Sicily is the Achilles' heel of the Italian boot. From thence, the Italian nation might easily be wounded. History proves it; and the Italians have learnt from their own history. So sensitive are they on this point that they show much uneasiness even in regard to the present French protectorate on the opposite African shore, in Tunis, from which Sicily may be threatened with considerable facility. Hence Italians will neither look upon Sicily as alter orbis, nor introduce the slightest germ of possible political disunion by means of a Parliament at Palermo.

There was a time when the Briton was looked upon by the classic nations as being 'divided from nearly the whole world.' But vessels in those days were dependent on their sails or on the hands of oarsmen; and communications could not be made with the instantaneousness of thought. The 'Briton' of to-day thinks so little of geographical distances that he holds even India on the other side of the globe. And he, for one, should allow himself to be talked into favouring any kind of disintegration at home by a dark hint as to the dividing nature of a bit of pond!

From Germany, from Switzerland-from America too, to which the Home Rulers are also pleased to refer-Englishmen may take a lesson exactly opposite to that inculcated by the Irish party.' The systems of loose Federalism, once existing in those countries, have, in each case, produced civil war. In proportion as the centrifugal, dynastic, Home Rule aspirations made headway in Germany, the nation's power was crippled, its position degraded, its public liberties diminished, its frontiers encroached upon by foreign foes who took advantage of these internal divisions for the furtherance of their military attacks.

In Switzerland the Ultramontane Home Rule party brought the Mountain Republic to the point of disruption in 1847. The Liberal patriots had to use force of arms in order to overthrow the Sonderbund, which, once constituted, quickly developed into a treasonable organisation conspiring with foreign Powers. For a time, Switzerland was menaced in its very existence; France, Russia, Austria and Prussia siding with the disruptionist party against the reformers of the Confederacy. After the rebellion had been quelled, a fresh Constitution was fortunately carried in 1848, amidst the sheltering popular risings against misgovernment, which took place all round the Swiss frontiers. A more effective Union was then established in Switzerland. This, again, is a notable fact; for the Confederacy has not less than four different races and languages within her territory: German, French, Italian, and Romansch.

In America, the excessive system of Federalism, or Home Rule, brought about the tremendous four years' war, which cost seas of blood. Even as in Switzerland, so also in America, a number of States had for some time to be put under special exceptional law, after the Union principle had obtained the victory in war. In this way only could the country at large be secured from anarchy, and

true progress be ensured. The old American Constitution which had produced the evil, was then remodelled in the sense of stricter union. That same tendency towards firmer cohesion still marks, in the United States, the efforts of the Republican' party which is the party that abolished slavery and saved the Union. On the other hand, the so-called, or mis-called, Democratic' party-once the confederate of the slave-owners, the party to which the Romanist Irish immigrants cling—are greatly enamoured of State Rights' and of various peculiar institutions' arising from them. But this is the reactionary, and in some degree dissolutionist, party in the Union. Englishmen, certainly, need not take it as a political model, whether they are of the advanced Liberal type; or whether they have the cohesion and security of the common country at heart; or whether-which to a foreigner seems to be the most sensible view-they steadfastly keep both aims together in view.

To give a separate Parliament to Ireland, and yet not to hurt the cohesion of the United Kingdom or the principles of civil anď religious liberty, is a task similar to that of squaring the circle." Every one conversant with the history of this country is aware of the state of things into which even the old Irish Parliament, a Parliament originally composed mainly of the Protestant inhabitants, rapidly developed as soon as the elections, for once, were practically controlled by the Roman Catholic population. When that happened, the island had to be reconquered in blood from the Jacobite reactionists.

Again, when England, towards the end of last century, was engaged in difficulties abroad, Irish autonomy rapidly changed into armed rising. A French fleet endeavoured to land in Bantry Bay. Though it failed to do so in consequence of a terrific storm, a French auxiliary force still penetrated, a year and a half afterwards-when every appearance of rebellion seemed to have vanished-as far as Ballinamuck, in the county of Longford, the very heart and centre of Ireland. So deep had been the impression made abroad, by the fuller organisation of Irish autonomy, among the foes of England!

The question as to whether the United Irish men' represented better principles than the aristocratic English Government of that time, need not be discussed here. Many foreign Liberals might be ready enough to give an affirmative historical verdict; but this is not the question at issue. At present, the question is, whether Englishmen, ready as they have proved themselves to do justice to undoubted grievances in matters of religious equality and of land-law reform, are equally ready to prepare for would-be Irish secessionists a convenient parliamentary platform from which these latter might one day beckon to any Power, or combination of Powers, with which England might find herself at war. It seems, to impartial observers, the purest naïveté to doubt the wishes of many prominent Land Leaguers in that respect. Utterances made by them, and by the foremost of them, in America, in Ireland, nay, within the precincts

of the English Parliament, place the matter beyond the possibility of cavil. We have heard them say in public that they wish they could bring the arms they saw before them in the hands of Irish volunteers in the United States, over to Ireland, and that they hoped that day would yet come. We have heard them say that they will not cease

in their efforts until the last tie of connection between Ireland and England shall be destroyed. We have heard them express ardent desires for the invasion of Ireland under a foreign military leader, so as to gain independence by the sword.'

These are literally the expressions of the heads of the League and of their treasurer at Paris. No concession will satisfy the more active spirits among this party. They declare this country to be the Enemy's country; and they would fain regard England's foe as Ireland's friend.' That is their own language. Those who will not understand it, can only be taught by the bitter experience of facts. Now and then, one of the leaders of the League may, for personal reasons or tactical purposes, moderate his tone, even to such an extent as to fall under an unreasonable suspicion of having become a 'traitor' to his former associates. No sooner does such a suspicion arise than the friends are told by a significant hint and wink that it is only the great Leader's astute statesmanship,' and that, if only they will wait a little longer, they will soon see what they will see. This, at least, is the explanation literally given of Mr. Parnell's recent moderation by one of his own organs.

For more than two years the Land League papers and speakers have sung it out in every kind of tone that Land Reform is not their chief aim. Often enough they have even made it obvious to the bluntest intellect that they would prefer keeping a running sore open, rather than carry any land reform at all. Mr. Parnell declared that he would never have taken his coat off to work for the League, had he not been convinced that some ulterior object were to be reached. Mr. Dillon, whilst acknowledging that the new Act confers immense benefits upon the Irish people, would have every farmer who accepted the Act treated as a traitor because, in his opinion, the army of dissatisfaction had to be kept together, and England must not be allowed to divide its ranks by offering a bribe.' These utterances, coolly made by men known for their coolness, should not be treated by Englishmen as if they were mere wind and tongue. They point to a deep-set purpose. Foreigners are often amazed to find that Englishmen treat declarations of that kind lightly, as if they were not seriously meant, and mere rhetorical flourishes for a passing purpose. Perhaps Englishmen are more in the habit of easily forgetting their own oratorical performances, whilst the Irish enemies of England may, so far as the close observation of foreigners allows them to judge, be credited with a greater persistency.

"National Independence' is the parole given out even now by the Land League papers-two months and a half after the so-called Treaty of Kilmainham, and nearly two months after the deed in the

Phoenix Park, which might have been expected to have a sobering effect upon the most ardent leaders of the League. In the United Ireland' of June 10, 'National Independence' in full capitals is declared to be the aim, whilst the English are simply dismissed as 'foreigners.' With jubilant expectation of a coming victory, the Irish constituencies are told that—it is they who pocket the millions of abolished rack-rents; who see their ancient enemy, landlordism, prostrated at their feet; who see the evil legacy of arrears taken from their necks; who see county government all but in their grasp; who behold the vision of NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE so near that their pulses are already invigorated with its life-current, and their faces already lit with its sheen.'

6

Now, United Ireland' is published under the co-proprietorship of several of the foremost leaders of the Executive of the Land League.

The other twin paper, of the same date, the Dublin Irishman,' which every week contains a number of articles identical with those of United Ireland' (both journals being apparently brought out by the Irish National Newspaper and Publishing Company) already hopes for the time when we can dictate terms to the London Government' in consequence of a war. It treats England in the tone of one great Power speaking threateningly to another. It says:

In the long struggle for INDEPENDENCE, the moral victory is with the Irish people. The PHYSICAL VICTORY will follow as sure as the seasons succeed each other, for the Irish people are unconquerable. . . The war between England and this country is a loss to the Two POWERS. Neither gains by the conflict, but in the end this island is sure to win, and the other is certain to lose more than Ireland WHEN THE CRASH COMES. If we are not permitted to enjoy independence until irresistible events place it within our reach, so much the worse for the English. In the moment of England's distress we are not likely to accept an easier settlement of the international quarrel than we might agree to when England is free from THE PRESSURE OF A EUROPEAN OR EASTERN WAR. Therefore, Ireland is resigned to suffer and to wait. Her patience and endurance will be rewarded by a triumph greater than would crown A PEACE PATCHED UP under circumstances favourable to English demands. When we can DICTATE TERMS TO THE LONDON GOVERNMENT, we shall not forget seven hundred years of savage repression.

Anyone able to read may see here that even the granting of Home Rule, however extensive, is looked upon by the League organs only as a peace patched up under circumstances favourable to English demands,' and that an opportunity would still be watched for, which would enable rebels to achieve entire separation-national independence.' The question is, then, whether it would be wise for England to afford a party of this kind to organise itself into a Sonderbund by means of a separate Parliament.

The system of terror, of intimidation, of wholesale atrocities and murder, which has been practised for the last two years while the

'unwritten law' of the League was active both in sunlight and moonlight-a system against which some of the most prominent leaders have refused to protest, and which others have even countenanced in speeches of unmistakable drift—is an evil omen as to the freedom of election in case a Parliament on College Green had to be got together. The presence of any English forces in Ireland, as a protection to the voters, would be held by the Leaguers to be an infraction of, and pressure upon, that independence of the public mind, which they so wonderfully value. The absence of such forces would give free scope to the worst terrorising practices. Men 'banded together in a sullen confederacy to defeat the law' (an expression recently used by Mr. Dillon, and which United Ireland' describes as a 'graphic phrase ') would domineer over the elections in threefourths of the Irish territory. The result is easy to foresee. In a trice, England would have a foe before her, with complete parliamentary organisation, which it would be folly to allow making his preparations until an opportunity should arise for him to deal a blow in collusion or alliance with some foreign enemy of England.

6

Irish Leaguers aiming at national independence, and bent, in their innermost hearts, upon dictating terms to the London Government' in the course of some war, may give occasional trouble in St. Stephen's; but there they can be easily dealt with, if the will to do so exists on the part of the other members. In a case of that kind, English and Scotch members may even reckon-as has often been proved-upon the co-operation, or ready acquiescence, of a great many Irish representatives. It has been the standing complaint of the League organs, of late, that even in the divisions on the new Bill, the Irish vote against Coercion has repeatedly not exceeded twenty; that is to say, four-fifths of the Irish members have refused casting a vote against the Bill. The fact is all the more remarkable when we remember that, out of the 103 Irish representatives, sixty-four are reckoned in fact, or nominally, as Home Rulers. At a first glance, the claim of National Independence,' put forward by the Leaguers in the name of Ireland,' seems to suffer considerably from this characteristic circumstance. For a proof is furnished by this condition of the Irish vote' that, so long as there is decision shown on the part of Great Britain, and the Union kept up, even the majority of the Home Rulers in Parliament are loth to actively oppose an undoubtedly severe legislation against the perpetrators of atrocities or wouldbe secessionists.

But what would be the probable result if Great Britain once bent the knee before those who are in the vanguard of the movement for disintegration and independence, by conceding them a separate Legislature at Dublin?

Elected under a system of League terror, that Parliament would become the centre of attraction for all that is hostile to England. In case of a European or Eastern war (to speak in the Irishman's' language of the future), such a Legislature might say to a foreign