drilling.
The men thus trained and drilled could not, I conceive, technically
be made a volunteer force, but they might, for all that, be a very
dangerous armed body.

2. It is not certain what is the real effect of the provisions
whereby no 'person may be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law.' Does it, for example, preserve a right
to trial by jury? I doubt whether it does. American judgments on
the same words in United States Constitution, Amendments, art. 14,
would of course have no legal authority in the United Kingdom, and
there is a special reason why they often could not be followed. No
process would (it is submitted) be considered in an Irish or
British Court as not a 'due' process, for which a parallel could be
found in the legislation of the Imperial Parliament. But the
Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882, sec. 1, to instance no
other enactment, took away the right to trial by jury in cases of
trial for treason, murder, etc.

3. Private property might still in fact be taken without just
compensation. The Privy Council would not apparently have to
consider whether in any given case property was taken without just
compensation, but whether a particular law was a law whereby it
might be taken without just compensation. Suppose, for example, Sir
James Mathew and the commissioners who sat with him were
constituted by an Irish Act a Court for determining what
compensation should be given for the taking of certain property for
public use, and the Act itself provided that just compensation must
be given. It is very doubtful how far the Privy Council could treat
the Act as invalid, or could in any way enter upon the question
whether just compensation had been given. Yet it is plain that such
a Court might give very far from just compensation, say to Lord
Clanricarde.

[71] Constitution, art. i sect. 10.

[72] See Mr. J. Morley, April 18, 1893, _Times Parl. Deb._, p. 500.

[73] See Bill, clause 5, sub-clause (3). The language of this clause
disposes of the contention put forward by at least one Gladstonian
candidate at the last general election [_i.e._ of 1892], that the veto
must of necessity be exercised under the control of the British Cabinet;
an arrangement too futile for an ardent Gladstonian to contemplate as
possible is there