Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XLIX, Issue 50, 28 December 1922, Page 14

Current Topics

A Notable Victory

In another column we publish the . text of the agreement signed by the English and Irish delegates who pledged themselves to recommend it for acceptance to their respective "parliaments. The terms as cabled to us were welcomed with much satisfaction by practically all sections of the community. They represent a remarkable advance on anything hitherto offered by England, and if they failed to satisfy all Sinn Fein’s demands they were at any rate a notable gain, and were hailed as an Irish victory. People were misled by -early reports, and many took it that the signatures affixed to the document were to all intents and purposes a real ratification. To make clear the real force of what was signed we here quote from Old Ireland October 18, what is an authoritative view of the position of the delegates: “The conference is not a conference to make a settlement, but to explore the possibility of a settlement, and, as we pointed out last week, in the event of such a possibility becoming an actuality, neither party could carry it through without reference to their respective countries. If, and when, the agreement is come-to, then there will be ample opportunity for discussion and criticism.” From this it is clear that what the delegates signed had no binding ’ force on their respective parliaments, and none on the respective peoples until ratified by the parliaments.

The Free State

To some people the name chosen came as a surprise.But those amongst us who have followed the Sinn Fein papers welcomed it with delight as a further, sign of victory. It was pointed out during the past few years that the name Saor Stadt (Free State) was, more in keeping with the ancient Irish regime than Pohlacht (Republic). We have also heard that at the recent reunion of the new Bail Eireann the oath administered was one of fealty to the Saor Stadt Eireann. Consequently there is no need for even the most ardent spirit to feel disappointed because the title of Pohlacht, or Republic, has been dropped. The new title expresses identity with the ancient Irish State, and is in accord with the. aims of Sinn Fein. Its adoption rather than that of “Dominion” is one more sign of victory. J Note too that it was assumed as the result of a Treaty between Ireland and Great Britain. . Some people are trying ;to minimise the value of such things, but" we can leave them in peace*."- ’ • &

The Oath of Allegiance

Another matter that calls for comment is the form of the oath. Sinn Fein- would never yield as long as there was question of taking an oath to be faithful .to the King of England. Ireland as a Nation never did owe any allegiance to England' and it was a matter of vital principle , that there should be firmness on this particular point. Remember how our papers used to tell us some time ago that de Valera was a moderate, man who was controlled by extremists like Michael' Collins. Well, the acceptable form of oath was proposed by Michael Collins in the end. It affirmed primarily and directly the allegiance of Irishmen to Ireland, and secondarily and ' contingently faithfulness to the King as head of the Empire into which Ireland would come by virtue of the Treaty. Once more, certain critics try to minimise the value of this distinction, but the fact that it has its constitutional weight is best manifested by the dissatisfaction of Orange Ulster at its wording. Any reader can see for himself that the text bears out our interpretation :

I do solemnly swear my true faith and allegiance , to the constitution of the Irish Free Stale as by law established, and that I will be faithful to George V., his hpirs and successors, in virtue of the common citizenship^of ■ Ireland

with Great Britain arid her adherence to. the member of the group of nations forming the British, Commonwealth of Nations, ‘

The Substance

Another disappointed critic has had the temerity to assert that Sinn Fein -might as well have accepted the terms offered five months ago, as they were practically the same as those now accepted. Readers will recall that we pointed out how the former terms did not give Ireland anything even approaching control of her own affairs. And our criticism has since been supported by such important papers as Stead’s, ' the London Nation, the Irish Bulletin, etc., etc. The former proposals were, like the original Act of Union, intended to -secure the economic domination of England and to strangle Irish industries. .As Mitchel pointed out long ago, when dealing with the Union, to withhold the right of protection from Ireland was - to render her unable to compete with the established and wealthy firms of England. The terms offered and rightly rejected five months ago had exactly the same purpose as those of the Act of Union, namely, to prevent Ireland from controlling her own affairs. The present agreement shows that Sinn Fein has won a magnificent victory on nearly all the essential points, and that the Free State represents far and away more than Parnell or Grattan ever dreamed of attaining. Ireland is now to be independent and free, in deed as well as in name. She is to control her own finance, to regulate her tariffs, and to collect and impose her own taxes. England has for the first time been forced to give way on these fundamental and essential rights of a free nation. Had such rights not been won we ' should at once write the agreement as a failure the fact that they have been won is in itself the substance of freedom. Control of her own army and navy has also been won by Ireland, and this again is a victory which no previous party ever came within measurable reach of. "•

Shortcomings

Our readers will recall that de Valera always insisted that the basis of any settlement he would accept for the Irish people must be the principle of SelfDetermination, i.e., the right of the people to determine their own form of government without any outside interference. Now the document we are considering goes a long way, but does it grant Self-Determina-tion First there is the 'question of saddling Ireland with a share of a debt incurred in a war that in no way concerned her. Perhaps that is a minor point and not worth dwelling on. But there is a more serious matter. England’s arbitrary establishment of an artificial region called “Ulster” is still maintained. England will not break down what she unjustly set up; having, deliberately fomented the hatred of the Orangemen and organised a hostile minority within Ireland she still persists in holding that that little minority—the result of outside interference justified' in breaking up the unity of Ireland. Is this granting Ireland the right of Self-Determination without any outside interference? Again, the document does not provide for a satisfactory and final solution of the “Ulster” problem; it leaves a running ■ sore unhealed. Is it impossible that at some future date mischievous English capitalists might once more organise trouble between “Ulster” and the rest of Ireland, and that England should once more use press and platform to persuade the world that Irish, conditions were such that she was justified in making a scrap of paper, of the constitution of the Irish Free State? Do not say that such a possibility is not worth thinking about. Where the life of a Nation is at stake every possibility is worth considering. And, unfortunately fdr England, her past record in the matter of keeping agreements and treaties with Ireland is not good enough to guarantee her future fidelity. It seems to us that although the document is as it stands a substantial measure of independence, yet we can hardly say that it gives to the Irish people the right of- Self-Determination. v And we know that on this right de Valera,' the most consistent

and honorable of men, has taken his stand, from the beginning. Further, we know that Dail Eireann was elected by an overwhelming majority of the Irish people on the same principle. Had we known de Valera better, had we pondered more deeply over the .clauses of the agreement, we should not have been astonished when the news came that the . President declared that he was unable to recommend its acceptance, v To do so would have bfeen, to say the least, inconsistent for him.

Ireland and the Agreement

s The position therefore is, that Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins, R. C. Barton, and George Gavan Duffy signed the agreement, and undertook to present it to the Dail Eireann for approval. . The English signatories made a similar undertaking on their part. After a long session of the Dail Eireann Cabinet, de Valera announced that the terms of the agreement were in such conflict with the will of the people, as expressed at three general elections, that he could not see his way to recommend the Dail and the people to accept them. He also added that in this he had the support of Cathal Brugha, Minister of Defence, and of Austin Stack, Minister for Home Affairs ; and it was supposed that the four remaining members of the Cabinet, Messrs. Griffith, Collins, Cosgrove, and Barton, were in favor of recommending its acceptance. Later, it was announced that Arthur Griffith had issued a manifesto declaring that he considered the agreement' a sound basis on which to build Ireland’s future, and that what he had signed he would stand by. We may take it that Collins, Barton, and Gavan Duffy (of whom the latter is not a member of the Cabinet) agreed with Griffith. -De Valera appealed to the people to keep calm, and assured them that the Cabinet, was going to carry on. He summoned a meeting of the entire Dail to discuss the matter on Wednesday, December 14. Until news of the decision of the Dail reaches us we must only possess our souls in patience and await the issue. Remember that the agreement is not a peace treaty, but rather an concerning -which substantial agreement has been reached as a preliminary for the parliamentary discussions that are to follow. Nobody supposes that the English Parliament will be unanimous on the matter; and it ought not to be astonishing that there ate differences of opinion in the Dail Eireann Cabinet. Sir James Craig’s Parliament has also to discuss it, and we certainly do not look for unanimity in that quarter. Moreover, he has already begun to ask for more concessions, and surely de Valera is as much entitled to do so as Sir James. From all we know of Griffith and de Valera we do not think their differences of opinion will, cause a split in the ranks and, no matter what happens, so long as the leaders and the people are united we can face the future with equanimity. Possibly the result of the Dail’s discussion may be that the terms shall be submitted to the Irish people for approval or rejection and, in such an event, it is probable that many would say, as did the released prisoners, that what is good enough for Collins is good enough for them. We feel confident that de Valera will do nothing to cause internal dissension. No man knows better that such a catastrophe would mean the undoing of all the splendid work he has done in the past. It would seem that he was bound by his principles to take the momentous step he has taken ; and whatever happens in the future no- man can say that he was inconsistent or that he did not keep to ..the letter his unwritten compact with the people of Ireland. He has walked straight forward, never swerving from the path of honor and duty, since the day in Easter Week-when he went out with Padraig Pearse. Throughout his career as President he has won the admiration of all by his wonderful tact and judgment. Before self and all that makes life dear to him he has always put the cause of Ireland, And, therefore, even if we do not see clearly now, out here, far away from the' scene of action, common sense . and prudence must compel us to trust in him and to be assured that he will take no step that in the light of his preat mind does not seem for the final and real good of Ireland. Trust, therefore, and also-pray that-God may .bless and guide':

. the councils of the Irish leaders. He Valera has brought Ireland where she stands at present. Do not forget that but few of us— few of us—could see how * wise he was during the years that have passed since 1916 and be humble enough to refrain from matching our own poor wisdom against his just for a few weeks more. All will come out right in the end. The bitter attacks made on him now by papers that are no friends of Ireland is perhaps a good omen. - ■

Various Comments

There is no doubt that the premature news that' the Irish Question was settled aroused throughout the world great delight and satisfaction. - At once cables were despatched to Lloyd George and de Valera from all quarters of the globe, including one-from Lauder, sent by Mr. Steve Boreham., According to the reports published in our press, France and Italy were pleased, while India almost regarded it as a victory for herself. The Pope, French statesmen, committees of Self-Deter-mination Leagues, public men, Prime Ministers, all joined in the congratulations. And, once more, in the cause of Ireland the Italian members of parliament stood up and cheered enthusiastically when the news was announced. There is no possibility of doubting that the Irish Question, had become the greatest international problem of the day, and tidings of a satisfactory settlement brought widespread relief and joy. The announcement that de Valera could not see his way to recommend Dail Eireann and the people of Ireland to accept came as a shock to many optimistic persons. It certainly damped the universal enthusiasm somewhat, and although we are confident that a settlement is in sight, it would be in vain to pretend that the situation is not tense at the present time. As might be expected the N.Z. Press indulged in the usual sort of silly abuse of de Valera who is far too big and too great a man for our penny-a-liners to understand him. These people always behave as if they suffered from shell-shock when they are confronted with a man who. respects principles and consistency. A One scribe talked vacuously about leaders with their heads in the air. A few days previously the scribe in question was guilty of saying that the settlement now offered was not substantially better than that rejected five 3 months ago, thus giving most people the idea that there was at least one man in Dunedin who had no head to put in the air or - elsewhere. Another editor was equally amusing and equally at sea but long experience has taught the public that it is vain to expect any manifestation of common sense from these persons when they approach the Irish question. Our old enemy of “Gas and Gaiters” fame performed one of his characteristic ' stunts” and informed us that de Valera had given in, which was rather , premature, considering all things. However, we have so often exposed the total unreliability of our daily editorials and headlines, where Irish affairs are concerned, that it is almost superfluous to warn our readers to pay no attention to what they find in such sources. The following extract from America will give people a luminous idea of how British news is made, and of what it is worth - ■

Sinn Fein issued . this statement on October 2T: I ’ “ Since "the beginning of the , negotiations the British Government has continued to make sinister misrepresentations of Ireland’s case. Those who drafted the King’s reply to the Pope knew the phrase “trouble in Ireland” was a dishonest description of the British war upon Irish liberties' It suggested that the troubles are among the Irish people and of their own seeking, which is false. • “The North-east Unionists, forming 20 per cent, of the whole people, favor the British connection because for the last hundred years British Governments have given the minority rights and privileges of a majority coercing the mass -of the Irish people and maintaining the ascendancy of the ,minority; - : - “Similarly those inserting the ambiguous reference to my people ’-iff the King’s telegram were aware the words prejudged the whole question of Ireland’s declared independence. 1 Peace and friendship are impossible if every expression of good will . of other

countries is mad-e a pretext fer the British. Government’s misrepresentation of the issues between Ireland and Britain.’’ ' • --V

■ ' The British papers led by the London Times raised a great cry against de Valera. This was taken up by many New York papers, the note being held with great accuracy. The explanation of this last fact is probably found in this interesting item quoted by the' Ave Maria of October 22 from an article on Lloyd George contributed to La Revue Frangaise by a person who signs himself Rene Johannet: ;,, . ~ ... “It is not only at home that he disposes of a domesticated or tractable press: he owns, in every sense of the word, both journals and journalists in France and in the United States. Sometimes, even his skill

in handling them becomes too great. Thus, the other day, in order to convince the House of Commons most thoroughly of the incomparable benignity, the marvelous generosity of spirit, with which the Ministers of the Crown have been conducting the Irish negotiations, he cited extracts from French and American newspapers relative to the latest British proposals: all commending the charity, the conciliatory . spirit, and the sovereign political mastery of David Lloyd George. . The Irish, who. have their own reasons for frowning upon these matters, verified the references. They were most accurate. The papers cited did express themselves in the terminology he attributed to them, butat the moment when the Premier brandished these dispatches from New York and Paris, which brought him such laudatory and impartial views from editorial rooms, none of the journals involved had as yet appeared ! How shall any one do battle with a man so rarely gifted with prescience and second sight ?

Easter 1916

Behold then round the sacrificial urn! Redemption’s flame is leaping in their eyes, And visions of the future ’fore them burn A Nation free and grand: no more the cries Of orphaned babes upon the night arise, — The keen upon the melancholy wind, — Nor strong arms striking for the hallowed prize. They seize the shining trust-to them assigned Noblest and purest-hearted of all human-hind.

What of the days that followed! who shall speak The splendor and the valor that adorn The holocaust of deathless Easter Week, Encrimsoned by the blood of Irish-born P Who shall appraise the glory that was torn From out the heavens by the pale -white hands Of those who hailed the resurrection morn Of Liberty, and to her mute demands

Exulting caught the sunshine on their battle-brands?

Naught but the solemn tolling of a bell Startles the - dawn; the clouds go shudd’ring by. How vain to. think that Savagery, can dispel The Cause that lend the martyrs out to die!— Fierce is the Nation’s anguish, moist her. eye, Magnificent th’ awak’ning of the Gael— No more the sacred dead appealing cry Unto the living to let . Strength prevail, For Freedom’s rays are blazing high o’er Innisfail

With reverence oh! let their names be told Who knelt before the throne of Rosaleen: Her sweetness and her loveliness extolled, Whilst one and all they vowed the Sassanach Should ne’er defile the beauty of their Queen Again. Upon their fearless brows are set Shafts of -predestined glory. Ne’er was seen Nobility so great then burn the debt ' We owe to them into our souls LEST WE FORGET. 7/12/21. V v —O’Nuallain, for the N.Z. Tablet.