The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1889-07-20

Lllng, ana, II anything, IOW 1uuCN, "
say in support of her contention, and
whether that worship of the Act of
Union which Sir K. Webster exacts
would De piety or superstition. Diyl-
ding the capital charge against the
Union policy into the two grand heads
of fraud and violence. each of them, If
proved, sufficient in itself to invalidate
the moral authority OF the act quite
apart from it's contents. l conceive
that the count of fraud is absolutely
made good by the policy which gradual
" converted the major part of the rep
resentatlves of the Irish people into
mere tools Of Dublin Castle or OF patrons
over whom Dublin Castle had acquired
the mastery. There is in existence
abundant evidence OF the detailed re-
lations Of corruption which the t1overn-
ment maintained with the vast majority
of the irish House of Commons.
The policy commencing from near
the time when it was determined to
substitute for the monopoly of the un-
dertakers the direct action OF the ex.
ecutive was cOnsummated by foul
transaction already named which i'm
mediarely preceded the session of 1900.
This monster iniquity hardly required
the supplements which on every side
it received--the ulsmissals from Irish
Office by a foreign agency, the large
purchase of nearly all the borough
mOngers along with their borougbs Of
fected by England at the cost of Ireland,
the refusal TO take the sense of the
people on the Bill Of Union, and the
daring transfer to another land by men
appointed to make laws for Ireland not
Of their own authority, which was
simply a limited trust. operative for a
maximum term of eight years, and
carved OUT Of the great lndefeasble
national estate, but of that national
estate itself. 1t is quiet unnecessary to
cast into the scale the anticipations OF
Catholic Emancipation dangled before
the eyes OF the people by the men who
known beforehand the rooted determj-
nation of George III. to grant nothing
of the kind. Instruments obtained by
fraud are, believe, voidable at law.
Statutes so obtained have no court of
justice to which they can be referred.
But they carry no moral force accruing
by virtue of their enactment, and none
has since been acquired through any
subse quent acceptance on the part Of
Ireland, unless, indeed, it has been-as
might, perhaps, be argued-by the frank
agreement OF the IS Nationalist Mem
bers of Parliament since 1856 to accept
the Act of Union On condition OF its
being modified by the erection of
statutory Parliament for tine transaction
of her internal affairs. | dc not sup
pose it will be anywhere contended that
the moral nullity OF the act at the out
set has been made good ex post facto.
The burden Ut proof belongs to the
champion, if any there be, of such con-
tention. But the passing observer
knows that before Emancipation and
reform Ireland was not suffered to
speak, held down first by martial law
and an enormous armed force, and then
by the violent suppression, as in Dub
lin County, of the right of petition on
the Union.
After the Acts Of 1929 and 1888, with
the limited powers Ut representation
then obtained, voice was at once par
TALLY given to the National aspirations,
and now, with the extension Of popular
franchises, that voice has become loud
and undeniable. The baseness of the
Union policy and the lack of all claim
Oh the conscience OF the Irish as a
nation have been shown. but I have
still to hand charges of tyranny and
cruelty which mace part of my ''bad
history" and violent defamation. Space
will only permit me to produce samples
of the truth, but | am much mistaken
il even samples do not suffice amply to
sustain the language which l endeavOr
ed to apportion with accuracy to The
merits ct the case 1t will suffice for
my purpose to select only a narrow area
OF time and place. shall refer mainly
fn TO i>h Dbl
of 1898, and shall rely on the evidence,
nefced Protestant clergyman. Mr.,
Gordon's History of the Rebellion of
1882 contains abundant evidence that
he was touched with the strong pre.
judices of his caste, but he was an
honest man, incapable Of wilful sup
preston. He carries us to the scene of
war in Wexford. 1t was marked by
the massacres OF Scullabogue and the
Bridge, the most cruel and wicked acts
$50 far as know to which even the
dregs OF the population were ever driven
by maddening, ferocious, and prolonged
oppression. In 1895 people not as now
partially at variance but united in SEN
timent from South to North were divi-
ded, as Antrim declared IN its County
meeting OF 1897, through the agency of
the Government which diffused among
them through the Orange lodges the
venom Of religious animositles.
Secondly, by dlsarming in brutal
manner the Catholic population they
were deprived of the means Of
self-defence. Thirdly, by suspending
the Habeas Corpus Act they were
deprived Of any and every
guarantee for personal liberty
Fourthly, secrecy was promised to all
infOrmers against persons suspected of
disloyalty on the plea that if they were
known their lives would be in danger.
The Insurrection Act Of 1895 authorized
the Viceroy to proclaim any county or
district as disturbed, and thereupon
the magistrates might imprison and
send into the sea service any persons
attending at unlawful assemblies or
otherwise 80 acting as to threaten the
public tranquility" But even this was
not enough, so, filthy, indemnity from
all criminal consequences was promised
by law both to magistrates and to others
for illegal acts done against disloyal
persons, which includes all persons slls-
pected Of disloyalty, by the doers Of the
acts. Finally, even in peaceful parts Of
the country like Wexford, provocati0n
vyoc IN ifc Io OF ifx, hu ho