y
personal support. Hence my communication with Mr. Balfour, which
has long been in the hands of the public.

It has been unreasonably imputed to me, that the proposal of home
rule was a bid for the Irish vote. But my desire for the
adjustment of the question by the tories is surely a conclusive
answer. The fact is that I could not rely upon the collective
support of the liberals; but I could and did rely upon the support
of so many of them as would make the success of the measure
certain, in the event of its being proposed by the tory
administration. It would have resembled in substance the liberal
support given to Roman catholic emancipation in 1829, and the
repeal of the corn laws in 1846. Before the meeting of parliament,
I had to encounter uncomfortable symptoms among my principal
friends, of which I think ---- was the organ.

I was, therefore, by no means eager for the dismissal of the tory
government, though it counted but 250 supporters out of 670, as
long as there were hopes of its taking up the question, or at all
events doing nothing to aggravate the situation.

When we came to the debate on the Address I had to face a night of
extreme anxiety. The speech from the throne referred in a menacing
way to Irish disturbances, and contained a distinct declaration in
support of the legislative union. On referring to the clerks at
the table to learn in what terms the Address in reply to the
speech was couched, I found it was a "thanking" address, which did
not commit the House to an opinion. What I dreaded was lest some
one should have gone back to the precedent of 1833, when the
Address in reply to the speech was virtually made the vehicle of a
solemn declaration in favour of the Act of Union.(175)

Home rule, rightly understood, altered indeed the terms of the Act
of Union, but adhered to its principle, which was the supremacy of
the imperial parliament. Still [it] was pretty certain that any
declaration of a substantive character, at the epoch we had now
reached, would in its moral effect shut the doors of the existing
parliament against home rule.

In a speech of pronounced clearness, Mr. Arthur Elliot endeavoured
to obtain a movement in this direction. I thought it would be
morally fatal if this tone were extensively adopted on the liberal
side; so I determi