with a divided party in the years following 1895.  Liberalism, for its part, if it is to settle the problem, must fully appreciate the fact that its proposals, if they are to succeed, must be accepted with the full concurrence of the Irish representative majority, and on the part of Irishmen what is demanded is a recognition of the results of the dispensation which has placed the two islands side by side; by these means only can a practicable policy be ensured, but it must be remembered with regard to those in Ireland who hold extreme views, that the continuance of the system of government which holds the field, and the financial burden at the expense of Ireland which it perpetuates, serve increasingly to obscure and at the same time to counteract the advantages accruing from the connection between the two countries, which one may hope would, in happier circumstances, be obvious.

The Irish people still appreciate the force of that maxim of Edmund Burke’s, that the things which are not practicable are not desirable.  While they claim that as of right they are entitled to demand a separation of the bonds, to the forging of which they were not consenting parties, as practical men they are prepared loyally to abide by a compromise which will maintain the union of the crowns while separating the Legislatures.  An international contract leaving them an independent Parliament with an Executive responsible to it, having control over domestic affairs, is their demand.  Grattan’s constitution comprised a sovereign Parliament with a non-Parliamentary Executive, in so far as the latter was appointed and dismissed by English Ministers.  The constitution which is demanded to-day is the same as that enjoyed by such a colony as Victoria, with a non-sovereign Parliament, having, that is, a definite limit to its legislative powers, such as those under the Bill of 1886 referring to Church Establishment and Customs, but having an Executive directly responsible to it.

The case of the Irish people has never been put with more clearness and frankness than it was by Mr. Redmond in the House of Commons two years ago.  Having been accused by Unionists of adopting a more extreme line outside Parliament than that which he followed at St. Stephen’s, the Irish leader in reply, after declaring that separation from Great Britain would be better than a continuance of the present method of government, and that he should feel bound to recommend armed revolt if there were any chance of its success, went on to say:—­

“I am profoundly convinced that by constitutional means, and within the constitution, it is possible to arrive at a compromise based upon the concession of self-government—­or, as Mr. Gladstone used to call it, autonomy—­to Ireland, which would put an end to this ancient international quarrel upon terms satisfactory and honourable to both nations.”

An Orangeman described the late Government as being engaged in the useless task of trying to conciliate those who will not be conciliated.  The words of Mr. Redmond indicate the one way in which a Pacata Hibernia can be secured within the Empire.  It is a compromise, but it has this one virtue which compromises rarely possess—­that it will satisfy the great mass of the Irish people, and it concedes, as we hold, no vital principle.