The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-08-08

under color Of the forms OF law. Two
parties arose as il by maeic-ULionists
and anti. Unionisis-and II is only
stating simple historical truth to say
that the Unionists were almost wholly
composed OF officials, place men and
English residents, and that among the
anti Unionists we're all the independ'
dent patriotic men in the country,
notably Sir John Parnsll, the Chan
cellor Of the Exchequer, and Mr.
Fitzgerald, the Prime Sergeant, both
OF whom quickly lost their places for
opposing the policy Of the govern
ment.
OPENING OF THE GREAT CONTEST.
Public meetings, of course, were held
to discuss the proposition, and it was
Immediately apparent that the ssnti.
ments OF all classes OF people vera ut
terly and absolutely in opposition to
the 80 called union. At meeting of
the Irish bar, which embraced a large
proportion of the most influential and
gifted public men of the time, the
vote stood l6s against the union and
80 in favor Of it, OF which minority Sir
Jonah Darlington sarcastilly remarked,
"rhltty'two was the precise number
OF the County Judges" and each
member OF the same minority was
subse quently rewarded by appoint
pointments to office, emoluments
ranging from $500 te $4,000 per an.
mum. 1t was feared that the bar OF
Ireland, as a body, would exercise an
irresistible influence against the union,
and Lord Clare had adopted the most
effective means to secure adher-
enis to the government among
its ranks. A great many new
legal offices were created, the
number .of bankrupt commits.
sioner WIS doubled, and each county
had a local judge. In the city OF Dub
lin, where government influences were
most actively dlffused, the union
project failed of popular support. A
great meeting was held December II,
1898, in that city, the Lord Mayor,
Sheriffs and commons being repre-
resented, and resolutions were adopted
denouncing the proposition, and an
other meeting, composed Of merchants
and bankers of the city, resolved
"That they looked with adherence on
any attempt to deprive Ireland OF her
Parliament" The fellows and schol-
ars of Trinity College also demanded
that their Representatives in Parlia-
ment should vigorously oppose the
union, and innumerable borough and
county meetings adopted similar &C.
ton. By every means in its power
the country procla med its opposition
to the proposed measure, and that, too,
in the face OF the terror of martial law
and the presence of nearly 10000
troops.
THE FIRST DEBATE.
Lord CORVALLIS opened Parliament
January %, 1899. amid circumstances
OF great excitement, and the speech
from the throne" contained, as had
been feared and anticipa' ed, distinct
recommendation Of legislative union.
This terminated all DISCUSSES. 1t was
now evident that the government,
with all its unlimited resources and
open aud indirect influences in coun-
try already distracted aud convulsed,
had commenced campaign to obliter.
ate the Parliament of Ireland. The
furious dlbates that followed the ad-
dress need not be described; the gov
er1ment had calculated its chances,
and knew the number of it's support
ers before introducing the obnoxious
measures.
In the Lords, the Earl OF Bella
monps motion in favor of the maiH-
tenanCe of a resident independent
mi n oh tnk
kno wledged and recognized, was mega
lived by divisiou-49 against 16. These
sixteen peers afterwards joined in
most eloquent and patriotic protest
sgainft the extinction OF Irish liberty.
In the Commons, the opponents of
the union were as forcible and out
spoken as could be desired. G Pom.
sonby declared that neither the Legis.
lature itself nor any power on ear h
possessed the authority 10 annihilale
the Irish Parliament.
Mr.. Fitzgerald, who lost his official
head for his patriotism, showed that it
was not within the moral compt tence
of Parliament to destroy and extin.
guish itself. John Mitchell says that
Fitzgerald on this occasion quoted DR..
Jobnson's remarks: Don't unite |
with US English. We shall unite with
you only to rob you. We should have
robbed the Scotch if they had any
thing 10 be robbed Of"
Sir Boyle Roche, in his character
is ic manner, remarked: "Hs was for |
a union to put an end to uniting be-
tween PresbyteriaDs, Professionals and |
Catholics to oveltufn the constitu-
tion."
Sir Jonah Darlington, Sir John
Blaguire, Mr.. Knox, Mr.. Hamilton
and others spoke forcibly against the
project, and showed the ruinous ef-
feCts it would produce in Ireland.
Lord Castlereagb, who led the forces
OF the government, was astonished at
the spirit and eloquence of the oppo-
siiioD, and made but a feeble defense
Of the measure. Perhaps the most
powerful speech against the union WAS
made by Mr., Plunkett, who demon
strated not only the unconstitutional.
BY Of the bill, but the injustice OF pro-
posing 1t for consideration at time
VI hen the country was incapable of in
dependent political action. On the
OF the oath the House divid.
I'd and the government developed a
OF one, the vote etanding los
% l06. This was regard as gOvefn.
nent defeat, and ths multitude 10 the
corridors OF the House and in the
Jtreet hailed the result with unbound.
ID delight. II was really a drawn bat
lie, and even that had been obtained
lnly by numerous instances of actual
,ribsry on The part OF CastlerOagh, the
acts OF which have been shown be-
Iond all cayil or oriticism by the his
orians Of the epoch.
NEARING THE END.
In the second debate the Govern.
nent encountered decided defeat,
he vote stsndipg, for the union l05,
gainst Ill majority against the Coy.
'rnment, 9 The members who voted
n support Of the proposition were cir.
as follows: Members bold.
ng office, 80; members rewarded by
.fHan0 Ols mi he |