[4] For the constitution of Austria-Hungary see Ulbrich's _Oesterreich-Ungarn_ in Marquardsen's _Handbuch des Oeffentlichen Rechts_; Francis Deak, with preface by M.E. Grant Duff; Home Rule in Austria-Hungary, by David King, in the _Nineteenth Century_, January 1886, p. 35. [5] Ulbrich, pp. 15, 76, 77. [6] See Marquardsen, 28-30. [7] This is, in my judgment, true even of such federations as the United States or the Swiss confederacy. [8] Froude's 'English in Ireland,' vol. 3, pp. 581, 582. [9] See especially on this subject 1 De Beaumont, 'L'Irlande,' Partie Historique, pp. 15-207. [10] "On ne saurait considerer attentivement l'Irlande, etudier son histoire et ses revolutions, observer ses moeurs et analyser ses lois, sans reconnaitre que ses malheurs, auxquels ont concouru tant d'accidents funestes, ont eu et ont encore de nos jours, pour cause principale, une cause _premiere_, radicale, permanente; et qui domine toutes les autres; cette cause, c'est une mauvaise _aristocratie_." 1 De Beaumont, 'L'Irlande,' deuxieme partie, p. 228. The only objection which may be fairly taken to De Beaumont's language, though not to his essential meaning, is, that the words he uses occasionally suggest the idea that he attributes some special vice of nature, so to speak, to the landed classes in Ireland, whilst there is, of course, no reason to suppose that the original Norman invaders of Ireland were a whit worse than the Normans they left behind them in England, or that the Cromwellian settlers did not possess the virtues which distinguished Puritan soldiers. What De Beaumont really means is that the aristocracy, or landed gentry, have been from first to last placed in a false position, which has led to their exhibiting the vices, with few of the virtues, of aristocratic government. [11] Compare 1 De Beaumont, 'L'Irlande Sociale,' &c., pp. 253-256. [12] See Dicey, 'Law of the Constitution' (Second Edition), pp. 181-210; and compare 1 De Beaumont, 'L'Irlande Sociale,' &c., pp. 253-299. [13] Cromwell's reputation as a statesman suffers even more than that of most great men from the indiscriminating eulogy of admirers. The merit of his Irish policy was not his severity to Catholics, but his equity to Protestants. If he did not acknowledge the equality of man, he at any rate acknowledged what English statesmanship before and after his time refused to admit--the equality of Englishmen, at least when Protestants. His policy handed down to us a legacy of justifiable hatred on the part of Irish Catholics. But it is the fault not of the Protector, but of his successors, that his policy did not ensure to England the loyalty of every Protestant in Ireland. [14] The penal laws against the Catholics in England were as severe as those in Ireland. Their practical effect and working was however very different in the two countries. See 1 Lecky,'History of England,' pp. 268-310. [15] See Walpole, 'Short History of the Kingdom of Ireland,' p. 176.