“It is an inherent condition of human affairs,” said Mill in a book which, in spite of some chimeras, is a wholesome corrective of the teaching of our new jurists, “that no intention, however sincere, of protecting the interests of others can make it safe or salutary to tie up their own hands.  Still more obviously true is it, that by their own hands only can any positive and durable improvement of their circumstances in life be worked out” (Repres.  Government, p. 57).  It is these wise lessons from human experience to which the advocate of Home Rule appeals, and not the wild doctrine that any body of persons claiming to be united by a sense of nationality possesses an inherent and divine right to be treated as an independent community.  It is quite true that circumstances sometimes justify a temporary dictatorship.  In that there is nothing at variance with Liberalism.  But the Parliamentary dictatorship in Ireland has lasted a great deal too long to be called temporary, and its stupid shambling operations are finally and decisively condemned by their consequences.  That is a straightforward utilitarian argument, and has nothing whatever to do with inherent and divine rights, or any other form of political moonshine.

There are some who believe that an honest centralized administration of impartial officials, and not Local Self-Government, would best meet the real wants of the people.  In other words, everything is to be for the people, nothing by the people—­which has not hitherto been a Liberal principle.  Something, however, may be said for this view, provided that the source of the authority of such an administration be acceptable.  Austrian administration in Lombardy was good rather than bad, yet it was hated and resisted because it was Austrian and not Italian.  No rational person can hold for an instant that the source of a scheme of government is immaterial to its prosperity.  More than that, when people look for success in the government of Ireland to “honest centralized administration,” we cannot but wonder what fault they find with the administration of Ireland to-day in respect of its honesty or its centralization.  What administration ever carried either honesty or centralization to a higher pitch than the Irish administration of Mr. Forster?  What could be less successful?  Those who have been most directly concerned in the government of Ireland, whether English or Irish, even while alive to the perils of any other principle, habitually talk of centralization as the curse of the system.  Here, again, why should we expect success in the future from a principle that has so failed in the past?