XIV
THE SINN FEIN MOVEMENT

The Sinn Fein movement (pronounced “shinn fane”) which promised so much is not making great progress. Some of its principles are admirable, and from a sentimental standpoint appeal to the patriotism of every Irishman, but the management is in the hands of impractical amateurs who have antagonized the Roman Catholic church, and that would be fatal to any movement in Ireland or any other country where three-fourths of the population profess that faith and the priesthood are as powerful as in Ireland. Furthermore, the young men who are directing affairs have gone into politics and have attempted to buck against the nationalist party, which controls three-fourths of the Irish vote. For these reasons the movement has suffered a setback, and it is doubtful whether it will ever recover the impetus it acquired two or three years ago. If it had been kept out of politics and out of religion like the Gaelic League, for example, which is aiming at a portion of the same objects, it might have done an immense amount of good. The leaders are earnest but inexperienced; they are long on ideas but short on common sense, and have more principles than votes, as has been illustrated at recent elections in Ireland. The leaders of the national party, bearing the scars of many political contests and familiar with all the tricks of their trade, regard the Sinn Fein advocates as enthusiastic schoolboys and play with them as a mastiff plays with a puppy.

The Sinn Feiners have formally demanded that the nationalist party shall abandon its present policy and adopt their platform—a proposition which its leaders consider very amusing, but when you can persuade them to discuss it seriously they say that they have accomplished too much and are too near the goal of home rule to abandon the present programme and adopt one that is new and untried.

Sinn Fein means “for ourselves,” and those two Celtic words describe the policy and the purpose of the organization. It demands that Ireland stand alone and work out her salvation by her own efforts, absolutely boycotting the British government, which they declare is the only enemy of Ireland and the cause of all the evils and the ills that afflict the Irish people. It is an imitation of the policy adopted by Ferencz Deák in the contest with Austria for Hungarian independence from 1849 to 1867. He organized a vast movement of passive resistance. Under his leadership the Hungarians refused to pay taxes unless levied and collected by their own officials; they refused to send Hungarian representatives to the imperial parliament; they built up an educational and administrative system of their own, and in less than twenty years achieved practical independence for Hungary, the right to make their own laws and administer their own government. The chief weapon was a national boycott, and it was successful.

In 1903 a young newspaper man named Arthur Griffith conceived the idea of applying the Hungarian policy to Ireland and boycotting the British government. He wrote a good deal for the newspapers, went around the island holding public meetings, organizing local societies, appealing to the patriotic sentiments of the young men of the country, and started a weekly newspaper as an organ of the cause. At first it was understood that the Sinn Feiners would abstain from politics like the Gaelic League, but the refusal of the politicians to join or assist them provoked animosities, and in retaliation the Sinn Feiners nominated candidates for several offices, who were in sympathy with them. This developed a positive contest, the Sinn Fein movement was placed under the ban by the Irish parliamentary leaders and soon became an independent political party.

A similar collision occurred with the Roman Catholic church chiefly because the ardent young leaders did not consult the priests and obtain the indorsement of the hierarchy, which might have approved the programme with some revision. The misunderstanding was allowed to grow until now the Sinn Feiners are under the ban of the church as well as that of the United Irish League and the parliamentary party, and the opposition of those three powers cannot be overcome or even resisted. Therefore the movement is doomed to failure. Nevertheless, the Sinn Feiners have succeeded in electing several of their number to office on their own platform. They now have twelve out of eighty members of the Dublin common council and board of aldermen, and in other cities of Ireland they have representatives in official positions. Not long ago they nominated a candidate for the House of Commons in the North Leitrim district, notwithstanding the fact that the first plank in their programme demands the complete boycott of the British parliament. It was an Irish bull and naturally excited much ridicule, but the Sinn Feiners succeeded in polling 1,100 out of a total of 6,000 votes, which was a great deal more than any one expected.

Some time ago the national council of the party devised a scheme for raising money to establish a daily newspaper. They printed and offered for sale very pretty postage stamps and asked everybody to buy them and place them on their letters in addition to the portrait of King Edward, which is required by act of parliament. It was a fatal error, because it was an absolute failure and disclosed the weakness of the movement and the insincerity of its members. I am told that less than five per cent of the stamps printed were ever disposed of.

Some of the propositions in the programme of the Sinn Fein party, as I have already said, appeal very strongly to the patriotism of the Irish people; others are so fantastic as to destroy confidence in the judgment of its leaders. For example, they issued an urgent appeal to the newspapers and to the public to use no paper or stationery except of Irish manufacture, which might have been to the advantage of the country if there were any paper mills in Ireland. Again, they advocate Irish ownership of all public utilities. They want Irish capitalists to buy up the stock of all the railways and street car lines and other public enterprises and employ none but Irishmen in their administration, which might be done if there were a good deal more capital in the country; but as long as the Irish people are too poor to pay for the stock, it would seem a little premature for them to undertake to carry out the Sinn Fein recommendations.

The first plank in the programme of the Sinn Fein platform is a national Irish legislature endowed with moral authority to enact laws and recommend policies for the adoption of the Irish people. This legislature is to be composed of the members of the county councils, the poor-law boards and harbor boards of all Ireland, to sit twice a year in Dublin, and to form a de facto Irish parliament. Associated with and sitting with this body would be the present Irish members of the House of Commons and their successors representing the constituencies as at present defined. Before taking this step, however, it is proposed that the Irish members of the House of Commons should make a dramatic demonstration in parliament, to emphasize the significance of their retirement. They are to rise in their seats and formally decline any longer to confer on the affairs of Ireland with foreigners in a foreign city.