before us. I never uttered an opinion, nor shall I utter an opinion, that it is a subject unfit to come before the people; I think we who propose this bill should be the last persons who should be jealous of any reference to the people.

Coming now to the proposals of my right honorable friend the member for West Birmingham, in the first place, let me say that I at once accord to him—what, how. ever, he cannot want according from me-that is, his perfect and entire good faith in the representations that he made, upon which a misapprehension prevailed between us, as to his title to enter upon certain matters. If anything further is required upon that point, it certainly can keep until Friday next, when the bill on the land question is brought forward. Quite irrespective of the land law, my right honorable friend stated four points, any one of which was an ample justification of the step which he felt himself called upon to take. But he, at any rate, gave no countenance to coercive legislation. He looks into the future, and he sees how light and trivial is the talk about coercive legislation. But my right honorable friend went a great deal further, and suggested a commission or committee, to be formed of all parties, to deal with this subject. I will not criticise that proposal. I venture the opinion that no solution of the question will ever proceed from a royal commission or a committee composed of all parties, much less pass through Parliament. Then my right honorable friend spoke of federation. If you are to have federation there must be somebody to federate, and there will be nobody, except a legislative body is entitled to act for the people. It appears to me that my right honorable friend goes further than we do, because he is in favor of not only giving a domestic legislature, but of appending to it that rather formidable post

script of some arrangement under which this Parliament is to part with some of its powers and throw them into the common stock along with powers coming from other portions of the empire. I cannot, therefore, say that he has remained behind us in this matter.

What is really material to observe is the mutual relations of harmony and concord subsisting between the plans of those who think they ought to sink differences and unite together for the purpose of finding a solution for the Irish problem. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his mas terly statement, exhibited in full detail the relations actually subsisting among those most distinguished gentlemen and great parliamentary authorities. He has shown that the Border Burghs does not agree with Birmingham, and that Birmingham does not agree with Rossendale, and that Rossendale does not agree with Paddington, and, again, Edinburgh is distinct in shade from them all. There is a decided want of common feature, common action, common purpose, common principle; there is no united basis of action except the basis of hostility to this bill.

When I speak of this plan, I speak of it as a plan in its essence and not in its detail. It may derive much advantage from the wisdom of Parliament. It has been produced and brought to light under a degree of pressure such as I believe never was applied by circumstances to any government, such at least, I will venture to say, as there is no case of in the half-century to which my recollection extends. It may be improved by the wisdom of this House, but speaking of it as a plan, I say it holds the field. It has many enemies; it has not a single rival. No one has been bold enough to propose an intelligible system of what, in my opening statement, I called effectual coercion-the only

kind of coercion that can be adequate to the end you have in view. And, sir, as the plan holds the field, the subject holds the field. Never, I think, have I witnessed such signs of public absorption in this House and out of this House. And, sir, it is safe to prophecy that the subject will continue to hold the field. Many who are here advocate important reforms; many think, and I am one of them, that legislation is in arrear. The demands upon your time and thought are beyond your capacity, even with your best exertions, to meet. But, sir, you may dismiss all these subjects from your mind until this matter is disposed of, until the Irish problem is solved. I am not speaking of what gentlemen opposite may threaten or say; I am look ing at the nature of the case; I am looking at the profound interest of the whole English and Scotch people, ay, and of the whole civilized world. Until this problem is solved it is idle to think of making real progress with the business of this country, in respect to the important subjects which are perfectly ripe for the handling of Parliament. We have come to the time for decisive action; we have come to the time for throwing aside not only private interests and partial affections, but private devices and partial remedies. We have come to the time for looking at the whole breadth of this subject and endeavoring to compass it in our minds. We have come to the time when we must an swer this question-whether we will make one bold attempt to free Parliament for its great and necessary work, and to establish harmony by Irish laws for Ireland, or whether we will continue, on the other hand, to struggle on as we have done before, living from hand to mouth, leaving England and Scotland to a famine of needful and useful legislation, and Ireland to a continuance of social disease, the depth of

which we have never understated, of social disease that you do not know how to deal with, and of angry discord with Great Britain, which you make no attempt to cure.

HOME RULE

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 10, 1886

IB-I was the latest of the members of this House who

ST

had an opportunity of addressing the House in the debate on the introduction of this bill; yet I think no one will be surprised at my desiring to submit some observations in moving the second reading. And this on the double ground-First of all, because unquestionably the discussion has been carried on since the introduction of the bill throughout the country with remarkable liveliness and activity; and, secondly, because so many criticisms have turned on an important particular of the bill with respect to which the government feel it to be an absolute duty on our part that we should, without any delay whatever, render to the House the advantage of such explanations as, consistently with our public duty, it may be in our power to make.

I am very sorry to say that I am obliged to introduce into this speech-but only I hope to the extent of a very few sentences—a statement of my own personal position in regard to this question, which I refrained from mentioning to the House at the time when I asked for leave to bring in the bill. But I read speeches which some gentlemen oppo. site apparently think it important to make to their constituencies, and which contain statements so entirely erroneous

and baseless that, although I do not think it myself to be subject of great importance and relevancy to the question, yet as they do think it to be so, I am bound to set them right, and to provide them with the means of avoiding similar errors on future occasions. Although it is not a very safe thing for a man who has been for a long time in public life—and sometimes not very safe even for those who have been for a short time in public life-to assert a negative, still I will venture to assert that I have never in any period of my life declared what is now familiarly known as Home Rule in Ireland to be incompatible with imperial unity. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; exactly so. My sight is bad, and I am not going to make personal references; but I dare say the interruption comes from some member who has been down to his constituents and has made one of those speeches stuffed full of totally untrue and worthless

matter.

I will go on to say what is true in this matter. In 1871 the question of Home Rule was an extremely young question. In fact, Irish history on these matters in my time has divided itself into three great periods. The first was the Repeal period under Mr. O'Connell, which began about the time of the Reform Act and lasted until the death

of that distinguished man. On that period I am not aware of ever having given an opinion; but that is not the ques tion which I consider is now before us. The second period was that between the death of Mr. O'Connell and the emergence, so to say, of the subject of Home Rule.

That was the period in which physical force and organizations with that object were conceived and matured, taking effect under the name generally of what is known as Fenianism. In 1870 or 1871 came up the question of Home Rule.

In a speech