The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, APRIL 13, JO]]. NATIONALISTS AND THE CORONATION

New Zealand Tablet, 13 April 1911, Page 673

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1911. NATIONALISTS AND THE CORONATION

HE Irish Nationalists and the Dublin ’ City •UjiIIEO-VLI Corporation have come in for criticism——[jld friendly and unfriendly— respect to their ilv'Sr attitude on the question of the Coronation. Ssbl The friendly criticism is fitly represented by yjktWtT the leading article in the Dunedin Evening MiL® 1 Star of Monday last. For many years the » Star has been a steady and consistent sup- . porter of Home Rule; and its articles on the subject have been marked not only by exceptional ability and a thorough grasp of the question in all its aspects, but also by that sympathetic insight without which it is impossible to enter fully into the spirit of any great national movement. It is, therefore, somewhat surprising to find so sturdy a champion so easily overcome by ‘ misgivings ’; andas we shall hope to show—the misgivings are by no means warranted by the facts. The unfriendly criticism is represented by the paragraphs referring to the subject in the ‘Passing Notes’ column of Saturday’s Otago Daily Times. We have ■ alwaysunderstood that ‘Passing Notes’ were intended to - be funny; and we are willing to enjoy them and to respect the writer —if lie will let us. But we venture to say that no fairminded or intelligent reader would see in his Saturday’s sneering allusions to Irish Nationalists and the Irish people anything but vulgarity, pure and simple. It was said of a classic writer of old that he touched nothing which he did not adorn. Contrariwise, it may truly be said of ‘ Givis ’ that he never touches the Irish question without making himselfin greater or less degreeridiculous. It is not the Dublin Corporation or the Irish people who are lowered by references to ‘ Alderman Moike and Councillor Tim,’ and to ‘the finest pisantry in the world’—it is the cultured writer who, throwing dignity aside, stoops to the devices of the literary mountebank, and brings an honored column down to the level of ‘ Ally Slopor.’ * The immediate occasion of the criticisms we are discussing is the fact that the Irish Parliamentary Party at a recent meeting officially decided that, as a party, they could not take part in the Coronation ceremonies, and the further fact that the Dublin City Corporation—sumably following on the same lines—-rejected a ! motion to present an address to the King on the occasion of his Coronation. In making their decision public, the Irish Party issued a statement—which may be allowed to speak for itself of the reasons by which they were constrained to stand apart on this occasion. We give the statement in full; ‘Ever since the foundation of the United Irish Party under Mr. Parnell’s leadership in 1880, it has been the settled practice and rule of the Party to stand aloof from all Royal and Imperial festivities or ceremonies, participation in which might be taken as a proof that Ireland was satisfied with or acquiesced willingly in the system of government under which, since the Union, she has been compelled to live. In accordance with this policy, the members of the Irish Party took no part in the jubilee of Queen Victoria, or in the Coronation of Edward the Seventh. Since the date of these ceremonies circumstances have vastly changed, and the cause of Irish liberty, to fight for which the Irish Party was created, is now on the eve of victory. ' A great majority of the people of Great Britain and the Parliaments and peoples of the selfgoverning Colonies are friendly to the cause for which the Irish Party stands. In view of these facts, it would

be a great source of satisfaction to us if we could, as representatives of the Irish nation, take our place side by side with the representatives of the other great component parts of the Empire at the Coronation of King George, but with deep regret we are compelled to say that the time has not yet come when we feel free to join with the other representatives of the King’s subjects on this great occasion.’ * % I We are,’ continues the statement, 1 the representatives of a country still deprived of its constitutional rights and liberties, and in a condition of protest against the system of government under which it is compelled to live; and as such we feel we have no proper place at the Coronation of King George, and would lay ourselves open to the gravest misunderstanding by departing on this occasion from the settled policy of our Party. Entertaining, as we do, the heartiest good wishes for the King, and joining with the rest of his subjects in the hope that he may have a long and a glorious reign, and ardently desiring to dwell in amity and unity with the people of Great Britain and the Empire, who, living under happier conditions than exist in our country, will stand round him at the ceremony of his Coronation, we feel bound, as the representatives of a people who are still denied the blessings of Self-Govern-ment and freedom, to stand apart and await with confident hope the happier day of Irish Self-Government, now close at hand. We are sure our people will receive the King on his coming visit to Ireland with the generosity and hospitality which are traditional with the Irish race; and when the day comes that the King will enter the Irish capital to reopen the Irish Parliament of Ireland, we believe he will obtain from the Irish people a reception as enthusiastic as ever welcomed a British monarch in any part of his Dominions.’ The Press Association adds that the decision of the Nationalists to abstain from taking any part in the Coronation was only arrived at after most prolonged , deliberations. The Party met at noon, and, after sitting for two and a-half hours, an adjournment was made until after the delivery of the principal speeches in the Parliament Bill debate. A further meeting was held in the evening, lasting an hour and a half. * The cable message gave no particulars as to the reasons advanced by the Dublin Corporation for not taking official action in connection with the Coronation; but it is safe to assume that they acted on the same principles as, and followed the lead given by, the Irish Parliamentary Party. It is not our purpose to discuss the rightness or wrongness, the wisdom or unwisdom, of these decisions. Our object is merely to point out to our Dunedin evening contemporary thatin the light of the " explanation furnished by the Irish —their action, and that of the Dublin Corporation to which the same explanation applies, affords not the least occasion for ‘ misgivings.’ They are merely followingconsistently, indeed, but regretfully and reluctantlythe precedent established many years ago by the great Irish Protestant leader, Parnell. ‘ Entertaining, as we do, the heartiest good wishes for the King, and joining with the rest of his subjects in the hope that he may have a long and glorious reign, and ardently desiring to dwell in amity and unity with the people of Great Britain and the Empire ’ —that is not the language of separatists, or of those who are ‘ virtually disowning Throne and Empire alike.’ And in the light of the same explanation, and of the same expression of Irish sentiment, we desire to suggest to ‘ Civis ’ that his statement of the position is a piece of misrepresentation of which he has reason to be heartily ashamed. With the words above quoted before us, it is evident that to speak of the Nationalists as going out of their way to ‘select’ this occasion ‘for offering an affront to the King,’ and to describe them as animated by ‘ a perverse obstinacy, ugly, sullen, irrational,’ etc., is sheer dodder. From now on, till the actual accomplishment of Home Rule, the Irish Party will doubtless receive plenty of criticism from the -know-alls of the press but at least the critics might—if only for appearances’ sake — make some reasonable attempt to be fair.