of Canada in relation to all matters not within the jurisdiction of the provincial Legislatures, although such matters may not be specially mentioned.”  In effect, therefore, the difference between the Irish Bill and the Canadian Act is one of expression and not of substance, and, although the Bill is more accurate in its form, it would scarcely be worth while to insist on legislating by exception instead of by enumeration if, by the substitution of the latter form for the former, any material opposition would be conciliated.

What, then, are the conclusions intended to be drawn from the foregoing premises?

1.  That coercion is played out, and can no longer be regarded as a remedy for the evils of Irish misrule.

2.  That some alternative must be found, and that the only alternative within the range of practical politics is some form of Home Rule.

3.  That there is no reason for thinking that the grant of Home Rule to Ireland—­a member only, and not one of the most important members, of the British Empire—­will in any way dismember, or even in the slightest degree risk the dismemberment of the Empire.

4.  That Home Rule presupposes and admits the supremacy of the British Parliament.

5.  That theory is in favour of Home Rule, as the nationality of Ireland is distinct, and justifies a desire for local independence; while the establishment of Home Rule is a necessary condition to the effectual removal of agrarian disturbances in Ireland.

6.  That precedent is in favour of granting Home Rule to Ireland—­e.g. the success of the new Constitution in Austria-Hungary, and the happy effects resulting from the establishment of the Dominion of Canada.

7.  That the particular form of Home Rule granted is comparatively immaterial.

8.  That the Home Rule Bill of 1886 may readily be amended in such a manner as to satisfy all real and unpartisan objectors.

9.  That the Land Bill of 1886 is the best that has ever been devised, having regard to the advantages offered to the new Irish Government, the landlord, and the tenant.

FOOTNOTES: 

[Footnote 60:  Reprinted by permission, with certain omissions, from the Contemporary Review, August, 1887.]

[Footnote 61:  “Home Rule and Imperial Unity:”  Contemporary Review, March, 1887.]

[Footnote 62:  Mill on Representative Government, p. 310.]

[Footnote 63:  See Statesman’s Year-Book:  Switzerland and Germany.]

[Footnote 64:  Heeren’s Political System of Europe, p. 152.]

[Footnote 65:  Memoirs of Count Beust, vol. i., Introduction, p. xliii.]

[Footnote 66:  Statesman’s Year-Book.]

[Footnote 67:  The Emperor of Austria is the head of the empire, with the title of King in Hungary.  Austria-Hungary is treated as a federal, not as an imperial union, on the ground that Austria was never rightfully a dominant community over Hungary.]