THE VIEWS OF AN ENGLISH JOURNALIST.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIII, Issue 5, 22 May 1885, Page 9

THE VIEWS OF AN ENGLISH JOURNALIST.

Thb following admirable article (says the Nation, March 21) is taken from the London Echo of Tuesday :—.: — . There is a good deal of harsh criticism this morning — and in Liberal journals, too— of the proceedings in the Dublin Town Council yesterday, but we cannot see that (here is anything in them of which the majority of the Corporation need be ashamed. All that it has done is to decline to present an address of welcome to the Prince of Wales on the occaiion of his visit to Dublin, and the reasons given seem to be conclusive as to the wisdom of this course. All the Nationalist members of the Corporation who spoke expressed their hope that the Prince of Wales would be treated with respect by the people of Ireland. Nor was there a word said about the Prince individually to which exception can justly be taken. But Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P., who moved the amendment that was carried by a majority of fortyone to seventeen, whilst repeating the promise with which he prefaced his remarks, " not to say a single word that could be regarded as offensive to the Prince and Princess of Wales," atatedWvery clearly the grounds of the Nationalist opposition to any official reception of the Prince by the Corporation. He assumed that the visit " emanated from a political source," that its, object was to "check and discredit the national movement," to " hide in the glitter of a royal progress the misery and. discontent of the Irish people." "If," said Mr. Sullivan, " the Prince of Wales wanted a hearty welcome from the Irish people he should come over to open again the Parliament in Collegegreen." Nor was; there anything in the amendment which, in our opinion goes beyond the truth. It runs : — " That inasmuch as the claim of tbe Irish people to a restoration of their < ancient national legislature is unjustly opposed and rejected by the English Government ; considering that the constitutional liberties of "the" Irish people are, and have been for years, superseded -by a coercion code ofvnn-, paralleled severity ; having regard to the fact that under covefcei these oppressive laws the administration of Irish affairs has become little than an odious despotism, perilous to the lives -sand*, liberties of innocent persons; and, further, considering that the visit of the Prince of Wales is a political contrivance designed' to produce a deceptive show of satisfaction with the rule of Dublin ' Castle and the British Parliameut, we, the Municipal Council of the city of Dublin, while most desirous that no disrespect should be offered to the royal visitors, deem it our duty to abstain from taking any part in their reception, believing that the presentation of .congratulatory, addresses and other 9uch demonstrations are unsuited to the circumstances of .our. country and calculated to mislead the public opinion of England and other nations as to the condition of Ireland and the feelings of the Irish people." What is there to object to here 1 Is it not a fair presentment of the situation gauged by Irishmen ? Can it be denied that the constitutional liberties of the Irish people are suspended; that the administration of Irish affairs .is little better than a despotism' ; that the visit of the Prince is a poli- ,; tical contrivance? These things are true—notorious. Why, then, should they not be proclaimed in the light of day ? To us it -seems that the Dublin Corporation has taken the only manly and dignifiedc ourse open to it. Better far that it should take no active part in the coming festivities than that it should assist to deceive the future ruler of Ireland by h-jllow professions of loyalty. There has been too much deception in the past. English politicians have been too ready to assume that Irish disaffection is not deep-seated — that a gracious visit from loyalty, a useful Act of Parliament now and again, the occasional redress of a grievance, is sufficient to preserve the loyalty of the Irish people, or at least of the vast majority of them. We can imagine no greater error, no error fraught, with more peril to the Empire. Ireland is not loyal. Give the Irit h a fair chance of success, and they would be in rebellion to-morrow We hold Ireland as we hold Egypt and India, by the terror of our arms. Let England be in conflict with some great Power, with France, and one great defeat would be followed by an Irish rising. It is but natural that it should be so. If there are some Irishmen who are still loyal to the English connection it is because they have not abandoned the hope that the British Parliament will yet. allow them to manage their own affairs. There is nothing unreasonable in their demand. They ask only that they shall be treated as the Dominion, the Austral sian colonies, and the Cape are treated — as .Ireland herself would be treated if only she could be moved into \. the middle of the Atlantic. To ask less would be to prove themselves unworthy of the privileges of free men. To omit to protest against the despotism of the Castle, the odious coercive laws now in force, the refusal of Home Rule, wonld be to neglect the first and plainest duty of competent citizens ; and we are glad to know that the Corporation of Dublin has in plain, but dignified, language placed upon record itß refusal to take part in a hollow and misleading ceremony, intended to show that there is peace where there is no peace, loyalty where disaffection is general, contentment where contentment is unknown.