(To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
THE PROBLEM OF IRELAND.
Sia,—The letters of Mr. George L. Fox and of "Irish Loyalist," as well as your comments on the recent speech of Sir Edward Carson, have prompted the following observations, which you may care to print. if Voltaire's Ingenu were asked for his opinion on the Irish problem, ignoring party shibboleths, he might be expected to remark the following salient features. The Union of Great Britain and Ireland does not connote any reality in fact, as three-fourths of the Irish people repudiate it. , It is consequently absurd to defend the Union, which does not exist. It is equally absurd to pretend that the Irish people are free while subject to a Government they detest. On the other hand, if the principle of self-determination were to be applied to Ireland as a whole, one-fourth of the population, the Ulster section, would he at the mercy of their irreconcilable enemies. Are the majority of Ulstermen in favour of the partition of Ireland? No, except as a last resort. Partition would leave Ulster in the position of a weak bridgehead of English ihtluence. Nationalists and Sinn Fein reject the remedy of partition, not only for this reason, but also because it destroys the political, economic, and geographical unity of Ireland. Is this unity real? Yes, because we speak of the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. The Act of Union does not consider Ulster as a distinct political unit, and a simple repeal of the Act would not leave Ulster autonomous. This, then, is the crux of the matter. The Union is not a reality; separation with self-determination would enslac`e Ulster, unless we agreed to partition, which is rejected by all parties, and would not lead to a final settlement, .There remains separation without self-government—Ireland considered as a single whole. under an English Governor, with an English garri-on. Would this alter anything? Yes, because it would supplant a sham by a reality.
I am not sufficiently penetrated by the notion of man as animal rationale to consider this solution likely. Turn to the case of Sir Edward Carson. ire contributed a preface to it book called The Case against Home Rule, and the chief points of the ease he submitted -were briefly these: Ireland was tlo finest.,reerniting ground for the British Army; it was an agricultural country supplying the manufacturing centres of Great Britain with cheap food; in the event of war, if Ireton were an independent State, not only is it probable that Irish produce would be retained in Ireland, but Ireland's positiva across our trade routes would endanger our whole food supply. These points constituted a strong appeal to English interest. They do not affect the question of justice one way or the other, though I personally -think the strategic argument is the strongest argument against Irish independence. Sir Edward Carson is no longer concerned with these aspects of the question; he relies now on two points: the Irish are Papists, and the Irish are traitors. Mk position, and that, I fear, of the Spectator in supporting him, is identical with the position adopted by Moral towards the Royalists, regarding the French party in Mainz (Acton: Lectures on French Rerolutionl. Regarding the legality of Sir Edward's position, and the special immunity which he enjoys, I wish to point out that in July, 1917, he led a procession through Belfast in defiance of Lord French's proclamation, which had forbidden such demonstrations throughout Ireland.
"Irish Loyalist's" letter is entirely concerned with English plans for the settlement of Ireland. I maintain that if any measure of independence is granted to Ireland the Irish must settle their Constitution for themselves, whatever their subsequent relations with Great Britain may be. It is the only logical view to take. His record of lost opportunities is interesting, but can scarcely be accepted as a reason for leaving things as they are. Mr. Fox is equally interesting in his attack on Irish-Americans; but these again are not the Irish. What is the object of Mr. de Valera's mission? It is to induce IrishAmericans to furnish some millions of dollars for the purpose of bribing Irish voters. The Irish are Sinn Fein only so long as they are subsidized. It shows Irish politics in their true light—as a profession. It is the evil result of artificial conditions. But, provided it be a legitimate source of income. I am delighted that Americans should make a free gift of some of their surplus war profits to Irish taxpayers, just as I shall welcome the five millions which one hears is to be sent to Mr. "Pussyfoot" Johnson. And I have no predilections either fur a Sinn Fein Ireland or for a " bone-dry " England. Until we decido to govern Ireland, either without the pretence of popular representation, or without the arbitrary decrees of martial law, I can only look on the Union either as a deliberate hypocrisy or as a disorganized sham.—I am, Sir, tic., I:Witham, Bourne, Lincs. FREDERIC' M tNNI
Previous page
