Documents of the First International 1867
Source: Marx and Engels on Ireland, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1971;
First Published: in Marx and Engels, Collected Works, 2nd Russian ed., Vol. 18, Moscow, 1961, and later in The General Council of the First International. 1866-1868. Minutes;
Transcribed: by Andy Blunden.
Citizen Weston was unanimously elected to take the chair.
The Secretary [Eccarius] read the resolution from the Minutes of the previous Council meeting, fixing the order of the day for the 19th, (it) being the discussion of the Fenian question.
The Chairman said: I think the Council has acted wisely in determining the discussion of this question at this time, and I have no doubt that it will receive the attention it merits.
He then called upon Citizen Jung to open the discussion.
Mr. Jung said: When I proposed that this question should be discussed I thought an expression of opinion on the part of the Council of this Association was desirable. I am no abettor of physical force movement, but the Irish have no other means to make an impression. Many people seem to be frightened at the term “physical force” in this country, yet even English agitations are not free from its influence. The Reform League has accomplished much by way of moral force, but it was only under a threat that physical force might be resorted to on the occasion of the Hyde Park meetings that the Government gave way.[370] I should be sorry to find the working men of this country go wrong upon this question. They have been right upon every other. The Irish require more than simple reform. Some endeavours have been made to divert the attention of the work-people of this country with regard to the Fenians. While they are denounced as murderers, Garibaldi is held up as a great patriot; and have no lives been sacrificed in Garibaldi’s movement? The Irish have the same right to revolt as the Italians, and the Italians have not exhibited greater courage than the Irish. I may not agree with the particular way in which the Irish manifest their resistance, but they deserve to be free. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. Lessner said: Our Association is not confined to any particular nationality; we are of all nations, and the Irish question concerns us as much as any other. In the course of twenty years the Irish population has dwindled down from eight millions to five and a half millions, and this decline is in consequence of the British rule. No country can be prosperous with a declining population. Ireland declines at a rapid rate, and the Irish have a right to revolt against those who drive them out of their country; the English would do the same if any foreign power oppressed them in a similar manner. (Cheers.)
Mr. Dupont: The Council would be wanting in its duty if it remained indifferent to the Irish cause. What is Fenianism? Is it a sect or a party whose principles are opposed to ours? Certainly not. Fenianism is the vindication by an oppressed people of its right to social and political existence. The Fenian declarations leave no room for doubt in this respect. They affirm the republican form of government, liberty of conscience, no State religion, the produce of labour to the labourer, and the possession of the soil to the people. What people could abjure such principles? Only blindness and bad faith can support the contrary. We hear that those whom the English law is going to strike down for their devotedness to such a cause are exclaiming: “We are proud to die for our country and for republican principles.” Let us see of what value the reproaches are that are addressed to the Fenians by the English would-be liberators. Fenianism is not altogether wrong, they say, but why not employ the legal means of meetings and demonstrations by the aid of which we have gained our Reform Bill? I avow that it is hardly possible to restrain one’s indignation at hearing such arguments. What is the use of talking of legal means to a people reduced to the lowest state of misery from century to century by English oppression — to people who emigrate by thousands, to obtain bread, from all parts of the country? Is not this Irish emigration to America by millions the most eloquent legal protest? Having destroyed all — life and liberty — be not surprised that nothing should be found but hatred to the oppressor. Is it well for the English to talk of legality and justice to those who on the slightest suspicion of Fenianism are arrested and incarcerated, and subjected to physical and mental tortures which leave the cruelties of King Bomba [Ferdinand II], of whom the would-be liberators talked so much, far behind? A citizen of Manchester, whose domicile was invaded by constables, asked one of them to show his warrant. “Here is my warrant,” he replied, drawing a pistol from his pocket. This shows the conduct of the English Government towards the Irish. Without having right on their side, such conduct is enough to provoke and justify resistance. The English working men who blame the Fenians commit more than a fault, for the cause of both peoples is the same; they have the same enemy to defeat — the territorial aristocracy and the capitalists. (Cheers.)
Mr. Morgan thought it was rather unfortunate that the Irish had chosen the name of Fenians, which many Englishmen considered synonymous with all that is bad. Had they simply called themselves Republicans, they would have shut up at once all those Englishmen who profess to be in favour of Republicanism. Englishmen as a rule did not look as favourably upon things in their own country as in other countries. They applauded insurrection abroad, but denounced it in Ireland. Deeds that would be considered as heroism if committed in France, in Italy, or in Poland, would be stigmatised as crimes in Ireland. The Irish had every reason to have recourse to physical force. Moral suasion had never been used towards them by the British Government; it had always applied to the robe and the musket. The English ought at least to look as favourably upon the Irish as upon the Italians. Were they treated in the same manner by a foreign power they would revolt sooner than the Irish. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Lucraft said the question was not whether the Irish were justified in using physical force, but whether they could do any good by it. He thought they could not. He thought it rather strange that the Irish of London, for instance, had not made common cause with the English and Scotch in the reform agitation.
Mr. Weston thought the word Fenianism meant the heat produced by centuries of oppression, and the hatred engendered by it, which could not be cured by the concessions of reform which the English demanded for themselves. A government that had trampled upon the rights of a people could never be reached by moral suasion, but by physical force resistance. In England there was no need of bludgeons, but in Ireland moral force had not [had] fair play. The rescue of the Fenian prisoners at Manchester was an exact duplicate affair of the rescue that was now attempted by the British Government of the prisoners held in Abyssinia. If killing was murder to rescue prisoners in Manchester, it was murder in Abyssinia; if it was wrong in one place it was wrong in the other. The crime of starving the Irish was far greater than the accidental killing of one man in trying to rescue the Fenian prisoners. He did not believe in the justice of the law. The laws were made and administered by hostile partisans, and there was a possibility of finding an innocent man guilty. He thought Ireland had been governed with more heartlessness than any other country, and he was glad that the Irish question had come uppermost. The democracy of the sister kingdoms must take the matter up and redress the wrong. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. William Parks said that the Irish in Ireland, in America, and in England were all of one opinion, — they wanted Ireland for the Irish, and to govern themselves.
Citizen Jayet argued in a speech of some length that physical force resistance was a bounden duty for every people who was oppressed by tyrants, were they of home or foreign origin, and showed that this was laid down as a maxim in the constitution of the French Convention, of which Robespierre had been a leading member.
Upon the proposition of Dr. Marx, the discussion was adjourned to Tuesday next.
The Standing Committee was instructed to draw up a memorial to the Home Secretary on behalf of the Fenian prisoners now under sentence of death at Manchester.
Upon the proposition of Citizen Lucraft, it was agreed after some discussion, and the Standing Committee with the chairman of the meeting were instructed, to draw up a memorial to the Home Secretary concerning the Fenian prisoners under sentence of death at Manchester and present it to a special meeting of the Council for adoption on Wednesday, November 20.
370. Hyde Park was the scene of mass meetings organised by the Reform League, which led the struggle for the election reform in 1865-67. The tens of thousands of workers attending them wanted decisive action and the leaders of the League were unable to keep them within the “bounds of the law.” The workers clashed with the police, broke into the territory of the Park despite the ban on entry and smashed windows in houses belonging to M.P.s opposing the reform. In May 1867, a new wave of mass meetings began in Hyde Park. This made the ruling circles rush to carry out the reform.