[in consequence of this conflict] “forty-three acts of incendiarism, eleven assassinations, and seven agrarian outrages entailing capital punishment,” all within a limited part of Belgium.  See Parliamentary Reports on Tenure of Land in Countries of Europe, 1869, p. 118-123.  In Belgium decisive measures of punishment at last put an end to agrarian outrages.  What should be specially noted is that in France and Belgium crimes in character exactly resembling the agrarian outrages which take place in Ireland had, it is admitted, no connection whatever with national, or even it would seem with general political feeling.

[18] See 1 De Beaumont, ‘L’Irlande Sociale,’ &c., p. 251.

[19] 2 De Beaumont, ‘L’Irlande Sociale, Politique et Religeuse.’  Septieme edition, pp. 135 and 137.

[20] A Home Ruler may in this matter take up one position which is consistent.  He may say that England can allow to be carried out through the agency of an Irish Parliament a policy which no English Parliament could itself adopt.  To put the matter plainly, an English Parliament which cannot for very shame rob Irish landlords of their property may, it is suggested, create an Irish Parliament with authority to rob them.  This position is consistent, but it is disgraceful.  To ascribe it to a fair opponent would be gross controversial unfairness.

[21] A reader who wishes to see the American view put in its best and strongest form should read Mr. E.L.  Godkin’s article on “American Home Rule,” Nineteenth Century, June, 1886, p. 793.  I entirely disagree with the general conclusion to which the article is intended to lead, but I am anxious to acknowledge the importance of the information and the arguments which it contains.

[22] See pp. 87-89, ante.

[23] See ‘American Home Rule,’ Nineteenth Century, June, 1886, pp. 793, 803, 804.

[24] Nineteenth Century, June, 1886, p. 801.

[25] Contrast the Coercion Acts of 1881 and 1882 respectively.  For list of Coercion Acts see “Federal Union with Ireland,” by R.B.  O’Brian, Nineteenth Century, No. 107, p. 35.

[26] In England the Courts can change the venue for the trial of a criminal.  In Scotland the Lord Advocate can always (I am told) bring any case he chooses to trial before the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, and the same thing could be done by the Court on the application of the prisoner.  In Scotland, again, any Sheriff or Chief Magistrate of a Burgh could prohibit a meeting, however lawful, which he thought likely to endanger the peace.  The provisions of the last Irish Coercion Act, Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882, 45 & 46 Vict. c. 25, s. 16, giving power to a magistrate where an offence had been committed to summon and examine witnesses, even though no person is charged with the offence, formed, I believe, part of the draft criminal code for England.

[27] See for an admirable statement of this argument, “Alternative Policies in Ireland,” in the Nineteenth Century for February, 1886.