The Irish standard., 1915-10-30

LalOr'S doctrine OF the land he accept
ed only in part. He was far from be-
ing fascinated or swallowed up by it,
as Duffy suggests. The aristocracy had
failed the people, and Mitchell essayed
the bold experiment, in which Lalor
believed so implicitly, of trusting the
people to save themselves.
Duffy, as proprietor and responsible
editor of the Nation, clung, despite the
failure of the Irish Council and the
imminent destruction of the peasantry
who were vanishing at the rate of a
thousand day-to the hope of COM
bining all classes against the British
Government. Mitchell, convinced the
combination was not practical in the
circumstances, resigned the journal
He preached his policy in the Confed-
Grafton, where it was rejected by 317
to 1873 votes. Then he made his ap-
peal to Caesar by founding the United
! Irishman.
MiteheI's Policy GrotesqueIy Misun.
derstood.
The policy of Mitchell has been gro-
tesquely misunderstood. 1t has been
represented as an appeal to an un-
armed or ill-armed people to meet the
disciplined forces of Great Power in
battle array. The policy Mitchell pro-
pounded was: 1) To hold the har-
vest; (2) To pay no rent; (3) To pay
no poor rate; (N To boycott those
who did these things; (5) To resist
distraint and eviction or the carrying
away of the harvests by destroying
highways, etc.; co. To boycott those
who purchased distrained chattels or
took evicted farms; CD To arm the
people everywhere and use arms
where they might effectively be used
against the evictors and harvest
snatchers and their guards.
Practically speaking, this was the
policy on which the Land League
fought and won thirty years after
wards. Mitchell believed the policy
would culminate in insurrection, but
that it would save the people first.
couple of weeks after he began to
preach it, the French Revolution broke
out and its reaction on Ireland brought
those who had opposed his policy over
to his side. Confederate Clubs sprang
up throughout the country, and the
English Government becoming seri
ously alarmed, resolved to grapple
with Mitchell. Its first step curiously
illustrated the incapacity of the Eng
lish mind for understanding the Irish
To be charged with treason in Ire
land was an honor in Irish eyes, since
treason in Ireland implied opposition
to English Government here. To be
charged with felony was disgrace
as felony implied moral turpitude
Mitchell was treasonable-the English
Government resolved to make him fel
onious, and it passed for that purpose
a special Act under which he might
w AAuASIOu % q ACAOA. 4ul6, OH ItOU'
ert Peel said, would make his crime
ignominous in the eyes of men. John
Mitchell was the first man in ireland
convicted of Felony for asserting the
liberty of his country. His convic
tion as felon altered the meaning o1
the word to the mass of the Irish peo
Pile, and gave it a dignity in theil
eyes.
In challenging the English Govern
ment to pack it's jury or else he would
go free, Mitchell counted on defeating
it otherwise. No unpacked jury in
Ireland would have convicted Mitche
of crime. If a packed jury convicted
him, he relied on that demonstration
of the fact that 'law" does not exis,
in Ireland to free the mind of the
I, people from the base servitude tt
forms and pretence of law which
O'Connell's senile teaching in his lat
ter years had engendered. The Gov
ernment packed the jury-it could
have done nothing else and remain
safe in Ireland. The Dublin Confed