43] IIEP011T OF SPECIAL COMMISSION f>3l
injure you, be more powerful to effect injury to your Imperial interests than she is at present ? If you concede to her people the power to work out their own future, to make themselves happy and prosperous, how do you make yourselves weaker to withstand wrongdoing against yourselves? Will not your physical capacity be the same as it is now? Will you not still have your troops in the country ? Will you not still have all the power of the Empire ? . . . In what way do we make you weaker ? In what way shall we be stronger to injure you ? What soldiers shall wo have? What armed policemen shall we have? What cannon shall we have? What ningle means shall we have, beyond the constitution, that wo have not now, to work you injury? 'l
On November C212 the Special CoimuiHKion held its last sitting; on February 13, 1890, the report was made,
On that evening Parnoll and Mr. Cunyngliame had the following conversation in the Lobby of the House of Commons.
ParnelL * Can you tell me some of the conclusions ?'
Mr, Cunynffhame. * Well, 1 think 1 might do this provided it IB understood they are for your own oar only, and that you will not quote me.1
1 The proposal to present Parnell with the freedom of Edinburgh led to much controversy in that city. The vote wai ehalhmgtid three timea in the Council, but wan finally carried by a majority of 22, the whole Council numbering 41 member*. Afterwards there wan a plebiscite of the inhabitants, the question submitted being: * Do you wiwh Mr. Parnell to receive the honour of the freedom of the city of Edinburgh ? ' 21,014 rtplles were received, of which 17,813 were in the negative and 8,201 in the affirmative. Thug Parnell received the freedom of the* city, though according to the plebiscite there was a majority of the citi/.etm againttt it.—4nni*aJ Regbtcr, 18H9, p. 101.to anil in mtr