THE IRISH FRANCHISE.
rTo THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Stn,—In your note to my letter of the 28th ult., on one of Mr. Plunket's arguments against the reduction of the Irish Franchise, you say that my objection " appears to be aimed at a mere extension of the franchise, without suitable and just distribution." I limited the special statement I quoted to such mere extension, but my general objection is not so limited, for the simple reason that I do not see how the threatened evil (the quite inadequate representation of the loyal section of the community, the Protestants and better sort of Catholics), is to be sufficiently remedied by any practicable form of
Redistribution. •
The small Roman Catholic householders will everywhere vote like sheep for whoever Mr. Parnell and his organs and organisers bid them. In every constituency, except four Ulster -counties and about two boroughs, these smaller householders are in a majority. You cannot redistribute so as to give these four counties and two boroughs enough Members to represent the loyalist minorities in all the others ; and if you could, you would have provided but a lame cure for the evil of the com- plete disfranchisement of the educated and propertied classes over so wide an area. There are two great differences between the unenfranchised householder in Ireland and his fellow in Great Britain. He will (except a Protestant minority, which will be swamped) vote in a body against the classes above him. He is (with the same exception) notoriously disloyal to the Crown and the Constitution, in which you propose to give him direct power. Either of these differences seems to me a suffi- cient reason against giving him the franchise at present, and there are plenty more reasons I could add, if your space were less valuable,—e.g., the inferior nature of the " house " qualifi- cation in Ireland, compared to England, or even Scotland.—I
Previous page
