ELOQUENT EXPOSITION OF ERIN'S CLAIMS VOICED BY HER LEADER

New Zealand Tablet, 5 February 1920, Page 9

ELOQUENT EXPOSITION OF ERIN'S CLAIMS VOICED BY HER LEADER

Nearly 12,000 people gathered in Washington. Ball Park last Sunday afternoon to hear the exposition of Ireland's-claims to independence by the President of the Irish Republic, Eamon do Valera (says The Tidings of November 28). The President arrived with the committee a little before three o'clock, and, after driving around the great field, was borne on the shoulders of ex-servico men to the rostrum erected in the centre of the field. Little W. J. Ford, jun., presented the President with a bouquet of yellow, and white chrysanthemums and asparagus ferns, tied with the American colors. Joseph Scott, who introduced the President, made a magnificent address, full of wonderful fire and enthusiasm. We regret that limitations of space forbid its reproduction; but, believing that de Valcra's words to tho people of Los Angeles should bo given as much publicity as possible, we have decided to devoto this issue as far as possible to the cause .of Ireland as presented to our fellow-citizens by the Irish President. Therefore we reproduce de Valera's great address in full. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, — It has been my custom, ever sinco I came to your country, exactly half a year ago to-day, to speak at every gathering a few words in the language of tho country that I have the honor to represent. I have always done so with a double object, the first being that in that language I could convey to those whov know it, a messago that I could not convey even in a long speech in English, and to those who did not understand tho language of Ireland, I conveyed this message, that we were no part of Britain's empire.

We are, in Ireland, a. distinct and separate nation. Wo have been a nation since the dawn of history, and never at any time has England got from the people of Ireland any moral right to rule over the country of Ireland. England has no claim to rule Ireland. England holds Ireland to-day simply by means of her armed forces. England's claim to Ireland is simply tho claim of might. You do not ask me, I am sure, to prove to you that tho people of Ireland have a claim to rule Ireland. ' It ought not bo necessary that tho country that was declared free in the words that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of tho governed," should not bo necessary to talk to the citizens of that country, by way of proving that in the case of Ireland, all government should derive its just power from tho consent of tho governed.

Tho Elections of Last December.

I cam© to this country with three main objectives before me. The first and greatest, that which included everything, was to seek hero from the liberty-loving people of America recognition of the Republic which has been clearly established in Ireland by the will of the Irish people. Do you all know that that Republic has been established by tho will of the Irish people? If you do not you have got to learn the results of the elections held in Ireland last December, that these elections were general elections in every constituency in Ireland, that there was a contest wherever a. candidate could be found to oppose those who stood for independence and for a Republic for Ireland. These elections were ordered at a time suitable to Britain, by the Prime Minister of Britain ; they were held under British supervision ; everything that the British Government could do to put obstacles in the way of tho people of Ireland, so as to prevent them from voting for the Republic, was done. They used public moneys in a political campaign against those who stood for tho Irish Republic. From British aeroplanes pamphlets were cast down upon tho people, telling them what would happen to them if they voted for independence. From British army trucks pamphlets were also distributed against tho Republic. Tho British post offices in Ireland were stuffed with literature maligning the Republican representatives of Ireland; tho organisation formed by the Republicans in Ireland was disorganised in so far as tho British Government could disorganise it, by taking those who were elected as leaders of the organisation and throwing them into British prisons and keeping them there for 10 months without any definite charge being brought forward against them.

Not merely was that done, but one after another, according as they were chosen, and the last one a. few days before tho election —ono after another, according as they were chosen, the directors of elections in Ireland were sent to prison with their comrades, *also without a charge being assigned against them, so that, in so far as the British Government could achievo it, on tho day of the poll there were no leaders of tho people there to direct the people. £jr ' / '"-

But, in Ireland, this movement of ours, this Republican movement, is not a-machine movement, \ from the top —it springs from the people. -It is the most democratic movement in the world, and according as one by one the British Government removed those who were put into power, the people put others in their places, and, knowing that the issue was one of independence against union with England, the people went themselves to the polls and the record of their election, you will see it on the map there, if you have an opportunity of seeing from where you are—you will see from that map there on the boarding.

Results.

Out of 105 electoral districts in Ireland returning members for Parliament,. 73 were chosen unequivocally for the establishment of the Republic of Ireland— Seventythree, you will notice, is a majority of over 2J to 1 against all parties, but the results of the election were even better than that, because there were six others who accepted. the principle of self-determination, and all we ask the people of America for is recognition in the case of Ireland of the principle of self-determination. For self-determination in Ireland we have 79 of the people's representatives, mind you, elected by the people by ballot, with all the safeguards that can "be provided by British electoral law. We have, then, 79 to —79 who stand for the principle of self-determination, against 26 who say that the Irish people are not to determine how they shall bo governed. Twenty-six who stand, not for Irish independence, but who stand for a union between Ireland and England. ... The question, then, for the American people is this: Are you going to recognise the right of the vast majority of the Irish people to choose how they shall be governed, or are you going to tell them that they must be governed not according to their desire, but in accordance with the method which Britain may desire? I came here to America because I was certain before I came here that with such a question to decide upon, Americans, to be consistent with the traditions of their country, to be consistent with their declarations of war, could give but one judgment, and that judgment should necessarily be in favor of the Irish people deciding for themselves how they shall be governed. We point, therefore, to the results of these elections, and ask you, when you have a majority of the people's representatives equivalent to a majority of 3 to 1, when you have these telling you how Ireland should be governed, will you refuse to recognise their will? Now, not merely have we a majority of 3 to 1 of the people's representatives in favor of self-determination for Ireland, but if we look at the total votes cast in that election we shall see that out of 000-odd votes that were cast in the election, some 305,000-odd votes only were for union with England; that is, a bare 20 per cent, of the people of Ireland voted for union with England.

No Choice.

Hence I say that there is no choice for any American man or woman who stands by the traditions of America, who stands by American declarations in the war; there is no alternative, no choice but to grant that the Republic established in Ireland has been clearly established by the will of the Irish people. And inasmuch as it is established by the will of the Irish people, that there is nothing left for any genuine American but to recognise that Republic. And, as I anticipated before I came here, I came here because I considered that at this time the American nation is the supreme moral court of the world to-day, and I came here because I believed that, notwithstanding all that British propaganda for the past five years has been able to do here, that Americans would still stand for fair play, that Americans would never be ready to len'd themselves to crush liberty in any land. I have, in coming through your country, through which I have passed twice from ocean to ocean within the last six months—l have found everywhere that I was not disappointed, even as I was certain when we were denied the use of the auditorium here, that we would have to-day a larger meeting. And the words that came into my mind as I entered the field here to-day and looked at this audience were, "And so be it ever when true men shall stand."

I found them, and it is the message which I shall send to the Irish peoplel found everywhere that the American people responded to every hope which I had in my heart when I came here.

Has anyone here, man or woman, ever heard a good reason as to why the Republic of Ireland should not bo recognised? You know that no good reason can be given. Instead of meeting our claim, a claim based upon human right, a claim based upon justice and truth —instead of meeting that claim with legitimate arguments, we are not met with such, because, in truth, there are none. We are met, instead, with misrepresentations of various sorts.

■--•_'■"■■-;•-; Misrepresentations. r . One of these misrepresentations is that England will be quite ready to give to the Irish ; people anything they want, provided they could agree on what they want. Now let us examine what | truth there is in that. I say that the Irish 1 people have shown in their election as much substantial agreement as you will ever get in any countrv on any question of the kind. We were called traitors, but so were Washington and his comrades called traitors by Britain. We must remember that it was not only the ' British who called Washington and Jefferson traitors. There were at that time, in the colonies here, in the soil of America, men whom you know in histories as the loyalists and the tories of that day. They called Washington a traitor, and if you had, in Washington's day, to wait for the unanimity which England wants from us now, you would not be to-day .the free country that you are. In Ireland to-day the loyalists and Tories in Ireland do not amount to 20 per cent, of the Irish nation. In Washington's day, here in America, the loyalists and the Tories were as much as 35, and some say 38, per cent, of the people. They were used against Washington by England just as those to-day who are loyalists and Tories in Ireland are used against those who want freedom for their country in Ireland. You cannot have in a country which has been governed by an alien Power for any length of time, no matter though the alien Power has been ruling without the consent of the peopleyou can never have the unanimous vote of the people, even in favor of liberty, because the usurping Power will always find means to win to his side a certain section of the people. /.,... .; So it was in Washington's day, so it is in our day in Ireland. In Jugo-Slavia and inCzecho-Slovakia, in AlsaceLorraine, in every one of the new States that are about to be established as the result of the world war, in every one of these you will find a minority opposed to the government set up by the majority, a minority in proportion far greater than the minority in Ireland. If you look at that map, you will see the portion of it that is painted orange. That portion represents the only part of Ireland in which the loyalists and the Tories of to-day are in the majority. Do not imagine that is the whole of the province of Ulster. Far from it.

Ulster.

In five out of the nine counties in Ulster, those who stand for self-determination really means independence for the Irish people—are in the majority. In only four out of the nine counties have the Tories, the Unionists, have they a majority, and in many of these their majority is not at all comparable to the majority of those who stand for self-determination in the whole of Ireland. In every one of these four counties there is at least one representative who stands for self-determination for his countrymen. That is not homogeneous then, that portion of Ireland, these four counties in the north-east corner, where the Loyalists are in the majority.

In Belfast alone you have more Nationalists than in the city of Cork. And yet you do not understand the position, and are led to believe the province of Ulster is against self-determination for Ireland. It is not against self-deter-mination for Ireland.

You are asked to believe that that portion of Ireland, that portion painted orange there — portion is entitled to self-determination for itself. No. The principle of self-determination, if it is not to be reduced to an absurdity, must be national self-determination. It cannot be parish self-determination. It must, I repeat, unless you want to make it an absurdity, by bringing it down until every individual becomes a law unto himself must take the nation as a unit to which the principle of self-determina-tion is to be applied.

We want self-determination for the Irish nation. This portion of Ireland which you see painted orange is not a nation. The people who inhabit it have never set themselves up to be a distinct and separate nation.

They are racially, aye, and religiously, too, the same kind as their fellow-countrymen. In one portion you have Catholics and Protestants, you have Gael and Gaul; that is, you have those who trace their blood back to . the Milesian inhabitants" of Ireland. You have these side by side with those who came to the country two or three or four hundred years back.

You must not then, imagine, that they are in any way a distinct and separate people. The boundary of the territory there marked in orange changes from election to election, so that they have no definite boundaries" to the portion that they inhabit. That is how it appears to-day. Before the last election it looked different, and when the next election comes along that portion will have a different color good deal of it. |. . _,..'

Therefore you see that this, which is nothing but a political minority, has no right to, look for self-determina-tion. It would be just as rational and as solidly based for, Bay, the States which at the next election would vote differently to the majority, for the States to demand for themselves, to set up a separate and distinct nation. _ For instance, in the past, certain States in the North Vermont, I think, is.one of them —have been accustomed to vote Republican. In this present Democratic administration, when it came into being Vermont did not. ask to set up as a separate nation. Similarly, when a Republican administration was in office, the portion of the southern part of your country that voted the Democratic ticket did not want to set up as a separate nation, and they would have just as good claims to be set up as a separate nation as would that portion of Ireland to-day which is painted orange. Again, I repeat, there are two main parties in Ireland: Those who stand for Irish independence and those who stand for union with England. They have different political objectives, the basis of division between them is political.

Neither Racial Nor Religious.

It is not racial, it is not religious. You are told it is religious. Now;, it is very easy to see that it is not, and so dfficult would it be to prove it religious that even the Los Angeles Times admits that it is not a religious question.

It is easy to seo that it is not. a religious question, this question of independence against union with England. This republican movement had its origin in the very corner of Ireland which is to-day Unionist. . This republican movement, this movement for Irish independence, has for the past 130 years or so been a movement in which the leaders have nearly all been Protestant, and if the line or basis of division were religious isn't it absurd to say that one riligious party would choose as its leaders members from the opposite, religion ?

It is sufficient to take the history of that movement and to note that its father, Wolfe Tone, was a Protestant; that all his comrades at the time were Protestants; that William Orr Russell and McCracken and the others from the North were Protestants; that Lord Fitzgerald was a Protestant; that Robert Emmet was a Protestant; coming down later, that John Mitchel was a Protestant; that Thomas Davis was a Protestant; that Parnell was a Pro- ' testant; that Smith O'Brien was a Protestant; that Butt" was a Protestant; and that long range of Protestant leaders to what is said to be a Catholic party is sufficient proof that the basis of the division is not religious, because, as I said, it would lie absurd to think that a religious party would choose as its leaders those holding the religion of the men whom they were fighting against. At all times there have been a number of Protestants on the side of Irish independence, and as I have shown you, the greatest of Irish patriots who have fought for independence have been Protestants. For this republican movement at the start, no less than ten Presbyterian ministers were hung; six priests Mere also hanged, and that shows that in this movement for independence for Ireland we have Protestants, Catholics, and Presbyterians, and to-day in our party we have two Protestants representing Catholic districts in Ireland and we have one Catholic representing a Protestant district in Ireland. When Ernest Bly and Barton were up for election the question was not asked them, "What religion do you belong to?" but, "What do you stand for politically?"

The Real Cause.

The cause they stood for politically was for Irish independence and for the Irish republic, and they were elected by those who differed from them in religious faith; and so, too, when Dennis Henry was up for election in the North, though he was a Catholic, it was not asked of him whether he was a Catholic or not. What was asked him was, "What do you stand for politically? and because he stood politically for union with England he was elected by the union constituency and sent to the English parliament. Therefore, it is no wonder that even the Los Angeles Times cannot say that it is a religious movement and has had to admit that it is a political one. _ Why, then should the existence of the political minority in Ireland' prevent the Irish people from choosing their own form of government? You know that even if the whole of the people of Ireland were to-day unanimous, you know perfectly well that England would not give up Ireland it she could hold it. You know that it is not for the good of the Irish people or out of love for the Irish people that England holds Ireland, and just as centuries before there was a Protestant in the world, centuries before Martin Luther nailed up his theses, Catholic Ireland unanimously of the same religion, was fighting against Catholic England So to-day, if the whole of Ireland were to be unanimous on the question of independence, and, no matter

what she might profess ."how, England would not, and you know she would not, be willing to give to the Irish people that which the Irish people want. This \ introduction by our opponents of the question of religion is an attempt to prevent the judges on this question, the fair-minded, liberty-loving people, not merely of America, but of the whole world, from deciding in accordance with the principles of justice. It is an attempt to bring in religious predilections and religious questions into a judgment which ought to be pronounced s on the facts as they are, politically, and ought to be pronounced in accordance with the principles of justice. It was said during the war that we should do justice, not merely to those whom we wish to be just, but to those whom we did not wish to be just. However, as an ideal question that is all right, but the English propagandists know that human nature does not always act up to the principles professed as ideal principles. They know full well that if you can get the judges into such a state of mind that they will not wish to be just; it is not likely that they will be just, and it is by exciting prejudices that England hopes to defeat Ireland's cause in America.

It would, of course, be quite impossible in one speech or ten speeches, to deal with all of the misrepresentation of our opponents, or to deal with all of the instances of where they are trying to work up prejudice in order to get the judges to decide against us. I have dealt with one; the religious one, which is the most outstanding. There is another, and that is the one that those who feel they have a bad case' on the religious side try to put all their efforts on.

A Canard.

It was said that during the war we in Ireland stabbed America in the back. Now I want all fair-minded Americans to consider this first of all, that we were fighting this fight for Irish independence centuries before Columbus was born. I want you to understand that we have had only one enemy in 750 years; the same enemy we have to-day, the same enemy we shall always have as long as a British soldier is on the soil of Ireland. That was the enemy Irishmen were fighting against at the time that Spain was England’s enemy, and at that time, because we happened to be fighting England and Spain also happened to be fighting England, Irishmen whose sole object was to secure the liberty of Ireland were called by the British “proSpanish.” We were pro-Spanish when Spain was fighting England. We were pro-French when the French were fighting England. We were pro-Boer, according to the British, when the Boers were fighting England. Aye, and we were asked to forget, when England went into the war, to forget that this professional champion of liberty and all small nations had robbed, only some 15 years before, two Republics of their freedom to make, as I heard an American sayto make the world safe for diamonds. We were pro-Boer, and of course during the last war, because we fought for Irish freedom, we were said to be pro-German, and we were said to have stabbed America in the back, though we fought our fight just one year before America came into the war. We fought our fight in Dublin and proclaimed the Republic in Dublin, exactly, as I say, one year before America came into the war, and at the time that we fought England the English press were trying to malign this nation as they are maligning us now. These were the days when every paper in England had a cartoon of the American as “Too proud to fight,” because you at that time did not believe the profession of English statesmen, professions that were clearly hypocritical, and because you did not believe them and did not go to the help of Britain in those days it was said you were slackers in the war for liberty, exactly as it is said about that section of Ireland who would not allow themselves to be made a tool of by England. Should America drink in these statements against Ireland now ? Should you forget that you yourselves did not believe what English statesmen professed when the war started? Six months after our fight in Dublin in 1916; that is, in October, 1916, your president said that he did not know what the war was about, and he said, asking an audience in Cincinnati, he asked, “Is there anybody here who can tell me what the war is about, because I don t know?” 1 ... jy[o\Vj isn’t it evident that at that time you did not know what the war was about? Six months earlier we did not believe that the war was a war for liberty, as far as England was concerned. We knew England’s history a little too well to be deceived by English statesmen’s professions. We were not ■ deceived by English statements about “scraps of paper” and the “sanctity of treaties,” because we in Ireland knew of many treaties that the Government, whose spokesmen were speaking, had torn up. We had not forgotten the Treaty of Limerick, that was

torn up by a British King before the : ink with which it was written Was dry. We did not forget the Act of Renunciation of 1783, passed in the English House of '; Commons and Parliament at the very same;" time that American independence was recognised by England, an act which abandoned forever all pretences by the British Parliament to legislate for Ireland, an act which was a solemn act, which inscribed on the Statute Book of England the words that the sovereignty of the Irish Parliament should henceforth and forever be unquestioned and unquestionable. We had not forgotten that that solemn treaty was torn up by English Ministers within 18 years. We, who had the misfortune of living with Britain, and, therefore, knowing Britain's history better than others were likely to know it, we had not forgotten that this Britain that posed as a defender of the sanctity of treaties had herself torn up many treaties with Ireland; had, in fact, torn up so many treaties with the world that on the Continent England was known as "perfidious Albion."

Not Deceived.

Therefore we were not deceived by England's supposed and professed championship of the sanctity of treaties, nor were Ave deceived by England's role as a champion of small nations. We knew England's history as regards championing small nations to have been, this: That she was a champion of nations whose liberty was going to weaken a commercial or imperial rival. We know that in the past England's history had been this: that to-day she fought with A against B to rob B, and to-morrow, when she got a chance, she fought B to rob A, and thus robbed them both.

So she robbed them both in turn. We had a very good test as to England's regard for the sanctity of liberty. We said to the English: "If this be truly a Avar for freedom everywhere, here is a nation at your own doors, one that has struggled the longest for liberty; a nation that has fought for it for nine centuries and a-half; a nation that enjoyed it for a thousand years before that. Here at your own doors is a nation, to free which you do not need to beat any Sultan or any Emperor or any Kaiser. You can free that nation by a stroke of your Monarch's pen. If you refuse to do so, aren't wo right in saying that you are now, as you have always been, a hypocrite?

"Fighting your own fight of commercial greed and imperialism, fighting that selfish fight under a righteous banner, with moral principles inscribed upon it."

And so, in Ireland, the section of the Irish people who know England's history and who knew Irish history said that if there was to be a fight for small nations, and if this fight that was on was a fight against imperialism, they would take part in that, not as crusaders in a foreign field, where, when they had poured out their life's blood, they could be cheated, but they would fight on the soil of the land to which they owed their first and only allegiance. They would fight their fight, that would certainly be a fight for tho freedom of small nations. We did not have to go to the field of Flanders to find a militarism to ficht against. English militarism was to our certain knowledge guilty in Ireland of the precepts which, in the case of Germany, we had to take the reports in the paper for. We had a certainty in the case of Ireland. Three days before war was declared, on July 26, 1914, Irishmen and Irish women and Irish children were shot down by English soldiers on the streets of Dublin.

A Strange Thing.

It is strange to hear, sometimes, Americans, who proudly proclaim that they are Americans first, Americans last, and Americans all the time, to hear these men find fault with Irishmen for saying, ''ln the case of Ireland we are Irish first, we are Irish last, we are Irish all the time." It is very strange to hear Americans who fought for their own liberty find fault with Irishmen for fighting for the liberty of Ireland. I ask you to imagine yourselves in these circumstancesimagine that Washington had failed and that he and all his compatriots were hanged, drawn, and quartered, as the British law of the time was. He himself admitted that if he had failed the scaffold would have been his doom. Imagine that he had failed and that the scaffold had been his doom, and imagine that in the next generation a huge band of Washingtons had sprung up, as assuredly they would have if the first Washington had failed. Imagine that the next generation of Washington..? had failed, and that the next generation again took up the fight, and that they suffered on the scaffold as the first generation and the second generation had suffered at the hands of England. Imagine that still another generation had sprung up, and that, just as this war broke out, men were shot, here in America as they were shot in Ireland— that they were shot down as they were in Boston—and that to-day, or at the beginning of the war, you suffered all those grievances against

which. Washington— Washington—the first Washington had gone out in arms to win the freedom" of your country Do you think that you would not have said J to yourself, as we in Ireland, those of us that did not - allow our hearts to run away with our heads—that you-would not have said as we did: Our first duty is to free our own country. When we have done that, then we can K o crusading for other lands Now, do you not, in your hearts, say to yourselves, that you would have fought first for America? Do you not know yourselves? Do you not know that in your own hearts, that even in this war, when you did come in, the immediate object which brought you in was to defend your own flag which had been attacked, and your own sovereignty, which had been encroached upon? You know that that was the immediate object which brought you in the war. But we knew in Ireland that you were not as England was when she came in, professing to fight for other people, without meaning it. We felt that the immediate object that brought you into the war was your own defence first, and that when you entered the ' war you meant to raise it up, even as Lincoln raised the war, which was first and primarily a war to defend the Union, to raise it; to be a war for liberty for the colored men.

So you, having entered this Avar primarily to defend your nation, meant that when you were in it it was going to be for the higher principles of liberty everywhere. We could believe you, because your history was such that these professions were strictly in accordance with the principles you professed and acted up to in the past. But if you take the circumstances that I mentioned, the cases I asked you to imagine, with the successors of Washington defeated, and dead, with their bodies burned in quicklime, for their love of country, what would you say if, out of your nation, supposing it-was as large as it is now, that your nation contributed six millions of voluntary soldiers fighting for other lands? Wouldn't you have said that they had allowed themselves to be led away by the cry for liberty? Wouldn't you have said there "was no nation more generous than yourselves, a nation which would have six millions of soldiers go fighting in other lands, even under the flag whose every fold was stained with the blood of your martyrs? Wouldn't you say that no nation could exceed in the setting up of an example of generosity —a generosity that forgot your own immediate needs and your own right to liberty in order to go on a crusade for the freedom of other peoples? You. know you would.

Some Statistics.

Yet, in order to be as generous in this last war as the Irish nation was, yon would have to contribute 6,000,000 of. your soldiers without a draft. Six million voluntary soldiers. All the Irishmen who fought in that war fought as volunteers. England could not force Irishmen to-fight as conscripts because Irishmen would not allow themselves to be conscripted by any parliament excepting a' parliament of the Irish people. So you would have had to have given 6,000,000, and to-day, if you lost as many in proportion as Ireland lost in the last war, fighting for the freedom of Belgium and elsewhere, you would be mourning to-day, not 75,000 dead, but you' would be mourning 3,000,000 dead. I have given you these numbers, and perhaps you might think they are an exaggeration unless I prove that they are right. Ireland as a nation reduced to 4,500,000, a quarter of a million fighting men, we contributed for the cause of liberty, a quarter of a million men to whom the plea to fight for small nations was so great that they forgot their own nation and -went out to fight for others. A quarter of a million men.,is one-eighteenth of the Irish population. An eighteenth of your population would be over 6,000,000, and therefore you would have had to contribute, as I said, 6,000,000, before you would have been as generous as the Irish nation was. And you would be mourning half that number, 3,000,000 dead, before you would have lost as much of your blood for the sake of freedom for other people as the Irish nation lost.

Take all of the circumstances and imagine yourself fighting for your own freedom. Imagine that Lloyd George and Asquith, both of whom were professing to be fighting for liberty, imagine that these men were men who had just before that broken all their pledges to the _ people's representatives, defrauded them. Do you not think that there is no audacity so great as the audacity of those who say that the Irish people were shirkers in the last, war? You know that the trouble with the people of Ireland has always been that they have been ready to fight other people's battles rather than their own. It is scarcely fair, then, to say that they fought all other people's battles but their own. They have undoubtedly fought others' battles, but they have also fought their own battles. Nobody can, in truth or fairness, say of Ireland during the last war that the Ireland of 1914 to 1919 has not been an Ireland like tho Ireland of the past; an Ireland which was.strug-

gling for its own liberty, but was also willing to lend a Helping hand to those fighting for liberty everywhere. I think I could not better end what I have to say to you. than to tell you that I shall send to the people of Ireland, as the message of the people of America, to-day, .Washington's message in 1788 to the people of Ireland. He said: "Compatriots of Ireland, champions of liberty in all lands: Our cause.is identical with yours. Had I railed, the scaffold would have been my doom. I was misrepresented by the loyalists of my day' as you are misrepresented in yours. To-day my enemies do me honor. If I deserve honor, it has been because, even in defeat, I stood true to my cause. If you want to be successful, you must do likewise."