THE IRISH CONVENTION.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 April 1918, Page 4

THE IRISH CONVENTION.

[per press ASSOCIATION. COrTRIGHT.]

London, April Id The report, of the Irish Convention lias been issued.

A covering letter by the Chairman (Sir Horace Plunkett) to the Rt Hon D. Lloyd George, summarises as follows the main points. Sir H. Plunkett says : “ While it was found impossible to overcome the objections of the Ulster Unionists, the following parties were l agreed that a scheme of self-government should be passed, namely, the majority of Nationalists, and five out of seven of the Labour•ites.

“The minority of the Nationalists’ scheme differed only in one. particular from that, of the majority. Therefore, the Convention laid the foundation for an Irish agreement unprecedented in history, The Convention explored every possibility of agreement, and alter eight months, decided to issue aVeport which should he a mere narrative of the Convention’s ! proceedings. This report was adopted by the /majority; but there was no majority report in the sense of a,reasoned statement in favour of thu-con-clusions whereon the majority have agreed. However, the Ulster Unionists and -the minority of the Nationalists have presented minority reports. The results of these was to minimise tho agreement that had been reached *suid to emphasise any disagreement “There were two possible issues to the deliberations. If a scheme of self-government could be framed to which the Ulster Unionists would' give their adherence, then the Convention might produce a unanimous ieport,' Failing this, it was felt that the Convention might secure some agreement, either complete or substantial, between the Nationalises, the Southern Unionists, and the. Labourites. However, a portion of the Ulster section claimed that if Ireland had the right to separate herself from the United Kingdom, Ulster had a right to separate from the rest, of Ireland. No other section of the Convention would accept even a temporary partition i hence the Ulster Unionist members of the Convention remained there only in the hope that some form of Hniiu Rule would be pioposed, which might modify the determination of those they represented, to have neither part nor lot in an Irish Parliament. The Nationalists strove to win them by concessions; Imt, the Ulstermen' found themselves unable to accept any of the schemes discussed, and the only, scheme of Irish Government which tney presented to the Convention was one confined to the exclusion of their entire province. The two ( great difficulties were Ulster and the Customs. The Customs became a vital question.

Sir Horace Plankett, continuing, stares .that the tendency of recent political thought among the Constitutional Nationalists has been towards a form of government resembling as closely as possible the Dominions, and, since the geographical position of Ireland imposes obvious restrictions in respect to naval and military affairs, their claim for Dominion Home Rule was concentrated upon a demand lor unrestricted fiscal powers. Without getting separate Cnsloms and Excise powers, Ireland would, according to this view, fail to attain a National status like the Dominions.

Upon this issue, the letter states, the Nationalists made a strong case. They proved that a considerable number of the leading commercial men favoured fiscal autonomy as part of an Irish settlement.

In the present state of public opinion in Ireland, it was feared that without customs no scheme which the Convention might recommend would receive sufficient popular support.

To obviate any serious disturbance of trade of United Kingdom, Nationalists were prepared to agree to a Free Trade arrangement between the two countries, but this did not overcome the difficulties *of the Southern Unionists, who agreed with the Ulster Unionists on this point. They were apprehensive that a separate systenv of Customs control, however guarded,

might impair the authority of the United Kingdom over its (the United Kingdom) external trade policy. Neither could they consent to any settlement, -which was (in their judgment) incompatible with Ireland’s full participation in any scheme of a United Kingdom Federation, should that come to pass. •-...

Sir Horace Plunkett, proceeded to refer to the series of resolutions the Convention passed regarding self-gov-ernment. The scheme adopted provides for the establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland, with a responsible executive, and fall powers over all internal legislation, j administration and direct taxation, , Pending a decision on the fiscal ques- j tion, the scheme provides that, the i power of imposing'Customs and Excise duties shall remain with tin:lmperial Parliament,, but, that the whole proceeds of these duties bo paid into the

Irish Exchequer. . A Board AvonTd be appointed to determine the truo'Jrisii revenue, and Ireland Avould be reprej seated on the Board of Customs and Exei.s6.of the United Kingdom. The principle of representation in the Imperial Parliament, being retained by Ireland was insisted upon by the Southern Unionists. This the Nationalists conceded. It was fed; however, there were strong reasons for providing t hat the Irish rcoresentatives at \V estiuinster should be elected by the itish Parliament rather than directly by the constituencies. This was adopted.

It was accepted, in principle, that Ireland should contribute to the cost of Imperial services. Owing to lack of data it was impossible t> lix a definite sum

It was agreed that the Irish Parliament should consist of a Senate of sixty four members and a House of Commons of two .hundred members.

The principle underlying the composition of the Senate would be to give representation m it to the interests of commerce and industry, labour, the county councils, the churches, the learned institutions, and the peerage. The Nationalists offered to guarantee 40 per cent of the membership of Ihe Irish House of Commons to theUnionists.

It was agreed that in the south of Ireland adequate representation for the Unionists could only be secured by nomination ; but, as Ulster representatives informed the Convention, those for whom they spoke could not accept the principle of nomination. Provision was therefore made in the scheme for extra representation for Ulster by direct election. • The majority, of tne Labourites frankly object to the principle of nomination, and to what they rtgarded as the adequate representation of Labour in the Irish Senate.

Sir H. Plunkett, in. conclusion, points out than the Convention had to find a way out of the most complex and anomalous political situation in history. He writes : “We are living in Ireland under a system of government which survives only because the act of abolishing it cannot, consistently with Ministerial pledges, be put into operation without further legislation, which would be no less difficult and controversial tham that which it;has to amend. In attempting to find a compromise which lieland might accept, and Parliament might pass law, it lias been recognised that the full programme of no,party could be adopted. The Convention was also bound to giye due weight to the opinion that to press for a settlement an Westminster during the war of the financial question, would imperil the prospects of the early establishment of. self-government. Notwithstanding the difficulties wherewith we were surrounded, a larger measure of agreement was reached upon the principles and details of Irish selfgovernment than has ever yet been attained.