Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1921. THE IRISH TERMS

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 41, 17 August 1921, Page 4

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1921. THE IRISH TERMS

Amazement at the folly of Sinn Fein' and hope that wiser counsels may yet prevail continue to be the predominant notes of British public opinion as represented in the press, ajnd so far the former appears to have the better foundation. How eager has been the search for hopeful evidence is shown by the comment of The Times. It sees " a gleam of hope in the tone in which the reply is couched, and says in substance that it is a refusal, but a reasoned refusal which seems deliberately to avoid any final rupture." The,, microscope and the microphone must surely have been very hard at work in Printing House Square before even this infinitesimal grain of optimism could be 1 detected in a " reasoned refusal" which supported the old impossible demands with the old impossible reasons, ignored the plainest dictates of geography and history, and showed that, after months of fighting and weeks of negotiation, Sinn Fein's last word,in compromise was the same as its first—the hundred per cent, surrender of the other : side. To-day the lobbyist of The Times is reported as supplying some less flimsy grounds for comfort. Of these the most solid is that members of the House of Commons are unanimous in hojding that the Government has gone to the limit of concession. Ever since Lord Northeliffe took up the settlement of the Irish question as an incident of his mission for cementing an Englishspeaking Union, the complaisance of TheTimeSjtowards the Sinn Fein demands has been so pronounced that it is reassuring to find it recording without dissent the unanimous conviction of the House of Commons that the limit of concession has been reached in the proposals which Sinn Fein has rejected. ' " . It is also reported by The Times lobbyist as the opinion of "wellinformed persons in close touch with Sinn Fein and South Ireland " that a special significance is to hi attributed to the cryptic statement of Mr. de Valera " that the Dail Eireann could not, and the Irish people would not, accept Mr. Lloyd George.'s proposals." Does the contrast here suggested between the respective attitudes of the Dail Eireann and their constituents imply that the former would accept the proposals if they could, but they cannot? The authorities cited by The Times correspondent do not put precisely this interpretation upon the statement, but they do find in it " an indication that the ultimate recommendation of. the Sinn Fein Cabinet to the Dail Eireann will be a referendum of the people, not rejection of the terms." Such a solution would be in strict accordance with what we know not merely of human nature in Ireland but of political human nature generally. If the Sinn Fein Executive have rejected the Government's offer on the ground"that they have no authority to accept it, they will not urge acceptance from the Dail Eireann because they regard \ its authority as similarly limited. But to recommend the rejection of the offer would be to take a responsibility which it is difficult to imagine that sane men' would be prepared to take. The line of least resistance and least responsibility would be to refer the question to the people for a direct "Yes" or"No." Even if the Sinn Fern Executive were unanimously in favour of acceptance, this would clearly be the easiest and safest course.

The further information is supplied by thell lobbyist of the Daily Express that if the Dail Eireann asks for a referendum " the Government is prepared to give all facilities, without committing itself to acceptance of the result." The Government would doubtless be^as glad as the Sinn Fein Executive to see the matter tested in this way, but it is not quite clear what meaning is to be attached to the cqncluding clause. If the.pop.ular decision favoured rejection, the Government would clearly have no alternative but tq\ccept the decision and to treat it as final, since with the complete concurrence of public opinion they have declared that they can go no further, 'But are we to suppose that if the Irish

people declare for acceptance pi the offer, the Government will reserve the right to withdraw it? A large minority in favour of rejection .might make' a settlement on the lines proposed very risky. On the other hand, the knowledge that the offer was not to be regarded as a firm one would so handicap the Irish advocates of reconciliation as to discount very heavily their chances at the poll. The difficulties of diplomacy by a plebiscite which can only say " Yes" or "No" to a single issue are very great.

One advantage of the interval be-~ tween Mr. de Valera's rejection of the Government's offer and the end of the process which will make it absolute is that the outside opinion to which the Irish leaders have always appealed will be fully heard before the final decision. If Ireland is unwilling to take the advice of the Daily News and accept General Smuts's letter as representing the opinion of the civilfsed world, evidence from outside the Empire wil1 ( be forthcoming in abundance. 'Not much has yet been supplied from America, but the two opinions available strongly favour acceptance of the British offer.

It is (says the Naw York Evening Post) within the power of the Sinn Fein leaders to win for Ireland a position so legally and morally impregnable as to satisfy, the "full aspirations of the Irish people. To permit age-long animosity to frustrate that would be an act of wanton recklessness. ■

The New York Globe uses very similar language, nor can it be doubted that the verdict of American opinion at large will be to the same effect.