frankly that when we entered Parliament we knew less about the Irish question than we ought to have known, and that even after knowledge had been forced upon us, we were more deferential to our leaders than was good either for us or for them.  But these are faults always chargeable on the great majority of members.  It is because those of whom I speak were in these respects fairly typical, that it seems worth while to trace the history of their opinions.  If any one should accuse me of attributing to an earlier year sentiments which began to appear in a later one, I can only reply that I am aware of this danger, as one which always besets those who recall their past states of mind, and that I have done my utmost to avoid it.

The change I have to describe was slow and gradual.  It was reluctant—­that is to say, it seemed rather forced upon us by the teaching of events than the work of our own minds.  Each session marked a further stage in it; and I therefore propose to examine its progress session by session.

Session of 1880.—­The General Election of 1880 turned mainly on the foreign policy of Lord Beaconsfield’s Government.  Few Liberal candidates said much about Ireland.  Absorbed in the Eastern and Afghan questions, they had not watched the progress of events in Ireland with the requisite care, nor realized the gravity of the crisis which was approaching.  They were anxious to do justice to Ireland, in the way of amending both the land laws and local government, but saw no reason for going further.  Nearly all of them refused, even when pressed by Irish electors in their constituencies, to promise to vote for that “parliamentary inquiry into the demand for Home Rule,” which was then propounded by those electors as a sort of test question.  We (i.e. the Liberal candidates of 1880) then declared that we thought an Irish Parliament would involve serious constitutional difficulties, and that we saw no reason why the Imperial Parliament should not do full justice to Ireland.  Little was said about Coercion.  Hopes were expressed that it would not be resorted to, but very few (if any) pledged themselves against it.

When Mr. Forster was appointed Irish Secretary in Mr. Gladstone’s Government which the General Election brought into power, we (by which I mean throughout the new Liberal members) were delighted.  We knew him to be conscientious, industrious, kind-hearted.  We believed him to be penetrating and judicious.  We applauded his conduct in not renewing the Coercion Act which Lord Beaconsfield’s Government had failed to renew before dissolving Parliament, and which indeed there was scarcely time left after the election to renew, a fact which did not save Mr. Forster from severe censure on the part of the Tories.