ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 December 1920, Page 1

ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

A GREAT MISUNDERSTANDING. (By J. M. N. Jeffries.) Sihce my return from Ireland I have been asked what lias most impressed me of all I have seen or heard. * Without doubt the most impressive tiling which I find to comment upon is. this: In Ireland when people talk to you of Hie Irish question they say: “ Why will not the Government make us an offer we can accept?’,’ On the other hand, when people in England talk to you of the Irish question they say, “ Why don’t the Irish come forward and say what they really want? ”

Tlius the settlement which is so vitally necessary to both Britain and Ireland is in danger of falling or disappearing lietween the traditional two stools. “ Speak up! ” says Ireland to England. “ Step forward! ” says England to Ireland.

Furthermore, each country, without much apprehending it, wants the other to alter, its national temperament as the first stage to the settlement. The English want the Irish to come along with business-like guarantees; the Irish 'waiit.the English to issue a full-dress Dominion Home Rule scheme oil the chance of its being accepted by the silent elements in Ireland—that is, to gamble. “ Bring us securities, as an Englishman should,” says England to Ireland. “Rut your money on the horse, like a good Irishman ; ’tis. a safe chance,” says Ireland to England. This is, of course, a deadlock ns absurd as it is dangerous, when you consider the awful interests ulucli .lie at stake. But here, again, national temperaments arise to ensure its continuing. Confronted with it. the Englishman says, “ Yes, of course, this mustn’t go oil ; we ought to try and come to some arrangement in between the two viewpoints.” The Irishman sernt-hes his head and says, “ Well,' if ’tis so. someone’ll have to give way.” So that the method to end the dead-lock-turns out to be a new deadlock itself. And there you are. And were, and will be;' for and ever. Amen. •Jf- * * * *

I know that in Cabinet circles, wTien the day’s work is talked over round the loaded conciliation hoard it is considered that the Prime Minister did make the great offer by saying that lie was ready to discuss anything short of secession from the Empire. But, rightly or Wrongly, the Irish do not trust the Prime Minister; they say to you that thuv “want it on paper.”

I believe, .however, that thia is only clue, to mistrust in a certain degree. When you. ask the Irish to come forward with plans, to offer, as it were, tenders to the Prime Minister lor the reconstruction of their own future, you are treating them as fellow business men.

This is a compliment in England; in Ireland it is not. If you are going to settle the Irish'question, as this shows, you must study temperament, and when you are worn out studying temperament go on studying temperament, and when you are exhausted, continue. Now the Irish temperament wills that Ireland should not have to make a proposal herself but that England should sue for her hand. For the life of me I cannot see the objection to our doing so. Why always just think of Ireland as a partner? Why not have her as a wife, her affection ensured so to speak, by the Married Women’s Property Act? What is wrong with the status of a husband ?

All this sounds very nice you will say, but we are a long way from facts in it, from murders of police and attacks upon generals, and men being shot in their beus in Dublin by Government forces, and towns and factories being burned down by “Black and Tans.” Before such grisly facts, what is the value of airy words about marriage between Ireland and England? The Irish are all Sinn Feiners, too. Really, I do not see how wo are going to know whether they are all Sinn Feiners till we have made a thorough going trial. Supposing them to turn out en-tirely-intractable in any case; then in how much stronger position we should be before tlie world at laTge if our generous, offer were ungenerously repulsed! I remember a similar situation in Poland. The Poles used to say that their troops were always being fired upon by Jews from the windows of houses when they were patrolling bystreets of Warsaw, and that they were of course obliged to retaliate. The Jews said that the Poles fired first.

There was an embroglio you never got tired of, and the whole thing became dangerously prominent in the world’s .pr#ss. I used to say to the Poles, “ Send your men out without a round of ammunition. If some are injured, then there will be no cross-swearing to obscure tlie issiie, and in how much better position you. will be before Europe.” Inwardly I was conscious; too, that if tin' troops had no ammunition there would ho no shooting from windows, the guilt for which was probably to he equally divided between both parties—certainly at least the appendage of no one in particular. It is tlie same state of things in Ireland. I believe that if we take a benevolent risk we shall not find the windows so full of enemies and that a generous scheme of Dominion Home Rule would meet with pretty general acceptance among Sinn Feiners as among others.

The truth is that in England we talk in a generic way about “Sinn Feiners” without in the least understanding what they are. For convenience I used the phrase a couple of paragraphs ago in the common, vague sense in which it is used in England, hut one thing is certain, all Sinn Feiners are not sin (tends by any means. What they are will 'have to be stated later.