Norwich bulletin., 1918-04-13

L01Iucn, ApTlI Iz.-Taes UIsIer u..fon- I l ist delegates to the Irish convention 1 have issued a report. signed by nine 1 teen delegates, including the Marquis of Londonderry, the Duke of Abercorn, | Colonel Robert Gordon Shsrman- | Crawford and d,sJames Johnston, lord mayor of Belfast.
 | The delegation finds itself unable to concur in the chairman's draft report, and protests against the latter's. i'm l plication that measure of agreement -regarding the measure of Irish self | government was attained. It states | that upon the fundamental issues no | agreement was at any time visible. On 1 many important questions the nation .alists were sharply divided l .i After reviewing the reasons for the
 calling of the convention, the report i says:
 'sWe expected that the real work of l the convention would have been di- 1 reeted towards a sincere and patriotic ! eadeavor to find common ground some i where between the act of 1914, on the ll one hand, and the views of Ulster, on ] the other. From the first week we urged this course and repeatedly ex- | pressed our disappointment that al- most every nationalist's> speech out lined a form of home rule far in ad- i vance of any previous. claim. The 1 scheme finally brought. forward by the l Bishop of Raphoe in, behalf of the nationalists included the following de- | nlands:
 Demands of .Nationalists.
 First A sovereign independent { parliament for Ireland. so-equal in ] power and authority with the imperial parliament. ga 1 Second-Complete fiscal autonomy for Ireland, including. the power of inn posing tariffs and control of the e1-
 else, involying,r as it would, the risk
 of hostile tariffs against Great Britain; the right of making commercial trea- | ties with foreign countries and full powers of direct taxation.
 "Ti1ifdSrTfle right to raisesau main
 tain military tefritorisl force in lre-
 ia1lci. l- sAszzs=sy s's7;i, s7f 7s '--fs 's ! @ ..fTot,rth Eepudfatfe of any liability for na tional debt, on the plea Of over taxation Jin Ireland in the past, but
 admitting the principle of a small an-
 nual contribution to the imperial ex- penditln-e.
 4Fffth-Denial of the right of the imperial parliament to impose military
 service in Ireland, unless with the con
 sent of the Irish parliament.
 "Over the fiscal question" the report [ continues, mo approach to an agree rnent was possible, and the real object
 of the proposals was clearly apparent | in the official reply to questions by ? the chairman, signed by MT. Redmond { the Bishop of Raphoe, MT. Devlin and George Russell, in which they enphat-
 ically insisted upon their demand fol fiscal independence and crystallizec v ltheir arguments in the following 3 terms;
 We regard Ireland as nation oi 7 lecononlic unity. Self government does not exist where those nominally en- trusted with the affairs of government 3 have not control of the, fiscal and, eco . homie policy. g The report declares in opposition ( this demand for fiscal independence
 ''Ulster takes a firm stand on the basis of the peoples common prosperity anc . maintains that the fiscal unity of th' 1 United Kingdom must be preserved Q intact, carrying with it. as it does, tht n sovereignty of the imperial parliament
 and due representation therein"
 The report points out that while f Ireland's contribution to imperial tax = ation for the. current year was abou q 13,000,0 900 pounds, an important sectioI n of the nationalists opposed any contri
 button, but the majority favored
 contribution ranging from 2,500 00 = pounds to 4,5O6. 900 pounds yearly. Th' = Bishop of Raphoe's fifth proposal wa e supported by a majority vote of thI d convention. The report continues:
 regard as excessively dangeroul
 the nationalist claim that. the Iris. f constabulary shall come under tn ' control of the Irish parliament at tn 9 end of the war, instead of remainint = under imperial control for six years a i. provided in the 1914 act.
 Ulster Opposes Self Government.
 '4railing any. evidence of an sap e proach to the narrowing of our differ : ences, and in view of the new. demand a of the nationalists, we were dnall, = forced to declare that Ulster is unabl y to participate in any scheme of self
 government for Ireland. We canno
 overlook the strong probability tha '. the controlling force of such woul' n today be the republican, or Sim Feir . party, which, is openly and aggressive ,, lys hostile to Great Britain and tn n empire.
 "A, proposal was brought forwar < under which in the Irish parliamen
 the unionists should have temporar
 representation largely in excess c D what they were entitled toson a popu
 lation, basis. While appreciating tn d spirit of the offer. it was felt, afte
 full consideration, that the uuldeDD
 cratic character of the proposal ren 7 dered it wholly unacceptable
 The report shows that the unionist: z, .a with the object of meeting the nation ,,s aIists, presented an alternative schem . for the exclusion of Ulster based O V lines agreed to by the official national :, ist party in. 1916, and continues: U ''The discussions proved beyon
 doubt that the aim of the nationalist
 is to establish a parliament in Irelan
 which: would be practically free froI
 effective control by the imperial par E lfament. 1t is only necessary to dral
 attention to, modern political move .e n1ents to realize the unwisdom of es
 tabHshing within the United Kingdor two parliaments having .so9equal pow CTS All other countries have tough ,ee against this disintegration policy" e Nationalist Policy a Menace. - Declaring that the nationalist polio y would be a, constant menace to th
 enpire, the report continues --i Had We thought that a majority C q the convention intended tosdemand. nc $ the subordinate powers of preyiou