THE O'CONNELL CENTENARY.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR, —I have read, with much care, your article on the O'Connell Centenary. The Spectator is usually fair and candid, and wide in its sympathies. Though essentially English, it can enter into the spirit of modes of thought and manifestations of national character differing widely from its own. In this case, however, your remarks grate very harshly on Irish ears. There is no ap- pearance of conscious bias about them, but there seems to be a want of that far-reaching sympathy, of that un-Philistine power (if I may use the expression) of understanding strange and foreign characteristics, which one expects from the Spectator.
You speak of the Centenary as an utter failure. In cases of this sort, what are the criteria by which we may determine the fact of failure or success? It seems to me that we should apply the very same principles that are applied to determine the success or failure of a literary work.
"In every work regard the writer's end, Since none can compass more than they intend."
The chief end of the promoters of the Centenary was, by means of a great and harmonious gathering of the people, to honour the memory of O'Connell. Whatever Englishmen may think of the matter, Irishmen of all classes regard this end as accomplished. The slight disturbance in Sackville Street and the unhappy end- ing of the banquet no doubt mar the effect of a narrative of the proceedings, but they were only partial and local in their action, and were not shared in by the vast masses whose union formed the real glory of the day. There was, indeed, a secondary end, which was not so successful, viz., to base the celebration on such principles as should unite all sections of Irish society in doing honour to the memory of a great Irishman. Too much pro- minence ought not to have been given to either of the distinctive phases of O'Connell's career,—to O'Connell the Emancipator, or O'Connell the Repealer.
A noble opportunity has been lost. It was possible to ground the celebration on principles so wide, that not only should we have had union amongst all Irishmen, but we should have had the hearty sympathy of all who rejoice at the progress of mankind. Had we met to honour O'Connell as the man who raised his countrymen from degradation, ignorance, and political apathy, who taught them the first germs of political knowledge, who substituted constitutional agitation for the old, barbarous methods of obtaining redress, we should have had the good-will of all who reverence the memory of the promoters of the Reform Act,—even the Spectator would not have withheld from us its sympathy.—I am, Sir, &c., K. M. P. [" K. M. P." says a noble opportunity has been lost. What else did we say ?—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
