Speeches by British Ministers.
Sir John Simon, British Attorney General, in Speech Before
Altrincham Liberals, at Manchester, July 25.
We have been so filled with our own political development that some of
us may not have noticed how serious a situation is threatening on the
Continent of Europe. All I will say about it this afternoon is this--if
times of anxiety are coming into relationships between different
European powers, we in this country, and I think not only Liberals among
us, have reason to be glad that our foreign administration is in the
calm, cool hands of Sir Edward Grey.[06] [Cheers.] And let us all
resolve that, whatever may be the difficulties and dangers which
threaten the peaceful relations in Europe, the part which this country
plays shall from beginning to end be the part of a mediator simply
desirous of promoting better and more peaceful relations.
* * * * *
[06] On the next day, July 26, Earl Grey addressed to The
London Times the following appeal for national unity:
_To the Editor of The Times_:
Sir: The Lord Chancellor, in his speech on Friday, called on every
Liberal to work for the peace of Europe, but to go forward
unflinchingly to civil war at home.
It is obvious that the only hope of England's effective mediation
lies in the unity and solidarity of the United Kingdom.
Is it not time that the common sense of the nation asserted itself
and called upon our rulers to take steps which will enable a united
nation to confront with confidence the perils which encompass us?
In moments of national peril every loyal citizen should not
hesitate, however painful the process may be, to burst the fetters
of party allegiance in order that he may devote his whole energies
to an endeavor to safeguard the higher interests of the State.
What is the cause which is dividing a so-called United Kingdom into
two hostile camps? It is the endeavor of a tyrannical House of
Commons to force upon the acceptance of the people a bill which in
the common belief they not only do not want but are strongly
opposed to. I approach the consideration of the national crisis
from no party standpoint, but from that of one who believes that
the peace of Ireland, the honor of England, and the strength of the
empire are all concerned in a speedy and satisfactory settlement of
the Irish question.
I believe that such a settlement is to be found in a measure which
will give to the peoples of Ireland powers of local self-government
similar to those enjoyed by the Provinces of Canada and South
Africa.
It is because the Ministerial policy of home rule is based on a
principle which would not be tolerated in any one of the
Legislatures of Washington, Ottawa, or Melbourne that I am so
strongly opposed to it. No party, no political group, however
small, could be found in Canada, Australia, or the United States
which would venture to propose that the Province of Quebec, or the
State of Queensland or California, should be endowed by means of a
measure like the Home Rule bill with separatist constitutional
rights which could not be given to the other provinces and States.
I challenge his Majesty's Ministers to deny this plain,
unanswerable statement.
I further challenge his Majesty's Ministers to deny that their home
rule policy, if carried into effect, will make slaves of one part
of Ireland or another.
If their bill for the better government of Ireland reaches the
statute book without the amending bill it will make slaves of the
Ulstermen. It will deprive them of half of the representation to
which their population entitles them in the House of Commons, thus
reducing them to a political inferiority, as compared with the
peoples of Great Britain, which can hardly be distinguished from
political slavery, and it will further compel them to accept the
administration of a Dublin Parliament which they fear and detest in
all matters relating to their local government. I have often
wondered how any one rejoicing in the inheritance of old Liberal
traditions could for a moment suppose that any group of free men
would ever accept such dishonoring conditions.
Again, if the Home Rule bill is passed with the amending bill
tacked on to it, the chains of slavery from which Ulster will be
relieved will be riveted on the rest of Ireland. Ulster will have
thirty-three representatives in the Imperial House of Commons, and
the rest of Ireland twenty-seven! What germ of a settlement of the
Irish question can any one discover in a policy which proposes that
one-fourth of the people of Ireland should be able to outvote the
other three-fourths in matters affecting their liberties and
taxation?
No! The Ministerial bills of home rule are fundamentally bad and
should be withdrawn, in order that a new attempt may be made to
reach a settlement by general consent in accordance, as I believe,
with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people.
Is it not better to wait a little for a settlement by consent on
lines which will conduce to permanent peace and prosperity than to
try to force on the pages of the statute book a measure which must
lead to bloodshed and civil war? If party considerations veto the
withdrawal of the Ministerial measure of home rule without the aid
of a general election, then let us have a general election without
one moment's unnecessary delay.
The times are too perilous to allow us even to contemplate with any
other feeling than that of horror and dismay the Lord Chancellor's
appeal to go forward unflinchingly to civil war.