Asquith (96 page)

This is a Constitutional catastrophe which it is the duty of every wise statesman to do the utmost in his power to avert.

H.H.A.

The Irish Situation;

The Constitutional Position of the Sovereign

I proceed to consider the prospective situation in Ireland in the event of the passing or of the rejection of the Bill.

If the Bill becomes law (whether or not its passing is preceded by another general election) there will undoubtedly be a serious danger of organised disorder in the four north-eastern counties of Ulster. It is, in my opinion, a misuse of terms to speak of what is likely to happen as Civil War. The total population of the area concerned is little over 1,000,000. It is divided between Protestants and Roman Catholics— and in that part of the world political and religious differences roughly coincide—in the proportion of seven to three (Protestants 729,624, Roman Catholics 316,406). In two of the four counties (Armagh and Londonderry) the Protestant preponderance is not greater than six to five. It is not, therefore, the case of a homogeneous people resisting a change to which they are unitedly opposed. On the contrary, there will be a considerable and a militant minority strongly in favour of the new state of things, and ready to render active assistance to the forces of the executive. In the remainder of Ulster, and in the three other provinces of Ireland, there will be an overwhelming majority of the population on that side of the law.

But, while anxious that things should be seen in their true perspective, I have not the least disposition to minimise the gravity of the situation which will probably arise. The importation of rifles has, so far, been on a small scale, and the drilling and training of volunteers, though it is no doubt accustoming numbers of men to act together, to obey orders, and to develop
esprit de corps
, is not likely to produce a body which can stand up against regular troops. But the genuine apprehensions of a large majority of the Protestants, the incitements of responsible leaders, and the hopes of British sympathy and support, are likely to encourage forcible resistance (wherever it can be tried); there is the certainty of tumult and riot, and more than the possibility of bloodshed.

On the other hand, if the Bill is rejected or indefinitely postponed, or some inadequate and disappointing substitute put forward in its place, the prospect is, in my opinion, much more grave. The attainment of Home Rule has for more than 30 years been the political (as distinguished from the agrarian) ideal of four-fifths of the Irish people. Whatever happens in other parts of the United Kingdom, at successive general elections, the Irish representation in Parliament never varies. For the last eight years they have had with them a substantial majority of the elected representatives of Great Britain. The Parliament of 1906 was debarred by election pledges from dealing with the matter legislatively, but during its lifetime, in 1908, the House of Commons affirmed by an overwhelming majority a resolution in favour of the principle. In the present Parliament, the Government of Ireland Bill has passed that House in two successive sessions, with British majorities which showed no sign of diminution from first to last. If it had been taken up by a Conservative Government, it would more than a year ago have been the law of the land. It is the confident expectation of the vast bulk of the Irish people that it will become law next year.

If the ship, after so many stormy voyages, were now to be wrecked in sight of port, it is difficult to overrate the shock, or its consequences. They would extend into every department of political, social, agrarian and domestic life. It is not too much to say that Ireland would become ungovernable—unless by the application of forces and methods which would offend the conscience of Great Britain, and arouse the deepest resentment in all the self-governing Dominions of the Crown.

It follows, from what has been said above, that while in my opinion—from the point of view of social order—the consequences of the passing of the Bill would be unquestionably less serious than those of its rejection, yet no forecast, in either event, can be free from anxiety. Any practicable means of mitigation—still more, of escape—deserves, therefore (whencesoever it is suggested), impartial and mature consideration.

The demand, put forward recently by Mr. Balfour, for a General Election, between now and the beginning of next session, is open to objections of the most formidable character, (i) If such an election resulted in a majority for the Government, and the consequent passing of the Irish Bill next session, the recalcitrance of North-East Ulster would not in any way be affected. Sir E. Carson, and his friends have told the world, with obvious sincerity, that their objections to Home Rule have nothing to do with the question whether it is approved or disapproved by the British electorate. It is true that the Unionist Leaders in Great Britain have intimated that, in such an event, they would not give ‘active countenance’ (whatever that may mean) to the defiance of the law. But what effect can that have on men who have been encouraged to believe, and many of them do believe, that under Home Rule their liberties and their religion would be in jeopardy ? (2) If the election resulted in a Government defeat, the circumstances are such that neither in Ireland nor in Great Britain would it be accepted as a verdict adverse to Home Rule. There may not be much active enthusiasm for Home Rule in the British constituencies, but the evidence afforded, not only by the steady and persistent majorities in the House of Commons, but by the bye-elections, tends to show that (at the lowest) it meets with acquiescence as an inevitable necessity in itself, and as a first step towards further devolution. All the most trustworthy observers agree that, even where the bye-elections have gone against the Government, the attempt (wherever made) to arouse interest and resentment by pushing to the forefront the case against Home Rule and the supposed wrongs of Ulster, has met with no success. The General Election would be fought, as the bye-elections have been, not predominantly on Home Rule, but on the Insurance Act, the Marconi contract, and a score of other ‘issues’ which happened for the moment to preoccupy public attention. (3) The concession of the demand for a General Election, at this stage, would be in the teeth of the intentions of the Parliament Act. One of the primary and most clearly avowed purposes of that Act was to abrogate the power of the House of Lords to force a dissolution. The assumption which underlies the whole measure is, that a Bill which can survive the ordeal of three sessions, prolonged over two years, in the House of Commons, ought without the need of another election, to pass into law.

It is quite another matter to suggest that, after the Bill has passed, a General Election should take place before it has come into active operation. Parliament will then have completed, or nearly completed, four out of its possible five years; and if the country were either on general or particular grounds averse to the Government, the new Parliament would consider, before anything irreparable has been done, whether to repeal or to amend the Irish Government Act. If, moreover, it were known beforehand that this would happen, any outburst of disorder in Ulster would everywhere be regarded as premature and inexcusable.

There remains the proposal, to which Lord Loreburn has during the last week given his authority, for settlement by Conference. I wrote to Lord Loreburn, as soon as I read his letter in
The Times
to ask him to tell me precisely what he meant. I expressed sympathy with the spirit of all that he had written, and acquiescence in the reasoning of much, though not the whole, of his argument. But I pointed out that the parties concerned in this controversy, including Sir E. Carson and Mr. Redmond, are not likely, at the moment, to accept an invitation (from any quarter) to come into a room and sit round a table, for the purpose of talking in the air about the Government of Ireland, or about Federalism and Devolution. It is no good blinding one’s eye to obvious and undeniable facts, and one of those facts, relevant to the present case, undoubtedly is, that there is a deep and hitherto unbridgeable chasm of
principle
between the supporters and the opponents of Home Rule. It is a question not of phraseology but of substance. Four-fifths of Ireland, with the support of a substantial British majority in the present and late House of Commons, will be content with nothing less than a subordinate legislature with a local executive responsible to it. They insist, moreover, that (whatever may be done with Devolution elsewhere) the claim of Ireland is peculiar, and paramount in point of time and urgency. A settlement which ignored these conditions would be no settlement at all. But within these conditions — so I said to Lord Loreburn — there is (so far as I am concerned) no point — 
finance, Ulster, Second Chamber, representation of minorities, etc., upon which I am not ready and anxious to enter into conference, and to yield to any reasonable suggestion.

For a Conference to be fruitful, there must be some definite basis upon and from which its deliberations can proceed. I fear that at present (it may be different nearer the time) no such basis can be found. I shall be only too glad if that fear can now or hereafter be satisfactorily dispelled.

I feel bound to add, that after the experience of 1910, when there was on both sides perfect goodwill and a sincere desire for agreement, that an abortive Conference would be likely to widen differences and embitter feeling.

H. H. A.

Abbot, Dr. Edwin, 16-17 Aberdeen and Temair, 1st Marq. of, 316,
396
,
5
o
8
»

Aberdeen, Lady, 508/1 Acland, Sir Arthur H. D., 45, 46, 60, 61, 72//, 92, 97, no, 129-30, 152, 157 Adair, Sir William, 316 Addison, Christopher, Viscount Addison, 341, 464, 483 Affirmation Bill (1883), 36 Agadir crisis, 233-9 Aga Khan, 494/1 Agar-Robartes, T. C. R., 280 Aitken, W. M.,
see
Beaverbrook Akers-Douglas, A., 1st Viscount Chilston, 217

Alba, Duke and Duchess of, 497 Alverstone, Viscount (Sir Richard Webster), 38, 254 Amery, L. S., 221 Archer-Shee, Sir Martin, 471 Armenian massacres, 98 Articles Club, 45-6

Asquith, Anthony (“Puffin”), 94, 176, 262, 263, 268, 332, 414, 488 Asquith, Arthur (“Oc”), 30, 56, 176, 264, 332, 378, 506

Asquith, Cyril (“Cys”), 30-1, 176, 328, 378, 460, 466

Asquith, Elizabeth,
see
Bibcsco Asquith, Emily (mother, nee Willans),
13-14, 15, 16, 18, 19,
29 Asquith, Evelyn (sister, Mrs. Wooding), 13,
16, 181

Asquith, Helen, (first wife, nee Melland), 28-31, 43, 52-5, 57, 61, 74, 81, 90 Asquith, Herbert (“Beb”), 30, 52, 56, 176,
378

Asquith, Herbert Henry, 1st Earl of Oxford and Asquith:

family and schooling, 13-18; youth in London, 19-20; at Balliol, 20-5 his tastes: bridge, 264, 269, 272-3, 286-7, 309, 346; drink, 412; golf, 26, 264, 273; motoring, 259;

music, 272; reading, 14, 24, 56, 58-9, 264-6, 273, 393, 464, 517, 518/r, theatre, 19-20, 33, 262, 267

writing: for
The Spectator,
31-3; on law, 36-7; of memoirs, 257, 273, 466,
494
-
5
, 506, 517 appearance, 95; health, 230-1, 376, 501

his own estimate of his capacities,
332-7

his detachment from the business out* look, 139, 238
n

as a speaker, at school, 17; at Oxford, 24; on the platform, 31, 44-5, 71, 138-40,199,489; in House of Commons, 42-4, 63, 66, 86, 166, 174, 207, 210, 227, 392-3, 467, 489; “wait and see”, 208; Romanes lecture, 467

attendance in Parliament, 44, 57, 61, 66, 67, 92, 103, 198 first marriage, 28-31, 52-3, 55

second marriage, 74-82 in “society” before second marriage,
²
5
>
35
»
47
.
53
“
4
> 7b; and after, 93-5, 101-2, 185, 266-73, 483-4 houses and income, 89-90, 92, 161 175, 184-5, 259-60, 261, 347, 466-7,
493-5

friendships with: Venetia Stanley,

²
57
“
9
> 262, 264-5, 346-7; which breaks up on her marriage, 363-6, 378; her later meetings with Asquith, 431-2, 442, 518; Asquith’s letters to her, quoted, 259-73, 282, 294«, 298-9, 300-1, 305-6, 309-11,
3
I
3
-I
4
> 320-3, 327, 328, 329, 330,
332
-
3
.
337
.
34
°.
34
b, 349-50, 352,
353
.
354
; Mrs. Harrisson, 257, 461, 485, 498, 508/1, 514,
₅
i
_{7> 5i8;}
Lady Scott, 257, 390, 392, 393, 398, 399, 402, 405-b, 407, 409 visits abroad, 33, 203-4, 211, 212, 260-1, 262-3, 299, 391, 395, 412-13, 419-20, 467