to a solidus. The winner at dice had no legal remedy for his winnings, and the loser could sue the winner or his heirs for the sum lost, even after the ordinary period of limitation.* JAMES WILLIAMS. II. CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL FEDERATION. Even THERE is an old proverb about giving a dog a bad name, and perhaps Home Rule, as it is called, is no bad instance of the consequences which frequently ensue. For the expression is capable of an infinite variety of meanings, applications, and constructions, and scarcely any two persons use it in exactly the same sense. within the ranks of the so-called Home Rule party in the House of Commons, there seem to be certain nuances indicative of differences of opinion, and outside the House the variations are almost endless. It has long been the custom to associate the name with one particular phase of it, that which concerns Ireland. But signs are not wanting that the question is one of far wider, or, as the phrase goes, more Imperial concern. Having got it into our heads that somehow or other we are an Empire, we talk about Imperial interests, the Imperial Parliament, &c., and even about something which is called, by some odd mental process which we have not yet succeeded in fathoming, Imperial Federation. It may perhaps be conceded that Home Rule, whatever it may mean, and that is a subject of much doubt and * Cod. iii., 45. For further information on the subject of this article the reader is referred to Professor Friedländer's Darstellung aus der Sittengeschichte difficulty, is the contradictory of this Imperialism of which we also hear so much. Each is asserted by its supporters to be the supreme necessity of the day in British Politics. If any difference may be traced between the two, in the matter of self-assertion, the greater amount of violence seems to lie at the door of some of the supporters of Home Rule. Yet it is difficult always to distinguish clearly between the Imperialistic Home Rule, if we may give it such a name, of our valued friend, Mr. Alexander Robertson, so as to be able to say at once, "This is the sound Constitutional, Imperialistic, Home Rule," and the various schemes which have been put forward as the only panacea for Irish detestation of English rule, or for the grievances of Scotland and the Tithe-pig agitation of "gallant Wales." Will any of these schemes really succeed in giving Peace to Ireland, or satisfaction to Scotland and Wales? Or will they be only the beginning of the end as regards the Union? Of course we know that Conservative or Imperialistic Home Rulers will be scandalised at the mere suggestion that their pet project can possibly have any disintegrating tendency. They do not intend it so, we grant, but can they answer for the movement which they are helping to initiate remaining under their control? We doubt this much, and we are not of opinion that all the suggestions even of so-called Conservative Home Rulers are within the limits of the Constitution. "We must have decentralization," says Mr. Robertson,* and some form of Home Rule for England, Scotland, and Ireland." This postulate being granted, for argument's sake at any rate, it is obviously necessary to enquire what form of Home Rule is supposed to be the best, or the best available at the present time. *Political Addresses on Home, Irish, and Colonial Affairs, &c. By ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Dundee. Winter and to a solidus. The winner at dice had no legal remedy for his winnings, and the loser could sue the winner or his heirs for the sum lost, even after the ordinary period of limitation.* JAMES WILLIAMS. II. CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL FEDERATION. THERE is an old proverb about giving a dog a bad name, and perhaps Home Rule, as it is called, is no bad instance of the consequences which frequently ensue. For the expression is capable of an infinite variety of meanings, applications, and constructions, and scarcely any two persons use it in exactly the same sense. Even within the ranks of the so-called Home Rule party in the House of Commons, there seem to be certain nuances indicative of differences of opinion, and outside the House the variations are almost endless. It has long been the custom to associate the name with one particular phase of it, that which concerns Ireland. But signs are not wanting that the question is one of far wider, or, as the phrase goes, more Imperial concern. Having got it into our heads that somehow or other we are an Empire, we talk about Imperial interests, the Imperial Parliament, &c., and even about something which is called, by some odd mental process which we have not yet succeeded in fathoming, Imperial Federation. It may perhaps be conceded that Home Rule, whatever it may mean, and that is a subject of much doubt and *Cod. iii., 45. For further information on the subject of this article the reader is referred to Professor Friedländer's Darstellung aus der Sittengeschichte difficulty, is the contradictory of this Imperialism of which we also hear so much. Each is asserted by its supporters to be the supreme necessity of the day in British Politics. If any difference may be traced between the two, in the matter of self-assertion, the greater amount of violence seems to lie at the door of some of the supporters of Home Rule. Yet it is difficult always to distinguish clearly between the Imperialistic Home Rule, if we may give it such a name, of our valued friend, Mr. Alexander Robertson, so as to be able to say at once, "This is the sound Constitutional, Imperialistic, Home Rule," and the various schemes which have been put forward as the only panacea for Irish detestation of English rule, or for the grievances of Scotland and the Tithe-pig agitation of "gallant Wales." Will any of these schemes really succeed in giving Peace to Ireland, or satisfaction to Scotland and Wales? Or will they be only the beginning of the end as regards the Union? Of course we know that Conservative or Imperialistic Home Rulers will be scandalised at the mere suggestion that their pet project can possibly have any disintegrating tendency. They do not intend it so, we grant, but can they answer for the movement which they are helping to initiate remaining under their control? We doubt this much, and we are not of opinion that all the suggestions even of so-called Conservative Home Rulers are within the limits of the Constitution. "We must have decentralization," says Mr. Robertson,* and some form of Home Rule for England, Scotland, and Ireland." This postulate being granted, for argument's sake at any rate, it is obviously necessary to enquire what form of Home Rule is supposed to be the best, or the best available at the present time. *Political Addresses on Home, Irish, and Colonial Affairs, &c. By ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Dundee. Winter and "Possibly," Mr. Robertson suggests, "the solution will be found in having one Legislative Assembly for each country, and one Imperial Parliament for the Empire" (op. cit., p. 89); yet a little further on (p. 105), Mr. Robertson says that he is "in favour of three separate and independent national Parliaments for England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of an Imperial Parliament over all, and of each Parliament being composed of two Houses rather than of one House." There have been times when Mr. Robertson has appeared to be a champion of the One Chamber system. We are glad to find him saying now that "in a democratic country such as ours," he is in favour of two Houses, "in order to provide safeguards against thoughtless, dangerous, or sudden modifications in our constitutional form of Government." This is a danger which perhaps we are apt to underrate, but it is nevertheless a real one, perhaps more real than we think. We often speak with contempt of a "Paper Constitution," and no doubt a Paper Constitution may be abrogated quite against the real will of the People. But there is at least this to be said in its favour that, while it lasts, it is a Document, which all the world can read, and its destruction must be patent to everybody, aliens and subjects alike. King Bomba, of Neapolitan Paper Constitution fame, no doubt gave a Paper Constitution, and then, suddenly getting the upper hand, imprisoned or drove into exile those of his subjects who had been credulous enough to take office under it. But these doings of Bomba were made patent to Europe by the very fact of the Constitution having been put on record on paper, so that all the world could gauge the depth of the King's insincerity and appreciate his character at its true value. Our Constitution, on the other hand, is so largely an unwritten one that, as Mr. Robertson justly remarks (op. cit., |
