The sun., 1901-11-07

Act OF Union between Great Britain
and Ireland, omitted in Article ~.
One might as well ask why the framen
Of Article ". did not copy the CORE
spending article Of the Act Of Unior
between England and Scotland, which
prescribes minimum by providing
that no fewer than 45 Scottish members
shall sit in the House Of Commons al
Westminster. The answer Is that 9
fixed minimum was deemed necessary
| for Scotland, which at the beginning
of the eighteenth century was very
poor and thinly peopled. and had
| good reason TO expect that England
would increase in both population and
wealth at far greater rate. In Ireland
on the other hand, at the close Of the
| eighteenth century, the population was
so considerable, and was increasing SO
| rapidly that the number of members
| conceded to her-lO0-was looked upon
as absurdly small, and nobody dreamed
that the number could ever be sub
iected 10 reduction. II is not customary
TO take precautions against presumed
III lItb-iOJD
that the 100 members conceded to Ire
land should be declared an irreducble
minimum would have been thought
ludicrously superfiuous. In 1900 the
population Of Ireland relative to that Of
England would have entitled the former
country TO more than 200 members.
in the early '4Os O'CoNNELL calculated
that the relative population of Ireland
at that time entitled her to 29l members.
As lately as 1873 ISAAC BUTTS showed
that. if the 85S members then constitut-
ing the House of Commons were appor-
toned to population. Ireland would be
entitled to ll2 members and fraction
of one member
The Irish opponents Of a reduction in
Irelands representation hold, as we
have often pointed out, that the Act Of
Union between Great Britain and Ire
land was a compact, and that, like other
compacts it can be lawfully broken only
with the consent Of both parties. They
hold. further, that the expression of Ire
lands consent requires tho vote OF a
majority of her delegation in the House
of Commons at Westminster just as.
before the Union, it required the vote of
a majority Of the House of Commons
at Dublin.
There are Englishmen, however, who
will resist Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN proposal
on other grounds. They assume that the
Imperial Parliament has a Constitutional
right to modify the Act of Cniorhetween
Great Britain and Ireland in any particu-
lar. without reference to the position
taken by "A majority of lreland's delega-
ton. They insist, however, that TO eNer-
They recall the fact that England persis-
tently refused TO give Ireland a represen-
tatiun in Parliament proportoned to her
population. when the application Of such
rule would have given her far more than
100 members, and, in view OF that fact,
they denounce the proposal TO apply
such rule 10 Ireland. the moment il
tells against her. Touching upon this
point in 1884, Mr.. GLADSTONE called to
mind that in 1882 Ireland had three
tenths of the population Of the United
Kingdom. vet the Reform act Of that
wear gave her considerably less than
onc-sixth of the representation. Il
would say this" he added, that those
who have been niggardly and unjust
in former times must he very cautious.
when they come to plead in their own
behalf for the strlctest application OF
laws of which they might, indeed, have
claimed the strictest application, had
they never deviated from them them
selves Mr.. JOHN MORLEY speak
ing in the year last named. put his OBJ
lection to the reduction Of Ireland's
weight AZ Westminster on still other
grounds: Ireland" he said rs
entitled n exceptional representation,
not so much on the score Of geograph-
ical distance ~ on that Of mora. distance,
and the disadvantage under which her
members labored from the ignorance
and prejudice Of Euglishmen about them,
arising out 81 difference IN race and
religion" Mr. MORLEY also contended
that. a. Ireland was under disadvan-
tage ia the upper huuse Ireland can
send bat - Irish peer 10 the House of
Lord there Was less reason to object
10 her having an excess 81 representa-
ton ln the elective branch