(Éirigh, May 1970, p.30)
Patrick Henry Pearse, the best-known of the leaders of the 1916 Rising, formulated a theory of property in an article entitled “The Sovereign People.” He may have been influenced by Connolly to some extent, though he wrote, ‘I am nothing so new-fangled as a socialist or a syndicalist.’ Connolly drew his inspiration from internationalism, Pearse from nationalism. Pearse’s aim was to realize for the Irish people the dream of national sovereignty, the hope of working out their own destiny. He was well aware, of course, that political sovereignty without economic sovereignty was merely a shadow of the reality. ‘I claim,’ he wrote, ‘that the nation’s sovereignty over the nation’s national resources is absolute.’ He added, ‘Such sovereignty… is subject to the laws of morality.
Pearse argued that since sovereignty belonged to the people, the resources of the nation, which were essential to that sovereignty, should also belong to the people. ‘I do not disallow the right to private property,’ he declared, ‘but I insist that all property is held subject to the national sanction.’ It is difficult to say exactly what Pearse intended by this, but he probably meant that private property could be transferred to public use according to the demands and within the limits of the common good, and with fair compensation. Perhaps, too, he meant that while production should remain in private hands, distribution and consumption should be controlled by the State.
A difficulty arises over Pearse’s use of the phrase ‘national sanction.’ For some reason he seems to have avoided the more realistic phrase ‘state control,’ which is, in effect, what national sanction means. However, it appears to be clear that Pearse was in favour of a large measure of social control. In the article mentioned above, he wrote, ‘It is for the nation to determine to what extent private property may be held by its members, and in what items of the nation’s material resources private property should be allowed.’
In spite of this great emphasis on the nation’s rights over property he did not lose sight of the purpose of property. ‘The nation,’ he declared, ‘is under a moral obligation so to exercise its public right as to secure strictly equal rights and liberties to every man and woman within the nation.’ He goes on to declare that, in seeking their own development, the individual and the State must recognise one another’s rights.
What became of Pearse’s proposals? In The Democratic Programme adopted by Dáil Éireann on January 21, 1919, the writings of Pearse were quoted and the Dáil pledged itself to fulfil his dream of full national sovereignty. ‘We affirm,’ it stated, ‘that all right of private property, must be subordinate to the public right and welfare.’ Within the next two or three years, however, drastically altered circumstances did much to dampen the enthusiasm of earlier years. In the Free State Constitution no mention was made of property rights. As far as this question was concerned there was a full return to status quo. In the years which followed, a steady programme of land re-allocation brought about the distribution of most of the estates of the former landlords. Some rather feeble efforts were made at providing social services for the country. Apart from these attempts, little was done to implement the teaching of men like Pearse and Connolly. It must be admitted, of course, that these two men had not formulated their theories in a very precise way and that they were unacquainted with the intricacies of economic life. The ideal of an economically self-sufficient state, which was fostered by the nationalist tradition, was an economic delusion to which the leaders of the State clung for many years.
In spite of these and other deficiencies in their thought it must be said in justice that a second look at their ideas might prove fruitful.