and Williamson giving replies which have been summed up as 'Watching' (W. E. G.) and Waiting.'

Mr. Duckham, Mr. Story-Maskelyne and Mr. Wayman gave cautious answers; and Messrs. Kinnear and Jacoby declined to give the matter serious consideration.

Mr. Carbutt and Mr. Palmer favoured Home Rule; and Messrs. Brinton, R. Chamberlain, B. Hingley, R. J. More and Esslemont, with Sir Charles Tennant, declared against a separate Parliament.

Extracts from speeches of others will be found below. These have been necessarily taken at haphazard; often from somewhat short reports; and where a few words are quoted apart from context there is always danger of misrepresentation. Yet I hope they will not be unfair evidence of the feelings which their authors entertained toward the Home Rule question at the time they were delivered. Where no reference is given, the quotations are from addresses.

Of the addresses which make reference to the future in Ireland, those issued by the following members are vague, but have generally a sympathetic leaning toward the Irish case:

Hon. R. Bruce: We should endeavour to reconcile the Irish to a friendly union and co-operation with ourselves.'

Mr. Blake desired equal laws for all parts of the United Kingdom. Mr. Grafton, while in favour of doing justice to Ireland, would not support any measure for making her independent.

Captain O'Shea, when standing for an English borough, only said in his address that Mr. Gladstone had spoken cheering words.

Mr. Picton said: "I am opposed to coercion whether by bayonets or boycotting, and I would supply its place by allowing Irish opinion to make Irish laws on purely Irish affairs.'

Mr. Priestley would endeavour by wise legislation to secure the contentment and prosperity of Ireland, but would strenuously resist any attempt to break the bond which united her with England.

Mr. Talbot made the pregnant statement that the abolition of the law by which Great Britain is united to Ireland would shortly engage the attention of the elected.

Those who, while generally favourable to local government reform in Ireland, either declared themselves expressly opposed to a separate Parliament, or censured the Conservatives for their dealings with the Nationalists, were the following:

Sir R. Anstruther thought Ireland in sadly weak hands.

At Burntisland: Scotsman, October 31.

8

Daily Chronicle, November 2.

Mr. H. Bass: The Liberal Party has striven to remove every just cause of discontent in Ireland, but is not prepared to make concessions to crime or violence, or consent to the dismemberment of the Empire.'

Mr. Beaumont heartily approved of the course adopted by the late Liberal Government toward Ireland, and would strongly oppose the legislative independence of the country.

Mr. Biddulph would 'steadfastly oppose any measure giving to Ireland a separate Legislature.'

Mr. Buchanan: The demand [of Ireland] for legislative independence cannot be conceded.'

Mr. Buxton, in view of the price paid by the Conservatives to Mr. Parnell for his Parliamentary support, thought the only escape from the dictatorship of the Irish leader lay in the return of a Government strong enough to cope with their opponents and the Home Rulers combined.

Lord E. Cavendish, speaking at Sudbury on the 7th of September, endorsed Lord Hartington's statements as to Ireland.

Mr. Coote: The policy of the present Government in attempting to conciliate by questionable concessions the leaders of Irish discontent is unlikely to succeed, while we have still to regret that the efficiency of the law appears to be seriously impaired.'

Mr. Cornwallis West: I will strongly oppose the demand for the legislative independence and complete separation of Ireland from England.'

9

Mr. Cozens Hardy thought that the policy of the Conservative leaders in allying themselves with the Parnellites tended to the dismemberment of the Empire; and was sure the Liberals would have no part in any policy which would tend to dissever Ireland from the Union.

Mr. Crossley said that 'encouraged by the Tories, Mr. Parnell . . . was now aiming at a separate Parliament for Ireland, and a separate existence apart from this country. . . . They knew the response this manifesto had met with. Lord Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain had spoken plainly. . . . He need not remark further on the propositions of Mr. Parnell.' 10

Sir D. Currie: "The apparent association of Conservative and Irish Separatists makes the present moment one of serious crisis.'

Mr. R. Davies (Anglesey) was opposed to the Nationalist demand for Repeal.

Hon. A. Elliot: 'In my judgment Ireland must always remain a portion of the United Kingdom, and subject to the same Parliament which is supreme over England and Scotland.'

Mr. Ellis (Leicestershire): Lord Spencer did a noble work in Ireland. His treatment by some of the Conservatives was simply 10 Speech at Clayton West.

9 Lynn News, October 10.

abominable. The Liberals may be trusted to do justly by the sister Island, but I believe they will never consent to the dismemberment of the Empire.'

Mr. Fitzwilliam was strongly opposed to any measure that would imperil the legislative union.

Mr. Gurdon claimed the votes of all patriotic electors as a supporter of the only Government which could rule without the assistance of Mr. Parnell.

Mr. Haldane condemned Lord R. Churchill's intrigues with the Irish."1

Mr. Hobhouse considered that Englishmen of all parties should unite to maintain the Union, and to discourage any corrupt bargains with disaffected Irish Nationalists.

Mr. H. C. Howard was glad to find both parties were united in refusing to grant Ireland legislative independence.12

Mr. W. H. James: Any federal arrangement would be fraught with evils scarcely less in magnitude than those that would attend actual separation; but subject to the control of the Imperial Parliament, the further we go in allowing the Irish to manage their own affairs the better.'

Sir R. Jardine: 'I shall be prepared to treat the claims of Ireland in a generous spirit, but will support no measure which would tend directly or indirectly to impair the integrity of the United Kingdom.'

Mr. C. Kenny regarded the integrity of the United Kingdom as of paramount importance, but would give the Irish provincial councils for non-Imperial matters.

Mr. Leake: Irish representatives will yet work... in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The disintegration of Parliament would be a retrograde policy and a fatal mistake.'

Lord Lymington: The coalition of Lord Salisbury's Government with Irish Nationalists is a matter of serious import to those who, like myself, place loyalty to the constitution of the United Kingdom, and a maintenance of the property, liberties, and rights of loyal Irishmen above allegiance to Party.'

Mr. Milnes Gaskell said: A powerful and united band under the leadership of Mr. Parnell is claiming national independence for Ireland, and endeavouring to dissever the ties that bind that country to our own. Attempts of such a character will meet with my strenuous opposition.'

Mr. MacInnes, in reply to a question, said he would not vote for a Parliament to sit at Dublin on purely Irish affairs.13

Mr. Mappin was opposed to a separate Parliament for Ireland. Mr. Mildmay: The question of Ireland threatens the dismember

11 Speech at Elphinstone: Edinburgh Courant, September 18.

12 Speech at Catterlen: Carlisle paper, October 13.

13 Newcastle Leader, October 12.

VOL. XIX.-No. 110.

TT

ment of the Empire. It cannot be safely entrusted to a Minister in league with the Irish Nationalists or to a Government whose majority in the House of Commons will depend on the support of Irish representatives hostile to the Union.'

Mr. Paget: I have no hesitation in making a most distinct promise to resist by every means in my power the dismemberment of the Empire, and to oppose the proposals of Mr. Parnell.'

Mr. Pitt Lewis: 'I would resist any scheme for giving to the Irish people a separate Parliament.'

Mr. Ramsay believed it was for the good of Ireland that she ought not to have a Legislature independent of the Imperial Parliament.14

Mr. Rendal: The Tory programme is not to touch Mr. Parnell -to say or do anything whereby the Tory party may lose the Irish vote at these elections.'

Mr. Seale Hayne echoed Lord Lymington.

Mr. Wiggin was opposed to a separate Parliament for Ireland.

Mr. Winterbotham thought the country had to consider whether the maintenance of the Union would not be seriously endangered by entrusting the Government to a party which obtained office by the votes of the Home Rulers, and could only hope to remain in power by the same means.

Mr. Wodehouse: The encouragement given to the avowed purposes of the Irish separatist party by the evident eagerness of the present Government to retain the support of that revolutionary faction to whose aid they owe their accession to office, is a source of public danger.'

Mr. Watson hoped there would be a good Liberal majority to frustrate the expressed intentions of Mr. Parnell, who had recently said that with a following of eighty members, if he could not secure an independent Parliament in Dublin, he could at least prevent English legislation. . . . It would not be right to allow such a shameful mode of procedure as that suggested by Mr. Parnell to be carried out. . . . He was of opinion that it would not be satisfactory to this country if ever Ireland was severed from these isles, and the men who now represented Ireland in the English Parliament held high office in Ireland, and dictated, perhaps, to England terms as to the mutual government of the two countries. 15

Mr. Woodhead said that Mr. Parnell, emboldened by the Tory concessions, told the Irish people that he and his party were bent on having a separate Parliament, that in fact they were going to divorce England from Ireland. But England would not allow it; and he should vote steadily and persistently at any cost against this disinte14 Scotsman, October 7.

15 Speech at Long Eaton: Birmingham Erpress, November 1.

gration of the Empire. Let Ireland be placed on an equality with England in all respects, and be content with that equality.'

The following members declared themselves in their addresses to be in favour of extending to Ireland whatever powers of local selfgovernment might be granted to Great Britain, so far as could safely be done. Some of them made rather a virtue of going so far, and were equally prepared to vote at Mr. Gladstone's bidding for coercion. Others again were for making the reform of local government widereaching in both countries.

The speeches of Sir E. Grey, Mr. B. Pickard, and Mr. T. Shaw place them also in the above category.16

Mr. Borlase, while advocating the abolition of the Castle,' and the extension to Ireland of the same form of county government as we proposed for ourselves, thought that Home Rule in any more extended sense had been rendered impossible by the action of those who professed to desire it.

Mr. W. Bright did not think Mr. Parnell's proposals for an Irish Parliament altogether unreasonable, and was in favour of giving a measure of local government so far as practicable and safe.

Mr. Brunner desired the same reforms for Ireland as for England. Mr. W. Cook: 'To make Ireland contented, we must give her every equality we have in England.' 17

Sir. W. Crossman would do the same, but is totally opposed to any measures that would lead to a disruption of the Empire.'

Mr. Finlayson, in order to strengthen and maintain the Union,' would do likewise.

Mr. Harker, whilst disposed to give Ireland the same freedom that England and Scotland possessed, would on no account allow her to become an independent nation. They could not permit Ireland to make her own laws and put excessive duties on the importation of English products.18

Mr. Lockwood: In November 1883, Lord Salisbury accused me of promising Home Rule because I pledged myself to extend the franchise to Ireland. . . . To secure equal rights for her with England, I will spare no effort.'

16 Speech: Leeds Mercury, October 28.

17 Birmingham Post, October 30.

18 Leeds Mercury, November 17.