THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1918. THE IRISH CONVENTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16824, 15 April 1918, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1918. THE IRISH CONVENTION.

1 The high hopes entertained for the success of the Irish Convention have not been realised The Convention has failed to effect its major purpose. In the estimation of the chairman, Sir Horace Plunkett, it has accomplished something, but reading the reports it 'is not easy to discover the reasons for his optimism. Hard as the task seemed, there was a wide-, spread belief that the Convention would evolve a settlement of the Irish question acceptable to the whole of Ireland. It was a gathering of representative Irishmen, and Mr. Lloyd George set forth its aim as: "For the purpose of drafting a constitution for their country which should secure a just balance of ,all the opposing interests, and finally compose the unhappy discords which have so long distracted Ireland and impeded its harmonious development" Eight months have elapsed since the Convention commenced its sittings, " and at their close the chairman confesses that Ireland is not agreed. In Great Britain, and throughout the British Empire, this conclusion will be received with deep regret. The spirit of the British Empire with regard to Ireland unquestionably is that; it would rejoice to see Ireland under any form of government which all parties in the country^would accept, and which is consistent with the maintenance of the Empire, and the safety of the United Kingdom. The obstacles to a settlement, as the reports of the Convention clearly show, lie not in Great Britain, but in Ireland itself. Precisely what weight should be attached to the various obstacles as they presented themselves to the Convention it is difficult to determine, even from the extended reports published to-day. Sir Horace Plunkett puts in the forefront; Ulster's claim that if Ireland had a right to separate itself from the United Kingdom Ulster had a right to separate from the rest of Ireland, and the refusal of the other sections of the Convention to accept even temporary partition. This, unless subject to some qualification, iB a conclusive bar to any settlement. But Sir Horace Plunkett himself qualifies it at a later stage of his report where ho says Customs became the vital question. He qualifies,it further by representing that as a sequel to the Convention a settlement may yet lie reached in one of two ways— either that a scheme may be devised to which Ulster would give its adherence, or that the remainder of Ireland may arrive at a complete or substantial agreement. If either of these things is' still possible how can it , be ; said that both sides arc hopelessly uncompromising, the one against any ■ form of Home Rule embracing the whole of Ireland, and the other against any scheme of partition? The Ulster minority report, on the other hand, lays emphasis upon a point not mentioned by Sir Horace Plunkett, and which is certainly vital to any decision which would leave Ireland facing a new

chapter in her history with the. goodwill and. respect of the sister court tries and of the British Empire. In the Ulster report it is said that the Nationalist demands denied the right of the Imperial Parliament to impose military service in Ireland, and that an important section of the Nationalists favoured a wholly inadequate contribution to Britain's pressing needs in the present war. There is a wide difference between these two presentations of the case. A Dublin Castle official \is reported to have once said to a British Minister who wished to base his policy on facts, "You will learn before long that there are no facts in Ireland." It would appear to be still true th.it the impartial presentation of the facts of Irish controversy is surrounded with exceptional difficulties. Considering the three points of importance as they emerge from the reports, it would not appear that the Convention has advanced the Irish question very far towards a settlement. The first of these points is Ulster's objection to any form of Home Rule and tho Nationalist refusal of any scheme of partition. This is merely the Irish question in a nutshell. It is the stumblingblock which the Convention was set up to remove, and to represent it as still existing is to admit that tho Convention has wholly failed. Ulster's objection to Home Rule, and her unchanging preference for an unbroken Imperial connection, is historic. It was not to be expected that she would alter her fundamental conviction or go to the conference prepared to put forward any scheme of Home Rule. The most that could have been looked for from Ulster was that she would be.content to waive something of her ideal for the sake of Irish unity, and the statement that the Ulster delegates waited in the hope that some acceptable proposal would be made indicates that they were prepared 'for some such sacrifice. If the attitude of Ulster was a difficulty, then that difficulty must have been greatly aggravated by tho concentration of the Nationalist forces upon a demand for a government for all Ireland endowed with unrestricted fiscal powers. There are Irish as well as Imperial objections to this, and they stand altogether apart from the racial incompatability and religious prejudices which are the permanent causes of division in Ireland. To have fiscal autonomy Ireland must pay its own bills, an obligation which she would find extremely difficult. Sir Horace Plunk ett says there is a considerable number of leading commercial men who now favour fiscal autonomy, but there is also a strong body of Irish opinion holding firmly to tho belief that tho adoption of this course would spell the ruin of Ireland. In any' event, the addition of this to other Home Rule claims can only have the effect of further restricting the already limited prospects of a war-time settlement of the Irish difficulty. Finally the Ulster report suggests that Nationalist objections to military service were as pronounced in the Convention as they have been in the past few days in the Houso of Commons. Such a denial of national responsibility is not encouraging to those who are prepared to risk something in order that Irish Nationalist ideals may bo realised. In face of it no one can be surprised at the failure of tho conference, or at the refusal of Ulster to associate itself with the majority scheme embodied in the conference report.