been long enough a playground for British politicians and for Irish agitators? May it not be possible even now at this last moment to arrange a national settlement of what is after all a national difficulty? This great Irish problem has baffled our statesmanship and distracted our politics for centuries."

Mr. Chamberlain then passed in review the various phases of the Irish question, beginning with the land. "Where is the remedy to be found," he asked, "for the state of things which I have explained? I suppose everybody has been brought by recent events, if not by past experience, to the conviction that the matter must be dealt with wholly and comprehensively, that nothing short of a great measure will settle this question. Such a measure has settled similar questions, as when the serfs were enfranchised in Russia, or when the peasants of Germany were made owners. Only by dealing with the question in this way is there any chance of securing anything like finality; and any measure that is proposed must seek in the first place to do away with all this complication of dual tenure, and get rid of landlords and substitute cultivating owners in every case. And in the second place it must make adequate and effective provision for enlarging the smaller holdings, for reselling the land among the occupiers of the land, so that at least all those who remain upon it shall have land enough to give them the chance of a comfortable and happy existence. I will not dwell on Mr. Gladstone's last attempt to deal with this matter. It was a great attempt, a very bold and a very generous attempt, but I think it was conclusively repudiated by the country. It was repudiated because the electors thought, and in my judgment rightly, that it involved too great a risk and was likely to impose too heavy a burden upon the British taxpayers for the benefit of Irish landlords. It is quite true that Mr. Gladstone said that the risk would be infinitesimal, and any statement coming from him with his great financial experience is entitled to the most serious consideration. But the inference I draw from that statement is this and I should make it a cardinal principle in any future legislation that if Irish security is good enough for the British Exchequer and for English and Scotch taxpayers, it is good enough for the Irish landlords. And in any future scheme I believe it will be found impossible to put the risk anywhere but upon the right shoulders-in fact, to keep the risk where it is at present."

Admitting that Lord Ashbourne's Act had been taken advantage of to a considerable extent, Mr. Chamberlain thought it failed in being voluntary and not compulsory, and that its operations, limited to five millions, were too restricted. On the other hand, if the Act were deprived of these two conditions, the money required would be as much as under Mr. Gladstone's Bill, and the risk to the British taxpayer greater. Mr. Chamberlain next dwelt at some length on the political position.

He placed side by side Mr. Gladstone's main principle, the avowed policy of the Conservatives, and the conditions demanded by the Unionists; and he concluded that there was nothing in these conditions inconsistent with the main principle of Mr. Gladstone's Bill, namely, the establishment of some kind of legislative authority in Ireland for the transaction of domestic business, applicable in principle to other parts of the kingdom, and with ample guarantees for the unity of the empire, and for the rights of minorities. At the same time the Conservatives were prepared for great reforms in local government, and to review the whole of the irritating centralising system of administration known as "the Castle." They might think Mr. Gladstone's guarantees inadequate, but once launched upon reform of "the Castle" administration, they would be forced to substitute for it some kind of legislative authority. From this point of view of the position of parties Mr. Chamberlain believed that a compromise might be arrived at which would be satisfactory to all, and would give such a measure of autonomy to Ireland as would satisfy all reasonable desires. Mr. Chamberlain went on to say, "Every one of the conditions laid down by Lord Hartington would be met by the adoption or by the adaptation of the internal Constitution of Canada. The Constitution of Canada preserves to the Dominion Parliament, which represents what the Imperial Parliament would represent in our case, its supreme authority. The subjects committed to the local Legislatures are strictly defined, are delegated, and not surrendered, are subject in certain cases to revision and control. There is an analogy in the Constitution of Canada for the separate treatment of provinces which are distinct in race and which differ in relation. And, lastly, the administration of justice in Canada is under the control of the Dominion authority, and is absolutely independent and free from local pressure and from local interference. . . . But you will ask, 'Will the Irish party accept a proposal of this kind?' I look to Mr. Parnell as the only authorised exponent of Irish Nationalist policy, and Mr. Parnell is very well able to keep his own counsel and to say what he has to say without reference to what his subordinates have said before him. All I can say is that in recent times he has never said anything inconsistent with the acceptance of such a plan as I have suggested. On the other hand, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, who is, I think, vice-chairman of the Irish Parliamentary party, has in a long article declared that his plan of Home Rule would be based upon the establishment between England and Ireland of similar relations to those which exist between the provinces of Canada and Ottawa. Under those circumstances I do not dismiss as an absolutely impossible hypothesis that the time may shortly come when we shall all be once again a happy family. But, further, I would say this-if any scheme should be elaborated after full and public discussion

(because no one supposes that anything which may be decided in secret conclave can be accepted without the fullest public criticism and public sanction)-if such a plan should be ultimately elaborated, if it should commend itself to the majority of the English and Scotch people, if it should satisfy the demands of patriotic and fair-minded Irishmen, I hope that the Irish people will give to it an impartial and a calm examination; and if they approve of it I would not allow anybody to stand between them and the boon which was so freely offered to them."

The reception of these speeches by the London and Dublin journals gave little hope that the attempts to come to an understanding would be helped forward by the advisers of the tenantry; whilst in England Mr. Chamberlain's eirenikon was received with general scepticism. The Times wrote of it, "Mr. Chamberlain's bias is very strongly on the side of comprehension, and we think that it has led him to overlook or underrate some real difficulties, and to deal with the subject too much as if human conduct were wholly governed by pure reason. If land is to be first dealt with, we have to reckon with the National League, and the primary problem remains just what it is at this moment-how to make the law respected and to protect the honest and law-abiding. Mr. Chamberlain does not refer to this difficulty, or to the divergence of opinion which it excites, yet his programme does nothing whatever to turn it. Mr. Chamberlain's programme has only to be taken seriously, and seriously thought out, to bring us back to the old question-Are you going to make imperial law absolute in Ireland or are you not? If that question is answered in the affirmative, then, but not before, we get a basis for Mr. Chamberlain's procedure. Unless the National League is put down and the law vindicated Mr. Chamberlain's constructive legislation is morally impossible, while Mr. Gladstone's destructive legislation is morally easy and nearly inevitable. That is the dominant fact of the situation, which we very seriously commend to Mr. Chamberlain's attention."

The Standard, which all along took a wider view of the duties of England towards Ireland than its contemporary, said, "Mr. Chamberlain is either in pursuit of shadow, or he is actuated by some arrière pensée which it is not expedient to declare. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the whole body of Scotch and English members could agree upon some Irish measure such as Mr. Chamberlain sees in his dreams, and that Mr. Gladstone were willing to abandon all his ideas of Home Rule, what would happen? The Bill would be passed. Parties would revert to their original attitudes, and in a little while, perhaps, British parties would be fairly equal, faced by an Irish contingent of sixty or seventy as discontented as ever. should then have our work to do over again, and have had all our trouble for nothing. We do not, therefore, believe that a

We

compromise on the Irish question would end in any permanent reunion of the Liberals."

The Daily News, in its eagerness for reunion, wrote, "The past is gone, and we are glad to recognise the new tone. The triumph of Mr. Gladstone's principle, which Mr. Chamberlain declares he never repudiated, and which he now again cheerfully professes, is assured with time. Mr. Chamberlain in his speech contributed points to the discussion which deserve consideration. But the most important for the day is his recognition of the impossibility of remaining where we are. We shall soon learn whether Lord Hartington is inclined to take the same line. If not, the speeches at Hawick mark the beginning of the disintegration of Liberal Unionism, and once begun it must inevitably be rapid."

On the other side of St. George's Channel, the chief organ of the Nationalists, the Freeman's Journal, wrote, "Both Sir George Trevelyan and Mr. Chamberlain appear to have moved forward since last year. They have not advanced far enough, and we cannot see how the bulk of the Liberal party can accept the terms of reconciliation specified by Mr. Chamberlain without abandoning the principles that they have pledged themselves to maintain. It is better that Home Rule should be delayed for twenty years, if needs be, rather than that it should be a farce. We say advisedly that such local autonomy as Mr. Chamberlain professes himself willing to concede could never be accepted as a final settlement by the Irish people. If this is his last word, better fight the issue out on the lines laid down if it costs us years of suffering and turmoil."

The Irish Times viewed matters more hopefully:-" Matters at this moment are well controlled by the coalition; and if Mr. Chamberlain were to triumph in his undertaking of bringing the Liberal party together again upon a plan of modified local government, a government applicable equally to England, Scotland, and Ireland in its safest form, there would still remain, we believe, sufficient of a coalition in the constituencies and among the public to ensure that the plan would be well considered."

The Dublin Express, on the other hand, said, "In the face of Mr. Sexton's declaration that nothing but independenee will satisfy the Irish, Mr. Chamberlain would be more sanguine and less cool-headed than he is reputed to be if he long indulged in a hope that his compromise would solve the Irish difficulty and be accepted as a final settlement."

The hopeful expectations to which Mr. Chamberlain gave expression were not in the end realised. The "Round Table Conference indeed met again and again, but without coming any nearer to agreement. To whom the failure was mainly due is an open question. The members of the conference were pledged to secrecy as to what took place round Sir William Har

court's dinner-table, and it is only by piecing together the hints and allusions subsequently let fall by the guests, and still more by their mutual recriminations, that we have any clue to their discussions and divisions.

Upon one point, at all events, at the outset of the negotiations all parties were agreed-namely, that both the original Home Rule Bill and the Land Bill should be regarded as dead. Without this understanding frankly accepted on both sides, it would have been mere waste of time for the politicians to meet in conference. The points upon which the Unionists insisted as the price of their return to the Liberal camp were (1) the retention of the body of Irish members at Westminster intact; (2) the control and revision by the Imperial Parliament of the decisions of the Irish Parliament; (3) the delegation, not the surrender, of the subjects to be given over to the management of the Irish Parliament; (4) the separate and special treatment of Ulster; and (5) the maintenance of law and order, and the control and organisation of the Royal Irish Constabulary under the Imperial Parliament. These points, as necessary concessions, were, it was understood, insisted upon by Sir George Trevelyan no less than by Mr. Chamberlain, on going into conference with Sir William Harcourt and Mr. John Morley. According to Mr. Chamberlain's version, instead of a definite promise of concession being made, the views of the Unionists were taken down, and an answer promised so soon as the leader's opinion was taken. The conference was adjourned first for two days, and afterwards from time to time, until a month had passed, but no offer of concession came; and then, with the consent of Sir George Trevelyan, a letter was addressed to Sir William Harcourt, saying that things must come to an end one way or the other, the Government having meanwhile produced their Crimes Bill, and thereby introduced fresh. elements of discord. Sir George Trevelyan, however, gave (July 26) a very different account of what had passed during the attempts to reunite the Liberal party. The idea, he said, originated with Mr. Chamberlain, who was convinced that the leaders of the party, coming together in a spirit of compromise. would be able to reconcile the conflicting views of the two sections. The first definite invitation received by Sir George Trevelyan (Jan. 2) was to take part in a conference limited to two proposals: to ascertain on what points an agreement could be come to; and secondly, to establish more harmonious relations, and to put a stop to the hostile and acrimonious speaking between the two sections. The earlier discussions (Jan. 13 and 14) were, according to Sir George Trevelyan, friendly in a high degree, and pointed to conclusions of practical utility, and he expected that the sittings would be resumed early in February. None, however, were proposed, but Sir William Harcourt (Feb. 6) told him in a private interview that Mr. Chamberlain's utterances in public had appeared to other members of the conference as

C