No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Bibliographical Note.—Obviously it is impossible to give a definite authority for many of the statements made in an article of this sort. I have, for the most part, therefore, omitted any footnotes whatever. Naturally I have used such standard works as Lecky, whose chapters on Irish questions I have found to be based on a more thorough research than those dealing with purely British affairs, and Morley's Gladstone. I have consulted, as well, the various parliamentary papers and reports relating to the Home Rule bills of 1886, 1893, and 1912. One of the most useful expositions of Mr. Asquith's bill is the series of papers edited for the Eighty Club by Prof. J. H. Morgan, and recently published under the title, “The New Irish Constitution.” I need scarcely mention that I have referred to Dicey's “England's Case Against Home Rule” and “A Leap in the Dark”; the Earl of Dunraven's “The Legacy of Past Years”; G. Locker Lampson's “A Consideration on the State of Ireland in the Nineteenth Century”; Justin H. McCarthy's “The Case for Home Rule”; Sidney Brooks' “Aspectsof the Irish Question”; Harold Begbie's “The Lady Next Door”; R. Barry O'Brien's “Life of Charles Stewart Parnell,” “Dublin Castle and the Irish People,” “Two Centuries of Irish History,” “Home Rule Speeches of John Redmond,” and other similar works.
page 533 note 1 The “true” revenue does not include the amount collected in Ireland on goods consumed in England.
page 542 note 2 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 hereto subscribe our names, and, further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant.”
page 543 note 3 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 voting population than the Nationalists.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.