ity and cheap fares. In 1868 72 Peers | could not do it. The necessity of possessing property in Ireland addressed business would eventually force the the Government on the subject, and the House to take some steps to alter the same declaration was signed by all the present arrangements. The letter of Irish Members, except seven, who took Lord Clancarty to which he had referred a different view, and yet their prayer made a suggestion on this matter which was disregarded. Had they done what was worthy of attention. He suggested might have been done for the Shannon? as a preliminary step that at the meeting He believed it was still undrained; its of Irish Members to be held in Dublin waters were as "turbulent" as ever; six weeks before the assembling of and that nothing would be done in the Parliament, a general Committee should matter until they got an Irish Parliament. be formed, which should report on all Then look at the University question. public Bills relating to Ireland. Due attenHon. Gentlemen unseated a powerful tion would thus be secured to the subject, Government on that question, but there a sense of responsibility for the work of was no one who said that the University legislation would be cast on that assembly, system was satisfactory to the country. and measures might thus be brought forHad that question been settled? Had ward which would lay the foundation of it not been thrown upon a private in- self-government. Lord Clancarty did dividual like himself to try to settle it? not look on self-government as a wild But, if Ireland had an Irish Parliament, and impracticable scheme. It had been the opinion of the Parliament would stated repeatedly, and never denied— have long since gone with the opinion of and when it was first stated there were the country; or, if the English Parliament statesmen living who could have denied could properly discharge its duties to it if it were untrue-that in 1844 a proIreland, which it never could, we should posal was made by the Leaders of the long ago have had some decision upon the Whig Party, then in Opposition, that Irish University question. He would Mr. O'Connell should take up Federalnot say that the Bill he had proposed on ism; and he did take it up. How he a previous night would have been passed was thwarted it was not for him (Mr. by an Irish Parliament; but the people Butt) to say. What did The Times newswould have had the question discussed paper say in October, 1873? It said— by their own Parliament, and the value of Parliamentary discussion, even reaching Ireland as it did now only in vague and uncertain echoes, was immense. He spoke of questions which would have been settled long ago, but Parliament had not time to attend to them. Every day since he had been in Parliament--now 20 years-there had been witnessed that of which he complained -the gradual encroachments upon the rights of discussion by private Members. Why? Not certainly because of any object on the part of Government, but because of absolute necessity arising from the mass of legislation which Parliament had taken upon itself. For instance, this year they had lost a great deal of time on the Merchant Shipping Bill, owing to the fact that Government were compelled last year to pass only a temporary Act. The pressure of business was breaking down what was once the great characteristic of that House-free discussion of the complaints and grievances of the people. This was the inevitable result of taking on themselves the work of three Parliaments. They Mr. Butt "If the demand for Home Rule should prove to be really the demand of the Irish people, we shall be compelled to consider the various changes and safeguards on which it will he necessary to insist." And when the right hon. Gentleman opposite assumed the reins of Government in 1874, The Times said "Among the matters it will be an essential part of his duty to consider will be this-how far he can gratify the spirit of nationality without danger to the Empire." On those grounds he (Mr. Butt) rested his present claim to have some alteration made in the arrangement adopted at the time of the Union. He did not wish to flatter the House, but-and he had said it in Ireland, he thought-he had observed a wonderfully improved tone towards Ireland on both sides of that Assembly. He had been in several Parliaments, and he said conscientiously and sincerely he never sat in a House in which Irish affairs were received with so much fairness and attention as they had in that. But that did not alter his opinion of the absolute necessity for changing the Union arrangements. Was the House disposed to enter upon the task of conciliating Ireland? If they were, there was no support to anything calculated to forward such a course which he was not ready to give. But do not let them shut their eyes to the difficulties. They were dealing with a country oppressed for seven centuries. It would not be in a few weeks or months that the effect of misgovernment would pass away. They had to deal with a people trained to distrust of English misgovernment-a people in whose breasts misgovernment had awakened suspicion and a thousand rankling imaginations. In the words of Macbeth he would say to Parliament "Canst thou not minister to a mind diseas'd; Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow; Raze out the written troubles of the brain; And, with some sweet oblivious antidote, Cleanse the stuff'd bosom of that perilous stuff Which weighs upon the heart?" He might be told a great deal must depend on Irishmen themselves; and, if the House did enter on the course they recommended, he would say a solemn responsibility would be cast on every Irishman to use no language that would mar the effect of it. Parliament might say-" We reply as the physician did in Macbeth, Therein the patient must minister to himself." He believed she must minister to herself, and minister in a higher sense than that spoken of just now. He believed no good intentions on the part of that House or the Government could ever supply that knowledge-that instinctive knowledge -of the wants and wishes of the people of Ireland which was necessary in legislating for her, and which could never be acquired by learning, only by residence among, and acquaintance with, the people themselves. Did history give an instance of a nation wisely governed except by her own people? To use a very expressive term of The Times, if there is "a unification between England and Ireland they did not want a separate Parliament; but if there was not a unification, they did. If that separate Parliament was given instead of weakening, it would strengthen the bonds between the two countries. But he was not asking for a separate Parliament. He was only asking, if they were under a delusion, to let them have a Committee the inquiry do? Home Rulers were told that some of them were seeking separation. Let them be brought to the bar of the Committee. Let them be cross-examined, and if it should be found that the intelligence and property of Ireland were not favourable to his proposals, let the Committee report against them and put an end to them. Let them see whether they were of so serious a character as they supposed-of a character so serious that they would destroy the whole strength and solidity of the Empire. It was not for him to answer at once every difficulty that might be raised; but on one point to which some weight had been attached, he might say that a very little statesmanship ought to suggest a plan to dispose of Irish Members usefully whilst the House was engaged in doing English business. Give them the Committee, however. That was all they asked. Let them bring the plan he proposed to the test of reason, to the test of crossexamination, that was all he asked, and then the people of England and the Members of that House would probably see that their proposals were not of so formidable a character as they had supposed. But let them not shut the door in their faces, and content themselves by saying that they meant to rule Ireland by force as heretofore-that their principle was to be sie volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas. They might fail in their attempt now, but it would be renewed next year. Let them grant the Committee, however, and let them select a man of character like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, who had vigour enough of intellect to preside over it, and who would inspire confidence in all parties by his presence. Let them unfold their case before him, let them show if their "veiled rebellion" was what it had been called. But they would bring their rebellion without its veil; and, believing in the thorough justice of their cause, he also believed that Ireland would come out triumphant. He did not wish, however, to trespass longer on the time of the House, and he would therefore conclude by submitting the Motion which stood in his name. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the to inquire into the matter. What would end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. P. J. SMYTH, who had given Notice to move as an Amendment to the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt)— "That, in the opinion of this House, Home Rule, as understood by a large proportion of the Irish people, is the restoration of the Parliament of Ireland with the legislative powers and prerogatives declared, by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, to have been established and ascertained for ever' by the international settlement of 1872," a Bill his scheme of Home Rule. In that form, and in that form only, he could set forth the nature, the extent, and the grounds of his claim, and there would be no occasion to submit what he alleges to be the cause of a large proportion of his fellow-countrymen to be House. A large number of Irish Bills, sat upon by a Select Committee of this on subjects great and small, have been introduced, and some of them fully discussed this Session, and it is difficult to understand why this, the greatest of all subjects, should be presented in the shape of a Resolution which resolves nothing, and which, even if carried, would leave us as we were with regard to the very meaning of the words Home Rule. It will not do to say that the Resolution is a recognition of the principle of Home Rule, and that we must await the details; for in dealing with complex ideas the terms used to express said: I must apologize to the House them must be clearly defined. What is for obtruding myself so early in the Home Rule? The most rev. Dr. debate, but it is owing to the fact that MacHale has defined it as " a very amtwo months ago I gave Notice of an biguous phrase;" John Mitchel defined Amendment. Now, however, the ori- it as "foreign rule;" Mr. O'Neill Daunt ginal Resolution itself is moved as an defined it as the "half loaf;" another Amendment, thereby excluding the eminent authority defined it as "the Amendment which stands in my name thin end of the wedge." Clearly, it is on the Notice Paper. This question of one of those rare questions where the Home Rule, on the basis of Federalism, minutest exposition of details is essential was brought before the House in the to the faintest comprehension of the Session of 1874, and although I voted principle. The word Parliament conin favour of it, I felt, in common, I be- veys to the mind the idea of supremacy; lieve, with every impartial listener to and I conceive it is incumbent on those that debate, that its advocates failed to who propound a novel scheme like this sustain by argument the peculiar scheme to explain clearly and categorically what of Home Rule then, for the first time, is meant by those words of limitation, submitted in the name of the Irish "internal affairs." When reference is people. I think it is unfortunate that, made to a country, entitled by its posiafter an interval of two years, the same tion and importance to the possession of scheme should come before us in a form the grand institution of Parliament, the still more unsatisfactory. When a Go- question naturally arises, what are invernment, whether weak or strong, re-ternal and local, as contra-distinguished fers any matter of importance to a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, illnatured people are sometimes found to say that it is done for the purpose of shelving the matter in question. should be sorry to attribute any such motive to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick; but what purpose, in this instance, a Select Committee can be made to serve, if not that of a coroner's inquest, does not plainly appear. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in my mind, should, on this occasion, with the permission of the House, have embodied in I from external and Imperial affairs? Is control of the lines of railway communication in such a country an internal or an external affair? Is the encouragement of domestic industry by bounties or protective duties an internal or an external affair? Is the land, its settlement and its tenure, an internal or an external affair? Is the establishment or the disestablishment of a religion an internal or an external affair? Is taxation in all its branches an internal or an external affair? Is the appropriation of the supplies an internal or an external affair? Is an annual Mutiny | is turned inside out. The cock of the Bill, embodying the principle that in farm-yard assumes the eye, the beak, time of peace a standing Army could and the talons of the eagle, and, taking not be legally maintained in the coun- leave for a season of his hens and his try without the consent of the Parlia- chickens, he soars aloft, and from his ment of the country, an internal or an eyrie surveys an Empire on which the external affair? Is the embodiment of sun never sets. An Imperial Parliament a national Militia and police an internal and an Imperial Administration, local or an external affair? Is the finality Parliaments and local Administrations, of the decisions of the Courts of Law local constituencies and Imperial constiand of Equity, without appeal to an ex-tuencies; all this the hon. and learned ternal tribunal, an internal or an external affair? Is the Post Office an internal or an external affair? Is the Criminal Code, in all its ramifications, an internal or an external affair? Is Education, in all its departments, an internal or an external affair? Sir, I might extend these interrogatories; they relate to matters of detail, it is true, but this House will admit they are details which, in whatever way they may be met, are of the very essence of the principle involved in the Resolution, and which should be understood before that Resolution can be even properly discussed. If the answer to these several interrogatories be signified by the word internal, then we have before us a proposal for a Parliament; if by the word external, then we must assume that a great proportion of the Irish people, through their Representatives in this House, pray for a Select Committee to take into consideration their claims to a vestry. If the extent and the grounds of the claim for Home Rule are shrouded in mystery, I am free to admit that the nature of the claim has been with sufficient distinctness defined. Its nature is that of a Federal arrangement, by which there would be constituted an Irish Parliament for the internal affairs of Ireland Gentleman gravely assures us may be accomplished without serious disturbance of the existing Parliamentary system, or any fundamental change in the constitution of the Realm. The hon. and learned Gentleman is an eminent Constitutional lawyer, but, with the greatest deference to him, I must say that I can scarcely conceive a project involving more violent and wanton disturbance of the principles of the Constitution. I speak of it thus, assuming, for argument's sake, that it can be limited in its operation to England and Ireland alone; but no hon. Member will contend that it is susceptible of any such limitation. A local Parliament for Scotland, The Times has truly said, is the necessary correlative of a local Parliament for Ireland. Whatever measure of local government, The Scotsman says, Ireland gets, Scotland must get the same. Indeed, although Ireland only is named in the Resolution, Scotland is specifically included in the Federal arrangement propounded by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. In his pamphlet, curiously entitled Irish Federalism (why not English or Scotch Federalism)? he says "The arrangement proposed is, I have said, that which is popularly known as a Federal union between the countries. It is not worth while to consider whether the word Federalism, (whatever they may be), an English in its proper sense, be the most appropriate term Parliament for the internal affairs of to express what is proposed. I will not even England, and an Imperial Parliament stop to inquire whether the union I suggest for what may be adjudged to be exter- belongs to that class of arrangements which nal or Imperial affairs. Thus we have Lord Brougham calls Federal unions proper, three Parliaments to start with; for the or to those which he designates as improper or imperfect, or, as is more probable, is one parImperial Parliament will differ so mate-taking of the character of both. It is enough rially as regards its objects, its prerogatives, its construction and composition from the local Parliaments, as to be quite a distinct institution. At certain fixed periods Ireland will pour 105 Imperial Representatives into the English local Parliament, and forthwith, as if by magic, the domestic institution becomes transformed into the Imperial, internal gives way to external, and all to say that I intend to propose a system under which England, Scotland and Ireland, united as they are under one Sovereign, should have a common Executive and a common national Council for all purposes necessary to constitute them, to other nations, as one State, while each of them should have its own domestic Administration and its own domestic Parliament for its internal affairs. I say each of them, because, although my immediate concern is only with Ireland, I do not suppose that if Irishmen obtain the separate management of Irish affairs it is at all likely that Englishmen or Scotchmen would consent to the management of their domestic concerns by a Parliament in which Irish Members had still a voice." Thus Scotland necessarily falls into line, and so we find ourselves at the outset involved in the mazes of four Parliaments--three local and one Imperial. Will the disintegrating process end there? He is a bold man who will venture to say it would. If a local Parliament for Scotland is the necessary correlative of a local Parliament for Ireland, a local Parliament for Wales is the necessary correlative of a local Parliament for Scotland. Federalism is an elastic principle; its tendency is to minute subdivision. Is there not some reason to apprehend that Ulster will avail herself of the opportunity to sever the connection with the Catholic Provinces and open a little retail shop for legislative business of her own? Once open the Federal door, and doing so involves a total reconstruction of the Constitution, and closed it cannot be until the United Kingdom shall have been completely transformed into a Confederation, like Switzerland in Europe, or Canada or the United States in America. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he disclaims any intention of making a demand; but the Resolution contains the word demand, implying that a Federal arrangement is the demand of Ireland. As matter of fact, it is not; but assuming that Ireland is so lost to all sense of dignity as to sanction the demand, the answer of this House must be-This is a British, much more than an Irish question; and so long as the people of England, Scotland and Wales are content to be legislated for in their local affairs by this Imperial Parliament, Ireland is out of Court, if she be not guilty, indeed, of a positive contempt of Court, in demanding that the Constitution shall be broken into fragments in order to satisfy her momentary caprice. A demand, on the part of Ireland alone, to Republicanize the institutions of the Empire, would be just as reasonable and just as feasible as to Federalize them. A demand implies a right, and a right to demand implies a right to enforce compliance; but this is a demand for a thing which never existed before, which Ireland never possessed, to which she can prove no title, which she cannot get without the full and free concurrence of her neighbours, and which Mr. P. J. Smyth she could not take, if she had the power, without inflicting serious wrong upon them, and outraging the principles of public morality and public law. It is quite right and proper that hon. Gentlemen who really believe in this Irish Federalism should endeavour, by all fair means, to propagate that theory; but I submit that the time to make a demand for a Federal arrangement will not have arrived until a clear majority of the people of England, Ireland and Scotland shall have signified their readiness to enter into such an arrangement. When that time comes there will be no occasion for a Select Committee. The Minister of the day will introduce a Bill; we shall legislate ourselves into the condition of the happy family; and under the hopeful motto, Divide et impera, we shall enter at last on a career of peace, unity and brotherly love. Speaking with reference to Ireland alone, it is my firm conviction that she does not desire a Federal arrangement of the nature of that expounded either by the Rev. Thadeus O'Malley-the father of Federalism-in his little book, or by his illustrious pupil, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, in his pamphlet on Irish Federalism; that if offered it she would not, understandingly and with. her eyes open, accept it; and that if imposed upon her, she would not abide by it. Were Ireland a discovery of the 19th century, like one of those coral isles "That like to rich and various gems inlay The unadorned bosom of the deep," she might commission a Representative to ask this honourable House to make a Constitution for her. But Ireland is an ancient kingdom with a far-reaching past and a not inglorious history. Her people represent an ancient and a famous race, with a past and a history, with feelings, traditions, instincts, all their own; and it is futile to suppose for a moment that such a country and such a people will accept a place in the Imperial system lower than that of the smallest colony born of yesterday, and indebted to fortuitous circumstances for a fluctuating and heterogenous population. The colonies have been referred to. Truly, the colonial Empire of England is a marvel of the 19th century, as it is unique in the history of mankind. When the American orator illustrated the greatness of England by that grand |