The Irish standard., 1919-02-22
Minneapolis Journal.

pher Tor all parties.
Minneapolis Journal.
FIRST HAND EVIDENCE REGARDING THE
CAUSE OF FAILURE OF THE BRITISH
CONVENTION.
In an interview published in the Boston Sunday
Post OF Feb. 3D. Sir Horace Plunkett who presid-
ed at the Irish Convention of 1867 and who is
now visit to America for the recuperaton of
his health supplies us with conirmatory evidence
regarding the failure of that notaSe assemblage of
Irishmen. 1t will be recalled that the convention
was held at the instance of the British Premier,
Lloyd George, who solemnly pledged for himself
and his ministry that if Substantial agreement
were reached by it that its decisions and findings
would form the basis of Home Rule statute for
the government of Ireland The only restriction inn
posed was that this agreement should be for gov
ernment within the British Empire.
Every important element in Irish politics, with
the exception of Sim Fein, took the Premier at
his word and the result convention of repre-
sentative lrlshment who tolled for than eigh-
teen months to formulate the desired covenant Sir
Horace being the chairman. He says "There was
furious political thinking in that convention and
wholly new revelation of mind to mind in the fun
damentals of home rule. AS | said in my letter
transmitting the report to the Prime Minister: "A
larger measure of agreement was reached on the
principles and details of Irish self government than
had ever before been a1lowed.'"
In respect to the conclusions reached he proceeds
to say:
The conclusions of the majority of that conven-
ton were the united demand of four-6fths of the
Irish people, Lloyd George said there must be no
coercion of Ulster Well, of course none of us be-
eve there should be physical coercion of Ulster,
But we believe that moral coercion should be applied
to Ulster. AS it is now Ulster does not hesitate to
apply coercion to the government, which in turn
passes it to- the rest of Ireland in the shape of
; forcible coercion"
In reply to the direct question, what was the
cf,1 rs lo
"The stumbling block was the Ulster Unionists,;
lof course The Unlonists delegates declared for
partition and refused to come under an all-Ireand
Parliament" =.
Lloyd George" says Sir Horace should have
brought in home-rue bill based on the conclu-
sions OF the majority of that convention instead of
letting the small minority of Unionst delegates
dominate the whole situation"
In reply to the question: "What's the matter with
Ireland" ?" he answered.: well should say the mat
ter was chiefly the hopeless ncapacty of the British
Government to understand what's the matter with
Ireland"
In these explanations and declarations there is
nothing that has not been thoroughly apprehend-
led by those who have kept in touch with Irish af-
fairs during the past few years. Their importance,
however, arises from the character of the witness,
who offers the testimony. By reason of his long
study and thorough familiarity with the matter his
evidence these matters must be considered unim-
peachable. He enjoys the universal confidence Of
his fellow-countrymen, though differing with the
majority of them in many particulars, and is also
highly esteemed throughout Great Britain. He
speaks with first hand knowledge of the situation
he discusses, and his testimony will forever con-
found and blast the pretense Of good faith on the
part of Lloyd George in his pledges to accept the
findings of the convention as the basis for home
rule statute 80
Sir Horace's words should also constitute an ef-
fectual bar against that ffppant and nauseating
plea so frequently urged excuse for England's
denial of justice to Ireland that the Irish cannot
question four-fths of them did agree but the other
one-6fth was recognized the controlling factor
At the last election threeourths Of them concurred
in expressing their agreement at the ballot box. In
what election or convention representing nation
can unanmity be found on any great question?