ERSKINE CHILDERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16902, 29 November 1922, Page 4

ERSKINE CHILDERS.

STORY OF HIS CAREER.

For some weeks before hie death, Michael Collins, it seems, was dictating to Mr Hayden Talbot, the Anglo-Ame-rican journalist, the story of his career. A fortnight ago (states t-lie “ Belfast AVeekly News ”), he decided to expose Erskine Childers, but stipulated that the statement should not be published until the rebellion was broken. The embargo is now' held to to raised, and the “exposure” appears in the “Sunday Express.” It contains the following passages, dictated, according to Mr Talbot, on the Free State leader’s return to Dublin from a flying visit to Limerick: “Ten years ago Childers —then in tho English Civil Service, and with more or less influence among a certain coterie in the House of Coincommand that the British Government should grant the Irish.people a measure of freedom that was as unthinkable from an English view as it was greater and more radical than the most advanced Irishman dreamed of getting. Then, as at all times since, this Englishman was damning any chance Ireland might have had of winning reasonable concessions from England—.by advocating an extreme course of action which must inevitably heighten English hostility against us. Down through the years Childers's record shows lie never once deviated from ftis pet purpose— always to be more extreme than the most extreme of the Irish Radicals. Twenty years ago Childers wrote a book, in which he made out a perfect case for an astounding kind of super-spy—the agent provocateur. His ingenious scheme was nothing less than having the .spy join the extreme faction in an enemy country. and lead them to excesses that would eventually bring about the de- “ That was the Childers of twenty years .ago. Let- us look into his activities as a champion of the cause of Irish freedom, keeping in mind this scheme he sponsored. “ Darrell Figgis went- to Belgium in .Tune, 1914. and bought 2000 rifles and ammunition at Liege. A Belgian seagoing tug transhipped the purchase to an agreed rendezvous in the North Sea, where the cargo was transhipped to Childers’s yacht. Eventually we got possession of the guns and ammunition —and the whole world presently learned of the gun-running at Howth. AVould anyone suggest that Childers’s part in this exploit is inconsistent with his professed belief in the efficacy of his super-spy system ? AVha-t practical good could be realised from our getting possession of a relative handful of weapons? On the other hand, the widespread publicity given to the exploit furnished England with a new and substantial ground for dealing sternly with the ‘impossible Irish malcontents.”’ “ But even more than this Childers may have had in his mind. At that time Carson’s armed forces in Ulster were drilling and prepaiing to wage war upon us—at least that is what many Irishmen honestly believed. AVhat could suit England’s wishes better than such a war? How could it be precipitated more surely than by furnishing arms in discreetly adequate quantities to the side which, unarmed, had no choice except passive acceptance of the Ulster menace? Fortunately, for once, we avoided'making the error of doing what Ireland’s enemies fully expected. It was for Easter week those guns were intended, and it was in Easter week, cnly, that they were used.

THE GUILELESS DE VALERA

i J.JJJ if i u lym'juo V A HJjJCI. “ Within less than a month after the Howth gun-running Childers was enlisting in the English Secret Service in the world war, repeating the services he had rendered his Empire in the South African AVar. “ Then in 1917 Childers met Do Valera. It was an unhappy moment for Ireland when this illogical, incompetent, inexperienced school teacher came under the spell of Childers—a genius as brilliant as De Valera is guileless. It was Childers who wrote the famous Document Number Two. It is Childers who has guided practically every action of De Valera for the past five years. I was strongly opposed to Childers’s presence in tho delegation of Treat plenipotentiaries even as a secretary, but De ALileru would not listen to my objections. There was no room for , doubt that De Valera firmly believed that Childers was the only man upon whom lie could depend. “ And what did Childers do in London? He had fold De. Valera, Burgha •Burgess), Stack and others in Dublin that ho had a great scheme by which he could argue the British Government into recognising that ther a was no danger in her granting Ireland’s demand lor a Republic. Griffith and the rest of the plenipotentiaries had no such scheme. Wherefore in due course it was decided that Childers should have a chance of putting his scheme into execution. He had been most secretive about it all along, and I bad no idea what it was when we went together by appointment to the Colonial Office one day last November, and there met Winston Churchill and Lord Beatty. The latter had a huge map brought over from the Admiralty at Childers’s request. It showed Britain, Ireland and the European coast.

arm me opetiii coast-. “ ‘ Now, gentlemen,’ began Childers, ‘ I mean to demonstrate that Ireland is not only no source of danger to England, but. from a military standpoint, is virtually useless.’ “ This announcement staggered me probably more than it did the other two. It was such ridiculous balderdash, 1 felt like wanting to get out of the room, but I naturally realised that T must make a. pretence of standing by my colleague. “Churchill and Beatty exchanged glances, and then gave Childers their attention again. “ ‘ Take the matter of Irish bases for English submarine chasers,* Childers continued. ‘ From the viewpoint of naval expediency Plymouth is a far | better base than any port- on the Irish

coast. •‘You really think so?’ asked Beatty. “Childers insisted he did, adding, ‘ For instance, supposing Ireland were not there at all ’ “‘Ah!’ said Beatty, with a smile, ‘but Ireland is there.’ “ ‘And how many times,’ interjected Churchill, ‘ have we wished she were not ?* “ And that was Childers’s great idea, and it was all of it. The argument with which he was going to persuade the British Government to recognise the Irish Republic got no further. I never felt more a fool in my wholb life, and yet to this day Do Valera and others believe that Childers’s scheme failed only because we of the delegation did not back him wholeheartedly. “ Was this merely another instance of Chilcters doing Ireland grievous damage unvrittinglv ? For my part I find if difficult to believe that Childers ever did one unwitting act in his life ; but, having said this, I repeat that it makes little difference. The only important fact that the Irish people must fully appreciate is that Erskine Childers—wittingly or unwittingly—has already done and is now doing uis utmes-; . > effect Ireland’s ruin.”