[ 11] 
But the number and influence of militant Sinn 
Feiners, though it has been increased by the un- 
merciful severity with which the Dublin Rising was 
revenged, is negligible in comparison with the 
number of constitutional Home Rulers. Irishmen 
are shrewd enough to realise that an Irish Republic 
and complete separation from England is impossible; 
England could no more be expected to consent to 
the secession of Ireland than America to the secession 
of the Southern States, and no reasonable Irishman 
could expect to defeat the military and naval powers 
of Great Britain. By an overwhelming majority the 
representative bodies in Ireland have rejected the 
unpracticable policy of Count Plunkett involving 
the complete severance of Ireland from the Empire 
—the elections in Roscommon and Longford are 
of no real political importance. Grattan, Flood, 
O'Connell and Parnell all repudiated the suggestion 
of such severance. It was one of the fundamental 
propositions in Grattan’s famous address, 16th April, 
1782, that the “Crown of Ireland is inseparably 
annexed to the Crown of Great Britain.”—(Irish 
Debates, Vol. L., p. 337). Whoever “wears the Crown 
of England also wears the Imperial Crown of Ireland,” 
declared Flood—(Irish Debates, Vol. I, p. 452). 
Throughout O’Connell’s long agitation for Repeal of 
the Union he insisted on the retention of “the golden 
link of the Crown.” “The King de facto in England,” 
he declared, “is the King de jure in Ireland.” 
Parnell accepted Home Rule as a satisfactory 
settlement of Ireland’s claims. Only fanatics or 
factionists believe, or pretend to believe, in the possi- 
bility of a complete severance of the British connec- 
tion. Even Count Plunkett himself is a very recent 
convert to the separatist policy. A little more than 
a year ago he had no objection to the British con- 
nection when he was pressing his claims to the 
position of Under-Secretary at the Castle.