arise: "What is the use of discussing arms in Ireland? If anyone wanted
to fight it would be impossible, and no one wants to fight. What
prevents ye going out to begin?" Such peevish criticism is anything but
practical, and one may ignore it; but it suggests the many who would
earnestly wish to settle our long war with a swift, conclusive fight,
yet who feel it no longer practical. Keeping to the practical issue, we
must bear in mind a few things. Though Ireland has often fought at odds,
and could do so again, it is not just now a question of Ireland poorly
equipped standing up to England invincible. England will never again
have such an easy battle. The point now to emphasise is this--by
remaining passive and letting ourselves drift we drift into the conflict
that involves England. We must fight for her or get clear of her. There
can be no neutrality while bound to her; so a military policy is an
eminently practical question. Moreover, it is an urgent one: to stand in
with England in any danger that threatens her will be at least as
dangerous as a bold bid to break away from her. One thing above all,
conditions have changed in a startling manner; England is threatened
within as without; there are labour complications of all kinds of which
no one can foresee the end, while as a result of another complication
we find the Prime Minister of England going about as carefully protected
as the Czar of Russia.[Footnote: The militant suffragette agitation.]
The unrest of the times is apt to be even bewildering. England is not
alone in her troubles--all the great Powers are likewise; and it is at
least as likely for any one of them to be paralysed by an internal war
as to be prepared to wage an external one. This stands put clearly--we
cannot go away from the turmoil and sit down undisturbed; we must stand
in and fight for our own hand or the hand of someone else. Let us
prepare and stand for our own. However it be, no one can deny that in
all the present upheavals it is at least practical to discuss the ethics
of revolt.