something would have to be put in its place; and when that point has been reached it will probably be seen that nothing much better or safer can be found than some plan on the main lines of Mr. Gladstone's Bill. FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 15: Speech at Manchester, May 7, 1886, by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who was a member of the Cabinet to which Mr. Chamberlain's scheme was submitted.] [Footnote 16: _Hansard_, vol. 220, pp. 708, 715.] [Footnote 17: _Considerations on Representative Government_, p. 281.] [Footnote 18: Dicey's _England's Case against Home Rule_, pp. 25-31, and Letter in _Spectator_ of September 17th, 1887.] [Footnote 19: From the beginning of 1880 till now there have been six Viceroys and ten Chief Secretaries in Dublin--namely, Duke of Marlborough, Earls Cowper and Spencer, Earls of Carnarvon and Aberdeen, and the Marquis of Londonderry; Mr. Lowther, Mr. Forster, Lord F. Cavendish, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Campbell Bannerman, Sir W. Hart Dyke, Mr. W.H. Smith, Mr. J. Morley, Sir M. Hicks-Beach, and Mr. A. Balfour. A fine example, truly, of stable government and continuous policy!] [Footnote 20: Creasy's _Imperial and Colonial Constitutions of the Britannic Empire,_ p. 155.] [Footnote 21: May's _Const. Hist._, i. 313.] [Footnote 22: Blackstone's _Commentaries_, by Stephen, ii. 491, 492, 497, 507.] [Footnote 23: We need not go far afield for illustrations. A few samples will suffice. "It was natural," says Mill (_Rep. Gov._, p. 311), "to feel strong doubts before trial had been made how such a provision [as the Supreme Court of the United States] would work; whether the tribunal would have the courage to exercise its constitutional power; if it did, whether it would exercise it wisely, and whether the Government would consent peaceably to its decision. The discussions on the American Constitution, before its final adoption, give evidence that these natural apprehensions were strongly felt; but they are now entirely quieted, since, during the two generations and more which have subsequently elapsed, nothing has occurred to verify them, though there have at times been disputes of considerable acrimony, and which became the badges of parties respecting the limits of the authority of the Federal and State Governments." The Austrian opponents of Home Rule in Hungary predicted that it would lead straight to separation. The opponents of the Canadian Constitution prophesied that Canada would in a few years be annexed to the United States; and Home Rule in Australia was believed by able statesmen to involve independence at an early date. Mr. Dicey himself tells us "that the wisest thinkers of the eighteenth century (including Burke) held that the independence of the American Colonies meant the irreparable ruin of Great Britain. There were apparently solid reasons for this belief: experience has proved it to be without foundation." The various changes in our own Constitution, and even in our Criminal Code, were believed by "men of light and leading"