[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—With your permission I venture to disagree with you about the wisdom of writing your article on the Free State Question, and also of some of your articles about India. As regards the Free State ; I have lived among the people for some sixty years, and I claim to know them as well as it is possible for anybody who is not of their religion to know them. In your article of July 23rd you write as if the whole of the Free State were solid behind Mr. de Valera, whereas all that is good, all that is honest, all that has any real interest in the country, is against him. It is many years since the then Prime Minister in London described an Irish acquaintance of mine as " a pompous fool, troubled with some brains," and if you substitute " dishonest " for " pompous " you have a very fair description of Mr. de Valera, for it is impossible to suppose that he and his friends do not know that they are being dishonest. In one way I can sympathize with him for he is quite satisfied in his own mind that the Free State can be self-supporting. You will remember the outcry that there was some years ago about absentee landlords, and now the landlord of the whole country is an absentee. There cannot be any doubt that the Free State cannot become self-supporting as long as all the rents leave the country. Referring to what you urge in your article on the subject of negotiation. How do you propose to tie Mr. de Valera and his friends down to carry out their part of the bargain if the verdict is against them ? If you had known them as well as I do, you would never have supported the idea of
Previous page
