IRELAND’S CLAIMS

New Zealand Tablet, 8 February 1912, Page 9

IRELAND’S CLAIMS

—— , « — : —— TWO WELL KNOWN AUTHORS GIVE THEIR VIEWS Mr. Maurice Hewlett,.,who. occupies a leading position among English writers has given his opinion on Home Rule,- He says The Union with England, of 1801 was effected.by. Pitt by. bribery and false promises, but it was effected for practical reasons not at all for sentimental: ones. Pitt's was not a sentimental age. He, being afraid of Napoleon, thought it would be better for England, and said it would be better for Ireland. These were his reasons, and his pretence, and he served them by chicane. Directly the Irish found themselves betrayed they resented it, and the generations which followed Pitt’s and Castlereagh’s dupes have never ceased to resent —and never will. But what has been the attitude of the sentimentalist Union with England has become an article of religion, the single Parliament a shrine for patriots. Every sound Conservative, as he passes by, adds his stone to the cairn. The Union is a password, a rallycry, a shibboleth. Cant in those who can think, prejudice in those who can only feel! . . And yet the Union is but a hundred and eleven years old, was sown in corruption, has been more hindrance to the development of England and Ireland than any political act since the establishment of the Anglican Church. Who can help the blind to see? . . . We English have always held Ireland by the sword, and hold her so still. By the sword and by no other power is. the Union maintained. Nothing can be so urged in justification of so maintaining a political estate. To have achieved it by fraud is bad enough ; to uphold it by force is, to the likes of me, incredible. But that is what we are doing. Four-fifths of the Irish hate the Union one-fifth does not, for reasons which shall be dealt with presently: and that fifth is not Irish at all. Now to urge as it is urged, that we are justified in continuing this hateful tyranny so it is if it is against the clear wish, and in spite of every effort, of

the peoplebecause it will be bad for us if we do not, is to urge nonsense, and wicked nonsense. .' . vi; England might not like a Parliament in Dublina folly which would be desperately wicked if it were not so stupid. I have asked English audiences sometimes to conceive how they would feel if their Parliament was in Dublin, and England ruled by an Irish Viceroy at Buckingham Palace, an Irish Secretary in Downing street, with an Irish police in their pay. They laugh. I am an idealist trying to explain the idealist’s position in such matters as this, and since I claim to be practical I will put my point practically. I plainly say that honesty is more profitable to men than dishonesty, and expect no Christian, at any rate, to demur. That is one of those commonplacesproverbial commonplaces which everybody says and hardly anybody believes. But if it be true, unless it is honest to keep by any force of the sword an unwilling nation to a fraudulent bargain, then no Christian can pretend that it is profitable to maintain the Union of England and Ireland. Let those, nevertheless, who maintain either that dishonesty is the more profitable or that we keep Ireland in bondage for her own good, be heard. Machiavelli, in ‘ The Prince, ’ was distininctly of the first opinion, and I dare say that there are Unionists who pretend to the second. But these must go on to explain why it is good for Ireland to be in bondage and bad for Canada, good for Ireland and bad for South Africa, good for Ireland and bad for Australia. To me personally, these balancings of expediency and relative profit are hateful and improper. I should despair of man’s future if I thought he would always be more easily swayed by consideration of material profit and loss than by the appeals of honor, simplicity of heart and sincerity of vision.... The gist of the matter lies in this: Ireland is one people, England another. No people can in any decent sense belong to another against its will. What Pitt stole it become us to restore. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the well-known novelist, was chosen by the Belfast Evening Telegraph as a likely ‘subject,’ and he was invited to -give his views about Home Rule. As the creator of ‘ Sherlock Holmes had

contested two seats as a Unionist candidate, the local organ confidently counted upon a communication that . would bring joy to Sir Edward Carson’s heart. The literary knighUsent the following' most interesting reply to the invitation; and he took the precaution of sending his letter to a news agency also: —, , ‘ It is true that I have twice contested Parliamentary seats as a Unionist, but on each occasion I very carefully , defined my own position as regards Home Rule. That position, which I made stronger in 1905 than I did in 1900, was that Home Rule could only ' come with ‘time, that it would only be safe with an altered economic condition and a gentler temper among the people, and above all after the local representative institutions already given had been adequately tested. It seems to me that these conditions have now been fairly well complied with. The land system is in a simpler basis, there is better feeling among representative Nationalists^. (I admit, of course, the existence still of those fanatics who have stood in the way of their own desires for so many years) and, finally, the local institutions seem to me to have worked as well in Catholic as in Protestant Ireland. So far as being law-abiding, citizens goes, England, which is just recovering from a ' period of absolute' anarchy is : not in a position to criticise Ireland, which remained perfectly quiet during the same time. There are other more general considerations which have, as it seems to me, profoundly altered the whole Irish question. One is the apparently, complete success of Home Rule in South Africa. This has had a great influence upon my, mind, for. the animosities in Ireland are tepid compared to the boiling racial ; passions which existed only- ten years ago in Africa. A second is our assurance that Ireland can never break away from the Union, since South Africa, showed that, . every State of the British Empire would unite against any disruption. There are many other considerations which weigh with me, but these are the chief , ones. I think that a solid loyal Ireland is the one thing which '

the empire needs to make it impregnable; and I believe that the men of , the North will have a patriotism so: broad and enlightened that they will understand this, and ' - will sacrifice 'for the moment their racial .'and; religious feelings in the conviction that by so doing they are truly serving the Empire, and that under any form of rule their character and energy will give them a large share of the government of the nation. They may rest assured that any attempt at religious persecution or financial spoliation would-be made impossible (if anyone contemplated such a thing) by the burst of indignation which it would produce. There may be an element of risk in Home Rule, but we ran the risk in Canada, and we ran the risk in Africa, so surely we need not fear after two successes to try it once again. I believe that after an experience of a united friendly Ireland nothing _ would induce the North to go back to the old conditions. If you care to publish my view, I shall be glad. It not, I shall do. so myself, as I owe it to the electors, whom I may have influenced of old, to let-them know how I stand in the matter.