Principles of Freedom | Page 2

XIX. THE BEARNA BAOGHAIL--CONCLUSION

+PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM+


CHAPTER I
THE BASIS OF FREEDOM
I
Why should we fight for freedom? Is it not strange, that it has become

necessary to ask and answer this question? We have fought our fight
for centuries, and contending parties still continue the struggle, but the
real significance of the struggle and its true motive force are hardly at
all understood, and there is a curious but logical result. Men technically
on the same side are separated by differences wide and deep, both of
ideal and plan of action; while, conversely, men technically opposed
have perhaps more in common than we realise in a sense deeper than
we understand.
II
This is the question I would discuss. I find in practice everywhere in
Ireland--it is worse out of Ireland--the doctrine, "The end justifies the
means."
One party will denounce another for the use of discreditable tactics, but
it will have no hesitation in using such itself if it can thereby snatch a
discreditable victory. So, clear speaking is needed: a fight that is not
clean-handed will make victory more disgraceful than any defeat. I
make the point here because we stand for separation from the British
Empire, and because I have heard it argued that we ought, if we could,
make a foreign alliance to crush English power here, even if our foreign
allies were engaged in crushing freedom elsewhere. When such a
question can be proposed it should be answered, though the time is not
ripe to test it. If Ireland were to win freedom by helping directly or
indirectly to crush another people she would earn the execration she has
herself poured out on tyranny for ages. I have come to see it is possible
for Ireland to win her independence by base methods. It is imperative,
therefore, that we should declare ourselves and know where we stand.
And I stand by this principle: no physical victory can compensate for
spiritual surrender. Whatever side denies that is not my side.
What, then, is the true basis to our claim to freedom? There are two
points of view. The first we have when fresh from school, still in our
teens, ready to tilt against everyone and everything, delighting in
saying smart things--and able sometimes to say them--talking much
and boldly of freedom, but satisfied if the thing sounds bravely. There
is the later point of view. We are no longer boys; we have come to

review the situation, and take a definite stand in life. We have had years
of experience, keen struggles, not a little bitterness, and we are steadied.
We feel a heart-beat for deeper things. It is no longer sufficient that
they sound bravely; they must ring true. The schoolboy's dream is more
of a Roman triumph--tramping armies, shouting multitudes, waving
banners--all good enough in their way. But the dream of men is for
something beyond all this show. If it were not, it could hardly claim a
sacrifice.
III
A spiritual necessity makes the true significance of our claim to
freedom: the material aspect is only a secondary consideration. A man
facing life is gifted with certain powers of soul and body. It is of vital
importance to himself and the community that he be given a full
opportunity to develop his powers, and to fill his place worthily. In a
free state he is in the natural environment for full self-development. In
an enslaved state it is the reverse. When one country holds another in
subjection that other suffers materially and morally. It suffers
materially, being a prey for plunder. It suffers morally because of the
corrupt influences the bigger nation sets at work to maintain its
ascendancy. Because of this moral corruption national subjection
should be resisted, as a state fostering vice; and as in the case of vice,
when we understand it we have no option but to fight. With it we can
make no terms. It is the duty of the rightful power to develop the best in
its subjects: it is the practice of the usurping power to develop the
basest. Our history affords many examples. When our rulers visit
Ireland they bestow favours and titles on the supporters of their
regime--but it is always seen that the greatest favours and highest titles
are not for the honest adherent of their power--but for him who has
betrayed the national cause that he entered public life to support.
Observe the men who might be respected are passed over for him who
ought to be despised. In the corrupt politician there was surely a better
nature. A free state would have encouraged and developed it. The
usurping state titled him for the use of his baser instincts. Such
allurement must mean demoralisation. We are none of