22 September 1911 The author has sent the following letter to the Belfast Evening Telegraph in response to a request for a message to Unionist meetings tomorrow, explaining why, though twice a Unionist candidate, he is now in favour of home rule

Windlesham, Crowborough; Sussex, September 18.

“Sir, – You were good enough to ask me to send a message on the question of the Union. As the matter has been much in my thoughts, I take the opportunity to do so, though I fear the message may not be as you expect. It is true that I have twice contested Parliamentary seats as a Unionist, but on each occasion I very carefully defined my own position as regards Home Rule. That position, which I made stronger in 1905 than I did in 1900, was that Home Rule could only come with time, that it would only be safe with altered economic conditions and gentler temper among the people, and above all after the local representative institutions already given had been adequately tested. It seems to me that these conditions have now been fairly well complied with. The land system is on a simpler basis. There is a better feeling among representative Nationalists – I admit, of course, the existence of those fanatics who have stood in the way of their own desires for so many years – and, finally, local institutions seem to have worked as well in Catholic as in Protestant Ireland.

So far as being law-abiding citizens goes, England, which is just recovering from a period of absolute anarchy, is not in a position to criticise Ireland, which remained perfectly quiet during the same time.

Lives & letters: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Read more

There are other more general considerations which have, as it seems to me, profoundly altered the whole Irish question. One is apparently the complete success of Home Rule in South Africa. This has had a great influence upon my mind, for animosities in Ireland are tepid compared to the boiling racial passion which existed only ten years ago in Africa.



The second is our assurance that Ireland can never break away from the Union, since South Africa showed that every State of the British Empire would unite against any disruption. There are many other considerations which I weigh with me, but these are the chief ones.

I think that a solid loyal Ireland is one thing which the Empire needs to make it impregnable, and I believe that men of the North will have patriotism so broad and enlightened that they will understand this, and will sacrifice for the moment their racial and religious feelings, in the conviction that by so doing they are truly serving the Empire, and that under any form of rule their character and energy will give them a large share in the government of the nation.

They may rest assured that any attempt at religious persecution or financial spoliation would be made impossible, if anyone contemplated such a thing, by the burst of indignation which it would produce.

How to access the Guardian and Observer digital archive Read more

There may be an element of risk in Home Rule, but we ran the risk in Canada, and we ran the risk in Africa. So, surely, we need not fear after two successes to try it once again. I believe that after experience of a friendly united Ireland nothing would induce the North to go back to the old conditions. If you care to publish my view I shall be glad. In any case I shall do so myself, as I owe it to the electors whom I may have influenced of old to let them know how I stand in the matter.—

Yours faithfully,



Arthur Conan Doyle



Sir Arthur Conan Doyle contested Central Edinburgh in 1900 as a Liberal Unionist and Hawick Burghs in 1906 as a Tariff Reformer.