IRISH PEACE.

Taihape Daily Times, 15 September 1919, Page 2

IRISH PEACE.

WHAT DUBLIN ASKS OF ULSTER.

(TinlcS’ Irish Correspondent)

The series hf articles which has appeared in the Times on the Il'i:sfl question dealing with the thornylqnezstion of Ulster, has been car-alully read in Dublin and, so far as I can gathc-r, with general approval. The Way the Ulster question in; look-' ed at in Dublin is this: Ulster is the chief stumbling block in the way of st settlement which the lzrst interests of the Empire urgently ._flenlalld. It is true that Ulster has solid ground; for her objection to come under Dublin Parliament Whose interests won‘-.rl be predominantly agricultural, whiz»: hers are chiefly industrial. She has lon;_: since, however, abandoned the argument that she would suffer‘ from religiou-:.- persecution, and that ought to make reconciliation easier, for, make no mistake “about it, the Ulster characteristics —~ strength, courage, doggefh ness—are greatly admired by the res‘: of the country. Everybody appreciates the northern iron until it is boar.en into bayonets.

And that brings us to Ulster"s real offence. In the opinion of Nationalist Ireland it is she that is the real ‘rebel and revolutionary. It was she who first made the appeal to force and shoulder her guns. When the South imitated her example the Government intervened. Coercion led to bitterness, bitterness to rebellion, rebellion to the executions. The Ulster rebels got into the Cabinet; the Dublin rebels went to the scaffold. No doubt Ulster will answer tha-‘ the Ulster rebels did not rebel_ They ‘fought, not for the Germans, but against them? It is true, Ulster’s war effort was noble, but its political example was deplorable. While, admitting that the Empire owes much to Ulster, it‘ ma‘; also be asked: Does Ulster owe nothing to the Empire, The leaders of the British parties were promised that Ulster shall not be coerced. The qeustion is whether Ulster’s refusal to be coerced is going to ‘mean the perman~ ent coercion of fife rest of Ireland. It it does, has Ulster no duty to all? ULSTER AND PARTITION.

Instcad of inflaming the position, Ulster d‘enlalldS partition; the rest nf Ireland rejects it. “I‘l'eland,” Parnell said, “cannot afford to do without 9. single Irishman.” " Ulster must find her salvation in something more practical than a. mere cry of nbn possum.us, a refusal to countenance a Parlia-

oq flsuur .lao,s[n 'pue[a.ll 1112 Jo; amour given safeguards against coercion. She cannot claim the right to dictate Imporial policy in the guise of armed refusal to accept anything but her own way.

And, finally, as to partition, it is doubtful if it woultl work in the first place and if it would pay in the sec.-

ond. Ulster is said to be largely "fi----nanced by the nortTfern banks, which hnvo bl-allcluj-s, throughout the other pt-ovillces_ The farmers put their money on deposit. The directors, sitting inn Belfast, use that money to aid and fin-tuice Belfast indu.<2uy. Belfast is the ;,>‘l'on.t distributing centre for tho. north and 11m'tn-wos; of Irvlazitt. ifs trade would .<ufi‘er. I)m'h;«.pS be fatalzzr imporillod, by pai-fition. . Ulster sztys that it is willing to take the risk. It does not deny that the I'isk is 'tilel'o. ‘.Vh:2t everybody \\'anl~ is something bottox' than defying tlw I'i.~‘k; something that will I'(_‘mO\'o it at together.