REPLY TO C. HEATON PARKE.

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 March 1917, Page 2

REPLY TO C. HEATON PARKE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —1 fully appreciate the coneilia- ■ torv tone of your correspondent's letter. My intrusion into your column-,; was not prompted by feelings of 'auger and bitterness." J pleaded for toleration and hroadmindednesc. especially in regard to conscription of the clergy, and objected vehemently to Irish political questions a.s irrelevant to the subject. Consequently, I was painfully surprised to tii'd my name included in Mr. Parke's letter, which letter lias no'concern with the sectarian issue mentioned, and. ill (hi:! regard, deserves; no comment t't«»m me. However, your correspondent is so deeply grieved at the condition 01 Ireland and Irishmen, that 1 am compelled to give car to the burden of his- lamentation. He impresses iiis personality on me thuswise; IJ L . [.s of '"Scotch-Welsh extraction" and many of his "kith and kin are Irish." His sentiments presumably are* British. In short, he is a sun of four nationalities. Being Irish solely and wholly, [ feel abashed before this conglomeration of pedigree. Furthermore, lie is ripe in years, and therefore in wisdom, and he has."a great insight into the British and all characters." This: confession is overwhelming from any save an Irish point ot view. 1 am comforted by an assertion of Bernard Shaw: "The ignorance of the Irish regarding things British, is only surpassed by the ignorance of the British in relation m Irish affairs-'' Mr. Parke's "descent" is a guarantee of absence of prejudice, which does not presuppose an intimate knowledge of the subjectHe writes: "I am prone to believe that the English people are the most inclined to work for the betterment of humanity without thought of self, country, or creed." This loyal, patriotic statement contains only one blemish. It is untrue. It is not I, but overs' English History written that gives it the lie. The English people are proud of their past, that is the past that relates of glorious conquests and glorified heroes. Virtue and crime ouen stalked hand in hand, and were sometimes united in the same man. Drake conquered the "invincible Armada," to be suite, but he also made piratical excursions on the West Indies, not ''without thought of self." and certainly not for the "betterment" of the plundered. Cromwell saved England from the .Stuarts, and butchered women and children in Wexford and Drogheda in the shadow of the Cross, "in the name of God." Give and Hastings brought about-"the wise designs of British Providence" ,in India. The silk trade was discouraged in India, as the wool trade was suppressed in Ireland, not, of course, for. the benefit of English cotton mer. chants, but for the "'betterment" of the two peoples. The Anglo-China war of the early Victorian era forced India!! opium on the Chinese, not for British commerce or to the detriment of morality, but for the "benefit of the unfortunate Chinese. By that war Kngiand compelled China to open port; to her trade, and most f'unseln'shly" holds them .still. About this time, England sent out thousands of Bibles to Christianise the Polytheistic Hindoo. Doubtless the sad state of' Chinese morals, due to opium, would occasion ,-i further export of British Bibles for their elevation. So, both the Indian and Chinaman were corrupted and converted, to the benefit of English trade and in the name of British civilisation. The Penal Laws. so strongly criticised by Edmund Burke, and so sorely felt by Irish Catholic!, is another historic fact that disproves British benevolence. It was not until IS2O, and then only in the face of threatened rebellion, thatCatholic Emancipation was passed. The three Irish Land Acts,' as well as the Land Purchase Act (1903) were passed after years of aggressive agitation, and the Home Rule movement, begun iti 187 G, is still in being for to satisfy a long-felt want. A nation older than the Anglo-Saxon race is still agitating for the same benefits- ag arc enjoyed by the colonies- So much

for British '"unselfishness." Mr. Parke's complaint against Irish "sen-

sitiveness" is, in so far as it exists, explained by even a cursory study of

Irish history. Beset by landlords at home, and British merchants abroad, denied education, religious and commercial freedom, and overtaxed even according to the terms of the Ace of Union (1800), was not the Irishman's cup of sorrow sufficiently fulH Can it be wondered at that he was sensitive to ridicule of any kind? Nor can this sensitiveness be eradicated ; n a single generation. Yet, be it known that if England has her Dickens and Thackeray, Ireland has her Carleton and Lever, and Synge lived long enough to hear "The Playboy of the Western World" applauded on a Dublin stage. Mr. Parke must not eonfound the Englishman with the British Government. The average Englishman is one of the best-hearted men alive. He, too, has his ''grievances,'' and must often enquire why a citizen in the heart of the world's greatest Empire is very little better off than the denizen of Luxembourg or Montenegro. He, too, might give the Mime answer as the Irishman. Mr. Parke's plea, for union -of sentiment and endeavor amongst, the four great nationalities of the Empire is praiseworthy, but it must presuppose union of interests, and proportional commercial equality. It must lie a union of equals, not of master and slave. It must needs, give- us pause to reflect that the poorest nation in Europe stands "united" to the richest nation in the world; that whilst England's wealth and population have increased incredibly, Ireland has become poorer and depopulated, and that British statesmanship has, so far, found no panacea l'<>v this, crying evil.—l am, . etc., P. MITLIfENNAN. Oreymouih, March 15th, 1917.