Povijesti Podcasti

Zakon o uniji 1801

Zakon o uniji 1801


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

1797. William Pitt imenovao je lorda Castlereagha za svog irskog glavnog tajnika. Ovo je vrijeme velikih nemira u Irskoj, a sljedeće godine Castlereagh je odigrao važnu ulogu u gušenju irskog ustanka. Castlereagh i Pitt su se uvjerili da je najbolji način rješavanja vjerskih sukoba u Irskoj ujedinjenje zemlje s ostatkom Britanije pod jedinstvenim parlamentom.

Ta je politika bila nepopularna kod vlasnika općina i članova irskog parlamenta koji su potrošili velike svote novca kupujući svoja mjesta. Castlereagh se obratio katoličkoj većini i jasno dao do znanja da će im nakon Zakona o uniji vlada odobriti pravnu ravnopravnost s protestantskom manjinom. Nakon što je vlada isplatila odštetu vlasnicima općina i obećala mirovine, službena mjesta i titule članovima irskog parlamenta, 1801. donesen je Zakon o uniji.

George III se nije složio s Pittovom i Castlereaghovom politikom katoličke emancipacije i nakon donošenja Akta o uniji pristupio je Henryju Addingtonu da postane njegov premijer. Kad je čuo što se dogodilo, William Pitt podnio je ostavku na dužnost i stoga nije mogao postići vjersku jednakost u Irskoj.

1823. Daniel O'Connell, Richard Lalor Sheil i Sir Thomas Wyse osnovali su Katoličko udruženje. Organizacija se zalagala za ukidanje Akta unije, katoličke emancipacije, okončanje irskog desetinskog sustava, opće pravo glasa i tajno glasovanje za parlamentarne izbore. Katolička udruga brzo je rasla i 1829. Sir Robert Peel, vojvoda od Wellingtona i drugi vodeći članovi vlade počeli su se zalagati za reformu. Upozorili su svoje konzervativne kolege da će u Irskoj doći do građanskog rata ako se zakon ne promijeni. 1829. britanski parlament donio je Rimokatolički zakon o pomoći, koji je odobrio katoličku emancipaciju. Međutim, unatoč tome što je Daniel O'Connell osnovao Udrugu za ukidanje, Zakon o uniji ostao je na snazi.


Zakon o sindikatu

Prva stranica Zakona o sindikatu

Durhamovo izvješće

Nakon nasilnih pobuna 1837–38, lord Durham poslan je 1838. da utvrdi uzroke nemira. Rješenje koje je preporučio u Durhamskom izvješću (1839) bilo je ujedinjenje Gornje i Donje Kanade pod jednom vladom.

Lord Durham predložio je ujedinjenu pokrajinu za razvoj zajedničkog trgovačkog sustava. Kombinirana Kanada također bi imala ukupnu većinu koja govori engleski. To bi pomoglo kontroli razdornih snaga koje je Durham vidio u većinski francuskoj Donjoj Kanadi. Također bi se olakšalo uvođenje odgovorne vlade za koju se zalagao. Britanija je pristala na uniju, ali ne i na odgovornu vladu.

Donošenje Zakona

Zakon o osnivanju nove provincije Kanade uveden je u britanskom Donjem domu u svibnju 1839. U rujnu je Charles Poulett Thomson (kasnije lord Sydenham) poslan kao generalni guverner kako bi dobio kanadski pristanak na Zakon. Pristanak je dobio od Donje Kanade u studenom, a od Gornje Kanade u prosincu. Dva zakonodavna tijela spojio je glavni sudac Donje Kanade James Stuart početkom 1840. Zakon je usvojio britanski parlament u srpnju 1840. Proglašen je 10. veljače 1841. u Montrealu.

Sydenham je uvjerio zakonodavno tijelo Gornje Kanade da pristane na uniju s Donjom Kanadom i uokvirilo Ustav ujedinjene pokrajine. Ljubaznošću biblioteke Metropolitan Toronto

Kako je to funkcioniralo

Zakon je imao niz glavnih odredbi. Uspostavio je jedinstveni parlament s jednakim brojem mjesta za svaku regiju. Dva područja sada su se zvala Kanada istok (ranije Donja Kanada) i Kanada Zapad (ranije Gornja Kanada). Dugovi dviju regija konsolidirani su. Stvorena je stalna građanska lista (popis dužnosnika na vladinom platnom spisku). Francuski jezik je zabranjen iz službene vladine upotrebe. Obustavljene su određene francusko -kanadske institucije povezane s obrazovanjem i građanskim pravom.

Zakon je prirodno izazvao znatno protivljenje. U Gornjoj Kanadi, obiteljski kompakt se protivi sindikatu. U Donjoj Kanadi vjerski i politički čelnici reagirali su protiv njezinih antifrancuskih mjera. Zapravo, Zakon je bio nepravedan prema Donjoj Kanadi, koja je imala veće stanovništvo i manji dug. Međutim, obje Kanade pristale su raditi unutar Zakona. To je u velikoj mjeri posljedica liberalnog utjecaja ujedinjene Reformske stranke. Vodili su ga Louis Lafontaine na istoku Kanade i Robert Baldwin na zapadu Kanade.

U roku od 15 godina mnoge su nepravedne klauzule Zakona ukinute. Ekonomski prosperitet donio je bogatstvo i rast ujedinjenoj koloniji. Odgovorna vlada, dodijeljena 1848., na kraju je dopustila izmjene mnogih financijskih i ustavnih odredbi Zakona.


Stranice: Provjerite ih

1. kolovoza: DANAS u irskoj povijesti:

Chicago Motivacijski humoristični poslovni govornik, pisac i ljubitelj povijesti.

__________________________________________________________________________

KUPITI Autor potpisao kopiju Za ljubav prema tome da budem Irac Za jedinstvenu perspektivu Irske s Poviješću i humorom.

1. kolovoza: DANAS u irskoj povijesti:

1800: Donet je Zakon o Uniji kojim se stvara Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo Velike Britanije i Irske. Tim je aktom ukinut irski parlament i Anglikanska crkva priznata kao službena irska crkva. Irsku je u Westminsteru trebalo predstavljati 100 zastupnika od kojih se očekivalo da polože zakletvu nadmoći da je engleski monarh poglavar crkve. To će postati zakon 1. siječnja 1801. godine.

Premijer William Pitt

Akt o uniji usvojio je premijer William Pitt, djelomično kao reakcija na pobunu 1798. i kao pokušaj da spriječi strano prodiranje u Irsku od strane neprijatelja Engleske (čitaj Francusku.)

1837: Mary Harris “Mother ” Jones, sindikalna aktivistica rođena je u Corku.

Jones koja se nekad smatrala "najopasnijom ženom u Americi" zbog svojih sindikalnih aktivnosti. Voljena radničkim pokretom, u svom je životu doživjela velike tragedije izgubivši muža i četvero djece zbog Žute groznice, a zatim nekoliko godina kasnije izgubivši sve u požaru u Chicagu.

Duga biografija na stranici AFLCIO.org navodi “U lipnju 1897., nakon što se Mary obratila konvenciji željezničkog sindikata, ljudi iz sindikata počeli su je nazivati ​​"majka"#8221. Ime je zapelo. Tog ljeta, kada su rudarski radnici sa 9.000 članova raspisali štrajk bitumenskih rudara (mekog ugljena) u cijeloj zemlji i desetke tisuća rudara koji su položili svoje alate, Mary je stigla u Pittsburgh kako bi im pomogla. Postala je "majka Jones" milijunima zaposlenih muškaraca i žena diljem zemlje zbog svojih napora u ime rudara. Majka Jones bila je toliko učinkovita da su je rudarski radnici poslali na polja ugljena kako bi prijavili rudare u sindikatu. Uzbuđivala se na antracitnim poljima istočne Pennsylvanije, u tvrtkama u Zapadnoj Virginiji i u oštrim kampovima ugljena u Coloradu. ”

1931: Jedan od najboljih skladatelja Irske#8217 i veliki utjecaj na tradicionalnu irsku glazbu, Sean O Riada (John Reidy) rođen je u Corku. O Riadina ljubav prema glazbi potekla je od roditelja koji su obojica bili kompetentni tradicionalni guslači.

“Moj je otac imao prekrasnu glazbu. Sjećam se da mi je rekao da će pješačiti sedam milja i raditi danju kako bi naučio melodiju. ”

Nakon što je niz godina putovao Europom, O Riada je niz godina postao glazbeni direktor dublinskog poznatog kazališta Abbey. Njegov najpoznatiji sastav vjerojatno je rezultat za ovaj potez Mise Éire (Ja sam Irska). O Riada je pokrenuo tradicionalnu irsku skupinu pod nazivom Ceoltóirí Chualann koja se nakon njegove smrti pretvorila u Poglavice.

O Riada je proživio veliki život s poznatom sklonošću prema alkoholu. Umro je u tragično mladoj četrdesetoj godini života.

1931: Jedan od najboljih irskih skladatelja i veliki utjecaj na tradicionalnu irsku glazbu, Sean O Riada (John Reidy) rođen je u Corku. O Riadina ljubav prema glazbi potekla je od roditelja koji su obojica bili kompetentni tradicionalni guslači.
“Moj je otac imao prekrasnu glazbu. Sjećam se da mi je rekao da će pješačiti sedam milja i raditi danju kako bi naučio melodiju. ”

Nakon što je niz godina putovao Europom, O Riada je niz godina postao glazbeni direktor dublinskog poznatog kazališta Abbey. Njegova najpoznatija skladba vjerojatno je partitura za potez Mise Éire (Ja sam Irska). O Riada je započeo tradicionalnu irsku skupinu pod nazivom Ceoltóirí Chualann koja se nakon njegove smrti pretvorila u Poglavice.

O Riada je proživio veliki život s dobro dokumentiranom sklonošću prema alkoholu. Umro je u tragično mladoj četrdesetoj godini života.

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

1981: Član IRA -e Kevin Lynch sedma je osoba na kojoj je umrlo štrajk glađu u nastojanju da stekne politički status za republikanske zatvorenike. Još bi troje umrlo prije nego što bi štrajk bio prekinut.

Želite li saznati više o Irskoj? Vidjeti ove slike i još mnogo toga u hvaljenoj knjizi Za ljubav prema biti Ircem

Za ljubav prema tome da budem Irac napisao Corkman Conor Cunneen iz Chicaga, a ilustrirao Mark Anderson A-Z je svega irskog. Ovo je knjiga koja sadrži povijest, horor, humor, strast, patos i lirske limerike na kojima ćete se zahvaljivati ​​(ili poželjeti da jeste) Za ljubav prema tome da budem Irac

Gledati Za ljubav prema tome da budem Irac Autor Conor Cunneen – IrishmanSpeaks na svom Youtube kanalu IrishmanSpeaks. Smijte se i učite.

Ovu povijest napisao je irski pisac, poslovni govornik i nagrađivani humoristIrishmanSpeaks – Conor Cunneen. Ako uočite netočnosti ili želite dati komentar, nemojte se ustručavati kontaktirati nas putem gumba za komentar.

Posjetite YouTube kanal Conor ’s IrishmanSpeaks da se smijemo i učimo. Oznake: Najbolji irski dar, kreativni irski dar, jedinstveni irski darovi, irske knjige, irski autori, danas u irskoj povijesti DANAS U IRSKOJ POVIJESTI (objavio IrishmanSpeaks)


“Akt o moći & Korupcija ”?

Cilj nezadovoljnih u Irskoj je ukidanje Zakona o Uniji.

(Izvještaj Sir Arthura Welleseyja
agent, svibanj 1808)

Donošenje Zakona o uniji (1800) bio je jedan od najkontroverznijih i osporavanih događaja u modernoj irskoj povijesti. Historiografija je to odrazila tumačenjem podijeljenim na ključne elemente kako i zašto je to postignuto i po koju cijenu. U nedostatku osuđenog herojstva pobune 1798. ili drugih potrebnih sastojaka bitnih za bilo koju popularnu komemoraciju, njezina dvjestota obljetnica ove godine uglavnom je ostala nezamijećena. Unatoč tome, Unija ostaje jedan od najpodijeljenijih i definirajućih trenutaka moderne irske političke povijesti. Čak i danas, samo spominjanje Zakona izaziva snažne osjećaje u Irskoj, te ostaje vidljiv i snažan simbol nekih od stalnih problema na otoku. Na mnogo načina u povijesti prošlih dvjestotina dominirala je mjera, te različiti odgovori i reakcije na nju.

‘Čin moći i korupcije’: historiografija Unije

Za mnoge se ključna rasprava o Uniji uvijek ticala načina na koji je donesena. Protivnici te mjere u to vrijeme brzo su dali svoje tumačenje, koje su nacionalisti općenito prihvatili u devetnaestom stoljeću. Optužba je bila da je Unija prošla u 'orgiji korupcije', argument je bio da je to bila nepopularna mjera koju su moć i novac britanske vlade iznudili nevoljni parlament i neprijateljska zemlja. Ovo izlaganje najbolje su razvili Jonah Barrington u svojim raznim memoarima i Henry Grattan jnr. U životu svog oca, a na kraju je kulminirao pjesmom koja se uskoro učila u svakoj školi u Irskoj:

Kako su prošli Uniju?
Krivokletstvom i prijevarom
Robovi koji su prodali svoju zemlju za zlato,
Kao što je Juda prodao svog Boga.

Malo ih je osporilo tvrdnju mlađeg Grattana da je Unija prošla nezakonito, te da je to 'čin moći i korupcije'. Dok su razumni povjesničari poput W.E.H. Lecky je porekao ekstravagantnije tvrdnje, poput tvrdnji da je novac tajnih službi korišten, ostao je konsenzus da je irski parlament zaražen i smrtonosno potkopan onim što je Lecky nazvao 'virusom korupcije'. Jedan od prvih potpunih izvještaja o toj mjeri, Povijest zakonodavne unije Velike Britanije i Irske (1887) od strane T.D. Ingrama, pokušao je nespretno ignorirati te optužbe, a oni su pak zanemareni.
Teza o korupciji ostala je u velikoj mjeri neupitna u dvadesetom stoljeću sve do 1966. kada je G.C. Bolton je objavio svoju klasičnu studiju Prolazak irskog sindikalnog čina. Bolton je osporio postojeću ortodoksiju vraćanjem na prva načela i ispitivanjem različitih primarnih izvora. Ono što je smatrao dužnim zaključiti je da je podmićivanje, ako se i dogodilo, samo vrlo mali dio priče i da su ključna pitanja naknade gradske uprave, patronata i katoličkog pitanja bila daleko odlučnija. Publikacija Johna Gilberta Dokumenata koji se odnose na Irsku 1795.-1804. Četiri godine kasnije učvrstila je ovu tezu. Gilbert je uključio sve račune tajnih službi za to razdoblje, dokazujući kako se činilo, jednom zauvijek, da se novac nije mogao koristiti ilegalno iz tog izvora. Boltonov argument protiv korupcije pokazao se uvjerljivim i pomogao je objasniti kako su određene prakse, poput pokroviteljstva, koje se sada mogu činiti neetičkim, savršeno prihvatljive prema standardima s kraja osamnaestog stoljeća. Nova ortodoksija smatrala je da je Unija čin vještog upravljanja i da je njezino donošenje moglo izazvati granice legalnog, ali ih zapravo nije prešlo.

Argument neokorupcije

U posljednjih dvadeset godina otkriveno je bogatstvo nove arhivske građe koja je promijenila prethodna tumačenja britanskih aktivnosti 1790 -ih. Većina tih radova ticala se vanjske politike, otkrivajući postojanje potpuno učinkovite obavještajne organizacije na kontinentu koja se čak i tada u službenim dokumentima nazivala "tajna služba njegova veličanstva". Ova revolucija u povijesnim dokazima primijenila se i na Irsku s otkrićem papira tajnih službi koji su prethodno 'nedostajali'. Dokumenti koji su sada izloženi u Javnom uredu za evidenciju, Kew, otkrivaju postojanje tajnih aktivnosti tajnih službi u Irskoj tijekom dolaska Unije. U stvari, oni čine drugi, tajni skup računa tajnih službi, koji su držani odvojeno i različito od uobičajenog novca koji se legalno vodio, a koji je katalogiziran u Gilbertu. Kako su te datoteke nestale gotovo dvjesto godina, nikada nije adekvatno objašnjeno. Jasno je da je veliko zataškavanje pokrenuto nakon dolaska Unije kako bi se spriječilo bilo kakvo izlaganje nezakonitim metodama koje su odobrene. Uništeni su dokumenti i potvrde, odobreni izmišljeni računi, a šutnja sudionika u aktivnostima na ovaj ili onaj način osigurana.

Vikont Castlereagh je posebne fondove nazvao "sredstvom na kojem toliko ovisi"#8217. (Knjižnica Linen Hall, Belfast)

To je izravno paralelno s novcem tajnih službi koji se na kontinentu koristio za špijunažu i kontrarevolucionarne aktivnosti. Tehnički, novac je bio reguliran i ograničen raznim parlamentarnim aktima, u stvarnosti se zakonodavstvo namjerno ignoriralo, a izdaci u tom razdoblju ismijavali su pravne zaštite. Prema Burkeovom zakonu o građanskim listama (1782) za Britaniju, izdaci tajnih službi morali su ostati unutar određenih granica koje je odredio parlament, obično 100.000 funti.* Irskom je upravljao njezin vlastiti zakon o civilnim listama (1793) koji je predložio brojku od 5000 £ za novac koji se godišnje koristi 'za otkrivanje ili sprječavanje izdaje zavjera'. I u unutarnjoj i u vanjskopolitičkoj politici ta su ograničenja zanemarena. Dobar primjer raspona rashoda je da je približno 3500 funti novca tajnih službi usmjereno u zavjeru koja je kulminirala ubojstvom ruskog cara Pavla I. 1801., dok je 'tajni račun' Williama Wickhama za financiranje proturevolucionarne aktivnosti na kontinent je u prvih šest mjeseci 1800. godine dosegao 3.682.520 GBP. Upravo u tom kontekstu europskih aktivnosti treba procijeniti novac poslan Irskoj za pomoć Uniji. Novac je ukupno iznosio 30.850 funti, značajnu, ali ne i spektakularnu svotu, a argument o neokorupciji uglavnom se koncentrirao na moguću uporabu ili zlouporabu ovog novca. Glavni tajnik, vikont Castlereagh, nazvao je različite iznose 'sredstvima na kojima toliko ovisi', a jedno je sigurno u njihovoj namjeni: novac je upotrijebljen za stvaranje prikrivenog financijskog fonda, koji bi se mogao koristiti za odgovor na bilo koje potrebe i odgovoriti na hitne slučajeve.

"Tri C"

Unija koja je uspješno donesena 1800. bila je bitno drugačija, po tonu i sadržaju, od one koja je neugodno odbačena prethodne godine. S jedne strane, njegova je struktura značajno preuređena, pa je napuštena ideja o imenovanju povjerenika koji bi pregovarali o njoj u skladu sa škotskom unijom 1707. godine. Iako u siječnju 1799. nije nedostajalo korupcije, pokroviteljstva i zastrašivanja, dvorac, koji je preuzeo vodstvo iz Londona, nije bio voljan prihvatiti skupe geste, a skupe intervencije uglavnom su zanemarene. Nije prihvaćen najveći izdatak od svih: naknada općine. Saborska mjesta koja su se smatrala vlasništvom nisu se trebala tretirati kao takva, a vlasnicima nije trebalo nadoknaditi njihovo ukidanje, umanjujući privlačnost Unije u očima mnogih vlasnika. Katolici su također držani podalje od mjere, a vlada je napustila početni interes za emancipaciju kako bi umirila moćnije protestantske interese.
Prisiljen pregrupirati se i preispitati svoje mogućnosti nakon parlamentarnog poraza, Dvorac je 1799. donio ključne odluke koje su drastično promijenile stil i strukturu Unije. Najvažniji od njih bilo je oduševljeno usvajanje „tri C -a“ kako bi se osigurala pobjeda: odšteta, katolička emancipacija i korupcija. Sindikalna se rasprava u velikoj mjeri usredotočila na finale ovih područja, ali može se dati čvrst dokaz o značaju prva dva. Brojka za nadoknadu općine procijenjena je u veljači 1799. na otprilike milijun i pol funti, što ukupno daje još jedan koristan kontekst za procjenu novca tajnih službi. Oklijevajući zastupnici, poput dopisnika Edmunda Burkea, Sir Herculesa Langrishea, primili su znatnu naknadu za gubitak svojih mjesta što je činilo Uniju lakšom za razmišljanje. Iako su snažni protivnici ove mjere, poput markiza od Downshirea, također primali novac za ukidanje svojih sjedišta, jer gradska odšteta nije bila ponuđena 1799. godine, uskoro se to smatralo dijelom opće izložene korupcije. Nova katolička komponenta sheme Unije bila je diskretnija. U studenom 1799. kabinet u Londonu izvijestio je Castlereagh u posjetu da je lord poručnik ovlašten obećati emancipaciju ako sudbina Unije ovisi o potpori katolika. Zamjenik, Cornwallis, bio je vrlo učinkovit spin-doktor u ime katolika i jasno je dao do znanja da iako njihova podrška ne može osigurati pobjedu, njihovo protivljenje jamči poraz. To je vjerojatno bio slučaj, a kako je vlada bila prestravljena što je Sindikat odbijen po drugi put, priznali su točku. Iako je teoretski vlada mogla pokušavati Uniju godišnje sve dok ne prođe, u stvarnom smislu znali su da imaju samo još jednu priliku. Višegodišnji porazi samo bi pojačali argumente oporbe i pokazali da je ministarstvo odlučno donijeti mjeru bez obzira na želje zajednice ili zemlje.

Sindikalni fond Unije

Osiguravši pristanak ili barem neutralnost katoličkih masa, i nakon što je uklonio najmoćniju pritužbu vlasnika, preostalo je samo steći prijatelje za mjeru i utjecaj na članove. Tu je počeo s radom tajni zalogaj, koji je zadržavao nepokorne pojedince dok im službena i zakonska mirovina ne bi bila osigurana dodjelom ureda ili sinekure. Fond je također trebao biti korišten za propagandni rat, plaćanje računa tiskara, zapošljavanje polemičara, a možda čak i otkupljivanje oporbenih brošura kako bi ih se moglo uništiti.
Novac je isplaćen u pet rata: 850 £ u listopadu 1799., 10.000 £ u siječnju 1800., 10.000 £ u veljači, 5.000 £ u travnju i dodatnih 5.000 £ u svibnju. Kad su se zajednički obnovi nastavili u siječnju 1800. godine, dvorac je bio siguran u brojnost svojih brojeva, a podjele tijekom sljedećih mjeseci pokazale bi da su bile točne u svojim pretpostavkama. Međutim, uprava je odbila postati samozadovoljna, prepoznajući da je pravi posao sada usrećio njihove pristaše i očuvao njihovu većinu. To nije bio lak zadatak i zahtijevao je svaki raspoloživi poticaj i poticaj, a po potrebi i zastrašivanje. Pokroviteljstvo je, kako Bolton vješto objašnjava, bilo od presudne važnosti, od obećanja štetočina na najvišoj razini do mirovina i najnižih mjesta. To je, naravno, bio dio normalnog parlamentarnog prometa u zemlji, i iako je dvorac u svojoj liberalnosti ponavljao osuđenu upravu lorda Harcourta, nije prešao granicu u ilegalnost. Ponuda službenih nagrada vladinim pristašama nije bila ništa novo i, iako ponekad kritizirana, općenito je prihvaćena kao sastavni dio političke igre. S druge strane, gotovine nije bilo.

William Pitt-kad se kralj George III oporavio od bolesti u ožujku 1801. Pitt je morao uvjeriti kralja da je doista odobrio prikrivena sredstva. (Nacionalna galerija Irske)

Ured za strance

Direktor prijenosa sredstava iz Londona bio je John King, navodno zamjenik tajnika u Ministarstvu unutarnjih poslova, ali u stvarnosti šef Ureda za vanzemaljce, sjenovitog pododjela koji je na Kontinentu vodio ‘Tajnu službu njegova veličanstva’. Kralj je bio taj koji je povezivao s Castlereaghom i koji je uvijek bio pri ruci kad god je dvorac izgubio povjerenje. Dana 27. veljače 1800. glavni tajnik priznao je da postoje male šanse za preobraćanje pripadnika oporbe jer su bili „uzajamno postojani“. No, značajno je otkrio da će njihova potpora krvariti ako nestane fonda. Čak i nekoliko prebjega moglo bi biti katastrofalno. Poruka je bila otvorena:

potrebna nam je vaša pomoć i morate biti spremni omogućiti nam ispunjenje očekivanja koja je bilo nemoguće izbjeći u trenutku poteškoća. Možda ste sigurni da smo radije pogriješili na strani umjerenosti.

Zahtjevi su postajali sve umjereniji kako su se rasprave o Uniji nastavljale. S glasinama da je sličan oporbeni fond dosegao 100.000 funti došlo je do velike nelagode jer su svi resursi administracije bili napregnuti do točke preloma. Zahtjevi su postali sve učestaliji i snažniji, s Edwardom Cookeom, podtajnikom dvorca za civilni odjel, koji je obavijestio Kinga da je daljnji novac "apsolutno bitan za povećanje naših zahtjeva". Nakon svake transakcije Castlereagh je slao potvrdu o novcu, obećavajući da će biti "potpuno odgovoran". Ti su računi držani odvojeno od ostalih računa tajnih službi, a njihovo postojanje poznato je samo nekolicini.

Poraz od pobjede? Prijetnja izloženosti

Donošenjem Unije u lipnju 1800. nije na mnogo načina označen kraj kampanje dvorca, sljedeći su se mjeseci pokazali težima jer su se ministri trudili ispuniti svoja obećanja. Nagomilani su i različiti financijski dugovi na koje je bilo potrebno djelovati, a daljnji novac tajnih službi iz Engleske nije stigao. S već iscrpljenim postojećim novčanim fondom, došlo se do genijalne metode prikupljanja dodatnih sredstava. Dvorac je otkrio da je 1800. godine na irskom civilnom popisu napravljena ušteda od 18.000 funti. Umjesto da šalje ovaj novac kralju, prema zakonu, Castlereagh je od Londona dobio izravno ovlaštenje za usmjeravanje novca u plaćanje pristaša Unije . Ovaj neortodoksni postupak odobrio je premijer Pitt, ministar unutarnjih poslova, Portland, pa je čak dobio i odobrenje samog kralja Georgea III. U stvari, omogućavali su Dvorcu da pronevjeri potrebna sredstva koja će se zamijeniti na budući, neodređeni datum. Za što je korišteno ovih 18.000 funti nije jasno. Svakako je dvorac kupio slobodna mjesta i potaknuo simpatične osobe da učine isto, pa je te dugove trebalo podmiriti. Propagandni rat također je pobijeđen po cijeni, a tiskari sada zahtijevaju da im se otplate dugovi. Nemir dvorca zbog ovih tvrdnji značajan je. Budući da je nad njima lebdio spektar izloženosti, nisu bili spremni riskirati vlastitu reputaciju i reputaciju Unije, dok se pobjeda još slavila.

Suvremeni crtić protiv Unije. Gradski vapaj s lijeve strane viče: ‘Čujte! Čujte! Odmah je htjelo nekoliko stotina osoba bilo kojeg opisa da potpišu Uniju. 2s. 2 str. glava za one koji znaju pisati. 1 s. 1 str. za one koji mogu izgrebati svoj žig-Bog spasi kralja i njegove podanike veličanstva zapadne Britanije koja će biti-. ’. Peta slika zdesna kaže: 'Ja, moj lord Marquiss načelnik upravitelj [Castlereagh], željan sam prikupiti osjećaj tako uglednih osoba! ’. (Knjižnica Linen Hall, Belfast)

Pro-Union sindikat koji je Gillray proslavio 'Union Club ’-‘We ’smo se pridružili ruku pod ruku, sve stranke će prestati/I staklo nakon čaše, hoće li se naša unija povećati/U ime Stare Engleske mi ćemo popiti niz Sunce/Zatim nazdravite Little Ireland & amp drink drink down the Sun! ’. (Fotografija Mansell

Nova rasprava Unije o korupciji gotovo se isključivo koncentrirala na sredstva tajnih službi od 30.850 funti. Jasno je, međutim, da treba dodati i 18.000 funti s civilnog popisa i 14.800 funti s jeseni 1801., što čini konačnih 63.650 funti. Čak ni ova brojka možda ne predstavlja potpuni iznos, jer je novac mogao biti usmjeren iz drugih izvora za financiranje prikrivene kampanje Unije, a za koje se detalji nikada nisu pojavili. Na primjer, zlouporaba novca s irskog civilnog popisa poznata je samo zbog kasnijeg kolapsa ministarstva. U zataškavanju koje se dogodilo nakon Unije uništeni su gotovo svi dokazi koji bi mogli dopustiti otkrivanje tajnih detalja transakcija. Međutim, dokumenti koji su preživjeli dopuštaju rekonstrukciju nekih tajnih poslova Unije, kao i nagađanja o drugim mogućim aktivnostima dvorca. Činjenica da su irski zastupnici 1804. još uvijek bili prestravljeni otkrivanjem svojih postupaka daje daljnje dokaze o veličini koruptivnih poslova koji su se dogodili u Irskoj 1799.-1801.

Kako su prošli sindikat

Podrivena dvostrukim mehanizmima pokroviteljstva i zastrašivanja, obrana irskog parlamenta urušila se u prvoj polovici 1800. Budući da upornici opozicije nisu htjeli zatražiti podršku katolika, njihovi pokušaji da podignu galamu izvan parlamenta su propali. kad su otkrili da su manevri dvorca u toj četvrti bili lišeni mogućih saveznika. Demoralizirani, ali prkosni, uporni protivnici Unije raspravljali su do kraja, ali ishod nikada nije bio sumnjiv. Zašto njihovo protivljenje nije uspjelo ne može se pripisati niti jednom jedinstvenom razlogu. Na djelu su bili mnogi čimbenici, a nedavna se rasprava usredotočila na to je li Unija doista bila nepopularna u zemlji. No, na kraju, sve je odlučila bitka u parlamentu i tamo su se anti-sindikalisti pokazali loše opremljeni i nesposobni boriti se s raznim oružjem i taktikom dvorca. Bez sumnje, najzanimljiviji element nove rasprave o Uniji su nedavno otkriveni papiri tajnih službi. No, financijski fond samo je pomogao vladinoj kampanji, a ključni elementi ostali su pokroviteljstvo, katoličko pitanje, naknada općine, ali i mnogi valjani i istinski argumenti u korist sindikata. Dolazeći nakon što je pobuna 1798. diskreditirala irski parlament u mnogim očima, ti su čimbenici zajedno otkrili da je irska vlada bila na posljednjim nogama 1800. godine: rak korupcije osigurao je da je bolest smrtna.

Patrick M. Geoghegan radi na projektu Rječnik irske biografije Kraljevske irske akademije i predaje povijest na Trinity Collegeu u Dublinu.

G.C. Bolton, Donošenje Irskog zakona o uniji (London 1966).

P.M. Geoghegan, Irski akt unije (Dublin 1999.).

E. Sparrow, Tajna služba: Britanski agenti u Francuskoj, 1792-1815 (Suffolk 1999).

D. Wilkinson, ‘Kako su prošli sindikat? Izdaci tajnih službi u Irskoj u povijesti, 82, br. 266 (travanj 1997.).


Zakon o uniji

Ujedinjenje kraljevina Škotske i Engleske bilo je predloženo stotinu godina prije nego što se to zapravo dogodilo 1707. godine.

Sumnja i nepovjerenje između dvije zemlje spriječile su uniju tijekom 17. stoljeća. Škoti su se bojali da će jednostavno postati druga regija Engleske, progutani kao što se to dogodilo Walesu nekih četiri stotine godina ranije. Za Englesku je bio odlučujući strah da bi Škoti mogli stati na stranu Francuske i ponovno pokrenuti ‘Savjetski savez ‘. Engleska se u velikoj mjeri oslanjala na škotske vojnike i njihovo okretanje i pridruživanje Francuzima bilo bi katastrofalno.

Međutim, krajem 1690 -ih, tisuće običnih škotskih ljudi došlo je u iskušenje da svoj teško zarađeni novac ulože u plan povezivanja dva velika oceana svijeta uspostavljanjem kopnene trgovačke rute između Pacifika i Atlantika. Gotovo svaki Škot koji je imao 5 funti u džepu uložio je u Darien Scheme kako bi osnovao škotsku koloniju u Panami.

Loše planiran, pothvat je završio početkom 1700. sa značajnim gubitkom života i financijskom propašću za Kraljevinu Škotsku.

Uz mnoge utjecajne pojedince i cijele obitelji koje su zbog katastrofe bankrotirale, čini se da je nekoliko financijskih poticaja uvjerilo neke zabrinjavajuće škotske zastupnike u potencijalne koristi unije s Engleskom. Prema riječima Roberta Burnsa, oni (škotski zastupnici) su bili kupljeni i prodani za englesko zlato.


Zastava sindikata ‘Stara ’

U slabo posjećenom škotskom parlamentu zastupnici su izglasali pristanak Unije i 16. siječnja 1707. potpisan je Zakon o uniji. Zakon je stupio na snagu 1. svibnja 1707. godine, škotski parlament i engleski parlament ujedinili su se kako bi osnovali parlament Velike Britanije sa sjedištem u Westminsterskoj palači u Londonu, domu engleskog parlamenta.

Škotska je zadržala neovisnost s obzirom na svoj pravni i vjerski sustav, ali su kovanice, porezi, suverenitet, trgovina, parlament i zastava postali jedno. The red cross of St. George combined with the blue cross of St. Andrew resulting in the ‘old’ union flag. This is popularly called the Union Jack, although strictly speaking, this only applies when it is flown on the jackstaff of a warship.

The Union flag that we recognise today did not appear until 1801, after another Act of Union, when the ‘old’ flag combined with the red cross of St. Patrick of Ireland. By 1850 approximately 40% of total world trade was conducted through and by the United Kingdom (UK), making it the most successful economic union in history. By this time Glasgow had grown from a small market town on the River Clyde into the “Second City of the British Empire”.

2007 marked the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union between England and Scotland. A commemorative two-pound coin was issued to mark the anniversary, which occurred 2 days before the Scottish Parliament general election on 3 May 2007.


The Status Of Union Jack

The flag is mounted on warships and submarines commissioned by the Royal Navy and also on air force vessels. The flag is worn at the masthead of a ship as an indication of the presence of an Admiral of the Fleet. No law recognized law make the Union Jack as the kingdom’s national flag, but it was upgraded to one through precedents. The use of the Union Flag on land by the civilians has been permitted, but the use at sea has been restricted to only the military. According to Lord Lyon, the Union Jack is the right flag for the people and the corporate bodies of the UK. In Australia, the Union flag was systematically replaced by the current national flag through the Flag Act of 1953. Union Jack is incorporated by four former British colonies as a part of their national flags. These colonies include New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, and Tuvalu. The flag was also used by the US in its first flag. There are designated days when the Union flag needs to be flown on buildings throughout the UK. Also, there are days when the flag is flown on specific places only.


In 1789 the French Revolution began and in 1793 France declared war against Britain. The ideas of the French Revolution -liberty, equality, fraternity and democracy - plus the religious link, were favoured by the Irish, and Ireland traditionally had been the back door to England. The Irish could see that religious inequality had been abolished in France and that a democratic government had been set up. Irish Roman Catholics wanted equality Irish Protestants wanted parliamentary reform. Both groups wanted economic reform.

Many moderate Irish politicians wanted Catholic Emancipation and parliamentary reform, but thought that Ireland should support England in the crisis and wanted to preserve the link with Britain. However, there were others who were more extreme in their views. Among these were Theobald Wolfe Tone and Lord Edward Fitzgerald who formed the United Irishmen in 1792 which aimed at 'breaking the connection with England, asserting the independence of our country, uniting all Irishmen in place of the denominations of Protestants and Catholics'. Wellington seemed to be in favour of Catholic Emancipation as early as 1793, when he took his seat in the Irish Parliament as Member for Trim, in Co. Meath. Two of his speeches early that year deal with the subject of Catholics and their rights. The first was in January, soon after he had taken his seat.

The organisation tried to unite Dissenters and Catholics against Anglican rule, and it grew rapidly. Pitt moved equally quickly. In 1793 the Irish parliament was persuaded to pass the Catholic Relief Act which gave Catholics the right to vote. Voters still had to be 40/- freeholders, and Roman Catholics, although they could stajati as candidates, were not allowed to take a seat in parliament. Catholic voters could realistically only vote for Protestants. Pitt's 1793 Act was only a part-solution.

In 1795 Earl Fitzwilliam was made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He was a Whig and an Irish absentee landowner who believed that Roman Catholics should have complete political equality. This he announced as a policy which raised hopes in Ireland, but Fitzwilliam was recalled within three months on the King's orders and in disgrace. After 1795 there were increasing incidents of sectarian violence in Ireland, exacerbated by the attempts of the United Irishmen to enlist French help in their struggle to free Ireland from English control. The Protestants in Ireland formed the Orange Order to safeguard Protestantism in Ireland which merely escalated the problem.

In May 1798 an Irish rising occurred with the avowed aim of Catholic Emancipation and parliamentary reform. Many peasants joined because they wanted tithes to be abolished some educated men wanted independence. Pitt believed that Ireland could not be allowed the luxury of an independent parliament, because the Irish might decide on an independent nation and make Ireland a base for England's enemies. Pitt therefore decided on an Act of Union which would totally tie Ireland to Great Britain

In 1800 the Act of Union was passed by both the Irish and British parliaments despite much opposition. It was signed by George III in August 1800 to become effective on 1 January 1801. Pitt intended to follow the Act of Union with other, more far reaching reforms, including Catholic Emancipation, but was thwarted by George III, who refused to break his Coronation Oath to uphold the Anglican Church.

As early as February 6th, 1795, George III had expressed his opposition to the idea of ‘admitting Roman Catholics to vote in Parliament’. When Pitt wrote on 31 January 1801, saying that he would feel obliged to resign if the King would not allow some measure of emancipation to be passed at some time, George III replied in the following way.

Queen’s House, February 1, 1801

I should not do justice to the warm impulse of my heart if I entered on the subject most unpleasant to my mind without first expressing that the cordial affection I have for Mr Pitt, as well as high opinions of his talents and integrity, greatly add to my uneasiness on this occasion but a sense of religious as well as political duty has made me, from the moment I mounted the throne, consider the Oath that the wisdom of our forefathers has enjoined the Kings of this realm to take at their Coronation, and enforced by the obligation of instantly following it in the course of the ceremony with taking the Sacrament, as so binding a religious obligation on me to maintain the fundamental maxims on which our Constitution is placed, namely the Church of England being the established one, and that those who hold employment in the State must be members of it, and consequently obliged not only to take oaths against Popery, but to receive the Holy Communion agreeably to the rites of the Church of England.

This principle of duty must therefore prevent me from discussing any proposition tending to destroy this groundwork of our happy Constitution, and much more so that now mentioned by Mr Pitt, which is no less than the complete overthrow of the whole fabric.
(Public Records Office, Chatham Papers, C.IV)

The 1801 Act of Union said that

  • Ireland was to be joined to Great Britain into a single kingdom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  • the Dublin parliament was abolished. Ireland was to be represented at Westminster by 100 MPs, 4 Lords Spiritual and 28 Lords Temporal (all were Anglicans)
  • the Anglican Church was to be recognised as the official Church of Ireland.
  • there was to be free trade between Ireland and Britain.
  • Ireland was to keep a separate Exchequer and was to be responsible for two-seventeenths of the general expense of the United Kingdom.
  • Ireland kept its own Courts of Justice and civil service.
  • no Catholics were to be allowed to hold public office.
  • there was to be no Catholic Emancipation.

Ruling Ireland direct from Westminster solved nothing. The union was a political expedient in wartime, solving none of the grievances in Ireland over land, religion or politics. It had no social dimension at all. Ireland's economic problems were also ignored. The Act did increase the sense of grievance in Ireland however.

Pitt did not see the Act of Union as a solution to the Irish problem. He knew that social and economic reforms were essential, as was Catholic Emancipation. George III refused to allow full emancipation so Pitt resigned in protest because he had intended to follow the Act of Union with reforms.

The Act became a liability rather than an asset. Peers holding Irish estates opposed concessions to Roman Catholics, as did the King, because of vested interests and religious bigotry. The threat to the status quo and potential violence together with patriotic zeal against Catholics stopped full Catholic Emancipation and ended all Pitt's intended reforms.

These materials may be freely used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with applicable statutory allowances and distribution to students.
Re-publication in any form is subject to written permission.


The Act of Union with Ireland

The conclusion forced upon Cornwallis in Ireland and upon Pitt in England [following the 1797 Rising in Ireland] was that the sister island would never have a healthy government except through an incorporating union with Great Britain.

The complete absorption of power by the Irish oligarchy, their provocative oppression before the rebellion, and their tyrannous abuse of their position when it was over, were condemned by Cornwallis in the strongest terms, though perhaps his condemnation was more inclusive and more sweeping than the circumstances altogether warranted. But the outstanding fact remained that government by the oligarchy was intolerable, and would inevitably keep the country in a state of seething sedition.

On the other hand, if the very much larger subject population were admitted to political equality, they in their turn would be overwhelmingly predominant, and would show very little mercy in penalising their former rulers for all the misdeeds of the past.

An incorporating union would give the control to the parliament at Westminster, which could deal out even-handed justice, since it would be dominated by neither of the Irish parties and at the same time there would be no Nationalist grievance, because Ireland would stand on the same footing in the Imperial parliament as England and Scotland - a very different thing from the state of affairs before 1782, when a British parliament in which Ireland was unrepresented actively controlled the govern­ment of Ireland. An incorporating union therefore was the condition without which it was vain to hope for a loyal and peaceful Ireland.

Royal Refusal of Pitt's Reforms
But neither Pitt nor Cornwallis imagined that a union would of itself suffice to make Ireland peaceful and loyal. There was in any case the initial difficulty that the Irish Nationalist sentiment was as strong as it had been in Scotland at the beginning of the century.

The majority of Irishmen from Grattan himself down believed that the country could work out its own salvation under a reformed government that is, the leaders of Irish opinion believed that if the grievances of the Catholic population were removed and the parliament were made truly representative, the vengeful spirit would fade, animosities would die down, and Ireland would justify the confidence that had been reposed in her.

The mere fact that these leaders resented the loss of independence made it all the more imperative, if Irish loyalty was to be attained, that a union should be accompanied by the decisive removal of grievances.

The flaw
The fatal defect of the Union was that Pitt, aware of this necessity, allowed it to be understood in Ireland that the Act of Union would be accompanied by the removal of the acknowledged grievances, without himself taking steps to make the reforms an integral part of the Union. And when the Union had been carried, the English minister found himself brought up against the blank wall of the king's absolute refusal to remedy the grievances of the Catholics.

Pitt and others salved their consciences by resignation, but that was the end. Pitt gave the king his promise not to raise the question again, and he returned to office when his presence was again imperatively needed at the helm, without making the fulfilment of his pledges a condition.

The proposal for an incorporating union was approved by large majorities at Westminster, but was virtually defeated - that is, it was passed by a majority of only one - in the Irish House of Commons when introduced in 1799 by Lord Castlereagh, who was chief secretary to Cornwallis. But Pitt, bent on the measure, decided that the assent of the Irish parliament must be obtained at whatever cost.

Cornwallis, the most straightforward of statesmen, certainly believed that he had authority to obtain the support of Catholic opinion by at least implying that the religious grievance would be removed. But the vital matter was to procure a majority in parliament. Pitt and his most effective agent, Castlereagh, were entirely opposed to testing public opinion by a general election. The simpler plan was followed of applying a vigorous and unqualified corruption to convert opponents of the measure into friends.

Peerages, places, and pensions were lavishly promised or scattered there may not have been bribery in the most literal sense, but every man who had his price obtained it. In the year 1800 the Acts of Union were passed both by the British and Irish parliaments, and in 1801 the first parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland met at Westminster.

The new legislature
The Act united the legislatures, giving Ireland one hundred representatives the Irish peers elected twenty-eight representatives of their number to sit in the House of Lords, while those who were excluded from that chamber were eligible to the House of Commons for any English or Scottish constituencies and Ireland was to contribute two-seventeenths to the imperial revenue.

But she still remained with a separate administration and a separate judicial system, with her effective government controlled by the viceroy, who himself continued to be in­fluenced mainly by the ascendency party and if she was at last and decisively freed from all commercial restrictions and placed on the same footing as the sister island, the pledges to the Catholics were ignored, and their, grievances, with those of the Protestant dissenters, remained unremedied. As for the reform of representation, that could hardly have been carried out without corresponding reforms in England, where the fear of the French Revolution, of Jacobinism and anarchy, deferred any such measure for a generation.

A History of Britain

This article is excerpted from the book, 'A History of the British Nation', by AD Innes, published in 1912 by TC & EC Jack, London. I picked up this delightful tome at a second-hand bookstore in Calgary, Canada, some years ago. Since it is now more than 70 years since Mr Innes's death in 1938, we are able to share the complete text of this book with Britain Express readers. Some of the author's views may be controversial by modern standards, particularly his attitudes towards other cultures and races, but it is worth reading as a period piece of British attitudes at the time of writing.


1‭ January ‬1801: The Act of Union between Great Britain & Ireland became operative on this day

You really are quite the thug aren't you? At least behind the keyboard.

The historical consensus is that Ireland was never a unitary state prior to the Norman invasion and the High Kingships were nearly always disputed by other kings and where it was undisputed that did not last very long. Rory O Connor was an undisputed King for a few years (in historical terms that's largely irrelevant) just prior to that but Ireland was still a place - much of its time - where rival families continually jostled for position and power. The idea that Ireland had enjoyed some sort of endless golden age of peace and prosperity prior to 1169 is just a cynical lie told by de Valera to the Irish people to justify the appalling anti-modernism which resulted in Ireland being an economic backwater, which exported its youth, for much of the twentieth century.

The real fools and morons are those whose totalitarian and illiberal mindset cannot distinguish between being "anti" the government or politicians of a country and being "anti" that country. On that childish basis I am probably "anti" just about every country in the world.

Ireland was as much a unitary state as Germany was at that time. The argument you are making negates similar developments towards gradual statebuilding in the Middle Ages, notably in France where half of its present day territory was controlled by the King of England at the time of the invasion of Ireland. As in Germany where was an emperor (called the Holy Roman Emperor), there was a High King in Ireland. As with Germany, we shared a common language - Irish.

The position of Ard Rí tended to rotate between the provincial kings. The northern O'Neills and Southern O"Neills of Tara held it for several centuries, the O'Briens held it after Brian Boru for a while, then the O'Connors. It's true they often fought each other, but Henry II had gained his kingdom as a result of a civil war between his mother Mathilda and King Stephen.

Shiel

Well-known member

Henry 11 signed the treaty of Windsor with High King Ruari O'Connor in the early 1170s.

Of course as is happening today Henry and his Norman friends tore it up before the ink was dry.

Talk Back

Well-known member

Ireland was as much a unitary state as Germany was at that time. The argument you are making negates similar developments towards gradual statebuilding in the Middle Ages, notably in France where half of its present day territory was controlled by the King of England at the time of the invasion of Ireland. As in Germany where was an emperor (called the Holy Roman Emperor), there was a High King in Ireland. As with Germany, we shared a common language - Irish.

The position of Ard Rí tended to rotate between the provincial kings. The northern O'Neills and Southern O"Neills of Tara held it for several centuries, the O'Briens held it after Brian Boru for a while, then the O'Connors. It's true they often fought each other, but Henry II had gained his kingdom as a result of a civil war between his mother Mathilda and King Stephen.

Right - and none of that negates the historical fact that England's invasion and occupation of Ireland was illegal and fraudulent.

The donation of Constantine was forged by a Pope therefore obviously fake, and Ireland was never a part of the Roman Empire in the first place.

And the Laudabiliter is also deemed a fake - and now is nowhere to be found. The fake Bull also claimed to derive its "authority" from the fake donation of Constantine.

So the Roman Church had no authority in Ireland - and England has no mandate in Ireland - it never did..

Talk Back

Well-known member

Henry 11 signed the treaty of Windsor with High King Ruari O'Connor in the early 1170s.

Of course as is happening today Henry and his Norman friends tore it up before the ink was dry.

1/ England's invasion and occupation of Ireland was illegal and fraudulent. England's claim to Ireland, namely, bringing the Irish church under Papal control, was fraudulent because an English Pope, Adrian IV and an English King, Henry II, conspiring to steal Irish land, had NO authority, moral or legal.

The donation of Constantine was forged by a Pope therefore obviously fake, and Ireland was never a part of the Roman Empire in the first place. And the Laudabiliter is also deemed a fake - and now is nowhere to be found. The fake Bull claimed to derive its "authority" from the fake donation of Constantine. So the Roman Church had no authority in Ireland - and England has no mandate in Ireland - it never did..

2/ The parasite that is England has a history of breaking international agreements. The Brexit 'Withdrawal Agreement' and the 'Irish Protocol' within is currently the latest example from the white trash country. No wonder England and the English people are hated. The world has used the phase 'Perfidious Albion' for good reason.

3/ The signing the treaty of Windsor is irrelevant anyway because it is after the fact that England illegally and fraudulently invaded and occupied Ireland. It had no legal basis.

4/ England broke that treaty - making that treaty null and void.

England has no right legal and certainly not moral to occupy any part of Ireland - the Irish people of Ireland do not want it, and never did.

The so-called act of union was forced on us by Ireland's historical and hereditary enemy England - in a similar way as the undemocratic artificial partition of Ireland was - neither sought nor sanctioned by the Irish people of Ireland.

Shiel

Well-known member

1/ England's invasion and occupation of Ireland was illegal and fraudulent. England's claim to Ireland, namely, bringing the Irish church under Papal control, was fraudulent because an English Pope, Adrian IV and an English King, Henry II, conspiring to steal Irish land, had NO authority, moral or legal.

The donation of Constantine was forged by a Pope therefore obviously fake, and Ireland was never a part of the Roman Empire in the first place. And the Laudabiliter is also deemed a fake - and now is nowhere to be found. The fake Bull claimed to derive its "authority" from the fake donation of Constantine. So the Roman Church had no authority in Ireland - and England has no mandate in Ireland - it never did..

2/ The parasite that is England has a history of breaking international agreements. The Brexit 'Withdrawal Agreement' and the 'Irish Protocol' within is currently the latest example from the white trash country. No wonder England and the English people are hated. The world has used the phase 'Perfidious Albion' for good reason.

3/ The signing the treaty of Windsor is irrelevant anyway because it is after the fact that England illegally and fraudulently invaded and occupied Ireland. It had no legal basis.

4/ England broke that treaty - making that treaty null and void.

England has no right legal and certainly not moral to occupy any part of Ireland - the Irish people of Ireland do not want it, and never did.

The so-called act of union was forced on us by Ireland's historical and hereditary enemy England - in a similar way as the undemocratic artificial partition of Ireland was - neither sought nor sanctioned by the Irish people of Ireland.

Given the indefensible way the present day English are using Brexit to dismantle the EU and tear up the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement it is difficult to disagree with much of what you have written there.

But saying the English are worse than the rest of us might be going a bit too far.

If the Irish had formed a world empire would everything be all sweetness and light?

In relation to this thread the question arises about the existence of the dioceses which historians tell us derive from a Synod held in 1111 way before the onset of Henry 11 and the Normans with their papal bull Laudabiliter.

The existence of these dioceses to this day with their borders based on old Gaelic divisions so different from the county boundaries which were decided in London means Henry 11 or the Normans had nothing to do with it.

The dioceses seemingly replaced the influence of the monasteries but that change must have been influenced by Rome.

Bartholomew

Član

Catapulta

Well-known member

Given the indefensible way the present day English are using Brexit to dismantle the EU and tear up the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement it is difficult to disagree with much of what you have written there.

But saying the English are worse than the rest of us might be going a bit too far.

If the Irish had formed a world empire would everything be all sweetness and light?

In relation to this thread the question arises about the existence of the dioceses which historians tell us derive from a Synod held in 1111 way before the onset of Henry 11 and the Normans with their papal bull Laudabiliter.

The existence of these dioceses to this day with their borders based on old Gaelic divisions so different from the county boundaries which were decided in London means Henry 11 or the Normans had nothing to do with it.

The dioceses seemingly replaced the influence of the monasteries but that change must have been influenced by Rome.

I think you are referring to the Synod of Rathbrassil in 1111AD where the principle of the administration of Church affairs here under a Diocesan system was accepted and saw Ireland divided into two separate ecclesiastical provinces based on the ancient division of the Country into Leath Cuinn [north] and Leath Mogha [south]. Each area was to be divided into 12 dioceses.

The million dollar question here is how far did these dioceses get off the ground before the Anglo-Norman Invasion of 1169 AD?

There are of course various schools of thought on this but the balance of probability is that a full diocese system really didn't take hold until the 13th century.

While there were a number of synods here under sometime papal Legates in the 12th century the pace of reform was sluggish and piecemeal. To the Pope in Rome we were 'behind the times' and not really able to get our act together.

So when an emissary of King Henry II met Pope Adrian [who might well have been at least somewhat familiar with the state of the Irish Church] in IIRC 1155 AD then it's quite possible that he received some kind of a letter of authorisation to attempt to bring more order to ecclesiastical affairs here.

2nd million dollar question is what exactly was in that letter? There is a strong suspicion that Henry did not get a carte blanche to do as he liked in Ireland but was to seek to engage the rulers of Ireland, lay and ecclesiastic in consultations before he preceded any further.

But as we know matters took a different turn and Henry used the Laudabiter as a template to justify his invasion of Ireland. At the time he was under a cloud with the Papacy over the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas a Beckett and making himself scarce by going on campaign abroad was the perfect excuse he needed. If he wasn't quite going on a 'Crusade' [we were Christians after all!] then he could pass off his absence as doing the work of the Church Reform where it was badly needed!

Smart cookie was ol Henry!

Shiel

Well-known member

I think you are referring to the Synod of Rathbrassil in 1111AD where the principle of the administration of Church affairs here under a Diocesan system was accepted and saw Ireland divided into two separate ecclesiastical provinces based on the ancient division of the Country into Leath Cuinn [north] and Leath Mogha [south]. Each area was to be divided into 12 dioceses.

The million dollar question here is how far did these dioceses get off the ground before the Anglo-Norman Invasion of 1169 AD?

There are of course various schools of thought on this but the balance of probability is that a full diocese system really didn't take hold until the 13th century.

While there were a number of synods here under sometime papal Legates in the 12th century the pace of reform was sluggish and piecemeal. To the Pope in Rome we were 'behind the times' and not really able to get our act together.

So when an emissary of King Henry II met Pope Adrian [who might well have been at least somewhat familiar with the state of the Irish Church] in IIRC 1155 AD then it's quite possible that he received some kind of a letter of authorisation to attempt to bring more order to ecclesiastical affairs here.

2nd million dollar question is what exactly was in that letter? There is a strong suspicion that Henry did not get a carte blanche to do as he liked in Ireland but was to seek to engage the rulers of Ireland, lay and ecclesiastic in consultations before he preceded any further.

But as we know matters took a different turn and Henry used the Laudabiter as a template to justify his invasion of Ireland. At the time he was under a cloud with the Papacy over the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas a Beckett and making himself scarce by going on campaign abroad was the perfect excuse he needed. If he wasn't quite going on a 'Crusade' [we were Christians after all!] then he could pass off his absence as doing the work of the Church Reform where it was badly needed!

Smart cookie was ol Henry!

Not much to disagree with there.

What fascinates me is how different the dioceses which are based on old Gaelic divisions are to the counties which had nothing to do with Gaelic divisions but were laid out in London over the centuries,

The counties were set up to administer the laws of the colonial power and keep Paddy from causing too much trouble.

County Offaly is fascinating for example.

I think there are six separate dioceses in Co Offaly and one of those dioceses - Ardagh and Clonmacnoise with a Cathedral in Longford - goes up as far as Co. Sligo.

Imagine if the GAA was based on dioceses.

The people in Birr, which is in Co. Offaly, would be cheering for the dioceses of Killaloe along with most of Clare and much of North Tipperary.

Four Leaf Rover

Active member

1‭ January ‬1801: The Act of Union between Great Britain & Ireland became operative on this day. The ‘Irish’ Parliament on College Green in Dublin met for the last time in August of the previous year. It had been persuaded to vote itself out of existence through an Act of Union with Great Britain. Many wealthy landlords and members of the Irish aristocracy were moved by promises of titles and honours from London. With the Act of Union the centre of political power shifted to London. The idea of a union of Great Britain and Ireland had been considered many times over the previous‭ 100 years or so. The grant of nominal legislative independence to the Dublin Parliament in 1782 gave the impression to many that the idea had been dropped.

However,‭ the situation changed in 1793 with the onset of War with Revolutionary France and even more so with the 1798 Rising here in Ireland which was brutally crushed. The Ascendancy (that is the Anglo-Irish Elite) had been shaken to its core by the events of the previous years and realised that if Catholic Emancipation were granted their situation would be fatally undermined. If Catholics gained the right to sit in Ireland’s parliament then it was only a matter of time until the Ascendency was finished as a political & economic power in the land. They were therefore amenable to be persuaded that the centre of power should reside in London thus by negating the possibility of the Catholics of Ireland gaining control of the Country’s Destiny.

Pitt,‭ the British Prime Minister along with Lord Castlereagh [ ‬as de facto Chief Secretary] ‭went for sheer bribery to ‘buy’ the MPs consent to a Union. The going rate was ‬£15,000 per seat and threats, bribes and promises were applied to swing the Honourable Members consent to the measure. Castlereagh stated that his task was to: ‘to buy out, and secure to the Crown forever, the fee simple of Irish corruption’. To this day the whole murky process is covered in mystery as to who and how these financial transactions were carried out.

Both houses of the College Green Parliament agreed the terms of the Union on‭ 28 March 1800. An identical Bill was laid before the both the Dublin and London Parliaments. The British one became law on 2 July and the Royal Assent was given to an Act of Union on 1 August. This Act of Union became operative on 1 January 1801. The first meeting of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland too place at the Palace of Westminster on 22 January 1801.

Had there been a stable peace at home in Ireland and abroad,‭ and no possibility of a further French attack & with no threat of Catholic Emancipation then it is very unlikely that the Dublin Parliament would have voted itself out of existence. Ironically Peace with France came, however briefly, in the year following the Union (1802) and the Catholics of Ireland had to wait another 28 years to their Emancipation from last of the Penal Laws.


Act of Union 1801 - History

The Acts of Union in 1707, also referred to as the Union of the Parliaments, had a significant impact on the governmental and political structure of both England and Scotland. The two acts served to join the two countries into a single kingdom with a single Parliament. Passage of the Acts created the nation of Great Britain from the previous separate states of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. While England and Scotland were merging into a single country, additional impacts from the Acts were felt across the globe, including in the American colonies.

Acts of Union

The Parliament of England passed the Union with Scotland Act in 1706 and the Parliament of Scotland passed the Union with England Act in 1707. The two Acts implemented the terms of the Treaty of Union agreed upon in July 1706. This treaty established terms for joining the two nations under a single entity. While three previous efforts had been made to merge the two nations, both political establishments did not align on the terms and benefits until the early 18th century.

Prior to the Acts, England and Scotland shared the same monarch but had separate legislatures. On May 1, 1707, the two Acts took effect when the two legislatures merged into the Parliament of Great Britain, based in London. With this merger, the two previously independent nations became a single nation known as Great Britain. With the treaty, England’s border security improved and Scotland was positioned to reap financial benefits.

Articles of the Acts

The Treaty of Union consisted of 25 articles addressing various aspects of merging the two nations. Of the articles, 15 pertained to economic concerns while the other 10 addressed items such as the inclusion of Scottish representatives in the House of Lords and the acceptance of specific religious faiths. Under the articles, the Church of Scotland remained the recognized and official church in Scotland and a previous ban on a Roman Catholic taking the throne was reinforced.

Additional components of the Treaty and subsequent Acts of Union revolved around the union of monetary and customs systems and reinforced the validity of existing Scottish law. While many of the articles focused on financial components of the relationship, the articles affirming Scottish law and religion had an even greater impact on the success of the Acts. Originally, the Church of Scotland opposed the treaty, but the articles affirming the Presbyterian establishment addressed the overt hostility. While lower levels of the clergy continued to oppose the treaty, the higher authorities agreed to the terms.

Impact on Colonial America

While the Acts of Union served primarily to unite Scotland and England into a single nation, they also impacted the colonies in North America. The English colonies had been primarily self-governing for some time, but the merger of Scottish and English legislatures into a single representative form of Parliament led to even greater relaxation of control over the colonies. Most of the English colonies had been established for economic purposes. As long as the colonies continued to be profitable and trade continued to grow, royal oversight remained minimal.

The representative assemblies in the colonies took advantage of the relaxation of oversight and increased their power over internal matters. Before this period, appointed governors commanded local militias and had significant influence in the appointment of various legal officials. With the decrease of oversight, the colonial assemblies were able to achieve greater influence in local government. Using some of the same methods as members of the English parliament, assembly members demanded the power to control taxes and provide input into public office appointments.

Following the passage of the Acts, political power in the colonies continued to shift from the appointed governors and councils to the representative, elected assemblies. When British officials resisted, several colonies flexed their new powers by refusing to pay appointed governors for several years. Despite resistance from British officials, little action was taken. Instead, most of England’s focus during this time remained on conflicts and expansion efforts in other areas. Little effort was put into enforcing British law as long as the colonies adhered to tax regulations.

The Acts of Union also served to enable Scottish settlers to immigrate to the colonies. Before the nations merged, Scotland had limited opportunities to trade with the colonies or establish commercial relations. With the passage of the Acts, colonial markets opened up to Scottish companies and the colonies were able to increase trade with Scotland. As a result of the Acts, Scotland benefited financially from the opening of American markets.

Setting the Stage

The American colonies enjoyed greater freedom from royal oversight during the period surrounding the Acts of Union. Colonial assemblies and governments continued to expand their influence and came to expect having power in decisions affecting the colonies. At the same time, with Scotland merged into Great Britain, England enjoyed greater border security and sought to further expand the British Empire. As a result, England engaged in several wars and battles around the world and continued to expand and strengthen colonization efforts.

To fund expansion efforts, the government imposed numerous taxes on the citizens of the empire, including the colonies. While initial increases in taxes were accepted, following the passage of the Acts, American resistance to growing taxation began to fester. Scotland enjoyed representation in the government of Great Britain, but the colonies helping to fund expansion did not have the same voice.

The combination of greater freedom from oversight and increasing tax burdens set the stage for dissatisfaction in the American colonies. Having enjoyed self-government for some time, the assemblies governing the colonies considered increasing taxes burdensome. While the dissatisfaction would not spark a full-scale rebellion for some time, the seeds of dissent were planted and the stage was set for the growing independence of the American colonies.

While the Acts of Union stabilized the governments of England and Scotland and led to significant changes in Europe, the effects on American colonies were more subtle and long-ranging. With English attention focused on relationships at home and on other expansion efforts, the colonies began to grow more and more self-sufficient and self-governing. As a result, colonial America became less tolerant of English demands and began to think of itself as an independent nation.


Gledaj video: Јединствени информациони системи у просвети са приказом измена закона о основама система образовања (Srpanj 2022).


Komentari:

  1. Zelig

    Vrlo zabavan komad

  2. Laine

    Tell details ..



Napišite poruku