HOME RULE FOR IRELAND

The following is an extract from a speech delivered in the House of Commons, May 10, 1886. There had recently been a Parliamentary election on the issue of autonomy for Ireland, and the Liberal party had been returned to power with Gladstone at its head. In answer to accusations that he had formerly opposed this measure he declared that he had never in his life thought Home Rule "incompatible with imperial unity."

Two conditions have always been absolute and indispensable with me in regard to Home Rule. In the first place, it was absolutely necessary that it should be shown, by marks at once unequivocal and perfectly constitutional, to be the desire of the great mass of the population of Ireland; and I do not hesitate to say that that condition has never been absolutely and unequivocally fulfilled, in a manner to make its fulfillment undeniable, until the occasion of the recent election.

The second question is this: Is Home Rule a thing compatible or incompatible with the unity of the empire? Again and again, as may be in the recollection of Irish members, I have challenged, in this House and elsewhere, explanations upon the subject, in order that we might have clear knowledge of what it was they so veiled under the phrase, not exceptionable in itself, but still open to a multitude of interpretations. Well, that question was settled in my mind on the first night of the present session, when the honorable gentleman, the leader of what is termed the Nationalist party from Ireland, declared unequivocally that what he sought under the name of Home Rule was autonomy for Ireland. "Autonomy” is a name well known to European law and practice as importing, under a historical signification sufficiently definite for every practical purpose, the management and control of the affairs of the territory to which the word is applied, and as being perfectly compatible with the full maintenance of imperial unity. If any part of what I have said is open to challenge, it can be challenged by those who read my speeches, and I believe that what I have said now is the exact, literal, and absolute truth as to the state of the case.

What was the cry of those who resisted the concession of autonomy to Canada? It was the cry which has slept for a long time, and which has acquired vigor from sleeping, the cry of the unity of the empire. Well, sir, in my opinion the relation with Canada was one of very great danger to the unity of the empire at one time, but it was the remedy for the mischief and not the mischief itself which was regarded as dangerous to the unity of the empire. Here I contend that the cases are precisely parallel, and that there is danger to the unity of the empire in your relations with Ireland; but, unfortunately, while you are perfectly right in raising the cry, you are applying the cry and the denunciation to the remedy, whereas you ought to apply it to the mischief.

In those days what happened? In those days, habitually in this House, the mass of the people of Canada were denounced as rebels. Some of them were Protestants and of English and Scotch birth. The majority of them were Roman Catholic and of French extraction. The French rebelled. Was that because they were of French extraction and because they were Roman Catholics? No, sir; for the English of Upper Canada did exactly the same thing. Well, these subjects of her Majesty rebelled, were driven to rebellion and were put down. We were perfectly victorious over them, and what then happened? Directly the military victory was assured as Mr. Burke told the men of the day of the American War the moment the military victory was assured, the political difficulty began. Did they feel it? They felt it; they gave way to it. The victors were the vanquished, for if we were victors in the field we were vanquished in the arena of reason. We acknowledged that we were vanquished, and within two years gave complete autonomy to Canada. And now gentlemen have forgotten this great lesson of history. By saying that the case of Canada has no relation to the case of Ireland, I refer to that little sentence written by Sir Charles Duffy, who himself exhibits in his own person as vividly as anybody the transition from a discontented to a loyal subject. "Canada did not get Home Rule because she was loyal and friendly, but she has become loyal and friendly because she got Home Rule."

Now I come to another topic, and I wish to remind you as well as I can of the definition of the precise issue which is at the present moment placed before us. In the introduction of this bill I ventured to say that its object was to establish, by the authority of Parliament, a legislative body to sit in Dublin for the conduct of both legislation and administration under the conditions which may be prescribed by the act defining Irish as distinctive from imperial affairs. I laid down five, and five only, essential conditions which we deemed it to be necessary to observe. The first was the maintenance of the unity of the empire; the second was political equality; the third was the equitable distribution of imperial burdens; the fourth was the protection of minorities; and the fifth was that the measure which we proposed to Parliament should present the essential character and characteristics of a settlement of the question.

A question so defined for the establishment of a legislative body to have effective control of legislation and administration in Ireland for Irish affairs, and subject to those conditions about which, after all, there does not appear in principle to be much difference of opinion among us, - - that is the question on which the House is called to give a vote, as solemn and as important as almost, perhaps, any in the long and illustrious records of its history.

PATRICK HENRY

Patrick Henry (1736-1799), the "Forest-Born Demosthenes" of our early history, had his literary training in a private school in Virginia, under the personal direction of

his father and his uncle, both of whom were well versed in the classics. He was trained in the English branches, and had a pretty thorough course in Latin for that time. He could read Cicero and Virgil from the Latin, and was very fond of a translation of the writings of Livy, whose republican spirit greatly appealed to him. He was fond of history, especially that of Greece and Rome, and having a very tenacious memory, it was easy for him to remem

ber the incidents and details. But more attractive to him than literary pursuits were the haunts of nature. As a boy he would be away from home days at a time, hunting and fishing. He loved to be in the woods, on the mountains, along the streams of his native country. At such times he was deep in thought. What little he read was food for long-continued and deep reflection. In very truth, Henry was a self-made man.

Then, too, in his early manhood he became a great student of human nature. While clerking in a country store he had opportunity to meet and converse with those who came to trade, or to loiter about the place. It was here that he acquainted himself with the varied phases of the human intellect; here he learned how to touch the springs of passion. He would tell these people stories, always to delighted listeners; would get them into heated debates with one another; would note the effect of his own humor, pathos, and argument upon them. It was a school of discussion, a practical school of public speaking, like that in which, a century later, that other "forest-born" apostle of freedom, Abraham Lincoln, obtained his severest and best training. So deeply conversant with human nature did he become, and so fascinated with the study of men, that he once said to a friend who called his attention to certain new books, "Read men; they are the only volumes we can peruse to advantage." This knowledge of human nature and his ability to learn from those about him formed a great source of power in him as an orator. It was practical technique in oratory. It was conversational public speaking, the best basis of training.

Patrick Henry inherited oratorical talent. His uncle on his mother's side was William Winston, one of the most brilliant and effective political speakers of the day; and we are told that his mother was "eminently endowed with amiability, intelligence, and the fascinations of a graceful elocution."

Having failed as farmer and merchant, Henry, at the age of twenty-four, took to the study of law, and after a course of but six weeks was admitted to the bar. Here he found ample opportunity for development as a speaker. It was three years later that a suit known as "the Parson's Cause," in which the clergy were arrayed against the people, came up for trial.