pj i Q l Myffl ESk mMJfl^^ 
 
 THE IRISH QUESTION 
 
 Federation or Secession 
 
 BY 
 
 F. S. OLIVER 
 
 Author of "ALEXANDER HAMILTON", etc. 
 
 && 
 
 Reprinted from 
 
 TOje Honbon ^tmes 
 
 and from 
 
 With the Compliments of 
 
 PROFESSOR W. MACNEILE DIXON 
 
 [University of Glasgow] 
 
 Applications for additional copies should be addressed to 
 
 Lt. Col. G. G. WOODWARK 
 
 511 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
 
 h ass^^s^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^B^ 
 
3^ 
 05 
 
 *"•» GIFT 
 W. MACNEILE DIXON 
 
 ftOV 3 &» 
 
ULSTER AND A FEDERAL SETTLEMENT 
 
 I. THE OPPOSITION TO HOME RULE 
 
 This article is not to be taken throughout as an expression of the writer's 
 own opinion, but as an attempt to understand the mind of the Ulster Protest- 
 ant Party in regard to proposals for the self-government of Ireland. The object 
 of what follows is to discover if there is any method, consistent with the 
 principles of the Northern community, which offers a present hope of ending 
 an old and bitter controversy. 
 
 The Protestant Community of Ulster 
 
 The population of the whole of Ireland is a little under four and a half 
 millions, while that of the Province of Ulster is a little over one and a half 
 millions. The Protestants of Ulster number more than 885,000 persons. 
 They are therefore in a majority of nearly 200,000 over their Roman Catho- 
 lic fellow-countrymen in the Northern Province. 
 
 The so-called "Ulster Party" is not a party in the ordinary sense of the 
 term. It is made up of all classes of society and of every shade of political 
 opinion. It includes Conservatives and Liberals; but Radicals, Labour men, 
 and Socialists form by far the larger portion of it. 
 
 The Ulster Protestants have at all times been distinguished by habits of 
 thrift, industry, and enterprise, both as tillers of the soil and in mercantile 
 pursuits. They have been distinguished also by the importance which they 
 attach to education and by the liberality, untainted by corruption, of their mu- 
 nicipal administration. 
 
 At the date of the Union (1800) Belfast was a small town of less than 
 50,000 inhabitants; it now numbers over 400,000. The mightiest vessels 
 launched from its slips float on every sea. Nor has this city any natural ad- 
 vantages, such as are derived from adjacent deposits of coal and iron, to ac- 
 count for its progress. While the Dublin Corporation is a byword for 
 jobbery and incompetence, and enjoys an unenviable notoriety among the 
 great cities of the Empire for its neglect of the very elements of health and 
 decency among its poorer inhabitants, Belfast, with an approximately equal 
 population presents a remarkable contrast in every particular. 
 
 For upwards of a century the Ulster Protestants have lived and worked 
 under precisely the same conditions — economic, social, and political — as the 
 rest of Ireland. They have prospered under the Union to no less a degree 
 than Great Britain ; and for one reason only — because of their determination 
 to make the best of their conditions as they found them. 
 
 The Force of Sentiment 
 
 Had the rest of Ireland acted on the same principles they would have pros- 
 pered equally. They might even have surpassed the prosperity of Ulster by 
 reason of their remarkable gifts of quickness and adaptability. In saying this 
 it is not intended to cast any reproach. The force of sentiment in developing 
 the qualities of a race and in stimulating its efforts is a factor which cannot 
 
be ignored. In the case of Ulster, love of the Union has given this force full 
 piay. Unfortunately, the sentiment which has inspired the Protestants of 
 Ulster has not been shared by a large minority in that province and by a large 
 majority in the kingdom of Ireland. Can we devise some re-arrangement of 
 our institutions which will unite all Irishmen in a common bond of loyalty and 
 good will? 
 
 Reasons of Ulster's Opposition to Home Rule 
 
 As citizens of the United Kingdom — determined at all costs to maintain 
 their citizenship of the Union — the Ulster Protestants have opposed Home 
 Rule, because they believe that the present system of a single Parliament gives 
 the best security for national safety and for just and honest government. They 
 believe that to put an educated and progressive community under the ab- 
 solute control of an overwhelming Roman Catholic majority — the greater part 
 of whom are backward in education and industry, and are also very largely 
 under the influence of their priesthood — would be fraught with danger, not 
 only to the material well-being of the Protestant community, but to the educa- 
 tion of their children and to their free institutions. 
 
 The Principle of Nationalism 
 
 When Ulstermen are asked to accept what is called "the principle of 
 Nationalism" they usually reply that they cannot do so, because they have 
 never yet seen any statement of this supposed "principle" which possesses real 
 consistency, or which in any way supports the extreme claims of the "Nation- 
 alist" Party. For if it is right that the destinies of Ireland should be settled 
 upon the formula of "self-determination," every argument which can be 
 advanced in favour of the severance of Jreland % from Great Britain can 
 be used with equal force in favour of the severance of the six north-eastern 
 counties of Ulster from Ireland. For these six north-eastern counties contain 
 a large and compact majority of people who are in reality much more closely 
 knit by ties of tradition, religion, and even of race, to the inhabitants of Eng- 
 land and the Lowlands of Scotland than they are to the inhabitants of Mun- 
 ster, Leinster, and Connaught. 
 
 If, therefore, such differences in tradition, religion, and race (which, we 
 presume, are what "Nationalism" means) are to be accepted as sufficient 
 reason for separate political institutions, then the six north-eastern counties of 
 Ulster would have a clear right to determine their own destinies apart from the 
 rrst of Ireland — either as a part of Great Britain, or as a distinct unit. 
 "While, therefore," the Ulsterman would say, "we acknowledge in the most 
 friendly spirit the ties of comradeship and local patriotism which bind us to 
 Irishmen of the south and west, we must admit frankly — if we are driven 
 to adopt these pernicious tests of tradition, religion, and race — that they are 
 weaker ties than those which bind us to our fellow Englishmen and fellow 
 Snowmen. And they are infinitely weaker than those ties which bind us to the 
 United Kingdom as a whole. Our citizenship of that Union is the thing of 
 all others which we are most proud of, most attached to, most determined to 
 preserve at whatever cost." 
 
 Effects of the War 
 
 It is not easy for anyone who has not lived in Ireland during the war 
 to realize the effect which has been produced upon the minds of the Pro- 
 testants of Ulster by the words and deeds of those in whose hands it is now 
 
 4 
 
proposed to place their destinies. The greater part of the people of Ireland 
 have failed to do their part in the war. In many instances they have insulted 
 and injured those who have done their part in it. They have engaged in a 
 rebellion. They continue to agitate and to hold meetings, even in Belfast, 
 at which they openly rejoice over what they describe as the defeats of the 
 Allies. Is it strange that these occurrances inspire their Protestant fellow- 
 countrymen with increased horror at the thought of being put under their 
 rule ? 
 
 The rebellion took place at a time which made it not merely treachery to 
 the State, but to the cause of freedom. It was marked by the worst atrocities. 
 Unarmed and unsuspecting persons were shot down and stabbed to death by 
 the rebels as ruthlessly as Belgian peasants by the German soldiery. It is true 
 that those concerned in this rebellion were a small minority; but it is equally 
 true that, shortly after the event, they were acclaimed as heroes by a large, 
 if not by the larger, part of the Irish people. 
 
 This fickleness and instability of opinion, this tendency to swing round 
 and change allegiance in a sudden excitement, are what their fellow-country- 
 nen in the North dread, perhaps more than anything else in the proposal to 
 subject Ulster to an Irish Parliament. The Protestant community is not 
 blind to the qualities of the South and West — their quick intelligence, their 
 generous impulses, their courage in battle; but the uncertainty of their attach- 
 ments and their changing moods fill Ulster with misgiving, and make it neces- 
 sary to insist upon the fullest securities. 
 
 The official Nationalists did indeed condemn the rebellion; but the rebels 
 now claim to be the leaders of a dominating majority, and the results of recent 
 elections appear to justify their pretensions. 
 
 The professions of fair treatment with which the official Nationalists have 
 endeavoured to allay opposition to Home Rule have failed to impress Ulster. 
 Their words are constantly being contradicted by their actions; as, for instance, 
 a few ninths ago, during the debates on the Reform Bill, when they were 
 found strenuously opposing a proposal for the redistribution of seats in Ire- 
 land (upon a basis of population) in order to rectify the present inequality 
 under which the Nationalists are over-represented, and the Ulster Protestants 
 a;e under-represented, in the Imperial Parliament. 
 
 Ulstermen have asked, and continue to ask, that compulsory military 
 service should be applied to Ireland as to England and Scotland, but their 
 opponents obstinately refuse, and threaten rebellion if such a step is taken. The 
 result is that, whereas Scotland, with a slightly larger population, has sent 
 620,000 men to the Colours, only 170,000 have been sent from Ireland. This 
 contrast is keenly felt. 
 
 Every one who has lived in Ireland knows instances in which returned 
 soldiers — even the wounded — have been boycotted, insulted, beaten, and stoned, 
 for no other reason than that they had dared to follow the dictates of their 
 conscience. Faced with these manifestations of the spirit of hatred and op- 
 pression, the Ulster Protestants say frankly that they are compelled to think 
 of their own safety and that of their families; that they cannot afford to let 
 the whole of their available manhood enlist, lest they place themselves at the 
 mercy of people who openly profess to regard the methods employed in the 
 itcent rebellion as models worthy of imitation. 
 
 The Religious Question 
 
 It is impossible to deal sincerely with the Irish problem unless we are pre- 
 pared to face the religious issue. Rightly or wrongly, the Ulster Protestants 
 
are convinced that the policy of the Roman Church is hostile to civil and re- 
 ligious liberty. For holding this opinion they are frequently accused of intoler- 
 ance even by their fellow-Protestants throughout the British Empire. Their 
 reply is — ( 1 ) that they have lived side by side with a Roman Catholic majority, 
 whereas their critics have not; (2) that they distinguish two principles in 
 Roman Catholicism, one of which is apt to be entirely overlooked in Pro- 
 testant countries. 
 
 They distinguish between the religious faith of individual Roman Catho- 
 lics and the political aims of the Vatican. The former they do not impugn. 
 They recognize fully that their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects cherish their 
 spiritual beliefs with a sincerity no whit inferior to their own. They respect 
 the devotion of their clergy. They would never deny that the Roman Catho- 
 lics are entitled, no less than themselves, to complete freedom of worship; 
 but for generations past Roman Catholics have in fact enjoyed not only com- 
 plete freedom of worship, but complete equality in the eyes of the law. 
 
 With regard to those Roman Catholics who have joined. the Army the 
 Protestant community does not stint its praise. In becoming soldiers these 
 have often had to endure sour looks, hard words, and cruel injuries from their 
 own people. 
 
 None the less, Ulster maintains that it is necessary to distinguish between 
 the piety of individual Roman Catholics — both priests and laity — and the 
 politics of the Church of Rome. Their experience warns them that the 
 statecraft of the Vatican is a persistent encroacher, an industrious fomenter 
 of discord. During the past 10 years, they maintain, there has. been no relaxa- 
 tion, but on the contrary a marked recrudescence, of its activities in the North 
 of Ireland. And they conclude with this question: — "When we consider 
 what has happened throughout the world during the present war, shall we dis- 
 cover any reasons for laying aside the opinion which is charged against us as 
 intolerance?" 
 
 The Sinn Fein 
 
 Another thing which confirms them in their determination not to forego 
 their citizenship of the United Kingdom is the rapid spread of the Sinn Fein 
 — a society which claims at the present time, probably with justice, to control 
 a majority of the whole inhabitants of Ireland. The meaning of the name is 
 enough in their eyes to condemn it — "For Ourselves Alone." 
 
 The Protestants of Ulster love Ireland, as a Virgianian or a New Eng- 
 ender loves Virginia, or New England ; but their loyalty to the Union comes 
 before their attachment even to Ireland. The Sinn Fein make no concealment 
 of their intention to reduce the connection between Ireland and Great Britain 
 tc a purely nominal tie, to a titular suzerainty— -a phrase of derision and con- 
 tempt — and to destroy the Union. They aim openly at Seccession. "In this 
 conspiracy," says the Protestant community, "we will never become their ac- 
 complices, and while we have strength to resist it we will never consent to be 
 their victims." 
 
 (Note. — A Roman Catholic critic has protested against the references in 
 the foregoing article to "the policy of the Church of Rome" or "the Vatican" ; 
 and he maintains that "the policy of Maynooth" would be a more correct de- 
 scription. I wish to point out, however, that I do not profess to have set out 
 my own views of this matter, but only to have tried to give an accurate account 
 of the opinions of the Ulster Protestants.) 
 
II. "DOMINION STATUS" 
 
 In the preceding article the general nature of the opposition of the Pro- 
 testants of Ulster to Home Rule has been considered, and also the particular 
 effect which recent experiences — the rebellion, the opposition to military ser- 
 vice, the treatment of returned soldiers, the supposed policy of the Vatican, 
 and the attitude of Sinn Fein — have had in strengthening their original op- 
 position. 
 
 Dominion Status 
 
 It is clear that the form of self-government which is most favoured by the 
 Nationalist Party and Sinn Fein is "Dominion Status." 
 
 Upon these principles Ireland would be given the same degree of inde- 
 pendence that is possessed by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South 
 Africa. She would not be one of the federated States of the United Kingdom 
 --as Quebec is one of the federated States of Canada, or as New South 
 Wales is one of the federated States of Australia, or as Virginia and Massa- 
 chusetts are federated States of the U. S. A. — but she would become virtually 
 separate, free at any moment to shake off the British connection and to go 
 her own way in peace or war. 
 
 This proposal may be compared to a demand on the part of the South 
 Island of New Zealand to separate from the North Island; or to that other 
 demand, made by certain Southern States of the American Union, to break 
 away from their Northern neighbours, which was refused and defeated half 
 a century ago. 
 
 The Protestants of Ulster would admit that "Dominion Status" is a right 
 and reasonable arrangement in the case of territories which are situated 
 thousands of miles away from the Mother Country, and whose declaration 
 of their absolute independence, though it might wound our feeling and 
 diminish our strength, would not necessarily be fatal to our very existence. 
 But who, they ask, that regards the safety of the United Kingdom, or of 
 Great Britain, can contemplate placing Ireland in such a position except 
 as an act of national suicide? Suppose Ireland to have been under an 
 Independent Government, and suppose that Government to have been hostile 
 or neutral in the present war, what chance would British shipping have 
 had against swarms of enemy submarines sheltering in her territorial waters? 
 This proposition, they say, needs only to be stated in order to be instantly 
 rejected by any mind which is capable of grasping the realities of the situation.* 
 
 Representation of Protestants 
 
 Another matter which has been canvassed in the Press is the proposal for 
 
 j the position of Protestants by giving them representation in the 
 
 i rish Parliament either greatly in excess of their just proportion or by means of 
 
 * Herr Bacmeister, the Prussian Deputy, in Das Grossere Deutschlattd, the chief 
 Pan-German periodical (May 31st) : — .... "What seems more important to us 
 is that recognition of the community of interests between Germany and Ireland, as 
 against England, should be brought much more to the front among us than has hitherto 
 been the case. A free Ireland is a bulwark of the freedom of the seas — a bulwark 
 of vital necessity for Germany. We do not know whether the British statesmen are 
 right in asserting a connection between Irish revolutionary feeling and German propa- 
 ganda. But in such a connection we should see no sign of a bad German policy." 
 
nominated members. In the opinion of Ulster both of these suggestions are 
 futile. What security could there be in any fancy arrangement of either kind? 
 What chance could either of them have of permanency, seeing that both are 
 founded on injustice? There is no section of society in the British Isles more 
 attached to the democratic principle than the Protestants of Ulster. With 
 what self-respect could they consent to shelter behind this ridiculous make-be- 
 lieve? They do not ask for over-representation, but only that they may en- 
 joy the security afforded by the unfettered supremacy of the United Kingdom 
 Parliament. Nominated members having no popular support behind them 
 would carry no weight. And, looking to the future, who would nominate? 
 The Crown or some party caucus ? This proposal also, they say, only needs to 
 be looked in the face to be rejected. 
 
 Administrative Safeguards 
 
 Unjust administration is regarded by Ulstermen as being at least as great 
 a danger as oppressive legislation. In particular, they fear "jobbery" to pub- 
 lic posts; political appointments of Judges and magistrates unqualified or un- 
 willing to give just decisions ; party appointments of police officers who will not 
 enforce the law for the protection of the minority ; mis-spending of public 
 money on works which are designed, not for the general benefit of the com- 
 munity, but for the enrichment of contractors and localities which are able 
 to bring special influence to bear upon the Government; taxation of the thrift 
 and industry of Ulster for the support of classes and districts which, as yet, 
 have not learned to practise either the one virtue or the other. But beyond- 
 everything else they seem to fear the division of those resources which must 
 be devoted to the education of their children, if the prosperity and freedom of 
 the Ulster Protestants are to continue. And in regard to education there is 
 an additional danger of great gravity arising out of the supposed hostility of 
 the Roman Church to the spread of knowledge. 
 
 General Desire for Settlement 
 
 Nevertheless, there is no section of the Irish people which professes to de- 
 sire a final settlement more than the Protestant community does. Such a set- 
 tlement can only be based on compromise. It is obvious that the extremists 
 will not welcome such a settlement, for they will be content with nothing 
 short of absolute "secession." Nor will such a settlement be welcomed by 
 those persons whose policy it is, not to allay, but to keep alive, the grievances 
 of Roman Catholic Ireland against Protestant Great Britain. 
 
 On material grounds alone, Ulstermen desire a settlement. They will 
 tell you that for seven years past their progress has been hampered, because 
 in all their plans for future development they have been haunted by the spectre 
 of insecurity, and by the alternatives of emigration or armed resistance. 
 
 Possibility of a Settlement 
 
 Is there any possible basis of settlement? This question has been an- 
 svvered more or less in the following terms by various Ulstermen with whom 
 the writer has talked : — 
 
 "The idea of any profound change in our present Constitution is abhor- 
 rent to us. We regard the existing Union with love and veneration. A 
 single Parliament seems to us sufficient for all purposes of good government 
 provided that its members will loyally endeavour to make it work, and will 
 not pervert its forms to factious uses. 
 
 8 
 
"If, however, the majority of our fellowcitizens throughout the United 
 Kingdom are of a different opinion; if they hold that, in the great and in- 
 creasing complexity of our national life, one Parliament cannot hope to deal 
 efficiently both with the domestic concerns of England, Scotland, and Ireland 
 individually, and at the same time with those interests which are common to the 
 whole Union ; if, holding these views, they conclude that there must be dele- 
 gation to a group of Subordinate Legislatures of certain powers and functions 
 at present possessed by the United Kingdom Parliament, in order to escape 
 from a dangerous congestion of legislation and administration; if, being of 
 these opinions, they ask us to follow their lead, and to join with them in adopt- 
 ing this new system, then certainly we should find it difficult to justify a re- 
 fusal, even although we differ in opinion as to the need for the proposed 
 change. 
 
 "But this is precisely what ive have never yet been asked to do. It has 
 never yet been proposed to us that Ireland should join in a scheme which Eng- 
 land, Wales, and Scotland were willing to apply to themselves. On the con- 
 trary, under all the various Home Rule Bills it has been laid down that, where- 
 as the domestic concerns of Ireland are to be turned out and excluded from the 
 purview of the United Kingdom Parliament, the much greater and more mul- 
 tifarious domestic concerns of England, Wales, and Scotland are still to re- 
 main as a burden upon its shoulders. 
 
 "Is it wonderful, in these circumstances, that the Ulster Protestants are 
 somewhat sceptical as to the sincerity of the argument founded on congestion ? 
 If the representatives of England and Scotland were in earnest, surely they 
 would be willing to do unto themselves what they have proposed should be 
 done unto us. In spite, however, of their talk about the evils of congestion, 
 they have so far never made any proposal to relieve congestion by removing 
 their own domestic concerns from the overloaded Parliament of the Union. 
 May we not, therefore, be forgiven for harbouring a suspicion that they are 
 actuated, not so much by a desire for the better government of the United 
 Kingdom as a whole, as by mere impatience to be rid, at any cost, of the vexa- 
 tion of listening any longer to tales of Irish discontent?" 
 
 III. THE PRINCIPLE EXPLAINED 
 
 In the first article the causes, both general and particular, of the op- 
 position of the Protestants of Ulster to Home Rule were considered. In the 
 second their reasons have been stated for rejecting "Dominion Status," even 
 when coupled with fancy proposals for the over-representation of Unionists — - 
 a thing which they regard as opposed to the democratic principle. It has been 
 pointed out that, although Ulstermen profess, with all sincerity, to desire a final 
 settlement, they regard unjust administration as no less dangerous than unjust 
 legislation. An attempt has been made to show why they have hitherto re- 
 garded as insincere the argument frequently advanced by British Liberals, in 
 favour of Home Rule, namely, that it would relieve congestion in the Imperial 
 Parliament. 
 
 Can the essential substance of Union be safeguarded effectively, accord- 
 ing to Ulster ideas, under the Federal system ? In this article an attempt will 
 be made to answer that question. 
 
No Need for Delay 
 But, it is said, a true Federation cannot be made in a few weeks, and the 
 urgency of the Irish problem brooks no delay. The same thing has been said 
 for 30 years. 
 
 Principles of a True Federation 
 
 The fundamental principle of a Federation is that the states or nations 
 which compose it shall all stand in the same relation to the Central Parliament. 
 But beyond this it is also essential that the functions which are entrusted to 
 the subordinate Legislatures shall not be ( 1 ) such as to reduce the supremacy 
 of the Central Parliament to a shadow, or (2) such as to put into the hands 
 of the states or nations power to interfere in any way with the freedom of 
 trade, transport, or travel within the limits of the Federation. 
 
 ( 1 ) Under the first of these heads it is of paramount importance that 
 the Central Parliament of the Union should retain all powers and functions 
 which are not expressly delegated and made over to the National Parliaments. 
 
 (2) Under the second head it is essential that Customs and Excise should 
 be in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, for the reason that Customs and 
 Excise are not merely the symbols of union, but are of the very essence of 
 union. If each State has it in its power to erect tariff barriers against its 
 neighbours, there can be no free flow of commodities between the various 
 members of the Federation ; their union will be weakened thereby, and friction, 
 grievances, and reprisals will be certain to result. 
 
 Upon the principles of a true Federation, the United Kingdom Parliament 
 would simultaneously delegate and make over powers and functions with re- 
 gard to the domestic concerns of Ireland to an Irish Legislature, and with 
 regard to the domestic concerns of England, Wales, and Scotland to English, 
 Welsh, and Scottish Legislatures. 
 
 One thing, however, is certain — the Parliament of the Union must 
 stand in the same relation to all the kingdoms of the L T nion. It must not be 
 the Union Parliament as regards England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and 
 at the same time, and in addition, the National Legislature of England, Wales, 
 and Scotland. The domestic affairs of England, Wales and Scotland must 
 come right out and must be given into the charge of some other body or 
 bodies. It would not be a true Federation, and it would be an entirely un- 
 workable arrangement — ■ open to every form of confusion and intrigue- — if 
 the Parliament of the Union stood in a different relation to Ireland on the one 
 hand, and to England, Wales, and Scotland on the other. Every Home Rule 
 Bill which has yet been introduced has made shipwreck upon this reef. Irish 
 representation at Westminster has always beeiT the fatal crux. So long as the 
 principles of a true Federation are shirked as regards England, Wales, and 
 Scotland, it will continue to be fatal. If, on the other hand, these principles 
 are boldly applied, most of the difficulties of Irish representation will vanish. 
 
 Another thing which is essential to a true Federation is that the Parlia- 
 ment of the Union must possess a real supremacy, and not merely a "titular 
 suzerainty." As love of the Union is a nobler sentiment than Irish patriot- 
 ism, so, even the Ulsterman would freely admit, is love of Ireland a nobler 
 sentiment than attachment to any particular province of Ireland. But in the 
 probationary period, and until the fair working of self-government has been 
 proved by experience, they would wrobably judge it necessary that Ulster 
 should have, within its own sphere, a power of veto upon laws, and of control 
 over their enforcement, in buch matters as affect her vital interests. 
 
 10 
 
To accept even a true Federation would entail a bitter sacrifice ^for the 
 Ulsterman. And certainly it is quite clear that he will never accept "Secces- 
 sion," or any arrangement, however ingeniously disguised it may be, which 
 heads straight for "Secession," or, by a more devious course, towards the m- 
 evi table war which he feels assured must in that case be waged sooner or later 
 to prevent "Secession." 
 
 But is there, in fact, any reason why a true Federation, if it be desirable, 
 cannot be made, at any rate, in a few months — in less time than the Irish Con- 
 vention has alreadv spent over its deliberations? The ground to be ex- 
 plored, if wider, is not more difficult— is, indeed, much less difficult— than 
 the ground which the Irish Convention has been engaged in surveying. In 
 tne case of England and Scotland (though Wales stands on a somewhat dif- 
 ferent footingf domestic legislation and administration are. in fact, to a large 
 extent separated at the present time. The Reform Act, which resulted from 
 the Speaker's Conference, is proof that the very greatest constitutional changes 
 can be effected now, while the spirit of party is in abeyance, with a speed and 
 good will which would have been inconceivable in pre-war days. 
 
 There is an alternative; but it would be a calamity to have to fall back 
 on it. If an Irish Parliament is so urgent that it cannot be withheld until the 
 general federal system is made secure, this fact need not prevent agreement now 
 upon the general form of federation which is suitable for the United Kingdom 
 as a whole. If this were done Ulster could not object to the setting up of an 
 Irish Legislature forthwith, providing she herself were left out until, in due 
 course, the system was adopted by the whole of the United Kingdom. It 
 would be an illogical arrangement, but not more illogical than any Home 
 Rule Bill that has yet been introduced. And the exclusion of Ulster would 
 give security that the lop-sided arrangement would be only a temporary dis- 
 figurement of our Constitution. 
 
 This alternative is bad because it delays the final settlement which is 
 so much desired. If there must be a change, even Ulster would probably in- 
 finitely prefer that it were carried through forthwith. And is there any reason 
 why it should not be carried through forthwith, if the statesmen of England 
 and Scotland are in earnest about the evils of congestion and the need for im- 
 proving the machinery of the Constitution? 
 
 In these articles I have endeavored to set out the views of the Ulster 
 Protestant community as I have gathered them in various conversations As 
 my sources of information are necessarily limited, it is not unlikely that I may 
 have gone astray at certain points, but in the main I believe that the statement 
 1 have given is a true one. 
 
 I wish, however, to make two things clear. In the first place, there is 
 no pretence that the conclusion— the suggestion of a federal settlement— rep- 
 resents the Ulster view ; it is entirely my own. In the second place, the ob- 
 jections of the Protestant community to any change in our present Constitu- 
 tion differ very widely from my own. 
 
 I do not regard federalism as the lesser of two evils. On the contrary I 
 look upon it as a great good. I cannot see in what other way our domocratic 
 institutions can hope to maintain themselves. Congestion of business in our 
 Central Parliament must inevitably baffle all our efforts at reconstruction after 
 the war, unless during the war, the beneficent forces of local effort and pa- 
 triotism can be set free to work out their own salvation, according to the tradi- 
 tions and temper of the various communities which make up the United King- 
 dom. Decentralization on a great scale appears to me to be the only road to 
 
 11 
 
safety; and federalism, so far as I can see, is the only safe method of decentral- 
 ization. "Mirabeau," wrote Lord Acton, "was not only a friend of freedom, 
 which is a term to be defined, but a friend of federalism, which both Montes- 
 quieu and Rousseau regarded as a condition of freedom. When he spoke 
 confidentially, he said that there was no other way in which a great country like 
 France could be free." I humbly subscribe to this opinion, and pray that, 
 before it is too late, the method may be applied to our own case. 
 
 12 
 
FEDERAL DECENTRALIZATION 
 
 An important objection against Federalism which has presented itself to 
 a number of acute minds is, that this principle is only applicable for bringing 
 States or Nations into closer relations with one another than those which pre- 
 viously existed between them ; but that it is not a method for devolving powers 
 of legislation and administration from a Central Parliament to subordinate 
 legislatures. 
 
 To a certain extent, this objection seems to be a matter of words rather 
 than of substance. 
 
 I have no right to speak as a historian, but it seems to me that, for more 
 than a century past, people of authority have talked and written about "feder- 
 alism" (meaning what our modern Federalists mean by it), and have applied, 
 or endeavoured to apply, what they have described as the "federal principle" 
 in circumstances not at all dissimilar from our own. The term has been sa 
 used widely by Sir Wilfrid Laurier (1909), and it was also so used by Mr. 
 Chamberlain when advocating his own alternative proposals during the Home 
 Rule controversies (1885-1887) ; while the idea, as applicable to the United 
 Kingdom, was recommended by Mr. Childers ten years earlier. 
 
 In Lord Acton's somewhat disjointed, but very illuminating lectures on 
 the French Revolution, he constantly refers, and evidently with approval, to 
 the efforts to establish a new regime in France upon the principle of Federal- 
 ism, which were made by Mirabeau and others who founded their arguments 
 upon Montesquieu, and upon the precedent of the U. S. A. Constitution 
 which had been created a few years earlier. These people aimed at setting 
 up provincial assemblies to deal with local matters according to the traditions 
 and temperaments of the various distinctive regions of France, all of which 
 had gradually become absorbed in a centralized government during the preced- 
 ing three centuries. The process aimed at was constantly referred to as 
 "federalism" at the time, and is so referred to by Lord Acton himself, who 
 adopts the term without comment or criticism. His lectures were delivered 
 long before 1911, when "federalism" came more or less prominently into our 
 political discussions. 
 
 Of course, the French Federalists failed, and the consequences of their 
 failure are notorious. Napoleon, like any other tyrant whose aim is absolute 
 rule, pursued the policy of centralizing power, with no less rigour, though 
 with much more vigour, than his Bourbon predecessors. Nor is it impossible, 
 or even improbable, that the tyranny of a democracy, if once securely estab- 
 lished upon party machinery, might act in the same way. 
 
 From the practical point of view, on the other hand, I have never been 
 able to see any real difficulty in devolving powers from the Central Parliament 
 upon local, provincial, or national legislatures, providing the supremacy of the 
 Central Parliament is fully maintained (as I think it only can be fully main- 
 tained) upon the federal principle, i.e., upon the principle that the Federal 
 Power stands in precisely the same relations to each one of the federal units. 
 
 Indeed, from the practical point of view, it would seem to be much easier 
 
 13 
 
for a strong Central Parliament to devolve local powers, and at the same time 
 to maintain its federal supremacy, than it ever can be to persuade independent, 
 or semi-independent, States to come together and agree to part with enough 
 of their respective sovereignties, in order to clothe the P^ederal Power with 
 sufficient authority. 
 
 To illustrate my meaning let me put it in this way: — 
 
 ( 1 ) In a certain district we will suppose that there are a number of small 
 farms and holdings, held on various tenures and belonging to all sorts of odds 
 and ends of people. These units are, for the most part, exceedingly uneco- 
 nomical. There is no cooperation between them, either in buying or in selling. 
 Some people are discouraged ; other people are half asleep; others again have 
 tco little capital or too few brains ; and all of them are inclined to be quarrel- 
 some, and to compete against one another, instead of combining or cooperating 
 to make the best profit they can as a community out of the land which they at- 
 tempt to cultivate. This first state of things we may describe as Independent 
 Status. 
 
 (2) Somebody with money in his pocket comes along, likes the district, 
 realizes the conditions and possibilities, acquires the whole property bit by bit, 
 turns out those tenants whose methods are hopelessly unsatisfactory, carries out 
 improvements, reclamations, and repairs on a liberal scale, and proceeds to man- 
 age the whole thing as one huge farm. The new system is a great improvement 
 in many ways upon the old one; more and better crops are taken off the 
 ground ; more and better stock is raised. This second state of things we may 
 describe as Centralized Government 
 
 (3) But after a time the intelligent new proprietor begins to understand 
 that, although for certain purposes {e.g., for big, general improvements, for the 
 wholesale buying of fertilizers, feeding stuffs, etc.; for the selling of produce), 
 his scheme works very well, there is, nevertheless, one great flaw in it, viw, 
 that the unit is much too big for economic farming, on this ground among 
 others — that the initiative of the ordinary or average farmer is paralysed by 
 the too inflexible and mechanical nature of the system. On these grounds the 
 proprietor or land-owner-farmer comes to the conclusion that, for the purpose 
 cf getting the best possible results, he must redivide his property into smaller 
 economic units; for he is obliged to take average human nature and capacities 
 into his account. Accordingly he subdivides his one huge farm; and having 
 learned by experience, he draws his leases upon a liberal and far-sighted plan. 
 Probably he will enter into partnership arrangements with his various farm- 
 managers; he will retain in his own hands the power to regulate the upkeep 
 ?nd development of the estate as a whole; he will adhere to the system of 
 buying fertilizers, feeding stuffs, implements,- materials, etc., etc., through his 
 own central organization, so as to get them on the very cheapest terms; he will 
 maintain also the system of joint or cooperative disposal of produce so as to se- 
 cure the highest possible prices by selling at the top of the market, etc., etc. 
 This third state of things we may describe as Federalism. 
 
 I need not elaborate this somewhat clumsy metaphor any further. Most 
 people who have had to deal with land will probably agree that in the cir- 
 cumstances which I have assumed the final policy of the land-owner-farmer 
 could not justly be condemned as retrograde or reactionary. On the contrary, 
 it will probably be considered quite as much an improvement on the second 
 stage as the second stage was an improvement on the first. 
 
 This is more or less how I conceive that the federal principle would 
 
 . 14 
 
work in the United Kingdom. We have to deal with average human nature 
 — -with the peculiar traditions and temperaments of different localities, just 
 as the land-owner-farmer has to deal with the different prejudices, aptitudes, 
 and characters of his various farm-managers. 
 
 Leaving metaphors aside and getting back to the facts, I should like 
 ,also to lay stress upon the great urgency of Federal Decentralization, not so 
 much on account of the special difficulties which are facing us in Ireland, but 
 even more, owing to the rapidly approaching dangers of congestion in the 
 whole United Kingdom. I need not dwell upon the magnitude and com- 
 plexity of the problems which will have to be tackled immediately upon the 
 signing of peace. Many of these, indeed, will need to be tackled during the 
 war, as we are realizing more and more every day. 
 
 Among the latter, which are of great variety, I should certainly include 
 such changes as may be necessary in our constitutional machinery. For these 
 are much more easily carried through now than they will be when the war 
 has ceased to focus public interest and subdue party spirit. 
 
 The majority, however, of these problems, which are likely to lead to 
 congestion — if no proper means of dealing with them have been provided in 
 the meanwhile — relate to matters of local character, which ought to be dealt 
 with in accordance with the traditions and habits and points of view of the 
 different parts of the United Kingdom. Under a system of Federal Decentral- 
 ization the subordinate State Legislatures would be charged with these local 
 functions. 
 
 There is another reason of an altogether different character which weighs 
 with me, but which I will only touch upon here, because it would need many 
 words to set it out completely. I think, however, my meaning will be under- 
 stood when I say that the recent Reform Act — which is one of the greatest 
 revolutions, if not the very greatest, ever introduced into the British Consti- 
 tution — does, in fact, bring us face to face with the need for some really potent 
 check upon the rigid tyranny of a unitary democracy. (It was this considera- 
 tion which appears to have weighed with Lord Acton.) And it seems to me 
 that such a check can only be found by releasing certain strong, natural forces 
 which may act as a corrective. Such a corrective will not be found in any 
 elaborate, artificial devices, which, though they may be useful up to a point, 
 will never really amount to much more than pea-sticks or hop-poles in a real 
 hurricane. 
 
 There are several natural forces of this kind which I think might well be 
 set free; and one of the most important of these certainly is the development of 
 local powers and responsibilities within a definitely limited sphere — in other 
 words, what we call Federal Self-Government or Devolution. 
 
 In conclusion, just a word about the powers which have been reserved 
 to the Central Parliaments in the various Anglo-Saxon federations set up 
 during the past 150 years. 
 
 ( 1 ) In the case of the U. S. A., the different States refused to part with 
 sufficient powers to endow the Federal Government with adequate authority. 
 It was only by a bold stretching of his judicial functions that Marshall, urged 
 on by Hamilton, developed the doctrine of the "implied powers" in order to 
 redress the balance. 
 
 (2) But even Marshall's decision was not enough for safety. The Civil 
 War between North and South arose directly out of the deficiency of powers 
 
 15 
 
possessed by the Federal Government. This lesson of Civil War was fresh in 
 •he minds of men when the federal Constitution of Canada was brought into 
 existence by the British North America Act, which is, from the federal point 
 of view, the best constitutional arrangement of the kind yet devised. Under 
 its enactments the supremacy of the Federal Governments is amply secured, 
 and the State Legislatures are firmly restricted to the powers expressly dele- 
 gated to them. All unallotted powers are reserved to the Federal. Government. 
 
 (3) By the time when the federation of the Australian Commonwealth 
 took place, the lessons of the American Civil War had been forgotten ; and as 
 a result of this unfortunate oblivion the jealousies of tne various States pre- 
 vailed against the arguments of those who saw the need for Federal Parlia- 
 ment with ample powers. The deficiency of these powers has seriously ham- 
 pered the Australian Commonwealth from the very beginning, and remains a 
 great danger at the present day. The Australian federation is, without doubt, 
 the weakest of all Anglo-Saxon federations. 
 
 (4) The South African Act of Union goes to the other extreme, and 
 the reason is pretty obvious, viz., that the memory of a " bitter war was 
 fresh in the minds of those who fashioned it ; they were determined, as Canada 
 was, not to run any risks. The South African Constitution is, indeed, hardly 
 to be called federal at all, so near does it approach the unitary principle. Per- 
 sonally I think this is a weakness and a danger, and may cause serious trouble 
 in the future. The model of the British North America Act appears to be, 
 at almost every point, greatly superior. It may also be noted that from time 
 to time the Ulster leaders have referred with cautious approbation to the 
 precedent of the British North America Act. 
 
 16 
 
FEDERALISM— THE IMPERIAL NECESSITY 
 
 VIEWS OF MR. CHILDERS, MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN, 
 AND SIR WILFRID LAURIER 
 
 Apart from the question of appeasing Irish discontent, the need for 
 Federal Devolution, or Home Rule, has presented itself during the last half- 
 century under two aspects. It has been viewed, on the one hand, as an essen- 
 tial to Imperial Unity, and on the other, as the only means for securing good 
 government in the United Kingdom. It may not be out of place, at the present 
 time, to consider some of the opinions which have been expressed, not in the 
 heat of party controversy, but as the deliberate and serious convictions of 
 statesmen whose names are held in general respect. 
 
 Overworked Parliament 
 
 The first quotation (1880) is taken from the "Life of the Right Hon. 
 Hugh Childers" (vol. ii., p. 230):— 
 
 "Whether time for adequately discussing at Westminster the often 
 neglected affairs of the Empire might not be better obtained by relegating to 
 inferior legislative bodies the purely local affairs of each of the three king- 
 doms, than by artificial restraints on the liberty of debate, always distasteful 
 to Englishmen, etc. . . These impressions gained more and more power 
 over me, and were strengthened by what I saw during annual visits to the 
 1 Tnited States and Canada. I had special facilities for watching the action of 
 Congress and the State Legislatures in the former, and of the Dominion 
 Parliament and Provincial Legislatures in the latter. Again and again I 
 asked myself how is it that one race in the great Republic and in the greatest 
 of our Colonies requires and fully occupies all this Parliamentary machinery 
 (between 40 and 50 legislative bodies, most of them with two chambers each), 
 while we imagine that we can adequately transact the business of England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland, and the Imperial affairs of the whole Empire with one 
 Parliament only? I reflected how imperfectly and hurriedly, and often badly, 
 that business was transacted; and, referring especially to Ireland, the question 
 constantly recurred to me whether the experiment of 1801, however needful it 
 may have been at the time, was necessarily wise as a permanent measure ; and 
 whether, in fact, the, to my mind, cogent and, indeed, overwhelming argument 
 ol Mr. Pitt against the Parliamentary system resulting from Mr. Grattan's 
 great change twenty years before, could not have been met, or, rather, could 
 rot now be met, in another way." 
 
 The Radical Programme 
 
 Five years later (1885) there appeared a small volume entitled "The 
 Radical Programme." The greater part of this work consisted of articles 
 reprinted from the Fortnightly Review. The preface was writeen by Mr. 
 Chamberlain, who commended the work "to the careful and impartial judg- 
 ment of my fellow Radicals." I am, of course, unaware to what extent Mr. 
 Chamberlain himself was concerned in the authorship; but, judging from the 
 
 17 
 
clear and practical character of the arguments, I would hazard the opinion 
 that he was not far removed from the writer's elbow. Beyond any doubt the 
 policy set forth in the following extracts was Mr. Chamberlain's policy, and 
 one which he consistently supported during the crisis of the Home Rule con- 
 troversy, which arose a few months later. (Lord Selborne's letter in The 
 Times of April 29 is sufficient confirmation of this assumption.) . 
 
 Neglect of Imperial Affairs 
 
 "Recent experience has made it perfectly clear that Parliamentary govern- 
 ment is being exposed to a strain for which it may prove unequal. The over- 
 whelming work thrown upon the Imperial Legislature is too much foi itl 
 machinery. The enormous complexity of modern legislation, to say nothing 
 of difficulties caused by obstruction and party politics, indefinitely postpone 
 many measures of reform, no matter how imperatively they may be called for. 
 The Imperial evil is not less than the domestic. What, for instance, can be 
 more deplorable than the systematic neglect at Westminster of Colonial and 
 Indian topics of the highest moment? It is obvious that no mere extension 
 of local government upon the ordinary and restricted lines will relieve the 
 Parliamentary congestion which has long since become a national calamity. 
 Nor can it be too strongly insisted on that the supervision and control now 
 exercised by the central authority in London involves, not only delay and 
 difficulty in the transaction of Imperial business, but an amount of irritation 
 and friction which is altogether superfluous." (p. 240.) ■ 
 
 The Conditions of Federal Devolution 
 
 "It has been well said that a problem well stated is half-solved. The 
 problem in relation to the government of the Empire which now confronts 
 statesmen is this — How can the work of legislation and administration in the 
 United Kingdom be so adjusted as to secure the integrity of that kingdom, 
 while giving to each of its component parts the best means of providing for its 
 own public wants and developing its own resources? Such an adjustment 
 must involve division and subdivision of labour. The Imperial Parliament 
 cannot satisfactorily attend to its legitimate work as the great legislative body 
 of the Empire without delegating to some other authorities the task of dealing 
 with all matters which possess a local character." (p. 247.) 
 
 National and Local Governments 
 
 "But when we come to consider the nature of those matters which should 
 be included under the term local, it will be found that they are again capable 
 of division into two classes — viz., those which affect only a small area, such as 
 a county, and which may most properly be termed local ; and those which, 
 while affecting several counties, do not concern more than one of the four 
 countries — England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales — comprising the United 
 Kingdom, and which matters might more properly be called "domestic" than 
 "local." A National Council in Edinburgh or Dublin would be unable to 
 undertake all the petty details of administration for every Scotch shire or every 
 Irish county; but, on the other hand, county boards would not be bodies of 
 sufficient weight or authority to deal with matters affecting the entire of 
 Scotland or of Ireland, nor, from its essentially local character, could a county 
 board deal even with any matter affecting an area wider than that over the 
 administration of which it would preside. 
 
 18 
 
"To make the legislative and administrative machinery of government for 
 the United Kingdom workable it will be necessary to establish both county 
 boards and national councils." (p. 247.) 
 
 A Hierarchy of Governments 
 
 "By the creation of county boards and national councils we should secure 
 in the United Kingdom a rational division of the duties and labours of govern- 
 ment. The Imperial Parliament, the national councils, and the county boards 
 would together form, so to speak, a hierarchy of legislative and administrative 
 authority, all based upon the only true principle of government — free election 
 by the governed. For all parts of the United Kingdom the establishment of 
 such a system of government would be advantageous. For Ireland it would 
 mean the beginning of a new life; it would substitute a government founded 
 upon trust of the people in the place of one founded upon distrust and coer- 
 cion." (p. 252.) 
 
 Freedom of the Imperial Parliament 
 
 The following quotation from a speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
 at Montreal in 1909 is characteristic alike of that distinguished statesman's 
 wide Imperial and Liberal sympathies and of his delicacy in offering counsel 
 as between one partner-State and another. 
 
 "There is one thing which always strikes me in the position to-day of the 
 Parliament of Great Britain. It is understood that it is congested, loaded and 
 over-loaded with petty interests and trifling questions. You may have one 
 ,day in that august Assembly — the most august the world has ever seen — a 
 discussion upon the fate of empires, or the destinies of nations, or the highest 
 concerns of war and peace; the following day a debate upon a road ditch in 
 Wales, a loch in the Highlands of Scotland, or a piece of bog in Ireland. 
 The greatest possible problems that ever engaged the anxious attention of 
 legislators and the most petty, trifling interests alternately engage the attention 
 of the same men. There is something in this, it seems to me, not consistent 
 with the sphere of action which ought to be reserved to an Imperial Parlia- 
 ment such as the British Parliament. I would not go further in this direction 
 at present, but perhaps some time or other some federative system dividing 
 legislation with regard to England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales may be 
 devised for the United Kingdom." 
 
 The Danger in Normal Times 
 
 At a time when the thoughts of the whole British race are concentrated 
 upon the issues of a great war the following sentence from "The Radical Pro- 
 gramme" may appear somewhat startling: — 
 
 // will be noiv generally admitted that the subjects of paramount attrac- 
 tion to the English democracy belong to the department of domestic policy, 
 and that outside these limits it is difficult to kindle the genuine and permanent 
 fervour of the people." (p. 233.) 
 
 Things will doubtless be different after the war; but Mr. Chamberlain's 
 idea (if I am entitled to call it his) was true when it was written, and unfor- 
 tunately it remained only too true up to August, 1914. So long as Imperial 
 and domestic affairs continue to be administered in the same assembly there 
 will always be a danger, in normal times, that the former will be overshad- 
 owed by the latter. 
 
 19 
 
FEDERALISM— THE DOMESTIC NECESSITY 
 
 MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN'S POLICY 
 
 I have quoted certain expressions of Mr. Childers and Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier, with regard to the urgency of relieving the over-burdened Parlia- 
 ment at Westminster. I have also quoted passages of great force, and in the 
 same sense, from a volume entitled "The Radical Programme," which was 
 published in 1885 under the aegis of Mr. Chamberlain. The following 
 extracts from the same book set forth Mr. Chamberlain's views upon the need 
 for Federal Devolution under another aspect, namely, in order that the local 
 and domestic affairs of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales might be ade- 
 quately considered. 
 
 Differing Systems 
 
 "The United Kingdom consists ... of four countries, to none of 
 which are identically the same municipal methods applicable. Let us now 
 therefore look at the matter from what may be called the national point of 
 view. The problem here is to entrust Wales, Scotland, and Ireland with the 
 free and full administration of those of their internal affairs which do not 
 involve any Imperial interest . . . There prevails, that is to say on the 
 other side of the Tweed, a separate system of laws and administration suited 
 to the needs and prejudices of the Scotch, and having little or nothing in 
 common with that in force for England and Ireland. Bankruptcy, education, 
 land laws, and many other subjects are each of them treated on an entirely 
 different basis. 
 
 What has been said of Scotland holds equally true in the case of Wales. 
 The peculiarities of the Welsh people, and the difference between the circum- 
 stances under which they and the English exist, give them a clear claim to 
 exceptional domestic legislation." (p. 239.) 
 
 County and National Government 
 
 ". . . In addition to the County Boards, bodies of national authority 
 and jurisdiction must be called into existence. Of these bodies, which for the 
 sake of convenience we have called National Councils, one might sit in Edin- 
 burgh, one in Dublin, and, if the people of Wales desire it, one should be 
 established in Wales. . . . To the National Council so constituted might 
 be entrusted all the control of local administration which is necessary: the 
 audit of accounts, the distribution of the respective shares to which the sev- 
 eral counties might be entitled out of Imperial grants, and the contributions 
 which such counties might be required to make towards expenditure of national 
 importance. The work which is now performed by the Home Office, the 
 Local Government Board, and the Education Department for Scotland and 
 Wales, and by the Irish Local Government Board, the Irish Education 
 Boards, the Irish Board of Works, the Fishery Board, and similar bodies in 
 Ireland, might with advantage be transferred to a National Council respon- 
 sible to the people of the country." (p. 250.) 
 
 20 
 
Relief of the Imperial Parliament 
 
 "The debates in these bodies (the National Councils), dealing as they 
 would with matters of the greatest practical interest, would occupy the atten- 
 tion of the Press and of the people. There would be neither room nor inclina- 
 tion for the minute heed which is now paid to strictly local discussions in the 
 House of Commons. Parliament would be relieved of its too great burdens, 
 snd national life would have free scope. The political education of the people 
 would be carried out, and the whole of its domestic business would receive the 
 care and attention which it merits from representatives who would always be 
 in direct communication and sympathy with the constituencies." (p. 260.) 
 
 Injurious Effect of Our Present System 
 
 "If the object of Government were to paralyze local effort, to annihilate 
 local responsibility, and daily to give emphasis to the fact that the whole 
 country is under the domination of an alien race, no system could be devised 
 more likely to secure its object than that now in force in Ireland. We hold 
 that the continuance of such a system is unjust to Ireland, useless to England, 
 ?nd dangerous to both. To England it is worse than useless, for while it has 
 succeeded in irritating Ireland almost beyond endurance, it has resulted in pre- 
 venting the Imperial Parliament from giving its attention to many useful 
 reforms which England stands in need of. Englishmen will not long consent 
 to neglect of their own affairs merely in order that they may meddle in other 
 people's business." (p. 247.) 
 
 Evils of Over Centralization 
 
 "A system which places the entire administration of a country in the hands 
 of a central Government, and which divorces an entire people from sympathy 
 with or influence upon that Government, must result in misunderstanding on 
 one side, followed by misrepresentation and unmeasured vilification on the 
 other. The rulers of the Castle — blindly striving to do their best for the 
 country, which they do not, and which under the circumstances they cannot 
 be expected to understand — complain, not unjustly, that the Irish people are 
 unreasonable; the Irish people retort that the rulers at the Castle are tyran- 
 nical and corrupt. Under such a condition of things an intelligent and eco- 
 nomical administration of the country is impossible. Reforms most urgently 
 needed are not even attempted, abuses the most glaring pass unchallenged." 
 (p. 255.) 
 
 The Irish Government Should Control Expenditure 
 
 "A certain amount of money is each year contributed by the Imperial 
 Exchequer for purely Irish purposes. Surely it is for the interest of all parties 
 in the State that the money so contributed should be employed to the best 
 advantage. It is no gain to England to divert money from useful objects in 
 order that it may be squandered on useless objects. Who are so likely to know 
 the most profitable way of spending the money as the people for whom it is to 
 be spent? Even if the Irish people should not employ the money for them- 
 selves more wisely than we employ it for them, at least they would have to 
 blame not us but themselves for its maladministration, and for the evils arising 
 therefrom. Irritation in Ireland against England will never die until the 
 Irish people are fixed with responsibility; and they will never be fixed with 
 responsibility until they have the power of electing the bodies who shall have 
 
 21 
 
the administration of the funds raised and contributed for Irish domestic and 
 local purposes. 
 
 "Every argument points to the necessity for not only establishing elective 
 county boards for administering the local affairs of the county, but also for 
 creating a National Council to exercise such control as must be exercised by 
 some central body over the county boards, and to deal with domestic matters 
 of importance too great, or affecting areas too wide, to enable them to come 
 properly within the scope of any county board." (p. 257.) 
 
 Causes of Irritation Removed 
 
 "What is needed is that the Irish legislation should be domestic in its 
 oiigin and not foreign; that it should be initiated by Irish representatives and 
 adapted by them to the genius and requirements of the people, and that it 
 should recognize the deep-rooted sentiment which in every nationality supports 
 I he claim for purely domestic control of purely domestic affairs. 
 
 "It is expedient, then, to recognize and satisfy, as far as may be done 
 without danger to the integrity of the Empire, the natural desire of the Irish 
 people to legislate for themselves on matters of purely Irish concern. 
 Ii they made mistakes the responsibility would not be charged to the English 
 Government; the quarrel would be between Irishmen, and not between two 
 nationalities. The British Parliament and the British Administration would 
 be relieved of the thankless task of imposing benefits which are hateful to those 
 for whose advantage they are devised — hateful more bcause of their origin 
 than from any inherent defects." (p. 259.) 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 The foregoing arguments appear to me to go to the very root of the mat- 
 ter. We need not waste time in quarreling about mere words; about whether 
 we should call the proposed change Federalism, Devolution or Home Rule; 
 about whether a certain constitutional instrument is to be described as a Par- 
 liament, a Legislature or a National Council. It is wiser to look at the sub- 
 stance of such proposals as may be presented to us, and to bother our heads as 
 little as possible about the names which may be given to them, either by the 
 authors themselves, or by their critics. The essential basis of what I think I 
 am fully justified in calling Mr. Chamberlain's idea is, that Ireland, in com- 
 mon with England, Scotland, and Wales, should be governed for all domestic 
 purposes — so far as is consistent with the integrity of the United Kingdom — 
 by an Executive Ministry which would be. responsible to a popularly elected 
 Assembly. 
 
 It is said that we ought not to undertake this constitutional change at the 
 present time during the progress of a great war. The answers to this appear 
 to me to be two. In the first place, the evils which the change is designed to 
 cure have been enormously aggravated — have indeed, been brought to a head 
 — by the war. They are continuing and are growing more formidable day by 
 day. In the second place, constitutional change cannot be attempted at a more 
 propitious time — with a view to the thoroughness and justice of the settlement 
 — than when the spirit of party is in abeyance, as it is just now. 
 
 So urgent is the need and so favourable the opportunity, that we should 
 not be deterred from undertaking Federal Reform even if Ireland were unwill- 
 ing at the present moment to accept it. Supposing that the South and West 
 of Ireland should reject a federal settlement, there is no insuperable reason 
 why the South and West should not be allowed to stand out in the meantime, 
 and be governed more or less on the present lines, at any rate during the 
 
 22 
 
continuance of the war. Such a refusal would be regrettable on many 
 grounds. Almost inevitably it must mean that Ulster would come into the 
 Federal arrangement, like Wales, as a separate unit; and if once this arrange- 
 ment were carried through it would be difficult ever to upset it. 
 
 The main consideration, however, is this— the situation of affairs in 
 England, Scotland, and Wales being what it is, appears to render an adjust- 
 ment upon Federal lines absolutely imperative, for the sake both of Imperial 
 safety and Domestic peace. Is there any good reason whv the vital needs of 
 more than 40,000,000 of people in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ulster 
 should be disregarded and delayed because a certain section of the Irish people 
 persists in crying for the moon? For let it be remembered that if careful 
 examination were possible this intransigeant section would probably be found 
 to number something much nearer 350,000 than the 3,500,000 we hear so 
 much about. 
 
 23 
 
M II II I M III III Mill III [ !| 
 
 021 342 954 
 
 A LIST OF IMPORTANT PUBLICATIONS 
 BEARING ON THE WAR 
 
 • "KNOW YOUR ALLY," with an introduction by Otto Kahn, 32 pages. 
 Price 10c. 
 
 "TREASURY OF WAR POETRY," 289 pages. Price $1.25. (Hough- 
 ton Mifflin Co.) 
 
 "THE WESTERN FRONT," drawings by Muirhead Bone— in two vol- 
 umes. Price $2.50. (George H. Doran Co.) 
 
 "THE WOMAN'S PART," by L. K. Yates. Price 50c. (George H. 
 Doran Co.) 
 
 "MY MISSION TO LONDON," by Prince Lichriowsky Price 10c. 
 (George H. Doran Co.) 
 
 "WOMEN OF THE WAR," by Hon. Mrs. Francis MacLaren. Price 
 $1.25. (George H. Doran Co.) 
 
 "THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS: THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE 
 CHURCH." 28 pages. Price 10c. (George H. Doran Co.) 
 
 "THE BRITISH NAVY AT WAR," by Prof. W. Macneile Dixon. 90 
 pages. Price 75c. (Houghton Mifflin Co.) 
 
 "SUMMARY OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS FOR INDIA." 
 
 Proposals of Secretary of State Montagu and the Viceroy, Lord Chelms- 
 ford. 24 pages. Price 10c. 
 
 "GEMS OF GERMAN THOUGHT," by William Archer. 120 pages. 
 Price 25c. (Doubleday Page & Co.) 
 
 "ENGLAND AND THE WAR," by Andre Chevrillon, with a preface by 
 Rudyard Kipling. 250 pages. Price $1.60. (Doubleday Page & Co.) 
 
 "A CLEAN PEACE," by Charles A. McCurdy, M. P. 26 pages. Price 
 10c (George H. Doran Co.) 
 
 "ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES." Their future relations and Joint 
 International Obligations, by George Louis Beer. 322 pages. Price 
 $1.50. (MacMillan Company.) 
 
 "THE VANDAL OF EUROPE,"^ expose of the Inner Workings of 
 Germany's Policy of World Domination and its Brutalizing Conse- 
 quences, by Wilhelm Miihlon. 335 pages. Price $1.50 net. (Putnam.) 
 
 "THE GUILT OF GERMANY," For the War of German Aggression- 
 Prince Karl Lichnowsky's Memorandum. Being the Story of His Am- 
 bassadorship at London from 1912 to 1914, also Foreign Secretary von 
 Jagow's Reply. Introduction by Viscount Bryce. By Lichnowsky. 122 
 pages. Price 75c. (Putnam.) 
 
 "IMPERIAL ENGLAND," by Cecil F. Lavell and Charles E. Payne. 
 Price $2.00. (MacMillan Company.) 
 
 24 
 
 From the Press of THE CIVIL, SERVICE PRINTING CO., 129 Fulton Street, New York City 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 021 342 954 1 • 
 
 Hollinger Corp. 
 pH8.5