Nationalists that their moment of authority must be used for
obtaining far greater privileges for Ireland than the extravagant
political power offered by Gladstonians in 1893? Is it not natural
for Home Rulers to think that the predominant partner ought to be
deprived of his predominance? The conduct of the Coalition and some
of its leaders points in this direction. They will have obtained
through the Parliament Act temporary, but strictly unlimited and
dictatorial, power. They will have obtained it by intrigue; they
have rejected and treated with scorn the idea of an appeal to the
people. They have claimed, not for Parliament but for the existing
House of Commons, an absolute legislative power superior to that of
the nation, a power which I assert with confidence is not possessed
by the elected Assemblies of the United States, or of the French
Republic, or of the Swiss Confederation: And by a strange
combination of circumstances one method for depriving the
predominant partner of legitimate authority may seem to a Home
Ruler to lie near at hand. Raise the cry of 'Home Rule all round,'
or of 'Federalise the British Empire.' Turn England into one State
of a great federation, let Wales be another, Scotland a third, the
Channel Islands a fourth, and for aught I know the Isle of Man a
fifth. Let the self-governing Colonies, and British India, send
deputies to the Imperial or Federal Parliament. You may thus for a
moment, under the pretence of uniting the Empire, not only divide
the United Kingdom, but deprive England or Great Britain, in form
at least, of that political supremacy and predominance which is the
real bond of union and peace not only throughout the United
Kingdom, but also throughout the length and breadth of the British
Empire. I do not tremble for the power--the lawful and legitimate
power--of England. Political devices, however crafty, break down
whenever they are opposed to the nature of things. I know that