A second ballot, by which no candidate would be declared elected unless he had an absolute majority of the votes recorded at the election, would do a
good deal to remedy this state of things, and still more could be done by a system of proportional representation, as indicated by Lord MacDonnell in
the address delivered by him before the Literary and Scientific Society of the Queen's University, Belfast on February 23rd, 1911, where he says:-
"The Irish Parliamentary Parties of today - the Nationalist and Unionist - are recruited for a special object - the Home Rule battle at Westminster,
and do not represent the various phases of local feeling in Ireland on public questions. If I may, without offence, say so, moderate opinion
finds no representation and no expression amongst them. But, if the
opinion of moderate men who are now permitted to take no part in politics, but who exist in large numbers in Ireland, cannot be represented in due proportion in the proposed Assembly, then I should despair of the
good effects which I expect from co-operation between all classes of Irishmen for their country's good. But I do not despair, because I believe that in the system of proportional representation we have found the means of securing in the proposed Legislative Assembly a full and true expression
of all shades of political thought. It was, therefore, with extreme pleasure that I noted the cordial reception given by Mr Redmond and by the Irish Nationalist Press to Lord Courtney of Penwith's recent letter to Mr. Sexton on proportional representation for Ireland."
He then goes on to explain the working of the system, the essence of which is that the elector expresses his second and third choice and so on, and
votes given to a successful candidate in excess of the number required to secure his return, or votes given to a candidate in a hopeless minority;
are not wasted but are transferred to the candidate next in sympathy with the elector. The system necessitates larger constituencies than the present, returning each a number of members. Under Lord MacDonnell's scheme each elector would have only one vote, which would where necessary be transferred as indicated above.
The only drawback to the scheme is that it is a little complicated, and it seems to me that the very similar results might be attained in a simpler
way. Let a return be made to the old system of representation in which the unit in the country was the county, except that where the county is so large that it would on a basis of population return more than five members it. might be divided. Let each voter have as many votes as there are vacancies, and let him either distribute these or concentrate them as he pleases. The result would be that in each division any minority of at all respectable proportions could make sure of getting at least one candidate in, but this would be the least of the benefits conferred by this method. (1)
Under the existing system it is generally the policy of the candidate to vilify in every way possible the members of the opposite party, and phrases like "hereditary enemies," "rebels, "traitors," etc., which leave a sting behind them, and do a great deal to create bad feeling, are freely bandied about. Under the proposed system it would be to the interest of the candidates not to abuse, but to conciliate the minority, since, where the minority were not strong enough to return a candidate of their own, the one who approached nearest to them would be most likely to receive their concentrated vote, and, consequently, unless he entirely alienated the sympathy of the majority, would have the best chance of success.
Such a system, especially if combined with a second ballot, would do a great deal to bring the weight of political influence from the circumference to the centre, and restore that influence of moderate opinion the absence of which is the greatest difficulty in Irish politics. If there is a conference on the Home Rule question, I would earnestly commend some such scheme to its consideration, even though it might involve the political extinction of some of those who under the present system occupy the position of leading
lights.
It would also do a good deal to allay the apprehensions of Protestants, who as a rule do not know Irish and do not want to learn it, if a statutory
provision were inserted in the Bill that the official language should be English, and that a knowledge of Irish should not be a requisite for employment in the public service except in counties or districts where a certain proportion, say 20%, of the population were Irish-speaking.
Certain American and Colonial precedents show that what are nominally educational tests can be twisted to serve a political purpose, and while there is every reason to hope that an Irish Parliament would have more
sense than to attempt anything of this nature, it would help to allay distrust if the possibility of such a policy were placed outside the
sphere of practical politics by being made ultra vires.
Unstatesmanlike opposition by the UUP to Home Rule in the Commons
The financial clauses of the Bill are not as favourable to Ireland as they might be, and for this the Ulster Unionists are largely to blame. Their
policy has, in fact, been not to make the Bill better, but to make it
worse, so as either to disgust the country with it or to render it unworkable if passed. This is an extremely dangerous policy, and there is in history one very striking example of its consequences which, if known to them, might have made them pause. It was precisely similar tactics on the part of one of its leading citizens that led to the downfall of the Athenian empire. The Athenians determined on an expedition against Syracuse, which was certainly as unjustifiable as any Ulster member ever conceived Home Rule to be. One of their leading statesmen, Nicias, was opposed to it, but seeing that the people were set on it, tried to force them to abandon the project by exaggerating the number of men and ships that would be required if it were to have any chance of success. Contrary to his expectations they readily voted the extra forces required, so that practically the whole fighting strength of the country was sent on this enterprise. The expedition met with disaster and was almost annihilated, and the consequence of the line that Nicias took was that what would otherwise have been an ordinary reverse became an irremediable disaster.
The analogy is, of course, not complete, but the lesson of its essential features is obvious. If the Ulster Unionist members had the slightest idea of statesmanship, they would not in the manner they are doing risk everything in opposition to Home Rule, but would at least allow for the
off chance, and try to arrange that if the Bill becomes law, it will be as little mischievous as possible. If the financial provisions are unjust to Ireland, Ulster will suffer just as much as the rest of the country whether she is under the Dublin Parliament or not, seeing that her prosperity is inextricably bound up with that of the other provinces, the inhabitants of which are among her best customers.
Suggested Improvements to the Home Rule Bill
It seems to me that the financial arrangements as they stand at present, and as they will have to stand unless there is a settlement by consent, are of a somewhat unsatisfactory nature both from the Irish and the English point of view, and, in attempting to reconcile two conflicting systems, the framer of these clauses has succeeded to the extent of including most of the disadvantages of both and not very many of the advantages of either.
The one was complete fiscal autonomy, for which from the Irish point of view there is a great deal to be said. The existing system of indirect taxation, especially in regard to the Excise duties, is unsuitable to Ireland, the inhabitants of which, while generally much poorer than the inhabitants of Great Britain, have a tendency to consume a relatively larger proportion of highly taxed articles like tea and spirits. It is admitted that under the existing system the quantity of alcohol in spirits is taxed four times as heavily as that in beer. It is idle to reply, as a British statesman once did, that the Irish have no grievance, as they can drink beer instead of spirits. The argument would hardly have seemed so conclusive to its author had he been told he could drink gin instead of champagne, and if steps had been taken to force him to make the
alteration.
Quite independently of the question of individual preference, it is largely a question of climate and constitution, and to many people beer even of
good quality is absolute poison. Even if beer possessed all the virtues which it is assumed to possess, the fact remains that, in spite of the good advice tendered to them, a considerable number of people are being driven
by the present high rate of duties on spirits to the use of substitutes
such as ether and methylated spirits, about the deleterious nature of
which there can be no doubt.
If Ireland had the control of her own taxation, the most obvious duty
of an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to reduce somewhat the taxation on tea and spirits, and increase considerably that on beer and stout, thus adapting the incidence of taxation to the habits aiid customs
of the people. The drawback to this would be that it would involve a
Customs barrier between Ireland and Britain, and anyone who has experienced the delay, trouble, and inconvenience that have to be experienced in
landing in a country where there is a Customs examination, as compared
with the simplicity of crossing from Ireland to Great Britain or vice
versa under present conditions, will agree that this is not an obstacle lightly to be set up.
A point was made by the Unionists of the possibility of a danger, which seems to me largely imaginary, of Ireland's concluding informal commercial arrangements with foreign Powers, with the result that this criticism was met by allowing Ireland under Home Rule to increase, but not to lower,
Customs and Excise duties. In other words, Ireland, which is admittedly a poor country, is left with the alternative of either just barely being able to make ends meet, or increasing those taxes which press most hardly on the great mass of the people. Income Tax cannot safely be increased, as the immediate effect of doing so would be to drive out of the country nearly all the persons of independent means who at present find it convenient to reside there because living is cheaper than in England.
If any variation whatever is made in the Customs duties, it means just the same restrictions and formalities in travelling and in forwarding goods
and parcels, as if the whole fiscal systems of the two countries were different. As compared with the existing scheme, it seems a pity that the principle of complete uniformity of Excise and Customs duties within the British Isles was not accepted. No doubt Ireland has suffered greatly from equality of taxation with Great Britain in the past, but whatever damage has been done is done, and things have more or less adapted themselves to the existing conditions, and unless complete fiscal autonomy were granted, which seems impracticable, the benefits of any variations in Customs and Excise duties would seem to be greatly outweighed by the hampering of trade and obstruction to communication with Great Britain and the rest of the world which they would necessitate.
Financial Questions
In the Bill as it was read a first and second time the Irish Parliament was given power to lower, as well as to raise, Customs duties. The former was a
valuable provision, but owing to the outcry of the Opposition it was abandoned. The Government would have done well to have eliminated the power
to raise Customs duties as well, and thus avoided the necessity of the complex arrangements which a Customs harrier would involve.
It is puzzling at first sight why the Government adopted so parsimonious a policy in framing the financial clauses of the Bill, and went out of its
way to create machinery in order to make the amount of subsidising that seemed necessary as small as possible. The answer is that the Liberals have become disgusted with the extravagance and waste which characterised the Irish policy of their predecessors. (I have quoted some examples of it in the discussion of their land legislation.)
Not only so, but the Liberals have incidentally greatly increased Irish expenditure by passing the Old Age Pensions Act, by which Ireland has benefited much more than any other part of the United Kingdom, owing to the fact that the number of her people over 70 years of age is based on a decreasing, not an increasing population, and consequently bears a greater proportion to the remainder than in any other part of the three kingdoms. The result was that the former surplus of Irish revenue over expenditure became a deficit, and after having received not less than 325 million pounds from Ireland since the Union, the British Government found that it was likely to lose, and lose heavily, if the present system was continued.
From the Irish point of view there is nothing to be said in principle against the policy of spending vast sums of Imperial money in Ireland provided an adequate result is obtained. It is some satisfaction to an Irishman to find that after more than a century of over-taxation, the Union has turned out to be not quite so profitable to England as it was at
first. But to go on spending money in maintaining a system of government which is as inefficient as it is extravagant, is neither good business nor good statesmanship. The Irish naturally complain about the incapacity of the Irish Government as it is carried on at present, but they have no interest in making it less expensive. If they succeeded, the saving would go to the British Treasury, and would not directly benefit Ireland.
On the other hand, under a system of self-government the Irish would have every incentive to reduce the present exorbitant cost of Irish Government, where that could be done without loss of efficiency. Everyone is agreed that the present system of governing Ireland is an extravagant one, but to bring it home more vividly, I append a quotation from the report of Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, and Mr. Currie, who were members of the Financial
Relations Commission. They wrote:-
"The expenditure of Belgium may be compared not unfairly with that of Ireland. In Belgium, as in Ireland government is centralised, and the
functions of administration are extended. The imports and exports of Belgium, excluding transit trade, are valued at £117,000,000 in 1893; those
of Ireland are guessed at £45,000,000. In short, if Ireland is said to be poor, Belgium is beyond question prosperous, wealthy and progressive, yet
the charge of Civil Government in Ireland for 1892-93 was £4,544,000, while the charge for like purposes in Belgium in 1893 was £2,600,000. We
therefore state the case much against Belgium if we reckon in broad figures her expenditure to that of Ireland as 3 to 4.5. That is, Civil Administration in Belgium (population 6,300,000 in 1893) cost less than l0s a head, in Ireland 19s 7d or double. Looking to special items, we find that the salaries provided in the Belgian estimates for the fifteen judges of the two courts of justice are barely £6,000 per annum, while Ireland pays her Lord Chancellor £8,000."
Under these circumstances there is nothing surprising in the fact that most of the Ulster leaders are lawyers. They are as interested as the landlords
who have not sold in maintaining the present system. It is true that the Lord Chancellor's salary has been since reduced, and he now has to endeavour to make ends meet on a paltry £6,000 a year. The moral, however, is obvious. The policy of the Unionists is, so long as the British taxpayer can be got to stand it, or can be kept from finding out how his money is being squandered, to maintain the present costly methods of governing Ireland, and supplement them by a system of subsidies on an even larger scale than before, and probably not much different in character, if they are going to complete the "beneficent policy of land purchase" on the same lines as those on which they `managed it formerly.
The Liberals, however, have discovered that the Union has begun to cost Britain money, and have become alarmed about the growing difference between the amount of Irish revenue and the cost of Irish services. They have followed the right lines in attempting to solve the problem by giving Ireland a Parliament of her own and an Executive responsible to it, and consequently the power to effect economies in Irish administration. This, however, will only be possible when vested interests have been provided for. Meanwhile they have furnished her with every incentive to be economical by giving her the bare minimum that will pay for the present cost of Irish services, while at the same time they hold a lien on all Irish revenues, and will automatically divert any natural increase in the yield of already existing Irish taxes to paying off part of this deficit.
Unfortunately this involves that the growing cost of the Services which have been transferred - in few or none of which as it happens are economies
possible, or at any rate not immediately - must be met by increased Irish taxation. Instead, therefore, of resolutely facing the fact that the Irish Parliament must be subsidised by a certain amount at first, and arranging
to do so, while at the same time providing for the growing cost of Irish services - no economies can be effected for a number of years for the
reason already given - by giving Ireland a share in the natural increase of the yield of the taxes at present levied in this country, every effort
seems to have been made to make the amount of this subsidising as small as possible, and to divert to Imperial purposes the whole of the natural
increase in the yield of the present Irish taxes, and in some cases to make the Irish Parliament itself contribute to paying off the deficit, if it increases the yield of certain Imperial taxes by more than 10%.
The course adopted is greatly to be regretted, but what has been done illustrates once more the way that Ireland suffers through the dissensions of her people, and the fact that the manner in which she is used as a football for English political parties, generally renders it impossible for her own representatives to unite even in defence of the most obvious
interests of their country. The Government had to deal with an Opposition who were quite prepared to shut their eyes to the fact that their own policy in regard to Ireland is infinitely more expensive to the British taxpayer, and who were determined to make every ounce of political capital possible out of the fact that any subsidy is given at all, and trust to the shortness of the public memory to secure forgetfulness of the fact that the necessity for it was mainly a legacy left by themselves.
Even if the Liberals had not inherited so many other disastrous legacies from their predecessors as to render necessary considerable economy, they were practically forced in self-defence to cut down the grant to Ireland to the lowest possible limits, in order to avoid providing their opponents in Great Britain with a dangerous if rather dishonest weapon. Had the Irish Unionist members had any regard whatever for the interests of their country, that is if they acknowledge it to be such, they would at least have called a truce over the financial clauses of the Bill, and joined with the Nationalists in insisting that these should be more favourable to Ireland, instead of conniving at a policy of persuading the British elector that he is being robbed for the benefit of the Irish one.
Old Age Pensions
As a matter of fact there are other ways, not inconsistent with Liberal principles, by which the Government might have arrived at a solution of the
financial difficulty, without devising means to make future generations of Irishmen of other classes pay back to the Imperial Treasury something of the money which has been squandered by the late Unionist Government in endowing the Irish landlords, and thereby providing an illustration of the principle "Quicquid delirant reges plectuntur Achivi".
Most of the trouble has been caused by the fact that English legislation hardly ever looks ahead of the immediate problem it has got to deal with, and that unless some steps are taken towards readjustment, Mr Lloyd George, so far from being the terrible Socialist he is supposed to be, bids fair
to be the best friend the landlords ever had, though possibly an
unconscious one. It is occasionally mentioned as a gratifying fact that the operation of the National Insurance Act and of Old Age Pensions is reducing the amount of pauperism, but what never seems to have struck anybody, and which, if its bearing on the problem had been considered by the framers of it, might have radically altered the whole financial scheme of the Home Rule Bill, is that in doing so a burden which has hitherto been borne by the owners of immovable property, that is land and houses, is being lifted off their shoulders and thrown on those of the general community, with the result that if nothing is done to check the process, their property will increase in value by the equivalent of the tax of which they are relieved.
I have before me a summary of the latest returns relating to pauperism and old age pensions for the three kingdoms. From these it appears that the total amount paid in Old Age Pensions in England-Wales in 1911-12 was £7948,016, and that the number of paupers over 70 years of age had fallen from 229,000 in 1906 to 57,700 in 1913. Those receiving outdoor relief had fallen in the same period from 168,000 to 8,500. In Ireland the estimated cost of Old Age Pensions for 1913-14 is £2,618,000. The Irish figures in regard to pauperism are less striking, as they do not separate persons over 70 years of age from persons under it, but refer to all classes in receipt of poor-law relief. Even here, however, the reduction has been considerable, and, including outdoor relief, and sick, aged and infirm in workhouses, the total reduction last year as compared with 1906 was over 24,000. It must also be remembered that the present tendency is to turn the workhouse hospitals more and more into general hospitals for the treatment of such cases as cannot conveniently be treated at home, and that since the introduction of the Insurance Act a large number of patients who would formerly have been treated free, that is at the expense of the ratepayers, now pay their way for whatever time they spend in such hospitals.
The average cost per pauper was in England and Wales £16.65, in Scotland £14.73, and in Ireland £12.67. If, therefore, there has been a diminution of even 300,000 paupers, that represents a saving to the rates, that is ultimately a benefit to the owners of immovable property, of nearly £4,000,000 a year, which is far more than the amount by which Ireland's expenditure exceeds her income.
Imperial and Local Readjustments
If it is thought that this saving to the rates is a saving to the community at large, I would refer to an authority of the unimpeachable character of Dr Bastable, Professor of Political Economy in the University which returns
Sir Edward Carson as its Senior Member.
Professor Bastable in his "Public Finance", second edition, page 370, says:-Other charges are often shifted to rent while it can hardly ever transfer its peculiar burdens". With regard to houses he holds that, in so far as they are manufactured articles, a tax by increasing the cost, limits the supply and thus falls on the consumer, that is, the occupier. We all know, however, that in the country the poor-law valuation on the house is only a small fraction of the total valuation of the holding, and that in towns the expensive item in regard to a house is the site value.
It may, therefore, be taken as a sound general principle that ultimately
the main portion of the burden of local rates falls on the landlord, and that under a system of free contract, anything which tends to reduce rates will ultimately tend to increase rent by an equivalent amount. Of course,
in the case of those holdings in Ireland that have become the property of the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, the reduction in rates will come as a windfall to them, but unless they have been thoroughly demoralised by the system of State pauperisation which has become the cornerstone of Unionist policy in regard to Ireland, they must not expect the interests of the rest of the country to be sacrificed to theirs, and after suffering so much at the hands of the landlord, ought not to join with them in a selfish
outcry against anything which would prevent their being given an unearned, increment at the expense of the community at large.
As a matter of fact, so far as the Irish farmers are concerned, I believe it would be to their advantage in the long run to pay higher rates, if by
doing so they could avoid the necessity of the imposition by the Irish Parliament of any additional Customs or Excise duty; and leave it with a little more financial margin to undertake works of public improvement.
A Customs barrier between Great Britain and Ireland by hampering the trade between the two countries will tend to reduce the price of farm produce and increase that of goods imported into Ireland. If the Irish Parliament has
any money at all to spare, it may be taken as fairly certain that one of its first acts will be the nationalisation of the Irish railways, the rates on which are a public scandal, and are throttling the whole agricultural and industrial life of the country.
There are two alternative policies of railway management, high rates and
small traffic, and low rates and large traffic. The Irish railway companies in their timidity and selfishness have adopted the former. A State-managed system would adopt the latter, which would probably lead to quite as good returns on the capital expenditure as the present method, after the period of transition had been passed, and by reducing the amount of freight to reasonable limits, would enable the Irish farmer and manufacturer to buy cheaper and sell dearer. A tax which would lead to this result would in no sense be a loss, but would be of the nature of a most productive
investment.
If, therefore, it is borne in mind that the effect of Old Age Pensions, Labour Exchanges, the Insurance Act, and similar pieces of ameliorative legislation of recent years, is to a large extent to throw on the taxes
expenditure which was formerly borne by the rates, the obvious conclusion would appear to be that any scheme of finance which does not recognise this fact and allow for it, is based on insecure foundations, and that the state of things that should be legislated for is not that which happens to exist at the moment, but that which may be expected to exist when the necessary arrangements and adjustments have been made.
The obvious course is to throw back on the rates the equivalent of the amount of which they are being relieved by these new branches
of Imperial expenditure, which can easily be done by reducing the grants in aid in proportion to the decline of expenditure on poor relief. If this
were done, the difference between expenditure and income would become somewhat less in the case of Ireland, and owing to the saving effected in the rest of the United Kingdom the Government could afford to deal with the financial aspect of Home Rule on a broader basis, and dispense with the cumbrous arrangements to which the possibility of differential Excise and Customs duties gives rise.
The financial relations might with great advantage to both countries be arranged on the basis of identity of Excise and Customs duties. Even if there were great apparent loss at first, an additional expenditure of even several hundreds of thousands of pounds annually would be preferable to the setting up of a Customs barrier within the British Isles, and would
probably involve less loss in the long run.
In the same way the Post Office might very well be kept in the hands of the Imperial Government, as is done in other countries where there are federal institutions, and one of the principal grounds of criticism on the part of the Unionists removed. Apparently the main reason for making it over is that in Ireland it is run at a loss, which it is desired to cut in order to get Irish expenditure and income to approach each other more nearly. If this state of affairs already existed, the Government would no doubt legislate according to general principles and fixed standards, and would not be having recourse to measures which appear to contradict these, but are supposed to be rendered necessary by the special circumstances of the case. Yet, even in view of the present deficit on the Irish revenue account, which must be considerable for some time even if the plan I have suggested is adopted, as in the matter of Customs and Excise, so in that of the Post Office, uniformity is so important that a very considerable additional expenditure would be a lesser evil than a departure from it.
An outcry has been raised about the naval and military danger of having the Post Office under divided control, and though this is largely based on the assumption that Ireland will always continue to be unfriendly, and such dangers as those have been greatly reduced by the discovery of wireless
telegraphy, this would seem to be a case where the criticisms of the Opposition might be met, not only with no loss of principle, but with a decided improvement in the symmetry and efficiency of the measure. If this were done they could hardly grumble at the additional expense of what they
claim to be an (full?) penal necessity, though people who in the same
breath demand a General Election and refuse to be bound by the result of
it, are possibly capable even of that.
However, the change would seem worth making in whatever spirit it is received. I am making no attempt to conceal from myself or from my readers the fact that the present Bill is capable of improvement in many respects, particularly in its financial provisions. Even, however, if it should become law in its present form, I am satisfied that the advantages which will ensue will far outweigh the disadvantages. The latter will become more obvious when the Act is put into operation, and will no doubt be removed by subsequent legislation before any great harm has been done.
On the other hand, the policy of civil war which is the alternative to the present Bill will, if persisted in, most certainly lead to irremediable
disaster. If property is destroyed, or life is lost, or trade and commerce ruined, and civil war usually involves all these consequences, no subsequent legislation can make good the damage thus inflicted, except in the case of compensation for property destroyed, and that only partially. The Bill, as it stands, is infinitely better than civil war under the auspices of a Provisional Government. It is also better than the maintenance of the present system. Looked at from the point of view of comparative politics, or even from that of the institutions of our own Colonies, the present system is a monstrosity which even the most pronounced Unionists do not attempt to defend.
Advantages of Home Rule to Ireland, Britain and the Empire
(2)
Each province of Canada and India, and each of the Australian and South
African colonies has its own legislature, and the British Isles, which have more legislative work than all the others put together, have to content themselves with one, and then find a good deal of the time of that one being taken up with answering questions about the conduct of the police in some insignificant Irish village, or explaining the reason why certain transfers of civil servants drawing salaries of about £80 a year have taken place.
The consequence of the tremendous congestion arising from there being only one legislature in the country, and so much of its attention being occupied with parochial affairs, is that everything has to give way to Government business, and the private Bill has almost been squeezed out of existence. For nearly every scheme of local improvement or development an Act of Parliament is necessary, but the people who suffer may be clamouring for the change, the money to effect it may be forthcoming, and yet the scheme may fall through, or have to be postponed for years, simply because
Parliament cannot spare five minutes to give it legal sanction.
Even where in the end a private Bill is got through, the cost is prohibitive. I have heard of one case of the improvement of an Irish
harbour where the expenditure that had to be incurred in getting the work sanctioned came to more than that on the work itself. Were there a Parliament in Dublin the expense of such Bills would be reduced to at most one-fifth of what it is at present, and besides, the money would be spent
in the country.
Nor is it always merely a case of the cost involved, or the inability of Parliament to find time to attend to such Bills. The recent experience
of the wealthy and aggressively loyal Corporation of Belfast, who lost much money in promoting a Bill the most valuable parts of which were eliminated by their friends the House of Lords at the instigation of the local railway companies, will be fresh in the memory of my Ulster readers.
It is hardly quite fair to say the House of Lords is not a representative body; it is, however informally, the representative of - vested interests. Anything, therefore, that threatens vested interests, even though it should only be with legitimate competition or legitimate taxation, has very little chance of getting through that august assembly except under the provisions of the Parliament Act. Nor again, is it merely private Bills that suffer under the existing system; Government business also has to be neglected or hurried through in a manner that is extremely unsatisfactory, though with characteristic lack of logic those who are most bitter in criticising these deficiencies are the very people who are most wedded to the system that renders them inevitable.
If there is one British statesman more than another that possesses the confidence and respect of all parties and of the country at large, it is
Sir Edward Grey. And yet what has he to say on the subject, when looked
at from the Imperial point of view in which it must naturally present
itself to the Minister for Foreign Affairs? In his speech at Berwick I
find the following. (I again quote my good friend the Irish Times, which gives a comparatively full report in spite of the fact that he is a political opponent, but hesitates between oratio recta and oratio obliqua in a manner which might be rather puzzling to a schoolboy who
was required to turn the passage into Greek or Latin):-
"Home Rule had become a necessity, on the purely practical ground of the interests of English and Scottish and Imperial politics. Parliament
would become increasingly incapable of transacting satisfactorily the important business of the United Kingdom unless Home Rule became law.
They were told that Ulster would resist the Home Rule Bill to such an
extent as to create civil war and bloodshed. It does not make a settlement by consent any easier to be confronted with all the language we have heard on behalf of Ulster during the last few weeks, he proceeded (sic)...
"They are appealing to us on the other side now to realise how much better and pleasanter a settlement would be by consent than a settlement carried
by force. We do not want to disregard that appeal, but it does not make it easier if the language of menace and threats of civil war are used. It is
an exceedingly bad precedent, because if the minority in Ireland are to use threats of civil war, what is to be expected of the majority in Ireland if Home Rule fails?
"Well, bloodshed is exceedingly unpleasant. Civil war is detestable and abominable. Can it be avoided? They say it all depends upon the government... that it can be avoided but it depends upon the Government
and the Liberal Party whether it can be avoided. Well, that is not an
aspect of the case upon which I am going to dwell to-night. I say, on the other hand, I think it can be avoided, but it depends upon Ulster and the Conservative Party whether it can be avoided. Agreement should be possible, but it depends not merely upon one side being conciliatory and reasonable, but upon both sides being conciliatory and reasonable. If there is to be agreement there must be some sort of compromise, and I should like to clear the ground of something which will make agreement impossible. Ulster says it is going to fight. Now, I should ask Ulster, not what is Ulster going to fight against, but what is Ulster going to fight for? Is Ulster going to fight for the continuance of the existing state of things? I think about a year ago they were arguing that Home Rule must be dropped, and that when it was dropped they were prepared to co-operate with the House of Commons in dealing with Irish land, education, and every sort of reform Ireland wanted. That is exactly what we cannot have. We cannot have the time of the
House of Commons taken up with these things. They have got to be dealt with in Ireland by Irishmen for Ireland. Ulster's position is that Home Rule means the destruction of Ulster, or the Protestants in Ulster. I reply that equally from the British and Imperial point of view the continuance of the existing state of things as regards the House of Commons means destruction
to us.
"To resist Home Rule Ulster says is a matter of life and death to them, and we say that to put an end to the existing state of things is a matter
of life and death for us, and we must resort to methods that are needed to put an end to the existing state of things, and if violence is to be used to resist Home Rule in order that the existing state of things may be maintained - then you must meet violence by violence. They say that under Home Rule they are going to be withdrawn from the British flag. Well, of course, they are not going to be withdrawn from the British flag. But the flag depends upon this - that the great affairs of this country - the questions of Imperial defence, of foreign policy, of colonial policy - should be well managed. To be well managed the Prime Minister and his Cabinet must have time to give attention to them, to think about them; and the House of Commons must also have time. If you continue the existing state of things you will prevent not only the present Government, but any future Government, and any future Prime Minister, from being able to discharge the great affairs of State as they ought to be, and prevent the House of Commons from doing it, and that is the way the flag will be brought down. If the flag is to be upheld it must be by great Imperial affairs being well managed. If they are to be well managed the Imperial Parliament and the central Government must be set free to attend them."
Another advantage which will commend itself to everybody except those who will have to adapt them elves to the new conditions will be that after Home
Rule becomes law, Ulster members of Parliament, and Ulster politicians, will no longer find it good policy to indulge in indiscriminate vituperation of the rest of the country. One of the many evil legacies of the Union is the necessity, or at least the advantage, of playing to the British gallery, and the consequent temptation to try and make out the native Irish population to be rogues and rascals and, as compared with the peaceful and law-abiding citizens of Ulster, little better than savages, to protect the latter against whom the might of Britain is always necessary. Of course, this strain is not always adopted, and at times it is varied by the announcement that the people of Ulster are really very warlike, only they usually prefer making money to fighting, but that, if they are sufficiently roused, they are quite prepared to march to Cork, and, if n
necessary, to oppose in armed conflict not merely the rest of Ireland, but England and Scotland as well.
All this sort of talk keeps up an exaggerated hostility, which as a rule prevents the faintest chance of any Irish question being settled on its merits by the persons most competent to deal with it, each of whom
is much more occupied in trying to persuade a sufficient number of British members to join with him in crushing the other side, than in attempting to
convince those Irish members who do not agree with him. If Home Rule brought no other advantage, that of compelling the Irish Unionist members in future to observe the ordinary rules of courtesy towards their opponents, and putting an end once and for all to such language as that which has characterised Sir Edward Carson's recent campaign, would be one of no trifling importance, and would remove one of the most powerful causes of disunion among the people of Ireland.
There is one more advantage which Home Rule would bring, which is of a nature to appeal to the statesman and administrator rather than to the man in the street, though it is to be hoped that the efforts of the jingo press to educate the country on the subject of the "white man's burden" have
prepared the way for his understanding it. Briefly it is this, that the
present system has all the disadvantages peculiar to an arrangement the reverse of that described in the phrase "Heads I win, tails you lose." While England insists on governing the country according to her own ideas, and in disregard of the wishes of a large section of the population that
she should allow them to govern themselves, however well she does it,
and however much she may spend out of her own pocket in the process, she
can expect no gratitude; it is simply taken as a matter of course since no one has a right to interfere in the affairs of another unless he does better than that other could have done himself, and to do well in such a case is merely a most elementary duty.
When, on the other hand, England does badly, and we have seen what a
ghastly mess she made of the Irish famine, and how she persistently went wrong on the land question for quite two generations, the righteous indignation which is everywhere felt against the officious bung1er is directed against Britain and British statesmanship. Even if the British Government started with a clean slate, as it might do, if for instance it were to acquire a further portion of Africa, and its sole anxiety were to give the best administration possible for the money, it could hardly expect to inspire enthusiasm, but at the best it might hope for toleration or acquiescence, on the principle that it is better to bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of.
When, as is usually the case, it is hampered, not merely by the limitations and inherited prejudices of its own legislators and administrators, but by the influence of the vested interests which have grown to look to England, for protection, and the crowd of place-hunters who expect to be provided
for at every change of administration, the chances of anything in the nature of even moderately good government fall almost to zero, and consequently all that England can look for so long as the present system lasts will generally be a mixture of anger and contempt.
If these sentiments are felt to any great extent towards her own ministers in an Irish Parliament she can change them, and even if their successors
are no better, the blame for their shortcomings will not fall on England.
From the British and the Imperial point of view this is an extremely strong argument in favour of Home Rule. I am not now concerned with any theories that it is better that people should govern themselves badly than that they should be well governed by others, which I may say in their undiluted form I do not accept, but am simply pointing out that in the nature of things the English government of Ireland can never be very good, and is often likely to be very bad, and that while its goodness evokes no gratitude, its badness gives rise to a feeling of fierce resentment, which instead of falling altogether on the statesmen responsible, is largely directed against Britain and the British connection generally.
Human ingenuity could hardly devise anything more detrimental to the interests of both countries; British administration follows whatever course is set for it from Westminster in entire disregard of Irish public opinion, or even of Ulster public opinion so far as Ulster has any that is not
imported ready~made, and Ireland retaliates by hating her rulers since
she is not permitted to change then. Even Ulster occasionally grumbles bitterly, as the present writer can testify, when her wishes and interests are ignored in regard to such a subject as land purchase, but at election times all that is necessary is to raise sufficiently loudly the cry of "No Popery," and she returns to heel and obediently carries out the orders of her lords and masters, who recently in forming the Provisional Government have not even troubled to go through the farce of Pretending to consult her.
When responsible leaders of the Unionist Party are in a statesmanlike mood, as they sometimes are, they hardly ever contend that some delegation of powers is not necessary if the Irish question is to be solved. The Ulster leader himself has expressed his willingness to consider favourably a
scheme for the extension of the powers of Local Government in Ireland.
The matter, however, ends there so far as he and his party are concerned, and a torrent of invective is directed against whatever scheme is proposed, without any attempt to put forward a better one. This is easy, and paying from the point of view of party advantage, but it does not bring a solution of the question any nearer, and I cannot imagine any solution which would not leave those who have been shouting so long "We will not have Home Rule," with a rather uncomfortable feeling that they have been fighting for a mere form of words. The more responsible Conservative leaders would like to see the question settled, but having played the Orange card so successfully for nearly thirty years, and there being a chance that it may again turn up trumps and give them another term of office, they cannot quite make up their minds to rid themselves of it, though they see quite well that it cannot serve their purpose for ever, and that the time is rapidly approaching when they must revise their policy and adapt if to the existing situation.
In the meantime they have adopted the policy which they believe will pay best for the present, and are forwarding it to the best of their ability by a division of labour under which the leaders in Ireland serve out rifles to as many of the Protestant religion as can be got to take them, and imitate all the methods of the Catch-my-Pals in order to sweep the greatest possible number into their organisation, while those in England profess a great aversion to strife, but say that the people of Ulster are such terrible fellows that there will be no holding them in if the Government continues to pursue its wicked course.
They conveniently overlook the fact that the British working man, or the people of Dublin, or Johannesburg, or Cawnpore would be equally terrible fellows if they likewise found kindhearted individuals willing to supply them for nothing with as many rifles as they cared to accept, and subscribe a million pounds to pay all their lawyers' and doctors' bills, at the same time assuring them that all the principal commanders on the other side had
been gained over, and in any case they would soon be the Government themselves and would make it all right for them, so that there was really
no danger unless through carelessness in handling their unaccustomed, and
in the case of the Italian rifles and the Sniders, I must admit, rather clumsy weapons, they accidentally shot themselves or each other.
(3)
The policy of the Unionist Party in general, and the Ulster section in particular, is thus neither statesmanlike nor patriotic. On the off-chance of being returned to power on a wave of anti-Nationalist feeling they are desirous of lighting the fires of civil war, not only in Ireland but in Great Britain and the rest of the Empire, and they regard the disaster
which would ensue in the very improbable event of their success as an evil of lesser magnitude than that the present Home Rule Bill should become law,
and they should be debarred the chance of themselves introducing the
"large and even generous reforms" in the government of Ireland, or the
considerable extension of local government, which Sir Edward Carson himself says he favours, and which would only be Home Rule under another name.
Sir Edward Carson in his speech at Dungannon is quite explicit in his statement of the policy of "damn the consequences" which proved so unfortunate for his party on the question of the Budget. He is reported as having said:-
"If disaster follows - disaster, let me say, which will rend not only Ireland or the United Kingdom, but all is Majesty's dominions beyond the seas, into two parts, and two parties struggling against each other in a fratricidal fight at a time when we ought to be showing a great united front to all the nations of the world, the blame will not be with us. Yes, it is a terrible thing to contemplate, and Heaven knows I contemplate it frequently myself. But there is one greater disaster even than that horrible picture, and it is the disaster of so showing ourselves decadent descendants of our forefathers as to exhibit to the world such a poor spirit that we are prepared without a blow to surrender the freedom we have inherited."
This is only his naive way of saying that rather than appear in the undignified position he must if this agitation should fail, and the Home
Rule Bill should become law and prove not altogether unsuccessful, thereby destroying his reputation as a prophet - he has long since lost any
reputation for statesmanship he may ever have possessed - he is prepared to get up a civil war all over the Empire, and place it at the mercy of the next strongest Power in Europe.
As a matter of fact the Ulster leader's threats of sedition and attempts to undermine the allegiance of the army are already bearing an evil harvest in
India, and, particularly if successful, may lead to consequences which, to any real lover of the Empire, would indeed be "a terrible thing to contemplate." As I write I notice that Sir John Jardine, MP for Roxburghshire, formerly a judge in the High Court of Bombay, writes as follows to The Times of October 15 1913:-
"The Unionist leaders in Ulster have played their last, their trump card, tampering with the Army in order to overawe the authorities constituted to uphold and enforce the laws. To my certain knowledge the seditious boastings made in Ulster are regularly printed over in India, and the doctrine of fighting against laws they dislike will be relished as delicious by all who are conspiring against our rule. This leads on to mutiny and massacre. In India we enforce the laws against sedition, and would never yield one inch to the threat that the Army is being tampered with."
As a further specimen of the patriotism of the Ulster leaders and the Imperial nature of the movement, I would call attention to the following statement of the sentiments of two of them, which I have not seen contradicted. Captain Craig MP, is reported to have told a Morning Post interviewer:-
"There is a spirit spreading abroad, which I can testify to from personal knowledge, that Germany and the German Emperor would be preferable to the rule of John Redmond, Patrick Ford, and the Molly Maguires."
One of his colleagues, Mr Chambers MP, is stated to have said:-
"That when the King signs the Home Rule Bill, he will no longer sing God Save the King,' but will say 'England I will laugh at your calamity. I will mock when your fear cometh.'"
I am not going to take up time in discussing the question of whether the King should act on the advice of his Ministers or of the leaders of the
Opposition, or on his own judgment, though I do find it a little hard to reconcile the two latter methods with Parliamentary Government, but surely
persons who in the past made so much capital out of their supposed loyalty and devotion to the Crown and Constitution, might bear for once with not
getting their own way without calling in a foreign enemy, or might refrain from indicating in such a marked manner their displeasure with the King for
acting in whatever way he considers to be his duty, even though they may have gone out of their way to suggest a better course?
In spite of the heroic methods which are being used in order to defeat this present Home Rule Bill, there is hardly any objection on the ground of
principle to the policy it seeks to carry out; the whole opposition is based on the supposition that if a Dublin Parliament possessed any power, it would use it badly. But after all, on close examination it may turn out that the Nationalist members are no more the terrible fellows they are supposed to be than the Ulstermen are. No doubt in the course of the land war there was a considerable resort to violence, but does any Ulsterman, not a leader, even pretend to defend the state of things against which that war was directed, or has anyone who is is a tenant ever shown the slightest compunction in sharing the fruits of the victory he not merely did not win, but in many cases allowed his then leaders to do their utmost to prevent? In this connection I quote from Mr Erskine Childers:-
"Nobody denies the intense sincerity of Ulster Unionists. Nobody questions their loyalty to Great Britain; but do they themselves realise what 'loyalty' is beginning to signify? Two millions a year is the price at present being paid by Great Britain for the Union. The price is rising ominously fast. A day may come - a day will come - when Englishmen sweeping aside all the laboured sophistries about the 'prosperity' of Ireland and the necessity of regarding that country as a 'productive investment' for British gold, may, in a wholesome revolution towards common sense and economy, declare once for all that the system of debauching Ireland with subsidies must stop. Is Ulster going to wait till that humiliating ultimatum is pronounced? Or is she in a corresponding revulsion of feeling to anticipate it by co-operating with other provinces to forward Ireland's interests under a scheme of self-government?
"Ulster Unionists have not begun to consider that question. Yet if we Home Rulers must reexamine the foundations of our faith in the light of recent events, they should apply a still more searching retrospective test to the unreasoned conviction they inherit. Have they gained by resolutely opposing for a century almost every measure, religious or economic, designed for Ireland's good? With their privileged land system, dating from before the Union, was it fair or politic to stand aside from the long and terrible
struggle waged by their less fortunate Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen to obtain the same essential privileges? Is it not even a little mean,
while profiting themselves, at the eleventh hour, from the land reforms
won by others - at God knows what cost of famine, degradation and
expatriation - to join in the ignorant hue-and-cry against Irish Roman Catholics for criminality'? Is it fair, when they remember the black historical record of Protestant intolerance in Ireland, to taunt Roman Catholics with aiming at a religious tyranny which it would not only be physically impossible to assert, but which they have never shown the smallest symptom of desiring? And is it manly or sensible, or even loyal, for the lack of a little faith in human nature, to insist now on maintaining a form of government so demoralising to Ireland, and so burdensome to Great Britain?"
If force had occasionally to be resorted to in order to win reforms in the past, is not the whole raison d'etre of Sir Edward Carson's campaign, not to mention that of the Suffragettes, that for a movement to get itself taken seriously, it must have force behind it? When one considers how iniquitous the Irish land laws were, and that until remedied they confiscated automatically the fruits of the tenants' labour and industry, the surprising thing is not that so much force was used, but so little.
Moreover, if the civil war succeeds, there seems every prospect that the rank and file of the Ulster army will find before long that it will be necessary to resort to the methods they have hitherto condemned when used
by others; if they are not to be reduced to a position of subjection much more complete than any they are likely to experience under an Irish Parliament. I sincerely hope that when the war is over they will keep
their rifles, whoever may have paid for them, as their sole protection against their own leaders. A rather indiscreet Unionist has somewhat prematurely revealed what the policy of the party is likely to be when they return to office. This extract, like many others, is taken from that enfant terrible of the Unionist press, the Irish Times, and is as follows:-
"Mr Bernard Holland, in a letter to The Times today, argues against Mr Erskine Childers, that the hour is not yet ripe for a Federal Unionist
solution. I see no possible, immediate, peaceful solution I except that the nation should return a Unionist Government to power, who should repeal
the Parliament Act, place the House of Lords upon a reformed and stronger basis, with fixed numbers, reform the House of Commons by making representation correspond exactly with population throughout the United Kingdom, and appoint a Commission to consider in what way provincial Legislatures and Administrations could best be formed within the United Kingdom; and what powers could best be entrusted to them."
In other words, the first task of the Unionists will be to render the House of Lords the supreme power in the State by abolishing the Parliament Act
and depriving the Crown of the power of creating new peers, thereby
removing the only constitutional means left of making it bow to the will of the people. Whether provincial legislatures do or do not exist under such conditions is a matter of no importance, since they will in any case be subordinate to the paramount authority in the body politic, which under such a regime would really be the House of Lords, and in this respect the House of Commons would be little better off.
The forces of reaction would thus obtain such a grip on the shoulders of
the nation that nothing less than a revolution could shake them off, and
the country would become as much at the mercy of the rich as it was in the eighteenth century, or as the United States threatened to be until
recently. Then farewell to legislation for the uplifting, of the masses of the people, whether in the form of Land Acts or Temperance Acts or Factory Acts, and Ulster can rest happy in the assurance that she has been the means of putting back the hands of the clock a hundred years, and reducing herself and the rest of the country to the same position of subjugation from which, in her own case, she was formerly delivered against her will.
As I write, the composition of the Provisional Government has been announced, and a study of the list of members goes far to confirm what I have said about the sort of rule that may be expected when, if ever, it succeeds in bringing the administration of the United Kingdom into line
with its ideals. As might be expected, it starts off with an 'Upper House' which contains a lot of names very few people have ever heard of before, and whose connection with Ulster is thus described by a London paper:-
"Most of the titled ones are, or have been, large owners of land in Ireland, and several have benefited largely by sales to tenants."
This should put an end once and for all to the campaign of calumny that
is going on against the landlord classes. Even when they have got their
money and have been enabled, if they so desire, to clear out of the
country on very favourable terms, they are ready at the call of duty to return to it, and lend their time and the influence of their titles - I
will not say their names because, as I have explained, most of these are little known - to the task of governing it.
The list of members of the Lower House was too long for publication in most newspapers, but in spite of its length there seems to be entire unanimity on the fact that it does not contain the name of a single individual, who by any stretch of imagination could be described as a working man or a
representative of the working classes. In fact, except that a few business men are thrown in for the sake of appearances, the work of both houses
could have been done equally well by a local committee of the Irish Landowners' Association.
If the people of Ulster have no more regard for the Empire than some of their leaders have, to judge from the extracts I have quoted, there is one quality of which they must have more for the simple reason that.they could not possibly have less, and that is a sense of the ridiculous, an one consider the history of the whole campaign, beginning with a Covenant got
up by the successors of the very persons against whom the original
historic Covenant was directed, and drafted with such legal cunning that no two persons are agreed as to what it means in any individual case, though its general effect is to tie the members of all the Protestant Churches
who allowed it to be thrust on them to the chariot wheels of one political party, and ending for the present with an improved version of "The three tailors of Tooley Street," whose famous manifesto beginning "We the people of England," has been thrown entirely into the shade by the collection of landlords and lawyers who call themselves, "We the Government of Ulster", and if he is honest with himself, I challenge him not to feel an inclination to say, "Enough of this tomfoolery!"
Should these appeals be in vain, and I am compelled, however reluctantly,
to descend to that lane of material interests above which so much of Unionist oratory seems to find it difficult to rise, there are some considerations the people of Ulster would do well to ponder before they
risk as much as a single drop of their blood or a single shilling of
their property in resistance to the lawful authority for the time being.
Who are these people who have constituted themselves judges and rulers over them? Do they represent anybody but themselves and those classes who have been their worst oppressors within the memory of men still living, and who are quite as ready to oppress them still if ever they get the chance? Who was the avowed champion of the Irish landlords at Westminster, and even against his own party? The Ulster leader.
Who was one of the first to vote against the Old Age Pensions Bill? The Ulster leader. Who helped to surrender English Nonconformists to the
tender mercies of ritualism in the primary schools? The Irish Unionist members. Who threw out the most important portion of a Bill for the improvement of Belfast at the bidding of the vested interests? The House
of Lords, which this movement is intended, and, even if not intended, cannot, if successful, fail to make, the supreme power in the
Constitution. Their love for Ulster is rather of the nature of that of the walrus for the oysters in "Through the Looking-glass," which did not prevent him from eating them all up.
It thus appears that neither the mass of the British people, nor the Irish, whether of Ulster or not, have much to gain by the return of the Unionists to power, but on the other hand stand a very good chance of being deprived of most of the political influence they have obtained within the last fifty years, and of practically all chance of future legislation in their interests.
Should Home Rule, however, turn out a success, or even not a very great failure, the gain would be immense. Ireland has been blocking the way
for over 30 years, with the result that both British and Imperial legislation has been either neglected or attended to only by fits and starts. Home Rule would at once remedy this state of things, and give the rest of the three kingdoms a chance of receiving some attention, which in view of the state of things that exists in connection, for example, with
the' two questions of rural depopulation and infant mortality, he will be a bold man,who will deny that it sadly needs.
Not less important would be the improvement in British relations abroad. Anyone whose memory goes back 20 or 30 years can remember a time when the favourite amusement of the United States was that known as "twisting the
lion's tail," and when British Unionist statesmen had to put up with affronts which showed that meekness in the presence of somebody as strong as yourself is not a monopoly of any one political party. This was almost entirely due to the necessity on the part of American politicians of conciliating the Irish vote, which in those days of coercion was naturally
hostile to Britain.
All this is now changed, the attitude of the United States is infinitely more polite and friendly, and where any difficulties exist, they
are due not to the Irish, but to the capitalists who display a tendency to construe international obligations in the way that best suits themselves, and in doing so not merely meet with no support from the Irish, but find them ranged on the British side; witness the following extract from the Irish Independent, a leading Nationalist paper, in its issue of
13th October last, a propos of the Panama Canal:-
"The Americans have reason to be proud of their achievement, though the policy which the United States Government has adopted of taxing unduly foreign shipping using the canal will cause other nations to be rather reserved in their praise of this great work."
The same considerations apply to our overseas dominions
(2), though to a lesser extent, and there can be no doubt that the grant of Home Rule, unless embittered by civil war, would tend to draw together all parts of the Empire, and improve immensely its relations with the United States.
Is it, therefore, the part either of wisdom or patriotism to take up the attitude which Ulster is being encouraged, and cajoled, and frightened into
taking up on this question, to plunge this country into civil war, destroy for the moment England's position in Europe, and postpone indefinitely if not for ever all chance of a complete understanding with the United States and with our own colonies, on account of dangers many of which are imaginary, and practically all of which could be obviated if she only had leaders who had the slightest capacity for constructive statesmanship, or who could do anything but repeat a few stock phrases in a manner that any moderately intelligent parrot might hope to equal after a few months training?
War of any kind is a very terrible thing, and there are several European countries, of which Bulgaria is the latest example, whose experience shows that success by no means always attends the same side. Civil war is more terrible still, and, whichever side wins, leaves behind a legacy of hate which it takes the best part of a century to obliterate. If, as all the circumstances indicate, the proposed civil war will be indistinguishable from ordinary rioting, and the would-be warriors can be starved out without firing a shot, the arguments against entering upon it are even more conclusive.
Conclusion
I have endeavoured in the foregoing pages to throw a much needed light on
the cause for the sake of which Ulster is being asked to fight, the
character of the persons who have undertaken the task of ruling her while she does so, and hope to undertake that of ruling the Empire when she has
finished if they have not split it into fragments in the meantime, the results which will almost certainly fallow their success, and what their chances of success would seem to be.
I have attempted to show that the course they are adopting is neither
wise nor patriotic, but if the appeal to wisdom and patriotism is made in
vain to those who are accustomed only to arguments addressed to their religious prejudices or their material interests, there are two questions which I would like to reiterate, and which the people of Ulster will do
well to answer for themselves after a consideration of the record of their leaders when in office, and an exam1nation of the mingled niggardliness, childishness and incompetence displayed in their military arrangements.
One is whether it is worth the sacrifice of a single drop of blood in
order to return to power persons, who when in office made such a selfish use of it, and displayed such indifference and often hostility to the
interests of those who placed them there.
The other is whether, however good the cause, a resort to force has the slightest chance of success, and is not doomed to result either in farce or failure.
In both cases I ask, "Is it worth while ?" and if my fellow-Ulstermen possess the common sense with which they are credited, and do not wish to give another illustration of the principle that those whom the gods wish
to destroy they first make mad, I have little doubt about the answer.
Notes and References