The rehabilitation of the “Irish vote” for political purposes is currently underway in Ireland, and it seems to be yielding successful results. This process brings to mind the dubious tales one hears from time to time regarding the buying and selling of horses in Ireland. Even in a state of decrepitude and decay, a horse can be magically rejuvenated and presented as a valuable commodity for sale. It has been alleged, by ill-natured foreigners and Saxons, that some Irish horse dealers excel in bestowing a fleeting appearance of worth upon animals that are truly worthless. Recently, in a Western County Court, a plaintiff claimed to have fallen victim to one of these unfair transactions and swore—in grand Gaelic metaphor—that the horse he purchased as a vice-free animal was capable of “kicking the stains out of the sky.” Regardless of such claims, the Irish vote—the magnificent steed upon which British statesmen hope to ride to College Green, Home Rule, and glory in the next Parliament—is now being meticulously doctored and prepared for sale. Every essential aspect is receiving the utmost attention. Although the Irish constitution and its stability have been greatly compromised due to numerous longstanding issues, these defects and weaknesses must be hidden at all costs. The Irish vote must enter the fair without any apparent flaws. It must be sound in wind and limb, with a guarantee of performing excellently both in single and double harness. No matter how poorly it may behave after the sale—no matter if it has the audacity to “kick the stars out of the sky”—it must be presented as an eligible acquisition, available at a reasonable price. The doctors are hard at work, aiming to achieve this objective.

John Redmond and William O’Brien have made significant efforts in the past week to rehabilitate the Irish vote. For the first time in a long while, they appeared on the same platform, leading to headlines such as “Unity in Limerick” prominently featured in Irish newspapers. Despite Mr William O’Brien’s previous declaration of independence from the party since his reelection to Parliament, it appears now that he used the word “independence” in a Pickwickian sense, just as he used other words when casting doubts on Mr Redmond’s leadership abilities. Mr Redmond, too, now makes it clear that the Nationalist organization is not in dispute with Mr O’Brien, and that any dissensions in the country are confined to the Unionists. Mr O’Brien, speaking on behalf of a significant percentage of the Irish race at home and abroad, extends a warm welcome to the Dunravenists, stating that they belong to the class that produced Lord Fitzgerald, Sinéad O’Brien, and Parnell. This welcome, a commentary on the professed Unionism of the Dunravenists, speaks for itself. The Freeman’s Journal, in its editorial titled “One Party, One Policy, One Organisation,” declares in a louder voice than ever that “Ireland must be mistress of her own affairs.” Such blessed unity, if it exists, will be rewarded with a Home Rule Parliament in College Green. However, the Freeman’s Journal remains conspicuously silent regarding O’Brien’s newfound cordiality with Redmond. They let him be and severely ignore him. To be honest, not many believe in the unity of Limerick. In a dispassionate and impartial article, the Irish Times says, “We frankly confess that, with visions of the meeting, the Room to Boulogne negotiations, and other interesting historical incidents in our mind’s eye, we must warn our readers not to be too hopeful about the solidity of the cement that was poured in Limerick by the two leading masons of the Nationalist party yesterday. It may last through the winter, and we hope it will, for we do not like to see old friends part; but we are doubtful whether Mr John Redmond will be able to stand up against the Freeman’s Journal now that he has embraced the people’s William in public.” From all of this, one can infer the amount of confidence that should be placed in Nationalist assertions of unity and the value of the Irish vote as a marketable commodity for any English party.

The Limerick meeting served one purpose, and that was to elicit from the speakers a firm and resolute rejection of the Irish Reform Association’s devolution scheme. It also declared, as pointed out by the Irish Times, that power, privilege, profit, and emolument were being taken away from a class that historically opposed Home Rule. Their main objection to self-government lies in these concerns. This statement, according to the Irish Times, places the devolutionists on the defensive. “Did they previously support the union for place, privilege, profit, or emolument? Are they now eager to abandon it because they see that the Nationalists are determined that only Nationalists shall reap the benefits of recent legislation?” These developments in Ireland demand attention from both English and Irish Unionists, as the time is approaching when the maintenance of the union will require careful consideration by Englishmen. The question of redistribution, which has recently gained prominence in England, continues to be of prime interest to Irish Unionists. The Ulster Liberal Unionist Association, along with many other Unionist organizations, has passed a resolution demanding that the Government prioritize this crucial matter in the upcoming session of Parliament. Professor Dicey’s comprehensive and argumentative article on the subject in the current National Review is a valuable resource in clarifying the falsely alleged constitutional obstacles that stand in the way of reducing the number of Irish seats, which are currently in excess of what is fair and rational. Ulster Unionist members are actively discussing this issue in their addresses to constituents, with Mr Gordon, MP, being one of the latest to reiterate the call for a Redistribution Bill. In response to his remarks, the Belfast News-Letter stated, “If Ministers do their duty, they will address this urgent matter above all others. Of course, a Redistribution Bill will be fiercely opposed and obstructed by the Nationalists, but this is all that is needed to unite the Unionist party and prepare for the general election.” The Freeman’s Journal takes anxious note of Dicey’s article in the National Review, dismissing the esteemed writer as a hysterical Unionist. Their attempt to discredit him is as futile and transparent as their efforts to doctor the Irish vote before it crosses the Channel for sale.

Aberdeen Press and Journal – Wednesday 16 November 1904