as the finest test and stiffener of character. Further, the slow accumulation of wealth by these elemental methods not only brings about a stable financial position, but has a steadying influence on national character. This is evidenced in the Scotchman. Its antithesis is equally evident in the profiteer and the gold-miner, and in the drop from ordinary British standards since the war. An essential requirement of thrift is moderation as to food, drink and tobacco. This not only reduces imports and thus adjusts the balance of trade, but, by bringing health, tends to greater power, greater production, less, sickness, fewer doctors.

Is any of this doctrine taught in the schools? Not a word! Is it inculcated by the national leaders? Only when driven thereto by approaching calamity, brought about by their opportunist actions. It is rarely even preached from the pulpit. Illuminating orations on dark sayings by obscure Hebrews are more popular with the clergy. Yet, as they know, idleness and extravagance lie at the root of all wickedness and all suffering. Their splendid work in the slums is only the dressing of an eruption. The Church should work unremittingly at the causes of the disease, for those causes are destructive of self-respect and of any true religion.

The

In summarizing the whole of the above conclusions it may be said that our social fabric stands, not on a false basis, but upon what is tantamount thereto, a basis clearly not acceptable to the nation at large. The people have made up their minds they will no longer tolerate the existing system, and state the fact in no uncertain tones. Government, busy with a thousand other affairs all requiring immediate attention, has emptied most of the national can of oil upon the troubled waters without effecting any serious improvement in the situation. It has given no lead. The people, therefore, as an expression of their views, decline to work at a time when work--a word more expressive than production " to the ordinary mind-is the crying need of the moment. They are turning unsteadily and doubtfully towards nationalization, a system condemned by all the best brains in the country. The Government sees the danger and warns them off, but again has not given them an alternative, and some new system they insist on having. Till it comes they will not buckle to work. The inauguration of some comparatively new system, such as co-operation, provided that the Government and Labour are jointly agreed on the subject, appears to offer the best chance of

persuading the country to return to the paths of work and thrift. It will, of course, take some time to come to agreement on such a complex subject. In the meantime, statesmen, schoolmen and clergy may well busy themselves in educating the present and the rising generation in the direction indicated. Thereby they will not only help to win the peace and strengthen us against the unhappy event of another world war, but they will be solving the gravest economic problem the rulers of the world have yet had to face.

H. ROWAN-ROBINSON

CORRESPONDENCE

LADY BYRON

TO THE EDITOR OF THE National Review

SIR,-No one can find fault with Mr. Hewitt for pleading for permission for admirers of George Gordon, sixth Lord Byron, to place a bust or other monument of him in Westminster Abbey, or for arguing that what were supposed to have been the reasons for refusing him burial in Westminster Abbey in the year 1824 should not debar the erection of such a monument now.

For this purpose, however, it was quite unnecessary to write nearly four pages about Lady Byron which convey so false an impression of Lady Byron's character and conduct as to amount to a libel most distressing to those who revere her memory.

As one of the few survivors of those who knew her intimately, and who were intimately acquainted with those of an earlier generation who knew her best, I protest against the publication of these pages.

In 1905 the late Lord Lovelace, in view of the constant repetition in books and articles about Lord Byron of misrepresentations of Lady Byron's character and conduct, which in many cases amounted to gross calumny, felt impelled to place on record the true story as known to him. This was embodied in a book entitled Astarte, of which a small edition was published, copies of which are to be found in the more important libraries of the country "accessible to those who choose to search."

In a letter to the Press commenting on a misleading allusion to this book in an obituary article on Lord Lovelace in September 1906, I wrote: 'May we hope that the sad story told in Astarte will now be laid to rest where Lord Lovelace placed it so shortly before going to his own rest, and that it will not be further used for material for review articles and other ephemeral writings, to the disgust of all right-minded people who either admire Lord Byron's genius or reverence Lady Byron's character, or both."

I had hoped that wish was being fulfilled, and regret that you should have published an article containing statements of the same character as those which forced the late Lord Lovelace to undertake the painful task of furnishing anyone contemplating writing about Lord Byron with the true story. It would be easy to show the shallowness of Mr. Hewitt's version, but the idea of reviving at this date a magazine or newspaper controversy on the subject is to me most repugnant, and I therefore confine myself to a protest.

BLESSINGBOURNE, FIVEMILETOWN,
October 12, 1920

I remain, yours, etc.,

H. DE F. MONTGOMERY

WHY IRELAND DESPISES ENGLAND

TO THE EDITOR OF THE National Review

SIR,-Ireland despises England because England deserves contempt through the conduct of her Politicians.

For thirty-five years Ireland has been the plaything of vote-catching Politicians. In 1885 Mr. Gladstone appealed to the country to give him a

majority independent of the Irish vote. He did not get it (being two votes short), so he turned Home Ruler, thinking that with eighty-six votes from the Nationalists (whom he had denounced as marching through rapine to the dismemberment of the Empire) he could get a majority. For such a conversion the Irish had contempt, and Mr. Gladstone overlooked the fact that John Bright, Joseph Chamberlain, the Duke of Devonshire and Sir Henry James were not prepared to sacrifice a United Kingdom so easily as he was.

The Liberal Party was thus saddled with Home Rule for twenty years, and it was the task of the Unionists to bring Ireland to a state of peace and prosperity such as she had never known.

Towards the close of that period (1904-5) the Liberal Party got rather restive at being saddled with Home Rule, and Lord Rosebery had given a hint that until the Predominant Partner (England) could be convinced of Home Rule being advantageous, Home Rule must remain in abeyance. Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Haldane and others acquiesced in

this view.

This pronouncement of Lord Rosebery's caused many Liberal Unionists to feel that the danger of Home Rule was not imminent, and caused thousands of them, who were also alarmed at Mr. Chamberlain's sudden advocacy of Protection, to rejoin the Liberal Party, being assured that Home Rule was dead and that it was a bogy. These two causes, viz.

(1) The temporary dropping of Home Rule,
(2) The fear of Protection,

resulted in the Unionists being snowed under, and the Liberals were in power with a majority so huge that they were absolutely independent of the Irish. Liberals were delighted at being rid of the burden of Home Rule, which they had had to carry so long. Having an independent majority, of course no Home Rule Bill was forthcoming. The Nationalists, who had always suspected that no genuine conviction was behind Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal Party's conversion to Home Rule, were confirmed in their contempt for the Liberal Party by its repudiation of Home Rule the moment that there was no necessity for purchasing Irish votes.

Four years pass on, 1906-10. A Budget was brought in which the Irish hated, and then commenced a period of log-rolling as disgraceful as any country has ever seen. The Liberals were again at the mercy of the Irish vote, and for weeks, which ran into months, the Liberals dare not bring their Budget forward. Finally, they were compelled to promise Home Rule if the Irish would vote for their Budget. To the Irish they said, "Vote for the Budget and Welsh Disestablishment and you shall have Home Rule." To the Welsh Party they said, Vote for the Budget and Home Rule and you shall have liberty to rob a Church." To the English they said, "Home Rule and robbing Churches is better than Protection and dear food, which will hurt your pocket." To the Labour Party they promised payment of members, and vitiated their Free Trade principles by saying, "We will put a tax on land to make it cheaper "I

66

Still the Irish were not satisfied, for they knew that unless the House of Lords was destroyed they could not have Home Rule. So the House of Lords was destroyed at the bidding of the Irish. Within three weeks of the passing of the Parliament Act the Liberals and Labour

Party voted themselves £400 a year without consulting the country -ninety-two Unionists voted against payment of Members, but eightyeight of them pocketed the money.

Is there any wonder Ireland has contempt for English Politicians ?

1885. No HOME RULE. A MAJORITY WANTED INDEPENDENT OF THE IRISH.

1886. NO INDEPENDENT MAJORITY AND A HOME RULE BILL. 1906. A MAJORITY INDEPENDENT OF THE IRISH AND NO HOME RULE BILL.

1910. No INDEPENDENT MAJORITY AND A HOME RULE BILL AGAIN.

Was there any conviction behind the Liberal advocacy of Home Rule? The Irish do not think there was.

66

We now pass to the Unionist Party, for whom the Irish had respect, for they consistently and unflinchingly said, "No Home Rule, no Separation." How wise they were was shown during the war. The respect for the Unionist Party which the Irish had is now a thing of the past. In the spring of this year Mr. Bonar Law destroyed the great Unionist Party at one blow when he announced that he expected his followers to vote for Home Rule and save Mr. Lloyd George's face. Then the Irish went mad, and they said, There was evidently no more conviction behind the Unionist opposition to Home Rule than there was conviction behind the Liberal advocacy of Home Rule. Let us be free of all these English tricksters-we have nothing but contempt for them." But if Mr. Bonar Law sees no harm in the Unionist Party being false to its name and false to its principles, it by no means follows that the great mass of Unionists are of the same opinion. There is not, there never was, there never will be, any half-way house between the Union and Separation. Let the Unionists repudiate Mr. Bonar Law, who is evidently no Unionist.

Mr. Asquith is prepared to grant Separation, Army, Navy, everything. That is an intelligible policy, but a very cruel one. It is like putting two terriers (Ulster) in a cage with five wild cats (Sinn Feiners) and telling them to fight it out. It is probable the two terriers would win, for they will fight in daylight, while the five wild cats are midnight assassins.

Any Home Rule Bill Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law may offer to Ireland will be insolently thrown back in their faces, and the Unionist Party should bestir itself and be spared that indignity.

The most popular man in Ireland will always be the most extreme. Ulster is having a Parliament given to her when she wishes to remain in the Parliament at Westminster, and she only accepts it because Mr. Bonar Law has betrayed her, but Mr. Bonar Law no longer represents Unionists now he has turned Home Ruler. Mr. Bonar Law should have said to Mr. Lloyd George, "I represent the Unionist Party. The war

has shown that Home Rule would be a grave danger and that we Unionists were right. It is true Home Rule is on the Statute Bookrepeal it, for you dare not put it in force. If you do not repeal it, I and my Party will leave you-we Unionists cannot be false to our name and our principles."

Unionist M.P.'s should think twice before voting for Home Rule, for if they do vote for it many of their constituents will think twice before voting for them when the next General Election comes round. Will no Member of Parliament make it his life-work to persistently