Defence of I have received the following Ireland from Mr, E. P. Northwood, agent for Northern Ireland in this country, says "Observer" in a recent issue of forse and Hound"—A correspondent recently back from Ireland says that 'Northern Ireland is stated to have sent 10,800 men to the fighting forces during this War as compared with 63,000 during the last war.' I wish to point out that this figure is wrong. Nearly that number was recruited for the Ulster Anti-Aircraft Brigade alone. In addition there are three regular Ulster regiments, a tank regiment, territorial units, and thousands of Ulstermen who are at present serving in English, Scottish, and Welsh Regiments'too numerous to mention, as well as in the Royal Navy and Mercantile marine. It is estimated that almost 100,000 Ulstermen are today serving their King and country in the Forces of the Crown. A glance at the casualty lists will show how badly Ulster has suffered, and how many of our boys have already made the supreme sacrifice on land, on sea and in the air. Your correspondent further states that if Ulster and Eire can arrive at a working agreement for the duration' it will be a triumph for diplomacy and common sense. But the fact is that any defence agreement must be made as between the United Kingdom and Eire. The defence of the United Kingdom has nothing to do with the Northern Ireland Government. In any case, according to Mr. De Valera. plans for the defence of Ireland as one unit must mean the neutrality of all Ireland. This in turn means that Northern Ireland must leave the War, and that British troops must be withdrawn from our part of the United Kingdom. Who can dare say that the Forces remaining in an All-Ireland Republic would be anything but hopelessly insufficient to deal with a German invasion?
Cinema The film quota, according to "The Problem Economist," is a mystery revealed only to the expert and its revision by Defence Order introducing an alternative to the existing system, further complicates its understanding. The new scheme is intended to assist the industry to adapt itself to war conditions and to compete more successfully in export markets, which means, in effect, in the United States. Film renters under the new scheme must spend at least £1,000 (compared with £750 under the present quota) on British labour and services for every 1,000 feet of film which they are required to produce or acquire. Moreover, to ensure that a minimum number of films are made, renters must produce or acquire one British film of not less than 7,000 feet for every 100,000 feet of foreign film which they register, and the total expenditure on labour and services for the former must not be less than £3 per foot. If the alternative system is generally adopted, it will slightly reduce the number of films made for the quota, but will increase the amount spent on individual productions. It would be a mistake, however, to regard this alternative scheme as holding out salvation for the indigenous British film-producing industry. It is of greater interest to American companies producing films in this country. It will enable them to produce fewer and presumably better films here, and to earn greater box office receipts in the United States. The net effect, accordingly, will be to give such producers a better opportunity of converting sterling balances in this country into free dollar balances in the United States, though the alternative quota should, of course, improve the quality of production for the British market both by American and British producers. The special cover which the Board of Trade is providing against the chance that enemy action may prevent the completion of a film in production should also be welcomed by the industry. But there is nothing in the present scheme which will provide that financial assistance for the industry which, it was understood, was being officially considered.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.