[ 19] 
It was not until the 13th of June, 1912, that the 
policy of exclusion was first raised, not by any 
member of the Unionist party, but by a Radical 
free-lance, Mr. Agar-Robartes, M.P., on an amend- 
ment in committee to exclude four counties in Ulster 
from the operation of the Home Rule Bill. This 
amendment was denounced by the /7isk Times as “a 
trap to secure the admission that the Northern Unijon- 
ists were willing to abandon the Unionists in the rest 
of Ireland to their fate”; but it was supported by Sir 
Edward Carson on the express grounds that it would 
wreck the Home Rule Biil if it were carried. : 
In January, 1913, on the Report stage of the Bill, 
Sir Edward Carson himself moved an amendment 
for the exclusion of the entire province of Ulster, 
But his object was still not to mend the Bill but to 
end it. That it was a mere wrecking amendment 
was abundantly proved both by the debate in Par- 
liament and the comment of the Unionist press. 
The frontal assault having failed, the frontal defence 
against Home Rule having collapsed, it was resolved 
to attack it in the flank by a proposal of the exclu- 
sion of Ulster. 
The claim of the Unionist majority in certain 
counties of Ulster not merely to reject Home Rule 
for themselves, but to deny it to the overwhelming 
Nationalist majority in the rest of Ireland, did not 
commend itself to the British sense of fair play. An 
attempt must, therefore, be made to put the same 
claim in a more plausible form. Sir Edward Carson 
and his colleagues did not expect to carry his amend- 
ment, they did not desire to carry it. Any stick is 
good enough to beat a dog. The amendment was 
framed and moved in the hope of wrecking Home Rule. 
In his reply to Sir Edward Carson, Mr. Asquith 
directly challenged the purpose of the amendment. 
“ Under the claim to exclude Ulster from the operation 
of the Bill [he said] is a claim, not ostensibly, but actually