ENGLISH VERSUS BRITISH

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXV, Issue 10, 20 August 1897, Page 5

ENGLISH VERSUS BRITISH

to Tin: KniToit n.z. tahm;t. Sin, — Allow me, as an Iri-hm.m. to add my j.rot s', as wi]\ as ''Scotland yet," to the remarks m your issue of the <ith iiist.. n England's conquering. The fact is England never iully conquered any of the countries. Wales was annexed, after many attempts, by its people accepting the King s infant son as their prince. They wanted a king who could spoik their language, so he gave them his son and told them to teach him their own tongue ; hence the eldest son ot England's sovereign N l'rince of Wales. {Scotland's so-called conquering (') is too well known for me to speak about. And Ireland has jet to be conquered. The fact that a man-of-war i< constantly kept in Cork Harbour proves, more than any woi<K that England admits it is still to be done. In all her greatness she was many times defeated by Ireland, and part of the country she never took, each time she made the attempt she got beaten. Robert Chambers tells us "Only Bruce came so soon after Wallace our history would be as unhappy a 5"a 5 " that of Ireland." Oh, yes, Mr. hditor, if God had given us two great men after each other, as he did to Scotlanl, we would have a different story to-day. If James VI. annexed England and Ireland he should have remained in Scotland and brought the English Court to Edinburgh, instead of going to London and changing his title to James I. — I am, etc., Irish max. Dunedin, August Hi. [We ourselves never suggested that England conquered any one of the above-named countries and any controversy on the matter ib therefore, so far as we arc concerned, unnecessary. If our corres-

pondents will look at the paragraph in oar issue of the Gth.iast. they will see that it is distinctly acknowledged to be taken from a contemporary, and we may add that it was from a very Irish contemporary at that. The main contention of the paragraph was that England was not justified in using the term "English" in State documents and official references, inasmuch as the national institutions referred to were the work not only of Englishmen, but also of Scotchmen, Irishmen and Welshmen. With that we, and we suppose our correspondents also, heartily agree. The paragraph was written not to exalt England, but to claim a small measure ot justice for the Irish. Scotch, and Welsh. It is, of course, as our correspondents have pointed out, a simple historical fact that Scotland was not conquered by England. We think the controversy may well stop here, as it can scarcely be continued without seeming to suggest that we in some way or other maintain that England did conquer Scotland — a position which we entirely and'emphutically disclaim.— Ed. N.Z. Tablet.]