Address on the Ulster Question in the House of Commons

. . . The speech from the throne talks of the fears of these men [the Ulster unionists]. Yes, they have, I think, genuine fears for their civil and religious liberty under the [proposed Home Rule] bill, but do not imagine that that is all that these men are fighting for. They are fighting for a great principle and a great ideal. They are fighting to stay under the government which they were invited to come under, under which they have flourished and under which they are content, and to refuse to come under a government which they loath and detest. Men do not make sacrifices or take up the attitude these men in Ulster have taken up on a question of detail or paper safeguards. I am not going to argue whether they are right or wrong in resisting. It would be useless to argue it because they have thoroughly made up their minds, but I say this: If these men are not morally justified when they are attempted to be driven out of one government with which they are satisfied and put under another which they loath, I do not see how resistance ever can be justified in history at all. There was one point made by the prime minister yesterday, and repeated by Lord Morley in another place [the House of Lords] which I should like to deal with for one moment, although it has been already referred to by my right hon[ourable] friend last night. The prime minister said, it is "as the price of peace that any suggestion we make will be put forward," . . . and he elaborated that by saying that he did not mean the mere abandonment of resistance, but that he meant that the bill, if these changes were made . . . , should as the price of the changes be accepted generally by opponents in Ireland and in the Unionist Party, so as to give, as he hoped, a good chance and send-ff to the bill. If he means that as the condition of the changes in the bill, we are to support the bill or take any responsibility whatever for it, I tell him we never can do it. Ulster looms very largely in this controversy simply because Ulster has a strong right arm, but there are unionists in the south and west who loath the bill just as much as we Ulster people loath it, whose difficulties are far greater, and who would willingly fight, as Ulster would fight, if they had the numbers. Nobody knows the difficulties of these men better than I do. Why, it was only the other day some of them ventured to put forward as a business proposition that this bill would be financial ruin to their businesses, saying no more, and immediately they were boycotted, and resolutions were passed, and they were told that they ought to understand as Protestants that they ought to be thankful and grateful for being allowed to live in peace among the people who are there. Yes, we can never support the bill which hands these people over to the tender mercies of those who have always been their bitterest enemies. We must go on whatever happens, opposing the bill to the end. That we are entitled to do; that we are bound to do. But I want to speak explicitly about the exclusion of Ulster. . . . If the exclusion of Ulster is not shut out, and if at the same time the prime minister says he cannot admit anything contrary to the fundamental principles of the bill, I think it follows that the exclusion of Ulster is not contrary to the fundamental principles of the bill. If that is so, are you really going on to these grave difficulties in the future that the gracious speech from the throne deals with, and not going to make your offer now, at once, with a view, not to our adopting the bill, but to putting an end to resistance in Ulster. Why do you hesitate? Surely, something that is not fundamental to the principles of the bill is a thing that you may readily concede, rather than face these grave difficulties which you yourselves admit to exist. I can only say this to the prime minister: If the exclusion for that purpose is proposed, it will be my duty to go to Ulster at once and take counsel with the people there; for I certainly do not mean that Ulster should be any pawn in any political game. . . .

No responsible man, whether he was a leader or follower, could possibly go to the people under any condition and say, "We are offered something," but say to them that for political purposes "you ought to prepare to fight for it rather than accept it"; and I am not going to do anything of the kind.

On the other hand, I say this, that if your suggestions—no matter what paper safeguards you put, or no matter what other methods you may attempt to surround these safeguards with for the purpose of raising what I call "your reasonable atmosphere"—if your suggestions try to compel these people to come into a Dublin parliament, I tell you I shall, regardless of personal consequences, go on with these people to the end with their policy of resistance. Believe me, whatever way you settle the Irish question, there are only two ways to deal with Ulster. It is for statesmen to say which is the best and right one. She is not a part of the community which can be bought. She will not allow herself to be sold. You must therefore either coerce her if you go on, or you must in the long run, by showing that good government can come under the Home Rule bill, try and win her over to the case of the rest of Ireland. You probably can coerce her—though I doubt it. If you do, what will be the disastrous consequences not only to Ulster but to this country and the empire? Will my fellow-countryman, the leader of the Nationalist Party, have gained anything? I will agree with him—I do not believe he wants to triumph any more than I do. But will he have gained anything if he takes over these people and then applies for what he used to call—at all events his party used to call—the enemies of the people to come in and coerce them into obedience? No, sir, one false step taken in relation to Ulster will in my opinion render forever impossible a solution of the Irish question. I say this to my nationalist fellow-countrymen and indeed also to the government: You have never tried to win over Ulster. You have never tried to understand her position. You have never alleged, and can never allege, that this bill gives her one atom of advantage. Nay, you cannot deny that it takes away many advantages that she has as a constituent part of the United Kingdom. You cannot deny that in the past she had produced the most loyal and law-abiding part of the citizens of Ireland. After all that, for these two years, every time we came before you, your only answer to us—the majority of you, at all events—was to insult us and to make little of us. I say to the leader of the Nationalist Party, if you want Ulster, go and take her, or go on and win her. You have never wanted her affections; you have wanted her taxes.

THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT), HOUSE OF COMMONS, series 5, lviii, cols. 171–177.

ADDRESS ON THE ULSTER QUESTION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS