‘Constitutional Alienation’ and the Unionist Party during the Ulster Crisis, 1911–1914

Abstract This article argues for the importance of the Unionists’ constitutional philosophy in the party's opposition to the third Irish Home Rule Bill. In the aftermath of the 1911 Parliament Act, which removed the house of lords’ veto, Unionists underwent ‘constitutional alienation’. Unionists believed that the Parliament Act undermined government integrity and democratic accountability. Unionists, particularly party leader Andrew Bonar Law, insisted on the legitimacy of Ulster's armed revolt against the Home Rule Bill. To Unionists, armed revolt was a necessary last resort for the people of Ulster, and Great Britain, who had been denied all formerly constitutional means to express opposition to Home Rule. What was distinctive about mainland Unionist resistance to the Third Home Rule Bill was the emphasis on the necessity of a mandate, via an election or referendum, particularly Law's declaration that this mandate, if attained for home rule, would result in Unionist withdrawal of support for armed revolt. Law's emphasis upon the necessity of a mandate lacked substantive opposition within the Unionists. As such, ‘constitutional alienation’ reflected not only Unionist discontent with the post‐1911 constitution, but also the limits of Unionist disengagement with the British political‐constitutional system. Unionists displayed their acceptance of the growing democratic aspects of the British constitution through their framing of the anti‐Home Rule revolt as a democratic revolt against an unaccountable government.