The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1919. OUR POLICY

New Zealand Tablet, 27 February 1919, Page 25

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1919. OUR POLICY

# ? T seems paradoxical, but it is true, that the most obvious things are those to which we *£){}K are blindest. When a poet tells us that ash -buds are black in March, or that an olive grove on an Italian hillside whitens f° the blast of the evening brbeze we look for ourselves and discover a thing as old v—as the hills or the sea. Now, we should have thought our policy so obvious a matter that nobody could doubt about it at all, if'we had hot been asked about it by people who have read clear statements of our principles almost as often as we saw ash buds bursting in the spring, or olive leaves upturned by the wind." We thereforeundertake

to state our position once more, although we are quite convinced that somebody will come along and ask us to do so again the week after next. The policy about which we are cross-questioned is that which concerns Ireland; so we shall confine our observations strictly to that. And henceforth and forever, when asked to repeat what we here say, will refer our readers or our writers to the Tablet of February 27, 1919. * The thing that puzzles some people still is that we support Sinn Fein. They want to know what is Sinn Fein, and what do we mean when we profess to be ;Sinn Feiners. The curiosity is a healthy sign in people who were convinced that the fablegrams of the dailies which calumniated Sinn Fein were all true, and that *de Valera was a revolutionary scoundrel, while a certain pledge-breaking Welshman was a perfect gentleman ; for it is people of that type —people who have been asleep for four years or more—who ask belated and, we might say, impertinent questions about our policy at this hour of the day. First, let us begin by saying that a certain amount of confusion surrounds the words Home Rule. In the old days Irishmen did not speak of Home Rule; they spoke of Repeal and that was sound and accurate language. Consider that •an English Government pledged itself to the effect that for ever and for ever Ireland should be ruled only by an Irish Parliament. Consider also that the English broke that solemn pledge in a manner which honest Englishmen have described as one of the foulest transactions in history. That pledge-breaking, that tearing up of a “scrap of paper,” was as shameful as the previous English crime which is commemorated by the Limerick Treaty Stone; and, needless to say, the men who were betrayed and deceived and crushed by sheer weight of arms never forgot the one or the other. Therefore, from the beginning of the eighteenth century it was the dream of every Irish man and woman, worthy of the name, to strive for the Repeal of that nefarious Union which was, and is to-day, the lasting monument of black and shameful English perfidy— a concrete, outstanding example of the sort of dealing that gained for England on the Continent the opprobrious title of ■perfide Albion-. Therefore the old National movement was a movement for the Repeal of the Union: that was what O’Connell wanted; that was what the thousands who were at his back wanted. It was not until after O’Connell’s time that the new words, Home Rule, which should never have been adopted, replaced the old honest watchword Repeal. And when Home Rule was first advocated its supporters really meant the old thing under a new name. The clear proof of this is in the words engraved on the Parnell Monument in O’Connell Street to-day. They are as clear as the noonday sun. They mean but one thing— Repeal of the Union : "WE CANNOT BE SATISFIED WITH LESS THAN GRATTAN’S PARLIAMENT; AND UNDER THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION WE (CANNOT ASK FOR MORE. BUT NO MAN HAS A RIGHT TO SET LIMITS TO THE MARCH OF A NATION; AND WE HAVE NEVER YET SET SUCH LIMITS, AND NEVER WILL.” That was Parnell’s programme; and it was to that John Redmond and John Dillon and all the party were pledged. We have printed their words, spoken fifteen years ago, and. we can see for ourselves that their speeches were all commentaries on this text. Remember now that the Repeal of the Act of Union meant, and still means, that Irishmen must be governed by laws made by themselves, without any interference from an English, or an Imperial, or any other sort of Parliament. You may call that Home Rule, or Colonial self-government, or what you will; but that was O’Connell’s - object and also Parnell’s. That was the old policy for which so many Irishmen labored and prayed in vain. We have seen that the Nationalist Party departed from that policy; we have seen their words used by the Sinn, Feiners as a reproach against them in their present position; and we know that there could be no reproach if .they had remained faithful

to the principles of O’Connell and Parnell; just as we know that it was because they were unfaithful they were repudiated by men like Dr. Walsh and Dr. Fogarty, to whom Ireland is so dear. The -Irish people, priests, and - bishops, have condemned the Party and pledged themselves to support Sinn Fein, because the Sinn Feiners represent the true Nationalist Party of Ireland, and ought to be called the Nationalists. • . * Now, we have striven for two years to refute the lies spread abroad about Sinn Fein. We have been practically alone in our support of Sinn Fein. We have, perhaps, made enemies because we refuse to desert a policy which we knew was the true one for Irishmen. That does not matter now: Sinn Fein has won and we have won, and we can afford to forget our ignorant critics who were, in their universal charity, prepared to dictate to us as well as to attend to their own business. Our policy has been to support Sinn Fein, and it is still the same. That surely is clear enough. Yes, but what does that mean? We have more than once quoted the assurance given by de Valera to the effect that Sinn Fein would accept self-government on the lines of colonial independence, but that nothing less would be accepted and we have assured our readers that the whole Party would be with him in saying that. Does not that bring us back again to the old policy of Parnell: "WE CANNOT BE SATISFIED WITH LESS THAN GRATTAN’S PARLIAMENT; AND UNDER THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION WE CANNOT ASK FOR MORE. BUT NO MAN HAS A RIGHT TO SET LIMITS TO THE MARCH OF A NATION”? De Valera would endorse every word of this, just as we endorse it. The question of an absolutely independent republic need not detain us. We have seen that the Sinn Feiners will accept less ; and we may be quite sure they will get less ; though let it be said here that as a nation, in all justice, Ireland has the same right to absolute independence as any other nation on earth, and England’s sole title to sovereignty or suzerainty or lordship of any sort whatever is based on fraud and force, and therefore no right at all. That, however, seems to us an abstract question, such as probably was in Parnell’s mind when he said that no man had any right to set limits to the march of a nation. The main thing is this: we are with Sinn Fein; Sinn Fein is the real, old Nationalist Party; Sinn Fein will accept a full measure of selfgovernment such as the Colonies enjoy; and Sinn Fein will not and cannot accept less. Very many people shook their heads when we stood openly for the Sinn Fein flag two years ago. The letters of the Irish Bishops and the result of the elections have justified us abundantly. And as so many of our prophecies have been verified we venture on another: Sinn Fein will win where all other parties have failed. Were we asked to face further cross-examination and answer what we have described as an abstract question, our answer would be this : we believe self-government on the.lines of Colonial independence, would, considering all circumstances, be better for Ireland now than absolute separation, and we ask no more than support in demanding the former.