LORD PIRRIE AND BELFAST.
(To THE Rama or TEE "SPEOTAIDR.1 Siu,—If " Ulsterman's " criterion, as applied to "M. W. S.," is to be accepted, the inaccuracies in his own letter are so great and glaring as to lead to the charitable conclusion that lie, too, knows little of Ulster and less of Ulster Liberalism, May I deal with them as briefly as possible ?
While, of course, Lord Pirrie is not one of the original creators of Harland and Wolff, no one can deny that the marvellous development of that firm during the past thirty years is duo entirely to his wonderful business acumen, organizing powers, and sagacious foresight. But for Lord Pirrie the Queen's Island would not to-day enjoy the pre-eminent position it does in the shipbuilding world. This is so much of an axiom in unprejudiced circles both at home and abroad that I need not labour the point further. As for " Ulsterman's " attempt to minimize Lord Pifrie's present interest in the firm, his Lordship dealt with this charge, first started in a Belfast Tory paper, at the luncheon to the Postmaster-General in Belfast last October. Lord PlIT10 then said :— "I have recently noticed in a Belfast paper the statement being mde that, although I profess to be in favour of Homo Rule, I have at the saute time considerably diminished my interests iyt the firm of Harland and Wolff. Gentlemen, I am glad to be able to say that my interests in Harland and Wolff are greater now than they have been, not only in amount, but in intensity. It is true that a certain number of my shares are held in trust with other holders, but with objects that, so far from diminishing, actually increase my interest, and certainly add much to my responsibility."
That Lord Pirrie should now be in favour of Irish self- government, though opposed to it in 1893, is no more extraordinary than that Lord Courtney, Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir A. Conan Doyle, and Mr. J. A. Hobson should have experienced a similar change of opinion. Events have marched since 1893, and there is no inconsistency in con- eluding that what was unsafe to grant twenty years ago may under changed conditions be perfectly safe to grant to-day. Coming to " Ulsterman's " assertions regarding recent Liberal meetings in Belfast, they are a veritable tissue of inaccuracies. I challenge him to give me the name of a single person reported to have been present at the Churchill meeting who has denied he was there at all. Of the 8,000 present over 5,000 were Ulster Protestants, representative of the commercial, pro- fessional, and industrial life of the province. These figures are no guess-work. The turnstiles recorded the number present, while the Liberal Association can authenticate the number of Protestants. As for his assertion that the list of guests at Lord Pirrie's luncheon to the Postmaster-General was not published, this is untrue, as may be seen from the newspaper cutting I enclose (Ulster Guardian, October 14th, 1911), from which it is evident that every side of Ulster life was represented. Further, regarding the fact that the Ulster Liberal Association does not publish a list of its members, is this such a peculiar circumstance ? Is there a list published, for instance, of the members of the Ulster Liberal Unionist Association P Why does "Ulsterman" not publish his own name ? " Ulsterman " asserts that there was friction in the Association over the Churchill meeting, causing "the resigna- tion of some of its limited number of members." To that I reply that the number of resignations up to date totals five— three of whom had not been paying members since 1908. As against this the membership of the Association during the months of January and February increased by several hundreds.
In conclusion, let me say that Liberalism in Ulster resembles Liberalism in Great Britain in that the bulk of the wealthier classes has Tory sympathies. This, of course, may prove that those classes are opposed to the Liberal policy generally. It certainly does not prove that their opposition is due solely to fear of Homo Rule. But an Association which numbers among its members Protestants of standing like Lord Pirrie, the Right Hon. R. G. Glcndinning (one of the foremost linen manufacturers in Ulster), the Right Hon. Thos. Shillington (another leading linen merchant), Sir Hugh Mack (a prominent wholesale merchant), Mr. Edward Arch- dale, D.L. Co. Fermanagh (ex-landlord), has got a little more right to speak on behalf of Ulster industry than "Ulsterman" allows.—I am, Sir, &o., W. H. DANEY. 40 Bawnmore Road, Belfast.
[Even if Ulsterman s" statements are as incorrect as Mr.
Davey represents them, the fact remains that Belfast is over- whelmingly Unionist and absolutely determined to withstand Home Rule. If not, why do Mr. Davey and his friends so obstinately refuse to insert in their Homo Rule Bill a clause allowing any county in Ulster which so desires to remain under the Parliament at Westminster ? The answer is, of course, that the six chief counties of Ulster would certainly refuse to be ruled from Dublin.—En. Spectator.1
Previous page
