NEO-FEDERALISM AND THE IRISH IMBROGLIO.— QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS.

IS it not a fact that the Sinn Feiners controlled the majority of Irish constituencies, even before their absorption of the Nationalists owing to Conscription ? Is it not therefore absurd to try to make Parliamentary and other deals with the Nationalists, who cannot deliver the goods ? Do not the Sinn Feiners demand complete National Inde- pendence? If a man demands a hatchet from you with threats, should you be surprised that he is not pleased and satisfied with the " tender " of a cigarette ? Did not Federalism use to mean an agreement for communities to draw closer together—i.e., the marriage of States ? How has it come to mean splitting asunder—i.e., divorce or judicial separation ? Is not the change due to the fact that the politician finds " Federalism " a soothing-syrup word quite apart from its meaning ? If Federalism is so sound a political device, why is it not as applicable to North-East Ulster as to all Ireland ?

[It cannot be said to be applicable only to Islands, and not to parts of them, because its first home was in an inland country, Switzerland, and its greatest habitat is the United States of America, where the only Island State is not an Island. Besides, the immediate intention of all Federalists is to apply it to Scotland and Wales, which are parts of an Island.1 Is not the majority in North-East Ulster ethnologically as different from that of the rest of Ireland, as the majority in all Ireland is ethnologically different from that of the United Kingdom ? Does not North-East Ulster differ in the same proportion in religion, in political and social ideals, and in commercial aspirations, from the rest of Ireland, as the All-Ireland majority does from that of Great Britain ? If it was right and just to allow a Poll of the People of Natal as to whether they should come in or keep out of the South African Union, why is it not allowable to ask for such a privilege for North-East Ulster ? Why not give North-East Ulster the one safeguard she believes in—i.e., Exclusion—instead of half-a-dozen safeguards which she does not believe in, and nobody else has any use for ?

Why, if Federalism is to be applied to the United Kingdom, should the powers granted to Ireland be greater than those given to the States of the United States, to the Provinces of the Canadian Dominion, and to the States of the Australian Commonwealth ?

Is fiscal autonomy to be one of the principles on which the new Federalism is to be based ?

Are subsidies from the Federal Government to be given to all the Federal Nations, or only to some of them ? Are the existing financial burdens of the United Kingdom- i.e., Debt, cost of Naval and Military Defences, and other Imperial charges—to be distributed in just proportion among the sundered parts of the " Disunited Kingdom," or are some to be more favoured than others in the division of the burdens ?

Are Scotland and Wales to bear part of Ireland's burden as well as their own ? and if so, why ?

Is England, as one of the Disunited Kingdoms, to receive strict financial justice in the apportionment of burdens ? and if not, why not ?

The Irish Roman Catholic Bishops ordered prayers to avert " the scourge of Conscription " ; but can Conscription be a scourge per se ? Does not whether it is a scourge or not depend upon the 'use to which it is put ?

Is it not because the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops and people do not want to see German militarism destroyed, Austria beaten, and the anti-Papal States of Prance and Italy made secure, that they call Conscription a scourge ?

Does not all human experience show that you cannot con- ciliate a person by half-measures ? [In order to conciliate the Irish Roman Catholic Church we have withdrawn the obligation of military service from the clergy—an obligation which the English and Scots Churches of all denominations wished to undertake. The effect of this concession has been less than that of offering a raspberry-drop to a rhinoceros. The Roman Church swallowed the concession " without thanks," and immediately proceeded to organize the bitterest opposition to Conscription.] If there were no Sinn Feiners, no Ancient Order of Hibernians, no sworn friends of Germany and no sworn enemies of England in Ireland, no Protestant Saxon majority in North-East Ulster, Home Rule and any form of Feder- alism would be the easiest thing in the world ; but who will dare to say that this description gives a true picture of Ireland ?

Does not the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland declare that she will regulate her opposition to Conscription by the laws of God ?

But are not the people pledged to resist " by all the effective means " in their power ? Is not this another example of " The auction will take place on Monday (D.V.), but on Tuesday whether or no " ?

If Federalism is to be applied, two things must be considered : (I) To what localities is it to be applied—i.e., to Islands, or Kingdoms, or Nationalities, or areas reasonably homo- geneous in the matter of religious beliefs, political ideals, and industrial configuration ? and (2) what type of Federalism is it to be—i.e., the type in vogue in the United States, or that enacted by the British North America Act establishing the Dominion, or the kind applied to Australia ? Who is to judge when it is alleged that the Federal pact has been broken either at the top or the bottom ?

If Sinn Fein Ireland won't consent to the only just Federal plan devisable—i.e., Home Rule for those parts that want it, and no Home Rule for those parts of Ireland that loathe it—and if Independence means the right of the Twenty-six Counties to bully the Six Counties as much as they like, and to lay a political minefield along our coast, is not an incorporating Union a better alter- native ?

Is it not foolish and illogical to say that because some people commonly called " We" by blundering or ill-intent did harm to Ireland in the past, therefore the existing and innocent people of Great Britain—necessarily a perfectly different " We "—should be forced to make reparation for offences they never committed ?

Does not Shakespeare point out that "Crimes like lands, are not inherited" ?

But assuming crimes are inherited, why not beneficent acts also ?

Why are not the benefits that we have conferred during the last fifty years on the South and West of Ireland in Purchase schemes and Development schemes to count ?

Ask any American or Canadian or Australian : (1) If he would allow any State or Province under his Government to have greater independence of the Central Government than it now has. (2) If he would allow any State to leave the Union because it wanted to do so. (3) If he would allow any State of the Union to have special control of its own Customs and its own Post Office, or give it a greater share of representation in the Federal Parliament than its population allowed it.

Is it not a condition of Federalism that the majority of the people in each State should want Federalism at once and aspire to closer union in the future ?

Can Federalism be a success when any of the units don't want to play the game ?

Did not Grattan's Parliament, as soon as it got the power, declare itself a sovereign Parliament with inherent rights which could not be bound or derogated from by any action of the Imperial Parliament ?

Why should not an Irish Parliament do the same in regard to the so-called safeguards imposed upon it in respect of Ulster and the interests of the Empire ?

If it makes this claim to be a co-ordinate not a subordinate Parliament, how are we going to meet the claim ?