“On one point alone (it may be urged) all men, of whatever party or of whatever nation, who have seriously studied the annals of Ireland are agreed—­the history is a record of incessant failure on the part of the Government, and of incessant misery on the part of the people.  On this matter, if on no other, De Beaumont, Froude, and Lecky are at one.  As to the guilt of the failure or the cause of the misery, men may and do differ; that England, whether from her own fault or the fault of the Irish people, or from perversity of circumstances, has failed in Ireland of achieving the elementary results of good government is as certain as any fact of history or of experience.  Every scheme has been tried in turn, and no scheme has succeeded or has even, it may be suggested, produced its natural effects.  Oppression of the Catholics has increased the adherents and strengthened the hold of Catholicism.  Protestant supremacy, while it lasted, did not lead even to Protestant contentment, and the one successful act of resistance to the English dominion was effected by a Protestant Parliament supported by an army of volunteers, led by a body of Protestant officers.  The independence gained by a Protestant Parliament led, after eighteen years, to a rebellion so reckless and savage that it caused, if it did not justify, the destruction of the Parliament and the carrying of the Union.  The Act of Union did not lead to national unity, and a measure which appeared on the face of it (though the appearance, it must be admitted, was delusive) to be a copy of the law which bound England and Scotland into a common country inspired by common patriotism, produced conspiracy and agitation, and at last placed England and Ireland further apart, morally, than they stood at the beginning of the century.  The Treaty of Union, it was supposed, missed its mark because it was not combined with Catholic Emancipation.  The Catholics were emancipated, but emancipation, instead of producing loyalty, brought forth the cry for repeal.  The Repeal movement ended in failure, but its death gave birth to the attempted rebellion in 1848.  Suppressed rebellion begot Fenianism, to be followed in its turn by the agitation for Home Rule.  The movement relies, it is said, and there is truth in the assertion, on constitutional methods for obtaining redress.  But constitutional measures are supplemented by boycotting, by obstruction, by the use of dynamite.  A century of reform has given us Mr. Parnell instead of Grattan, and it is more than possible that Mr. Parnell may be succeeded by leaders in whose eyes Mr. Davitt’s policy may appear to be tainted with moderation.  No doubt, in each case the failure of good measures admits, like every calamity in public or private life, of explanation, and after the event it is easy to see why, for example, the Poor Law, when extended to Ireland, did not produce even the good effects such as they are which in England are to be set against its numerous evils; or why an emigration of unparalleled