Canning won the fight in his cabinet for the recognition of Spanish-American independence an act which he fondly hoped would make Spanish America "English,"38 and thus thwart the ambitions of the Republic of the West-he gave an intimate friend this exposé of his new American policy:

"The thing is done. The Yankees will shout in triumph; but it is they who lose most by our decision. The great danger of the time a danger which the policy of the European System would have fostered-was a division of the World into European and American, Republican and Monarchical; a league of wornout Govts. on the one hand, and of youthful and stirring Nations, with the U. States at their head, on the other. We slip in between; and plant ourselves in Mexico. The Un. States have gotten the start of us in vain; and we link once more America to Europe."39

The fortunes of Spanish America at this conjuncture were thus affected by various events: American, European, national, international. The rumor of armed intervention in Spanish America which reached statesmen of the New World was not entirely a hoax. The principle of non-intervention announced in Monroe's response was praised by many European journalists, while Canning and Châteaubriand protested against the principle of non-colonization. One or the other of these principles provoked the criticism of certain statesmen and editors at once. No contemporary suggestion has been found for the familiar name, "the Monroe Doctrine": it was called a "line of policy," a "doctrine"; Canning christened it "the new Doctrine of the President." Although this doctrine cooled the ardor of some advocates of an Hispanic congress, yet it did not banish from European minds all thoughts of interference under the sunny sky of South America. Even in its primitive form, the doctrine of Monroe suggested perplexing problems of interpretation to European journalists and publicists. In the opinion of the

* Stapleton, A. G., George Canning and his Times, 411.

Canning to Frere, January 8, 1825, in Festing, G., John Hookham Frere and his Friends, 267, 268. On “The Later American Policy of George Canning," see Temperley, H. W. V., in the American Historical Review, XI, 779–797.

writer, some historians have misunderstood or have overemphasized the contemporaneous influence of Monroe's message. For example, that declaration of policy did not necessarily influence in favor of the United States the negotiations pending in regard to the north-west coast of North America. Further, that declaration was only one of the forces which affected the new American family of states for good or evil. The influence which that pronunciamento exerted in favor of the autonomy of Spanish America in 1823 and 1824 often acted in common with other influences. It was affected by the growing consciousness that this magnificent empire had split into states which had virtually established their independence; naturally it was linked to the recognition of Spanish American independence by the United States; it could hardly be dissociated from the pervasive influence of England, which sprang from the "dear-bought glories of Trafalgar's day." America's Zeitgeist even awoke a spirit of apprehension or of antagonism in Europe: some publicists now conceived the United States to be a new weight cast into the scales of European politics; prominent statesmen had visions of menacing democracies in America, the New World ranged against the Old. Metternich and Canning even thought of encouraging monarchies in Latin America. This policy-which Canning hoped would prevent the hegemony of the United States in America-indicates the difficulty of drawing a demarcation line between Europe and America in an era distinguished by inter-hemispherical influences. While the doctrine announced by President Monroe under the particular circumstances which called forth its utterance was one of many influences acting for the autonomy of Spanish America, the notion that it was a dominant influence acting favorably to the destinies of the Hispanic states in America is erroneous.

NOTES ON CURRENT LEGISLATION.

EDITED BY HORACE E. FLACK.

The Government of Ireland (Home Rule) Bill. The Liberal government are pushing through Parliament at this session several measures of first-rate importance. The Unionists complain, indeed, that the program is altogether too ambitious for a single session; and the general indifference of the country, in the face of impending constitutional changes of the highest moment, would seem to indicate that popular interest has been palled by a surfeit of radical measures. Time not sufficing in the regular session, even with the expeditious method of "closure by compartments," to accomplish the passage through the House of Commons of the bills which the Government has introduced, a special autumn session has become necessary and, after adjourning on August 7, Parliament reconvened October 7, and will sit until shortly before Christmas. The three chief measures, all involving constitutional changes of primary importance, which are occupying the attention of the House of Commons are the Government of Ireland bill, the Welsh Church Disestablishment bill, and the Franchise and Registration bill. This note is devoted to a discussion of the first of these.

The third Home Rule bill was introduced into the House of Commons by the prime minister on April 11, in a long and able speech in which he outlined clearly the content and effect of its several clauses. A study of the provisions of this important measure naturally suggests comparison with the Gladstonian Home Rule bills of 1886 and 1893, and with the ill-fated Irish Council bill of 1907.

The first Home Rule bill (though Mr. Gladstone never admitted this) would have virtually repealed the Act of Union and have re-established the status existing in the eighteenth century. A Legislature consisting of two "orders" was to be set up in Dublin,-the one to consist of 28 representative peers together with 75 elected members chosen under a high pecuniary qualification; the other to be made up of the 103 existing members of Parliament, re-enforced by 101 others chosen by all the Irish constituencies except Trinity College. The two orders were to sit together, but either could demand separate voting on any measure, when the concurrence of both was neces

sary for its passage. An independent Irish Executive, subject of course to the Crown, but responsible to the Irish Legislature, was to be established. Ireland was to be left totally unrepresented in Parliament at Westminster. Imperial questions, those relating to the Crown, the army, the navy, foreign and colonial affairs, trade and navigation, the Post Office, coinage, weights and measures, and copyrights were not to come within the competence of the Irish Legislature, and the Customs Union with Great Britain was to be maintained. The Protestant minority was to be safeguarded by forbidding the establishment or endowment of any religious denomination. For two years the control of the constabulary was to be controlled by the Imperial Parliament, after which it was to pass over to the Irish Legislature. Ireland was to contribute from one-twelfth to onefifteenth of the cost of imperial burdens, instead of two-seventeenths as had been arranged at the Union. To secure this the imperial government retained the control over customs and excise duties. In all other respects the Irish Legislature was made absolutely independent and was given a completely free hand. This bill was defeated in the House of Commons by the secession of the Liberal Unionists.

The second Home Rule bill, which passed the House of Commons but was rejected by the House of Lords in 1893, provided for an independent bicameral Irish Parliament. Both chambers were to be elective, but by different constituencies. Only those rated at £20 could vote for members of the Legislative Council, a body of 48 members, while the Legislative Assembly, 103 in number, was to be elected by the existing constituencies. If the two houses disagreed on important questions they could be summoned to meet in joint session and the decision reached by this body was final. An appeal to the Privy Council could be taken against any act of the Irish Parliament which overstepped its constitutional rights. The Irish Executive was to consist of a Viceroy appointed for six years, irrespective of religion or party, and an executive committee of the Irish Privy Council which was to act as his cabinet. The Viceroy was to have a veto on all Irish bills, subject to the sanction of the sovereign and the advice of his cabinet. The financial arrangements of the first bill were modified, and for the payment of a definite lump sum by Ireland, which bore to some minds the aspect of a tribute, was to be substituted a quota of between four and five per cent of the whole revenues of the three kingdoms. The most significant difference from the first bill was found in the provision that Ireland

was to continue to be represented in the Parliament of Great Britain by 80 members, who should, however, participate in its deliberations only when imperial or Irish questions were under consideration.

The Irish Council bill, which was introduced by Mr. Birrell on May 7, 1907, did not embody an attempt to establish legislative home rule for Ireland. Its purpose was far less ambitious, being confined to a scheme of administrative "devolution." The powers of the House of Commons were left untouched and no legislative or taxing powers were conferred by the bill. Eight of the most important of the forty-five boards and departments of the administration in Ireland, viz., the Local Government Board, the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, the Congested Districts Board, the Commissioners of Public Works, the Commissioners of National Education, the Intermediate Education Board, the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Department, and the Registrar General's Office, were to be put under the control of a central Representative Council, consisting of 82 elected and 24 nominated members. The Irish Chief Secretary was to be admitted to its deliberations but not given a vote. The elected members were to be chosen by the voters on the Local Government register. The nominated members were to be appointed in first instance by the Crown, afterward by the Lord Lieutenant. Complete control over the administration of the eight departments was accorded to this Council, but the Lord Lieutenant should retain a certain power of reserving any resolution which it might pass. The bill also provided for a special Irish fund, and looked toward the establishment, by order in council, of a separate Irish Treasury. To the Council was to be handed over the moneys now spent by the eight departments, and also a sum of £650,000 a year, a part of which was to be expended on public works. After passing the first reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 416 to 121, the bill was dropped by the Government on the unmistakable indications of dissatisfaction and disapproval by the great mass of the Irish people.

The bill which the House of Commons is at present considering reverts to the principle of thorough-going home rule. It consists of four parts dealing with the Legislative Power, the Executive, Finance, and the position of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament. It is stated as the purpose of the bill to confer real autonomy upon Ireland in regard to Irish concerns. To this end a Parliament is created, consisting of the King and two houses, the Irish Senate and the