Wairarapa Daily Times [Established 45 Years.] THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1920. THE IRISH ISSUES.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 46, Issue 14098, 15 April 1920, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established 45 Years.] THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1920. THE IRISH ISSUES.

Debate oh the second reading of the new Home Rule Bill has hitherto produced fe 4 w expressions of ..opinion that were not to have been anticipated. The bill is essentially a compromise, and a compromise is never popular, although people may admit that it represents the only possible solution. When the provisions of the bill were first published, opinion in England was favourable, but not optimistic. The sincerity of the Government was not questioned, but there were many w r ho feared that the principle of partition would be objectionable to the north and south equally. In one respect this expectation has been agreeably disappointed. Ulster reiterated its opposition to Home Rule in any shape or form whatever; Ulstermen emphatically declared that they still preferred to send representatives to Westminsetr rather than to a Parliament of their own, sitting at Belfast, and to a joint convention of north and south. But while formally registering a protest, Ulster agreed, largely through Sir Edward Carson’s influence, to accept the bill and to acquiesce in the “loss’’ of certain districts which, were claimed to be dominantly Protestant in religion and northern in sympathy. But the south, refused to follow the example of Ulster; no one, indeed, had a single good word to say for the bill. The Sinn Feiners refuse even to ’ consider any measure short of the establishment of an independent republic, while the moderates (a sadly-diminish-ed band to-day) are unshaken in their hostility to partition, and demand autonomy on a dominion basis. Mr T. P. 0 'Connor asks for the resurrection of ti.e Act of 1914, but his is a voice crying jn the wilderness; on whatever lines the solution of the Irish question will ultimately be found, it is generaly agreed that Home Rule in its former sense is a dead issue, and that the measure passed by Mr Asquith’s Government will no longer meet the case. Its provisions do not go nearly far enough for the southerners, while the antagonism of Ulster to them remains ineradicable. An interesting feature of the debate was Labour’s enunciation of policy. Not long ago a Labour commission visited Ireland' and reported in favour:, of the dominion autonomy proposal of Sir

Horace Plunkett. This is confirmed .by Mr Clynes’s speech which, without specifically drawing the analogy of the dominions, advocates for Ireland a status which is practically theirs, namely, the concession of the maximum selfgovernment compatible with the unity of the Empire. This is significant because there are several indications pointing to a general election in Britain at no distant date, and the return of Labour to power i 3 regarded as a distinct possibility. Apart from Mr Clynes ’s speech, the arguments employed were merely a ; recapitulation of those which iwe have heard on previous occasions. In affirming that no British Government could tolerate the secession of Ireland from the Empire, Mr Macpherson restated an axiom, the truth of which is apparent, to everyone except Sinn Fein. The strategic position of Ireland, dominating the approaches to tilt great ports‘of the Mersey and the Severn, the Welsh coalfields, and the English Channel, makes such a course unthinkable. The cession of Heligoland to a foreign Power was bad enough, and the lesson of its consequences is still fresh in our memories} no British Government would take the responsibility of acquiescing in the establishment of an independent Irish republic such as Sinn Fein demands. Even Mr Clynes, who may be presumed to have defined the maximum concessions, that the most radical party in the House of Commons is prepared to make, insists that self-determination in Ireland must be limited by the requirements of Imperial unity and Imperial defence. conditions in Ireland are going from bad to worse; every day brings its reports of assassination, outrage and violence of every kind; anything .that could put an-end to this deplorable state of affairs should be welcomed by the sober elements of the community. It is useless for the Irish to blame England for her failure to find a solution; the remedy can only come from Ireland herself. It is for the Irish to suggest some system of government which will satisfy both factions. As Lord Robert Cecil said in 'the course of the debate, no final settlement for Ireland is possible, without agreement. Whether the principle of partition or of dominion-autonomy be ultimately adopted, it rests with the Irish whether’’it is to succeed in its operation. Nothing that England can do, iio specific that she can devise, can be a substitute for a spirit of give and take and of mutual confidence among the Irish people. That has been the weak point in the cases of both the Irish parties; by refusing to recognise the rights and aspirations of the other, bp making “ no compromise ’ ’ their motto, they have alienated the sympathies of many who once wished them well. In her attitude to the new bill, Ulster has made a commendable departure from her former stubborn obduracy; if the south could only be prevailed upon at least to give the proposal a fair trial, this action would pave the way to greater concessions in the near future. For it cannot be repeated too often that the partition is not meant to be, permanent; the Irish, can bring it to an end at any moment they please, and the bill promises to a reunited Ireland largely enhanced powers.