Obrázky stránek

ment, that they will not be bound by its laws, and that they will not pay any taxes it may impose. Instead, should the ministers persist in carrying their measure in spite of the covenanters, they propose to set up a provisional government in Ulster independent of the British parliament. Such a policy, if carried into execution, would obviously amount to treason. But its authors say that they have not yet rendered themselves liable to this charge, since this program is made contingent on the passage of the Home Rule bill.2

It is extremely unlikely that the majority of Unionists, who after all have little taste for lawbreaking and violence, will follow their leaders when the time comes to carry this program into effect. Only the event, however, will throw any certain light on that subject. In the meantime, since the wishes of Ulster are to become the basis of a proposed revolution, it is worth while to consider the political state of that province a little more carefully. Ulster, as is well known, is the wealthiest and most prosperous of the four provinces of Ireland. It contains the cities of Belfast and Londonderry and comprises the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Cavan, Derry, Donegal, Down, Fermanagh, Monaghan, and Tyrone. Of the 4,381,951 who lived

[ocr errors]

• Since this paragraph was written the Ulster covenant has been published and signed. The document is milder in tone and less objectionable in content than the previous announcements of its proponents indicated it would be. The following is a copy of the covenant that was actually signed:

"Being convinced in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of his Gracious Majesty King George V., humbly relying on the God Whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, hereby pledge ourselves in Solemn Covenant throughout this our time of threatened calamity to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland; and, in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right, we bereto subscribe our names, and, further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant."

in Ireland in 1911, 1,578,572 resided in the province of Ulster. Of the 696,375 voters in Ireland in the same year, 239,787 were residents of that province. Belfast, its largest city, is the seat of Ireland's chief manufacturing industries, and Ulster is, therefore, the wealthiest of the Irish provinces. Manifestly, if the inhabitants of Ulster were overwhelmingly opposed to Home Rule, to force that measure upon them would be a policy of doubtful wisdom. But such is not the case, and when Unionists use the term “Ulster” they do not really mean the entire province, but merely Belfast and its environs, particularly the counties of Antrim and Armagh. In the last general election: only 138,000 votes were cast in Ulster for the Unionist candidates as against 100,000 for those who favor Home Rule. Ulster sends thirty-one members to Parliament, of whom sixteen are Unionists, thirteen regular Nationalists, one an Independent Nationalist, and one a Liberal. Of the counties of Ulster, Armagh and Antrim (including Belfast) are overwhelmingly Unionist, though the Nationalists have one member from Belfast and one from Armagh. Cavan and Donegal, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly Nationalist, and none of their six seats was contested in the last election. All of the remaining counties are more evenly divided, in some the advocates and in others the opponents of Home Rule predominating. The county of Down might properly be added to Antrim and Armagh as constituting the Unionist strongholds, though in the last election three of its four seats were contested, and the Nationalists returned one member. The total population of the three Unionist counties is only 902,263, and by no means all of these, as we have seen, are opposed to Home Rule.

It is important to keep these facts in mind when considering the contention of the Unionists that the liability of Ulster to resist ought to have greater weight in determining the policy of England toward Ireland than the wishes of the remainder of

• Where there was no contest I have counted the total vote in the constituency in favor of the party that returned the member, which ought to work out in favor of the Unionists since their members represent constituencies with a larger votirg population than the Nationalists.

the population. Unionists, as we have seen, not only justify these prejudices on the part of the population of Belfast, but they are also exerting themselves to stir up passions which certainly cannot tend to promote good feeling between the two contending parties in Ireland. Sir Edward Carson, a man prominent in Unionist councils but who has no official connection with Ulster, is to be the first signer of the proposed covenant. On the other hand these champions of Ulster deny that the demands of the remaining four-fifths of the Irish people should be heeded. Should the Nationalists resort to violence in case their plea for self-government is denied, an event by no means unlikely under the circumstances, the Unionist proposal is to use effective coercive measures. It seems scarcely believable that the responsible leaders of a great political party, acting apparently from sincere motives, should commit themselves to propositions so inconsistent and so illogical. The result is a situation the serious character of which everybody recognizes. The ministers offer to adopt any reasonable provisions for securing the interests of Ulster that its inhabitants may suggest. But the Ulstermen decline to consider such proposals and demand that the Home Rule bill be given up entirely. The only course open to Mr. Asquith and his colleagues, therefore, is to proceed with their measure, trusting that on this occasion as in 1829 and 1869, the loud talk of the partizans of Ulster will not be translated into deeds.

The present program of the government is to pass the Government of Ireland bill through its final stages in the House of Commons immediately after Parliament reassembles in October. The House of Lords, it is expected, will either disagree with it or ignore it. The result in either case will be a delay of two years by the end of which time the bill must have been passed twice more in practically its present form if it is to become a law. In case the bill shall pass through all these stages it is safe to assume that it will become a law, in spite of the hints of the revival of the royal veto that are heard now and then from the Unionist press. Should the present House of Commons survive its allotted time there is little doubt that Ireland

will win her fight for national existence in the near future. In fact, the fight is won already, for no discriminating observer affects to believe that a majority of the British people are any longer hostile to the policy of Home Rule. Its adoption in some form seems to be only a matter of time.

Nevertheless, it does not require great powers of political discernment to see that the fate of the third Home Rule bill is as yet uncertain. Mr. Asquith's government has already carried such far-reaching measures as old age pensions, the budget of 1909, the parliament act, and national insurance. There are now pending in Parliament bills for disestablishing the church in Wales and for inaugurating a system of manhood suffrage. It is likely that in the next few months a scheme for taxing land values and for some sort of a reform of the land system will be brought forward. Each of these measures, however meritorious it may be, has inevitably alienated some of the supporters of the ministry. An administration that undertakes legislation of this stupendous character naturally has an uncertain future. It is not unlikely, therefore, that the Government of Ireland Bill of 1912 may meet the fate of its predecessors of 1886 and 1893. But there seems to be no present possibility that the bill itself will meet with any serious opposition from a majority of the British electorate.



University of Illinois.

The chief purpose of this paper is to consider briefly the reception accorded President Monroe's message to congress of December 2, 1823, in England, France, Spain, and Austria.

This state paper was given a hearty welcome by many English journalists. Reports of the president's message first appeared in the newspapers of London on December 26 and 27, 1823. The Times happily contrasted it with “King's Speeches, addressed in like manner, but in substance far unlike, to Lords and Commons, to Peers and Deputies, in kingdoms nearer home.

As sources of intelligence—as indications of policy-as keys to national history, they have of late years dwindled to nothing, realizing with curious accuracy Talleyrand's definition of the use of language-'an instrument for concealing men's thoughts.' The genius of a popular Government rejects these mysterious devices.

The President's message of the United States is a paper breathing business in every line. It is at once a picture of the period elapsed since the labours of Congress were last interrupted, a prospectus for the forthcoming year, the detailed report of a commissioner, and the formal account of a trustee

we have read this State Paper with an interest more profound than any of its precursors had excited. The foreign relations of the United States are at this moment so deeply involved with those of Europe, of South America, and of England, that we turned impatiently to that division of the Message, and it well repaid

There are two passages to which we shall especially direct the attention of the reader; one seems designed as a warning to


1 This paper was originally prepared for a joint session of the American Historical Association and the American Political Science Association at Buffalo on December 29, 1911, where it was read under the title of “Europe and Spanish America in 1822– 1824."

« PředchozíPokračovat »