The Irish standard., 1899-04-08
Refusal of the Unionists to do
Justice to Ireland.
A. ]. BALFOUR'S INSULTING SPEECH
No Redress of the Grievances
Of the Country.

Being asked by the Dublin Freemans
Journal why he became a Home Ruler,
MIR. a, L. Edgcwor,l, D. L., gives the
| following reply in the columns OF that
paper:
81 became Il Home Ruler because |
am an lrishman; because love Ire
lard because believe and | know that
my country is snartng under unjust
taxation and unjust laws whicl, the
| Unionist Government has refused to re-
dress, has even refused to rc-invcsti-
gate, although, under promise to do so:
and. finally, have become a Home
Ruler because il is my conviction that
in given time, and not so far off,
either, AT the present rate OF decadcnce
and decrease OF population. handful
OF paupcrs, and an army of placcmcn,
policemen. taNgathcrcrs, gaugcrs. "ct
hoe genus omnc,' and OF course pre-
postcrously disproportionatc staff OF
otiicials-we shall always have them
with us--and still more glorified Cas-
tie gang, will be the only inhabitants
left in our unfortunate Ireland This
is mathematical certainty which any
schoolboy can work out for himself.
The 'causa causans' Of my conversion
to Home Rule is the action, or rather
llo,l-action, of the Unionist Govern
mcnt. aggravated by the bitter. ungcn-
| crous. ungracous. snccring attitude in
which every Irish suggestion for Irish
improvement, or indeed any Irish topic.
is received by these scli-stylcd friends OF
lrcland-friends of Ireland Whose in
solent manners are initiated and cxag-
geratcd by their hirclings in their rep
tile press.
when the Report OF the Royal Com
mission OH the Financial Relations be-
tween the two countries appeared, | nat
uraly supposed that the Government
which proiessed its resolve to kill
Home Rule with kindness words
which have buttcrcd no parsnps-
would gladly seize such an opportunity
and come forward with some generous
scheme oi redress OF the financial gricv-
anccs disclosed by the Commissioners,
amongst whom were the foremost
financial experts Of the century, and
whose finding only confirmed the result
arrived at previously by Sir Robert Gif-
fen, himself an English official. after an
exhaustive, independent investigation OF
the question, published by him years
bcforc--I think in 1886
Instead OF redress, or the hope or
promise of redress, to the surprise and
disgust OF every patriotic Irisllman, and.
indeed. OF everyone endowed with ordi-
nary feeling and good taste, Mr. A. j.
Balfour gave forth, urbi ct orbi, his
famous or infamous whiskcy pro-
nouncement at Manchester Almost
every fact and figure therein was incor-
rect, and the inicrcnccs therefrom OF
course worthless. Inter ALA, will pos
tcrity believe that First Lord Of the
Treasury actually misstated the Inperi-
al contribution of Ireland? Yet this is
what MIR. A. ]. Balfour did He delib-
crately asserted at Manchester that the
Irish contribution to Imperial expenses
was only one million sterling, whereas
if he had taken the trouble OF looking at
the Trcasury-hs own Treasury-re-
turns. he would have found, staring
him in the face that the Irish contribu-
ton was two million and over-an out
ragcous excess of tribute cxtorted from
the poorest civilized nation OH the face
OF the globe. But it was not merely
the incohcrcnccs and errors and false
rcasonngs OF the Manchester speech
although it actually bristlcd with them
that shocked me. 1t was the cold
bloodcd, harsh, and contemptuous tone
and manner in which he refused to re-
dress colossal grievance.
That speech wrecked my allegiance
to Unionism. Afterwards came more
Ministerial wrigglings and jugglings
and insincere hocus-pocussings on the
great question SO vital to us. A Royal
Commission was promised, but nothing
came of it; and while England and
Scotland received an agricultural grant
in aid OF rates. Ireland was pointedly
left out in the cold on the plea, for
sooth! OF our excessive prosperity. At
last we have an agricultural grant, but
dwarfed and cribbed and confined, COM