Nothing, again, is plainer in the conduct of controversies between man and man, than that if _A._ intends to exact his full legal rights from _B._, the most irritating defence of _A.'s_ conduct is his pretence of acting solely with a view to _B.'s_ own good; and that, on the other hand, no manner of enforcing _A.'s_ claims against _B._ causes so little unnecessary vexation to _B._ as for _A._ to say openly that he demands his rights because they are his rights, and because to demand them is his interest.

Here, if nowhere else, the rules which apply to private disputes apply also to political controversies.

If millions of Englishmen refuse a request made by millions of Irishmen, by far the least irritating form of refusal is open avowal that the reason for denying a separate Parliament to Ireland is the irreparable injury which Home Rule will work both to Great Britain and to the British Empire.
This assertion has the merit, which even in politics is not small, of truth.

If the Parliamentary independence of Ireland threatened as little damage to England as the Parliamentary independence of Victoria, an Irish legislature would meet in Dublin before the end of the year.
Englishmen, it is true, do not believe that Ireland would in the long run gain by the possession of legislative independence.

It is not, however, the doubt as to the reality of the blessing to be conferred on Ireland, but the certainty as to the injury to be done to England, which causes their opposition to Home Rule.