[ 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.