The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-08-14

ing tho next forty-hve years the popu-
laton OF Ireland about doubled, yet her
representation at Westminster has never
been increased beyond 1903. That the
number 100 should DO regarded as a
minimum, irreducible except with the
consent Of both parties to the compact,
seems evident from the fact that in
1882. when the population Of the sister
island had been already signally aug
mented, the British Parliament refused
to increase the representation Of Ireland,
on the express ground that the represent
tation had been irrevocably fixed by the
Act OF Union. 1t never occurred to
anybody at that date to say. what Mr..
PoRRITT now AYERS, that the Irish people
may be mulcted OF part Of the sorry
price paid for their loss Of self-govern-
ment, because they had the misfortune
it certainly was not their fault-to be
misrepresented at Dublin In l799-ls00
by lot Of grafters. 1t never occurred
in 1882 to the British Ministers, who
had inherited the profits of CASTLE
REAGH's corrupt bargain, to announce
that they held themselves at liberty to
repudiate the compact whenever 1t
might serve their turn to do 80. On
the contrary, as we have said, they pro-
claimed the Act of Union OF 1900 i'm
mutable, 80 far as the number Of Ire
lands representatives was concerned,
unless, Of course, a change should be
desired by both parties.
What are the facts with regard to the
execution OF the Act OF Union Of 1907
between England and Scotland? BY that
compact Scotland, which had $50 repre-
sentatives OF shires and burghs in the
Edinburgh Parliament, was to have
forty-fve members OF the House Of Com
mons at Westminster. In proportion
to her population, Scotland was as much
over-represented by forty-five men,
bers in 1907 and for many years after
ward as Ireland was under-represented
by 100 members in 1900 and for many
years later. No proposal, however, to
reduce Scotland's representation was
ever made. On the contrary, it has been
increased, until it now numbers seventy
two members of the House OF Commons.
1t is true that in 1882 the method of rep
resenting Scottish counties was altered,
and the burgh system was modified,
but nobody dreamed of suggesting that
the total number OF the Scottish repre-
sentatives, that Is to say, the aggregate
volume and weight Of her voice at West
minister, should be in the slightest de-
gree impaired. 1t is probable that Ire
land in 1905 would no more object than
Scotland did in 1882 to readjustment
Of constituencies to local variations Of
population, 80 long as her treaty quota
Of members was maintained.
As for the act disostablishing the An
glican Church in Ireland. which is some
times cited as precedent for the re-
duction OF Irelands representation at
Westminster, a. which undoubtedly was
an infraction 6: me Act Of Union OF 1900,
it is not pertinent to this discussion,
because that modification Of the Act Of
Union was concurred in by both the
contracting parties. We add that Lord
SALISBURY, who was as oonversant as
is Mr.. PoRR11T or Mr. BALFoUR with the
unpleasant circumstances under which
CAsTLEREAoH engineered the abolition
Of the Dublin Parliament, described as
a fundamental law Of the union be-
tween the two countries the provision
that zone hundred commoners shall sit
and vote at Westminster on the part OF
Ireland" Mr.. PoRR1TT may not care
for the opinion Of JOHN BRIGHT, but
there are those who recall with respect
his declaration Nothing on earth will
ever persuade me, until see it done,
that this Imperial Parliament, which is
representative Of the people Of Great
Britain, will lessen the just, the Act-of-
Union-settled representation OF Ireland
IN the House. For myself, I am deter
mined to stand by the Act OF Union
VIII tsecurity, asked GRATrAN, has Ire
land for the fulflment OF the conditions
of the Act of Union? The honor of Eng
land, replied PITT, 1t may be reserved
for Mr.. BALFoUg to show what that
honor is worth.