FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232  
233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   >>   >|  
ow to details. There are five ways of dealing with the question, and of these I will take first the four different ways of including Irish Members in the House of Commons, leaving their total _exclusion_ to the last. 1. Inclusion of Irish Members in their full numbers for all purposes--that is, with a right to vote upon all questions--British, Irish, and Imperial. [By "full numbers" I mean, not the existing figure of 103, but numbers fully, and no more than fully, warrantable according to the latest figures of population--say 70.] 2. Inclusion in full numbers for limited purposes. 3. Inclusion in reduced numbers for all purposes. [By "reduced numbers" I mean in numbers less than population would warrant.] 4. Inclusion in reduced numbers for limited purposes. Now (4) I only set out for symmetry. It has never been proposed by anybody, and hardly needs notice. The three others are alike in two respects--that they leave untouched the question of representation in the House of Lords, and that they directly infringe both the Federal principle and the Union principle by giving representation, both in a unitary and a subordinate Legislature, to one portion of the realm. Let us look at No. 1--inclusion in full numbers for all purposes. This was Mr. Gladstone's revised proposal of 1893, and it formed part of the Bill thrown out by the Lords. The number of Irish Members was to have been 80. But reduction, as Mr. Gladstone admitted, would scarcely affect the inherent difficulties of inclusion. Nor must it be forgotten that reduction from 103 to 70 can be justified only by the concession of a large measure of Home Rule. It is one of the paradoxes of an unnatural Union that, over-represented as Ireland is, she has not now power enough to secure her own will. To reduce her numbers, while retaining large powers over Irish affairs at Westminster, would be unjust. For the time being I shall defer the consideration of those powers, and argue the matter on broad principle, assuming that the powers retained in Imperial hands are small enough to warrant a reduction from 103 to 70. Now let us apply our touchstone to this question of inclusion in "full" numbers. Will it be good for Ireland? Surely not. (_a_) It will be bad for Ireland, in the first place, to have her energies weakened at the outset by having to find two complete sets of representatives, when she will be in urgent need of all her best men to do her own work.
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232  
233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
numbers
 

purposes

 

Inclusion

 

Ireland

 

inclusion

 

reduction

 

principle

 

powers

 

reduced

 

question


Members
 

warrant

 
population
 

representation

 

limited

 

Imperial

 

Gladstone

 

difficulties

 

forgotten

 

unnatural


secure

 
concession
 

represented

 

justified

 
paradoxes
 

measure

 

touchstone

 
complete
 

outset

 

weakened


energies

 

Surely

 

retained

 

assuming

 

urgent

 

unjust

 

Westminster

 

retaining

 

affairs

 
representatives

matter

 
inherent
 
consideration
 

reduce

 

unitary

 

warrantable

 

British

 

existing

 

figure

 

latest