y a party majority, and which, through
that majority, controls the Executive. It "passed the wit of man," said
Mr. Gladstone, to separate in practice the Legislative and Executive
functions in the British Constitution. At present a hostile vote in the
House of Commons overturns the Ministry of the day and changes the whole
British and Imperial administration. A hostile vote, therefore,
determined by the Irish Members, on a question affecting Ireland, such
as the application to Ireland of a British Bill, would seriously
embarrass the Ministry, if it did not overturn it. The log-rolling and
illicit pressure which this state of things would encourage may be
easily imagined. A Ministry might find itself after a General Election
in the position of having a majority for some purposes and not for
others. That was actually the case in 1893, when Mr. Gladstone, with a
majority, including the Irish Nationalists, of only 40, was carrying his
Bill through Parliament. It is actually the case now, in the sense that
if the Irish Nationalists voted with the Opposition, the Ministry would
be defeated. Any change for the better in Irish sentiment towards Great
Britain would _pro tanto_ mitigate the difficulty, but would not remove
it, and might, as I suggested above, increase it, by the creation of a
solid Irish vote. If Great Britain resents the present system, she alone
is to blame. As long as she insists on keeping the Irish Members out of
Ireland, where they ought to be, she thoroughly deserves their tyranny,
and would be wise to get rid of it by the means they suggest. Until they
are given Home Rule, they are not only justified in using their power,
but are bound, in duty and honour, to use it. To reproduce in the Home
Rule Bill, albeit in a modified form, conditions which might lead to the
same results as before would surely be a gratuitous act of unwisdom.

3. Inclusion in reduced numbers for all purposes. By "reduced numbers"
is meant numbers less than the population of Ireland warrants. For the
sake of argument we may assume the number to be 35, that is,
approximately half the proper proportion; but directly we desert a
scientific principle of allocation, the exact figure we adopt is a
matter of arbitrary choice.

Mr. Gladstone appears to have contemplated this plan for a brief period
in 1889; but he dropped it. Clearly it cannot be defended on any logical
grounds, but only as a compromise designed, as it avowedly was, to
conci