THE OVER-REPRESENTATION OF IRELAND. [To TIER EDITOR OP TER "SPECTATOR:]
SIR,—In your article on "Unionist Policy" on October 17t1 you ask : "Why should we give the enemies of the Union'
(meaning Irishmen) "some forty more votes in Parliament than they have any right to receive ?" The answer is very simple. In 1832 Ireland was very much under-represented, and asked for her proper proportion of Members. Our answer was, given by Lord Derby, afterwards Prime Minister, but then Mr. Stanley, that the number had been fixed at the time of the Union, and was part of the bargain ; and could not be altered one way or the other. Therefore, although I regret that the Members of the House of Commons should not be fairly distributed, it would be a gross breach of honour if we took for Great Britain now what we refused to give Ireland in 1832.
House of Commons.
[Our answer to Sir Brampton Garden is that two wrongs do not, and never will, make a right. Does he really mean to contend that because Lord Derby did a wrong thing in 1832 we are to do an equally wrong thing in perpetuity. The Union with Ireland was an incorporating, not a federal Union, and we have, therefore, repeatedly amended the Act of Union when justice, right, and common-sense have demanded such amendment.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
