The New Irish Constitution: An Exposition and Some Arguments
History
The New Irish Constitution: An Exposition and Some Arguments
Home rule -- Ireland; Ireland -- Politics and government
(2) That the British Ministers were ready to concede the former,
and were not ready to yield the latter; but conceded both, owing
to the circumstances of the time, and considered the concession
final.
(3) That the British Ministers wished to obtain a contribution
from Ireland for Imperial purposes, and the maintenance of a final
appeal to an Imperial Court of Judicature.
(4) That the British Ministers do not appear to have proposed the
representation of Ireland in the British Legislature.
In substance the plan proposed by Mr. Gladstone in 1886 was the plan which
Grattan rejected in 1782. The objection to any such plan is the
probability that if Ireland were to be asked, and were even to consent for
the moment to make an appreciable contribution to the common expenses of
the Empire, without being given through her representatives any share in
the Parliamentary control of the funds so voted, and in the discussion of
Imperial affairs—if, in other words, she was made a tribute-paying colony,
instead of being treated as a member of a Federal system having an
undiminished area of taxation for National purposes—a fresh and formidable
grievance would arise in a few years, on the ground that taxation without
representation was an intolerable thing, and contrary to the first
principles of the Constitution. It was with these considerations present
to his mind that Mr. Butt, when leader of the Irish Home Rule Party, in
order to get over the difficulty, had proposed that a Federal arrangement
should be instituted between Great Britain and Ireland—_i.e._, an
arrangement under which Great Britain and Ireland should agree to vest
certain powers in a purely Irish Legislature and certain others in the
Imperial Parliament. The late Mr. Sharman Crawford, who like Mr. Butt was
an Ulsterman and a Protestant, held similar views at an earlier epoch, and
put them prominently forward during the period which elapsed between the
imprisonment of O’Connell and the collapse of the first Tenant-right
movement. With their opinion before us, it may be asked—why was no such
plan proposed in 1782 by the English statesmen of the day? The answer is
not far to seek.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account