liate British opinion. It would minimize but not remove the
difficulties inherent in No. 1; and so far as it did lessen these
difficulties, the representation given would be impotent and
superfluous. That is why I have taken it last in order of the three
possible methods of inclusion. It raises in the sharpest and clearest
form the important question underlying the whole of the discussion we
have just been through--namely, what are to be the powers delegated to
the Irish Parliament and Executive, and what are to be the powers
reserved to the Imperial Parliament and Executive?

If the powers reserved are small, it will be possible to justify not
merely a small Irish representation in the House of Commons, but even
under certain conditions the total exclusion of Irish members. Indeed,
if the figure 35 corresponded to the facts of the case, one might as
well abandon these painful efforts to "conciliate British opinion,"
accept total exclusion, and substitute Conference for representation. If
the powers reserved are large, full representation in spite of all the
crushing objections to it, will be absolutely necessary, in order to
safeguard Irish interests. Here is the grand dilemma, and it says little
for our common sense as a nation that we should submit to be puzzled and
worried by it any longer. Half the worry arises from the old and
infinitely pernicious habit of regarding Ireland as outside the pale of
political science, of ignoring in her case what Lord Morley has called
the "fundamental probabilities of civil society." Let us break this
habit once and for all and take the logical and politic course of total
exclusion, with its logical and politic accompaniment, a measure of Home
Rule wide enough to justify the absence of Irish representation at
Westminster. That will be found to be the path both of duty and of
safety.

Let it be clearly understood that lapse of time has not diminished
appreciably the power of the arguments against the inclusion of Irish
Members in the House of Commons. On their merits, these arguments are
still unanswerable, and we had better recognize the fact. Mr. Balfour
said, in 1893, "Those questions" (of representation at Westminster) "are
not capable of solution, and the very fact that they are incapable of
solution affords, in our opinion, a conclusive argument against the
whole scheme, of which one or other of the plans in question must form a
part." Speaking as a Unionist, Mr. Balfour was