquered 
 people. 
 
 2. Three Degrees of Conquest. — In this con- 
 nection, I think we can distinguish three degrees 
 of conquest ; and I will ask you to allow me to 
 illustrate what I mean from the relations of 
 France and Belgium to Germany ; which, though 
 not quite parallel with those of England and 
 Ireland, are sufficiently like for our purpose ; 
 besides having the great advantage of allowing 
 us a more dispassionate view. 
 
 In the conquest of France, or of part of that 
 country, by Germany, I distinguish three grades 
 of completeness : first, that of Champagne, 
 during the last four years of war ; second, that 
 of Alsace, since the war of 1870 ; and third, 
 acquisition of territory further east, on the left 
 bank of the Rhine, which we may suppose GalUc 
 tribes to have held at one time. 
 
 Supposing, now, that not only the late war 
 but that of 1870 were imjust on the part of Ger- 
 many; and also that she acted unjustly when, 
 in the remote past, she colonised the left bank 
 of the Rhine ; her rule, though deriving from 
 usurpation in each of the three districts, would 
 not be of the same character and authority in 
 each. She would have had no jurisdiction in 
 Champagne ; wherein the people would be only 
 indirectly bound to her decrees, as explained by 
 Dr. Coffey. She would have had true, though 
 revocable, jurisdiction in Alsace. And in the 
 land bordering the Rhine, where she had long 
 
66 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 been settled, her jurisdiction would be irre- 
 vocable ; except in so far as the authority of any 
 State in any of its provinces is revocable, in 
 accordance with the laws of development. 
 
 Take, first, the difference between Champagne 
 and Alsace. This latter province was ceded 
 formally by the Treaty of FranMurt ; whereas 
 the French people fought to the last for Cham- 
 pagne. Did this make no ethical difference ? 
 And was the Treaty of Frankfurt devoid of any 
 force whatever, even on the supposition that its 
 signature was due to unjust pressure on the part 
 of Germany ? 
 
 3. Effect of Forced Acquiescence. — ^Every hand- 
 book on Moral Theology gives what is now, 
 practically, recognised in the Catholic schools 
 as the effect of forced consent to a contract. 
 There was, indeed, some difference of opiiuon 
 at one time ; a few holding that where, as in the 
 case before us, the pressure is supposed to be 
 unjust, any resulting contract is quite invalid. 
 Agamst this, the great body of our moralists, — 
 whose opinion St. Alphonsus calls ^ "most pro- 
 bable and most common ", — ^regard it as valid ; 
 while, of those who hold this view, almost all 
 agree that such a contract may be rescinded at 
 the will of the aggrieved party, whenever he can 
 conveniently do so. He can, moreover, rescind 
 of his own immediate right, without any over- 
 riding judicial sentence. 
 
 According to this, the act whereby France 
 ceded Alsace at the Peace of Frankfurt, was 
 * Tbeol. Moral., L. iii., n. 716. 
 
FORCED ACQUIESCENCE e-] 
 
 valid, and gave Germany true jurisdiction over 
 the territory ceded ; even though we suppose 
 the treaty to have been signed by the French 
 plenipotentiaries under the influence of undue 
 pressure ; provided always they gave true con- 
 sent — ^which is to be presumed. This does not 
 imply that France may not now be within her 
 right in denouncing the treaty in that part, and 
 recalling her act of cession ; a question which 
 does not cpncern us now. 
 
 As regards Champagne, on the contrary, there 
 was no cession, whether spontaneous or due to 
 pressure ; so that the German occupation, if 
 unjust, would not give true jurisdiction, but 
 would merely base a duty of indirect compliance, 
 as already set forth. With regard to the Rhine 
 provinces, German authority, — ^though, possibly, 
 deriving originally from usurpation, — ^would have 
 been made valid by prescription ; apart alto- 
 gether from any consent on the part of the 
 ousted Gauls. 
 
 It has often happened that a national dispute 
 terminated without formal treaty, when the 
 conquered people were beaten so as to be in- 
 capable of further struggle. When this happens, 
 they consent to the transfer of dominion ; under 
 pressure, no doubt, which very often is unjust ; 
 but they consent really, till they are in position 
 to resume the fight. It is, of course, conceivable 
 that they should yield without recognising any 
 dominion on the part of the conqueror ; as when 
 an individual deUvers his purse to a robber. But 
 when the cession takes place by way of formal 
 
68 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 treaty, it is more reasonable, I thini, to presume 
 that the consent is real ; and the same applies, 
 I fancy, when the cession is informal. Any way, 
 there either is or is not consent to the transfer. 
 Where there is no consent, and the conquest 
 has been effected by unjust use of force, dominion 
 does not pass ; at least until the new order has 
 become so stable as to found a title in prescription. 
 When consent has been extorted, — ^real consent, 
 extorted by unjust pressure, — dominion passes ; 
 and equitable laws made by the new authorities 
 are valid in themselves, till the act of cession has 
 been effectually recalled. 
 
 4. Ireland not like Belgium. — One often hears 
 Ireland under EngHsh rule compared to Belgium 
 under the rule of the Grermans ; as if there were 
 not this great difference, that, whereas the King 
 of the Belgians with his government, representing 
 the nation, never ceased to fight ; and so, in 
 the most effectual manner, to record the national 
 dissent from the transfer of dominion which 
 Germany attempted ; we in Ireland gave up the 
 struggle. I have given evidence to show that in 
 pre-Union times we formally recognised, more 
 than once, the dominion of the King of England ; 
 and that since the Union we recognised the 
 jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament. 
 
 Even supposing all tliis due to unjust pressure, 
 still the consent was there ; revocable, no doubt, 
 on the supposition ; but giving the aHen ruler 
 true dominion till it was effectually recalled. 
 
 Possibly it was recalled during the Repeal 
 agitation, through the influence of O'ConneU ; 
 
DID IRELAND CONSENT? 69 
 
 but is it not conceivable that O'Connell may have 
 consented to the rule of the Imperial Parliament 
 even while agitating for Repeal ; striving to get 
 that body to relinquish its authority ; but 
 recognising the authority till relinquished. From 
 the fact that he sat in Parliament, and took the 
 oath of allegiance, I have argued that this was 
 his real mind. 
 
 In any case, consent was renewed once more 
 under the Home Rule leaders. Has it been since 
 recalled, in the Sinn Fein movement ; wherein 
 not much more than one-third of the electors 
 voted for an independent Republic ; while it is 
 well known that, of those who voted that way, 
 a considerable number did so merely to oust the 
 old Parliamentary Party or to secure a fuller 
 measure of Home Rule ? 
 
 These are matters of fact, as to which I have 
 no -special competence. The ethical principle, 
 with which I am concerned, is, that usurpation, 
 even when unjust, may give a valid title to juris- 
 diction, apart even from prescription ; and that 
 it does give it whenever the nation despoiled 
 really consents to the cession of its rights. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 OF THE EFFECT OF A TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION 
 SECURED BY CORRUPTION 
 
 I. T ACK of Theological Authority. — One of 
 / the most serious and apparently well- 
 founded charges against the Imperial 
 Parliament, is that its title to rule Ireland is 
 based on the Act of Union ; and that, as this was 
 passed through flagrant corruption, it does not 
 embody the consent of the Irish people. Let us 
 examine this as dispassionately as we can. 
 
 There is, I regret to say, little scientific author- 
 ity to guide us, despite all that Catholic moralists 
 have written on almost every aspect of injustice. 
 They dispute, at great length, whether one who 
 has taken money for doing what should not be 
 done, may keep the money after doing his wicked 
 part. The question before us, however, is, not 
 whether the venal members of the Irish Parlia- 
 ment could retain their bribes ; but whether 
 their purchased votes were valid, in the sense of 
 availing to make the Act of Union binding on 
 the Irish people. 
 
 2. Analogies. — It is a question which I have 
 often heard discussed under other aspects — 
 
 70 
 
EFFECT OF BRIBERY 71 
 
 as regards the votes of other representatives : 
 city aldermen, for instance, and county or district 
 councillors ; who, though they might feel in- 
 sulted by an offer of money for a vote, are not 
 above recording it to secure offices for their 
 friends, or even bargaining for an equivalent on 
 the next occasion. About the ethical value of 
 transactions of this kind I have heard some 
 discussions, on the part of moralists of keen 
 intelligence, wide reading, and long experience ; 
 who, nevertheless, did not seem to have arrived 
 at any definite conclusion ; whereas every budding 
 orator or pressman can decide off-hand that the 
 Act of Union has no ethical value, as being due 
 to corruption. 
 
 It is not, however, orators or politicians merely 
 who have instructed us in this way, but statesmen 
 of the rank and experience of Mr. Gladstone ; 
 who, you would fancy, never offered any man 
 a consideration for a vote. He did not, of course, 
 offer so much down ; but neither, as far as I 
 know, did Pitt or Castlereagh. They gave titles, 
 places, compensation for vested interests, money 
 for press work. But did Mr. Gladstone never 
 give a title for party services ; or a pension ; or 
 some valuable consideration to the press ? Did 
 he never stave off opposition to some measure by 
 an offer of a seat in the cabinet, or a place in the 
 government, or of compensation for some interest 
 that he was about to extinguish ? Have we not 
 even heard of titles being given for donations to 
 the funds of both the great English Parties ? 
 Let us try to give even Castlereagh the measure 
 
72 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 of justice we mete out to others, and which, 
 possibly,' we may ourselves require. 
 
 3. Election of Unworthy Clergymen to Ecclesi' 
 astical Benefices. — In the absence of authoritative 
 guidance we can only go by analogy, in so far as 
 this is available ; and I find that Fadier Lehmkuhl, 
 S.J., — a well-known and respected authority in 
 the modern Catholic schools of Morals, — ^when 
 discussing the eflFect of collation of an ecclesias- 
 tical benefice on some unworthy clergyman, 
 teaches that the act is valid, however unfit the 
 recipient may be ; unless it should be a case 
 wherein the canons interfere to quash the election. 
 Otherwise the election is valid, though Uable to 
 be quashed.^ 
 
 Here we have an exercise of authority deriving 
 from others : for it is not by any power of his 
 own that an elector may appoint to a benefice. 
 He is supposed to transgress his mandate, — ^if, 
 indeed, it be a mandate, — by electing some one 
 who is unworthy. And yet the act is valid. 
 
 It would, no doubt, be quashed ifso facto in 
 case of an ecclesiastical appointment, if secured 
 by simony. That, however, is special legislation, 
 due to the reverence of the Church for sacred 
 things. If the position were, for instance, that 
 of medical officer to a dispensary district, which 
 some one secured by bribing one or more of 
 the electors, as far as I know, the appointment 
 would be valid ; though, I suppose, it would 
 be quashed if the corruption were proved in 
 court. 
 
 ^ fheol. Moral, i. n. 1159 ; note 2. iii. 
 
ETHICS OF AGENCY 73 
 
 4. Ethics of Agency. — ^As far as I can discern 
 the intrinsic reasons on which Father Lehmkuhl's 
 teaching is based, they are connected with the 
 ethics of agency ; the supposition being that 
 those who are empowered to appoint to ecclesias- 
 tical benefices do not act in their own name. 
 So also, I take it, members of parliament and 
 other such bodies do not act in their own name, 
 but as agents ; if not of those who elected them, 
 then of the country or district. They seem, 
 moreover, to have received a general, rather 
 than a special mandate ; being commissioned, 
 not for this or that individual act or purpose, 
 but, in the case of members of parHament, to 
 transact the affairs of the country generally. 
 County and district councillors, similarly, have 
 a mandate to transact the affairs of the county or 
 district which is administered by the body to 
 which they belong. I 
 
 Now, one who has received a general mandate 
 does not act invalidly whenever his action is 
 opposed to the interest of his principal. Such 
 action, I admit j is unjust, — Slacks, that is, [dis- 
 tributive justice, at least, — but, if it were invalid, 
 no soft bargain made by such an agent would 
 bind in conscience ; for the simple reason that, 
 being soft, it was not in the interest of those by 
 whom the agent was commissioned. One cannot, 
 however, go so far as that. 
 
 Even, therefore, though parliament should 
 make a bargain which is not to the advantage of 
 the nation, the act is^ valid, provided it comes 
 within the commission which parliament received. 
 
74 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 And even though of the majority by whom the 
 act was passed some acted from corrupt motives, 
 — Shaving taken a place, or compensation, or even 
 a downright bribe, — ^this would not of itself in- 
 validate the act ; as it would not invalidate 
 a sale — of cattle, let us say — ^if an agent who had 
 been duly commissioned to sell them, did so for 
 less than the medium price, pocketing a tip for 
 his complaisance to the purchaser. He could and 
 should be punished for such conduct ; which I 
 regard as being not only immoral but strictly 
 unjust — ^to his principal. A law, moreover, that 
 might empower a court to quash such contracts, 
 I should consider just. But, till the contract has 
 been duly quashed in that way, I should deem it 
 valid. 
 
 It is, I admit, a difficvdt question, as to which 
 we are sadly in need of expert guidance. But if 
 that is enough to make a prudent moralist 
 hesitate, would it not be well to hesitate before 
 delivering an adverse judgment on the validity 
 of an act of parliament such as that of the 
 Legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland ; 
 especially should the decision be embodied in a 
 dissertation that may be supposed to deal with the 
 question with expert authority ? 
 
 5. Commission of Grattan's Parliament. — 
 Dr. CoflEey, I know, is disposed to endorse the 
 plea of those who deny the commission of 
 Grattan's Parliament — that it was elected by the 
 Irish People or could speak or act for them. 
 Here, again, we have to seek a principle ; and 
 I cannot help entertaining doubts as to that on 
 
GRATTAN'S PARLIAMENT 75 
 
 which this plea, of lack of commission, is 
 based. 
 
 There is no denying that Grattan's Parliament 
 was in need of reform : the franchise was too 
 restricted and the seats divided inequitably. The 
 same, however, could be said of the English 
 Parliament of the period — that it needed reform, 
 as regards both the extension of the franchise and 
 distribution of seats. Should we, then, hold that 
 acts of the English Parliament were not valid, 
 for lack of due commission, towards the close of 
 the eighteenth century ? > 
 
 Where, moreover, will you find a parliament 
 that is not in need of reform ? It was only the 
 other day that English women got the franchise ; 
 as, I suppose, is their due. Suffragists, at least, 
 think so. Does it follow that, because we now 
 regard them as having a right to vote, acts of 
 parUament which were passed before they could 
 vote have no binding force ? Or, as some women 
 have not yet got votes who may get them 
 in a year or two, is it possible that all the work 
 of the present Parliament is so much waste 
 energy ? 
 
 So it may be with regard to the method of 
 voting ; which probably, should secure pro- 
 portional representation. Or it may be that 
 young men of eighteen, who are liable for military 
 service, are entitled to vote for members of 
 parliament and of local councils. And, no doubt, 
 reforms will yet be made in the proportion in 
 which seats in these bodies are distributed. 
 Are we to regard it as a principle of ethics 
 
^e QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 that, till the whole is settled equitably, so as 
 to leave no room for further reform, the 
 acts of such assemblies will have no binding 
 force ? 
 
 Consider one of the consequences. The Bol- 
 shevists of Russia, I understand, repudiate the 
 loans accepted by that country under the govern- 
 ment of the Tsars ; on the ground that the 
 nation gave no commission to those who contracted 
 those obligations. Does that plea hold in justice ? 
 And may Great Britain, similarly, and other 
 nations repudiate their debts, on the ground that 
 the parliaments which contracted them had no 
 commission from the women, who in every 
 nation form the majority ? 
 
 6. Princifle Suggested. — Can it be that, for 
 vaUdity, aU that is needed is observance of the 
 constitution for the time in being ? That if the 
 king alone is empowered by the constitution to 
 make laws, as in early feudal times, then he can 
 make them of his own authority, without con- 
 sulting parliament ? As also that, if he is 
 required to act through parliament, the assembly 
 through which he must act is just what the con- 
 stitution determines for the time ? This, indeed, 
 might lack some kind of justice, and need reform ; 
 but, however inequitable, its acts would be 
 valid all the same. 
 
 I do not presume to say that this is the true 
 principle that governs the question ; but I do 
 say that there is at least as much to be said for 
 it as there is for any which I can find underlying 
 this plea of invalidity of the Act of Union, for 
 
PRINCIPLE SUGGESTED 77 
 
 lack of commission on the part of the assembly 
 by which it was passed. 
 
 It is another question whether such an act, 
 though valid, may not demand reconsideration 
 and reform. This also I should answer in the 
 affirmative. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 OF HOW A PEOPLE HITHERTO INDEPENDENT MAY 
 BE BOUND TO UNION WITH OTHERS; AND OF 
 HOW THIS MAY BE SECURED 
 
 I. Application of the Principle of 
 
 y§ Develofment. — I have been assuming 
 hitherto that whatever consent the 
 Irish people gave to the present mode of govern- 
 ing their country, was extorted by force, and 
 that this pressure was unjust on the part of 
 England. The latter part of the assumption is 
 not admitted by English statesmen ; and it is 
 well to consider their point of view. It will be 
 found to be bound up with the doctrine of 
 development ; which, in one form or other, has 
 revolutionised history and science. The English 
 view, as I understand it, is that in the British 
 Islands, as elsewhere in Europe, — Germany and 
 Italy, for instance, — a time came when kingdoms 
 and principalities hitherto independent were 
 bound to unite in self-defence ; and that, when 
 this became due, no injustice could be done in 
 pressing to secure the necessary union. 
 
 2. Self - Determination and Self -Defence. — 
 This, we hear, is the day of small nationalities ; 
 when the civilised world allows each of them to 
 
 78 
 
NEED OF COMBINATION 79 
 
 determine for itseH how it will be governed : 
 in absolute independence or as part of a united 
 kingdom, empire, or republic. Whereupon the 
 question arises, Whether this right of self- 
 determination is an ethical principle ; and, if 
 so, how far does it extend ? Have the German 
 States, for instance, or those of Italy, a right to 
 separate government ? One knows what Bismarck 
 would say, or Cavour ; but perhaps they were 
 despots. 
 
 We find historically, as far as I know, that what 
 we call the nations of Europe are all combina- 
 tions of what were once independent states ; 
 which, in their condition of separation, lived in 
 antagonism, often intensified into warfare ; as 
 may be illustrated from the annals of our own 
 country. Greece went down, because, for all 
 her culture, she could not combine her warring 
 petty states ; while Rome succeeded for the 
 opposite reason, though she had to take her 
 science and art from Greece. 
 
 Nearer home, Britain, when the Roman armies 
 left, was as weak as Ireland, if not weaker ; but 
 the British seem to have had the Roman sense for 
 combination : hence their success. First, the 
 Kingdom of England was formed, from the 
 Heptarchy ; then Wales came in, and Scotland ; 
 these three previously warring states combining 
 to form the nucleus of what has long been the 
 wealthiest and most powerful empire in the 
 world. 
 
 Is it an ethical principle that the petty king- 
 doms of the Heptarchy might, without doing 
 
8o QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 wrong, have remained isolated to the present ? 
 Or that Scotland and Wales were no less free to 
 refuse combination ? This I find it hard to 
 believe. 
 
 3. Pre-Milesian States of Ireland : The United 
 States. — ^We hear, |moreover, a good deal of the 
 Irish Nation, one and indivisible ; and how 
 Ulster should submit to the rule of the majority. 
 But what of that corner of Ulster, now called 
 Down and Antrim, which. Professor MacNeill 
 assures us, was never subdued by the Milesians ? 
 And what of Ossory, that other Pre-Milesian 
 state, which, according to the same authority, 
 " retained its independent and native rulers till 
 the time of the English confiscation under 
 Queen Mary, and even later, and was the longest 
 established Celtic principality in the world " ? 
 Were these free to remain in their isolation ? 
 And are they now free to resume, if ever they 
 renounced it freely ? If not, in what sense is 
 the right of self-determination an ethical 
 principle ? 
 
 Those who know the United States tell us 
 that South differs very much from North ; and 
 East from Middle- West and West ; not, indeed, 
 in language, religion, er possibly in race ; but in 
 mentality, customs, financial interests and con- 
 ditions. The differences came to a head, as 
 North and South, at the time of the Civil War, 
 when the southern states wanted to break away 
 from the Union — ^asserting their right to self- 
 determination, and that no one should govern 
 them without their consent. Lincoln did not 
 
UNION SECURED BY PRESSURE 8i 
 
 admit it, nor the North ; and the world, I fancy, 
 now holds that Lincoln was right. How, then, 
 of self-determination and government only by 
 consent of the governed ? 
 
 4. Principle of Combination. — In view of which, 
 and of ever so much more that might be gathered 
 from the history of every nation in the world, 
 I beg to submit the following as an ethical 
 principle, roughly outlined, and possibly needing 
 amendment : — ^A time may come in the develop- 
 ment of peoples, when their interest requires them 
 to combine, for advance and protection ; and 
 when this happens they do wrong to maintain 
 separate independence. 
 
 It is, in my opinion, the mistake, amounting to 
 crime, committed not only by the Red Indian 
 and other uncultured tribes, but by the Irish 
 clans, and by the ancient Greeks, the most 
 cultured people known to history. It was a 
 sin against patriotism ; which, wherever com- 
 mitted, called down its own punishment. 
 
 5. Union May be Secured by Pressure. — ^This 
 introduces a further principle, already set forth 
 in Some Aspects of the Social Question, to the 
 effect that ; When an individual, tribe, or nation, 
 attempts what is inequitable in any way, it is 
 not wrong for another whose equitable rights 
 are thereby violated to use reasonable force to 
 protect itself. And, further still. Though it is 
 not permissible to have recourse to fraud, in any 
 case, or to bribery ; no injury is done to any 
 individual or nation that may be restrained 
 thereby from doing what is unjust or inequitable. 
 
 6 
 
82 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 I do not know how Bismarck contrived to 
 make a united Germany ; but should not be 
 surprised if he had to have recourse to threats, 
 or even to fraud. The man who precipitated 
 a great war by deliberate falsification of a state 
 paper, was not above either, to carry a measure 
 on which he had set his heart. Nor would any 
 patriotic German now blame him for having 
 used reasonable pressure to make Bavaria, for 
 instance, enter the Bund, under a Prussian 
 Kaiser ; nor, if fraud were used, would it be 
 deemed worse than fraud : certainly not in- 
 justice to Bavaria. Lincoln, similarly, did not 
 hesitate to wage a great war to prevent the 
 southern states from consummating the crime 
 of separation from the Union ; nor does any 
 moderate man blame him for such use of 
 force. ^ 
 
 The pity was that in Ireland, as in Greece, no 
 one was found strong enough to consolidate the 
 different states. Brian Boru, they say, nearly 
 succeeded with the Irish ; and had he succeeded, 
 even by crushing the Ossory and Leinster men, 
 he would have made himself a name as a great 
 and beneficent patriot, more illustrious and 
 enduring than he has drawn from the battle of 
 Clontarf. Few Ossory men would now deny 
 
 ^ In the newspapers of April 14, 1919, there appeared an 
 official communique giving a summarT' of the Covenant of 
 the League of Nations. The following clause is to our present 
 purpose : " States not members of the League will be invited 
 to accept the obligations of the League for the purpose of 
 particular disputes ; and, if they fail to comply, maybe coerced." 
 
UNION WITH BRITAIN 83 
 
 that their fathers were wrong in asserting the 
 right of self-determination against him. 
 
 6. application to Modern Ireland. — ^Passing on 
 to the application of these principles, I think 
 it wiU be seen that, whereas the English, like the 
 early Romans, were and are modest enough to 
 admit that without union they could not have 
 the security or prosperity they desired ; we in 
 Ireland, like the ancient Greek states, have been 
 and are self-confident — that we are sufficient of 
 ourselves. England admits, nay pleads, that she 
 needs to have Scotland, Wales, and Ireland 
 closely united with her, in one imperial, military 
 and fiscal system ; as Germany is united. 
 Scotland admits the need ; as does Wales ; 
 though both have shown that they could live 
 alone at least as well as we ; while they were 
 once as bitterly opposed to England as ever we 
 were. They have had the good sense to control 
 their spleen, in the interest of national welfare. 
 The north-east of Ireland wants the Union — 
 those great business interests that centre in 
 Belfast. So do the business men of Ireland 
 everywhere. 
 
 The benefit deriving from this imperial union 
 to all the components I take to have been the 
 motive that attracted Pitt, as also Castlereagh. 
 It was certainly Gladstone's idea ; as it is that 
 of Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Asquith ; all 
 of whom, no doubt, looked primarily to the 
 interest of Great Britain, but may weU have been 
 under the honest impression that both islands 
 would benefit by the union. To compass this 
 
84 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 some of them did shady things ; but those who 
 recognise the Union as being anything like the good 
 these statesmen deemed it, have httle blame for 
 the tricks to which they had recourse. We have 
 seen that Germans do not think much the less 
 of Bismarck for any guile he may have used to 
 entice Bavaria into the Imperial Bund ; nor 
 even for using pressure to that purpose ; as I 
 should not blame Pitt very much if I could persuade 
 myself that the Union was to the advantage of 
 Ireland as well as of Great Britain. 
 
 That was, is, and will be, the real question 
 between the two countries : is the Union for 
 the good of both ? and, if so, under what con- 
 ditions ? There can be little doubt that England 
 benefits ; and would benefit still more if we in 
 Ireland were to fall in heartUy. The question, 
 then, reduces itself to this : whether and under 
 what conditions union with England is for the 
 interest of the Irish people. 
 
 It is not, primarily, a question of ethics ; but 
 of business, or of poUtics ; and therefore outside 
 the sphere on which I can speak with any com- 
 petence. But as it has been discussed by so 
 many, with^^no very extraordinary claims to 
 business capacity, perhaps I may be allowed to 
 put in a word. 
 
 7. Irish Trade De-pendent on That of Britain. — 
 For more than half a century now I have been 
 watching Irish trade ; not, of course, with any- 
 thing like the attention that is given by men of 
 business. And I have noticed, first, that we 
 have little commerce except with England ; and, 
 
WHO SAVED OUR TRADE ? 85 
 
 secondly, that what trade we have is sympathetic 
 with hers ; sharing, almost immediately, with 
 its least buoyancy or depression. 
 
 Thus while England confesses that she wants 
 our help in trade, we, who pretend we have no 
 great need of her, sink or svpim with her in spite 
 of ourselves. We are united with her in bonds 
 closer even than the Act of Union — those of 
 trade ; and if it is her interest to be prosperous, 
 it is ours to see her prosper. Contributing to 
 her prosperity, we secure our own. Had she 
 failed 2n the late war, and been bled white, we 
 should have been beggared ; so that those of us 
 who fought for her, whether with silver or 
 leaden bullets, fought for our own country ; and 
 those who wished success to Germany, wished, 
 however unwittingly, impoverishment to Ireland. 
 
 8. Who Saved our Trade P — ^When I put this 
 argument, as I often have, to friends who think 
 differently, they gave me one of two answers — 
 sometimes both. First, that, even though we 
 took no part in the war, England would continue 
 rich and prosperous, and our trade vdth her 
 would remain. Secondly, that, even though 
 she failed and were reduced to poverty, our trade 
 would remain ; no longer, indeed, trade with her, 
 but vnth whatever country might benefit by her 
 impoverishment. May I be allowed to say what 
 I think of aU this ? 
 
 First, England has come through the war ; 
 with a pile of debt, and, so far, impoverished ; 
 but not bled white, as she would have been, had 
 she lost. Her commerce, which is the basis of 
 
86 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 ours, remains, as we hope. The common 
 interest has been safeguarded : through whose 
 efforts ? Not by ours, who drew off in the time 
 of greatest, need. During the Irish land-war 
 there were farmers who took no part in the 
 struggle, but were among the first to secure 
 whatever profit cOuld be drawn from the victory. 
 Among the working classes there are always some 
 who join no union, and who retain their jobs 
 and pay, while the union men, out on strike, 
 suffer cold and hunger. Those non-unionists 
 and non-strikers benefit for the occasion ; as do 
 aU scabs and black-legs ; but theirs, in the end, is 
 the sure way to slavery. 
 
 It was so the Irish clans went down in the 
 struggle with the Normans ; some looking on and 
 gloating over the discomfiture of old enemies, 
 their Hnsmen, whose comrades in arms they 
 ought to have been. England has come through ; 
 and so far our commerce has been saved ; but 
 it was done at a tremendous sacrifice of blood 
 and treasure ; while so many of us looked on with 
 eyes hungry to see the tide of battle set the other 
 way. Was it an honourable way to save our 
 trade ? 
 
 Secondly, had England failed and lost her 
 commerce, our trade, it is said, would stiU sur- 
 vive ; perhaps even be in a better position. It 
 is a question of business ; as to which, though 
 having an opinion of my own, I took occasion, 
 now and then, to question business men. Are 
 you prepared, I asked them, to seek new trade, 
 with Germany, or whatever cpuntry may need 
 
IF ENGLAND FAILED ? 87 
 
 our produce, should the English market fail ? 
 And I did not meet one man of business who 
 liked the prospect. They would have to face it, 
 of course, if the condition were fulfilled ; 
 just as they would have to face the Court of 
 Bankruptcy or the workhouse in so many other 
 contingencies. Young priests would face the 
 consequences with light hearts ; and university 
 students ; those, generally, who either had no 
 business or no business outlook ; like so many 
 of our labourers, farmers, and small shop-keepers. 
 But of men of business, not one. 
 
 For years before the war we used to hear 
 farmers complain of how hard it was to live, with 
 the ruinous prices due to competition. Well, 
 as far as one can judge, the competition will 
 continue, and become intensified ; so that 
 unless those farmers find a market in which they 
 wUl enjoy special favour, one does not see how 
 they can escape being ruined. Fortunately for 
 them, England has been frightened, by the sub- 
 marine, into a disposition to show the special 
 favour they need so much. And yet the farmers 
 of Ireland protest that they can stand alone, 
 without British trade favour. It may be 
 magnificent ; but it does not look like business. 
 
 9. Other Small Nations. — I have been re- 
 minded, in this connection, of the small nations 
 of Europe, — ^Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, 
 and the Scandinavian countries ; how pros- 
 perous they were in their isolation ; and how 
 foolish it was of Belgium and Roumania to take 
 sides in the war. It is an argument one often 
 
88 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 heard in the days of the Land League ; as one 
 still does in Labour disputes : how sensible those 
 were who did not expose themselves to eviction 
 or loss of wages ; or, still more, if they took a 
 farm or a 'job which some Land Leaguer or 
 striker had resigned. So, too, in the struggle be- 
 tween the Normans and the Irish, clans would 
 remain aloof, hugging themselves on their astute- 
 ness, and bHnd to the fact that the day of trial 
 was coming for themselves. 
 
 One does not like to be too hard on Holland and 
 the Scandinavian peoples ; who could have been 
 invaded and destroyed by Germany. Seeing 
 what had become of Belgium, one could excuse 
 them ; as one could excuse a farmer, during the 
 Land League times, for not facing eAdction. It 
 was not heroic ; but all cannot be heroes, any 
 more than they can be six foot high. In Ireland 
 we had not even that poor excuse. 
 
 Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Switzerland, 
 would very soon be annexed by Germany, politi- 
 cally or at least economically, did not England, 
 France, Italy, and Russia forbid. Covdd we in 
 Ireland bring the United States as near as the 
 Low Countries are to France and England, or as 
 Cuba is to Florida, our trade would not be so 
 wholly bound up with that of England, and we 
 should not be in need, as at present, of union 
 with her. 
 
 10. Utilitarianism. — ^These, I know, are gross 
 considerations, which abstract from spiritual 
 interests, — ^what so many caU the " soul of the 
 nation " ; as if the mother's soul were frge iiQi^ 
 
THE SOUL OF A NATION 89 
 
 the duty of providing bread-and-butter for her 
 offspring. It is this provision which I think 
 imperilled ; not any special Celtic culture, — 
 religion, language, or traditions, — ^which, under 
 a Home Rule government, in union with England, 
 can take good care of themselves. That is, if 
 we have one-tenth of the grit that is needed to 
 make us prosperous as a fuUy independent people. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 OF SOME CONDITIONS OF COMPLETE SELF- 
 DETERMINATION 
 
 I. ^^^HE Principle of Self-Determination. — It 
 g is conceivable that even though Ire- 
 land, as a whole, was never a united 
 and fully independent nation, she may be such 
 now de iure, through development ; whereupon 
 it might be argued that a people de iure inde- 
 pendent are not bound by a law such as that of 
 Conscription passed without their consent. This 
 raises another question : whether the principle 
 of Union, set forth in the last Chapter, may not 
 be pushed too far, so as to run counter to another 
 law, of Self-Determination, as is now the catch- 
 word. Let us, then, consider what Self-Deter- 
 mination means and whether it may not be 
 conditioned. 
 
 The principle, as a rule, is worded, rhetorically, 
 in universal terms : Nations — meaning thereby, 
 apparently, people of the same race, language, 
 and mode of culture, who Hve within definite 
 geographical boundaries, — are entitled to govern 
 themselves. In another form the principle runs 
 thus : No government is legitimate without 
 consent of the governed, 
 
 90 
 
SELF-RULE AND DEVELOPMENT 91 
 
 2. The Principle Conditioned. — On one oc- 
 casion I asked a New Zealand soldier, — viho had 
 been brought up in Ireland and professed 
 Socialism, — ^whether the Maoris of his adopted 
 country had this right of self-government ; and 
 when I went on to say that it might be found to 
 imply re-occupation of their ancient dominions, 
 my Socialist interlocutor said that they were 
 uncivilised. I have put the same question, and 
 received the same answer, with regard to other 
 undeveloped races : Indians of America, Negroes 
 of South Africa, Bushmen of Australia. These 
 people, — of such distinctive race, language, cul- 
 ture, — often Uve within definite geographical 
 boundaries ; but, apparently, have no right to 
 Self-Determination, and are governed legiti- 
 mately without their consent. 
 
 I doubt whether any educated — or even any 
 thinking — ^man, in Ireland or elsewhere, regards 
 the principle of Self-Determination as applying 
 universally : to all peoples whichsoever. It is 
 conditioned, by Development ; and, so condi- 
 tioned, is admitted by the most ardent Unionists. 
 The only difference of opinion I perceive is with 
 regard to the Development : whether this or 
 that grade entitles to Self-Determination ; and, 
 if so, to how much. For Self-Determination has 
 its degrees. 
 
 3. Development. — I do not know of any class 
 in England so reactionary as to maintain that all 
 the revolutions that took place in that country 
 were unjustified ; and that, by right, England 
 should be ruled to-day as she was before King 
 
92 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 John was forced by Bishops and Barons to sign 
 the Charter. You will find plenty to complain 
 of the last extension of the franchise ; as also 
 of the pressure that was brought to bear on the 
 House oi Lords, some years ago, to get that 
 Estate to resign certain rights it had held till 
 then. These are the Tories ; but would such 
 typical Conservatives as Mr. A. Balfour or 
 Lord Hugh Cecil jeave the people of England as 
 little power of selection of their rulers as they 
 had under the Tudor kings ? All statesmen are 
 Liberals now, in the sense of admitting the 
 broadening of rights due to national development. 
 
 I find it hard to believe there can be a politician 
 or thinker of any class, in Britain, who would 
 claim that ie iure New England should still be 
 ruled from Westminster ; or that, however 
 South Africa or Australia may grow, in resources 
 and population, they wUl never be entitled to 
 full independence. If, therefore. Development, 
 here and there, results in need of Union ; it 
 results as surely, elsewhere, in need of fission ; 
 and where this need is, there also will be the 
 right. 
 
 In the United States of America no statesman 
 or politician would allow Self-Determination, in 
 the sense of complete independence, to the 
 Philippines — till they have been more fuUy 
 developed ; and as for government by consent 
 of the governed, we know how Lincoln and the 
 North interpreted that when the Southern 
 states wanted to secede from the Union. Even 
 now, should Venezuela or Colombia think they 
 
SELF-RULE CONDITIONED 93 
 
 would do better if united, let us say, with Eng- 
 land, as Canada is, one would like to know 
 whether the Government at Washington would 
 allow them that right of Self-Determination. 
 
 4. Principle running through all Forms of Life. 
 — It is not among nations only the law of Self- 
 Determination holds, but in every form of Hfe ; 
 wherein also we may see how it is conditioned. 
 Everyone knows how strawberry-plants send out 
 runners, with a tendency to develop roots at 
 certain nodes ; whereby, when these rootlets 
 strike in a suitable place, new plants are formed. 
 These, Hke colonies, draw sustenance, for a time, 
 from the parent, through the runner ; till their 
 own roots have well struck ; when they rely 
 more and more on these ; the connection with 
 the parent organism becoming gradually useless 
 and disappearing at length. Sever it before the 
 time when the new roots have struck, and what 
 might have been a fruitful plant wUl wither. 
 
 So, too, should bees swarm before the colony 
 that leaves is strong enough to shift for itself ; or 
 at a time wherein shifts are vain which in other 
 circumstances might have set it up, the colony 
 will fail unless united with another stock. For 
 such a colony, in such circumstances, the Self- 
 Determination of complete independence is 
 fatal. 
 
 And so of men. One does not advise every 
 immature or untrained lad to set up for himself ; 
 and even when a young man is entitled to marry 
 and set up a home, he may not be in position to 
 open a business. For this one needs not merely 
 
94 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 strength of body and culture of mind, but 
 opportunity ; for lack of which the best will fail, 
 wlule others, with lower powers, succeed elsewhere. 
 No one pjreaches Self-Determination, in the sense 
 of complete independence, to aU the clerks and 
 assistants in our business houses. They must 
 qualify for the position of master ; and even then 
 they need capital ; while the capital that would 
 suffice at one time or place, wiU be useless at 
 another. 
 
 5. Independence and Competition. — It is notice- 
 able, moreover, that, as social relations grow 
 complex, — ^with more rapid communications and 
 freer intercourse, — ^it becomes more and more 
 difficult to hold one's place in business. Hence 
 all those combinations, of employers and em- 
 ployed, growing ever wider and wider ; all 
 miners forming one great union ; and, even so, 
 not being able to hold their own without joining 
 forces with railway-men and transport workers. 
 Labour leaders cry out that it is only by a national 
 union of all working-men these can secure their 
 rights ; while international SociaUsm, at Berne, 
 Stockholm, or elsewhere, insists that merely 
 national unions are useless. No one preaches 
 Self-Determination, in the sense of complete 
 independence and separation, to Labour. 
 
 So, too, of Capital. In simpler times, before 
 things were standardised and turned out in heaps, 
 a carpenter, smith, tailor, or bootmaker, could 
 stand alone ; but now, even though he may have 
 succeeded in establishing a little factory, he has 
 to combine with some bigger and stronger con- 
 
NEED OF UNION RELATIVE 95 
 
 cern, or else go out. Hence the many amalga- 
 mations we see — of railways, shipping companies, 
 steel-works, tobacco factories, soap factories, and 
 what not. Hence combinations of employers, to 
 match and meet those of rival employers, as well 
 as of the working-men. 
 
 Even the greatest nations are no longer fuUy 
 independent, but form leagues ; to which, when 
 formed, they must submit. A League that would 
 leave its members fuUy independent would be 
 worthless. France had to caU in England, Italy, 
 America, even Japan, to help her, the other day ; 
 and England and the United States had to allow 
 their armies to be commanded by a Frenchman, 
 Full Self -Determination would have lost the 
 war. 
 
 It seems, therefore, to be a law of life that 
 Self-Determination is conditioned, by develop- 
 ment and environment ; so that (i) any organism, 
 — ^whether vegetable or animal, individual or 
 social, — that sets up for itself prematurely, as- 
 suming more independence than its development, 
 in its condition of environment, allows, is sure 
 to fail and will have to pay the penalty ; while 
 (2) the same holds of those which continue the 
 struggle in isolation, after the time when, owing 
 to change of environment, they are no longer in 
 position to maintain themselves without combin- 
 ing with others. 
 
 6. Need of Combination Relative. — ^This law of 
 combination seems to me far more imperative 
 than is any principle of Self-Determination 
 permissive. It must, however, be borne well in 
 
96 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 mind that the need of combination is relative : 
 depending on environment, and growing with 
 the competition whereby every Kving thing is 
 surrounded and pressed ; which competition 
 itself increases with increasing facilities of com- 
 munication. The independence that served the 
 states of ancient Greece left them later an easy 
 prey to Roman power. From the fact that a 
 number of independent Irish clans were so easily 
 vanquished by the Normans, it follows that the 
 independent clan-system was then ruinous ; but 
 it does not foUow that it had been so always, 
 before the Irish had to face that powerful com- 
 bination. International regulation of the price 
 of labour is more necessary now than it was 
 before the railway and the steamship had made 
 commerce so international ; and whereas a 
 Balance of Power or Holy AUiance might have 
 been fairly sufficient once to keep the peace in 
 Europe, this now requires a League of Nations. 
 As the forces of evil, or of opposition, combine 
 against one, the need increases, for combination 
 with forces of an opposite kind, to maintain one's 
 position. 
 
 The Land League movement showed this; 
 as does the Labour movement, and the ever- 
 grovdng combinations of Capital. Irish farmers 
 who stood aloof from the League, were saved by 
 the very combination they refused to join ; as 
 non-union labourers are saved by the imions. 
 Taken singly, any number of rods are easily 
 broken ; and Divide et Imfera is just as true in 
 its way as Szmw Fein. 
 
WAR OF COMPETITION 97 
 
 7. War of Competition but Commencing. — 
 There are people who hope that we have seen 
 the last of wars ; and that in the era of peace, 
 now dawning, as there wiU be no standing armies 
 or guns, while equal justice reigns everywhere, the 
 weakest and least developed people can get on : 
 that in the new environment they are sure of 
 fair play, if not from this or that grasping neigh- 
 bour, then from the League. So that in the new 
 world development would not be required as a 
 condition of full nationhood ; nor need environ^ 
 ment or competition be reckoned with ; but 
 only race, and race-culture — ^history, mentality, 
 religion and the rest. 
 
 Then, perhaps, our old Iverk kingdom, — one 
 of the most ancient in Europe, — ^will revive ; or 
 Ossory, at least, be fuUy independent ; and over 
 the rest of Ireland we can go back to the clan 
 system, with its shadowy High King. Scotland, 
 too, and Wales will separate from England ; and 
 England return to a Heptarchy ; France, Ger- 
 many, and Italy split up like Russia ; and each 
 of the United States of America set up for itself. 
 What fools men are sure to be ! 
 
 Even though we had seen the last of wars 
 with shells and bombs, we have scarce come to 
 the beginning of the war of competition which 
 these Saturnian realms are to witness. For it 
 has been left to the ingenuity of these later ages 
 to discover that men can be enslaved as effec- 
 tually by commerce as by iron chains. Will 
 President WUson give us any guarantee of free- 
 dom from this kind of pressure ? Can he assure 
 
98 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 us that his own people will not use thdr power 
 to levy toUs on an impoverished and enfeebled 
 Europe ? Is the trade even of Great Britain or 
 France secure ? Now, it seems to me, is the time 
 when small nations have, more than ever, to look 
 out for themselves. Divided Russia and the 
 congeries of independent Balkan states are sure 
 to be exploited by united Germany, if that 
 country can keep united ; otherwise, it, too, wiU 
 be subject to exploitation. They may set up 
 custom-houses on every frontier, but great com- 
 binations of capital vpiU exploit and subjugate 
 them all the same. 
 
 And it is in this new world of fierce com- 
 petition and exploitation we are being assured 
 that, throv/n on ourselves, we in Ireland can hold 
 our own : we who were not able to hold it in 
 the easy-going world of the past. It is a question 
 of business ; which, however, should be fairly 
 clear even to a child. 
 
 8. A Question of Business. — Great Britain, with 
 all her resources, vdU find it very difficult to hold 
 her trade in the new era. But, even loaded as 
 she is vsdth debt, she is in ever so much a better 
 position than we ; with our poverty, lack of 
 resources, and of industrial and commercial 
 experience. There is only one way in which 
 we could hope to better ourselves by separating 
 from Britain— ^by continuing to share in the 
 fruits of her trade, without doing our part to 
 maintain it : taking of the profits without 
 paying the price. If permitted, it might suc- 
 ceed for a time, but would surely lead to ruin 
 
QUESTION OF BUSINESS 99 
 
 ultimately. In any case, it is not the way of 
 honour. 
 
 Let these islands do their very best, — standing 
 loyally back to back, dealing equal justice, man 
 and master making equal sacrifice, — and still they 
 will find it hard to five and keep their trade in 
 the days that anyone can see coming. Let us 
 pull against one another, — Labour against Em- 
 ployers, Briton against Irishman ; each striving 
 to get the other to bear more than his share of 
 the common burthen, — and we are aU sure to 
 go down together. Should the trade of Britain 
 fail, — as is but too possible, — I do not know 
 how ours is to maintain itself. And I, for one, 
 do not want the Self-Determination that is 
 allowed to rule a bare cupboard and an empty 
 purse. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 OF THE PRINCIPLE OF HOME RULE J AND OF 
 COLONIAL HOME RULE 
 
 I . ^ yfJJORITT Rule.— In England, France, 
 /yl the United States, and all demo- 
 cratic countries, the holders of 
 power are elected by the people ; that is, by the 
 majority ; and it is a further democratic prin- 
 ciple that " minorities must suffer ", in the 
 sense of being ruled by those whom, if they 
 could, they would deprive of power. The consent 
 of the governed, in this way, becomes the con- 
 sent of the majority ; while minorities are ruled 
 against their wiQ. They consent, if you like, 
 conditionally — rather than break away or leave 
 the country. But would they be allowed to 
 break away ? Practically, they are forced to 
 stay and submit to alien rule. 
 
 2. Local Self-Government. — ^To relieve this hard-, 
 ship, local affairs are put, almost universally, 
 under control of the people of the place ; as it 
 win often happen that those who are in a minority 
 in the nation have a majority, and consequent 
 local authority, in their own district. Unionists, 
 for instance, have ruled Birmingham for many 
 
LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT loi 
 
 years, while Liberals held the national govern- 
 ment at Westminster ; and, conversely. Liberals 
 have held Manchester during Unionist adminis- 
 trations. Democrats may rule at Washington, 
 while Pennsylvania is controlled by Republicans ; 
 and the Governor of New York State may be a 
 Republican while a Democrat is Mayor of the 
 City. In Ireland, Dublin, Cork, and other towns, 
 besides four-fifths of the county and district 
 councils, are in the hands of Nationalists ; while 
 the central authority, in Dublin Castle, is held 
 by men who were appointed from Westminster. 
 Nay, while the City of Dublin is ruled by a 
 Nationalist corporation, some of the suburban 
 districts — Rathmines and Pembroke — have 
 Unionist councils. : Minorities thus come in for 
 a share of power, — ^where they form a local 
 majority, — in any place that is important enough 
 to be allowed to rule itself. Self-rule, in this 
 sense, is practically universal ; in countries that 
 are governed more or less despotically, as well as 
 in the most democratic republics. 
 
 This arrangement, though serving to relieve 
 the hardship of minorities, does not bring relief 
 to all ; as there are people who, though numerous, 
 educated, wealthy, and very able, have a majority 
 nowhere, practically. Where, for instance, is 
 any government in the hands of Jews ? Indi- 
 viduals of the race, no doubt, hold office in many 
 governments ; but not as Jews. They have been 
 elected, or selected, as Liberals, Conservatives, 
 Labour Leaders, or Socialists. As Hebrew 
 Nationalists they rule nowhere ; though, per- 
 
I02 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 haps, they may soon be allowed to rule again in 
 Palestine, if they form a majority therein. 
 
 3, Home Rule. — ^When, therefore, it is laid 
 down as a democratic principle that majorities 
 must rule 'and minorities be ruled, it is under- 
 stood with the important limitation that minori- 
 ties shall be allowed Home Rule where they form 
 a majority ; in so far as the place in question 
 is entitled to self-government. In Germany, 
 Bavarians rule Bavaria ; Saxons, Saxony : that 
 is, in matters purely Bavarian or Saxon. Each of 
 the United States is ruled by its own people. 
 In the British Empire, Canada is ruled by Cana- 
 dians ; Australia by Australians ; South Africa 
 by South Africans ; and so on. The British 
 Islands show remnants of their old separate 
 governments : in the administration of justice, 
 for instance, education, many branches of finance, 
 and other matters ; which, in the case of Scot- 
 land, are governed from Edinburgh ; and in 
 that of Ireland, from Dublin Castle, for the 
 whole of this country. 
 
 It is partial Home Rule, already in existence 
 and working well. In Ireland this central 
 authority is not in the hands of representatives 
 of the Irish people ; who, in this way, are deprived 
 of local control of the government. Therein is 
 the grievance of which Irish Home Rulers com- 
 plain. 
 
 The complaint must be deemed just, provided 
 the people of Ireland are so advanced in culture 
 as to be capable of self-government ; and pro- 
 vided also they may be trusted to make legitimate 
 
PRINCIPLE OF HOME RULE 103 
 
 use of it^-not as an instrument of pressure, to 
 secure a larger measure of independence than is 
 their due. In Canada, for instance, the French 
 of the province of Quebec have powers that are 
 denied to the Indians ; but even the French 
 Canadians would not be allowed to form a 
 separate and independent republic. So, too, in 
 the United States ; in South Africa, with the 
 Negroes ; in Australia, with the Bushmen ; in 
 New Zealand, with the Maoris. No Irish 
 Nationalist, if he had to deal practically with 
 those races, would give them the same amount 
 of self-rule as French Canadians enjoy. 
 
 In Hindustan it is different ; as the natives 
 there have an old and highly developed civilisa- 
 tion. The question, however, is whether they 
 are capable of self-rule as a united people ; and 
 whether, short of that, they can be trusted to 
 make a just and moderate use of local govern- 
 ment, without abusing it to tyrannise over 
 minorities, or making it into an instrument of 
 pressure to secure a degree of national indepen- 
 dence which would be their undoing. This, I 
 take it, is the real question with which the Im- 
 perial Government in India has to deal : whether 
 and how far the subject peoples are capable of 
 and therefore entitled to self-government. It is 
 not to be solved by the simple formula that 
 self-government, whether complete or local, is 
 the right of all people whatsoever. No one in 
 his senses believes in that. 
 
 4. Conflicting Principles. — ^Accordingly, here 
 again we find principles, not ovlj political but 
 
I04 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 ethical, which, if not judiciously handled, may 
 come into conflict ; with disastrous results, 
 whichever should unduly prevail. Self-govern- 
 ment is right and due where and in so far as the 
 people conterned are ripe for it, by development ; 
 and where and in so far as it does not interfere 
 with any larger union which, as we have seen, the 
 law of development may require. Such union 
 also is no less right and natural, where it makes 
 for prosperity ; but, even so, it should not inter- 
 fere with local self-government, in so far as the 
 people are ripe for this, and will not abuse it. 
 
 It is easy to conceive how, in harmonising 
 these principles, mistakes and conflicts may arise, 
 even among the most upright statesmen ; some 
 fearing that a people may not be yet sufficiently 
 developed to be entrusted with this or that 
 measure of self-rule ; or that the amount of self- 
 rule they demand is incompatible with the 
 authority that is requisite for central government. 
 Others may fear the opposite : that the central 
 authority may be unduly cramping the people's 
 faculties, by keeping them in leading-strings ; 
 either denying them self-government in any 
 shape, or unduly limiting the authority which 
 it allows. 
 
 It is not for ethics, primarily, to determine 
 the proportion in which both liiese principles 
 should be appHed in any particular case, to secure 
 the true balance of which that case is capable. 
 It is a question «f business — statesmanship : 
 what precise amount of freedom and of limitation 
 makes for prosperity with a people of this kind, 
 
COLONIAL HOME RULE 105 
 
 in circumstances like these. Ethics accepts and 
 ratifies the conclusion at which statesmanship 
 arrives. And though I do not regard it as belong- 
 ing to ray branch of study to determine whether, 
 for instance, the legislative union of these islands, 
 — ^which I am disposed to look on as making for 
 the prosperity not only of Britain but of Ireland, 
 —is compatible, say, with what is known as 
 Colonial Home Rule ; I may, perhaps, be allowed 
 to make some remarks, in what, I hope, shall be 
 modest criticism, of certain recent statements 
 that have been made thereon. 
 
 5. Colonial Home Rule, for Colonies. — Home 
 Rule, as the British Colonies enjoy it, comprises 
 freedom from legal obligation to contribute 
 (i) money to the Imperial Exchequer ; or 
 (2) soldiers for the defence of the Empire. The 
 Colonies, moreover, are empowered (3) to nego- 
 tiate their own commercial arrangements with 
 foreign countries, and to set up customs barriers 
 on their frontiers and at their ports, so that ships 
 and persons entering may be searched for articles 
 liable to duty. There is, perhaps, a non-legal 
 obligation, — of piety, taken in the strict sense, — 
 to contribute to the support of the mother 
 country, which, however, has no right to enforce 
 the least contribution. 
 
 Now, I notice, in the first place, that the 
 colonies of Great Britain are peculiarly favoured 
 in being allowed freedom of this kind. The 
 states that make the German Empire enjoyed 
 it when they made war on France in 1870 ; but 
 Bismarck evidently thought it incompatible with 
 
io6 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 the strength deriving from unity which he wished 
 for the Fatherland ; and Bismarck was a master 
 of statecraft. In Italy also the different petty 
 kingdoms and republics enjoyed it for centuries, 
 during which Austria, France, and Spain could 
 overrun them at pleasure. It is different now 
 that thay have a common army, exchequer, and 
 fiscal system. Could there be a common army, 
 if the others were not common ? Great Britain 
 also has proved herself strong ; but if the ancient 
 kingdoms of which she is composed, — ^England, 
 Scotland, and Wales ; not to speak of the smaller 
 divisions of each, — ^were allowed colonial Home 
 Rule, they would go down easily in the next 
 war with any reaUy united country. And Scot- 
 land and Wales are nations ; or once were. 
 
 6. Nationalist Demand at Convention. — Second- 
 ly, I notice that of the NationaHst members of 
 the late Convention, the more advanced section, 
 though demanding colonial Home Rule, did not 
 mean, as I understand, that it should be as fuU 
 as that which is enjoyed by the colonies. In the 
 report which that group of the Convention pre- 
 sented, they admitted that, for purposes of naval 
 defence, " Ireland must be considered as integ- 
 rally connected with Great Britain, so that 
 defence must be by one force, under one control ". 
 As regards the army, while a few of the group 
 agreed that " in time of war or imminence of 
 war all military forces and organisations in the 
 United Kingdom must pass under the absolute 
 control of the Imperial Authorities " ; the 
 majority, though present, did not vote on the 
 
NATIONALISTS AT CONVENTION 107 
 
 question. Canadians or Australians would have 
 had no such difficulty in making up their minds. 
 
 In respect of finance, all recognised, " without 
 question ", " the obligation of Ireland to con- 
 tribute according to her means " to imperial 
 services ; and, " in view of strong Unionist 
 feeling", they agreed to make this "a statutory 
 payment, to be fixed provisionally at the outset, 
 and afterwards by agreement between the Im- 
 perial and Irish Governments ". No such pay- 
 ment is made by the colonies. 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that, while demand- 
 ing colonial Home Rule, these Nationalists did 
 not mean that it should be fully colonial ; but 
 only freedom to contribute less for Imperial 
 purposes than we do at present. Admitting all 
 the principles of the Unionists, they differed 
 only as regards amounts. It was a difference that 
 should have been capable of settlement by 
 arbitration, as the Imperial Parliament proposed. 
 
 Even the advanced Nationalists, therefore, 
 were content to insist (i) that Ireland's con- 
 tribution of soldiers in time of war would be 
 determined solely by her own Parliament, as 
 in the colonies ; and (2) on her " right to guard 
 her own trade interests and control her own 
 trade policy ". This meant power to establish 
 a customs tariff different from that of Britain ; 
 and it was on this rock the Convention ultimately 
 went to pieces. 
 
 7. Control of Customs. — Those who made the 
 demand, pleaded that " as both countries are 
 so deeply interested in free access to one another's 
 
io8 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 markets, we believe that mutual advantage 
 would be a surer guarantee of free and friendly- 
 intercourse than any legal restrictions. But, in 
 order to meet Unionist fears, we are ready to 
 agree t6 provisions in the Constitutional Act 
 maintaining free trade between the two countries 
 in articles of home produce, subject to safe- 
 guards against dumping, for a reasonable number 
 of years, and thereafter by mutual agreement. 
 This would ensure that if any change became 
 absolutely necessary, owing either to an altered 
 tariff policy in Great Britain, or to any other 
 reason, it could not be made without prolonged 
 deliberation in the Irish Parliament ". 
 
 The two countries woidd at once have different 
 tariffs in respect of foreign imports, with a 
 possibility of a tariff war between Ireland and 
 Britain after a term of years, undefined. 
 
 Here the question of business,' underlying that 
 of ethics, is, whether this would make for such 
 unity as is required by the law of development. 
 The signatories to this report plead, further, that 
 " it may be said with truth that the power of 
 each state within the Empire to control the 
 whole of its own taxation, and especially its 
 customs, is the very corner-stone of Imperial 
 Unity ", Is it not rather, in so far as it exists, 
 — ^for it does not exist between the nations that 
 compose Britain, — the source of whatever loose- 
 ness and weakness there is in the constitution of 
 the British Empire ? How Bismarck would have 
 mocked at a proposal to allow each of the German 
 states its own customs tariff and full control of 
 
TARIFFS AND STRENGTH 109 
 
 its own taxation, as the best means of securing the 
 unity and strength of the Imperial Bund. 
 
 8. Do Separate Tariffs Make for Imperial 
 Strength ? — To me it seems unquestionable that 
 independence in respect of tariffs, however ad- 
 vantageous to the colonies of Britain, does not 
 make for the unity and strength of the Empire ; 
 and that, similarly, the power and prosperity of 
 the United Kingdom would diminish if there 
 were separate tariffs between its constituent 
 parts. This is held to be manifest as regards 
 England, Scotland, and Wales. 
 
 Ireland, no doubt, as the report which I have 
 been quoting insists, is Uke the colonies in this, 
 that it is separated entirely by water from 
 Britain. So is Sicily from Italy ; but are the 
 colonies so dependent as we on the English 
 market ? Have they no better prospect of being 
 able, some day, to cut the Imperial connection 
 and do for themselves f If I saw parallelism in 
 these respects, I think I should deem it the 
 interest of the colonies to draw closer to the 
 United Kingdom, by adopting her fiscal policy, 
 rather than advise the Irish people to press for 
 the separated fiscal policy of the colonies. That 
 is, if I deemed the colonies as closely united by 
 nature to the mother country as Ireland is to 
 England. Trade interests are stronger than any 
 bond of blood ; and are at their strongest when, 
 in any great Imperial combination, the con- 
 stituent parts enjoy equal rights, with common 
 protection against alien competition. 
 
 9. Risk in Common Tariff. — In such a com- 
 
no QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 bination, no doubt, the weaker parts are liable 
 to be out-voted and to get foul play ; as, there 
 is good reason to believe, has been Ireland's 
 lot in the past. We should have had to face 
 this risk' if we were to accept the proposal made 
 to the Convention by the Prime Minister — of 
 a thorough revision of the whole question after 
 the war. 
 
 Even so, the Unionist members thought it 
 worth taking, for the commercial advantages 
 which whole-hearted union with England would 
 bring ; directly to her ; and, through her, to 
 us. These Unionists were business men of great 
 experience ; who, though prejudiced in many 
 ways, have a keen eye to their own commercial 
 interests. They pay as much of the Imperial 
 taxes, in proportion, as we ; very likely more ; 
 as they have larger business and are wealthier ; 
 while taxation is falling more and more on 
 wealth. Yet, looking at the present fiscal 
 arrangement, — of community of customs, — as a 
 matter of business, they deemed the prosperity 
 which it secures us, through Britain, worth 
 the risk which it involves. Though liable to be 
 out- voted, we could make a fight for our rights ; 
 and there is not an empire, kingdom, or republic 
 anywhere, that would not spHt up at once, if 
 the various parts refused to take this kind of risk. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 OF MAJORITY RULE AND THE ULSTER QUESTION 
 
 I- r\RINCIPLES to he Harmonised.— yi^e have 
 r"^ already seen how the principle that 
 Majorities must rule, is to be accepted 
 subject to the limitation that Minorities must be 
 allowed local self-rule, where they form a major- 
 ity. I propose to consider here more in detail 
 how these principles may be harmonised. 
 
 For illustration, we will take the case of the 
 United Kingdom ; which is under the rule of 
 a common Parliament, wherein Irishmen com- 
 plain that they are in a permanent minority. 
 The Scotch, however, and the Welsh are in the 
 same position ; and it has been known that a 
 considerable majority of the representatives of 
 England were in a minority at Westminster ; 
 the majority there being made up of a minority 
 of English Liberals, reinforced by a majority of 
 those from Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Every 
 one admits that, in the common Parhament, the 
 majority of representatives elected by the whole 
 United Kingdom must rule for the Imperial 
 matters that come under its jurisdiction. 
 
 Together with the central government at 
 Westminster, having jurisdiction over the whole 
 
 III 
 
112 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 of Great Britain and Ireland, there have been 
 from time immemorial governing bodies with 
 jurisdiction restricted to their own districts. 
 Such were the city and town corporations, and 
 the grand juries of the counties. These, like 
 the central ParUament, were for long elected 
 on a narrow franchise ; but now all are 
 democratised, so as to rest on the votes of the 
 majority of those whom they control. 
 
 In addition to the local bodies just mentioned, 
 there have been, and are, central governments, 
 with jurisdiction over the whole of each of the 
 Kingdoms that form the Union, but restricted 
 to some one of these. In Ireland, for instance, 
 the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant and all 
 that we mean by DubUn Castle, extends over the 
 whole of the kingdom, but not beyond. The 
 Home Rule demand, whatever shape it took, — 
 whether for Repeal of the Union or the some- 
 thing less that would have satisfied Butt and 
 Parnell, — ^was, in eflfect, that this central Irish 
 government should be democratised, and made 
 to rest on the majority of the votes of the Irish 
 people ; instead of, as it does, on a majority in 
 the Imperial Parliament, wherein Irish repre- 
 sentatives are a minority. The demand was, 
 therefore, to the effect that a minority of the 
 United Kingdom should rule in that part of 
 the Union in which they are a majority. 
 
 Here, accordingly, we find another principle, 
 modifying that of majority rule : to wit, tbat 
 Local governments should rule by consent of the 
 majority of those whom they govern ; even 
 
MAJORITY RULE 113 
 
 though these should diflEer, in politics and other- 
 wise, from the majority of Isome larger place or 
 kingdom in which the district in question is 
 contained. It may, therefore, be said with 
 truth that democratic local government, in every 
 form, is based on the principle of minority 
 rule, as well as on that of government by the 
 ' majority. This applies, not only to Home Rule 
 for Ireland, but to whatever local government 
 there may be, in any place whatsoever. 
 
 2. Where Minorities must he Ruled.— It may 
 be well to note that the principle does not apply 
 to those who form but a minority in any realm 
 or district ; as the Catholic Celts of Belfast or 
 Liverpool, the Protestant Anglo-Saxons of 
 Dublin or Cork. If, indeed, they should be a 
 majority in some electoral division, — as in the 
 Fails or Rathmineg, — they elect their own repre- 
 sentatives, and if the district in question should 
 be entitled to a district or other council, they 
 rule therein. 
 
 3. The Common Local Government which we 
 Call Home i2«/^.— Moreover, among other 
 arguments whereon in Ireland we used to base 
 the Home Rule claim, we were wont to insist 
 on homogeneity and diversity of race, mentality, 
 religion, and culture generally ; homogeneity, 
 for Ireland ; and diversity, from the remainder 
 of the United Kingdom. We argued that, while 
 Ireland differs very much from Britain, within 
 our own seas we are all Irish, with substantially 
 the same ideals and outlook on Kfe. Thereby 
 we implied another principle, to the effect that, 
 
 8 
 
114 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 Where a number of contiguous minor districts, 
 each entitled to and enjoying local government, 
 are inhabited by people who agree in race and 
 culture among themselves, but differ from their 
 neighbours, they are entitled to a common 
 government for the region taken as a whole ; 
 provided always the homogeneous districts of 
 which the region is composed are contiguous. 
 On this principle we claimed a common govern- 
 ment for the Irish in Ireland, but without 
 jurisdiction over those in Glasgow, Liverpool, 
 London, or New York. These, being in 
 separated districts, must submit to be governed 
 therein. 
 
 4, application to Ulster. — In due time came 
 the retort of the Ulster Protestants, whereby our 
 sincerity was tested. They said : We, too, are 
 a people differing in race, religion, mentality, 
 culture, ideals, and the rest, from you. Catholic 
 Celts, who dwell in the rest of Ireland. We 
 control Belfast, it is true, as well as the other 
 districts wherein we are the majority ; but, on 
 your own principle, we have a right to more. 
 You are not content with the power which you 
 have in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and the other 
 cities, counties, and districts of the South, East, 
 and West ; you want common local government, 
 which you call Home Rule. We want the same, 
 for the cities and counties which we hold. In 
 other words, we want Home Rule for Ulster. 
 
 Nationalists have been wont to meet this 
 demand by insisting on majority rule ; as if 
 Home Rule did not consist essentially in rule 
 
HOME RULE FOR ULSTER 115 
 
 by minorities, wherever they form a majority. 
 We question the fact that Protestant Scot- 
 Gaels are a majority in Ulster ; but surely 
 there is no denying that they are a homogeneous 
 majority in the north-east corner. Sometimes, 
 in a half-hearted way, we try to argue that these 
 nbrthern Protestants are Irishmen, just like 
 ourselves ; that, therefore, they cannot show 
 that homogeneity and diversity on which we base 
 the claim for Home Rule. They, however, 
 have voted differently, and consistently, for a 
 hundred years; thereby showing that in race, 
 culture, religion, and mentaUty, they and we are 
 diflFerent. 
 
 Were Ireland made a republic fuUy inde- 
 pendent of Great Britain, it seems to me that 
 she would be bound to allow Home Rule to the 
 north-east corner ; on the principles that underlie 
 the claim we make for Home Rule in the United 
 Kingdom, which I regard as well-founded. The 
 Protestants of Ulster differ from the majority 
 in the rest of the island, not only in religion, 
 but in race, mentaUty, culture generally. They 
 are at once homogeneous and heterogeneous : 
 homogeneous in their own districts, of which 
 many are contiguous ; heterogeneous, as com- 
 pared with the rest of Ireland. A minority in 
 Ireland, they are a majority in the north-east 
 corner ; and therefore, on the principles which 
 we have been advocating, are entitled to Home 
 Rule. 
 
 5. Limitation of the Ulster Claim. — This, 
 however, should not be allowed except in the 
 
ii6 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 districts where they have a majority. Not, 
 therefore, in the whole of Ulster ; nor even in 
 the whole of the six counties which they claim. 
 It should be easy to determine where they have a 
 majority ; and so far their Home Riile should 
 extend, even though it might be necessary to 
 break up some of the present counties. These 
 are not so ancient or indigenous that we should 
 fight to the death rather than allow them to 
 undergo any substantial change. 
 
 6. Separation. — Meanwhile it is curious to 
 note how the Nationalists, who, for claiming 
 Home Rule, were dubbed Separatists, and who 
 complained of this, came themselves to denounce 
 as Separatists those who would allow Home Rule 
 to the Protestants of Ulster, even for a time ; 
 while both Ulster Protestants and Nationalists, 
 from claiming the local government which was 
 their due, allowed themselves to be pushed by 
 extremists into demanding real separation. Sinn 
 Fein would separate completely from Britain ; 
 while the Ulster supporters of Sir Edward 
 Carson would separate as completely from the 
 rest of Ireland. Both are wrong ; erring, 
 practically, in the same way.. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 OF THE BASIS OF TAXATION ; AND OF THE FINANCIAL 
 RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND 
 IRELAND 
 
 I. ^T^HE Question, in Relation to Ireland. — 
 i I have called attention to the real 
 danger involved in fiscal union of 
 Ireland and Great Britain — that Ireland, being 
 in a minority in the Imperial Parliament, may be 
 out-voted in regard to taxation, and so made to 
 bear an undue share of the common burthen. 
 Inequity of this kind might be so great as to 
 more than counterbalance any good which may 
 come from the Union, in the way of trade. 
 And as there is good reason for thinking that, 
 through inequitable tariffs, we were made to 
 pay a great deal more than our fair share in the 
 past, no patriotic Irishman can advocate the 
 Union tiU he has been satisfied that this tariff 
 system has been righted so as to make the scales 
 balance fairly ; or, at least, not lean so heavily 
 against us as to deprive us of whatever benefit, 
 by way of increase of trade, the Union may bring. 
 No one likes taxation ; and few are satisfied 
 that they are not charged with more than their 
 due proportion. In recent years, however, two 
 
 117 
 
ii8 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 classes seem to have taken up the cry with special 
 warmth, so as, in a sense, to make the grievance 
 their own. Wage-earners, now become Socialists, 
 almost everywhere ; and Irish Nationalists of all 
 grades, fich as well as poor. Extreme SociaUsts 
 find herein a justifying cause for revolution, 
 against Capitalist or Bourgeois government ; 
 while for advanced Irish Nationalists over- 
 taxation of their country is one of the main 
 grievances on which they rely to justify what- 
 ever resistance, active or passive, they make to 
 the present Government. 
 
 Here, again, the student of ethics, however 
 expert, has httle competence, as such, and must 
 seek guidance from one of the ancillary sciences. 
 Whatever mode of levying taxes makes for the 
 good of the commonwealth, is right ethically ; 
 and that is about all that ethics, as such, can say 
 on the matter. It is for poHtical economy to 
 decide whether a certain budget satisfies the 
 condition — ^makes for the national welfare or 
 the reverse. And as I am not an economist, I 
 can discuss the question only very cursorily and 
 with great reserve ; venturing merely some 
 modest criticism of statements which I find 
 advanced by others — economists. Socialists, and 
 Irish Nationalists. 
 
 2. Report of the Childers Commission. — ^Two 
 official documents are of cardinal importance : 
 the Report of the Childers Commission, and 
 the Finance Act of 1894, popularly known as 
 Sir William Harcourt's Death Duties Budget. 
 
 The Commission was appointed in that year, 
 
THE CHILDERS COMMISSION 119 
 
 " to inquire into the financial relations between 
 Great Britain and Ireland, and their relative 
 taxable capacity ". They were asked to report, 
 among other things, " upon what principles of 
 comparison, and by the application of what 
 specific standards, the relative capacity of Great 
 Britain and Ireland to bear taxation may be 
 most equitably determined ". The very question 
 with which we are concerned. 
 
 In its early stages, while the Commission was 
 taking evidence, its Chairman was the Right Hon. 
 H. C. E. Childers, who had been Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer in a Liberal Government ; and 
 who must, therefore, be regarded as an expert 
 in public finance. He died before any report 
 was presented ; but, fortunately, before his 
 death, had prepared the draft of a report, which 
 was, to a very large extent, the basis of nearly all 
 the reports of his colleagues. There were seven 
 of these reports, besides the draft just mentioned ; 
 such was the disagreement among the thirteen 
 members of the Commission. All, however, 
 except one,^ agreed vpith Mr. Childers that 
 Ireland had long been made to bear an undue 
 share of the burthen of taxation ; the annual 
 excess, at the time of the Commission, being 
 
 ^ Sir Thomas Sutterland, M. P. Another, Sir David Barbour, 
 agreed conditionally : " if the proportion of revenue to be 
 raised from Ireland is to be regulated solely by a reference to the 
 ' taxable capacity ' of the two countries ". From n. 41, how- 
 ever, and certain other statements in his report, I gather that 
 Sir David would take something besides " taxable capacity " 
 Jnto account in apportioning taxes, 
 
120 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 something between two and three million pounds 
 sterling. Three of the Irish members were 
 disposed to rate it higher, 
 
 3. Overtaxation Coincident with Poverty. — ^The 
 general ^timate was based on the admitted fact 
 that Ireland is a poor country, as compared to 
 England ; with the result that, while taxes are 
 levied according to the same rules on bothj they 
 pressed more severely on Ireland, because they 
 pressed more severely on the poor everywhere, 
 even in Great Britain. 
 
 This, I understand, is part of the Socialistic 
 contention : that the poor are taxed too heavily, 
 in England as in Ireland ; while the rich in 
 Ireland get off easily, like tJiose of their class in 
 the sister island. Instead, therefore, of passing 
 special laws for Ireland in this matter, statesmen 
 should introduce reform aU round, in Great 
 Britain as in Ireland, in full assurance that the 
 poor of Ireland, like those of their class every- 
 where, would thereby secure equal justice. 
 
 Something like tlus seems to have appealed 
 with great force to Sir David Barbour and 
 Sir Thomas Sutherland ; each of whom pre- 
 sented a special report which v?ill repay study ; 
 especially that of Sir David Barbour, an Irish* 
 man of great administrative experience in 
 finance. To me also, as one not versed in such 
 matters, the argumeht appeals for serious coft" 
 sideration ; calling, I think, for reply from those 
 in Ireland who complain of overtaxation. Were 
 we allowed Colonial Home Rule or full inde- 
 pendence to-morrow, our poor would stiU have 
 
SIR W. HARCOURT'S BUDGET 121 
 
 grievous cause of complaint, did we continue to 
 levy taxes as they were raised in the United 
 Kingdom down to the time of the Childers 
 Commission. 
 
 4. Change Introduced, hy Sir William Har- 
 courU — Since then, however, a change has taken 
 place that should not be left out of sight in any 
 review of the whole question. From a Note 
 attached to one of the special reports presented 
 by members of the Childers Commission,^ we 
 learn that the latest financial returns available 
 at the time were those for 1893-94 ; the very 
 year before Sir WiUiam Harcourt passed the 
 Death Duties Budget that revolutionised taxa- 
 tion ; introducing a wedge that tends more and 
 more to throw the burthen on the wealthy. 
 With this result, as regards Ireland, that in the 
 years immediately preceding the great war, our 
 country, being poor, was run at a loss to England. 
 The balance, of between two and three millions 
 or more against us, had disappeared ; and had 
 even been appearing on the other side. This, 
 I understand, is acknowledged as a fact ; but I 
 doubt whether its significance is recognised as 
 it should be. 
 
 Given the fact, if England refused us the 
 fiscal independence she allows the colonies, it 
 could not be for any direct pecuniary tribute 
 she wrung from us ; and, conversely, a demand 
 for colonial Home Rule on our part would not 
 
 ''■ That which was signed by The O'Connor Don (who suc- 
 ceeded Mr. Childers in the chair), Mr. J. E. Redmond, and 
 three others. Final Report, p. i6. 
 
122 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 have been then reasonably based on the ground 
 that, under the Union, we were overtaxed for 
 the benefit of. Great Britain. Seeing that we 
 no longer^ gave to that island, — ^at least directly, 
 in the way of taxation, — -we should have looked 
 at home and seen whether consumers of taxed 
 commodities were not paying more than their 
 due ; more than they need have paid if 
 owners of property, — including shopkeepers and 
 farmers, — and those who draw good salaries, — 
 including professors and writers on politics, — 
 were taxed to their fuU capacity. So, I expect, 
 a Socialist, even of moderate type, would regard 
 the question. 
 
 That was before the war ; when the Imperial 
 burthen was light, compared to what it has since 
 become. One who thinks, as I do, that it is still 
 the interest of Ireland to unite vdth and support 
 Great Britain, will have to admit, logically, that 
 we should pay our fair share of the Imperial 
 taxes. Even the more advanced Nationalist 
 members of the Convention admitted this, as 
 we have seen. What our fair share may now 
 be I do^not know ; nor, I fear, does anyone.^ 
 
 ^ Owing to the immense load of debt remaining from the war, 
 it is very possible that the whole fiscal system of these countries 
 will have to be recast. At any rate, it is hard to see how severe 
 indirect taxation can be avoided ; though, as has been said, this 
 falls heaviest on the poor, and was thereby the main cause of 
 the overtaxation of Ireland. In the new conditions, left by 
 the war, I find it hard to complain of the Prime Minister's 
 proposal, to the Convention, that " during the period of the 
 war and for a period of two years thereafter, the control of 
 Customs and Excise should be reserved to the United Bangdom 
 
DUTIES ON COMMODITIES 123 
 
 I should like, however, to see some reasonable 
 proof that those in Ireland who have wealth 
 should not contribute to the Imperial burthen 
 at the same rate as those of the same class in 
 Britain, 
 
 5. Basis of Taxation : Duties on Commodities. — 
 This leads to another aspect of the question : 
 whether, in apportioning taxes, equity demands 
 that one should have regard only to means ; 
 without considering indirect results — the benefit, 
 for instance, that industry and commerce may 
 derive from taxation of any drug or practice 
 that makes for idleness or extravagance, or acts 
 injuriously on the health and producing power 
 of the citizens ; those even who, having nothing 
 superfluous, may be inclined to spend what they 
 have unprofitably. 
 
 Parliament ; that, as soon as possible after the Irish Parliament 
 has been established, a Joint Exchequer Board should be set" up 
 to secure the determination of the true revenue of Ireland — a 
 provision which is essential to a system of responsible Irish 
 Government and to the making of a national balance sheet ; 
 and that, at the end of the vyar, a Royal Commission should be 
 established to re-examine impartially and thoroughly the 
 financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland, to report on 
 the contribution of Ireland to Imperial expenditure, and to 
 submit proposals as to the best means of adjusting the economic 
 and fiscal relations of the two countries". 
 
 Even the advanced section of the Nationalist members of the 
 Convention admitted the obligation of Ireland to contribute 
 " according to her means " to Imperial services. This meant 
 paying her fair share of the National Debt, including the War 
 Debt. She was " willing to agree to a statutory payment " for 
 this purpose. But virithout some such Commission as the 
 Prime Minister suggested, how could anyone now determine 
 what is Ireland's fair share of this Imperial burthen f 
 
124 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 All the members of the Childers Commission 
 agreed that it was the indirect taxes, from customs 
 and excise, — ^which means, practically, duties on 
 whiskey, beer, tobacco, tea, and sugar, — ^that 
 pressed so'hard on Ireland. The few rich people 
 we have got oflE light, with those of the same class 
 in Britain. There, as with us, it was the poor 
 who were overcharged, by reason of diose 
 duties on commodities. Should, then, such 
 taxes be abolished wholly ? 
 
 Mr. Thomas Sexton, M.P., in his report, leaves 
 one under the impression that, in his opinion, no 
 taxes should be levied off those who have only 
 just sufficient income to provide necessaries, for 
 an average family. That is, — supposing neces- 
 saries to cost, on the average, ^£12 a head per 
 annum ; and the average family to consist of 
 five persons, — no tax should be levied off those 
 who have not more than j^6o a year. As long, 
 I take it, as there are any rich people left, who 
 have not been taxed down to the £60 level. 
 
 This may not be a perfectly fair presentation 
 of the principle of apportionment advocated 
 by Mr. Sexton, who bases his opinion on the 
 teaching of J. S. Mill ; admitting, it is fair to 
 add, that " it is difficult, within the limits of 
 one country, to apply the principle, even approxi- 
 mately, in taxing the means of individuals "• 
 If, for instance, you place a tax on whiskey or 
 beer, how are you to discriminate, among those 
 who call for a glass or a pint, between such as have 
 and such as have not a weekly income of one- 
 pound-three-and-a-fraction ? Or would you give 
 
TAXATION OF LUXURIES 125 
 
 a man his glass, if he said he had a pound a week 
 but no wife, or no children, or but one or two ? 
 You would have to do away altogether with the 
 whiskey and beer tax ; and the same applies to 
 all commodities. 
 
 Now, are we prepared to leave aU these un- 
 taxed — ^whiskey, wine, beer, tobacco, tea, and 
 such things ? I do not ask whether it would 
 be good for morals : no State that minds its 
 own business is now supposed to care for such 
 things. But would it make for progress — ^in- 
 dustry, prosperity, money generally ? A State, 
 one supposes, has to provide for these, however 
 it may abstract from ethics and religion. On 
 purely utilitarian and commercial grounds I 
 would not abolish taxes on alcoholic drink ; even 
 though the result is sure to be that plenty of 
 children and women wiU be deprived of great 
 part of that ^\2 allowance ; swilled up by 
 loving husbands and fathers, in the shape of 
 beer and whiskey. I would not let even the 
 pipe go free ; nor the tea-pot. But, then, I am 
 not only a total abstainer but eschew tobacco 
 and tea; so, of course, my vote counts for nothing. 
 
 6. Taxation of Luxuries. — Less extreme men 
 deem these things necessary ; in moderation, of 
 course. Would you, then, tax them at least 
 when used immoderately ? And are you sure 
 that this would not result in placing on the 
 poor an undue share of the burthen of taxation ? 
 Many, even of the Socialists, would have no 
 hesitation in taxing luxuries : motor-cars, yachts, 
 race-horses, wines, cigars, and such things. But 
 
126 QUESTIONS OF PEACE 
 
 is not even bread a luxury, beyond a certain 
 amount ? Meat is, certainly ; and tea, tobacco, 
 beer and whiskey, when taken immoderately. 
 So that, if you tax luxuries, everything wiU have 
 to pay duty ; and you will have to discriminate 
 between households that really want a gallon 
 or more and those which should not get more 
 than a pint. And so of individuals. 
 
 I can see but one way out : to put every one 
 on rations, of everything ; thorough-going 
 Socialism. Which, however it may result in 
 keeping the citizens good children, may leave 
 them only children ; lacking the grit that makes 
 so much for national prosperity. I deem the 
 other danger the less — taxed commodities ; even 
 with the certainty that a duty on beer and 
 such things is Ukely to press with undue severity 
 on the poor. It is most regrettable ; but they 
 must bear this burthen, if they will not abstain ; 
 whether they belong to Ireland or Great Britain. 
 
 7. Possible Mode of Adjustment. — Only I think 
 it fair that, as taxes of this kind are not levied 
 so much for revenue as to diminish idleness and 
 extravagance and to promote efficiency, — or, at 
 least, in so far as they are not levied for revenue, — 
 they should be spent, as far as possible, on the 
 class from which they are derived — ^in promoting 
 positive helps to secure thrift and efficiency. 
 Others, no doubt, besides those who get them- 
 selves taxed would reap the benefit ; but some, 
 at least, of the positive helps would reach the 
 wives and children whose share had been so 
 badly spent originally. 
 
MODE OF ADJUSTMENT 127 
 
 On the same principle, or some one closely 
 akin, whatever inequitable super-tax may have 
 to be levied on the poor, of either Great Britain 
 or Ireland, should be devoted, as far as possible, 
 to local purposes. And as people so fully 
 developed as the Irish are likely to do this more 
 wisely and economically, if left to do it them- 
 selves, they should, I fancy, have the spending of 
 these moneys. Which is but part of the claim 
 of Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales to 
 what we call Home Rule in Ireland. 
 
 All of which, however, has to be fitted in with 
 the principle that each unit of the Empire must 
 pay its fair share of the Imperial taxes. Should 
 wealth not suffice for this, without unduly 
 limiting capital, and thereby cramping industry, 
 part of the burthen must fall on the poor. How 
 much, it is only experience can determine. 
 Absolute Socialism, — if it could be secured, — 
 might lead to equality of taxes ; but it might 
 also lead to evils greater than those from which 
 we suffer at present. 
 
NOTES 
 I 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM LETTERS OF THE PRIME MINISTER, 
 MR. D. LLOYD GEORGE, PROPOSING HOME 
 RULE FOR IRELAND, WITH CONDITIONS OF THE 
 SAME ^ 
 
 Prime Minister to Mr. Redmond 
 
 " 10, Downing Street, 
 
 "WhitehaU, S.W.I. 
 
 "i6th May, i^ij. 
 " The idea of the Government has been to 
 try to effect an immediate settlement, conceding 
 the largest measure of Home Rule which can be 
 secured by agreement at this moment, without 
 prejudice to the undertaking by Parhament of a 
 further and final settlement of the questions 
 most in dispute, after the war. They are there- 
 fore prepared to put forward proposals on the 
 following lines, with a view to present action. 
 
 " Firstly, they would introduce a BiU for the 
 immediate appUcation of the Home Rule Act 
 
 ^ See the Final Report of the Proceedings of the Irish Con- 
 vention, pp. 20, 50. 
 
 128 
 
NOTES 129 
 
 to Ireland, but excluding therefrom the six 
 counties of North-East Ulster, such exclusion 
 to be subject to reconsideration by Parliament 
 at the end of five years, unless it is previously 
 terminated by the action of the Council of 
 Ireland, to be set up as hereinafterwards 
 described. 
 
 " Secondly, with a view to securing the largest 
 possible measure of common action for the 
 whole of Ireland, the Bill would provide for a 
 Council of Ireland to be composed of two dele- 
 gations, consisting, on the one hand, of all the 
 members returned to Westminster from the 
 excluded area, and, on the other, of a delegation 
 equal in number from the Irish ParHament. 
 This council could be summoned on the 
 initiative of any six members. It would be 
 empowered by a majority of votes of each of the 
 delegations (a) to pass private BiU legislation 
 affecting both the included and the excluded 
 area ; {b) to recommend to the Crown the ex- 
 tension to the excluded area by Order in Council 
 of any Act of the Irish Parliament ; {c) to agree 
 to the inclusion under the Home Rule Act of 
 the whole of Ireland, subject to the assent of the 
 majority of the votes in the excluded area, 
 power to be vested in the Crown in that case 
 to extend the Act to all Ireland by Order in 
 Council ; {J) to make recommendations on its 
 own initiative upon Irish questions, including the 
 amendment of the Home Rule Act as finally 
 passed. . . . 
 
 " Thirdly, the Government consider that the 
 
130 NOTES 
 
 financial proposals of the Home Rule Act are 
 unsatisfactory and ought to be reconsidered. 
 There are a number of important objects, such 
 as the development of Irish industries, the im- 
 provement of housing in the towns, and the 
 furtherance of education (including a better 
 scale of remuneration for teachers), which cannot, 
 owing to changed conditions which have arisen 
 since the war, be adequately dealt with under 
 the provisions of that Act without imposing an 
 undue burden on the Irish taxpayer. 
 
 " Fourthly, the Government would recom- 
 mend that, after second reading, the Bill 
 embodying the above proposals, together with 
 the Home Rule Act, should be forthwith con- 
 sidered by a Conference to be constituted on 
 the lines of the Speaker's Conference on Electoral 
 Reform, though not consisting exclusively of 
 Members of Parliament, and meeting under the 
 chairmanship of someone commanding the same 
 general confidence in his impartiality and judg- 
 ment as Mr. Speaker himself. The Conference 
 would, of course, have fuU power to suggest any 
 alterations in the Government scheme upon 
 which it might decide. 
 
 " The Government feel that a proposal which 
 provides for immediate Home Rule for the 
 greater part of Ireland, while excluding that 
 part of Ireland which objects to coming under 
 the Home Rule Act, for a definite period after 
 which Parliament will consider the matter afresh ; 
 which recognises the profound sentiment existing 
 in Ireland for the unity of the country by 
 
NOTES 131 
 
 creating -a common council to consider Irish 
 affairs as a whole ; which, finally, sets up a 
 representative Conference to attempt to adjust 
 the most difficult questions involved, is as far 
 as they can possibly go towards effecting a 
 legislative settlement in the crisis of a great 
 war. 
 
 " They are prepared to introduce a Bill on 
 these lines. But they feel that it would be idle, 
 and I am sure you will agree with them, to 
 introduce such a Bill unless it were assured of 
 something like a second reading acceptance from 
 both Irish parties. . . . 
 
 " We earnestly recommend the proposals which 
 I have outlined above to the dispassionate con- 
 sideration of men of all parties. If upon such 
 consideration a basis for immediate action is 
 found in them we shall proceed at once with the 
 necessary steps to carry them into effect ". 
 
 If the preceding Chapters contain anything 
 like the truth, this proposal must be deemed 
 fair. It does not, it is true, come up to the 
 ideal regarding Ulster set forth in Chapter x. ; 
 but in real Ufe one hardly ever finds the ideal. 
 In my opinion, the proposal should have been 
 accepted. 
 
132 NOTES 
 
 u 
 
 Prime Minister to Sir Horace Plunkett, Chairman 
 of the Irish Convention 
 
 " lo, Downing Street, 
 "London, S.W., 
 
 "2$th February, 1918. 
 " There is a further consideration which has 
 an important bearing on the possibilities of the 
 present situation. During the period of the 
 war it is necessary to proceed as far as possible 
 by agreement. Questions on which there is an 
 acute difference of opinion in Irdand or in Great 
 Britain must be held over for consideration after 
 the war. At the same time it is clear to the 
 Government, in view of previous attempts at 
 settlement, and of the deliberations of the 
 Convention itself, that the only hope of agree- 
 ment lies in a solution which, on the one side, 
 Erovides for the unity of Ireland under a single 
 legislature with adequate safeguards for the 
 interests of Ulster ana the Southern Unionists, 
 and, on the other, preserves the well-being of 
 the Empire and the fundamental unity of the 
 United Elingdom. 
 
 " It is evident that there is on tiie part of all 
 parties in the Convention a willingness to provide 
 for and safeguard the interests of the Empire 
 and of the United Kingdom. A settiement 
 can now be reached wmch will reserve by 
 common consent to the Imperial Parliament its 
 suzerainty, and its control of Army, Navy, and 
 
NOTES 133 
 
 Foreign Policy and other Imperial services, 
 while providing for Irish representation at 
 Westminster, and for a proper contribution 
 from Ireland to Imperial expenditure. All these 
 matters are now capable of being settled within 
 the Convention on a basis satisfactory both to 
 the Imperial Government and to Ireland. 
 
 " There remains, however, the difficult question 
 of Customs and Excise. The Government are 
 aware of the serious objection which can be raised 
 against the transfer of these services to an Irish 
 Legislature. It would be practically impossible 
 to make such a disturbance of the fiscal and 
 financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland 
 in the midst of a great war. It might also be 
 incompatible with the federal reorganisation of 
 the United Kingdom in favour of which there 
 is a growing body of opinion. On the other 
 hand, the Government recognise the strong 
 claim that can be made that an Irish Legislature 
 should have some control over indirect taxa- 
 tion as the only form of taxation which touches 
 the great majority of the people, and which in 
 the past has represented the greater part of 
 Irish revenue. 
 
 " The Government feel that this is a matter 
 which cannot be finally settled at the present 
 time. They therefore suggest for the considera- 
 tion of the Convention that, during the period 
 of the war and for a period of two years thereafter, 
 the control of Customs and Excise should be 
 reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament ; 
 that, as soon as possible after the Irish Parlia- 
 
134 NOTES 
 
 ment shall have been established, a Joint 
 Exchequer Board should be set up to secure 
 the determination of the true revenue of Ireland 
 — a provision which is essential to a system of 
 responsible Irish Government and to the making 
 of a national balance sheet, and that, at the 
 end of the war, a Royal Commission should 
 be estabUshed to re-examine impartially and 
 thoroughly the financial relations of Great 
 Britain and Ireland, to report on the contribution 
 of Ireland to Imperial expenditure, and to 
 submit proposals as to the best means of adjusting 
 the economic and fiscal relations of the two 
 countries. 
 
 " The Government consider that during the 
 period of the war the control of all taxation other 
 than Customs and Excise could be handed over 
 to the Irish Parliament; that for the period of 
 the war and two years thereafter an agreed 
 proportion of the annual Imperial expenditure 
 should be fixed as the Irish contribution ; and 
 that aU Irish revenue from Customs and Excise 
 as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board, 
 after deduction of the agreed Irish contribu- 
 tion to Imperial expenditure, should be paid 
 into the Irish Exchequer. For administrative 
 reasons, during the period of the war it is 
 necessary that the Police should remain under 
 Imperial control and it seems to the Govern- 
 ment to be desirable that for the same period 
 the Postal service should be a reserved service. 
 
 " Turning to the other essential element of a 
 settlement — the securing of an agreement to 
 
NOTES 13s 
 
 establish a single Legislature for an united 
 Ireland — the Government believe that the 
 Convention has given much thought to the 
 method of overcoming objection on the part of 
 Unionists, North and South, to this proposal. 
 They understand that one scheme provides for 
 additional representation by means of nomination 
 or election. They understand further that it 
 has also been suggested that a safeguard of 
 Ulster interests might be secured by the pro- 
 vision of an Ulster Committee within the Irish 
 Parliament, with power to modify, and if 
 necessary to exclude, the application to Ulster 
 of certain measures either of legislation or 
 administration which are not consonant with the 
 interests of Ulster. This appears to be a workable 
 expedient, whereby special consideration of 
 Ulster conditions can be secured and j the 
 objections to a single Legislature for Ireland 
 overcome. 
 
 " The Government would also point to the 
 fact that it has been proposed that the Irish 
 Parhament should meet in alternate sessions in 
 Dublin and Belfast, and that the principal 
 offices of an Irish Department of manufacturing 
 industry and commerce should be located in 
 Belfast. They believe that the willingness to 
 discuss these suggestions is clear evidence of 
 the desire to consider any expedient which may 
 help to remove the causes of Irish disunion. 
 The fact that, in order to meet the claims of 
 different parts of the community, the South 
 African Convention decided that the Legis- 
 
136 NOTES 
 
 lature was to be established in Cape Town, the 
 Administrative Department? to be situated in 
 Pretoria, and the Supreme Court was to sit in 
 Bloemfontein, is a proof that proposals such as 
 these may markedly contribute to eventual 
 agreement. . . . 
 
 " There seems to be within the reach of the 
 Convention the possibihty of obtaining a settle- 
 ment which will lay the foundation of a new 
 era in the government both of Ireland and 
 Great Britain. It is a settlement which will 
 give to Irishmen the control of their own affairs, 
 while preserving the fundamental unity of the 
 United Kingdom, and enabling Irishmen to 
 work for the good of the Empire as well as for the 
 good of Ireland. With all the earnestness in 
 their power the Government appeal to the 
 members of the Convention to agree upon a 
 scheme which can be carried out at once and 
 which win. go a long way towards realising the 
 hope of Irishmen all over the world, without 
 prejudice to the future consideration of questions 
 on which at present agreement cannot be 
 attained in Ireland and which are also intimately 
 connected vdth constitutional problems affecting 
 every part of the United Kingdom, the con- 
 sideration of which must be postponed till the 
 end of the present war. This is an oppor- 
 tunity for a settlement by consent that may 
 never recur, and which, if it is allowed to 
 pass, must inevitably entail consequences for 
 which no man can vpish to make himself re- 
 sponsible ", 
 
NOTES 137 
 
 Another fair proposal, as it seems to me ; and 
 coming nearer to the ideal as regards Ulster. 
 An Ulster Committee within the Irish Parlia- 
 ment would not be far removed from Home 
 Rule for that part of the island. It would be 
 much better than the undemocratic and in- 
 equitable proposition for additional representa- 
 tion of Irish Unionists ; which, by reason of its 
 undemocratic character, the Ulster representatives 
 of that party rejected as " wholly unacceptable ". 
 The demand for fuU fiscal autonomy was the 
 rock on which the Convention split. In the 
 circumstances of the war, and with the new pile 
 of debt, involving no one knows what new devices 
 of taxation, the Government proposal of delay 
 seems not unreasonable. 
 
 II 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT OF ULSTER UNIONIST 
 DELEGATES TO THE IRISH CONVENTION 
 
 "When the Clause claiming Fiscal Autonomy 
 for Ireland was reached, it soon became evident 
 that no real approach towards agreement was 
 possible. It is clear that Fiscal Autonomy 
 including the control of Customs and Excise 
 and National taxation is valued by the Nationalists 
 not only on the ground of supposed economic 
 advantage but as an essential symbol of National 
 independence. In opposition to this Ulster takes 
 a firm stand on the basis of the people's common 
 
138 NOTES 
 
 prosperity, and maintains that the Fiscal unity 
 of the United Kingdom must be preserved 
 intact, carrying with it as it does the sovereignty 
 of the Imperial Parliament and due representa- 
 tion therein. 
 
 " The important question of how far Ireland 
 should contribute to Imperial taxation raised 
 much controversy. In the earUer stages of the 
 discussions some prominent NationaUsts stated 
 quite frankly that they recognised no responsibility 
 for any portion of the pre-war National Debt, 
 nor for the present war expenditure, whilst we 
 claimed that in justice and in honour Ireland 
 must continue to pay her fuU share of both. 
 The majority of the Nationalists declined to 
 admit such Habihty. 
 
 " During the financial year just ended Ireland's 
 Imperial contribution will, it is estimated, 
 amount to about thirteen millions sterKng, and 
 possibly to twenty millions next year. An 
 important section of the Nationalists objected 
 to any Imperial contribution being paid, but 
 the larger number favoured a contribution 
 ranging from two and a half to four and a half 
 millions sterling per annum. It was invariably 
 a condition that the contribution should be 
 purely voluntary and at the pleasure of the 
 Irish Parhament. We listened to these sug- 
 gestions with keen disappointment, knowing of no 
 reason why Ireland, which is abundantly pros- 
 perous, should not in the hour of the Empire's 
 need contribute her full share of men and money. 
 We have always contended that there should be 
 
NOTES 139 
 
 equality of sacrifice in every part of the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 " As already pointed out, a further clause in 
 the Bishop of Raphoe's Scheme with which we 
 found it impossible to agree claimed that com- 
 pulsory MUitary Service could not be imposed 
 upon Ireland by Great Britain unless with the 
 consent of the Irish Parliament, and this demand 
 was supported by the majority of the Con- 
 
 The representatives of Ulster wanted close 
 union with Great Britain, on purely business 
 grounds ; and were prepared to pay the price, 
 in blood and money. It will be said, — and, 
 I fear, can be said with reason, — that the 
 Nationalists wanted the advantage of proximity 
 to and connection with the British market, 
 at half-price. The narrow strip of sea, they 
 insisted, made them a colony. Sinn Feiners, 
 more consistently, would pay nothing. 
 
 Ill 
 
 THE BISHOP OF RAPHOE ON IRISH TAXATION 
 
 In the draft report prepared by Mr. Childers, 
 the taxable capacity of Ireland is represented as 
 being at that time — in 1895 — about i/2ist of 
 that of the United Kingdom. All the members 
 of the Commission agreed that it was not more. 
 Three Irish members — Messrs, Sexton, Blake, 
 
HO NOTES 
 
 and Slattery — reported that, in their opinion, 
 it was only in the ratio, at most, of one to 
 thirty-six. ' 
 
 Quite recently, the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, 
 Bishop of^aphoe, who played an important part 
 in the Convention, presented to the Viceregal 
 Committee of Inquiry into Irish Primary Educa- 
 tion, a memorandum which deals with the financial 
 relations of Great Britain and Ireland. From 
 Treasury returns of the financial year 1916-17 
 he concludes that Ireland paid during that year 
 more than ;^7,ooo,ooo in excess of her due pro- 
 portion of taxes. 
 
 This supposes that her taxable capacity was then 
 i/33rd that of Great Britain ; which his Lord- 
 ship thought very much above the true ratio. It 
 would, in his opinion, be about i/40th. 
 
 Now, it may be that the taxable capacity of 
 Ireland, as compared with that of Britain, has 
 diminished in this way, from the ratio of i to 20 
 at the time of the Childers Commission ; with the 
 result that the burthen presses on us more unduly 
 now than in 1895. The basis of calculation is 
 very uncertain : whether, that is, taxable capacity 
 should be measured by income alone and what is 
 taxable income. I confess myseH unable to form 
 an opinion of any value on many questions of 
 this kind, on which the relative taxable capacity 
 depends. 
 
 It may be, as has been said, that the capacity 
 of Ireland is no less than in the time of the 
 Childers Commission ; but before diminishing it 
 from i/2ist to i/40th or even i/33rd, I should 
 
NOTES 141 
 
 deem the other party entitled to a hearing. 
 Which impKes that the Convention should have 
 accepted the proposal of Mr. Lloyd George, to 
 leave the matter for settlement after the war, 
 when we should know the extent of the obliga- 
 tions of the whole United Kingdom. 
 
PART II 
 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 M3 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 OF PREPARATION FOR WAR : CONSCRIPTION 
 
 ^- ^CONSCRIPTION May he Necessary.— 
 i It were much to be desired that there 
 ^^^ were no injustice in the world ; when, 
 of course, there would be no war, nor need there 
 be any preparation for war. " Oh, if men were 
 but good ", exclaims Count Guido, in Browning's 
 poem ; but " they are not good ". And so there 
 is robbery, or the attempt to rob ; which means 
 war. For the Quaker's ethics never did, and 
 never will, catch hold on men. It is the better 
 part, no doubt, to turn the other cheek and offer 
 even the cloak ; but is it quite forbidden to 
 knock the fellow down ? 
 
 However many conscientious objectors there 
 may be in England and elsewhere, there are few 
 in Ireland ; and none at all among the Irish 
 Catholics who opposed conscription. They did 
 not oppose it because they were opposed to war 
 in any case ; nor even, as far as I can discern, 
 because they deemed the late war unjust, on 
 the part of Britain, to whose armies they refused 
 the conscripts. 
 
 Some of their advocates have hinted, in a 
 shame-faced way, at a body of theological 
 
 10 '45 
 
146 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 authority that regards conscription as never 
 binding in conscience ; but, to give us our due, 
 I find it hard to think there is a theologian among 
 us vpho believes that in his heart. 
 
 Like Var, no doubt, conscription is very 
 undesirable : such a pity that neighbouring 
 nations, who are prepared to attack you, should 
 have miUions of trained soldiers to put into 
 the field. If nations were only good ; but they 
 are not. They will have all their young men 
 trained to war ; and, when war breaks out, will 
 call them to the colours. With the result, — 
 made ever so plain in the late struggle, — that, 
 if you want to knock down the robber and hold 
 your own, you must have as many trained soldiers 
 as he. Also that it is only by conscription you 
 can get them. The argument is simplicity 
 itself — on the supposition that war in self-defence 
 is right : — 
 
 It is foolish and cruel to go to war without 
 the least chance of success. There is, however, 
 no gUmpse of hope for a nation that, without 
 conscription, fights another equally resourceful 
 and conscript nation. Therefore, 
 
 The second premiss, I contend, was proved 
 to demonstration in the late war. 
 
 2. First Ground of Irish Opposition. — " Even 
 admitting that the cause of the Allies is clearly 
 just, and that a law of Conscription may bind 
 in conscience, Irish CathoHcs deny that the 
 Military Service Act would so bind, if enforced 
 in Ireland. They deny that compulsory military 
 service may ever be imposed by one people on 
 
THE QUESTION IS 147 
 
 another ; and they claim that Ireland is a dis- 
 tinct people from Great Britain ". So Father 
 Finlay, in " Studies ".^ 
 
 No law whatever may be imposed, nor can 
 any tax, whether of blood or money, be rightly 
 levied, by one people on or off another ; if both 
 are not united so as to have a common govern- 
 ment. England cannot make laws for or tax 
 France, nor France England. Neither could 
 Bavaria and Prussia tax each the other before 
 Bismarck welded them into the German 
 Empire ; after which the common government 
 rightly subjected both to the blood-tax. Rulers 
 at Washington could not tax Louisiana or Cali- 
 fornia till these regions were brought into the 
 Union. Now they are subject to the laws and 
 burthens common to the States — that even of 
 conscription. 
 
 The question, therefore, is whether Great 
 Britain and Ireland are so united, under a common 
 rule. What does Father Finlay say ? Dr. Coffey 
 we have heard ; insinuating, through the mouth 
 of others, that there is no such union. More 
 cautious still is the writer in the " Theological 
 Quarterly " ; mindful of that anathema against 
 the Fenians, which, pronounced by Rome, has 
 been repeated by so many Irish priests and 
 bishops. One wonders, does it still hold ? 
 
 3. Second Ground. — Father Finlay continues : — 
 " Would Great Britain attempt to force conscrip- 
 tion on an unwilling colony ? Theoretically she has 
 the right. She dare not attempt to exercise it ". 
 ijune 1918, p. 204. 
 
148 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 Has she, then, the right, even theoretically ? 
 I was under the impression that the colonies were 
 allowed to govern themselves in such matters : 
 to make their own laws, levy their own taxes, 
 raise thdlr own armies. They are not as closely 
 united with the mother country as Ireland is 
 with Britain ; nor have they, as yet, a propor- 
 tionate share of votes in any common Parliament 
 or CouncU. One cannot eat one's cake and 
 have it ; and neither can you retain legislative 
 and taxing power over those to whom you have 
 given exemption in such matters. It is, again, 
 a question of union. 
 
 4. Third Ground.-^" The legislatures of the 
 colonies themselves felt bound to consult their 
 people directly, before deciding ; and South 
 Africa and Australia have shown how, in face 
 of a popular majority, no democratic government 
 can impose conscription. Even in Great Britain, 
 the consent of the people was sought, in con- 
 ferences, through the labour leaders, by votes 
 in Parliament ; . and it is only step by step, and 
 always with popular approval, that conscription 
 has been introduced and enforced. Why should 
 Ireland be treated differently from the colonies, 
 differently from Great Britain herself ? What 
 moral authority can the law have, when imposed 
 upon Ireland, not only without the consent of 
 her people, but in defiance of their passionate, 
 almost unanimous, protest, and against the 
 overwhelming vote of their representatives in 
 Parliament". So Father Finlay. 
 
 They were, then, consulted, after all ; they 
 
IS THE UNION A FACT? 149 
 
 and their representatives in Parliament ; and 
 the great majority refused consent. The Con- 
 scription Act, however, was passed in compliance 
 with the wishes of a great majority of the people 
 of the Union. Both these are statements of 
 fact. Is it Father Finlay's contention that no 
 law, however just and necessary, and conformable 
 to the wishes of a great majority of a Common- 
 wealth, binds the citizens of any constituent 
 country wherein the majority are opposed to the 
 law ? That unless a majority of Bavarians, for 
 instance, wanted conscription, or war with 
 England, they would not be bound to accept it 
 from the majority of the German Empire or 
 Republic ? That New York, Pennsylvania, or 
 California, if opposed to monometalism, or a 
 tariff, or a law in restraint of trusts, is entitled to 
 pay no heed to any enactment thereon passed in 
 Congress ? What a union that implies ! 
 
 Once more the argument ignores the fact 
 of union. It apphes perfectly to the period 
 be ore 1800, when Ireland had her own legis- 
 lature, exchequer, military establishment. Then 
 she might have snapped her fingers at any law 
 or tax which the Westminster Parliament might 
 attempt to impose upon her. It is so still, if 
 still there is no Union. What is Father Finlay's 
 view ? What is the teaching of the Bishops 
 and priests of Ireland ; not to speak of Rome ? 
 
 Even as regards Australia, does not the question 
 remain whether the people of that country did 
 their duty when they rejected conscription ? 
 They violated no law, it is true, binding in 
 
ISO QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 obedience ; but did they do their duty, to the 
 Empire or even to the Colony ? Had France 
 and Great Britain acted similarly, the German 
 armies wpuld be now in London, and a German 
 fleet in Botany Bay. Did Australia, when she 
 rejected conscription, throw part of her burthen 
 on others ? If so, how does her example help 
 us out ? 
 
 5. The Government Dared not Enforce. — But, it 
 is urged, the Westminster Government yielded 
 at length, fearing to apply conscription. The 
 fact is so ; they did yield, even to fear ; but does 
 that prove that they had no right to what they 
 feared to enforce ? " The King that fights his 
 people fights himself " : a foolish procedure. 
 No sensible ruler wants coercion, or will have 
 recourse to it except as a measure of necessity ; 
 and of extreme necessity, if it means shooting 
 down the citizens. The fact that the Govern- 
 ment yielded proves that they did not think the 
 danger extreme, and that they, had pity for a 
 people whom they deemed unreasonable ; not 
 at all that they came to recognise that conscrip- 
 tion was unjust as applying to Ireland. 
 
 How we forget our theology, when a pryiciple 
 thereof is inconvenient! A short time ago the 
 Bishops of the Western Church were asked by 
 Rome for suggestions as to reform of the Canon 
 Law ; and before promulgation of the New Code, 
 it was sent to every Bishop, for correction and 
 renewed suggestions. Does any canonist suppose 
 this to imply that the Code, when promulgated, 
 would hot bind without consent of the faithful 
 
ANALOGY OF CHURCH LAW 151 
 
 or Bishops of any national church ; or even 
 against their protest ? But, of course, Church 
 and State are different ; though both, they say, 
 are God-founded. 
 
 Again, even Church rulers, at times, do not 
 press legislation, even vphen just, against the 
 continued protest of a subject people, expressed 
 by non-observance of the law in question. But 
 if you should take this to imply that the rulers 
 — Pope or Bishops — ^regard the people as right, 
 and their protest or refusal justified, you would 
 show ignorance or forgetfulness of a principle 
 laid down in every handbook of Moral Theology 
 and Canon Law. And so, I take it, the fact 
 that the Irish people were allowed their way, is 
 no proof that the way was commendable. 
 
 6. Fourth Ground of Opposition. — "The un- 
 equal distribution of war-work has set up a 
 number of British centres in which the young 
 men of the country can simply laugh at conscrip- 
 tion. We have very little corresponding in 
 Ireland, except in the Belfast shipyards, where 
 the vaHant and magnanimous heroes, sure of 
 exemption, have started a conscription campaign 
 — ^for others. Agricultural workers would prob- 
 ably be exempt in Ireland, as they are in 
 Britain ; but otherwise conscription would mean 
 here, as it does not mean in Britain, a practically 
 clean sweep of the able-bodied manhood of the 
 country ". 
 
 So the writer in the " Irish Theological 
 Quarterly " ; who evidently betrays a con- 
 sciousiiess that he felt the weakness of his 
 
152 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 argument. Ireland's great munition works, it 
 has been often urged, are in the fields ; where 
 the workers " would probably be exempt ". 
 Yet there would be " a clean sweep of the man- 
 hood of the country " ; the vast body of which 
 is engaged in agriculture ! 
 
 Could we not have said we were ready to 
 give our fair share, as estimated by an Irish 
 bureau ? Therein would be some reason — some 
 manliness ; but we took our stand on nationhood, 
 and swore that a great and ancient nation, such 
 as ours, would not agree to have even one man 
 sent against his will to fight for another country. 
 
 7. How to Evade Taxes. — If we were not 
 bound in conscience by the Conscription Act, 
 it could only be because the Act of Union does 
 not bind us ; whereupon may it not be urged 
 that taxes imposed by the Imperial Parliament, 
 against our protest,- — and what taxes are imposed 
 by that body otherwise ? — do not bind us any 
 more than the blood-tax ? So that those who 
 evade income-tax or death-duties by falsifying 
 accounts or any other mode of fraud, however 
 guilty of lying, would be guiltless of injustice, 
 and may keep what they have saved in this way 
 from the tax-coUector. One Wonders whether 
 their Lordships the Bishops and the Jesuit 
 Fathers approve of this. 
 
 In this connection I cannot refrain from 
 entering a protest, and a caution, against what, 
 I fear, must be regarded as the comraon teaching 
 of our schools of Morals ; to the effect that it is 
 permissible to evade a good part of the taxes. 
 
EVASION OF TAXES 153 
 
 direct and indirect, by false statements, false 
 returns, falsifying accounts, and such practices. 
 "Those", writes Father Lehmkuhl^, "who in 
 making a declaration of property and of the value 
 of houses and other chattels, keep even a good 
 deal under the value of the estate, — diminishing 
 the price thus declared by one-fourth or one- 
 third below the true value,-— are not thereon 
 guilty of injustice and bound to restitution. 
 One must see, amongst other things, whether 
 such diminution is commonly practised even by 
 others. If so, proportion in tax-paying is already 
 observed ; nor will the Exchequer or King lack 
 necessary taxes, seeing that these are so great ; 
 and also since it is known well enough that 
 certain arts are used by tax-payers to evad 
 fiscal laws. In case, however, of excessive 
 diminution of goods to be declared in this way, 
 legal justice, at least, is violated ". 
 
 This doctrine may appear in evidence in 
 court any day and disgrace us. Any Govern- 
 ment would, in my opinion, be justified in taking 
 measures to put a stop to such teaching. 
 
 8. Final Reason. — It is hard to make sure 
 that one has exhausted aU that has been urged ; 
 but one must have pity on readers. AU op- 
 ponents of conscription appealed to past, and 
 present, misgovernment ; in forms so many that 
 it is impossible to condense the argument. Irish 
 trade was maHciously destroyed, as it still is ; 
 there is a pampered minority, which isTeven 
 allowed to threaten revolt with impunity. 
 ^ Jheol. Moral, i. a 1173. 
 
154 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 Their leader got a seat in the Cabinet, whereas 
 those of the Irish were shot ; the Home Rule 
 Act, though on the Statute Book, is permanently 
 sil|pended, poor as it is, in violation of the most 
 formal pledges. And so on. 
 
 To begin with this delay of Home Rule. 
 I understand that we could have had it for the 
 last two years, and may have it any time, if we 
 were content to take it for Celtic Ireland. That, 
 however, is partition ; and we who used to 
 maintain that Home Rule for Ireland is not 
 separation from Great Britain, now insist that 
 Home Rule for the Saxon portion of Ulster is 
 partition thereof from the rest of Ireland. 
 
 Then there are the broken pledges ; as if 
 responsible ministers ever promised that Ulster 
 would not be allowed Home Rule under any 
 Irish Parliament that might be set up. Or as 
 if such a pledge, if given, could not be honourably 
 withdrawn, as being opposed to the very spirit 
 of democracy. 
 
 Then, as regards Sir Edward Carson ; he, no 
 doubt, threatened armed resistance, but did not 
 actually resist with arms. He did not, moreover, 
 openly ally himself, in revolt, with an enemy at 
 war with the Empire ; the most powerful that 
 ever attacked it ; die Irish revolution being timed 
 to synchronise with England's greatest peril. 
 Above all. Sir E. Carson did not actually shoot 
 down four or five hundred people, soldiers and 
 civilians. Had he done aU this, perhaps he, too, 
 would have been shot, like Messrs. Pearse and 
 Connolly. ' 
 
RIGHTS OF ULSTER 155 
 
 Besides, did Sir E. Carson threaten anything 
 that every statesman in Europe and America 
 would not do, in certain circumstances ? He 
 threatened revolt ; but would not Mr. Asquith, 
 Mr. Balfour, or even Lord Hugh Cecil, rebel in 
 a cause of self-determination ? Mr. J. Redmond 
 also had enrolled, drilled, and armed volunteers ; 
 yet was offered a seat in the Cabinet. Men of 
 sense in England did not think that preposterous. 
 It is not to the principle of revolt they object, 
 but only to the cause alleged ; and it is but 
 fair to Sir E. Carson and his adherents to say 
 that the arms they procured were meant to 
 preserve their people from subjection to an alien 
 rule which they detest ; whereas we Celts 
 refused Home Rule when we found that it did 
 not empower us to govern, with ourselves, another 
 race who detest our government. 
 
 Sir E. Carson, I admit, demanded too much ; 
 for he has no right to six full counties of Ulster. 
 Neither has he, in my opinion, a right to separate 
 from the rest of Ireland ; any more than Ireland 
 has to separate from Great Britain. Both are 
 entitled to local self-government or Home Rule ; 
 in subordination to the Imperial Parliament, on 
 the part of Ireland ; and to the Irish Parlia- 
 ment, on the part of Ulster, These are details, 
 which should be easily arranged, if we had but 
 the good sense and toleration to admit the 
 principle, and were willing to allow others the 
 right of self-determination we claim for ourselves. 
 
 9. Reform Needed in Ireland — and Elsewhere. — 
 I recognise, moreover, and have endeavoured to 
 
156 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 show, that in Ireland we have real grounds of 
 complaint — as to legislation and fiscal matters. 
 But, then, I know of no people that are not in 
 like position. Are there not complaints, as to 
 unjust laws and inequitable taxation, on the 
 part of different classes and different regions in 
 every nation in the world ? Take the Labour 
 Party of Great Britain ; or the SociaHsts of 
 Germany or France ; or the working-men of the 
 United States : have they no grievances ? Have 
 French CathoKcs nothing of which to complain ? 
 And what would history decide as to aU or any 
 of them, if, in the time of their country's greatest 
 need, when the invader was thundering at her 
 gates, they had stood with folded arms and 
 refused to defend her ? 
 
 But, — and here, again, is the real issue,— 
 Britain, it is said, is not our country ; nor is her 
 war ours. True, she is, and has been our only 
 customer, hitherto ; but the world is wide, and 
 the seas are, or should— and shall— be free. We 
 are independent of the EngHsh market ; for we 
 can find as good elsewhere. Our interest is that 
 she should be impoverished and enfeebled ; and 
 so we applaud every blow she gets. Not that 
 we want German any more than Anglo-Saxon 
 masters ; but that we hope to secure more 
 freedom and greater wealth when England is 
 beaten and impoverished. 
 
 If I thought this hope likely to be realised, I 
 should not object so much ; I shotdd stUl contend 
 that the north-east corner of our island was 
 entitled to Home Rule. 
 
THE QUESTION, ONCE MORE 157 
 
 I cannot, however, entertain the hope. Here, 
 of course, I pretend to no special competence ; 
 as this aspect of the question is for men of 
 business. Not ten such in Ireland, however, 
 have any hope of the kind. Has Father Finlay, 
 I wonder ; or the Jesuit body ; or the Bench of 
 Bishops ; or have the experienced clergy ? Would 
 they invest much of their own or the Church's 
 money in an endeavour to realise the hope ? 
 That, after all, is the great test of sincerity. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 OF CERTAIN CAUSES THAT JUSTIFY WAR 
 
 1. /GERMAN Invasion of Belgium. — ^War, I 
 f -w- take it, should not be declared without 
 cause : may, that is, be waged only 
 in defence of a nation's right ; nor is it justified 
 by every slight injury. Moreover, the deadlier 
 the struggle is likely to be, the greater is the 
 cause required. AH this is evident. 
 
 Among the ethical questions raised by the 
 late war was this : whedier a beUigerent nation 
 that wishes to send an army through the territory 
 of a neighbouring state, has a right of transit ; 
 which, if refused, may be enforced by arms. 
 The Germans did this, in regard to Belgium ; 
 but, to give them their due, their politicians 
 seem to have admitted that this invasion was not 
 justified merely by necessity. At first they 
 confessed they did wrong, but would make 
 amends in time. Then they maintained that 
 the Belgian Government had violated their 
 rights, in permitting, or engaging to permit, 
 French or English troops to pass in the same 
 circumstances. Some even asserted that the 
 French did actually pass. Certain CathoUc 
 theologians of the Fatherland held, I grieve to 
 
 158 
 
POSITION OF BELGIUM 159 
 
 say, that the invasion was justified by the mere 
 necessity ; while, at home, some of our own 
 people would have liked to say the same ; and 
 did so, at first ; but the injury was too manifest. 
 
 2. The Principle. — ^Were it not for the peculiar 
 geographical position of Belgium, — between three 
 of the belligerents : Germany, France, and 
 England, — I should not object to the German 
 claim — ^for facilities. A nation, as I shall have 
 to point out, has certain claims on its neighbours ; 
 and may insist on them, — using force to secure 
 them ; the amount of force to be proportionate 
 to the necessity. 
 
 It is, I fancy, something like the relations 
 between individual landholders. One has no 
 permanent right of way through the farm or 
 estate of another ; but having, on occasion, 
 pressing need, he asks leave to pass. If it is 
 refused, and the need is pressing, he passes without 
 it ; and therein is right. Should the neighbour 
 resist, he may be pushed aside ; as gently, of 
 course, as possible ; but even with a good fall or 
 blow, if such is necessary and the need of passage 
 is great. Where life is jeopardised, one is not 
 bound to pay nice attention to the petty rights 
 of churls. 
 
 The true obstacle to the passage of German 
 troops through Belgian territory was not so 
 much any right of the Belgians, as that of France 
 and England ; for whom it was no less necessary 
 that the Germans should not pass. One cannot 
 be simultaneously bound to contradictions — to 
 let one pass and not to let ; so the Germans, — 
 
i6o QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 who, in other circumstances^^might have claim 
 enough, — in these had none. I abstract, 
 deliberately, from international law and the 
 treaties involved ; which I leave to those who 
 have knowledge of such matters. 
 
 3. Anticipating Aggression, — Some German 
 publicists claimed, I believe, that their armies 
 merely anticipated an attack by Belgium ; as 
 to the truth of which I express no opinion. My 
 concern is with the principle : that if you have 
 good reason to anticipate attack, you may " do 
 it first ", as David Harum advises. Only do not 
 anticipate too much : the future aggressor must 
 not be strangled in the cradle. 
 
 I should not blame Austria, had she attacked 
 Italy before that country was ready for war ; 
 which was pretty sure to come when she felt 
 prepared. Neither should I blame the Allies, 
 had they throttled Turks or Bulgarians, before 
 either took the side which it was plain they were 
 about to take. People have accused England 
 and France of hypocrisy, inconsistency, and such, 
 for that, while complaining of the German 
 invasion of Belgium, they invaded Greece them- 
 selves ; but the cases, surely, were not on a par. 
 For, apart from the question whether the King 
 of Greece or M. Venezelos truly represented 
 that country, it seems plain that had the former 
 not been throttled, he would have done as his 
 neighbour, in Bulgaria ; and the AlUes would 
 have had to fight with Greece as an enemy. 
 The same has to be proved, — and, I submit, has 
 ilDt been proved, — ^with regard to Belgium. 
 
THE BOER WAR i6i 
 
 These, however, are matters of fact, not of 
 principle. 
 
 4. the Boer War. — ^As I understand the con- 
 tention of the British Government in this case, 
 it was that citizens of theirs, who owned much 
 valuable property in the Transvaal, were not 
 being fairly treated by the rulers of that country ; 
 and that there was no hope of improvement till 
 a radical change was made in the system of 
 electing those who held power in the Transvaal. 
 And as this change, in turn, could not be secured 
 without pressure, it remained to apply the 
 pressure— by force of arms. 
 
 There was, and will be, difference of opinion 
 as regards the facts ; and no less as to the motives 
 of the British : all of which are matters for 
 history. Ethics— which is my department — ^is 
 concerned only with the principle : whether, 
 supposing the facts alleged, they would justify 
 war ; on the additional supposition that the 
 abuses were really very serious. I have no 
 doubt but that a nation is justified in taking up 
 arms to protect the lives or property of its 
 citizens in other lands ; provided the interest 
 therein imperilled is considerable. On this 
 ground, all the Great Powers, some years ago, 
 sent miUtary contingents to China, to protect 
 the lives and property of their subjects at a time 
 of revolution. And they may well have been 
 right ethically. 
 
 5. The United States and Jafan. — It is well 
 known that, some years ago, the Japanese felt 
 aggrieved by certain restrictions placed on the 
 
 II 
 
1 62 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 emigration of their people to the United States ; 
 and that reprisals were threatened which might 
 ultimately lead to war. If we are to beUeve 
 some prophets, the matter is by no means settled, 
 and the war is certain to come. The difficulty, 
 I believe, is not so much with the United States 
 Government, at Washington, as with the people 
 of the Pacific Coast ; who, though subject to 
 the federal authorities, have interests and wills 
 of their own. 
 
 Here, again, there is room for difference of 
 opinion as to the facts : whether, for instance, 
 Japanese and Chinese immigrants are undesirable. 
 No reasonable man can dispute the right of a 
 nation to keep out such — ^the unhealthy, who 
 might propagate disease ; the very poof, who 
 may be also unfit for work ; and malicious or 
 wicked people, who may be a source of moral 
 corruption. There may, of course, be other 
 reasonable causes of exclusion. 
 
 How far these, or any of them, hold for China- 
 men and Japanese, is a question of fact, with 
 which I have little or no concern. If they did 
 not, or do not, hold, to a considerable extent, 
 the United States would not be justified in a policy 
 of exclusion ; and if the United States Government 
 persisted, nevertheless, and the Japanese were 
 seriously aggrieved, these would be justified in 
 using what pressure they could command, — even 
 that of war, — to secure the rights of their citizens. 
 This, I fancy, is not disputed by the jurists of 
 the United States. 
 
 6. Protection of Missionaries. — ^We have heard 
 
PROTECTION OF MISSIONARIES 163 
 
 a good deal of the protection of Christian mission- 
 aries in China ; which many have denounced 
 as — in great part, if not altogether — a cloak for 
 greed and aggression. That also is a question of 
 fact ; and the same holds of Turkey. 
 
 There was once a Pope, I believe, who, finding 
 that two kings, his spiritual children, were in 
 danger of falling out and fighting, in their zeal 
 to propagate the Gospel in a certain heathen 
 country, made peace between them by drawing 
 a line across the map of the region, and giving, 
 as sphere of missionary enterprise, what was 
 north of the line to 'one, and to the other what 
 was south ; with a right, of which they availed, 
 to support the missionaries, by armed forces, 
 each in his own territory. We know what came 
 of that, to the people who were portioned out — 
 themselves and their lands and property. 
 
 Similarly, it has been alleged, by the English, 
 that Adrian IV., himself an Englishman, com- 
 missioned their king to come over here and 
 give peace and order to our distracted and 
 demoralised country. And though some good 
 historians have maintained that no such com- 
 mission was given, with regard to Ireland, no 
 one thinks of questioning the existence of the 
 Bull on the ground that it would imply a 
 departure from papal policy, or a denial of 
 traditional papal doctrine. On the contrary, 
 every canonist maintains that the Popes have a 
 right, not only to send missionaries into heathen 
 countries, but to authorise, and even compel, 
 kings to support them therein by armed force. 
 
i64 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 And the same applies to Christian kingdoms 
 that are in need of reform. 
 
 7. Spheres of Influence. — It is not the Popes 
 alone who would restore order in a neighbouring 
 state ; Jt is done even by the most democratic 
 of repubhcs. What happened in Cuba is of 
 recent history : rebellion against Spain, fostered 
 by a junta in New York, and largely endowed 
 with United States money ; not, of course, supplied 
 by the Government, but only by subjects thereof. 
 Then, when the disorder had lasted some time, 
 an appeal to the United States Government to 
 interfere ; in the interest, partly, of humanity, 
 and, in part, of the Union itself ; the neighbour'* 
 house being on fire. 
 
 Something of the same kind happened in 
 Mexico the other day ; and should, they say, 
 have happened sooner. It is what every nation 
 does, and must do ; even Bolshevist Russia can- 
 not let its neighbours alone. There are hinterlands 
 everywhere ; regions where, indeed, we have no 
 formal jurisdiction ; but which, nevertheless, are 
 within our sphere of influence-^to see that no 
 great disorder continues there. There can, I 
 think, be no objection to the principle ; though, 
 of course, like that of protecting missionaries, it 
 is liable to abuse, and has been abused greatly. 
 It means the sending of mihtary forces,— which 
 means making war, — ^to secure the reign of order 
 in a neighbouring state. 
 
 8. The Monroe Doctrine. "^Teihaps the largest 
 sphere of influence that has yet been claimed is 
 that of the United States of America ; whose 
 
MONROE DOCTRINE 165 
 
 declared policy it is that " the American con- 
 tinents are henceforth not to be considered as 
 subjects for future colonisation by any European 
 power " ; as also that any interference on the 
 part of any such power with any other people 
 in either North or South America, " for the 
 purpose of oppressing them or controlliilg their 
 destiny in any other manner," will be regarded 
 " as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition 
 towards the United States ". This brings within 
 the sphere of influence of the Washington 
 Government whatever is not directly subject to 
 them in the whole of the American continent. 
 North and South, with all the adjacent islands. 
 
 The claim, however immense, is the same in 
 principle as is made by every Great Power with 
 regard to its weaker neighbours ; who cannot 
 become subject to another Great Power without 
 prejudice to the security of the nation to which 
 at present they act as buffers. This seems not 
 unreasonable, as regards an iinmediate neighbour; 
 but whether it applies to the whole of a con- 
 tinent as large as North and South America, 
 united, I am unable to decide. 
 
 9. Missionaries of Commerce. — ^We often hear 
 of how England acquired her colonies, by 
 robbery ; as Btill, they say, she enlarges them. 
 Wherein, of course, is some truth ; for no con- 
 quest ever was made, nor empire extended, 
 without accompanying injustice. I doubt, how- 
 ever, whether some of those who make this 
 accusation against England have thought out the 
 principle on which it is based. But apart even 
 
i66 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 from any question of principle, it should, I 
 fancy, make us hesitate either to make or to 
 receive such a charge, if we would reflect that it 
 lies against every state, even the most Cathohc, 
 that ever acquired a colony : Spain, for instance, 
 Portugal, France. 
 
 We have seen how these, and others, were 
 exhorted by the rulers of the Church to send 
 missionaries to the heathen, „ as also to send 
 armed forces to secure a hearing for the mis- 
 sionaries ; and how this affected the great 
 colonial possessions of Portugal and Spain. It 
 is contended, however, that the nations of 
 Europe have a right to trade with, as well as 
 preach to, unciviUsed peoples ; who, moreover, 
 though legitimate owners of the territories they 
 occupy, do not hold them without some obli- 
 gation to the human race at large. It is not to 
 be supposed, for instance, that the Red Indian 
 tribes, who showed little disposition for agri- 
 cidture, had a right to keep uncultivated, as 
 hunting grounds, the vast and fertile plains of 
 North America. And when the ploughman's 
 right, like that of the missionary, needed pro- 
 tection, armed forces were sent to give it ; 
 which meant seizing territory and founding the 
 colonies of which complaint is made. 
 
 Then, again, consider how a colony, once 
 established, extends, as it were, of necessity ; 
 given — ^what is sure to be — ^lack of toleration, or 
 peaceable neighbourliness, on the part of the 
 bordering tribes ; who, like those already ousted 
 from the colony, are ill-disposed to give the 
 
SELF-DETERMINATION 167 
 
 settlers reasonable trade facilities. To read 
 some diatribes against England, one would think 
 the world would be much richer, happier, and 
 more prosperous, if Columbus had not succeeded 
 in reaching America, or if a white face never 
 showed itself south of Assouan. The human 
 race, in my opinion, has gained immensely as a 
 result of both events ; as has Egypt also, and 
 Hindustan, by the English occupation. Whereby, 
 nevertheless, is by no means implied that either 
 Clive or Kitchener was quite immaculate ; any 
 more than Cortes was absolutely fair to Mexico 
 or Pizarro to Peru. 
 
 10. Self-Determination. — ^We saw, in Part I. of 
 this little book, how, like children in a family, a 
 nation or a colony may, in the course of develop- 
 ment, become entitled to increased self-control ; 
 either setting up for itself, as fully independent ; 
 or the people being allowed a greater share in 
 the selection of their governors ; or a minority, 
 when of separate race from the majority, being 
 allowed local self-government. These, I have 
 said, are to be conceived as rights, which may be 
 legitimately secured by pressure ; provided this 
 is not unduly severe. 
 
 Whatever may have been the tradition of the 
 Catholic schools, the great practical world, — 
 wherein, occasionally, high - placed Catholic 
 churchmen have figured, — ^has shown, by^ its 
 action, that it regarded the pressure of armed 
 insurrection as not unduly severe, where it was 
 really needed to assert some of these rights. 
 Archbishop Langton, Primate of All England, 
 
i68 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 was one of the leaders of the revolt that secured 
 the Great Charter ; and the Checo-Slovacs, in 
 these latter times, have been led by Bishops. 
 The CathoUcs of the United States of America 
 do not jKeld to any of their fellow-citizens in 
 the fervour with which they celebrate Indepen- 
 dence Day ; and were the Bishops to teach 
 officially that there was no justification for the 
 war whereby the Declaration of Independence 
 was supported, who knows what would become 
 of the Church in America ? 
 
 It is not alone complete national indepen- 
 dence, or the overthrow of a dynasty such as 
 that of the Bourbons, Romanoffs^ Hapsburgs, 
 or Hohenzollerns, that may, at the proper stage 
 of national development, be compassed in this 
 way, by force of arms ; but even lower grades of 
 self-determination — local government in what- 
 ever form or degree may be due to a people at 
 the time. Few CathoUc Irishmen, I fancy, — 
 among either clergy or laity, — complain, on 
 ethical grounds, of the conduct of the Volun- 
 teers in Grattan's time ; though the very existence 
 of that body was a menace of armed fotce against 
 England, if she refused to grant the local self- 
 government that Grattan and his supporters 
 thought due to Ireland at the time. The same 
 holds of the struggle of Hungary, under Kossuth. 
 
 Supposing, then, that Ireland is denied, at 
 present, a degree of Home Rule to which she 
 has a right ; one could not object to the use of 
 armed force to secure it, on the ground that the 
 acquisition of mere local self-government could 
 
THE VOLUNTEERS 169 
 
 never justify an appeal to arms. The same, as 
 far as I see, holds of the Volunteers of Ulster ; 
 whose threat of armed insurrection would be 
 justified, if Home Rule for Ireland meant denial 
 of such self-determination as is due to the Saxon 
 Colony of the North-East. The question, 
 however, demands a separate Chapter. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 OF THE PRESSURE THAT MAY BE APPLIED TO SECURE 
 LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT 
 
 I. ^^^HE Irish Volunteer Movement. — In the 
 § later years of the Home Rule agita- 
 tion ia Ireland, there has been a 
 new development ; as the Anglo-Saxons of the 
 north-east corner have openly proposed to take 
 up arms, to oppose that measure. This has 
 evoked a counter-demonstration on the same 
 lines, from the rest of the country. Volunteers 
 have been enrolled and drilled by both parties ; 
 arms have been provided ; and on both sides 
 men have proclaimed their determination to use 
 these arms in defence of what they deem their 
 rights. 
 
 2. Extreme Demands. — ^Extreme claims were 
 made by both sides, at first. Ulster would have 
 no Home Rule, for any part of the country ; 
 Nationalists would rule even in the north-east 
 corner. The extravagance of these claims came, 
 after a time, to be admitted generally. Ulster 
 waived its objection to Home Rule, provided 
 six counties of that province were allowed to 
 rule themselves independently. The Irish ParUa- 
 mentary Party agreed to this, as an experiment^ 
 
 170. 
 
ARMED REVOLUTION 171 
 
 for a time. And though they were taken to task 
 for this complaisance, — by critics who were in- 
 fluenced by conflicting motives, — the country 
 seemed to be settling down to accept the 
 compromise ; when the Nationalist volunteers 
 got out of hand and broke into actual rebellion, 
 no longer for Home Rule, but for complete 
 independence. 
 
 3. Principle of Armed Revolution Admitted by 
 Statesmen. — I do not think it necessary to discuss 
 the hypothetical question whether, if Ireland 
 were entitled to such independence, she could, 
 given a fair chance of success, legitimately take 
 up arms to assert her right. AU Europe, — 
 political Europe, at least, — now admits the prin- 
 ciple ; which, moreover, has been acted upon 
 and consecrated by Washington ; who, in turn, 
 but applied to his own country what had been 
 practically taught in England, in various revo- 
 lutions, from that of the Bishops and Barons 
 under King John, to that of the Puritans against 
 Charles I., and that which exiled James II. and 
 brought William of Orange to the throne. 
 
 4. Question as to Extent of the Principle. — Sup- 
 posing, however, the present Government of 
 Ireland to be legitimate ; as, we have seen, 
 was and is the official teaching of the Catholic 
 Church, and as is proclaimed by Ulster Protes- 
 tants ; and supposing, in addition, that, as I 
 have been trying to prove, Ireland and north- 
 east Ulster each have a right to Home Rule, 
 under a central. Imperial Government ; and 
 supposing, further, that this right were un- 
 
172 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 reasonably denied ; the question would arise 
 whether an ethic that justifies armed insurrection 
 to secure fuU independence, when due, would 
 be as liberal if the right asserted were merely 
 Home Rule under a central, Imperial Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 5. Two Points of Difference. — ^The principle, 
 you may say, is the same in both cases : armed 
 resistance in assertion of the right of self-deter- 
 mination. There are, however, two points of 
 difference. 
 
 In the first place, when a nation takes up arms 
 to assert a rightful claim to complete indepen- 
 dence, it does not oppose legitimate authority. 
 For the acting government becomes a usurper 
 ipo facto, the moment independence becomes 
 due. 
 
 Secondly, the justifying cause is less when it 
 is only Home Rule that is denied. People are 
 not entitled to take up arms against a legitimate 
 government for every grievance, even though it 
 should be real. And it is conceivable, at least, 
 that, whereas denial of full independence, when 
 due, would be cause sufficient to justify insur- 
 rection, the same might not hold for the lesser 
 grievance of unreasonable denial of Home Rule. 
 
 6. Non-Catholic Opinion Liberal. — Neverthe- 
 less, I deem it likely that the great body of non- 
 Catholic opinion would regard denial even of 
 Home Rule as sufficient cause for armed insur- 
 rection. Sir Edward Carson seems to have be«i 
 backed up in England by the full strength of the 
 Conservatives ; while the Liberal Government 
 
IRISH CATHOLIC OPINION 173 
 
 were afraid to appeal to the country against him, 
 lest he should be supported by a considerable 
 number of their regular followers. Even the 
 Radicals who would have supported Home Rule 
 against Sir Edward, could not, I fancy, be 
 depended on to do so, if they did not think his 
 demand unreasonable, and his threat of armed 
 resistance indefensible on that account. I doubt 
 if they would have objected to the use of arms to 
 defend a reasonable claim, for local government 
 or Home Rule for Ulster. And what England 
 thinks on a matter of this kind, may be presumed 
 to be the feeling of non-Catholic countries 
 generally. 
 
 J .-^Opinion of Irish Catholics.-—! do not know 
 that Ireland is quite typical of countries that 
 are Catholic ; nor am I sure how Irish CathoHcs 
 would regard armed resistance, to obtain Home 
 Rule merely, supposing this to be due and yet 
 unduly delayed. 
 
 The National Volunteers were enrolled, drilled 
 and armed, ostensibly to secure Home Rule. 
 Against the Orangemen of Ulster, you may say ; 
 but not against the Government. It must, 
 then, have been to aid the Government in its 
 conflict with the Orangemen ; for no Govern- 
 ment could merely stand by and keep the ring 
 for factions waging civil war. But if the Govern- 
 ment were to defend a Home Rule measure 
 against Orangemen, surely they could do so without 
 aid of Irish Volunteers. I fear it is true that the 
 enrolling and arming of Volunteers was intended 
 to put pressure on the Government ; so that 
 
174 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 those who supported the enrolling and drilling 
 of that body, must have contemplated civU 
 war as a means to secure Home Rule. But the 
 Volunteers were supported, at first, by practically 
 the whole' of CathoUc Ireland, lay and clerical. 
 
 Then, there was the movement against con- 
 scription ; on the ground that Home Rule, 
 which should have secured us our own choice in 
 the matter, after the model of the colonies, was 
 unduly delayed. Opposition to conscription, in 
 the circumstances, was a kind of insurrection, to 
 secure a special form of Home Rule. True, it 
 was to be but passive resistance ; which its con- 
 servative advocates took care to distinguish from 
 recourse to arms, denouncing this as immoral. 
 These conservatives, however, professed them- 
 selves determined to persevere in their resistance 
 if the Government enforced the law ; so that 
 there must be conflicts and disturbance of all 
 kinds, leading to God knows what. Not quite 
 so bad, of course, as civil war ; but still bad 
 enougii to raise doubts as to whether those who 
 allowed the lesser evil, would not, when the pinch 
 came, have to permit even the greater. The 
 moderates among the Dublin Volunteers were 
 dragged after the extremists in the rising of 
 Easter 1916. 
 
 8. Author's View. — It may seem presumptuous, 
 and something more, for an individual to harbour 
 scruples as to what was, or might have been, 
 sanctioned by such a body ; stUl, I take it, 
 we are free, not only to entertain a different 
 opinion, but to give it expression. Taking 
 
AUTHOR'S VIEW 175 
 
 advantage of this liberty, I presume, in all 
 humility and reverence, to say that I cannot see 
 my way to approve of any such active or passive 
 resistance to a Government recognised as legiti- 
 mate as would leave this exposed to be crushed 
 by a powerful foreign enemy with whom it was 
 engaged in a life-and-death struggle at the time. 
 I would press it to grant any measure of Home 
 Rule which I regarded as due, but not for more 
 than was due ; nor even for what was due would 
 I allow any pressure that might seriously endanger 
 the whole commonwealth. 
 
 It would, of course, be different, if the Im- 
 perial Union were not more necessary than 
 Home Rule for those who applied the pressure. 
 But in that case the whole supposition fails ; for 
 then the Government that is conceived to refuse 
 Home Rule, would no longer be legitimate. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 OF THE CONDUCT OF WAR : (l) OF BOMBARDMENT 
 OF TOWNS, AND OF REPRISALS 
 
 I. C^^HE Difficulty. — On the supposition 
 M that war may be justly waged, there 
 can be no scruple about killing those 
 of the enemy who attack you — soldiers actually 
 fighting or about to fight. They are aggressors ; 
 unjust, as we suppose ; and therefore may be 
 killed. It matters not that they are in good 
 faith ; as one may kill a lunatic, when there is 
 no other way of saving oneself from his attack. 
 The difficulty about war arises from non- 
 combatants ; who suffer so much, in any case ; 
 many losing their lives. It is, no doubt, open to 
 you to say that all who belong to the enemy 
 nation co-operate in the unjust aggression, and 
 so are liable to be killed. " The young men shall 
 go to the battle, — ^it is their task to conquer ; 
 the married men shall forge arms, transport 
 baggage and artillery, provide subsistence ; the 
 women shall work at soldiers' clothes, make tents, 
 serve in the hospitals ; the children shall scrape 
 old linen into surgeon's hnt ; the aged men shall 
 have themselves carried into public places; and 
 there, by their words, excite the courage of the 
 
 17& 
 
PENALTY OF CO-OPERATION 177 
 
 young, preach hatred to kings, and unity to the 
 Republic". So wrote Barrere, in a Report that 
 was afterwards embodied in a Decree, during the 
 French Revolution; as may be seen in Carlyle. ^ 
 
 During the late war, everyone in the bel- 
 ligerent nations co-operated with the fighting 
 men in some way. The ploughman who turned 
 the glebe in Kerry, did so to grow potatoes or 
 grain ; which, if not sent to the British armies, 
 served to feed those for whom Great Britain 
 would have had to make provision otherwise. 
 Your Kerry ploughman, therefore, was a bel- 
 ligerent ; as surely, — ^though, perhaps, not so 
 efficaciously or persistently, — as those who forged 
 guns at Woolwich or Essen, or brought up shells 
 to the batteries in the field. 
 
 2. May Co-operators be Slain ?. — Something like 
 this was urged in " The Tablet ", in support of 
 the view that it is in no way "wrong to make 
 air-raids on German towns. An Indian chief, it 
 was argued, may be shot for attacking you ; and 
 why not the squaw who, in his tent, prepares his 
 arrows ; and his son, who is still too young to 
 do more than carry the arrows from the tent to 
 the fighting line f Why not, similarly, rain 
 bombs on the women and children of Germany ? 
 We read this sort of reasoning in " The Tablet ". 
 
 The conscience of mankind is against it. Even 
 the ex-Kaiser, Wilhelm, after an air-raid on 
 Frankfurt, was reported to have written to the 
 Mayor, to condole with the citizens, and protest 
 against the barbarism of dropping bombs on 
 ^ French Revolution, III., B. iv., Ch. vi. 
 12 
 
178 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 open towns. London was always represented by 
 the Germans as a fortress ; wherein women and 
 children stayed at their peril, and might be killed 
 with safe conscience. One does not know which 
 was the 'more inconsistent : the Catholic pub- 
 licist who would bomb German cities, in reprisal 
 for air raids on London ; or the Kaiser who 
 ordered or sanctioned the London raids, but 
 protested that Frankfurt should be spared. When 
 the danger approached themselves, both showed 
 the true conscience of the race. 
 
 I deem it an enormity to say that, because a 
 ploughman helps to grow corn that may feed 
 those who supply an army ; or because his little 
 daughter knits or darns his stockings, his wife 
 prepares his food, or his baby sucks taxed sugar ; 
 any or aU of them may be put to death for co- 
 operation in unjust aggression. If that were so, 
 the citizens even of neutral states would not 
 escape liability. 
 
 Accordingly, the principle that one may kill 
 an unjust aggressor can be extended to co- 
 operators only on condition that the co-operation 
 is proximate and considerable. 
 
 3. Grade of Proximity Difficult to Determine. — 
 So understood, the principle, I admit, is indeter- 
 minate ; nor do I see any definite Une whereat 
 to draw the amount of co-operation that would 
 or would not justify killing. Extreme cases 
 are easily decided. You may, for instance, shell 
 a train that is bringing supplies to the firing line ; 
 but may not kill the wife of the driver merely 
 because in some far-off cottage she knits a com- 
 
INDIRECT KILLING 179 
 
 forter for her husband. You may drop bombs 
 on the works at Essen or the arsenal at Woolwich ; 
 but should spare the home of the milier who 
 helps to supply these places with coal or steel. 
 
 How near either mineral must be to the war 
 zone and actual aggression, no man can say — 
 with mathematical determination. I should not 
 object to the bombing of a munition train 
 leaving Calais, or even Woolwich ; but I do not 
 think you would be justified in bombing a train 
 that leaves some Welsh mine with coal destined 
 ultimately for the British fleet. There must 
 necessarily be a belt of disputable territory be- 
 tween the extremes of certainty — lawful or 
 unlawful — ^in matters of this kind. 
 
 4. May such Non-Combatants he Killed. In- 
 directly ? — ^There is, however, another principle 
 on which, perhaps, one might be justified in 
 taking the life of that Kerry ploughman or that 
 knitting woman : indirectly, as it is phrased. 
 An airman drops a bomb on plough or cottage, 
 as is his right ; even though, with either, plough- 
 man or housewife should be blown to pieces. 
 Though sorry for their fate, duty to his country 
 requires the airman to proceed ; to bomb the 
 next cottage or plough, with whoever may, un- 
 fortunately, be near. You would not forbid a 
 commander to fire on a fortress, even though 
 some women or children should be killed therein. 
 
 I would not ; and yet I would not allow him 
 to fire on that plough, lest he should kill the 
 ploughman ; even though he might smash it to 
 his heart's content, were there no danger for the 
 
i8o QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 man. There must be some proportion, between 
 the good you attain and the evil you do in 
 attaining it ; as also between the chances or 
 danger of doing either. If an apple were so placed 
 as, if shot at, to engander merely a pane of glass, 
 even an unskilled archer might take the risk ; 
 but, on the head of a child, it needed all the 
 skiU of Tell to justify the bowman. You may run 
 down and kill a man to save your life, but not 
 to save a trifling sum of money. I cannot believe 
 the slaughter of a number of innocent London 
 citizens justified by damage done to one of its 
 railway termini : with the seat of war in Eastern 
 France. 
 
 5. Air-Raids and Long-Range Guns. — ^Those 
 who drop bombs on cities, from air-ships or 
 aeroplanes, are often not justified in doing so, 
 even though they aim at some arsenal or other 
 legitimate object of attack ; for lack of pro- 
 portion between the good and evil they are 
 likely to do. Allow that the action would be 
 right, if the airman was certain to hit the arsenal, 
 or even if he had anything like a good chance, of 
 success. Often, however, they are up so high 
 that, what with the rapidity of their motion, 
 there is little or no chance of their hitting any- 
 thing in particular beneath ; and it takes a good 
 deal to justify this, I do not say that it is never 
 justifiable ; if you suppose the good in view to 
 be very great indeed, and the non-combatant 
 population underneath sparse ; as it often is, near 
 the front lines, where the probability of injury 
 is proportionately small. 
 
REPRISALS i8i 
 
 The same applies to bombardment with long- 
 range guns, such as the Germans used against 
 Paris. It is out of question, manifestly, to direct 
 a shell from such great distances, — seventy miles 
 or more, — so that there would be any real hope 
 of injuring a combatant, or gun, or fort, or some 
 one who, as proximate co-operator in the war, 
 may be killed on that account. The most you 
 can do is hit the city somewhere ; with the 
 practical certainty of taking innocent lives. 
 Catholic ethics does not allow this, as I under- 
 stand the science. 
 
 6. Reprisals. — ^When London and other English 
 towns were being bombarded from the air, with 
 no little loss of life and limb to the non-combatant 
 citizens, a number of public men advocated re- 
 prisals in kind, as the only effectual way of bring- 
 ing the Germans to anything Hke a sense of the 
 wickedness of their conduct. The French, I 
 understand, threatened reprisals from the begin- 
 ning ; and carried out the threat. In time the 
 English followed ; claiming, as a rule, to direct 
 their bombs only at legitimate objects of attack ; 
 but, it is to be feared, letting them fall at times 
 from heights at which it was impossible to give 
 them any such direction. Others advocated 
 slaughter of non-combatants by way of reprisal 
 for the deHght that was shown, as reported, even 
 by the women of Germany, at the destruction 
 wrought by the air-raids on English cities. 
 
 Here, again, it is not for ethical science to 
 adjudicate on the fact — whether and how far 
 the Germans rejoiced in this way. Let us 
 
1 82 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 suppose they did. The real question is, how 
 proximately they co-operated thereby in the raids, 
 or in others that might follow. Was it so proxi- 
 mate as to justify the English in killing those 
 German women, as unjust aggressors ? 
 
 I find it hard to believe it ; so that, in my 
 opinion, neither the women of Germany nor the 
 non-combatant men, — ^nor, above aU, the chil- 
 dren, — could be killed on that score. Reprisal, 
 therefore, was unlawful, in so far as it meant 
 killing such people by any shot or bomb that 
 would not be otherwise justified. 
 
 It was hard, no doubt, on the French and 
 English ; but so it would be if one's home were 
 attacked and one's wife and children slain, by 
 an armed band of robbers. Kill them, in punish- 
 ment, if you can ; but it were barbarous, surely, 
 if, when you cannot reach the murderers them- 
 selves, you make it even with them by killing 
 their wives and children. This could not but 
 bring counter-reprisals ; and not only morality 
 but civilisation would collapse. 
 
 7. Prisoners, Spies, Traitors, Cowards, and 
 Deserters. — ^Enemy soldiers may be killed, as 
 aggressors ; but only when actually attacking or 
 preparing to attack ; provided also you cannot 
 save yourself by disarming and imprisoning 
 them. Captured and disarmed, their lives must 
 be spared. It is part of the natural law ; which, 
 on the supposition, — ^now universally admitted, — 
 that their attack was made in good faith, does 
 not allow one to put them to death in punish- 
 ment of an assault which was only materially 
 
SPIES, COWARDS, AND OTHERS 183 
 
 sinful. All Catholics, I fancy, would agree on 
 this. 
 
 But, then, what about spies ; who, when 
 disarmed, are shot unmercifully, though no one 
 deems their faith less good than that of the 
 soldiers in the open field f The leaders, also, in 
 the Irish revolution were shot, — as men in like 
 case would have been shot by any other govern- 
 ment, — for treason ; which, however they may 
 have been guilty objectively, they surely com- 
 mitted in good faith. 
 
 Then there are cowards. An officer in the 
 British Army, — a most humane and just man, — 
 told me of how by far the most repugnant of all 
 the duties he had to perform was to shoot with 
 his own revolver, in the trenches, men who were 
 writhing in a paroxysm of fear. Poor fellows, 
 surely they could not be formally responsible ! 
 Nor deserters ; at least in many cases : where 
 they do not leave an important post defenceless ; 
 nor sometimes even then. All these are shot 
 without scruple, in every army in the world. 
 Can it be that there are circumstances wherein 
 one may be justly punished with death even for 
 an offence committed in good faith ? 
 
 I find it hard to believe it ; though the uni- 
 versal practice is undeniable, and it is scarcely 
 less hard to ascribe this to undeveloped moral 
 sense. Yet I am disposed to regard this as the 
 more likely alternative ; and to hope for a time 
 when captured spies will be treated like other 
 prisoners of war ; honest revolutionists likewise ; 
 aijd when cowards and deserters will be so much 
 
1 84 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 pitied that they will not be put to death. We 
 have reached the stage when those who have been 
 convicted of political offences get special treat- 
 ment, w^en imprisoned ; for which I see no 
 reason but a recognition that offences such as 
 theirs are usually committed in good faith. 
 Governments were not always so tolerant. Is 
 it too much to expect them to show like toleration 
 to spies and others, who, as the governments 
 themselves would be the first to recognise, are 
 most Hkely to have acted with the best intentions ? 
 May we hope for a time when leaders in imsuc- 
 cessful revolution vsoU not be put to death ? 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 OF THE CONDUCT OF WAR : (z) OF BLOCKADE 
 
 I. t . ^THICS of Blockade. — From time im- 
 ji. memorial it has been held right to 
 blockade fortresses, allowing no supply 
 to enter, so that ultimately the garrison must 
 either starve or surrender ; and this even though 
 great numbers of non-combatants, including 
 women and children, would have to share their 
 fate. It is hard to believe that this was wrong : 
 securus judicat orbis terrarum. The Germans, who 
 complained latterly of the English blockade of 
 their country, had themselves no scruples about 
 starving Paris into capitulation ; nor, I take 
 it, would they have hesitated to repeat the pro- 
 cess in the late war, if they could. 
 
 It would, I have no doubt, be wrong to treat 
 an enemy town in that way, if it did not contain 
 sufficient combatants to justify the treatment. 
 These the besiegers are entitled to kill, as unjust 
 aggressors ; while, as regards others, — non-com- 
 batants, — ^they must share the fate of the garrison. 
 It is impossible to starve the aggressors, if you 
 allow supplies to pass in for those whom you may 
 not starve for anything they do themselves. 
 The garrison, no doubt, is forced, as a rule, to 
 185 
 
1 86 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 capitulate the sooner for the number of civilians 
 that have to be provided for, or that die within 
 the fortress for lack of provisions. It would be 
 at least naaterially unlawful to drive these in by 
 force, so that the place might have to capitulate 
 the sooner and surer ; making the deaths of these 
 non-combatants a means to secure the surrender 
 of the garrison. It has been done ; and, I have 
 no doubt, in good faith. Of that let God judge. 
 
 2. Naval Blockade. — " Blockading, in a naval 
 sense, is the prevention of the entrance or exit 
 of the enemy's ships at a particular port, or at 
 aU the ports of a stretch of coast, so as to bring 
 pressure to bear upon the inhabitants by ob- 
 structing their trade ; and it renders intercourse 
 with the enemy's ports unlawful on the part of 
 neutrals ". ^ The Atlantic coast of Germany was 
 cut oflE in this way during the late war. 
 
 German statesmen and publicists complained 
 of this ; as if England acted inhumanly in starving 
 their women and children. But few are disposed 
 to credit the Germans themselves with consciences 
 that would restrain them from doing the same 
 thing to England, if they could. They did it 
 to Paris without scruple, and very much more 
 eflEectuaUy ; apparently even with satisfaction. 
 
 3. Enemy Ships. — Difficulties in this con- 
 nection are raised during a naval blockade, when, 
 as has been said, intercourse with the enemy 
 ports is made unlawful for neutrals; who, as 
 some contend, have a right to sail the sea and 
 pass thereover anywhere. There has been, as 
 
 ^ Chamber}' s Encyclopedia, art. " Blockade," 
 
ENEMY MERCHANT SHIPS 187 
 
 is well known, no little controversy as to the 
 provisions of international law on the matter. 
 
 I leave such controversies to the jurists ; and 
 deal only with the question in so far as it is 
 governed by the natural law ; which, no doubt, 
 gives everyone a right of free passage over the 
 seas ; with certain limitations. 
 
 A belligerent, in the first place, can hardly 
 complain if the enemy treat him on sea as on 
 land, and as he treats the enemy. Those who 
 either fight or minister proximately to the com- 
 batants are killed, where possible, as unjust 
 aggressors ; whether on sea or on land. Warships, 
 therefore, and transports — ^used principally for the 
 carriage of fighting men and of munitions — are 
 sunk, just as soldiers are killed ; either, of course, 
 being merely captured and kept out of the way 
 of doing harm, when they surrender. 
 
 Merchant ships also are treated just like mer- 
 chandise found on land — captured or destroyed 
 by the enemy, where possible. The crews, 
 however, not being combatants nor ministering 
 proximately to the combat, may not be killed as 
 unjust aggressors ; any more than those who 
 work in the enemy's fields or ordinary factories — 
 not making munitions. You may take them 
 prisoners, but must spare their lives. That is, 
 if they do not resist, nor refuse to comply with 
 orders. Otherwise, they would be unjust ag- 
 gressors, if they resisted ; or would be liable to 
 punishment, if merely disobedient ; and could 
 be put to death on that account. 
 
 4. Neutrals Trading with Enemy Ports. — It is 
 
1 88 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 another question whether neutrals lose their 
 right of free passage over the sea, when they do 
 this to bring supplies to a port which a belU- 
 gerent enemy has blockaded. To assert a right 
 of passa^ to such a port is equivalent to denying 
 the belUgerent's right to blockade it ; a right — 
 that of blockade — ^which has been exercised by 
 almost every nation, in every age ; and which 
 seems unquestionable. 
 
 Accordingly, the right of free passage over the 
 sea is limited ; provided you do not thereby 
 make void the right of another — ^to blockade his 
 enemy. The limitation seems reasonable ; and 
 therefore part of the natural law. 
 
 5. Blockade Must be Effective. — Maritime 
 nations, however, while recognising this natural 
 right of naval blockade, have insisted that it 
 also is conditioned : that it does not hold where 
 the blockade is not eflFective, in the sense of ex- 
 cluding sea-borne goods from the blockaded 
 regions. Not that any blockade can be so effec- 
 tive as to exclude all passage whatsoever ; as even 
 from Paris, when besieged by the Germans, 
 Gambetta escaped in a balloon. During the 
 American civil war, also, the blockade of the 
 Atlantic coast of the South, which the North 
 held to be effective, was often run by English 
 ships. There must, however, be no passage 
 except by chance and stealth ; and none at all 
 without great risk of capture. 
 
 This also I regard as a provision of natural 
 law ; as otherwise Japan, for instance, could 
 blockade the Atlantic coast of the United States 
 
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 189 
 
 merely by declaring it blockaded, without having 
 one ship at command to see that the decree was 
 observed. It would be an arbitrary and un- 
 natural, and therefore illegitimate, restriction of 
 the rights, let us say, of Germany or England, to 
 trade with the United States. As well claim the 
 right to forbid neutrals to send provisions or 
 munitions to a city like Paris or BerHn, without 
 taking measures to secure the isolation of the 
 place. 
 
 6. Mutual Trade of Neutrals : Freedom of the 
 Seas. — During the late war there was no little 
 grumbling against England, on the part of the 
 United States, HoUand, and the Scandinavian 
 peoples, because the British stretched the blockade 
 of Germany so far as to prevent ships from 
 carrying goods freely from the United States to 
 the other countries just mentioned ; or, con- 
 versely, from these to the United States. It 
 was held that, however England might be 
 entitled to prevent them from trading directly 
 with Germany, she had no right to restrict their 
 trade with one another. 
 
 The British did not interfere in that way at 
 first ; fearing, possibly, to antagonise those 
 countries, and especially the United States, in 
 which there was a large and active pro -German 
 element. Nor was there any ground for the 
 complaint after the United States declared war ; 
 seeing that the Government of that country then 
 took care that not enough was shipped to Holland 
 and the Scandinavian kingdoms to enable them 
 to share with Germany. Before this happened, 
 
igo QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 however, and as the war went on, the British 
 thought that, despite their blockade, Germany- 
 was drawing supplies indirectly from the United 
 States through Holland and the Scandinavians ; 
 and they^ — the British, — claiming that this was an 
 infringement of their rights, insisted that these 
 countries should import from the United States 
 no more than was necessary for the use of their 
 own people. To secure this, the British fleet 
 stopped and searched ships plying between these 
 neutrals, and confiscated any supplies which they 
 regarded as destined for German use. This, 
 it was said, was denying neutrals the freedom of 
 the seas. 
 
 The British reply was obvious : that, whilst 
 they made no claim to interfere vnth the trade of 
 neutrals with one another, as long as the goods 
 transported did not pass to or from Germany ; 
 they did claim the right of interfering with 
 German trade, even when carried under neutral 
 flags. As regards the fact, — that such trade was 
 being carried on, — ^they maintained that the 
 evidence was amply sufficient to justify them in 
 searching those neutral ships ; after which, they 
 undertook to make compensation for loss accruing, 
 in all cases where the search showed that the 
 cargo was legitimate. 
 
 Two questions, accordingly, came into dispute ; 
 first, one of principle : whether a United States 
 merchant, though not allowed to trade with 
 Germany directly, might do so indirectly, through 
 a corresponding house in Holland or Sweden ; 
 and, secondly : whether, on the supposition that 
 
INDIRECT TRADING 191 
 
 such indirect trade was illegitimate, during the 
 blockade, there was sufficient evidence of the 
 fact of its existance to justify the British in 
 searching ships trading between those neutral 
 countries. 
 
 I am not concerned with the question of fact ; 
 as to which I believe the British contention well- 
 founded. That, however, is only the opinion of 
 a reader of newspapers — mostly of one colour. 
 The New York, Dutch, and Swedish merchants 
 may have been beHed ; or, if not on this 
 occasion, others of their type may be belied next 
 time ; when, if there is no reasonable ground for 
 suspecting them, it will be wrong to interfere 
 with their legitimate trade. 
 
 With the question of principle I am concerned 
 formally, as belonging to natural ethics ; nor 
 can I see how it may be answered reasonably 
 otherwise than in the negative. Hold, if you 
 can, that New York merchants were entitled to 
 trade directly with Hamburg ; so that any 
 blockade that prevented them was an interference 
 with their rights, and could not be tolerated by 
 the United States. But it is unreasonable to 
 hold that, while they might not trade with 
 Germany directly, they could do so through 
 Holland or Sweden. One is really as much 
 German trade as the other. 
 
 I have heard it argued that, though England 
 might reasonably complain of this, her remon- 
 strance should be addressed to the government of 
 the intermediary — Dutch or Swedish ; but that 
 the United States were not in fault, and could 
 
t92 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 rightly defend their ships from search. But, 
 surely, supposing the trade illegitimate, it would 
 be as much the fault of the exporting house in 
 New York as of the importers at Rotterdam or 
 Gottenburg, 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 OF THE CONDUCT OF WAR : (3) OF THE SUBMARINE 
 
 I. y^PART from Blockade. — In previous 
 /^ naval wars it had been the custom, 
 — if it was not eyen part of the 
 international law, — ^for warships, when they fell 
 in with a merchantman sailing under an enemy 
 flag, to command her to stop ; and, if she obeyed, 
 to board, and take her, if they could, to one of 
 their own ports ; or, failing this, to take the 
 crew and sink the ship and cargo. This supposed 
 the merchantman to be unable to defend herself ; 
 as would usually be the case, if the warship were 
 a surface craft. 
 
 Submarines, however, when on the surface, 
 being easily sunk even by light guns, were in no 
 position to approach and board merchantmen, 
 so as to take their crews ; as the merchantmen 
 came to be armed for defence, and could sink a 
 submarine when on the surface. Hence the 
 Germans, — ^whose surface warships were all swept 
 off the open seas, where they could only send 
 submarines, — ^contended that these required a 
 change in the customs or laws of war ; so that, 
 as they could not safely approach a merchantman, 
 to secure her crew and passengers, if any ; they 
 13 193 
 
194 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 might torpedo her without warning, leaviflg 
 crew and passengers to save themselves by their 
 boats, as best they could. In case the merchant- 
 man w%? unarmed, or that, for any reason, the 
 submarine could speak her safely, her crew and 
 passengers would be taken prisoners, or told to 
 leave in their boats, before the ship was sunk. 
 
 As against this, the British held that it was 
 wrong to fire on non-combatants ; or, what was 
 quite as bad for them, to make them betake them- 
 selves to small, open boats, often in a wild sea, 
 when it was almost impossible to launch such 
 craft safely from a lofty ship ; and when, even 
 though launched in safety, the human freight 
 they bore could have Uttle hope of reaching land. 
 You may not, the British argued, kill such non- 
 combatants by shooting them ; but you kill 
 them as surely by torpedoing their ship without 
 warning, or even by ordering them into boats ; 
 unless, indeed, the sea were calm and they were 
 not far from land. 
 
 Here, again, I think, the conscience of the 
 civilised world wiU support the English con- 
 tention. For it is a question of killing those who, 
 though belonging to an enemy country, are not 
 guilty of any such act of aggression, or proximate 
 co-operation with aggression, as would deprive 
 them of the right to life. We have seen^ that 
 you may not shoot a ploughman, on the ground 
 that he belongs to a hostile nation and helps 
 to produce the food whereby it is enabled to 
 attack you ; nor may you bomb his cottage and 
 * Sufra, Part ii., Ch. iv.. Sec. 2. 
 
SUBMARINE AND MERCHANTMEN 195 
 
 slay his wife and children, on the ground that 
 they co-operate in their way. There must be 
 a certain proximity and degree of co-operation, of 
 justify you in taking their lives. The same 
 principle applies here, with regard to merchant 
 seamen ; whom you must not shoot or drown, 
 tmless the freight they carry should be closely 
 connected with some attack on yourself ; to the 
 success of which, moreover, it should contribute 
 in no small measure. It is not wrong to fire on 
 a transport that carries soldiers, or munitions, 
 to the field ; just as one may bomb a railway 
 train that brings supplies to the trenches. 
 
 You will object, perhaps, that it is only the 
 ship which you attack directly ; and that it is 
 indirectly, — as being with the ship, — crew and 
 passengers are killed. But it makes little matter. 
 Tcr" justify one in sinking a ship in which there 
 are innocent lives, she must be not only co- 
 operating in the war, but doing so, at the time, 
 proximately and with considerable efficacy ; and 
 the more innocent Hves she carries, the closer 
 and more efficacious must her co-operation be. 
 You may not sink a fishing boat and drown her 
 crew, merely because they supply herring to an 
 enemy town wherein shells are made ; any more 
 than you can throw at a ploughman's horses 
 a bomb which is liable to kiU the driver as well. 
 
 2. Cases in Point : Fishing Boats and Hospital 
 Ships. — ^Here, again, there are cases wherein the 
 ethical rule is plain ; as also a disputed area. I 
 should deem it plainly opposed to the natural 
 law to sink fishing boats engaged in their humble 
 
196 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 business ; as also hospital ships, whereon are 
 wounded soldiers. Some of these, it is true, 
 may recover and take the field again ; but just 
 now th^ are non-combatants ; and the ship on 
 which they are, though, no doubt, co-operating 
 in the war, does not co-operate so closely and 
 efficiently as to justify the enemy in sinking her 
 v/hile bearing their innocent Uves. 
 
 The Germans, I fancy, admitted this, when 
 they justified their sinking of hospital ships on 
 the ground that they were used as transports — 
 for combatants and munitions. While, as regards 
 fishing boats, they would contend, I suppose, 
 that the British fleet drew to no small extent 
 on them and their crews. As if you could bomb 
 an open town merely because it contained a 
 number of men who might be called to the 
 colours. 
 
 AU merchantmen, it seems to me, come under 
 the same rule, as long as they serve merely to 
 carry food and such necessaries to non-com- 
 batants at home ; and do not act as transports, 
 to bring reinforcements, of troops or munitions, 
 to the armies in the field. Such ships are Hke 
 the ordinary instruments of civihan work on 
 land — ^the plough, railway train, mUl, — ^which, 
 as we have seen, may not be bombed with loss 
 of human life. . 
 
 When a merchantman, — belonging to a belli- 
 gerent, — carries troops or munitions of war 
 together with ordinary merchandise and civihan 
 passengers, the ethics of the case will not always 
 be so clear. To my mind, it varies — ^with the 
 
"LUSITANIA" AND "LEINSTER" 197 
 
 proportion of civilian to military passengers, and 
 of ordinary freight to munitions of war; as 
 also with the greater or less degree of proximity 
 wherewith the munitions carried may contribute 
 to the enemy's success. As no one, I fancy, 
 would blame a German warship for sinking a 
 transport that was carrying troops or munitions 
 from Portsmouth to France, even though a few 
 civilians happened to be on board ; so, I think, 
 no one would exempt them from blame if they 
 fired on an ordinary passenger ship or collier, 
 even though it might be conveying a soldier or 
 two, home on furlough, or a few cylinders of 
 steel for Armstrong's or Woolwich. That is, on 
 the supposition that there is no blockade. 
 
 3. The " Lusitania " and the " Leinster ". — 
 The sinking of these two ships, — and especially 
 of the former, — ^with the loss of so many innocent 
 Hves, horrified the world ; including those 
 who, — even in Ireland, — ^refused to see that those 
 who torpedoed them committed any fault. This 
 apart altogether from any right accruing from the 
 attempted German blockade. The " Lusitania ", 
 it was said, carried shells, and possibly guns, for 
 the Allied armies in France ; while a number of 
 soldiers were among the passengers on the 
 "Leinster". By concealing, or striving to 
 conceal, these facts, the British Government, it 
 was said, recognised that they were likely to 
 raise doubts as to whether there was not cause 
 sufficient to justify the destruction of the vessels. 
 
 I agree that such an effort at concealment, if 
 true, would show lack of conviction of some 
 
198 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 kind ; though, possibly, lack of faith in the public 
 conscience — -whether, that is, it might not be 
 aflEected by excuses or paUiations based on the 
 facts concealed. Catholics do not admit lack 
 of conviction as to the truths of their faith, when 
 they forbid publication of arguments that might 
 tend to disturb it. With all this I am not much 
 concerned ; but only with this question of 
 principle : whether ships engaged in ordinary 
 commerce, may be destroyed, with loss of hun- 
 dreds of civilian lives, merely because, in addition 
 to civilians and common merchandise, they carry 
 soldiers or munitions destined ultimately for the 
 front. 
 
 I do not say that it is wrong absolutely — so that 
 it could in no case be justified. If, indeed, the 
 result of the war, or even of some considerable 
 military operation, depended on the destruction 
 of that consignment of troops or munitions, I 
 should not blame an enemy commander for 
 destroying them, even though, with them, others 
 — non-combatants — ^were to lose their lives. As, 
 however, in the cases before us, of the " Lusi- 
 tania " and the " Leinster ", so great a number 
 of innocent lives were lost, without appreciably 
 diminishing the force of the assault on Germany, 
 I find it hard to believe the kifling of so many 
 innocent people justified by a good result so 
 paltry. This, again, apart from any complications 
 that may arise from the question of blockade. 
 
 Neither vessel, it must be remembered, was 
 a warship or piilitary transport. Both were 
 plying in the ordinary way of merchantiBsen ; 
 
GERMAN BLOCKADE 199 
 
 being used, — ^if, indeed, they were so used, — 
 either by the British Government or those who 
 supplied it, for purposes ultimately connected 
 with the war. If it was grain or tinned meat 
 that was being carried, for the ordinary public 
 as well as for the army ; or if the ships were sunk 
 because they carried a number of men, hitherto 
 unenlisted, who might, later on, be drafted to 
 the colours; few, I fancy, would justify the 
 sinking — apart from the rights of blockade. 
 Were the shells in the " Lusitania ", or the 
 soldiers in the " Leinster ", of sufficient impor- 
 tance to justify, by their destruction, that of the 
 hundreds of innocent folk who perished with 
 them ; travelling, not on any warship, but on 
 vessels engaged in the ordinary passenger trade ? 
 I do not believe the justification sufficient. 
 
 4. The German Blockade. — It was admitted by 
 all that the German fleet had the same right to 
 blockade England and France as England had to 
 blockade Germany ; but the AUies contended 
 (i) that the German blockade was null and void, 
 as being substantially inefficient ; and (2) that, 
 however efficient it might become, it could never 
 be justifiable to sink without warning, or other- 
 wise expose to peril of life, those who might be 
 running the blockade, even illegitimately. That 
 is, of course, if they did not resist the block- 
 aders, nor try to escape when called on to 
 surrender. 
 
 (i) It must, I fancy, be admitted now, even 
 by the Germans, that their blockade was ineffi- 
 cient. Not only did they not prevent a constant 
 
200 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 mighty stream of supplies and reinforcements 
 from crossing the English Channel ; but the 
 British were ^ble to supply and reinforce armies 
 in Greece, Palestine, and Mesopotamia ; whUe, 
 towards 'the end of the war, great bodies of 
 troops, with plentiful supplies of aU kinds, came 
 across the Atlantic. In English ports, moreover, 
 general merchandise was unloaded every week in 
 hundreds of cargoes. A blockade that could not 
 prevent this was not efficient in any sense. And 
 bear in mind, moreover, that if the contention 
 holds that is here advanced, the rights accruing 
 from blockade are conditioned by efficiency even 
 under the natural law. 
 
 (2) The second part of the British conten- 
 tion, — ^that vessels such as submarines may not 
 sink merchantmen without warning, and without 
 allowing means of escape to the crews and 
 passengers, — is more open to dispute. For the 
 English view it is urged that blockade-running, 
 though illegitimate, is not so grave a disorder 
 as fighting with lethal weapons ; for which 
 reason those who merely run a blockade may 
 not, like combatant soldiers, be killed as unjust 
 aggressors. To which the answer, — a not unfair 
 one, — ^is that it might be so if the blockade- 
 runner was not armed for defence against sub- 
 marines, by sinking them. 
 
 It vsdU have to be admitted, I think, that a 
 blockade may be legitimately conducted by 
 submarines sinking at sight, provided that in this 
 way they can make the blockade substantially 
 efficient. 
 
SUCCESSIVE EFFICIENCY 201 
 
 5. The " Lusitania " and " Leinster " again. — 
 Accordingly, the true basis of complaint against 
 the German navy is, not that they sank such 
 ships as these, — ^which they could have done 
 legitimately, had their blockade been efficient, — ■ 
 but that they sank them, with immense loss of 
 innocent Hves, while the vessels were on what 
 should have been to them a free passage over 
 sea, with liability, at the most, to capture. Had 
 there been an efficient blockade, either the passage 
 would not have been attempted, or, if attempted, 
 those who dared it would be responsible for the 
 loss. Travelling as they were, in the exercise 
 of their right, the blame of their death falls on 
 those who attacked them. 
 
 6. Successive Efficiency. — It will be said, pro- 
 bably, that a submarine blockade Hke that of the 
 Germans, though inefficacious at any one time, may 
 be truly efficient in ultimately sinking all 
 merchantmen belonging to the blockaded 
 country ; as also those of neutrals who trade 
 therewith ; as Germany would have done in the 
 late war, had she had in the early days a sufficient 
 number of submarines. If she had them, she 
 would have been justified in sinking at sight, 
 even though, for two or three years or more, she 
 might not have prevented a diminishing number 
 of ships from making and leaving the ports of 
 England. And in the next war, — ^when, possibly, 
 she may have provided submarines in sufficient 
 number, not to sweep the seas of commerce with 
 England at once ; but to do it in one, two, 
 or more years, — she will be justified in proclaiming 
 
202 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 sueh a blockade and enforcing it by sinking at 
 sigjxt. As, conversely, England will be entitled 
 to do with Germany or the United States. All, 
 o£ course, on the smpposition that submarine 
 blockadfe is not regulated meanwhile by inter- 
 national law. 
 
 I ha,ve the greatest doubts as to whether such 
 a blockade, even though sure to prove efficacious 
 ultimately, justifies a belligerent in killing for 
 violation of it, before it has become efiective. 
 It seems to me that, till it has become effective 
 actudiy, the sea is open, with a right of way for 
 neutral vessels ; who. would suffer injury if sunk 
 for exerci&ing that right. As an illustration in 
 point, it may be argued that a German airman 
 could not legitimately drop bombs on a waggon 
 carrying food into Paris, on the ground that, 
 though the German army has not yet blockaded 
 that city, theyvwiU have it completely surrounded 
 by next year or the year after. Until it has been 
 cut ofE actually, non-combatants from the 
 country round, as weU as neutrals from Spain or 
 Switzerland, are within their right in supplying 
 the city with, food. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 OF SOME GONSEQUENGES OF WAR 
 
 I. ^yOCIALIS'T Formula. — Proposals were 
 i y made repeatedly, during the war, for 
 a conference of non-combatants, — 
 Socialists, for the most part,— from both sides, 
 at Stockholm or some other neutral city ; where 
 they might possibly agree on terms of peace ; 
 which, then, by force of moral persuasion, or 
 even by strikes,, would be imposed on the belli- 
 gerent governments. There is some reason to 
 regard the secret spBings of this campaign as 
 having been worked from Germany; while, in 
 the open, the lead was taken by the Socialists 
 of Russia, who propounded the formula : No 
 annexations, no penal clauses in the peace treaty, 
 and no indemnities. 
 
 This cry was so often repeated, — ^in so many 
 speeches and newspaper articles, — ^that it came 
 to be regairded as a kind of axiom ; as if the 
 natural law forbade annexation, puoaishment, or 
 indemnity, it was said to be the one way to 
 prevent future wars ; and so commended itself 
 to a certain ekss of humanitarians, whose eyes 
 are " tender over drowniaig flies " : product 
 char actesistic of a eiviBsatkni growing e£ete. 
 
 203 
 
204 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 2. Penalties ani Indemnities. — ^When your 
 purse has been stolen, or your dwelling burnt, 
 it is, no doubt, the better way to let the thief or 
 burner have his freedom, instead of reporting 
 him to the police. It is better, that is, for 
 individuals, here and there ; but I hope we are 
 not bound to hold that it would be best also for 
 society, constituted as it is, if the practice were 
 made obligatory. Few, I suspect, would care 
 to belong to a city or State wherein were no 
 police ; not because there was nothing for them 
 to do, but because people would not have them 
 do it ; deeming it necessary to let rogues and 
 malefactors of aU kinds have their way. 
 
 For the world, as it is, the safe rule is to insist 
 on rights ; not too rigidly, if you will ; but yet 
 to insist, so as to restrain injustice. If some one 
 has stolen your property, make him restore it ; 
 should he have injured or destroyed it, require 
 him to make good the damage. That is found, 
 in practice, to be the most e£fectual way to 
 preserve equal rights in this very imperfect 
 world. 
 
 And as it is with individuals, so with nations ; 
 which experience, or history, shows to have a 
 tendency to mischief, that is best kept in check 
 by a consciousness, realised by experience, that 
 damage caused unjustly will have to be made 
 good. The cry now is to make the world safe 
 for democracy ; which can hardly be hoped for 
 if, when tempted to attack, nations feel that, in 
 case they fail, they will not be made amenable. 
 High-minded folk, I know, are compelled by their 
 
PENALTIES JUSTIFIED 205 
 
 very nobility to be all the more generous in such 
 circumstances ; and perhaps democracies may 
 come to that in time. One does not like, how- 
 ever, to trust them at the present stage of their 
 development. Did not German Socialists vote 
 supplies for the attack on Belgium ? They may 
 have more hesitation next time, if they find that 
 the last raid, not only did not pay, but was 
 expensive. 
 
 I refrain from emphasising the righteousness 
 of punishment for the crime of unjust war, 
 merely as punishment, and apart from any 
 notion of reparation or of prevention of the same 
 offence in future ; though punishment, regarded 
 purely as such, is justified by the Catholic tradition 
 of ethics. The punishment of sin, we hold, will 
 last for ever : therefore after it can possibly 
 act as a preventive. 
 
 If I abstain from emphasising this in relation 
 to war, it is because modern Liberalism, in- 
 fluenced in this country largely by J. S. Mill, 
 justifies punishment, in the case of man as of 
 animals, solely on grounds of its preventive value. 
 Let it be so ; provided the punishment is allowed, 
 and not unduly diminished, to the prejudice of 
 the future. 
 
 3. Unjust War Waged in Good Faith: — It is a 
 principle of commutative justice, as understood 
 in Catholic schools, that one is not bound to 
 repair any damage one may have done in 
 good faith, however unjust it may have been 
 objectively ; until, at least, one has been called 
 upon to make^ood, by a judge or other superior 
 
2o6 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 holding supreme domnnon. Nations, however, 
 are subject to no such superior ; while few, I 
 take it, would now be disposed to question the 
 fact that wars, hawevex unjust objectively, are 
 declared and conducted in good faith, as a rule. 
 So that, unless where bad faith is admitted, — 
 "as, perhaps, in the case of the German invasion of 
 Belgium, — ^there does not seem to be any repara- 
 tion due, or any claim for indemnity. 
 
 It would be a satisfactory r^ly to this if we 
 could hold, with some able moralists, that a 
 fault which is merely juridical, — supposing 
 objective injustice or negligence merely, without 
 bad faith, — ^is sufficient to found a claim to 
 restitution. Such, however, is not the common 
 opinion. 
 
 Perhaips we could fall back on Mill's view ; 
 that for such damage, wrought in good faith, 
 reparation may be exacted, not as punishment, 
 for an offence completely past, but in the way of 
 prevention ; as one beats a -dog or horse, to 
 supply a motive for better conduct next time. 
 Such penalties are exacted fro^a children and 
 irrational animals, even though the faults we 
 find in them, and which we want them to avoid 
 in future, have been committed in good faith. 
 Why not deal with nations in the same way ? 
 They do not belong ta us, no doubt ; but they 
 are supposed to have injured us, and to be capable 
 of d^ing so again. May not this give us a r^ht 
 to supply them with sufficient motives not to 
 interfere next time with our rights ? 
 
 May not nature, moreover, which sanctions 
 
ANNEXATION 207 
 
 prescription hetweea nations, allow this right of 
 pmishment for juridical offences, as necessary 
 for self-protection ? 
 
 4. Annexations. — From the dawn of histoiyit 
 has been found that, when a nation has been 
 conquered in war, the reparation or penalty- 
 exacted by the victor has been, in most cases, 
 annexation of the whole or part of the territory 
 of the vanquished. This, of course, was very 
 often carried to excess, as a penalty, even where 
 the victor nation had suffered injuiy ; as was not 
 always the case. But if we suppose the war just 
 on their part, so that they had a right to indemnity, 
 it is hard to deny that there may be cases wherein 
 the only possible mode of obtaining it is to take 
 over territory from the conquered. The 
 Catholic schools have always regarded this as 
 legitimate. 
 
 Our predecessors went even so far as to hold 
 that, in punishment of unjust war, the people 
 of a nation might be reduced to slavery. And 
 though we should not now authorise slavery, as 
 found among the ancients, we allow it in the 
 form in which it appears so commonly among 
 ourselves — ■economic subjection, whereby people 
 have to work, in straits, to supply good things 
 for others. Payment of any debt may mean 
 this, for individuals as well as nations. 
 
 5. Annexation and Nationality. — It is now 
 contended, I understand, that reparation, how- 
 ever justly demanded, may in no case go so far 
 as to interfere with nationhood : must, that is, 
 always allow peoples of separate stock to govera 
 
2o8 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 themselves, in complete independence ; or, at 
 least, to remain associated with others of_the 
 same race, as parts of a self-ruling nation. 
 
 This, no doubt, is desirable ; so that if a 
 people* can pay whatever indenmity may be 
 due of them, without calling on anything but 
 the chattels at their disposal, they should be 
 allowed to pay in that way, remaining personally 
 independent. But if, as may be, they have not 
 wherewith to pay, apart from the land and 
 what is fixed to the land ; and if, as also may be, 
 they do not want to give these, preferring to 
 hold them even under the rule of a conqueror ; 
 who shall say that deprivation of national self- 
 government would not be justified ? At the 
 time of the Cromwellian settlement in Ireland, 
 many of those who were deprived of estates got 
 an option of land in Connaught, but would have 
 preferred to stay in their old homes, even as 
 tenants of the new proprietors. They would, 
 of course, have been much more willing to 
 remain, if allowed to own the soil. Had the 
 war been just on^he part of Cromwell, — as is 
 conceivable, — ^who shall say that he would not 
 have been entitled to annex these estates, even 
 though the conquered owners were Gaels and 
 the conquerors Anglo-Saxon ? Had the White 
 Man no right to annex the territories of the 
 American Indians, or of the Australian Bush- 
 men ; and with the territories to reduce to 
 subjection Indians and Bushmen themselves ? 
 That is, on the supposition that the wars between 
 these races were just on the part of the Whites. 
 
TEACHING OF DE LUGO 209 
 
 I make bold to assert that the whole trend of 
 the tradition of Catholic ethics is in favour of 
 allowing annexation of people vanquished in 
 just war ; even though previously independent 
 and of different stock from their conquerors. The 
 tradition goes even further ; allowing such a 
 nation, vanquished in just war, to be reduced 
 to slavery. Where any number of authorities 
 might be quoted, I must confine myself to this, 
 from Cardinal De Lugo ; who, amongst the 
 grounds of slavery, mentions in the first place 
 the right of war. He proceeds : — " This title 
 extends even to infants captured in war ; who, 
 though they may not be justly kiUed, may be 
 made slaves. For I take it, from the treatise 
 on Laws, that penalties in external goods of 
 fortune may be inflicted on people even for the 
 crimes of those to whom they belong. Children 
 of heretics, for instance, or of those who have 
 been guilty of high treason, suffer infamy, by 
 reason of their parents' crime. A conqueror, 
 therefore, may punish an enemy nation that he 
 has conquered, by reducing it to slavery ; 
 punishing it even in the infants that belong to 
 it. For as he may despoil siach infants of their 
 goods, as being part of the enemy nation, so he 
 may deprive them of liberty".^ 
 
 I know that this would be allowed no longer ; 
 and that, in so far, I myself recognise the need 
 of some modification of the tradition. One 
 should not, however, carry such reforms too far ; 
 as do those SociaUsts who contend, apparently, 
 ' De lustitia et lure, Disp. vi., n. 12. 
 
210 QUESTIONS OF WAR 
 
 that nations should suffer no penalties whatever, 
 even though they may have been waging an 
 unjust war. If there is to be punishment, let 
 it be adequate ; as, it seems to me, it wiU not 
 be, in certain cases, unless the whole or part of 
 the criminal republic, though of different stock, 
 is made subject to the people whom they have 
 injured. It is not desirable ; but it may be 
 necessary, to prevent future aggression. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 OF IRELAND SINCE THE UNION ; AND OF THE PROSPERITY 
 OF HOLLAND, DENMARK, AND OTHER SMALL NATIONS 
 
 I. j^UTHOR'S Apology. — ^In criticism of what has 
 yj been said in Part I., as to the benefits accruing 
 to Ireland from union with Great Britain, 
 it will be said, I expect, that, whatever the advantage 
 to the predominant partner, Ireland suffers. In proof 
 of which critics point to her ever diminishing popula- 
 tion and disappearing industries. 
 
 The argument proves, as it seems to me, that there 
 has been and is something wrong ; but I do not see 
 that it can be no other than the Union. May it not be 
 that the Union never got a fair chance ; and that the 
 way to such prosperity as is possible for people with our 
 resources, lies, not in breaking away from England alto- 
 gether and setting nip a fully independent republic, but 
 in modifying the terms of Union, and amending our own 
 ways ? Perhaps I should not touch on a question that 
 does not belong to ethics so much as to politics or business 
 of some kind ; but may one not criticise, in this 
 Appendix, some of the arguments in current use ? 
 
 2. Diminishing Popuiation. — ^In fairness to the Act of 
 Union it should be said, — though, in this connection, it 
 is heard rawly, — that for nearly half a century after it 
 was passed the population of Ireland grew steadily. It 
 was about 4,500,000 in 1800, and had risen to 8,500,000 in 
 1846 ; when it began to decline. Some new cause must 
 
212 APPENDIX 
 
 have come into play when the fall began ; which it is 
 for criticism to determine. 
 
 There was, of course, the potato blight, which 
 occasioned the famine ; but, as famine ceased, though 
 the blight has continued, I doubt whether this is the 
 only or main cause of the decline of population. Besides 
 those who died, we lost a couple of millions by emigra- 
 tion, in the black days ; but it was not the potato blight 
 that drove them away. 
 
 The year 1846 was remarkable for another event — ^the 
 repeal of the Corn Laws ; in itself more revolutionary 
 than the famine, and symbol of a still greater revolution — 
 that in trade. Steam had begun to show its power, in 
 mine, mill, and road ; producing goods in rapidly 
 increasing quantities, and transporting them with ever- 
 growing facihty over land and sea. With the result 
 that the urban population of England rapidly increased ; 
 well paid, and clamouring to be well fed. 
 
 Now the food for which they clamoured was 
 mainly corn, meat, and butter; and corn just then, 
 began to be produced in abundance oversea. It was 
 then, remember, theMississippi valley was being reduced 
 to cultivation; itself a revolution and cause of revolu- 
 tions. It grew cereals ; but did not give meat, just 
 yet. Russia also had plenty of corn ready to pour into 
 the English markets,*and needing only ships to carry it ; 
 which steam supplied. This abundance poured into 
 England, at a low price, when the Corn Laws were 
 repealed ; vrith the result that growing corn ceased to 
 pay in these islands. 
 
 Ireland, however, had been living by growing corn : 
 living and paying rent thereby. How were we to meet 
 this competition ? So far no meat came, nor butter ; 
 and people fooHshly hoped that these products could 
 never come ; so landlords, then all-powerful in Ireland, 
 resolved to turn their fields into pasture and produce 
 
APPENDIX 213 
 
 meat. This led to consolidation of holdings ; with 
 evictions from the rich lands ; and something of the same 
 kind in poorer soils, for the production of butter ; the 
 whole coming at a time when land was to be had for 
 nothing in the Mississippi valley, gold could be picked 
 up hy Californian rivers, and one could get fabulous 
 wages without going beyond New York. Low prices 
 at home and abundance oversea, — this, not the potato 
 blight, was the true cause of the stream of emigration 
 that set out then from the shores of Ireland. 
 
 That revolution took place in Britain which profited 
 by the Union, as well as in Ireland ; with the single 
 difference, that whereas British agricultural labourers 
 got well-paid work at home, in the factories, while 
 British farmers got a good market near them, the Irish 
 had to go and send their produce oversea. 
 
 It was not the Union that caused either emigration or 
 immigration ; but the development of steam-power, with 
 the opening up of so much new terrritory. Had we in 
 Ireland been our own masters, we should have had to face 
 the same problem, caused by the loss of our market for 
 grain ; and we should probably have found some more 
 or less effectual remedy long before now. 
 
 It is the main argument for Home Rule ; that, as the 
 United Kingdom has been managed hitherto, by a single 
 common Parliament at Westminster, Ireland did not 
 get fair play. She should have had some power to meet 
 emergencies such as we have been considering ; power 
 within herself, since the predominant partner was careless, 
 thinking there was no emergency at all. 
 
 I do not see how it would have helped if we had been 
 allowed to put a tariff on imported corn ; unless it were 
 put on corn imported into Great Britain, where our 
 market had been ; and, if we were completely inde- 
 pendent, we could hardly expect to be allowed that. 
 
 In a country where agriculture was becoming un- 
 
214 APPENDIX 
 
 economic, as a result of competition, rents should have 
 been reduced ; and the landlords should not have been 
 allowed to maintain the old, impossible burthen, by 
 turning their estates into ranches, to the detriment of 
 the comnion weal. In this way Ireland might, possibly, 
 have been able to maintain her staple industry ; and if, 
 moreover. Imperial taxation had been made more 
 equitable, and she had been allowed control of her local 
 resources, she might have assisted the farmers in many 
 ways ; besides improving her fisheries ; when both, no 
 doubt, would have reacted on centres of manufacture. 
 It has to be proved that much cannot be done in this 
 way, even though we remain firmty and loyally united to 
 Great Britain ; taking advantage of our proximity to her 
 markets, and doing our part to sustain and enlarge them. 
 It could, I fancy, be proved more easily that much has 
 been done, since the beginning of the Land Movement. 
 
 3. Vanishing Industries. — ^The Union, I submit, is 
 still less to blame for the closing down of mills than for 
 the decline of agriculture ; though here also the evil 
 would have been met, to some extent, if not wholly, 
 had there been less centralisation — ^had we been allowed 
 local self-government. Certain facts, I fear, are 
 commonly lost sight of, that should be borne in mind. 
 
 Belfast, in the first place, flourished mightily under the 
 Union ; without any special favour that I can discover. 
 In 1800, when the Act was passed, the population of 
 that city was but 20,000 ; now it is 400,000. It grew 
 like any of the great towns of England, and fay the opera- 
 tion of the same causes — application of the new energy, 
 of coal, through the newest and best machinery : 
 spinning-]' enny, power-loom, and the rest. 
 
 The satae holds of the other towns of Ulster, where 
 factories rose and prospered : everywhere coal working 
 through the newest and best type of machine. 
 
 In the rest of Ireland, I submit, it was different ; or 
 
APPENDIX 215 
 
 else, where it was not different, there, too, was success. 
 In Kilkenny, for instance, which I know best, there had 
 been considerable manufacture of woollens, starch, and 
 leather ; but the manufacturers continued to use old- 
 world machines and methods ; with the result that they 
 were beaten in competition. The wooUen miUs, more- 
 over, depended whoUy on the water-power of the Nore ; 
 which, of a diy season, may be little inore than a trickle, 
 for weeks at a time. Ten miles away, at Castlecomer, 
 they had some of the finest steam-coal in the world ; 
 but they lacked the brains, or the spirit, to turn it to 
 account. Is it any wonder they went down ? 
 
 One man of some business capacity bought the 
 Ormonde MiUs there, — a dying concern, with a splendid 
 position, — installed some new machinery, and made it a 
 success : nothing, of course, to what it might have been 
 made. I saw it, after his death, managed by his daughter ; 
 who, girl as she was, improved on her father's position ; 
 thereby showing what could be done under the Union. 
 The Mahonys and the Moroghs, in or near Cork, built up 
 flourishing woollen mills, while those of Kilkenny were 
 falling into decay. 
 
 So of our flour mills, the ruin of which is so often 
 ascribed to the Union, while the true source of rot 
 is to be found elsewhere. This industry, too, was 
 revolutionised, by the introduction of the roller ; with 
 the result that those who continued to use stones could 
 not compete. Where the new method was adopted, 
 it made fortunes ; even in Ireland, under the Union. 
 The Bolands succeeded in Dublin, wonderfully ; Mosses, 
 Pilsworths, Brownes, in Co. Kilkenny; Shackletons, 
 Odiums, and others, in the Midlands; Hallinans, 
 Russells, Furlongs,- Goings and Smiths, in the South; 
 MacCanns, Pollexfens, elsewhere. Many of these did 
 not even use steam-power; though, where this was 
 adopted, as by the Bolands, the success was greatest. 
 
2i6 APPENDIX 
 
 When anyone tells me that the Union is responsible 
 for the non-development, and even the decay, of Irish 
 industries, I am wont to ask him, please, to tell me what 
 law was passed, or not passed, by the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment, to teep the Suir from being as great a centre of 
 industry as the Lagan ; and I never hear of any. There 
 — in the Suir — ^we have a noble river ; tidal from the 
 Tower of Hook to Carrick — a stretch of thirty miles or 
 more ; with the Barrow running northwards, no less fine 
 and tidal, for twelve other miles. The two are as near the 
 coal and iron of Wales as is Belfast to those of Scotland : 
 why is not Waterford another Belfast ? Why did the 
 Vulcan Foundry, the Graving Dock, and the glass industry 
 fail ? Because, I suppose, they were not dry-nursed 
 from the public exchequer : as if Harland and Wolfe's, 
 or Goodbody's Jute works, or Jacob's biscuit factory, 
 were fostered in that way. 
 
 We had at one time, at Portlaw, a cotton mill, in 
 which I myself saw 2,500 hands at work ; and there was 
 a branch at Carrick. They were built by the Malcomsons, 
 — not an Irish name, — ^who prospered greatly, even 
 under the Union; till they, too, failed; having, I 
 suppose, become more Irish than the Irish. Their 
 failure, any way, was not due to the Union, under which 
 they had flourished; and they failed in Britain no less 
 than on the Suir. 
 
 The fact is, I fear, that we Gaels have not the business 
 turn of mind, and so do not build factories even now, 
 anywhere : on the banks of Hudson or Mississippi any 
 more than on Suir or Liffey. We never built them — 
 never were a commercial people. Mrs. Green, I know, 
 has made a brave attempt to show the contrary; but 
 the fact that our towns owe their origin to the Gall, — 
 Dane or Norman-English ; — that alone is decisive. 
 
 Even when Danes and Normans had shown us how 
 and where to bui-d and fortify cities, and to make use of 
 
APPENDIX 217 
 
 river-mouths, and when commerce had begun to develop, 
 very little of it, I fear, was in the hands of the Gael. 
 Hence their weakness, as compared with the strangers : 
 depending for arms on doles from France, and Spain and 
 " the Royal Pope." A race that despises trade, and 
 will not fight for it, is pretty sure to be dependent. 
 
 We hoped that a new era had dawned : that our 
 people were beginning to feel their way to real inde- 
 pendence, through commerce. But while the Great 
 Powers of the world were in death-grips, bleeding from 
 every vein in the battle for trade ; we looked on, pluming 
 ourselves on the " spirit " that would not aUow us to 
 mix in such a squabble. We saw our only customer 
 straitened and in imminent danger of being bled white ; 
 and we folded our arms, as if the result were no concern , 
 of ours ; — those of us who did not rejoice in the wounds 
 she received, and in the prospect of her approaching 
 impoverishment. With the result that, now that she 
 has saved her trade and ours, — if, indeed, she has saved 
 it, — we go hat in hand to Mr. Wilson. And we call 
 this self-reliance ! 
 
 4. Holland, Switzerland, and Scandinavia. — ^When I 
 say this, I am often told to look at Holland, Switzerland, 
 and the Scandinavian kingdoms, and compare their lot 
 with that of Belgium. Which would I have the Irish 
 people share ? Do not Holland and Denmark trade with 
 England ? Yet no one reproaches them, as fools or 
 cowards, for not sharing her battle. What becomes them 
 and suits their interests so well, should be good enough 
 for us. 
 
 I am not asked to look at Wales or Scotland ; who 
 thought it their duty, and worth their while, to pour out 
 treasure and blood to help England keep the common 
 market. Which position is the more like ours — that of 
 Denmark or of Scotland f 
 
 And a noble figure Scandinavian and Dutchman cut 
 
2i8 APPENDIX 
 
 during the world-war ; shivering at every movement 
 of the German sword-arm ; and seeing their ships 
 sunk ruthlessfy, without daring to whisper more than 
 a mock complaint ! They grew rich by supplying the 
 submarines 1;hat sank them ; as did our farmers by feeding 
 the English tyrant. 
 
 Had Germany won, there would have been a Central 
 European Zollverein, taking in the Low Countries and 
 Scandinavia. France and England having been bled 
 white and reduced to impotence, Holland and 
 Scandinavia would have had no market but Central 
 Europe ; where they would be at the mercy of the 
 German merchants. They could join the Bund, — 
 would, indeed, have to do so, — and thereby acknowledge 
 themselves vassals ; or if they were allowed to remain 
 out, they would be all the more enslaved to the Central 
 Powers. England and France fought for the com- 
 mercial independence of Holland and Scandinavia ; and 
 these fed the German armies ; as we prayed for their 
 success and applauded them. When at last, Germany 
 went down, and the sabre was wrenched from her grasp, 
 Denmark mustered courage to put in her bifi for 
 Schleswig ! 
 
 Yet for these countries it can be said that to them it 
 mattered little how England fared ; since, though she 
 were beggared, they would have a market in Germany — 
 at their doors. No doubt, the ports of Britain were 
 free; whereas there was, and will be, a tariff on the 
 German frontiers; unless, indeed, Holland and the 
 rest should become German provinces. Germany, 
 however, is near them — nearer than England ; and they 
 might hope to find a market there. 
 
 If the Scotch were to say all that, what would the 
 world think ? Yet they are nearer the German market 
 th?n we, and ever so much keener business men. 
 
 That, according^, is what strikes me, when reminded 
 
APPENDIX 219 
 
 tkus of Scandinavia and Holland : which did not cut 
 noble figures during the war ; were not much more 
 prudent than noble; and, in any case, are not in the 
 same position as we — so deeply interested in the pros- 
 perity of Great Britain. 
 
 I have said before, that, during the Irish land war, 
 certain farmers stood aloof, and profited by their neigh- 
 bours' sacrifice ; as do certain workmen in times of 
 strike. We know what decent people think of and call 
 such. Holland and Scandinavia, to my mind, were 
 pretty much in that position. 
 
 If the Germans had won, and made Germany the 
 only European market ; and if, after some years, the 
 United States were to attack Germany, with intent 
 to take the market over the Atlantic ; and if, in this 
 new struggle, Germany was in imminent danger of 
 defeat ; it would be poltroonery and cowardice on the 
 part of Holland and the Scandinavians to look on with 
 arms folded. It would be lunacy on their part to rejoice 
 in the prospect of defeat for Germany ; and it would 
 be suicidal to join in the attack on her. 
 
 5. Independence. — I have reproached the new Irish 
 " soul " with going hat in hand to Mr. Wilson ; whereas 
 I myself would make terms with England, and the 
 whole burthen of my teaching is, that, apart from her, 
 we cannot stand. The balance, in the way of inde- 
 pendence, seems to be against me. 
 
 But is there in an appeal to a comrade, to stand back 
 to back with one against a common foe, nothing manlier 
 than in a petition to a patron, to do all the fighting, or 
 after he has done it, to share the fruits ? Independence 
 does not mean standing alone : the greatest cannot 
 do that. It means keeping up your end ; or defending 
 your bit of trench, and so keeping the enemy from out- 
 flanking those to right and left of you ; while they, in 
 turn, defend your flanks. 
 
220 APPENDIX 
 
 There are circumstances wherein a man of spirit 
 may beg, — Belisarius did it, they say, — but not when one 
 can work. Were we in Ireland not in position to help 
 ourselves, this appeal to Mr. Wilson might not argue 
 lack of spirit. But if, as is here maintained, what we 
 complain of now is nearly altogether due to lack of 
 energy, skill, or grit on our part, this appeal to Mr. Wilson 
 does not argue the kind of independence I want to see 
 developed in my people. Self-help ! but let it be 
 ourselves, as much as possible. 
 
 PrinUi by Hatell, Watson & Viney, Li., London anH Aylesl^ury.^ 
 
IN THE PRESS ^ WILL APPEAR SHORTLT 
 By the Author of this Volume 
 
 SOME ETHICAL ASPECTS 
 OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOR PRIESTS 
 
 With Dissertations on " The Ethics of 'Pressure" 
 
 " Strikes," " Wages" " Boycotting," " Socialism," 
 
 and other such ^estions 
 
 BURNS, GATES & WASHBOURNE, LIMITED 
 
 LONDON, MANCHESTER, 
 BIRMINGHAM & GLASGOW 
 
1