14 
Land & Water 
April 1 8, 19 1 8 
so far as to feel himself jiistified in saying, in his letter trans- 
mitting the report to the Prime Minister, that the "Conven- 
tion had laid a foundation of Irish agreement unprecedented 
in history." That may quite easily be true, for as far back 
as the history of Ireland can be traced the inhabitants of 
that island have been engaged in fighting with one another. 
Therefore, judged by Irish standards, it is possible that 
some progress has been made. But when we pass from 
Irish conceptions to prosaic facts it will be seen that agree- 
. ment, for all purposes of action, is as remote as ever. 
In the first place, Ulster remains outside. Nineteen 
representatives from Ulster attended the Convention in the 
hope of finding some common ground between themselves 
and the Nationalists. They report that the Nationalists, 
instead of tntdng to meet their objections to the Home Rule 
Act of 1914, put forward claims which went far beyond that 
Act. The only concession offered to Ulster wa.s a proposal 
that in an Irish Parliament "Unionists should have a tem- 
porary representation largely in excess of what they are 
entitled to on the basis of population." This proposal may 
have been well meant, but obviously such an arrangement 
could not long endure, and the Ulster representatives pru- 
dently declined to accept the proffered concession. 
The Southern Unionists 
On the other hand, there is the notable fact that the 
Southern Unionist representatives on the Convention, led by 
Lord Midleton, did co-operate to a very considerable extent 
with the Nationahst Party, and did vote in the final division 
in favour of the motion "That the report as a whole be 
adopted." That motion was carried by 44 to 29. As the 
Convention at the time of voting contained 90 members, it 
will be seen that less than half voted in favour of finally 
endorsing the report. The majority of 44 consisted of 
Nationahsts and Southern' Unionists, plus two or three 
Labour representatives ; the minority consisted of the Ulster 
Unionists and eleven of the more extreme Nationalists. 
Thus superficially there was a combination of moderate men 
in favour of the report, while the extremists on both sides 
voted against it. This is just the kind of situation that is 
dear to the heart of an Enghshman. But the EngUsh love 
of compromise finds no place in Irish mentality, and when 
two Irishmen have agreed to what appears to be a compromise 
it is safe to assume that they have only agreed to differ — 
which is a very different proposition. An examination of 
the report of the Convention will show that this is exactly 
what happened in the case of the apparent compromise 
between the Southern Unionists and the more moderate 
Nationalists They both indeed had one common purpose 
— to prevent the partition of Ireland. The Southern Unionists 
are opposed to the exclusion of the six north-eastern counties 
of Ulster — to which John Redmond and his followers agreed 
both In 1914 and in 1916 — because they want the support 
of their Ulster friends against their Nationalist enemies ; 
the Nationahsts, since the Sinn Fein movement became 
formidable, refuse any longer to accept the exclusion of the 
six counties because that exclusion conflicts with the con- 
ception of "Ireland a Nation." This was the common 
ground between the Southern Unionists and the Nationalists ; 
there was none other. 
The Southern Unionists begin their separate note to the 
report by declaring "their unaltered conviction that the 
Legislative Union provides tlie best system of government 
for Ireland." They go on to say that they entered the 
Convention in response to an appeal from His Majesty's 
Government which they did not feel justified in disregarding, 
and that they had done their best to assist in devising a 
constitution. After this preface, they enumerate the condi- 
tions which they consider vital to a satisfactory settlement, 
and they say expressly that their action "must be subject 
to these conditions." That is to say, the Southern Unionists 
must be regarded as opposed to the scheme for which they 
voted unless these conditions are satisfied. The more 
important of the conditions enumerated arc the following : 
" That all Imperial questions and services, including the levying 
of customs duties, be left in the hands of the Parliament of the 
United Kingdom." 
" That the whole of Ireland participate in any Irish 
Parliament " 
" That an adequate contribution be made by Ireland to 
Imperial services." 
The first of these points raises an issue the importance of 
which has not hitherto been appreciated in England. In 
reality it is a touchstone by which to test the meaning of 
the phrase Home Rule. The mere Englishman or Scotchman 
who says he is in favour of Home Rule for Ireland means 
by that phrase that Ireland is to be endowed with a strictly 
subordinate parliament, whose powers will be hmited to 
strictly Irish affairs, leaving the parliament of the United 
Kingdom in unquestioned control of all matters concerning 
the kingdom as a whole. That is also the meaning attached 
to the phrase by American critics of alleged English obstinacy. 
"Why not," asks the impatient Yankee, "make Ireland a 
State in your Union, as Massachusetts is a State in our 
Union ? " The answer is that this is not what the Irish 
Nationalist wants. His slogan is "Ireland a Nation." 
Massachusetts is not a nation, it is a state ; the nation is the 
United States. The Irish Nationalists are not content witli 
statehood ; they want nationhood. Some of the Nationalists, 
in spite of the Sinn Feiners, are willing that the Irish nation 
shall continue to form part of the British Empire, but only 
on condition that it has tlie full status of a Dominion like 
Canada, or Australia, or Soutli Africa. With absolute dis- 
regard for the facts of geography, the Irish Nationalists 
demand that Ireland, situated within sixty miles of the 
coast of Wales, within eyesight of the coast of Scotland, 
should be placed on the same footing towards Great Britain 
as the Dominion of Canada two thousand miles away, or the 
Commonwealth of Australia at the Antipodes.* That is why 
the customs controversy occupied so large a share of the 
time of the Convention, for the control of customs is every- 
where a function of the national or federal legislature, never 
of the state or pro.ancial legislatures. Consequently, the 
Nationalist demand for the control of customs shuts out the 
federal solution of the Irish problem wliich is so often talked 
about by people on this side of St. George's Channel. How, 
then, did the Convention deal with this crucial issue ? 
Simply by postponing it. 
The second of the conditions enumerated above as being 
requisite to any acceptance of Home Rule by the Southern 
Unionists is that the whole of Ireland should participate in 
an Irish Parliament. This means that unless Ulster comes in 
the Southern Unionists will have no Home Rule. In this 
case the Convention did not even make a pretence that unity 
had been reached. The attitude of Ulster is unmistakable. 
The six north-eastern counties demand exclusion, and mean 
to insist upon it. 
The third condition on which the Southern Unionists 
insist as essential to their acceptance of any form of Home 
Rule is that an adequate contribution must be made by 
Ireland to Imperial services. The attitude of the Nationalists 
towards this demand is made sufficiently clear by the 
separate reports which the two Nationalist parties on the 
Convention have drafted. Both these parties, while verbally 
accepting "the principle" of an Irish contribution, make 
it clear that they do not intend to part with any appreciable 
amount of cash. They demand that the amount of *he 
contribution should be left to be settled by agreement between 
the Irish Parliament and the Imperial Parliament, and t>»fy 
show the spirit in which they would approach negotiation 
on this question by insisting that Ireland must be freed 
from all hability for the Imperial debt. Ireland is to receive 
the full security that victory will bring to the United King- 
dom, but she is to accept no responsibility for the debt 
incurred in winning that security. ; More than this, the 
Nationahst parties .demand that in fixing the amount of 
contribution from the prosperous Ireland of to-day account 
must be taken of sum"s alleged to be due to Ireland for 
liypothetical over-taxation eighty or ninety years ago, when 
Ireland was poor. In addition, the extremer Nationahsts, 
who represent the real driving force in Irish pohtics, suggest 
that the cost of various services wliich they admit to be 
Irish must still be debited to the Imperial Exchequer and 
that any balance due from Ireland "could best be paid in 
kind by the provision of ships or other war material manu- 
factured in Ireland." 
There we have a revelation of the true Irish mentahty — 
picturesque talk about Ireland a nation, but a refusal to 
part with a single sixpence to pay lor the pride of nationhood. 
Nor is that all. It was said above that on no point was an 
agreement reached by the Convention. That statement is 
not quite accurate ; on two points the Convention was 
unanimous. It decided unanimouslv that the Imperial 
Exchequer should be called upon to" furnish more money 
both for Irish Land Purchase and for Irish Housing. In 
fairness to the Unionist members of the Convention, it must 
be added that they insisted at the same time on' the full 
liabihty of Ireland for an adequate share of all Imperial 
charges, so that the Irish taxpayer would in their view have 
shared the increased burden with the B ritish taxpayer. 
• In his speech in the House of Lords when the Home Rule Bill of 
1893 was rejected, the Duke ot Argyll said that he had recently been 
spending a few weeks " in a part of Scotland whence we look down 
upon the hills of Antrim. We can see the colour of their fields and in 
the sunset we gan see the glancing of the Ught upon the windows of 
the cabms of the people. And this, my lords, is the country which we 
are told must be governed as we govern the Antipodes." 
