IRISH PEACE.

Taranaki Daily News, 10 September 1921, Page 5

IRISH PEACE.

CABINET'S REPLY.

THE VITAL PRINCIPLE. A CONFERENCE URGED. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyrigtt. London, Sept. 8. The answer of the Cabinet is short. Mr. Lloyd George says: “We make the following observations on your letter of the 30th: “The principle of government by consent or the governed is the foundation of British constitutional development, but we cannot accept as a basis for a practical conference an interpretation of that principle which commits us to any demands you may present, even to the extent of’setting up a republic and repudiating the Crown. “You must be aware that a conference on such a basis would be impossible. If the principle was applied it would undermine the fabric of every democratic State and drive the civilised world back to tribalism. On the other hand we invited you to discuss our proposals on their merits. “In order that you may have no doubt regarding the scope and sincerity of our intentions it is open to you at such conference to raise the subject of guarantees on any point on which you may consider Irish freedom is prejudiced. The Government is loth to believe that you insist on rejecting these proposals without examining them at a conference.

EFFECT OF REFUSING DISCUSSION. *To decline to discuss a settlement which will bestow on Ireland the fullest freedom for national development within the Empire can only mean that you repudiate all allegiance to the Crown and all membership of the British Commonwealth. If we are to draw this inference from your letter then further- discussion between us will serve no useful purpose, and all conferences will be vain.

“If, however, we mistake this inference and your real objection is that our proposals offer Ireland less than the liberty we described that objection can be explored at the conference.

“You will agree that this correspondence has lasted long enough. The Government must for a definite reply, whether you are prepared to enter a conference and ascretain how the association of Ireland with the community of nations known as the British Empire can best be reconciled with Irish national aspirations. If, as we hope, your answer is in the affinnative, we suggest that the conference meet at Inverness on the 20th.” DEFINITE REPLY REQUESTED. London, Sept. 8. Mr. Lloyd George’s- reply asks for a definite answer whether Mr. De Valera is prepared to enter a conference to ascertain how the association of Ireland with the community of nations known as the British Empire can best be reconciled with Irish national aspirations, and proposes a inference at Inverness on September 20. MORE HOPEFUL OUTLOOK 3RITISH CABINETS INVITATION. CREATES EXCELLENT IMPRESSION. Received September 9, 2.45 p.m. London, Sept. 8. The Daily Telegraph’s Dublin correspondent states that Cabinet’s invitation to the conference created an excellent impression in Dublin and South Ireland. While exchanges of notes is continued progress is impossible. The temptation to score debating points blinded Irishmen to the vital issue. The Dail Eireann will immediately be summoned to consider the letter, and the public is confident that the difficulties will be surmounted, even if it is necessary to appeal to the country for decision.—Aus.Cable Assn.

A NEW PHASE. ADVISED BY CONAN DOYLE. EFFECT OF SEPARATION. Received Sept. 10, 1.30 a.m. London, Sept. 9. Conan Doyle, in a letter, suggests that men and women of Irish extraction, who have been supporters of Home Rule, but do not wish to be made foreigners in the British Empire, should petition De Valera. He says he does not think Irishman realise that separation would make them foreigners in the Empire which Irish soldiers and colonists helped to build. Their status in Australia and India would be the same as that of Russians and Slovaks. “I am sura many of us who are of Irish extraction and supported Home Rule view such a position with horror.’’—-Timefl Service. TRADE UNION’S RESOLUTION. PRIME MINISTER’S REPLY. Received September 9, 5.5 p.m. London. Sept. 9. Mr. Lloyd George, replying to the Trade ■Union Congress message regarding Ireland, says: “No one is more opposed than the Goverqjnent to bloodshed, most of all to a fratricidal Aar between citizens of the Bame Empire; but I have the authority of the greatest democratic statesmen in history for the belief that even bloodshed is better than disruption of the living political organism, whose strength and unity are essential to the freedom of the world.” —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. Mr. Lloyd George refers to Abraham Lincoln’s protest in 1861 against the “assumed primary right of a State to rule all which is less than itself and ruin all which is larger than itself.” The Commonwealth of Virginia was claiming at that moment to secede from the Union, but was at the same time attempting to prevent a group of counties in West Virginia leaving her to form a new State. This inconsistency Lincoln exposed by two questions. “On what rightful principle may a State, being not more than one-fiftieth part of the nation in soil and population, break up the nation, and then coerce a proportionately larger subdivision of itself in the most arbitrary way? What mysterious right to play tyrant is conferred on a district of country, with its people, by merely calling it a State?” If for the Union you substitute the Empire, for Virginia Ireland, and for Western Virginia Ulster, the parallel is complete, and Lincoln’s words apply exactly. The world knows to what lengths Lincoln went in resisting the separation which a De Valera of his day might have defended quite pleasantly on the principle of “gov by consent of the governed,’*