THE FAITH OF A FELON
When Mr. Duffy expected arrest,
some weeks ago, he drew up his profession of principles, "The Creed of The Nation." Under influences of
similar feelings and considerations, though not exactly the same, nor
excited
by circumstances altogether alike, I hasten to put my own principles
upon
record. Until yesterday I did not intend to have done this for some
weeks to
come. The statement or confession of faith that follows
I could have wished for time to
make more correct and complete. It is ill-framed, ill-connected, and
wants
completeness. But, even such as it stands, I do firmly believe that it
carries
the fortunes of Ireland;-
and even such as it stands, I now send it forth to its fate, to conquer
or be
conquered. It may be master of Ireland
and make her a Queen; it may lie in the dust and perish
with her people.
Here, then, is the confession
and
faith of a Felon.
Years ago I perceived that the
English conquest consisted of two parts combined into one whole, - the
conquest
of our liberties, the conquest of our lands.
I saw clearly that the
re-conquest of our liberties would be incomplete and worthless without
the
re-conquest of our lands,- would not, necessarily, involve or produce
that of
our lands, and could not, on its own means, be possibly achieved; while
the
re-conquest of our lands would involve the other – would, at least, be
complete
in itself, and adequate to its own purposes; and could possibly, if not
easily,
be achieved.
The lands were
owned by the
conquering race, or by traitors to the conquered race. They were
occupied by
the native people, or by settlers who had mingled and merged.
I selected, as the mode of
re-conquest, - to refuse payment of rent, and resist process of
ejectment.
In that mode I determined to
effect the re-conquest, and staked on it all my hopes, here and
hereafter – my
hopes of an effective life and an eternal epitaph.
It almost seemed to me as if
the
Young Ireland party, the quarrel, the secession, the Confederation, had
all
been specially pre-ordained and produced in order to aid me. My faith
in the
men who formed the Council of that body was then unbounded. My faith in
them
still is as firm as ever, though somewhat more measured. In the paper I
published last week, and in a private correspondence that ensued with
some of
its members, I proposed that they should merge the Repeal question in a
mightier
project – that of wresting this island from an English rule altogether,
in the
only mode in which it could possibly be achieved. I endeavored to show
them
they were only keeping up a feeble and ineffectual fire from a foolish
distance, upon the English Government, which stands out of reach and
beyond our
power; and urged them to wheel their batteries round and bend them on
the
English Garrison of landlords, who stand there within our hands,
scattered,
isolated, and helpless, girdled round by the might of a people. Except
two or
three of them, all refused at the time, and have persisted in refusing
until
now. They wanted an alliance with the landowners. They chose to
consider them
as Irishmen, and imagined they could induce them to hoist the green
flag. They
wished to preserve an Aristocracy. They desired, not a democratic, but
merely a
national revolution. Who imputes blame to them for this? Whoever does
so will
not have me to join them. I have no feeling but one of respect for the
motives
that caused reluctance and delay. That delay, however, I consider as a
matter
of deep regret. Had the Confederation, in the May or June of '47,
thrown heart
and mind and means and might into the movement I pointed out, they
would have
made it successful, and settled at once and for ever all quarrels and
questions
between us and England.
The opinions I then stated,
and
which I yet stand firm to, are these:-
I. That in order to save their
own lives, the occupying tenants of the soil of Ireland ought, next
autumn, to
refuse all rent and arrears of rent then due, beyond and except the
value of
the overplus of harvest produce remaining in their hands after having
deducted
and reserved a due and full provision for their own subsistence during
the next
ensuing twelve months.
II. That they ought to refuse
and
resist being made beggars, landless and houseless, under the English
law of
ejection.
III. That they ought further, on principle, to refuse ALL rent to the present
usurping proprietors, until the people, the true proprietors (or lord
paramount, in legal parlance), have, in national congress, or
convention, decided
what rents they are to pay, and to whom they are to pay them.
IV. And that the people, on
grounds of Policy and economy, ought to decide (as a general rule,
admitting of
reservations) that those rents shall be paid to themselves, the people,
for
public purposes, and for behoof and benefit of them, the entire general
people.
These are the principles, as
clearly and fully stated as limit of time will allow, which I advise Ireland
to adopt at once, and at once to arm for. Should the people accept and
adhere
to them, the English government will then have to choose whether to
surrender
the Irish landlords, or to support them with the armed power of the
empire.
If it refuse to incur the
odium
and expense, and to peril the safety of England in a social war of
extermination, then the landlords are nobodies, the people are lords of
the
land, a mighty social revolution is accomplished, and the foundation of
a
national revolution surely laid. If it should, on the other hand,
determine to
come to the rescue and relief of its garrison – elect to force their
rents and
enforce their rights by infantry, cavalry, and cannon, and attempt to
lift and
carry the whole harvest of Ireland – a somewhat heavy undertaking,
which might
become a hot one, too – then I , at least, for one, am prepared to bow
with
humble resignation to the dispensations of Providence. Welcome be the
will of God.
We must only try to keep our harvest, to offer a peaceful, passive
resistance,
to barricade the island, to break up the roads, to break down the
bridges – and,
should need be, and favourable occasions offer, surely we may venture
to try
the steel. Other approved modes of moral resistance might gradually be
added to
these, according as we should become trained to the system: and all
combined, I
imagine, and well worked, might possibly task the strength and break
the heart
of the empire.
Into artistic details,
however, I
need not, and do not choose, to enter for the present.
It has been said to me that
such
a war, on the principles I propose, would be looked on with detestation
by Europe.
I assert the contrary: I say such a war would propagate itself
throughout Europe.
Mark the words of this prophecy;- the principle I propound goes to the
foundations of Europe, and sooner or later, will cause Europe
to outrise. Mankind will yet be masters of the earth. The right of the
people
to make the laws – this produced the first great modern earthquake,
whose
latest shocks, even now, are heaving in the heart of the world. The
right of
the people to own the land – this will produce the next. Train your
hands, and your
sons' hands, gentlemen of earth, for you and they will yet have to use
them. I
want to put Ireland
foremost, in the van of the world, at the head of the nations –to set
her aloft
in the blaze of the sun, and to make her for ages the lode star of
history. Will
she take the path I point out – the path to be free, and famed, and
feared, and
followed – the path that goes sunward? Or, onward to the end of time,
will wretched
Ireland
ever
come limping and lagging hindmost? Events must answer that. It is a
question I
almost fear to look full in the face. The soul of this island seems to
sink
where that of another country would soar. The people sank and
surrendered to
the famine instead of growing savage, as any other people would have
done.
I am reminded that there are
few
persons now who trouble themselves about the "conquest," and there
may be many - I know there are some - who assent to the two first of
the four
principles I have stated, and are willing to accept them as the grounds
of an
armed movement; but who object to the last two of them. I am advised to
summon
the land tenants of Ireland
up in battle-array for an armed struggle in defence of their rights of
life and
subsistence, without asserting any greater or more comprehensive right.
I
distinctly refuse to do so. I refuse to narrow the case and claim of
this
island into any such petty dimensions, or to found it on the rogue's or
the
beggar's plea, the plea of necessity. Not as a starving bandit or
desperate
beggar who demands, to save life, what does not belong to him, do 1
wish Ireland
to stand up, but as a decrowned Queen, who claims back her own with an
armed
hand. I attest and urge the plea of utter and desperate necessity to
fortify
her claim, but not to found it. I rest it on no temporary and passing
conditions, but on principles that are permanent, and imperishable and
universal;--available to all times and to all countries, as well as to
our
own,- I pierce through the upper stratum of occasional and shifting
circumstance to bottom and base on the rock below. I put the question
in its
eternal form, - the form in which, how often soever suppressed for a
season, it
can never be finally subdued, but will remain and return, outliving and
outlasting the corruption and cowardice of generations. I view it as
ages will
view it – not through the mists of a famine, but by the living lights
of the
firmanent. You may possibly be induced to reject it in the form I
propose, and
accept it in the other. If so, you will accept the question, and employ
it as a
weapon against England,
in a shape and under conditions which deprive it of half its strength.
You will
take and work it fettered and handcuffed - not otherwise.
I trouble myself as little as
any
one does about the "conquest" as taken abstractedly - as an affair that
took place long ages ago. But that "conquest' is still in existence,
with
all its rights, claims, laws, relations, and results. The landlord
holds his
lands by right and title of conquest, and uses his powers as only a
conqueror
may. The tenant holds under the law of conquest- vae victis.
What forms the right of
property
in land? I have never read in the direction of that question. I have
all my
life been destitute of books. But from
the first chapter of Blackstone's second book, the only page I ever
read on the
subject, I know that jurists are unanimously agreed in considering
'first
occupancy" to be the only true original foundation on the right of
property and possession of land.
Now I am prepared to prove
that
"occupancy" wants every character and quality that could give it
moral efficacy as a foundation of right. I am prepared to prove this,
when
"occupancy" has first been defined. If no definition can be given, I
am relieved from the necessity of showing any claim founded on
occupancy to be
weak and worthless.
To any plain understanding the
right of private property is very simple. It is the right of man to
possess,
enjoy, and transfer, the substance and use of whatever he has himself
CREATED.
This title is good against the world; and it is the sole and only title
by
which a valid right of absolute private property can possibly vest.
But no man can plead any such
title to a right of property in the substance of the soil.
The earth, together with all
it
spontaneously produces, is the free and common property of all mankind,
of
natural right, and by the grant of God; - and all men being equal, no
man,
therefore, has a right to appropriate exclusively to himself any part
or
portion thereof, except with and by the common consent and agreement of
all
other men.
The sole original right of
property in land which I acknowledge to be morally valid, is this right
of
common consent and agreement. Every other I hold to be fabricated and
fictitious, null, void, and of no effect.
In the original and natural
state
of mankind, existing in independent families, each man must, in respect
of
actual fact, either take and hold (ASSUME OCCUPANCY as well as maintain
possession of ) his land by right and virtue of such consent and
agreement as
aforesaid, with all those who might be in a position to dispute and
oppose his
doing so: or he must take and maintain possession by force. The
fictitious
right of occupancy – invented by jurists to cover and account for a
state of
settlement otherwise unaccountable and indefensible on moral principle
- this
right would be utterly worthless, and could seldom accrue; for except
in such a
case as that of a single individual thrown on a desert island, the
question of
right would generally arise, and require to be settled before any
colourable
"title by occupancy" could be established, or even actual occupation be
effected. And then – what constitutes occupancy? What length of
possession
gives "title by occupancy"?
When independent families have
united into separate tribes, and tribes swelled into nations, the same
law
obtains;- each tribe or nation has but either one or another of two
available
rights to stand upon – they must take and maintain territorial
possession by
consent and agreement with all other tribes and nations; or they must
take and
hold by the
tenure of chivalry in the right
of their might.
Putting together and
proceeding
on the principles now stated, it appears that, if those principles be
sound, no
man can legitimately claim possession or occupation of any portion of
land or
any right of property therein, except by grant from the people, at the
will of
the people, as tenant to the people, and on conditions made or
sanctioned by
the people; - and that every right, except the right so created and
vesting by
grant from the people, is nothing more or better than the right of the
robber who
holds forcible possession of what does not lawfully belong to him.
The present proprietors of Ireland
do not hold or claim by grant from the people, nor even - except in Ulster
- by any species of imperfect agreement or assent of the people. They
got and
keep their lands in the robber's right - the right of conquest-in
despite,
defiance, and contempt of the people. Eight thousand men are owners of
this
entire island,--claiming the right of enslaving, starving, and
exterminating
eight millions. We talk of asserting free-government, and of ridding
ourselves
of foreign domination - while, lo! eight thousand men are lords of our
lives - of
us and ours, blood and breath, happiness or misery, body and soul. Such
is the
state of things in every country where the settlement of the lands has
been
effected by conquest. In Ulster
the case is somewhat different, much to the advantage of the people,
but not as
much as it ought to have been. Ulster was not merely conquered but
colonized – the
native race being expelled, as in the United States of America: - and
the
settlement that prevails was made by a sort of consent and agreement
among the conquering
race.
No length of time or
possession
can sanction claims acquired by robbery, or convert them into valid
rights. The
people are still rightful owners, though not in possession "Nullum
tempus occurit Deo,- nullurn tempus
occurit populo."
In many countries
besides this,
the lands were acquired, and long held, by right of force or conquest.
But in
most of them the settlement and laws of conquest have been abrogated,
amended,
or modified, to a greater or lesser extent. In some, an outrise of the
people
has trampled them down – in some. the natural laws have triumphed over
them,- in
some, a despotic monarch or minister has abolished or altered them. In
Ireland
alone they remain unchanged, unmitigated, unmollified, in all their
original ferocity
and cruelty, and the people of Ireland must now abolish them, or be
themselves
abolished, and this is the move urgent business.
