will return from the excursion wholly uninjured, with increased reputation, and able to boast that he has done something which no other traveler has ever done.

(2) Over the details of the fisheries question in the waters to the northeast of the United States there had been quarrels since the treaty closing the Revolution. Aside from the justice or injustice of the issues in dispute, it was difficult to secure an adjustment between Great Britain and the United States because the former "stood as broker between the United States and Canada, and had great difficulty in managing their Canadian clients." As for the United States, Maine and Massachusetts were usually furthering circumstances that would make the importation of fish from Canada impossible, either by embargoes or tariffs. At this particular time "Blaine & Company" -- Republicans-- were trying to stir up anti-British feeling to win the Irish heart (the Irish vote). In spite of these handicaps, President Cleveland and his Secretary of State, T. F. Bayard (1828-1898), and the Salisbury ministry resolved upon an effort at conciliation. In the fall of 1887 a Fisheries Commission met in Washington; Joseph Chamberlain was the leader of the British delegation. In February 1888 Cleveland submitted the Bayard-Chamberlain Treaty to the Senate. Partisanship on the eve of the presidential election of 1888 contributed to its rejection by the Senate. In any case Chamberlain made the acquaintance of the American lady who became his wife.

has been the pioneer of liberty. The mother of nations must no longer stand before the world confessing that at her own doors, in a part of her own empire, she is unable to found just laws which commend themselves to the public sentiment of the governed. Home Rule is certain, and therefore I enter upon no disputed question when I venture to lay before you the phase of Home Rule which we have in America, hoping that when your bill is prepared, you may find some hints there which may be of use to you in solving this great and pressing question.

(3) Examples of eulogies to the Constitution are provided by Matthew Arnold, "A Word More about America," Nineteenth Century, XCVI (February, 1885), 219-236; E. A. Freeman, Some Impressions of the United States (1883), pp. 111-119, 134-137; A. V. Dicey, "Parliamentary Sovereignty and Federation," Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885), pp. 126-165; Sir Henry S. Maine, Popular Government, Four Essays (1886) pp. 196-254. This burst of interest in American institutions followed the British Reform Acts of 1881-2, in effect establishing universal manhood suffrage. British observers were interested in seeing how democracy worked. These were also days when a belief in the superiority of Anglo-Saxon culture touched academic circles on both sides of the Atlantic; English scholars consequently detected commendable similarities or even superiorities in American institutions. Finally, as American higher education attained status, the interchange of academic personnel across the Atlantic quickened; observations on the spot dispelled old misconceptions about the United States and revealed unsuspected merits in American institutions.

pages of eulogy which, as an American, my modesty will not permit me to repeat. I will, however, venture to quote from the leaders of your two parties, that you may see how they corroborate the views expressed by these writers.

words. The day after to-morrow there will assemble in the city of Philadelphia representatives from all parts of the United States, with the judges of the Supreme Court and the President at their head, to celebrate the centenary of the adoption of the Constitution.

(4) In mid-September 1887 a three-day civic celebration was held in Philadelphia to commemorate the centenary of the completion of the work of the Constitutional Convention.

business at night. I have sat a great deal in your House of Commons. It is largely a debating club for the display of vanity, and it is no longer a sober, thoughtful legislative chamber. It never will be, as long as its members consider that they give you a gentlemanly class that condescends to serve you in Parliament. Your legislators are always your masters here, but in America they are our paid servants.

viduals that you have been cursed with on your throne. Compare them, man for man, and see where you will land. This President nominates his Cabinet; but, mark you, not a man is a member of his Cabinet until the Senate says, "Approved." He may dismiss them, but when he nominates others, every new man must go through that ordeal before be becomes a member of the Cabinet.

all questions which either House requires, but they do not deliberate with the House, because the American people are most jealous of any interference between the legislative and the executive. Now, to regulate all the rights of these people, the Supreme Court, the object of Lord Salisbury's admiration, has been created. It consists of nine judges. They receive two thousand pounds a year each for their services, and the Chief Justice of the United States receives one hundred pounds more than his fellows. He passed through your country the year before last, the head of the American government in one sense, because the court is above the President, as it interprets the acts of Congress, and is the arbiter of the community. He passed along unnoticed. The aristocracy and the court paid no attention to the Chief Judge of the United States. That is very much to be wondered at, because Buffalo Bill had not then arrived. But when your Chief Justice visited America, he was received as became a man in his position. The President of the United States received him, the cities received him, and he was everywhere entertained in a manner which, I trust, some future day, the Chief Justice of the United States may experience when he visits this country when the democrats are in power.

ment, allow me to say that the Supreme Judges remain for life, subject to removal by the President and the Cabinet for misbehavior or inability to serve.

It dropped from a gray rock
Upon a messy stone.
(5) James Ballantine (1808-1877), Scottish poet.

America. "Established six road districts; voted one hundred dollars to build a bridge across the St. Joseph River and fifty dollars for bridging Nottawa Creek; voted fifty dollars for common schools." Ah, gentlemen, that is a vote! Fifty dollars! The first meeting of a few stragglers in the Western wilderness, and the first thing they do is to vote fifty dollars for common schools to educate all their children free of price. Now you are getting at the roots of democracy, gentlemen. But that meeting did another thing. It voted five dollars for wolf-scalps. That throws a great light upon the situation when the wolves were so numerous that they gave a pound premium for every scalp that was brought in. Well, now, that is a beautiful picture of Home Rule. There was no superior officer there. They made themselves and created themselves into a political community. It was universal suffrage - there was no privilege. I do not find anything about who Leon Haughtailing was, or where or when he was born, or who was his grandfather; he was elected, not because he was the richest man, but because his fellow-citizens thought him the best man at their command. That is the first meeting of the little township of six miles. By and by other settlers come into the neighborhood and form other squares; and they hold similar meetings, and they vote for common schools. In the course of time fifteen or twenty communities have been created, and they combine. They find that they have not good enough school accommodation for each township, and that they cannot have a court-house and all the provisions for government upon so small an area; and they say, Let fifteen or twenty of us townships combine and send representatives elected by universal suffrage in proportion to our population. A convention is created for the county, and they go forward and elect county officers in the manner in which they elected their township officers, and they elect their judges. And I have sufficient faith in the democracy to say, Give me the judge elected by the people. No community in America that has ever tried the experi-

ment has regretted it. I tell you the democracy is most interested in the purity of its judges. It is the poor man, the working-man, who is interested in his judges. And as all humanity has its bias, I tell you frankly that your gentlemen have the prejudices of the gentleman class, and your newly made baronets have the prejudices of the aristocracy worse than any old baronets, and your newly made lords are a disgrace to Mr. Gladstone. Well, the county goes forward - the second and larger circle of Home Rule. Observe, now, there is not what we might call a foreign element. There is no outside element, but all an outgrowth from the democracy itself. There is no divine right about it. It is a healthy, grand, glorious growth of the body politic itself. Very well, then; the county gets a little too small for their growing life. They want railroads, churches, halls. They want everything that a civilized people wants. They want everything that is good, and they get everything that is good, so far as human nature can get perfection. Twenty or thirty of these counties conclude that they will make a State, and they elect officers by a convention as in the case of townships and counties, and they meet and establish a capital, about the center of the proposed State generally. They elect a governor and a House of Representatives, and the State Legislature is composed of two houses, one called the House of Representatives, and the other called the State Senate. The word "Congress" is never used except when the national meeting at Washington is meant. The word "Congress" is sacred to the great central power, as I trust that in the great Home Rule Bill the word "Parliament" will be sacred to that great body which will meet at Westminster and attend to international affairs. Well, now, gentlemen, the State is born in that way. Every State has its own governor; it has its own militia, its own courts, and its own judges, and it manages its own taxation. It does everything that a State can do, everything that pertains to the State itself. That is a very, very broad platform of Home Rule; but the broader

you make the Home Rule principle, always provided that it is subordinate to the national or federal principle, the better for the rulers, and the better for the people themselves.

enough. You have very nearly an Empress now, and when you get an Emperor you can use "imperial," but I prefer "national." Well, it goes without saying that when two men ride a horse one must ride behind. There must be no mistake about the powers in the general government. I will not say whether the recent bill introduced was faulty or not in its expression of that power. Unionists may contend that it was, and they have the highest possible authority for thinking the words were unfortunately vague. But of this I have not the slightest doubt, that it never entered into the brain of any man that any assembly given to Ireland or Scotland would not have to bow before the national assembly -- the Parliament. The American Constitution provides this: "This Constitution, and the acts under it passed by the national government, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, are the supreme laws of the land, anything in the State laws or State constitutions to the contrary notwithstanding." And if I were called on to settle the Home Rule question, that is the language I would put into the new bill. Mind you, that power being there, it has never to be exercised. It has only been exercised once in a hundred years upon an important issue, and that issue was one which no human constitution, nor all the human powers on earth, could have averted. The man or nation that tries to bind together in harmonious development freedom and human slavery has attempted the impossible, and when the great democratic forces came face to face, in the development of that country, with the slave power, which disputed its rights, one or the other had to fall; and you know which one fell. You might as well try to bind democracy and privilege. The two are antagonistic forces; and I believe the "Scotsman" newspaper of the 16th of August, in an editorial on the Northwich election, used the most significant words I have heard since I took up my residence among you. "Democracy means" -- I quote the "Scotsman" - "Democracy means, and rightly means, that privilege shall cease."

15. Well, now, after what had been said about the supremacy of the national government, I ask any Unionist here to consider in his mind to-night whether he has the shadow of a fear that that will not be provided for in the new bill. Has not Mr. Gladstone said, "All parliaments, all assemblies, with statutory powers, are necessarily subordinate to their creator, and I have no objection to name the delegated powers." Now, then, when he names the delegated powers, he will follow the American Constitution.

friends here what I thought was the weak point in that bill. But, gentlemen, I thought I could do most good within the party. I have known what Mr. Gladstone has already done. There is no man living can carry reforms as he can, and if his life be spared, he will, I am satisfied, - I will not say I am satisfied; I know, because he has said it, that he will, -- deal with this question without touching the question of Irish representation.

stand each other better than they have hitherto done. The question of Ulster will settle itself. Left to a plebiscite of the Ulster people, you will hardly find a man that will not say, "Let us go with our country"; and I would not respect the man that did not say so, were he a hundred times a Protestant of the Protestants. That is not the Protestant religion. It is founded on private judgment and free thought, and the Irish Protestants have much to learn yet as to the fundamental principles of the faith of which they would boldly stand forth as the main adherents.

was no resisting such an appeal, and Clay was reelected by the greatest majority he ever received. Now, admitting all that the most conscientious or contentious Unionist has to say, I think if he has much of human nature in him, much of gratitude for past services, much of admiration for the noblest political career, he will pick up that old rifle -- Gladstone. Just let the old man have another shot.

(6) Gladstone, at the age of eighty-three, won "another shot" in the election of 1892. He got Home Rule by the Commons, but the Lords defeated it. In 1895 the Conservatives under Salisbury returned to power.

retained. It is not likely a good judge would be dismissed. Therefore I think the Irish executive would take over the Irish judges. It is a prima facie case that a judge is a good judge unless he can be proved bad. It will be for the Irish executive to reappoint or choose their own judges. What I want to point out to you is that if you pay regard to the lesson of Home Rule in America, you will allow the Irish Assembly to appoint Irish judges and to determine Irish affairs; and you will hold, of course, through the delegated powers, the right, in any issues of an international character, to appeal from these courts to the imperial power, such an appeal as every Scotchman has now to the judicial lords of the House of Lords. Now, that would settle the judicial question; but if you are going to give Ireland Home Rule, and withhold from her or from Scotland, when she gets Home Rule, as I trust she soon will, the control of the highest function, and the very essential of all government, - namely, the right to execute justice and administer the laws among her own citizens, - you are going to give them a mockery; you are going to play "Hamlet" with Hamlet left out, and you will have the Irish question upon you again and again in worse forms than it is now.

(7) A reference to the famous story of the young Pole, tied naked to the back of a wild horse by the jealous husband of the lady with whom he had an intrigue. Among various literary treatments, that of Byron's Mazeppa is perhaps the best known.

political functions - the administration of law and the maintenance of peace and order. So says the American Constitution.

(8) 0ne means of pacifying Irish discontent had been the Gladstonian effort to make more just the arrangements under which Irish tenants held land. These tenants often held their land "at will," subject to six months notice; their rent, a "rack rent," was fixed by competitive bidding, and if evicted from their holdings they received no compensation for improvements or compelled landlords to pay for improvements if tenants were evicted through no fault of their own. Parnell and the Irish Land League agitated for fixity of tenure, fair rent set by the courts, and free sale by tenants of their interests to other tenants. Gladstone's Land Act of 1881 granted these three F's. In 1885 Parliament passed an act for state assistance to land purchases by tenants; the aim was a peasant proprietary.

When self the wavering balance shakes,
It's rarely richt adjusted.
(9) Robert Burns, "Epistle to a Young Friend, May, 1788," stanza 3.

Parliament are interested in land, and there is that tone in society which seems to say that property in land is different from property in everything else, because for hundreds of years the land has been held up by infamous laws to maintain a class of people who, if left to the free competition of economic forces, would go down in the struggle for existence.

taken your literature, your laws; they have taken your language, and if you would take from America everything that America has to give you, or everything that America ever will have to give you, there would remain a huge, incalculable balance yet left in favor of the parent land. Why should you not take things from your child if you know they are for your good? But your own colony of Canada has practically the same Constitution, as far as Home Rule is concerned. If there be any man who forgets that America is your own child, let him look to Canada - she is practically the same. Do you think that the English-speaking race throughout the world, with the same language, the same traditions, - because all Americans claim your traditions, with the same literature, with the same religion - do you think that it is in the power of man to prevent all English speaking people ultimately from having the same political institutions? I will not venture to say what the political institutions of the English race may be in the future. It may be that the "Scotsman" is right, and that democracy means that privilege shall die, and it may be that all English-speaking people will range themselves together upon a platform which develops the extremest rights of man, and the political equality of the citizen. That is possible. It may be possible, on the other hand, you may say, that the majority of the English-speaking race will turn its back upon this advanced political development, and, seeking out some prince, will go back and make him a perpetual king, and make his children kings hereafter, whether they be fools or idiots or not, and spend hundreds of thousands of their hard-won earnings every year to support the entire brood in vulgar riot and ostentation; and it may be that we will create another aristocracy, and that I shall so far forget myself and my lineage, as the direct descendant of weavers and shoemakers - glorious Radicals some of them have been, who have gone to jail just for attending such a meeting as was interrupted in Ireland the other day! - it may be that I will forget that and parade before you as a baronet. Then you will say, “We

don't know how we will treat Mr. Carnegie coming to visit us; he is not a nobleman, and he has ceased to be a gentleman." But whatever be the system of political institutions adopted in the future, - you may have it either way, - one point I venture to stand by, and that is that the English-speaking race throughout the world is to have the same institutions. If you can adopt some of the provisions of the American Constitution for this emergency, you will have hastened by so much the day when your institutions shall be the same as the institutions of the English-speaking race. How long will it take after that assimilation is perfected before we have a federal council that will forever render it impossible that the blood of the English-speaking man can be shed by English-speaking man? Where lies your greatest hope that your own race, the dominant power of the world, shall coalesce and form a union against which nothing on earth shall stand? In the assimilation of your institutions. There lies the point. And where is the hope of that great day which the poet sings of

When the drum shall beat no longer, when the battle-flags are furled,
In the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World?
(10) See Essay VIII, note 7.