The total exclusion clause in the Bill of 1886 was one of the most unpopular parts of an unpopular Bill.  It was immediately urged that this arrangement was virtually equivalent to separation, and Mr. Gladstone admitted[44] that the argument had force.  Since 1886 public sentiment has advanced in the direction of a closer Imperial unity, and it is unlikely that the country will recur in 1912 to a proposal which in 1886 was admitted to be intolerable.  Moreover, if the British Parliament is to retain control of the whole foreign policy of the kingdom, and—­what is likely to be of enormous importance in the future—­of its whole fiscal policy, it would be manifestly unjust to deny to Ireland a voice and vote in such matters.  How would it be possible, for instance, to discuss the effect upon agriculture of a Tariff Reform Budget in the absence of competent representatives of the Irish farmers, or to consider the yearly grant to be made (as it is said) in aid of Irish finance without the assistance of any representatives of Ireland?

A recognition of the difficulties in the way of total exclusion led Mr. Gladstone to propose, in 1893, what was known as the “popping-in-and-out clause,” under which Irish members would have sat at Westminster, but would have voted only on Imperial measures.  The best criticism of this attempt to distinguish between local and Imperial matters was supplied on another occasion by Mr. Gladstone himself:—­

     “I have thought much, reasoned much, and inquired much with regard
     to that distinction, but I have arrived at the conclusion that it
     cannot be drawn.  I believe it passes the wit of man.”

To distinguish between matters which might and those which could not affect Ireland was impossible to the ordinary man, and the device of committing all matters of special difficulty to the decision of Mr. Speaker had not then its present vogue.  Further, it was obvious that under such a system a British Ministry might have on one day, when English or Scottish affairs were under discussion, a commanding majority; but on the next, when a vote possibly affecting the sister island was in question, might find itself labouring in the trough of the sea; while on the third day, that vote having been disposed of and the Irish members having taken their leave, it might rise once more on the crest of the wave.  The proposal was too ludicrous to be long defended.  The sense of humour of the House prevailed over Mr. Gladstone’s earnestness, and he fell back on inclusion for all purposes.

But inclusion for all purposes had its own difficulties.  Under the Gladstonian system the Imperial Parliament would have considered, not only matters affecting the whole kingdom, but also purely English or purely Scottish affairs; and to give to the Irish representatives the control in their own Parliament of purely Irish affairs, and also a voice at Westminster on matters affecting England or Scotland only, was obviously unjust.  Such a power would have been used, not for the benefit of England or Scotland, but as an instrument for wresting further concessions for Ireland.