his place at any time and say that a member is not at liberty to remove each and all, if he thinks fit, of the particulars of the bill, if in good faith he believes that the principle of the bill can be better and more adequately promoted by a different set of provisions. But the government have taken certain engagements. They have taken an engagement as to taxation for the intervention of Irish members, to the terms of which I need not refer. They have also taken an engagement on the claim of Ireland to a continued concern through her members in the treatment of imperial subjects generally. And that has entailed a positive pledge to reconstruct the 24th clause, and to adopt certain consequential amendments connected with it. One more question has been raised, and has excited a deep interest-and that is with respect to other amendments to the bill. Of course as to the freedom of honorable members to suggest other amendments, I have spoken in terms which, I think, are abundantly large. As respects our duty, there can be no question at all that our duty, if an interval is granted to us, and the circumstances of the present session require the withdrawal of the bill, and it is to be re-introduced with amendments at an early date in the autumn-of course it is our duty to amend our bill with every real amendment and improvement, and with whatever is calculated to make it more effective and more acceptable for the attainment of its end. It is, as a matter of course, and without any specific assurance, our duty to consider all such amendments. We are perfectly free to deal with them; but it would be the meanest and basest act on the part of the government to pretend that they have a plan of reconstruction ready beforehand, cut and dry in their minds, at a time when, from the very nature of the case, it

must be obvious that they can have no such thing. So much then for the situation, for the freedom of members to propose amendments, for the duty of the government to consider amendments and improve their bill, if they can, with the view of a fuller and better application of the principle; but subject, let me add, to conditions-five in number-which have been clearly enumerated on a former occasion, and from which there is no intention on our part to recede. The right honorable gentleman speaks of Ulster as a question of principle. The question of Ulster, or whatever the common name of the question may be, may be one of great importance; but I must say that while I in no respect recede from the statement made in regard to it at the opening of these debates, yet I cannot see that any certain plan for Ulster has made any serious or effective progress.

The honorable and gallant gentleman, the member for North Armagh, emphatically disclaims the severance of Ulster from the rest of Ireland, and the honorable member for Cork has laid before us a reasoned and elaborate argument on that subject to-day, which, as it appears to me, requires the careful attention of those who propose such a plan for our acceptance. We retain, however, perfect freedom to judge the case upon its merits. Now, sir, I want to say a word upon the subject of Irish loyalism, because we are obliged to use phrases in debates of this kind which cannot be explained from time to time when using them, and it is well that there should be a little understanding beforehand. When I hear the speeches of the honorable member for South Belfast and of some other gentlemen it always appears to me that he is under the pious conviction that loyalty is innate in the Irish Protestants, and disloyalty

.

innate in-some other persons. I do believe that he is under the impression that at all times, in all the long generations of Irish history, that has been the distinction to be drawn between Protestants and persons who are not Protestants. Is Protestant loyalism a thing that has a date and origin, or is it not? Has the honorable member, or the honorable and gallant member for North Armagh, inquired what was the state of Ireland in the eighteenth century with respect to loyalty? As far as regarded the great mass of the population-the Roman Catholic popula tion-they were hardly born into political life until the close of the century; and for a long period, in the time of Dean Swift, who describes their incapacity for political action as something beyond belief, it would have been absurd to speak of them as loyal or disloyal. But at the close of the century the Protestants and Roman Catholics of Ireland were described in a short passage by Mr. Burke, which I shall now read to the House. The date of it is 1797, and it is taken from a letter to Mr. Windham. He speaks of the subject of disaffection. "It"-that is to say disaffection—“has cast deep roots in the principles and habits of the majority among the lower and middle classes of the whole Protestant part of Ireland. The Catholics who are intermingled with them are more or less tainted. In the other parts of Ireland (some in Dublin only excepted) the Catholics, who are in a manner the whole people, are as yet sound; but they may be provoked, as all men easily. may be, out of their principles.'

What does that show? That the Protestants, not having grievances to complain of, have become loyal; but in many cases the Roman Catholics have been provoked, as Mr. Burke says all men easily may be, out of their prin

Vol. 15-18

ciples of loyalty. And these are words, and these are ideas, which show us what is the way in which to promote loyalty, and what is the way in which we can destroy it.

Another subject on which I shall dwell only for a moment is that of federation. Many gentlemen in this House are greatly enamored of this idea, and the object they have in view is a noble object. I will not admit the justice of the disparagement cast by the right honorable gentlemen on the British empire. I do not consider that this is a "loosely connected empire." But I admit that, if means can be devised of establishing a more active connection with our distant colonies, the idea is well worthy the attention of every loyal man. The idea of federation is a popular one. I will give no opinion upon it now; but I suspect that it is beset with more difficulties than have as yet been examined or brought to light. But this bill, whatever be its rights or wrongs in any other respect, is unquestionably a step-an important step-in that direction. Federation rests essentially upon two things, and upon two things alone, as preconditioned. One is the

division of legislature, and the other is the division of subjects, and both those divisions are among the vital objects of this bill. The right honorable gentleman has referred to the question of supremacy. My own opinion is that this debate has, in a considerable degree, cleared the ground upon that subject. It is most satisfactory to me to hear the statements of the honorable member for Cork. I own I have heard some astounding doctrines-astounding to an ignorant layman-from learned lawyers; but still, upon the whole, the balance of authority seems to me to have established, as a clear and elementary proposition that cannot be denied that this Parliament, be it the imperial Par

liament or not, as long as it continues in its legal identity, is possessed now, as it was possessed before the Union and before the time of Grattan's Parliament, of a supremacy which is absolutely, and in the nature of things inalienable, which it could not part with if it would, and which it would not part with if it could. There is no doubt a practical question, because it is quite true that in constituting a legislature in Ireland we do what we did when we constituted a legislature for Canada and for Australia. We devolve an important portion of power-we did it in Canada, and I hope we shall do it in Ireland-and we devolve it with a view to not a partial, not a nominal, but a real and practical independent management of their own affairs. That is what the right honorable gentleman objects to doing. That is the thing which we desire and hope and mean to do. It is obvious that the question may be raised, How are you to deal with the possible cases where the imperial government, notwithstanding this general division of affairs, may be compelled by obligations of imperial interest and honor to interfere? My answer is that this question has received a far better solution from practical politics, and from the experience of the last forty or fifty years, than could ever have been given to it by the definition of lawyers, however eminent they may be. When the legislature of Canada was founded this difficulty arose. We had the case of the Canadian Rebellion, where I myself, for one, was of opinion, and Lord Brougham was also of opinion-I know not now whether rightly or wrongly-that the honor of the crown had been invaded by the proposition to grant compensation for losses in the rebellion to those who had been rebels, and who had incurred those losses as rebels. I say nothing now about