triumph, if the leaders had the courage to seize it; for the government of the United Kingdom was at the mercy of the Irish party. Absolute and complete masters of the Parliamentary situation, they held in their hands the fate, not alone of the existing Ministry, but of subsequent Ministries. Only one word, and they could have forced the Government again to bring in a Home Rule Bill, or to retire; for the Government could not have existed a week without Irish support. There was, moreover, the greater inducement to act with vigour and decision then, because the pendulum of public opinion had not yet swung back against the Gladstonians, and the probabilities were that, at a general election at that time, neither Unionists nor Gladstonians would be returned with a sufficient majority to be independent of the Irish vote; so that after the election they would still have been the deciding power in the State. But in the hour of trial they were wanting. They failed to strike the blow which, to use an Irish phrase, would have liberated their country; they made 'the great refusal.' No specious reasoning, no vehement or indignant declamation can get over this one clear, unassailable, crushing fact. The soft appeals and promises of the Ministers, and the more definite assurance of a trumpery Evicted Tenants Bill-trumpery when compared with Home Rule-lulled them into inaction, and because of a vague indefinite promise they settled themselves down as mere voting items, the docile supporters of the Government.

Nor did they repent of their conduct, even when the Queen's Speech of 1895 again left out any mention of a Home Rule Bill. Again did the Irish party-or, to be more accurate, I should say the Irish party minus nine independent members-evince their content to sit still, and vote, and support the Government.

And as time goes on we find support merging into avowed alliance, and finally, that alliance being defended and gloried in! Just a month ago, a Conference of the Irish National League was held at Leeds. Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Dillon were there and spoke. Mr. McCarthy said:

Another objection that had been raised to their policy was that they had supported a weak Government which was unable to make its proposals effective. They had given their assistance to the Government in passing British measures, and their conduct in this respect was, he believed, dictated by good sense as much as by good feeling-by good feeling surely, because they owed some return to the British Liberal party and to the British masses for the services they had done for the cause of Ireland; good sense as well, because the increase of the forces of democracy in this country was an increase that made for the liberation of their country.

At a banquet in the evening, after the toasts 'Ireland a Nation' and Our Liberal Allies' had been drunk, Mr. Dillon said:

There was nothing which he was more proud of than the history of the last ten years, during which the Irish Parliamentary party had remained solidly and steadily

faithful to the alliance with the English Liberal party. That alliance with the Liberals had been an enormous step, and, as to those newcomers into the fray who would talk of breaking the alliance, he would treat their intelligence with contempt and scorn. . . . In his judgment, the present Government had done their best to obtain Home Rule for Ireland. The Liberals had been loyal to the compact [to give Home Rule], and the Irish Nationalists were bound to be loyal to it also, and to make allowances for the difficulties of the Liberals, and sink minor differences. .. The fact was that the policy of Mr. Gladstone still held the field.

...

It must be evident, even to the most superficial observer of political affairs, that the circumstances under which Parnell avowed his alliance with the Liberals, and those under which Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Dillon avow theirs, are totally different. In the former case, the Liberals were out of office and powerless. In the other case, the Liberals were in office, and could have again introduced the Home Rule Bill, had they been so minded. A policy, therefore, which was justifiable in Parnell's case, was absolutely futile in the other case. How futile is apparent from the fact that almost two years have passed since the rejection of the Home Rule Bill, and the Irish party are no nearer Home Rule than they were.

As a matter of fact, they are further off from it than ever. Circumstances have greatly changed with them. The one Irishman who could have led them to victory, and whose policy they departed from, lies in his grave in Ireland. The one great English statesman who might have persuaded the British people into conceding Home Rule has quitted for ever the political arena. Unless all political prophets are mistaken, all electoral portents misleading, the Unionist party will, whenever a general election takes place, be returned to power with a working majority independent of Irish support, indifferent to Irish opposition. For years, then, the Irish National party will be reduced to powerlessness; discredited in Ireland by want of success; obtaining ever-lessening support from across the Atlantic; the asserted necessity for Home Rule disproving itself more and more as time goes on; the British believers in the cause growing more and more indifferent.

'One more chance' for Ireland, the greatest, and, in all probability, the final chance, has happily, to use Parnell's words, been 'thrown away.'

And to the Irish, so far as any of them really care for Home Rule, the cruel part of it is, that the fatal blow to their hopes and national ambitions has been dealt by the hands of their own familiar friends, their own countrymen.

HENRY JEPHSON.

6

AN OBJECT-LESSON IN PAYMENT OF

MEMBERS'

PAYMENT of members of Parliament having now become one of the political questions of the day, it will be useful to investigate how such a system works in the self-governing colonies of Australia, where it has been in operation for a considerable period. Payment of members exists in many foreign countries, but the conditions of life are so different from ours that continental examples and experiences are naturally of very much less value than those obtainable from colonies inhabited only by our own race.

With the exception of the small but rapidly increasing colony of West Australia which only lately acquired self-government, all the colonies of Australia pay the members of the Lower House. In South Australia the Upper House is paid also. The amount varies; formerly the great colonies of Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria paid the same-viz. 300l. per annum-but financial difficulties have caused a reduction to 150l. in Queensland, and 240l. in Victoria. South Australia has remained the same-viz. 2001. The small colony of Tasmania has also been obliged to reduce its payment from 100l. to 751. New Zealand remains unchanged at 240l. In addition to money payment, members of both Houses have in all the colonies free railway travelling. In Tasmania they have also the power of franking letters and telegraphic messages. Payment of members of Parliament commenced at the following dates: Victoria, 1870; South Australia, 1872; New Zealand, 1884 (a system of payment for attendances had previously existed); Queensland, 1886; New South Wales, 1889; Tasmania, 1890.

The Parliaments of the different colonies are composed and elected as follows: New Zealand (population 672,265), Upper House, 46, nominated by Government in Council for seven years; Lower House, 74; manhood and womanhood suffrage. Tasmania (population 154,424), Upper House, 18, elected for six years, certain property qualifications required for electors; Lower House, 36, property qualifications also necessary. Queensland (population 432,299), Upper House, 37, nominated by Crown for life; Lower House, 72; manhood

suffrage, owners of certain property have an additional vote. New South Wales (population 1,223,370), Upper House, 73, nominated by Crown for life; Lower House, 141; manhood suffrage. Victoria (population 1,174,006), Upper House, 48; small property qualification necessary, one-third retire every two years; electors, 251. house-holders or certain educational standard; Lower House, 95; manhood suffrage. South Australia (population 341,978), Upper House, 24, one-third retire every three years; electors 251. householders; Lower House, 54; manhood suffrage. West Australia (population about 65,000), Upper House, 15, nominated by governor, will in future be elected; Lower House, 30; electors, 10l. householders; members of both Houses must own freehold estate, value 500l. or annual 501.

From the above it will be seen that Victoria has had greater experience as regards payment of members of Parliament than any other colony; it will therefore be useful to note what the effect has been in a country which had the greatest natural wealth and mental ability of any colony in the Empire, and to see what democracy, steadily becoming State Socialism, has brought about; but before doing so it will be well to state why it was considered necessary to commence payment of members in Victoria. From 1788, the date of the first settlement in Australia, up to 1851, the affairs of the different offshoots of the mother colony (known as New South Wales) were all administered from its capital, Sydney; the discovery, however, of the immense resources of Victoria (then designated Australia Felix), about the year 1840 and onward, rapidly changed some of the hitherto uninhabited portions of the Australian continent into busy centres of human industry, but without railways or even roads to connect these places with the seat of government many hundreds of miles distant, it was in 1851 judged expedient to separate Victoria from the parent colony, and in 1855 self-government was granted her.

Subsequently, in 1859, the northern portion of New South Wales was formed into the colony of Queensland, with responsible govern-ment. Tasmania, formerly known as Van Diemen's Land, was detached from New South Wales in 1825, and given self-government in 1855.

New Zealand ceased to be a dependency of New South Wales in 1842, and obtained complete self-government in 1876.

The settlement of South Australia, formed by a company in 1836, was subsequently raised to the dignity of a colony and given selfgovernment in 1856.

The great gold-fields discovered in 1851 being principally in Victoria, that colony rapidly drew to itself a large portion of the energy and also of the commercial intellect of the rest of Australia, and notwithstanding the advantage which New South Wales possessed by

having the original capital at Sydney, with the finest deep-water harbour in the world at its very doors, and also the further advantage of being in the centre of the best coal-fields of the eastern hemisphere, Victoria soon produced a city on the shores of Hobson's Bay which in a few years surpassed in population and buildings the former mother city of Sydney.

With so many energetic, able men who had flocked to Victoria from all parts of the world, the formation of a really capable Parliament in 1855 was easy, but as the colony gradually extended beyond the gold-fields, the difficulty of getting men from the country districts before the railways were constructed had to be provided for. The representation of the country electorates was gradually falling into the hands of Melbourne men, some of whom were stated to be rather too anxious to lengthen the proceedings of paid commissions or committees. Hard-working farmers could not afford to give up so much of their time without some remuneration; and it was to repay what the country members were actually out of pocket that payment of members of Parliament was in 1870 first introduced. Had it been possible to restrict the payment to distant country members only, the present unsatisfactory state of affairs would have been avoided; unfortunately it was not foreseen that payment of members would induce men to enter Parliament simply for the sake of the money they obtained by so doing.

The question of the payment of members of Parliament had been discussed in Victoria for some years before 1870, and apparently thoroughly thrashed out in all its bearings. There were, seemingly, but few objectors to the scheme, and even what may be designated as the Conservative element was in its favour; the only fear was that too many loquacious lawyers might be induced to compete for seats. But after a very few years' experience the opinions of all thoughtful men who had the good of the colony at heart underwent a complete change, and there can be no better instruction on the subject of paid members than that to be obtained by a comparison of the Victorian newspapers of 1870, when the measure was first tried, with those of 1877, when the first attempt was made to make the payment of members permanent.

Had the Victorian Parliament in 1870 only given proper consideration to the parliamentary system of the United States, and the degraded position of the paid professional politician there, it is more than probable that Victoria would have avoided the introduction of a system which has been so prejudicial to her interests; but in those days American affairs were probably little thought of in Australia, and if we may judge by newspaper statements in this country, those people at home who have a financial interest in our great self-governing eastern colonies pay far too little regard to the political experiments which have been so pernicious to Australia, and which some