UNIONISTS AND THE GOVERNMENT. [To TOE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Srn,—Mr. Balfour after many years of power has left Home- rule over-represented by thirty seats. Such has been his betrayal of Unionism, and above all of Irish Unionists, who foolishly believed in him. As you too truly write, he "had no real wish to reduce the Irish representation, believing that on the education question it would be useful to him to have as large an Irish vote as possible, and also that a large Irish vote would be a thorn in the flesh of his opponents in the next Parliament" (Spectator, December 16th, p. 1023), and as your
correspondent "F. R. S." in the same issue argues • If Home-rule is ever carried it will be through his • failure to make it impossible by reducing its represen- tation to its just proportion. The present Government are pledged not to bring forward a Home-rule Bill in the next Parliament, and it is evident that the larger their majority the less pressure will Mr. Balfour's Home-rule allies be able to bring to bear upon them. It is not, then, easy to see why Liberal Unionists should not support them,—and will Irish Unionists suffer themselves to be befooled by the bogey of Home-rule by' instalments? If the Government go that way, they will be but treading in Mr. Balfour's footsteps. Let each proposal be examined on its merits, and without pre- judice, and whenever Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman brings "in a Bill to set up a Dublin Parliament, then, and not till then, let all Unionists join their forces against him. Meanwhile, to support the Government against Mr. Redmond's eighty-five votes is vital to Irish Unionists ; in fact, the breath of their
Previous page
