THE IRISH PROBLEM

Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1921, Page 2

THE IRISH PROBLEM

AUSTRALIAN AM) N.Z. CAJJLJi ASSOCIATION. PRESS CRITICISAI. LONDON, Sept. 5. Tlie London newspapers take a serious view' of 31 r cfe Valera’s reply to Mr Lloyd George. 'I he “Daily Chronicle” says: “Jt is obvious that Mr do Valera’s letter precipitates something ot a crisis. It could not have been written in such a- form it the majority of the Dail Eireunn really wanted peace on the basis laid down by the British Government’s oiler, nor even if they cared much about securing a settlement without a return to warfare. It remains to be seen howfar the majority of the Irish people, which certainly holds different views on both these points, can influence Dail Eireann’s final decision. LONDON. Sept. 4.. The London “Daily News” says: - “While the British Government wants to miter a conference on the basis of. its original offer, with its six vital conditions, Mr do Valera demands that the conference shall be an unfettered one. There is no reason why the British Government should not allow the conditions to he the subject of a friendly discussion. Apart, indeed, from a stubborn-n-ss born of theorists, there is! no reason why Mr de Valera should refuse to debate on equal terms the practical con lingcncies of a real peace offering. Let Mr de Valera remember that Ireland has never been presented with so remarkable an opportunity of winning the substance of freedom. We hope the British Government will have the moral courage to respond to the letter in a spirit of forbearance.” The London “Daily Telegraph” referring to Mr de Valera’s reply, declares: “The character of Mr de Valera’s letter makes is impossible f.r the British Cabinet to take any action which may have been agreed upon in an expectation of Mr Lloyd George’s suggestion of personal negotiation being accepted in a sincere and reasonable spirit. It might have been accepted simply in a, reply of a couple of sentences. No one would have ventured to expect quite that, however, from Mr de Valera, hut he might rationally have been supposed to be ready to send an acceptance that did not read like a refusal to negotiate. The Cabinet is best able to decide whether there is any possibility of making progress towards a settlement, despite the letter. The nn- . tion is now quite at one with the Gov--1 eminent’s attitude upon Irelnnd, and i leaves the matter confidently in their i hands.”

i -MICHAEL COLLINS’ VIEWS. ; LONDON, Kept. 4. i A.iclmct Collins (Sinn Kin Leader), at .uniat'll, said: “De \ alera’s ■ letter does not alter Dail Eirean’s posij i -u. t.o ha.e simply taken our stand j on the principle of ‘Government by the j consent of the governed.' lirifain’s ncI cepfcatu-e of that principle will mean a I speedy peace.” Michael Collins continued: “The licitish Government’s offer does not give us the substance of freedom. The Northern Ulster Parliament is being made an artificial excuse for keeping Ireland asunder. I say freedom is coming. Nobody can stop it. It will bring mi era of prosperity and development. Our proposal is that the northerners come in with us: that they shall come in with their heads up. and abandon their policy of biting off their noses to spite tlieir faces. Our proposal is that they take their share in the govern ing of their own country. The Northern Parliament does not, and it cannot control Ulster’s unruly elements.” END OK TRUCE PREDICTED. LONDON, Sept. 5. The London “Daily Telegraph’s” Belfast correspondent stated;: “Air De Valera’s letter has created no surprise at Belfast. It is now felt there that no hope of a settlement is left, because a conference without the conditions already guaranteed to Ulster could not he held without reopening i the whole Irish question, and going beyond the original Government offer.” He adds: “It is believed in Dublin that the next move will be the application of a time limit for negotiations, after which the truce will cease nutoI matieally.” i PRESS COAIMENT. LONDON, September 5. j The “Daily Express” in an editorial. : says the “Dail Eireann” complains that tlio Dominion status offered is not the same as that of South Africa. Canada. Australia and New Zealand because t-liey are further away and not subject to our Army and Navy. Hence it says there must lie complete separation. . The only answer any British Prime Alinister can possibly make to this is “It cannot be done.”