At any time they could have stopped discussion by closuring amendments and by closuring the clause under discussion. And failing to use this power they cannot have really felt that the debates were of an obstructive character. But it is when we come to examine the clauses that have been closured under Mr. Gladstone's resolution that the monstrosity of the Prime Minister's action becomes at once apparent. I say nothing of Clause 5, upon which the gag was first brought into play. On this clause a good deal of discussion had taken place, and it would not be fair to say that it had not been debated. But, beginning with Clause 6, the proceedings were little short of a scandal. This, with Clauses 7 and 8 dealt with the constitution of the two Houses of the Irish Legislature. These three clauses settled the constituencies which were to elect both Houses. They defined the procedure in case of a disagreement between the Houses. They were scandalously unjust, even admitting the principle of representation to be right, to the Unionist minority. They were put from the Chair, divided upon, and passed without a word of debate or discussion. And this is the way Mr. Gladstone thinks a new Constitution for Ireland ought to be framed! The right hon. gentleman first keeps his plans a profound secret from the country, and then, when he gets a small majority, he gags the House of Commons in order that the absurdities of his scheme may not be exposed in Parliament. Things, however, get worse rather than better. The clauses from 8 to 20 covered the most controversial part of the Bill. Clause 9, as I have already pointed out, dealt with the difficult question of Irish representation at Westminster. The clauses from 10 to 20 covered the finance of the Bill. Clause 9, as it originally stood, provided for the representation of Ireland on what is known as the Inand-Out principle. Without a word of warning the sub-sections dealing with this point were withdrawn, and, as a result, eighty Irish members, should the Bill become law, will be left at Westminster with the same powers as the one hundred and three now have-viz., power to vote upon every question whether it concerns Ireland or not. In itself this was a change so enormous as to warrant many days of debate. It practically invested Irishmen with a dual power. First, they are to manage Irish affairs independent of Great Britain. And secondly, by remaining at Westminster, eighty strong, and with full powers, they are placed in a position which enables them to exercise an effective control over British affairs as well. The omission of these two sub-sections amounted to a revolution. And yet, under the operation of the gag something like seven hours was all that, by grace of Mr. Gladstone, the House of Commons was allowed to discuss a change so momentous. Nothing so monstrous ever happened in the history of Parliament. The financial clauses were withdrawn from the second compartment. And when reached they were fairly debated. But Clauses 22 and 23 opened up a question of the deepest interest. They set up a Supreme Court for the decision of Constitutional questions. No such thing has ever been attempted in the United Kingdom. It involves a serious change in the Constitution of the country. The clauses were put and carried without a syllable of debate. In the third compartment the questions of the Civil Service and Police were discussed at reasonable length. But the result of this was to shut out entirely any discussion on Clause 35. And what does Clause 35 deal with? It deals with the real subject of interest in Ireland -the land. For three years this question is to be withdrawn from the Irish Legislature. After this period it is to be handed over to that body. No wonder Mr. Gladstone did not wish discussion on such a question. He and his colleagues are steeped to the lips in pledges against this policy. Mr. Gladstone, Lord Spencer, and Mr. Morley have each and all declared that the duty of settling the Irish Land question ought not to be cast upon an Irish Legislature. They have said over and over again that the settlement of this serious question was an obligation of honour and of duty laid upon the Imperial Parliament. And yet, without a word of debate, Clause 35 was put and carried. And finally the Schedules were in such a position that they could not be reached for debating purposes. The second schedule, that which fixes the representation of Ireland at Westminster, is a scandal. It is drawn without the least pretence of fairness. Mr. Gladstone endeavoured to excuse its patent shortcomings by stating that it was inexpedient to introduce disfranchising provisions into a Bill such as the Home Rule measure. But the schedule totally disfranchises Dublin University, and deprives the Irish counties of twenty-one members. And yet Mr. Gladstone talks of "no taint of disfranchisement"! There can be no doubt as to what the authors of the schedule intended. They have given the Unionist county of Antrim, with thirty-six thousand electors, three representatives. They have given the Nationalist boroughs of Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny, Galway, and Newry, with fourteen thousand electors, five representatives. They have given the Nationalist city of Cork, with ten thousand electors, two representatives. They have given the Unionist county of Armagh, with twenty-six thousand electors, only two representatives. And by abolishing the present divisions of counties they have made the disappearance of more than one Unionist representative a certainty. And yet this audacious schedule, with the work of the "jerrymanderer" stamped on its very face, was passed without a word of discussion! I might go on through every provision of the Bill in this way. But it is unnecessary. There never was such a Bill. There never was such procedure. As to the plea of necessity urged by the party wire-pullers, where does it come in? They desire British reforms. Is that any reason for enslaving at once the British people and the Irish minority? They were warned, fairly warned in advance, that if the Home Rule truck got on to the line the way would be blocked. They scouted the idea. To these men the break up of our ancient Constitution, and the handing over of the Irish minority to their hereditary enemies, is a mere item of the Newcastle programme. They know what Home Rule means to the cause of British reforms. Hence the clamour for the gag. Hence their talk about its necessity. They would do well to ponder over Pitt's words when he declared "necessity to be "the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves." They hoodwinked a section of the electorate, and they now begin to realise the truth of Scott's lines: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, Forced to gag the House of Commons on this special Bill, they have even done worse. They have declared that British opinion shall be gagged and coerced in the future by eighty Irish members. And this is done not with any feeling of justice to Ireland. It is done because the British Radical knows that without these Irish votes hardly a line of the Newcastle programme is possible. This is the real reason for Mr. Gladstone's change of front on Clause 9. He has been forced to realise that the exclusion of the Irish members from Westminster means the exclusion of his party from office and power. A catastrophe so appalling in the eyes of every good Gladstonian ought surely to be averted even if the British Constitution should perish. But Mr. Gladstone, although equal to most things, is not yet omnipotent. He cannot gag the House of Lords. He cannot gag the electors of the United Kingdom. In the end this great issue will stand before Cæsar's judgment seat. Its fate is not doubtful. T. W. RUSSELL. A II. FTER forty-eight days spent in the discussion of its details in Committee, the Home Rule Bill has been reported as amended to the House. The amount of time devoted to the Committee stage has considerably exceeded that spent upon any measure since the Union was carried in 1800. The Bill is the most important and farreaching legislative proposal of the century, and no one can, I think, justly complain that the whole of one long Session of Parliament should have been occupied by its consideration. But while no one can say that the time devoted to it was too long, every impartial man must admit that it was long enough. The main principle of Home Rule has been discussed and agitated in Parliament and in the country for seven years. The electors, ignorant though they were at the General Election of the details of Mr. Gladstone's present measure, were well aware of the contents of the Bill of 1886, and were plainly told that the broad lines then laid down would not be departed from. It is, of course, true to say that the present Government received no mandate upon particular details of the present scheme, but it is beyond all doubt or question that they did receive a specific and peremptory mandate to confer upon Ireland a subordinate Legislature with an Executive dependent upon it for the transaction of purely Irish business. This being so, the country having, after many years of discussion, deliberately decided upon the cardinal principle of Home Rule, I think it is little short of ridiculous to say that the whole of one long Session, extending over many months, did not afford sufficient time for an adequate consideration by Parliament of the machinery for carrying that principle into effect. And yet it is true that forty-eight days spent in Committee have not sufficed for the discussion of all parts of the measure, and that several clauses of more or less importance have gone without discussion of any kind what What is the explanation of this? It is simple enough; it is that the so-called Unionist party have partially succeeded in the plan of opposition to Home Rule which they unblushingly announced and unflinchingly persisted in. That policy was to defeat Home Rule per fas aut nefas. For seven years they have been playing against the life of Mr. Gladstone. Time, we were assured, was upon their side. When the principle of Home Rule was adopted by the country and affirmed by a vote of the House of Commons on the second reading, the Unionist party deliberately adopted a policy of obstruction. They knew they could not prevent the Bill passing the House of Commons, but they determined that as much of it as possible should pass without discussion. We may now expect an autumn made lively by denunciations of the "gag"-that unpleasant but often wholesome restraint having been rendered necessary by persistent and unintelligent obstruction to portions of the scheme upon which the country had decided, and as to which a few days' discussion in Parliament would have amply sufficed. They have, as I have said, partially succeeded in their plans. Some clauses of the Bill have gone undiscussed; but they have failed in this, that most of the really vital portions of the measure have received adequate discussion and have been affirmed by substantial majorities, and they have further failed in having their motives and tactics made plain as daylight to the country. Before going more closely into this matter, I may say that I deeply deplore the fact that any single clause of the Home Rule Bill should leave the House of Commons without discussion. A measure of this kind must be discussed in every particular before it can pass into law. If it be not thoroughly discussed now, it must be the next time; and what I feel most keenly about the whole matter is that had the Government acted sooner and acted upon different lines every single clause might have been adequately discussed by this time. First of all, they wasted valuable time at the commencement of the Session. Indeed, there was no reason why, after the pleasant interval for repose and reflection between their accession to office and Christmas, Parliament should not have met early in January. Many days were spent when we did assemble upon the introduction of a string of Bills, which by no earthly possibility could be seriously proceeded with this Session, and some of which-as, for example, the Veto Bill-were bound to create division in their own ranks and in the country. Then the triumph of the Opposition when they succeeded in postponing the second reading of the Home Rule Bill until after Easter exercised a fatal influence upon the Session, and could easily have been avoided by a little resolution on the part of Ministers. But the Government's most fatal mistake of all was in postponing action to facilitate progress in Com |