THE AIMS OF SINN FEIN.

New Zealand Tablet, 13 March 1919, Page 17

THE AIMS OF SINN FEIN.

To the Editor. Sir, —I gather from the leader in your issue of February 27 that there are a few of your (casual?) readers who do not know what the policy of the Tablet is, in connection with the question of the future government of Ireland. I can only express astonishment thatsuch people exist, and I should imagine they belong to'- that class of political Laodiceans who are never interested enough in any subjecteven the subject of the freedom or slavery of their native land—to find out the facts for themselves. We all know—we have heard themthat such people are shocked at the Tablet for keeping the Irish question so much to the front. It is indecent, if not disloyal —an embarrassment to the Empire, and a cause of humiliation to themselves. I need scarcely tell you, Sir, that the views and actions Of such men never counted for anything in any movement. They are looked at with disgust by their own countrymen and with contempt by those whom they endeavor to "smooge." The Anglo-Irish Irishman is famed in song and story. '-"'Personally, a constant reader of the Tablet, I have never been in doubt as to its opinions on Irish affairs, which opinions are, indeed, always plain enough for

anyone to see. It stands for Repeal of the Union, or (what practically amounts to the same thing), full Colonial 1 Self-Government. It stands for Sinn Fein—not the Sinn Fein of the' cooked' cablegrams which seek to identify it with Bolshevism and Spartacism, but for the ' Sinn Fein which means an ordered government in Ireland, free from " all English interference—a return to Grattan's Parliament of 1782-1800, with the- addition of a responsible executive. Mr. de Valera is no favorer of republican in preference to other forms of government. He has said the r form of government was immaterial as long as there is no outside meddling with Irish affairs. Of course I am aware that some of the advanced spirits in the Sinn Fein party are demanding a republic. But it should be remembered that every political party consists of three sectionsthe centre or main body, and the right and left wings, and of these the left is usually the most active and clamant section. Take the English Liberal Party ; the right wing are practically Tories and the left Radicals and Republicans. The late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain is one example of a man who passed from the extreme left to the extreme —from republicanism to toryism—in the course of his political career. Mr. Lloyd George will, undoubtedly, be another. -. : ■ ■■••■ If the advanced section of the Sinn Fein Party demand a republic and a complete separation from England, the reasons are not far to seek. There was the bankruptcy of the constitutional movement as far as Home Rule was concerned ; the faithlessness of the Parliamentary Party* to the Irish ideal of a United Ireland as shown by the Buckingham Palace Conference, and their subsequent approval of the Lloyd George partition proposals, which would rend asunder the unity of the nation the wholesale arrests and deportations before the insurrection ; the executions, shootings, and murders, as well as the wholesale deportations of innocent men and women, these latter to herd with English prostitutes in English gaols; the mock Convention ; the broken pledge regarding the findings of the majority ; the campaign of calumny in America, and in neutral countries : the bogus German plot, resulting in the imprisonment of the chief leaders of the people without specific charge made and without any form of trial whatever. Bearing all these things in mind, what Irishman will care to say a harsh word against these young men? We may disapprove of their views, but we can account for them. They are. the logical result of recent events in Ireland, and these events have produced strong effects in minds which are neither Sinn Fein nor republican. As Mr. T. M. Healy, K.C., M.P., pointed out, there can be no respect in Ireland for a law which gives a ballad singer two years' imprisonment with hard labor for singing a song which you, Sir (perhaps), and I certainly many times

sang before Prussianism in its present form lorded it in Ireland, while letting off a publican who had murdered his barmaid with a shorter sentence and without hard labor. The worst of these things is that the republican section tends to grow stronger every day. It is well known, however, that government on Colonial lines would satisfy the responsible leaders, and private letters received from persons in authority, leave no doubt in this matter; but every delay makes this attitude more difficult. As there is a good deal of innocent ignorance about the Sinn Fein movement, let me quote from its National Council the fundamental article of the Constitution. I extract it from New Ireland of June 24, 1916 (as passed by the censor): "The aim of the Sinn Fein policy is to unite Ireland on this broad national platform: First, that we are a distinct nation; second, that we will not make any voluntary agreement with Great. Britain until Great Britain keeps her own compact which she made by the Renunciation Act of 1783, which enacted 'that the right claimed by the people of Ireland to be bound only by the laws enacted by his Majesty and the Parliament of that kingdom is hereby declared to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no time hereafter be questioned or questionable' ; third, that we are determined to make use of any powers we have, or may have at any time in the future, to work for our own advancement, and for the creation of a prosperous, virile, and independent nation." This shows Sinn Fein to be a strictly constitutional movement, a movement identical with that of Daniel O'Connell. , The rebellion of the Irish Volunteers in Dublin, commonly called the "Sinn Fein Rebellion," was only connected with the Sinn Fein movement in so far as many of its members were Sinn Feiners. It might, with equal truth, be called the "Gaelic League Rebellion," as many of its members were Gaelic Leaguers, or the "Trades Union Rebellion," as many of its supporters were Trades Unionists. "Sinn Fein" as applied to the revolutionary movement was the result partly of accident and partly of the habit of the Irish Party dubbing all its critics "Sinn Feiners." I use it for convenience. Before I close this letter, I should like to call attention to the fact that owing to a recent speech in Christchurch, some New Zealand newspapers are bracketing Bolshevism, Spartacism, and Sinn Feinism as if they were the same thing. Whether this is done through ignorance or whether it is anti-Irish propagandism, I do not know, but it should be resented, as far as possible, by decent Irishmen, no matter where their sympathies may lie. Whatever may be the faults of Sinn Fein it has no sympathy (and never had any) with anarchical or revolutionary Socialism. Indeed, the movement was never even tinctured with the Socialist idea. Trying to lead people to believe that Sinn Fein has any sympathy with recent events in Russia and Germany is a very despicable proceeding. Even during the Insurrection in Dublin nothing disgraceful could be laid to the charge of the Sinn Fein. Party. The murders, alas! were all committed by the other side. The mills, factories, and other buildings occupied by the insurgents were not wantonly injured—indeed, they were, as far as possible, carefully preserved, the Carsonite organ, the Irish Times, admitted. As to how they fought, I will quote a few extracts from the London papers of the time: "The Sinn Feiners treated their prisoners with every courtesy and respect, but commandeered their rifles and some of their equipment."— Daily News. "Undoubtedly they were brave if they were rebels. Morning Post. "They [the rebels] mixed freely with the soldiers and, I am told, picked up and attended the wounded impartially. . . . Like soldiers they respected the Red Cross."— Evening News. "Civilians were, not molested by the rebels. . . . It was as safe to walk about as in the streets of London."—Times (London). - • But the crowning testimony to the courage and

humanity of these men came from Mr. H. A. Asquith, Prime Minister of England, who, in the House of Commons, on May 10, said : "They fought very bravely. They conducted themselves as far as our knowledge goes with humanity; indeed, their conduct contrastsand contrasts very much to their advantage—with, that of some of the so-called civilised enemies with whom we are fighting in the field. That tribute I gladly make, and I am sure the House will gladly make it." These Irishmen are the men who are compared by juxtaposition with the scum of Russia and Germany—these men who fought according to the testimony, of their enemies with clean hands, and who paid the last forfeit with high hearts. It is shameful to use such methods in dealing with brave men. Just a word and lam done. I am ail old reader of the Tablet. I read it because it was a Catholic paper even when I disagreed with its support of the Irish Party. For two years past, so far as information and insight concerning Irish affairs are concerned, it has been approached by no paper in any of the Australasian colonies. People who put no trust in its views two years ago must feel silly to-day. These views were always right, as the event proves, and for their expression in the Tablet all Irishmen who are not shouccns are grateful. 1 am, etc., Ch. O'Leary. March 10. 1919.