The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1911-01-28
Irish Nationalist Party Represented
by 81 Commoners, but Not by
a Single Peer.
Membership of House of Lords Has
Been Increased by 81, Mostly
Irish Tories.
Some Strange Anomalies in Con-
nection With Ireland's Rep
resentation.

John Redmond's american dol
lars" it appears, are not his only
disqualification for taking a hand in
the fight against the House OF Lords
Veto, says James O'Donovan in the
London DAILY News" In the Nation
alist Party which he leads the Irish
vote is cover representative says j.
l.. Garvin, in the "Fortnightly Re-
view," and what that man says today
will be Tory parrot-cry tomorrow.
The "over-representati cry is not
new one. Balfour endeavored to
cut down the number of Nationalist
members before he left office, and
will try again, Should he get the
chance.
Irish Unrepresented in the Lords.
But coming from the Lords men at
this juncture it is Of particular iR-
terest. If Ireland is "over-represent-
ed" in the Commons-which under
her plain legal and moral rights she
is not-what can be said of the rep
resentation of the Irish Peerage in
the House of Lords? Here is how
my country is represented in the two
Houses: Commons: Nationalist, 81;
Liberal, 1; Conservative, 20; Totals,
103. Lords: Nationalist, o; Liberal,
13; Conservative, 1924, Total, 1877. The
estimate of thirteen Liberal Peers is,
may say, generous. Two or three
have undoubted Nationalist tenden-
cies, but perhaps they would object to
being described as Nationalists.
At the time Of the Union in 1900,
Ireland was given one hundred mem
bers in the British House of Com
mons, and twenty-eight members OF
the House of LORDS, elected for life
by the whole body of Irish Peers.
Since then the Commons member
ship has been raised by three to one
hundred and three, while no fewer
than fifty-two Irish Peers have been
created Peers of Parliament, in addi-
tiOn to tWenty-nlne new Peers, main
ly Irish Tories. This accounts for one
hundred and nine Irish Peers in the
Lords! the remaining twenty-eight
Peerages were both Irish and British
before the Union. Altogether there
are eighty Irish Peers in the Lords
with Imperial titles. Not every one
of these is an 1rishman, it is true;
but the Irish title is the foundation
of the representation.
This brings me to the curious case
of Lord Curzon of Kedleston, who is
the great champion OF the hereditary
principle, and who played a very
prominent part in the recent debates
in the House of Lords. Now, Lord
Curzon, great admirer as he is of the
hereditary principle, was in too great
a hurry himself to walt for its nat
ural operation. When he was going
to India as Viceroy, an Irish barony
was conferred upon him, though he
had no earthly connection that I am
aware of with Ireland. The idea was
that as he was heir to the Scarsdale
barony of England, an Irish peerage
would confer the requisite dignity for
the time being, while he would be
free to enter the House of Commons,
on his return from India, for Brit
ish constituency.
For domestic reasons, in polit-
ical sense, Lord CurZon was, however,
not sent to the House of Commons on
his return; nor was he sent to the
House of Lords by Balfour while he
had yet time. Then, as the late Sir
Henry Campbell -Bannerman very
properly declined to confer a Parlia-
mentary peerage upon him. he be-
thought himself of his Irish peerage,
secured the patronage of Lord Lans-
downe and Lord Londonderry, and
thus forced his way into the House
of Lords as an Irish representative
peer, enjoying the distinction of de-
feating Lord Ashtown!
Strange Paradox Of Representation.
Lord Curzon's is not the only Pc
culiar instance of that strange para
dox of representa- ton, the Irish Peer
age. Earl Winterton, an Englishman.