TOPICS OF THE DAY.
IRELAND: AMBULATORY PARLIAMENTS.
Mnasrsits having abandoned the passive policy in regard to Ire- land and begun to act, they will find enough to do, and doubts and difficulties besetting every course of action. Whatever may be re- solved upon, it will be advisable to invite and encourage the coopera- tion of the Irish people—to lead them on in the path of self-govern- ment. A plan suggested in the Spectator in 1836, (with a view to check the Parliamentary jobbing in private bills, which rose to such a height about that period,) might be reconsidered now with an especial view to the advantage of Ireland. It was proposed to transfer the whole of what is called " private business" from Parliament, where it is always badly and often corruptly done, to competent local tribunals. For example, a Council might be elected by the rate-payers in each county ; to those local Councils might be referred all schemes for roads, bridges, canals, railways, and the like; where projected roads, canals, and railways, pass through several counties, the Councils of the counties interested might appoint delegates to meet and act in their behalf; the duties and powers of the Councils to be strictly defined by act of Parliament ; and all disputed questions of property to be decided by a legal tribunal. By relieving Parliament in this way of the mass of purely local business, Members would be left free to concentrate their undivided attention on the general business of the empire ; the Local Boards would act with better knowledge of the business, and under the check of a local public opinion ; and as regards Ire- land in particular, the people would find their business expedited, and, learning to regard public meetings as intended for the de- spatch of business, would cease to take an interest in mere speech- making gatherings.
The Imperial Parliament would undoubtedly be improved by this separation ; and it is a reasonable supposition that the relief thus afforded would enable that body to legislate better for the general interests of the Three Kingdoms. There are some, how- ever, who think that more immediate action is wanted—a change, if not in the constitution of the Central Legislature, at least of its manner of assembling, in order to qualify it for legislating for the whole empire with as clear an insight as for England. To this end, we have been invited, from a quarter well entitled to re- spectful attention, to consider dispassionately the probable effects of a proposal that has more than once been made—to hold the sittings of Parliament alternately in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh.* The argument in favour of this proposal may be thus stated. The Union of the Three Kingdoms is an incorporating Union, and ought to remain such. The example of the United States shows that the head of a mere federal union is necessarily deficient in power. But though England, Ireland, and Scotland, are thus no- minally one, there are essential differences between the social con- stitution of the three nations. The legal system and the esta- blished church of Scotland differ from those of England. The religion, morale, and social traditions of the Irish, create an essential difference between that people and the deni- zens both of England and Scotland. Though subjected to
one government, the national distinctions still survive. But a government necessarily takes its character in part from its local situation—from the influences that immediately surround
it. When three nations with essentially different social consti- tutions are subjected to the same government, that nation in which the seat of government is must of necessity exercise a dominant in- fluence over the other two. To neutralize this tendency and pre- serve the equality of the three nations—to prevent unjust prefer- ences, undue attention to one and neglect of the other two, and con- sequent discontent threatening the stability of the union—let the Legislature hold its sessions in rotation in the capital of each of the Three Kingdoms ; and let the Court fora part at least of each ses- sion reside in that capital in which Parliament is assembled for the time. Parliament at present, it is said, legislates for Scotland and Ireland in a manner as for strange and foreign countries : the pro- posed change would place Members occasionally among the people for whom they are called to legislate—give them a sensible know- ledge of its social condition. All classes of the three nations would be brought into more immediate contact, and their characteristic differences more speedily obliterated.
Against the proposal, it may be argued—That material interests render it impracticable. London has not become wealthy and powerful because it was selected as the seat of government : the Government established its permanent residence in London because
• Though the communication is marked " private," our esteemed corre- spondent will pardon us for quoting his own animated advocacy of the plan of holding the Imperial Parliament once every three years in Dublin.
" I know the frightful array of impracticabilities and impossibilities which the mention of such a crotchet will conjure up: centre of government—Down- sag Street Offices—opposition from the London shops—the Clubs, the Opera, the Theatres, &c. But recollect that the struggle in which we are willy-nilly engaged at this moment is for the integrity of me empire : and where will you find any measure likely to be effectually conservative that is not encumbered thick with obstacles? Now, look at the probable if not certain results of making Dublin the seat of empire, in its turn, if called for, I should say, with Edinburgh : the Repeal mania dissipated and absorbed—the Irish put into a temper.for receiving that further remedial legislation which they greatly re- quire, and the Legislature put into the best possible position for such legisla- tion—the bona fide union of the two peoples which such an intercourse must produce. 'Why, one session of Parliament, with a month's Royal residence at the Castle, would make the Irish and English better acquainted and more one than a century under the present system. Then, the Lord-Lieutenancy may be abolished without being BO much as missed."
there was already concentrated great part of the wealth and power of the country. London is the metropolis in a more extensive and pervading sense than being the seat of government : the whole moneyed, commercial, legal, and literary business of the empire, has its centre of action there. And the convenience, the interest of all the industrious classes, requires that where the centre of eco- nomical activity is there also should the ruling power be located. The removal, even the temporary removal of government from London, would be felt as an obstruction and annoyance by those classes. They would therefore oppose it ; and what they combine to oppose is impracticable. Other objections to the notion of an ambulatory Parliament suggest themselves. Ministers must be present in Parliament, sit where it will; and Ministers must have at all times immediate access to their offices and registers, not merely for the purposes of business, but for explanation and de- fence in unforeseen discussions. Are the contents of all the Go- vernment Offices—clerks, registers, accounts, protocols—to migrate along with Parliament ? or could the business of Parliament be satisfactorily carried on without the power of immediate reference to them at any one moment? In every old and extensive empire, where business has accumulated and become complicated, and where huge archives and their storehouses have become necessary, the necessity of a fixed centrical point for the local habitation of government is intuitively felt.
These are the leading arguments for and against the proposal of migrating Parliaments. We offer them for the consideration of the public, without seeking to decide upon them immediately ; believ- ing this to be the most useful way of stating any feasible suggestion for the benefit of Ireland, at the present moment, when it appears there is a probability of something being done, and when it is de- sirable that every measure promising benefit to that country should be dispassionately and deliberately canvassed. Some plausible but less weighty arguments which might be advanced against the change have been omitted, as tending to complicate the discussion. Such, for example, is the danger of bias from local influence,—for it is clear that more powerful and dangerous local influences must grow up in a permanent seat of government than anywhere else, and the true preventive of bias from such a source is the transfer- ence of local business to local boards : or the discredit of appearing to descend to claptrap for " conciliation,—seeing that the policy of a true statesman is to do on all occasions what is right and expe- dient, but certainly not to think the worse of any proposition be- cause it may happen to be popular in a quarter where his govern- ment stands most in need of popularity.
Previous page
