Parliament reassembled and still nothing was said and nothing done:  but the Press was full of rumours.  On July 19th Redmond asked that a date should be fixed for the introduction of the proposed Bill, and next day he renewed his demand, urging that the constant delays and postponements were “seriously jeopardizing the chance of settlement.”  This was only too true.  A furious agitation against the proposal of even temporary partition was raging through Ireland.  Once more, the tide had been missed:  time had been given to inculcate all manner of doubts and suspicions—­and once more the suspicions proved to be only too well justified.  The whole story was revealed to the House on July 24th.

Redmond, in his speech, emphasized it that the proposals had come not from the Nationalists, but from the Government; they had, however, been accepted, after considerable negotiation and many changes in substance, as a plan which Nationalists could recommend for acceptance.  Nationalists had been pressed to use the utmost despatch, had been told that every hour counted and that it was essential in the highest Imperial interests, if Ireland endorsed the agreement, that it should be put into operation at once.  “That is two long months ago,” he said.  Action had been taken; the unpopularity of the proposals, fully foreseen, had been faced, on a clear understanding.

“The agreement was in the words of the Prime Minister himself, for what he called a provisional settlement which should last until the war was over, or until a final and permanent settlement was arrived at within a limited period after the war.  This was the chief factor of this plan, and without it not one of my colleagues or myself would for a moment have considered it, much less have submitted it to our followers.”

The retention of Irish members at Westminster in full strength was covenanted for “as an indispensable safeguard of the temporary character of the whole arrangement.”

It was on this construction of the agreement that consent to it had been secured, in the face of very strong and organized opposition:  and consent was secured to it as a final document.  Nevertheless, when Redmond arrived in London he had been at once confronted with a demand for modifications—­of which the first were unimportant.  Yet to consent to any alteration was a sacrifice of principle; but he was told that this concession would secure agreement in the Cabinet.  Later, however, came a public statement from Lord Lansdowne that “permanent and enduring” structural alterations would be introduced into the Home Rule Act.  Redmond had seen the draft Bill in which the Government’s draftsmen embodied the terms of the agreement, and he had accepted this, as conforming to his covenant.  In reply to Lord Lansdowne, he had pressed for the production of this Bill, but could not get it.  The end was that, after a Cabinet held on July 19th, he was told that “a number of new proposals