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

In 1900 to more than 100 members. Dur
ing the next forty-fve years the popu-
lation OF Ireland about doubled, yet her
representation at Westminster has never
been increased beyond 1903. That the
number 100 should be regarded as a
minimum, irreducble except with the
consent Of both parties 10 the compact,
seems evident from the fact that in
1882, when tho population OF the sister
island had been already signally aug
mented. tho British Parliament refused
to increase the representation OF Ireland,
on the express ground that the represen-
tation had been irrevocably fixed by tho
Act OF Union. 1t never occurred to
anybody at that date TO say, what Mr..
PoRRITr now AYERS, that the Irish people
may be mulcted Of a part of the sorry
price paid for their loss Of self-govern-
mont, because they had the misfortune
it certainly was not their fault-to be
misrepresented at Dublin in l799-1s0O
by a 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
repudiats the compact whenever it
might serve their turn to do 80. On
the contrary, as we have said, they pro-
claimed tho Act of Union OF 1900 i'm
mutable, 30 far a. 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 tho Act Of Union of 1907
between England and Scotlandf By that
compact Scotland, which had $50 repre-
sentatives OF shires and burghs in the
Edinburgh Parliament, was to have
forty-five members OF the House Of Com
mons at Westminster. In proportion
to her population, Scotland was as much
over-represented by forty-five men,
beers in 1907 and for many years after
ward o. 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 1t now numbers seventy
two members of the House Of Commons.
1t IL 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 Vest
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 disestahlishing the An
glican Church in Ireland, which is some
times cited as a precedent for the re-
duction Of Ireland's representation at
Westminster. and which undoubtedly was
an iniraction OF the 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 conversant as
is Mr.. PoRRI1T or Mr.. BALFoUB with the
unpleasant circumstances under which
CAsTLERRAGH engineered the abolition
Of the, Dublin Parliament, described a.
q 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.. PoRRTTr 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 mo, until $50 it done,
that this Imperial Parliament, which Is
representative of the people Of Great
Britain, will lessen tho just, tho Act-of-
Union.settled representation Of Ireland
| in the House. For myself, I am deter
mined to stand by the Act Of Union.
Whist security, asked GRArrAN, 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.. BALFoUR to show what that
| honor ia worth