B EFORE the Session opened we pointed out that if the
Government were more than Unionists in name, they would introduce and pass during the present Session a Redistribution Bill by which. justice would be done to England and the unjust electoral privileges now accorded to Ireland be withdrawn. But though the Prime Minister has for party purposes assured us that the Union is in danger, he has not taken this obvious step for safeguarding it. By reducing the Irish repre- sentation by the thirty votes which it has in excess he might make the Legislative Union absolutely secure. He Prefers, however, the attempt to frighten Unionist Free- traders by means of the Home-rule bogey to making the passage of a Home-rule Bill impossible. But though the Government would not introduce a Redistribution Bill at the only time when they could have assured its passage, they tried to salve their consciences and those of their supporters by talking about a Redistribution Resolution. What the exact object of that Resolution was to be did not appear, but at any rate it was placed in a prominent position in the King's Speech. We ventured in February last to point out that this way of dealing with a question of such great moment to the cause of the Union was purely illusory, and that we believed that the intentions of the Government even in the matter of a Resolution were not to be trusted. In any case, Redis- tribution was only put into the shop window as a dummy, and it was most likely that even this dummy would soon be forgotten or withdrawn. For such an expression of opinion we were severely taken to task by many Unionists, and were told that we had no right to doubt the sincerity and devotion of the Government to the cause of the Union. We might, we were assured, make ourselves quite at ease as to the whole matter, since it was certain that practical Resolutions would be passed this year, and that next year a Redistribution Bill would be introduced and carried through which would do away with the injustice to England.
Yet now, when we have got within visible distance of the end of the Session, we are informed that we are not even to have a Redistribution Resolution. The pledge contained in the King's Speech, it is clear, will prove to be of the nature of other pledges given by the present Administration. We trust most sincerely that this fore- cast of the action of the Government will prove erroneous ; but we confess that this is the only interpretation which we can give to the following printed question and answer which are to be found in the Parliamentary reports on " Mr. Louis Sinclair : To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state the day on which he proposes to introduce the proposals referred to in his Majesty's Speech from the Throne, for diminishing the anomalies in the present arrange- ment of electoral areas.
Mr. Balfour : In the present condition of public business I fear I cannot appoint a day for introducing the proposals in question!'
After this statement, unless a serious and sustained effort is made by the Unionist party to induce the Government to redeem their pledge, even the shadowy promise to fulfil a portion of their duty by a Resolution will, it is evident, be_ allowed to pass quietly out of remembrance. Though we are unable to attach much practical importance to the Resolution, we would far rather have it than nothing at all. It would at least place on record the opinion of the House of Commons that Ireland has no right to an • immensely larger proportion of legislative power than the other parts of the United Kingdom, and would commit the Prime Minister to the principle of reduc- tion. We have little fear of the Opposition, under the influence of the Irish party, destroying the Legislative. Union, for recent events in connection not only with • education but with the Fiscal question have disclosed a deep line of cleavage between the Nationalists and the Radicals. We do, however, fear that the tempta- tions of Opposition, added to the sympathy between the Chamberlainites and the Nationalists in reaard to Protec- tion, and between the Balfourites and the e'Nationalists in regard to education, may after the General Election produce a coalition fraught with real danger to the Union. We are perfectly satisfied, again, that the House of Lords would do its duty by any legislative results of a bargain, should such a bargain be made (though, as we have said, that is now most improbable), between the • Nationalists and the Radicals. But we cannot feel the same confidence in the action of the House of Lords in regard to a bargain between the Protectionists and the Irish. Therefore it is obviously of great importance to get the Unionist party as a party strongly com- mitted on the question of Redistribution and the reduction of the Irish representation. If Mr. Balfour does not redeem his pledge as to a Resolution, and no such public committal of the party takes place, we shall feel serious misgiving that the possibilities of an agreement with the Irish are already being considered by the party managers, whose influence has unfortunately been of late so great with the Prime Minister. The failure to pass even a Redistribution Resolution this year may mean, we fear, far more than the loss of the actual Resolution. It will be a sign of the times only too easily, read by those who understand the manoeuvres of the political auction-room. We would therefore once more urge upon those members of the Unionist party, whether Protectionists or Free-traders, who are Unionists in fact and not merely in name—and we believe they still com- prise the majority—to aid us in insisting that the Redis- tribution Resolution shall be produced immediately, and passed before Parliament is prorogued.
We shall perhaps be told that the Government are quite willing to redeem their pledge if they can, but that the difficulties as to time are insurmountable, and that if any one is to be blamed in the matter, it is the Opposition. We would ask all sincere Unionists not to be misled by such talk. The Government for such a purpose as we have described have an ample majority at their command. After all, there is no reason in nature why Parliament should not sit for a week, or even a fortnight, beyond August 12th. Surely the small sacrifice demanded is not too great a one for a party whose leader publicly tells them that the Union is in danger. If the Union is in danger, the Unionist party can surely be asked to give up a fortnight's grouse-shooting to put it out of danger. As Mr. Fox said just a hundred years ago,. " if Ministers could not make their answer meet the end of the Session, the House should endeavour to make the end of the Session meet their answer." We would suggest, then, that some Unionist supporter of the Government who still considers that the Union is a cause worth fighting for should draw the attention of the Prime Minister to his declarations that the Union is in danger, and should ask him whether, in view of this fact, before the present Parliament is prorogued, he will renew his pledge to begin the work of Redistribution by at least the introduction of the Resolution mentioned in the King's Speech.
Previous page
