IRISH NEWS

New Zealand Tablet, 9 March 1922, Page 35

IRISH NEWS

NEW DOMESTIC PRELATE.

Very Rev. Dr. Hagan, Rector of the Irish College, Rome, has been made a Domestic Prelate to his Holiness the Pope.

IRISH BEAUTY.

Miss Marguerite Byrne, of St. Louis, U.S.A., whose parents hail from Crobane, Newry, libs been adjudged the most beautiful girl in the greater St. Louis district. She has received the first prize of 1000 dollars, which also qualifies her for the capital prize of 2500 dollars for the most beautiful girl.

DUBLIN’S NEW YEAR.

A copy of the proclamation of . the Irish Republic, issued on Easter Monday, 1916, was displayed on the ruins of the G.P.0., and outside places of worship in Dublin on Sunday, and attracted widespread attention. The decree of August, 1920, prohibiting the emigration of citizens of the Irish Republic was also displayed with a later date affixed. Handbills were distributed by young men calling attention to the projected publication of a new papercalled Pohlacht na h-Eireann.

IRISH BISHOPS AND THE TREATY. Reports from all parts of Ireland indicate that popular opinion strongly supports the Pact and is clamantly in favor of the ratification of the Peace Treaty. One authority asserts that 95 per cent, of the people of rural Ireland support Collins and Griffith. The treaty forms the subject matter of many Christmas messages from members of the Irish Hierarchy. Bishop Macßory, of Down and Connor, says: “I see nothing but chaos before the country unless the nation approves the treaty.” Bishop Browne, of Cloyne, urges his flock to make known their approval of the treaty without delay as the results of its rejection would be unthinkable. Archbishop Gilmartin. of Twain, describes the peace as God’s Christmas gift to Ireland! Bishop Gaughren, of Meath, exhorts his people to pray for the removal of the dark cloud that now hangs over Ireland. Bishop Fogarty, of Killaloe, says: “Refusal to ratify the treaty would be an act of national madness.”

TORY BUSYBODIES SNUBBED. At a recent meeting of the Glasgow Corporation Halls Committee a letter was read from the Glasgow Unionist Association protesting against the St. Andrew’s City, or other municipal halls being let for the purpose of ‘Sinn Fein demonstrations, or for other organisations of a similar character. The protest arose out of the recent Sinn Fein demonstration. Bailie Dollan said it was gross impudence for the Unionists to send such a letter. When Lord Carson was organising resistance to the law lie addressed a meeting m St. Andrew’s Hall under Unionist auspices. If Carson could have speech, in St. Andrew’s Hall, why not Sinn hem. He (the speaker) had been at the last Sinn Fein meeting m St. Andrew’s Hall and could testify to the excellent way m which it was conducted. He moved that the Unionist letter he on the table. This was agreed to unanimously.

THE LEADER ON THE TREATY. We are getting a bit muddled and puzzled by the flow of words. England tried to terrorise and awe this country by murder, burnings, and outrage. She failed, and asked tor a truce. She asked for truce with the I.R.A. and sought to open negotiations with. An Dail. Very few people, so far as our opinion goes, expected that the result of the truce and the negotiations would he the recognition of the Irish Republic by England—the United States have refrained from recognising the Irish Republic. People fought against the English Army of Occupation and the Black-and-Tans, but did not drive them out of tne country : but the fight was so effective that England called tor -a truce.

The plenipotentiaries were sent over to make an honorable arrangement, but not —so far as we can —to demand a republic. If they stood for a republic and nothing short of a republic, so far as we can judge, there vould have been no negotiations. We are entitled to a republic if we want it, but England blocks the way. In 48 and 67 our fights were feeble: the recent struggle compelled England to seek a truce and open negotiations, but an independent isolated republic was ruled out. The negotiations implied compromise. 1 ersonally we sympathise with the plenipotentiaries, for wo knew that whatever they signed they would be blamed. And their work was to come to a decision: the members of the public could express themselves strongly and criticise, but they need not decide. The fight against English force in Ireland compelled the truce and brought the negotiations into being. But once the truce was established, and allowing as much as possible for the fact that England cannot economically and for other reasons afford to fight her great solvent Irish customer, yet it would appear that physically she is still the stronger power. She did not want to fight and Ireland did not want to fight. Both wanted peace. Being the stronger power physically she was able to exert great pressure and get a treaty signed more or less under duress. But on the face of it to insure the treaty she gave away a great deal, gave away more than any middleaged Irishman thought that England would give away to Ireland in his time. That is the side that impresses us. Certain things she would not give way in, and rattled the sabre, and our plenipotentiaries in the exercise of their judgment signed. They all signed more or less under duress—we all know that: Mr. Barton signed, according to himself, very much under duress. We are willing to confess that we may not understand the mentality and psychology of the generation who came first into conscious national life in 1916: they may know little or nothing of the Land and National Leagues and Home Rule times and conditions. But those of us who were interested in national affairs in the beginning of this century rub our eyes with wonder—and there is no reason why in honesty we should hide the fact-at the terms which our plenipotentiaries brought back from Downing Street.

Mo speak, of course, as people who during all these years thought that the attainment of a republican status was not immediately possible. People got into political and national power in Ireland with whose whole programme we did not go. We often expressed the view privately that if things went on too long without a settlement that so many of the younger people would grow with the idea of a republic or nothing—and we, not believing that a republic vas in the present time feasiblethat a serious crisis might arrive when the country was faced with a compromise less than a republic. It was a struggle for the republic that got us the compromise of the Free State—a compromise that Parnell would not have dreamt of seeking, even though he knew that no man could place bounds to the march of the Irish nation. Our plenipotentiaries agreed to a Free State because superior force did not permit them to stand out for a republic. But, as we view it, Irish sovereignity remains. As we view it we are competent to make treaties, but we are not competent to barter away our sovereignity and surely England knows that as well as we do.. There is no finality in the affairs of the world. The Free State of next year may be something else'in ten years- and in twenty years Macaulay’s New Zealander may be on the ruins of London Bridge.

A few books well studied and thoroughly digested nourish the understanding more than hundreds but mrgled in the mouth. 1