THE ^'ULSTER" QUESTION. 



TOWARDS A UNITED IRELAND. 



By MR. JOHN REDMOND, M.P., Leader of the Irish Party. 



Since this article was written, the extraordinary admission has been made by the Irish 

 Unionist -leader that he has no fear of the Irish Parliament passing any law oppressive to 

 Protestants as such. See the debate in the House of Commons on October 29th. This admission 

 really destroys the whole " Ulster " case. — J. E. R. 



IN 1886 and in 1893, but especially in the opposed to Home Rule. This fact has been 

 former year, several formidable problems, demonstrated so often that it seems quite un- 

 or problems that seemed formidable, necessary to give facts and figures in detail, 

 obstructed the path of those amongst the It will be sufficient to say that, of the nine 

 people of Great Britain who, following the counties of Ulster, five are overwhelmingly 

 lead of Mr. Gladstone, sought to gratify the Catholic and overwhelmingly Nationalist ; that 

 national sentiment of Ireland by the grant of in the other four the Nationalists, though a 

 a measure of Home Rule and thus to end an minority, are strong enough to elect three Par- 

 age-long quacrel between the Irish and the liamentary representatives; that even in Belfast 

 British races. Irish Nationalists knew that itself they are nearly a fourth of the entire 

 those much-discussed problems were mere population and are able to elect one of the four 

 bogeys raised to affright England and Scotland, representatives of that city ; that in only two 

 but certain in course of time to lose their Ulster counties are no Nationalist representa- 

 efficacy and ultimately to be extinguished by the tives to be found at present ; and that in one 

 force of reflection and common sense. And this of those — namely. South Derry — a Nationalist 

 is emphatically what has happened. For in- was sent to Parliament (for South Derry) in 

 stance, who now believes in the " Separation " 1885, and in the other, Antrim, a Home 

 bogey? Nay, who talks of it? It did service Ruler was elected (for North Antrim) in 1906. 

 for a time in a bad cause, but it is now dead and Thus, as I have said elsewhere, there is, strictly 

 cannot be revived. Only one of the bogeys of speaking, no Ulster question at all, whatever 

 twenty years ago now survives — that indicated other question there may be, and consequently 

 by the title of this paper ; and this particular to go on speaking or writing of Ulster as a 

 product of the imagination is in a more sickly whole being opposed to Home Rule is nothing 

 condition than might have been expected when more or less than an attempt to deceive, in spite 

 one remembers the efforts made to prolong its of the most obvious and notorious facts. But 

 existence and the more or less exalted position it is said that, within the narrow boundaries of 

 of its British foster-fathers. I propose in this the corner of Ulster which may be allowed to be 

 paper to say a few words about it before it opposed to Home Rule, there is a homogeneous 

 follows its fellow-bogeys into the limbo of his- population distinct in every material respect 

 torical curiosities. ffom that of the rest of Ulster and of Ireland. 

 NO ULSTER QUESTION. ^^^ ^^^^^ j"^^ mentioned show conclusively that 

 . . , T , ^"^^ '^ "°^ ^^^ ^^^^- There is not a parish in 

 It will be observed that in the title I have ^„y ^^^^^^ ^^ Ulster in which there are not 

 given to this paper I have put the word Catholics as well as Protestants, Nationalists 

 " Ulster " within quotation marks. I, of ^, ^^jj ^^ Unionists and Orangemen, 

 course, mean thereby to imply that, when the 



opponents of Home Rule for Ireland speak or the claim of the "corner." 



write of the province of Ulster as being opposed I dwell upon this aspect of the problem for 



to Home Rule, they indulge in a gross misuse the purpose of enabling the reader more cor- 



of language. Ulster, as a province, is tiot rectly to appraise the claim now, as in the past, 



