[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—The writer of the article entitled " Ireland : The New Phase," in your issue of January 21st, makes the statement : " United Ireland is an ideal which no Irish Patriot can ever surrender." The context clearly implies that unity is to be arrived at by the North's sacrificing its ideals and privileges as a closely welded part of the British Empire.
Everyone knows that Eire desires freedom from the British Empire to the utmost limits of expediency. The North as eagerly desires co-operation. What justification has the writer for refusing these Northerners the name of patriot ? Is partici- pation in the British Empire so despicable an ideal ? For the British Government to express a desire for a " United Ireland " with Mr. de Valera or to " try to persuade " the North as the writer suggests, would be tantamount to saying to the Northern Irish : " You don't happen to be an important part of the British Empire. You don't, for example, lie at the mouth of dangerous straits, or on any vital sea route. We can do quite nicely without you. In fact your loyalty causes us a little awkwardness. Don't you feel the call to self-sacrifice ? "
I am not writing because I desire to see myself in print, but because I consider the second paragraph in the article to be quite at variance with the fairminded and impartial attitude usually expected from The Spectator.—Yours truly,
ALEXANDRA FROHER.
Girls' County School, Bishop Auckland.
Previous page
