UNIONIST MEMBERS AND IRELAND.
(To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.")
SIE.—I should like to be allowed to answer as shortly as I can the letter of a "Loyal Irishman" which appeared in your issue of the 13th inst., in which he blames Colonel Guinness and others .for their action during the passage of the Home Rule Bill in the House of Commons. Colonel Guinness is a member of the Unionist Anti-Partition League, of which Lord Ifidleton is head. I am a humble member of the same body. I have not followed the -debates closely, but I believe that the two main points which Colonel Guinness and others tried (vainly, I fear) to secure were in the first place one Senate for the whole of Ireland, largely in the hope that it might prove to be some slight protection for the loyalist minority in the South and West, and, secondly, a total change in the fiscal provisions of the Bill. Under the Bill as it stands I believe that the Imperial Income Tax, customs, &c., are still to be levied in Ireland, and that in addition the Irish Parliament will he entitled to raise as much more money as they like under any form of taxation they please. It is, I think, rather natural that unfortunate dwellers in the South and West of Ireland should object to the prospect of being taxed twice over. I really do not see why we should be railed at for trying to protect ourselves. I know that the Unionist Anti-Partition League and all its members are as anxious as any one can be that the interests of the Empire should be safeguarded iii Ireland, and that the naval and military position should be made as secure as •possible, but really I do think, subject to these condition.% that, the minority, in the South and West are entitled to all the protection that can be given to them.—I am,
Previous page
