The most significant speech, however, came from the Archbishop of York.  Disclaiming all party allegiance, Dr. Lang claimed to express “the opinions of a very large number of fair-minded citizens.”  He admitted that there was an Irish problem, which could not be solved by “a policy however generous of promoting the economic welfare of Ireland.”  “Some measure of Home Rule is necessary not only to meet the needs of Ireland but the needs of the Imperial Parliament.”  This Bill, however, in his opinion, was ill-adapted to the latter purpose.  It would be a block rather than a relief to the congestion of business.  But these objections were “abstract and academic” in face of the real governing fact.

“The figure of Ulster, grim, determined, menacing, dominates the scene....  We may not like it.  Frankly, I do not like it.  It carries marks of religious and racial bitterness and suspicion.  It uses language about dis-obedience to the law which must provoke disquiet and dislike in the minds of all who care for the good government of the country.  I am not competent, because I have not shared in the experience of the history of the Ulster people, to decide whether or not their fears are groundless.  All these things seem to me to be beside the point.  If Ulster means to do what it says, then the results are certainly such as no citizen can contemplate without grave concern....  I admit, everyone must admit, that there are circumstances in which a Government is entitled and bound to run this kind of risk.  At the present time I think we all feel that there is a call upon Governments to stiffen rather than to slacken their determination in the presence of threats of dis-obedience or disorder.  I will go further and admit that there is one condition which would justify in my mind His Majesty’s Government in running the risk of the forcible coercion of Ulster.  That condition is that they should have received from the people of this country an authority, clear and explicit, to undertake that risk.  It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister gave notice that if his party were returned to power they would be free to raise again the question of Home Rule, but there is a great difference between the abstract question of Home Rule and a concrete Home Rule Bill.”

That speech undoubtedly represented the temper prevailing in the class of balancing electors which is so largo in England.  Some of us who read it at the time recognized how far the long struggle for autonomy had prevailed, but also how strong were the forces which no argument could reach.  Men like Dr. Lang might be offended, even shocked by the action of those who claimed to be England’s garrison in Ireland; but they would be very slow to use force against such a section, although quite ready to justify coercion of the Irish majority.  Yet what impressed Redmond was the advance made, rather than the revelation of what resistance remained.  Ho had been more than thirty years an advocate of Ireland’s cause; and now by the spokesman of the impartial educated mind of England the justice of that cause was admitted.  The argument that a general election was necessary, or would be efficacious in solving the problem, was one with which he felt well able to contend.  In that speech the Archbishop of York admitted his impression that in by-elections there had been “much more of Food Taxes and the Insurance Act than of Home Rule.”