SEPARATION?

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1118, 4 May 1911, Page 6

SEPARATION?

Sir,—"What does Home Rule mean? Separation. ■'' Such is the question; such is the answer given to it in The Domtnion of last Saturday by "Unionist." Homo Eule, then, means separation. ''Unionist" proves this (to liis own satisfaction) by quoting isolated extracts from speeches delivered by various Irish leaders during the past thirty years. But his separation theory is not proved entirely to my satisfaction. Take this as a hypothetical case: Suppose that Germany defeated Britain in war, and suppose (unlikely) that Britain became a German colony. Could not anyone easily imagine a British leader, his country dominated by Germans, applying to Germany the very words which Parnell applied to Britain in 1880? Could not anyone easily imagine a British leader saying: "None of us will be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link which keeps us bound to Germany?" I think, aud I believe "Unionist" will agree, that our imaginary British leader would be right in speaking thus of theso imaginary Germans ruling Britain. Logically, I think, "Unionist" should agree, then, that C. S. Parnell and John E. Redmond were right in speaking as they did.in reference to real Englishmen ruling Ireland. For nations, like individuals, arc instinctively independent. Ireland sought her independence on the battlefield. She failed in this many years ago.

Sinco then, circumstances have someivh.it changed. So to-day Ireland docs want separation of the kind which. I take it, is supposed to make Canada, Australia, New Zealand, yes, and South Africa, which a few years ago was saying and doing hostile things to Britain, the Isle of Han, and even the Isle of Wight, so near to England, contented and prosperous. Reparation, however, of the kind which the United States effected, is, in the case of Ireland, most undesirable and, indeed, impossible. Undesirable, simply because Ireland, with her population , reduced to four and one-half millions, would be, without the protection of Britain, easily conquered by any great European Power. Besides this, the financial relations of the two countries would make separation especially undesirable for Ireland. Impossible, because Ireland' will, as now, send representatives to Westminster, where the Imperial Parliament will exercise over Ireland more' pow.er than it is exercising over Now Zealand nt present. Impossible, further, because Ireland could not, even if she desired, effect a separation through a war with England. Separation —absolute separation is undesirable as well as ininossible. To-day Ireland does demand Home Rule, or. if you will, separation, as we hero in this country know it f©sm experience and enjoy it. When that right is given her. I feel sure she will hasten to present the Kins with the belated address (Dublin Corporation), of which "Unionist." speaks. What Ireland will want a century hence I cannot saw Can "Unionist" say what we in New Zealand will want a century hence? "Unionist" is anxious that one of thj> Irish delegates should pay special attention to his letter which appeared in The Dominion of Saturday last. But I fear that all the delegates w;ill be so busy collecting the sovereigns for the Sovereign Dictator (this time) that "Unionist's" letter would not get tho attention it deserves. That is my reason for writing. Thanking you, I am etc, . ". . . NOX-FACTIONIST.