THE ANNUAL meeting of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union was an exuberant event in Dublin in April 1891, scarcely able to believe its luck with the recent split in the Irish Party which had deposed Charles Stewart Parnell after the revelation of his affair with Katharine O’Shea by her husband’s divorce case.
Four and a half densely-packed columns of The Irish Timeson this day in 1891 recorded every twist of the meeting, held in the Antient Concert Rooms in Great Brunswick Street (better known today as the former Academy Cinema in Pearse Street), and the delegates' delight at the disarray of their opponents.
The final speaker on the night was Col Edward Saunderson, the MP for Armagh North and a leading Irish Unionist in the House of Commons who said the nationalists had now opened the blindest eyes in England to their true character.
The report went on:
The blindest radical in England would now say that the strongest language which he (Col Saunderson) had ever employed – and he admitted it was strong – (applause) – did not come at all near what should be the real description of the character of those men. Who was Mr Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill to satisfy?
Mr Parnell was in the habit of getting up in the House of Commons and saying that he spoke in the name of the Irish people.
Sir Trevelyan said there were two Irelands, but there were now more than two. Mr Parnell’s Ireland, which he would let Mr Healy describe. (Laughter.)
Mr Healy was a man of great ability and in many ways a remarkable man. He referred to a speech which he said Mr Healy recently made in Dublin under police protection, and Mr Healy said – “It is a curious thing that all the blackguards are with Parnell” – blackguard Ireland. (Laughter and applause.) When he (Col Saunderson) read that speech he said “What a confession.”
Mr Healy himself a short time before had been one of the staunchest adherents of Mr Parnell and he always knew what they were. Mr Gladstone, he believed, agreed with Mr Healy, and, therefore, when he should bring in a Home Rule Bill it would not be one for “blackguard Ireland.” (Laughter.) Then there was Mr McCarthy’s party, which could only be described as the Ireland of the Roman Catholic priests. If the Roman Catholic priests had refrained from turning themselves into electioneering agents Mr Parnell would have turned the elections in Kilkenny and Sligo. (Applause.)
Did Mr Gladstone intend to bring in a Bill that would satisfy the priests of Ireland? If he did what would the nonconformists say to it? Then what was Mr Healy’s Ireland?
He (Col Saunderson) would call it “indoor Ireland,” for there was no place in Ireland where Mr Healy could speak except under the protection of Mr Balfour and Mr Balfour’s police.
There was then their (the loyalists) own party in the House of Commons, and he was perfectly certain that neither Mr Gladstone nor anybody, would bring in a Home Rule Bill to satisfy that party . . . He had now gone through all the Irelands and he thought if Mr Gladstone ever sat down again to frame a Home Rule Bill he would find himself confronted by an insoluble difficulty which they would take good care to press in the House , and expected support there, for he could not help believing that the English people, with all their faults and failings, were a justice-loving people. (Hear, hear.)
To read the full story and all articles in today's newspaper in 1891 click here: www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1891/