Page:EB1922 - Volume 31.djvu/610

572

was attended by the leaders of the Nationalists, of Sinn Fein and of the various labour groups; it was noted that Mr. Dillon referred to Mr. De Valera and Mr. Tom Johnson, the Labour leader, 1 as his " colleagues." On the follow- ing day they issued a joint statement protesting against the claim of the Imperial Parliament to impose " conscription " on Ireland, and commissioned the Lord Mayor (Alderman O'Neill) to proceed to the United States in order to lay it before President Wilson. 2 On the 2oth Mr. Dillon presided over a meeting of the Nationalist party in Dublin, at which it was decided to cease attendance at Westminster and to remain in Ireland for the purpose of defeating conscription. On the 23rd the Transport Workers' Union carried out a one day's strike in all parts of Ireland, except in the N. E. counties of Ulster, as a protest against conscription. But by far the most serious effect was produced by the action of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. On April 18, the day on which the first anti-con- scription conference was held at the Mansion House, the bishops had met at Maynooth, under the presidency of Cardinal Logue, and decided to throw the whole weight of the Church against the Act. They drew up a form of pledge to resist conscription, directing it to be administered by the priests after Mass to all the faithful, and every Roman Catholic parish church in Ireland was soon turned into an active centre of political resistance. In vain loyal Catholics protested, while Protestants were not reassured by the theological arguments by which the learned Father Peter Finlay, S.J., sought to justify the incursion of the hierarchy into politics:

" No doubt," he wrote, " political consequences of the first magnitude have followed on the action of the bishops; but the issue laid before them was religious and moral, not political. . . . Laws of Parliament may be just or unjust, binding or not binding upon conscience; and when we Catholics doubt their justice and binding force, we appeal, not to politicians or to civil court for guidance, but to the Catholic bishops." 3

From the point of view of Irish Protestants this justification of the attitude of the Catholic hierarchy was even more dis- concerting than the attitude itself. They had seen, from recent cases of the papal " Motu Proprio " Quantavis diligentia and the Ne temere decree, how completely the Roman Church adhered to the most extreme claims to jurisdiction put forward by the mediaeval popes. They knew that the principle of tolera- tion had been anathematized by three popes during the loth century, and they naturally asked themselves what use parlia- mentary safeguards for their religious liberties would be under Home Rule, if the laws of the Irish Parliament were to be subject to the " moral" censorship of the Roman Catholic hierarchy with an ultimate appeal to Rome. The whole " con- scription " controversy, indeed, still further increased the un- happy national cleavage represented by religion; for while the Roman Catholic clergy were organizing their forces to resist, the Protestant Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin sent out an " urgent appeal " to the young men of the Church of Ireland to join the colours, hoping that compulsory service would be " cheerfully accepted," while the Moderator and General As- sembly of the Presbyterian Church issued a similar appeal.

Unfortunately for the Protestants, at this crisis in their fate, their own ranks were broken by an angry controversy as to the attitude in the Convention of the five dele- Spiit la the gates appointed by the general council of the Irish Au'ian&. Unionist Alliance. These delegates, under the lead- ership of Lord Midleton, had interpreted their man- date as meaning that, in the interests of the Empire, they were to arrive at some compromise with the Nationalists in the

1 An Englishman, formerly a commercial traveller.

1 It was believed that the Government would create another occasion for outcry by refusing to give the Lord Mayor a passport. The Government, however, consented to issue passports, but made it a condition that the document to be presented to the President should be first shown to the Lord Lieutenant. To this the Irish leaders refused to agree, and it was made the excuse for abandoning the whole enterprise. The Cork Corporation had also protested] and appealed to President Wilson (April 12).

in an article in the Jesuit Sinn Fein quarterly Studies.
 * Letter to the Irish Times, May 14 1918, afterwards amplified

matter of Home Rule; and, while affirming their own un- shaken belief in the system of the Union, they had accepted the principle of Irish self-government and voted on many occa- sions with the Nationalists against the Ulster Unionist delegates. On Jan. i 1918 Lord Midleton made his first report to the executive committee of the Alliance, and this was approved by 41 votes to four. It was soon found, however, that the execu- tive committee, which had not been renewed since the beginning of the war, did not in this matter represent the opinions of the great majority in the Alliance. A Southern Unionist Committee was at once formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Richard Bagwell, the eminent historian of Ireland, and on March 4 issued a " Call to Unionists":

The circumstances of the present time demand that all true Unionists, especially outside Ulster, should reiterate, with no un- certain voice, their conviction that in the maintenance of the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland, and in the firm, just, and impartial administration of the law, lies the only hope for the future of our country and security of the Empire.

It pointed out that the present revolutionary movement, which was " gaining strength day by day," aimed like all preceding ones at complete separation; it urged that the true policy to be pursued towards Ireland was, in combination with firm an just government, the development of her material resourc and the removal of agrarian discontent by the completion of land purchase; and it ended by stating that " the burdens and obligations of the war, already imposed on the rest of the Unite " Kingdom should be shared by Ireland."

This manifesto led to a heated controversy in the press. It had, however, no effect on Lord Midleton and his followers in the Convention, who voted in the majority for the Report. The Southern Unionist Committee at once issued a criticism of the Report, pointing out that the delegates of the Alliance had publicly declared for Home Rule in its most drastic form, and calling on Unionists to " stand firm." That this attitude represented the dominant view in the Alliance was proved when at a meeting of the General Council held on June 7, 16 out 20 members elected to fill vacancies on the executive committee were nominees of the Southern Unionist Committee. Lord Midleton's supporters were, however, still in the majority on the executive committee, and it became necessary to amend the constitution so as to make this representative of the views of the General Committee. This was done at a special meeting summoned by the Southern Unionist Committee on Jan. 24 1919. Lord Midleton proposed at this meeting to exclude the northern members from its deliberations, should the question of partition arise. This motion was lost by an overwhelming majority; the amendments to the constitution were carried by 400 votes to 62; and at the subsequent elections to the executive committee the 40 nominees of the Southern Unionists Committee were elected by large majorities. Lord Midleton and his friends, taking this as a vote of censure, thereupon left the Alliance, and formed the separate group known as the " Anti-Partition League." The Unionist Alliance was thus reestablished on the basis of uncompromising adherence to the Union, with branches in every county in Ireland, including Ulster. It continued to work in close touch with the Ulster Unionist Council, which represented the exclusive interests of Unionists in the six counties. From the Unionist point of view, however, the schism was disastrous; for the seceding mem- bers of the Alliance, though few in numbers, included many Irish peers of great influence in the House of Lords, and their defection greatly crippled the resources of the Alliance, which was left practically without representation in Parliament.

Meanwhile excitement among the people had been growing apace. In every Roman Catholic church in Ireland the people were signing the anti-conscription pledge, and to refuse to do so called for more than ordinary courage. It was clear that a change of system was necessary in the administration if the Crown was to preserve any shadow of authority in the country. The change was heralded on May i by the retirement of Mr. Duke, 4 and the appointment of Mr. Edward Shortt, K.C., as

4 He became a Lord Justice of Appeal.