’Five speeches were made from the Irish benches ... there was not one of those speeches which fell short of what we have declared to be in our opinion necessary for the acceptance of this Bill.  That is where we look for a durable and solid statement as to finality.  We find the word finality not even eschewed by the generous unreserve of the honourable member for North Longford[96] who attached the character of finality to the Bill....  What said the honourable member for Kerry[97] last night?  He said, “This is a Bill that will end the feud of ages” This is exactly what we want to do.  That is what I call acceptance by the Irish members of this Bill.... What we mean by this Bill is to close and bury a controversy of seven hundred years.’[98]

This hope of ending the feud of ages has been for years dangled by Gladstonians before the English electorate.  It has gained thousands of votes for Home Rule.  But it is doomed to disappointment.  The new constitution will never be a settlement of the Irish question:  and this for three reasons, which can be definitely stated and easily understood.

First. The new constitution satisfies neither Ireland nor England.

It does not satisfy Ireland.

Ulster, Protestant Ireland, and indeed, speaking generally, all men of property in Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic, detest Home Rule.  They hate the new constitution, they protest against the new constitution, they assert that they will to the utmost of their ability resist the introduction and impede the working of the new constitution.  Their abhorrence of Home Rule may be groundless, their threats may be baseless; their power to give effect to their menaces may have no existence.  All that I now contend is that the strongest, and the most energetic, part of Irish society is in fact and in truth bitterly opposed, not only to the details, but to the fundamental principle, of the new polity.  It avails nothing to urge that the Protestants and the educated Catholics are in a minority.  This plea shows that in Parliament they can be outvoted; it does not show that they will, or can, be pacified by a policy which runs counter to their traditions, their interests, and their sentiment.  You cannot vote men into content, you cannot coerce them into satisfaction.  Let us look facts in the face.  The measure which is supposed to gratify Ireland satisfies at most a majority of Irishmen.  This may be enough for a Parliamentary tactician, it is not enough for a far-seeing statesman or a man of plain common sense.  When we are told a minority are filled with discontent, we must ask who constitute the minority.  When we find that the minority consists of men of all descriptions and of all creeds, that they represent the education, the respectability, the worth, and the wealth of Ireland, we must be filled with alarm.  Wealth, no doubt, is no certain sign of virtue, any more than poverty can be identified