of being oppressive, extravagant, and corrupt, if there were no executive power to command their confidence and enforce obedience.  Without the previous creation of some authority of that kind it would be sheer madness to offer Ireland the fatal boon of local self-government.  It would enormously increase without conciliating the power of the Nationalists, and would make the administration of Ireland by constitutional means simply impossible.  The policy of the Liberal Unionists is thus much too large or much too small.  It is too small to conciliate, and therefore too large to be given with safety.  All these proposed concessions are liable to one insuperable objection; they would each and all enable the Irish to extort Home Rule, but under circumstances which would rob it of its grace and repel gratitude.  Mill has some admirable observations bearing on this subject, and I venture to quote the following passage:  “The greatest imperfection of popular local institutions, and the chief cause of the failure which so often attends them, is the low calibre of the men by whom they are almost always carried on.  That these should be of a very miscellaneous character is, indeed, part of the usefulness of the institution; it is that circumstance chiefly which renders it a school of political capacity and general intelligence.  But a school supposes teachers as well as scholars; the utility of the instruction greatly depends on its bringing inferior minds into contact with superior, a contact which in the ordinary course of life is altogether exceptional, and the want of which contributes more than anything else to keep the generality of mankind on one level of contented ignorance....  It is quite hopeless to induce persons of a high class, either socially or intellectually, to take a share of local administration in a corner by piecemeal as members of a Paving Board or a Drainage Commission."[17]

Mr. Mill goes on to argue that it is essential to the safe working of any scheme of local self-government that it should be under the control of a central authority in harmony with public opinion.

When the “Unionists” begin, if they ever do begin, seriously to deliberate on the question of self-government for Ireland, they will find that they have only two practicable alternatives—­the maintenance of the present system, or some scheme of Home Rule on the lines of Mr. Gladstone’s much misunderstood Bill.  And the ablest men among the “Unionists” are beginning to perceive this.  The Spectator has in a recent article implored Mr. Chamberlain to desist from any further proposal in favour of self-government for Ireland, because the inevitable result would be to split up the Unionist party; and Mr. Chamberlain, as we have seen, has accepted the advice.  Another very able and very logical opponent of Home Rule has candidly avowed that the only alternative to Home Rule is the perpetuation of “things as they are.”  Ireland, he thinks, “possesses none of the conditions necessary for local self-government.”  His own view, therefore, is “that in Ireland, as in France, an honest, centralized administration of impartial officials, and not local self-government, would best meet the real wants of the people.”