text:
Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre

Past content removed
The following was fully removed from the MMM article and then partially restored, am parking it here while I see if it is verifiable or not etc: Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mountain Meadows. – an article originally published in the Cincinnati Gazette (July 21, 1875), then republished in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat(July 26, 1875). An affidavit of James Lynch's testimony taken in July 1859 about the human remains Lynch saw at Mount Meadows in March and April 1858, about the living conditions of the child survivors of the Massacre during that time, and about the children's statements regarding the perpetrators of the Massacre. Lynch accompanied Dr. Jacob Forney, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, on an expedition to the area. The affidavit was given in front of Chief Justice of the Utah Territory Supreme Court Delana R. Eckels on July 27, 1859, and sent by US Army officer S.H. Montgomery to Commissioner of Indian Affairs A.B. Greenwood in August 1859.
 * What is presently in the article is the following:
 * Mountain Meadows. – an article originally published in the Cincinnati Gazette (July 21, 1875)
 * So...
 * The Lynch affidavit's publication journey in various newspapers can be found in the newspaper.com clip, at the top of the column:
 * "(From the Cincinnati Gazette)
 * Washington, July 21"
 * And from the cite itself:
 * St. Louis Globe-Democrat
 * St. Louis, Missouri •
 * Mon, Jul 26, 1875
 * Page 1
 * Some of the same information can also be found on Page 248 in Chapter 8/"James Lynch Affidavit"(Pages 243-254) of the book Mountain Meadows Massacre: Collected Legal Papers, Initial Investigations and Indictments, Volume 1 - see this Google Books link - especially the St. Louis paper info, though St Louis is the only source I can find at this time that mentions that this 1875 iteration of the Affidavit first appeared in the Cincinnati Gazette/July 21st 1875.
 * And though the Lynch Affidavit's appearance in newspapers contemporaneous to the 2nd John D Lee trial (the one in 1875) are important to understanding the media of the time, the Affidavit itself is what is important to this subject. The 1859 Lynch Affidavit itself can be found in its slightly edited permutations in the book & source mentioned above. However...so far as I can tell, the full Affidavit in any form that is also accessible to our readers seems to be only available in the newspapers.com cite, so that cite should stay.
 * Now, as to the sentences that start with "An affidavit of James Lynch's testimony..." and ends with "...A.B. Greenwood in August 1859." All the excised information is contained in the newpapers.com/St Louis Globe-Democrat article of Lynch's affidavit, including the names of Eckels, Greenwood, Montgomery,and Forney. I am unsure why that information has been removed. Would welcome a discussion. Thanks,Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed that text because it is an unsourced description of the Affidavit. We can list the 1875 article without providing analysis of it, as is the case now, but if we're going to analyze it, the analysis should be based on a secondary source that talks about the 1875 article.
 * Also note that the Media detailing the massacre section does not provide any descriptions for the sources it lists, so I'm not sure why this should be the exception. In addition, it doesn't really belong in this section which only lists contemporary books, not primary sources. A primary source such as the Affidavit is technically not media detailing the massacre. I'd suggest replacing it with the book you mentioned that contains coverage of the Affidavit. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought about deleting the Newspapers.com linkage but that is the only full copy of the affidavit that is freely available online to our readership so it should be retained in some form within the article. I see your point about the 1859 Affadavit itself technically not being media but it was published in newspapers in 1875 along with their commentary, and this version is what people saw at the time of Lee's second trial....hmmm, will think about it. Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not really our responsibility to provide freely available sources. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Perhaps there is a better way to incorporate the affidavit into the article though. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  16:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok... WP:SOURCEACCESS/WP:PAYWALL states to not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access - I am not rejecting the book source which is already cited within the article. I agree with you that the newsapers.com cite is fine to retain in some fashion (with the added bonus that since it contains the entire Lynch Affidavit that might be a good idea for verifiability purposes). Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've put that source material into an External links section. Shearonink (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that seems like a good spot for it. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Article title capitalization
The title of the article, "Mountain Meadows Massacre", uses all capital letters. It seems "Mountain Meadows massacre" would be more in keeping with WP:LOWERCASE. Thoughts? Bahooka (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 * You're far from the first to argue this. There's been multiple rounds of debates about it, and the title of the page has gone back and forth between MMM and MMm over the years. I'd check the archives of the talk page history and the move history to see what arguments have been made. There's legit arguments to both sides and its to the point that I no longer have a position one way or the other. Dave (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here were the arguments made the last time this was discussed Dave (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for pointing me in that direction and providing me the link. I was looking at other massacre articles and capitalization, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency. That's probably why this article also went back and forth. Best, Bahooka (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Beabien

Another escapee from the sandbox created by an anon. No Google hits whatsoever. This is just...well, nothing. On the other hand, "Marcel Beaubien" comes back legit. What was this guy thinking? - Lucky 6.9 18:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No need to list this here. All you need to do is put  on the page. Isomorphic 18:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Uncontroversially (for a change) patent nonsense. Agree. Andrewa 19:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:Underground~enwiki

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

Since I strongly suspect that you are writing about yourself at XeW, you should take a look at the guidelines on Autobiography. The page will probably be deleted, as there is no reason to believe that this hacker is especially notable.

Before you start doing a lot of editing, you'll want to take the Tutorial. It gives all the basic info you'll need as you start contributing.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 18:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your explanation. Wikipedia is not a directory, so your article isn't really what we're looking for, but it's no big deal.  Blanking a page isn't the same as deleting it - it'll have to go through the Votes for deletion process as a formality before it's actually removed.  If you're interested in writing for us, I'm sure there's plenty you could contribute.  Take a look at Contributing to Wikipedia. Isomorphic 18:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Underground. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Underground~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Underground~enwiki


text:
Dusky smooth-hound

The dusky smooth-hound (Mustelus canis), also called the smooth dogfish or the dog shark, is a species of houndshark in the family Triakidae. This shark is an olive grey or brown in color, and may have shades of yellow or grayish white. Females live to 16 years and males have a lifespan of 10 years. M. canis was the first shark recognised to have viral infections.

Taxonomy
M. canis can be known as smooth dogfish, Atlantic smooth dogfish, dusky smooth-hound, grayish, nurse shark, smooth dog, or smooth-hound. It was originally named Squalls canis. In Latin, mustelus translates to weasel and canis translates to dog. M. canis has an allopatric relationship with M. mustelus (common smooth-hound) and a sympatric relationship with M. norrisi (narrowfin smooth-hound).

Distribution and habitat
M. canis is found in marine and brackish waters and is demersal (bottom-dwelling) and oceanodromous (migratory in seas). They can be found between 42°N and 44°S and 100 and 46°W. M. canis in the North Atlantic migrates in response to changing temperature. In winter, they can be found in the Carolinas to the outlet of the Chesapeake Bay, and in summer from the mid-Atlantic to southern New England. They are most abundant on the East Coast, from Massachusetts to Florida, Brazil to Argentina, and in the Gulf of Mexico. They are mostly found in waters shallower than 60 ft (18 m), but can be found to 665 ft (200 m) deep.

Anatomy and appearance
Smooth dogfish are relatively small and slender. They have elongated, oval-shaped eyes with a spiracle located directly behind on each side. They have triangular fins. Their first and second dorsal fins are well-serrated and nearly equal in size. The second dorsal fin is slightly smaller than the first and twice as large as the anal fin. The caudal fin has two asymmetrical lobes, the lower is smaller and rounder and the upper has a deep notch. They do not have any fin spines, unlike the spiny dogfish. They have a tapering, blunt snout. They can be gray to brown and their undersides can be white to yellowish gray. Smooth dogfish have the ability to change colors using melanophores to help them camouflage. Newborns have lighter gray edges on their fins and have tail fins edged in white. On average, smooth dogfish are about 48 in long, but can reach up to 5 ft. They have an inter-dorsal ridge.

Dentition
One main characteristic of elasmobranch fishes is their ability to continually replace the teeth in their upper and lower jaws. Smooth dogfish differ from other sharks because of their 10 rows of flat, blunt teeth. The teeth in the upper and lower jaws are similar in size and are asymmetrical with rounded cusps. These teeth are used to crush and grind food, rather than bite it. Their unique dentition is important for their crustacean-based diet.

In smooth dogfish, tooth replacement is related to body growth. They grow about 10 cm per every six rows of teeth replaced. That is an increase of 0.03 mm per replaced tooth. Teeth are replaced at a rate of one row per 10 to 12 days.

Diet
M. canis feeds mostly on crustaceans, polychaetes, and mollusks. Smooth dogfish also eat squid, worms, small fish, razor clams, and occasionally garbage. They are nocturnal scavengers and opportunistic predators. Their nocturnal activity helps them to take advantage of concentrations of crustacean prey.

Reproduction
The mating season of smooth dogfish is from May to June. They are viviparous and have a yolk-sac placenta. Females can store sperm up to a year, but how long it can be used is not known. Their gestation period is 10 to 11 months and litters can be between four and 20 pups. The pups are 13 to 15 in (34 to 39 cm) long when born. Males reach sexual maturity between 2 and 3 years or 68 and 93 cm in length. Females reach sexual maturity between 4 and 5 years or 70 and 130 cm in length. Smooth dogfish have a relatively low population doubling time of 4.5 to 14 years. Because of their late maturation, low fecundity, and restricted distributions, they are still more vulnerable to overfishing than teleost fishes.

Juvenile females have filiform uteri, small ovaries with undifferentiated oocyctes, egg cells, and narrow, thread-like oviducts with undeveloped oviducal glands. Adolescents have enlarged oviducal glands with distinguishable oocytes and no or few corpora lutea. Adults have large ovaries and vitellogenic oocytes. Spermatozoa has been observed in preovulatory females.

Juvenile males have soft, small claspers and undeveloped testes with straight, thread-like ampullae ductus deferens. Adolescents' testes have increased weight and claspers are extended and calcified, but are still flexible. Adults have fully formed and calcified claspers and large and developed testes.

Relationship to humans
Commercial fisheries have had an increased interest in smooth dogfish since the 1900s. They are caught using longlines and bottom trawls primarily off of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Mostly, they are considered bycatch when fishing for other species, which has put them in the near-threatened category by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. They are no danger to humans because of their blunt teeth.

Tonic immobility
Tonic immobility has been reported in several cartilaginous fishes, one of which is M. canis. Tonic immobility is induced by grasping the first dorsal fin with one hand and the body immediately anterior to the anal fin with the other, inverting the shark and holding it rigidly. The mean time to induce tonic immobility in smooth dogfish was 32.5 seconds. The mean duration of the tonic immobility was 61.9 seconds. Sharks that had the "limp" response also exhibited tonic immobility. The "limp" response is a criterion for the onset of tonic immobility.

title: Dusky smooth-hound


text:
Philippe Halsman

Philippe Halsman (Filips Halsmans; Philipp Halsmann; 2 May 1906 – 25 June 1979) was an American portrait photographer. He was born in Riga in the part of the Russian Empire which later became Latvia, and died in New York City.

Life and work
Halsman was born in Riga to a Jewish couple, Morduch (Maks) Halsman, a dentist, and Ita Grintuch, a grammar school principal. He studied electrical engineering in Dresden.

In September 1928, 22-year-old Halsman was accused of his father's murder while they were on a hiking trip in the Austrian Tyrol, an area rife with antisemitism. After a trial based on circumstantial evidence, he was sentenced to four years of prison. His family, friends and barristers worked for his release, getting support from Thomas Mann and various important European Jewish intellectuals including Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Jakob Wassermann, Erich Fromm, Paul Painlevé, Heinrich Eduard Jacob and Rudolf Olden, who endorsed his innocence. Halsman spent two years in prison, where he contracted tuberculosis. His letters from prison were published as a book in 1930: Briefe aus der Haft an eine Freundin. He was pardoned by the President of Austria, Wilhelm Miklas, and released in October 1930.

Halsman left Austria for France, began contributing photographs to fashion magazines such as Vogue, and soon gained a reputation as one of the best portrait photographers in France, renowned for images that were sharp rather than in soft focus as was often used, and closely cropped. When France was invaded by Germany, Halsman fled to Marseille. He eventually managed to obtain a U.S. visa, aided by family friend Albert Einstein (whom he later famously photographed in 1947).

Halsman had his first success in America when the cosmetics firm Elizabeth Arden used his image of model Constance Ford against the American flag in an advertising campaign for "Victory Red" lipstick. A year later, in 1942, he found work with Life magazine, photographing hat designs; a portrait of a model in a Lilly Daché hat was the first of his 101 covers for Life.

In 1941 Halsman met the surrealist artist Salvador Dalí; they began to collaborate in the late 1940s. The 1948 work Dalí Atomicus explores the idea of suspension, depicting three cats flying, a bucket of thrown water, and Dalí in mid air. The title of the photograph is a reference to Dalí's work Leda Atomica which can be seen in the right of the photograph behind the two cats. Halsman reported that it took 28 attempts before a satisfactory result was achieved. Halsman and Dalí eventually released a compendium of their collaborations in the 1954 book Dali's Mustache, which features 36 different views of the artist's distinctive mustache. Another famous collaboration between the two was , a surrealistic portrait of Dalí beside a tableau vivant of seven nude women posed to look like a large skull. Halsman took three hours to arrange the models according to a sketch by Dalí. Various re-enactments of and allusions to In Voluptas Mors have appeared over the years; most famously, a version was used subtly in the poster for the film The Silence of The Lambs, while an overt reenactment appeared on a promotional poster for The Descent.

In 1947 Halsman photographed a mournful Albert Einstein, who during the session recounted his regrets about his role in the United States pursuing the atomic bomb; this became one of Halsman's most famous photographs. The photo was later used in 1966 on a U.S. postage stamp and, in 1999, on the cover of Time magazine, when it called Einstein the "Person of the Century."

In 1951 Halsman was commissioned by NBC to photograph various popular comedians of the time including Milton Berle, Sid Caesar, Groucho Marx, and Bob Hope. While photographing the comedians doing their acts, he captured many of the comedians jumping, in mid-air, which went on to inspire many later jump pictures of celebrities including the Ford family, The Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Marilyn Monroe, María Félix and Richard Nixon.

Halsman commented, "When you ask a person to jump, his attention is mostly directed toward the act of jumping and the mask falls so that the real person appears." The photographer developed a philosophy of jump photography, which he called jumpology. He published Philippe Halsman's Jump Book in 1959, which contained a tongue-in-cheek discussion of jumpology and 178 photographs of celebrity jumpers.

His 1961 book Halsman on the Creation of Photographic Ideas, discussed ways for photographers to produce unusual pieces of work by following six rules:

 * the rule of the direct approach
 * the rule of the unusual technique
 * the rule of the added unusual feature
 * the rule of the missing feature
 * the rule of compounded features
 * the rule of the literal or ideographic method

In his first rule, Halsman explains that being straightforward and plain creates a strong photograph.

To make an ordinary and uninteresting subject interesting and unusual, his second rule lists a variety of photographic techniques, including unusual lighting, unusual angle, unusual composition, etc.

The rule of the added unusual feature is an effort by the photographer to capture the audiences attention by drawing their eye to something unexpected by introducing an unusual feature or prop into the photograph. For example, the photograph of a little boy holding a hand grenade by Diane Arbus contains what Halsman would call an added unusual feature.

Halsman's fourth rule of "the missing feature" stimulates the viewer by going against his or her expectations.

The fifth rule enlists the photographer to combine the other rules to add originality to his or her photo.

Finally, Halsman's literal or ideographic method is to illustrate a message in a photograph by depicting the subject as clearly as possible.

Other celebrities photographed by Halsman include Alfred Hitchcock and François Truffaut during their 1962 interview, Martin and Lewis, Judy Garland, Winston Churchill, Marilyn Monroe, Dorothy Dandridge, Pablo Picasso, and Jean Cocteau. Many of those photographs appeared on the cover of Life. In such photos, he utilizes a variety of his rules of photography. For example, in one of his photos of Winston Churchill, the omission of his face makes Halsman's photo even more powerful at making Churchill more human.

In 1952 John F. Kennedy sat twice for photographs by Halsman. A photograph from the first sitting appeared on the jacket of the original edition of Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage; one from the second sitting was used in his senatorial campaign.

In 1958 Halsman was listed in Popular Photography magazine's "World's Ten Greatest Photographers", and in 1975 he received the Life Achievement in Photography Award from the American Society of Magazine Photographers, of which he was elected the first president in 1945. He also held many large exhibitions worldwide.

In 1967 Halsman received the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement.

In the 2007 film Jump!, Halsman was portrayed by Ben Silverstone.

title: Philippe Halsman


text:
Talk:Lyric

Lyric is the word used to describe a form of poetry, usually rather light and fanciful often following a set pattern. The word is rooted in the word "lyre", the implication being that the lyric poem is suitable for singing with a lyre, although the modern use of the expression "lyric poetry" is separate from the term "lyrics", which are, indeed, the words set to music.

title: Talk:Lyric


text:
Dissolution of parliament

The dissolution of a legislative assembly (or parliament) is the simultaneous termination of service of all of its members, in anticipation that a successive legislative assembly will reconvene later with possibly different members. In a democracy, the new assembly is chosen by a general election. Dissolution is distinct on the one hand from abolition of the assembly, and on the other hand from its adjournment or prorogation, or the ending of a legislative session, any of which begins a period of inactivity after which it is anticipated that the same members will reassemble. For example, the "second session of the fifth parliament" could be followed by the "third session of the fifth parliament" after a prorogation, but would be followed by the "first session of the sixth parliament" after a dissolution.

In most Continental European countries, dissolution does not have immediate effect – that is, a dissolution merely triggers an election, but the old assembly itself continues its existing term and its members remain in office until the new assembly convenes for the first time. In those systems, ordinarily scheduled elections are held before the assembly reaches the end of a fixed or maximum term, and do not require a dissolution.

In most Westminster systems, however, a dissolution legally ends the existence of the assembly, resulting in a temporary power vacuum, which may be filled in special circumstances by recalling the old assembly if need be. Because of this peculiarity, Westminster systems also have automatically-triggered dissolutions when the assembly reaches the end of a fixed or maximum term, since the act of dissolution itself is synonymous with the end of the assembly's term, and elections cannot be held in anticipation of a dissolution.

Early dissolutions may be possible in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems, to resolve conflicts between the executive and the legislature; either a "snap election" called by an executive seeking to increase its legislative support, or an election triggered by parliament withholding confidence and supply from the government. Some presidential systems also allow early dissolutions, usually by the legislature voting to dissolve itself (as in Cyprus), but sometimes by executive action in more authoritarian presidential systems.

In a bicameral legislature, dissolution may apply jointly or separately to the lower house and upper house, or may apply only to the lower house, with the upper house never fully dissolved. In a bicameral Westminster system, the expression "dissolution of parliament" typically refers to the dissolution of the lower house, just as "member of parliament" means member of the lower house.

Australia
The House of Representatives, but not the Senate, can be dissolved at any time by the governor-general on the advice of the prime minister. The term of the House expires three years after its first meeting if not dissolved earlier. The governor-general can dissolve the Senate only by also dissolving the House of Representatives (a double dissolution) and only in limited circumstances spelled out in the Constitution.

There is a convention that the Governor-General only orders a dissolution on the advice of the prime minister. This convention was demonstrated in the dismissal of prime minister Gough Whitlam by Governor General Sir John Kerr in 1975. Kerr claimed that dissolving the House of Representatives was his duty and "the only democratic and constitutional solution" to the political deadlock over supply. Whitlam refused to advise Kerr to call an election, and Kerr replaced him with a caretaker prime minister, Malcolm Fraser. Fraser promptly advised a double dissolution, and Sir John acted in accordance with that advice.

Parliament of Victoria
Unlike the Commonwealth Parliament, the premier and governor of Victoria have very little discretion in dissolving the Parliament of Victoria. Both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are dissolved automatically twenty-five days before the last Saturday in November every four years. However, the governor can dissolve the Legislative Assembly if a motion of no confidence in the premier and the other ministers of state is passed and no motion of confidence is passed within the next week. Finally, the premier can advise the governor to dissolve both houses in the case of a deadlocked bill.

Belgium
In Belgium, dissolution occurs either by royal order or by law upon a Declaration of Revision of the Constitution (Art. 195 Const.). Since the First World War, elections have always been called with either of these actions, except for 1929. A third scenario, dissolution by law due to a vacant throne, has never occurred.

Dissolution by law dissolves both the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate. A royal order originally could dissolve the Chamber, the Senate, or both. However, the last dissolution of one chamber only happened in 1884; both chambers were always dissolved together since then. With the 1993 constitutional reforms, only the Chamber could be dissolved, with the Senate being automatically dissolved as well. Since 2014 constitutional reforms, only the Chamber can be dissolved, as the Senate is no longer directly elected.

After dissolution, elections must be held within 40 days, and the new chambers must convene within three months (within two months from 1831 to 2014).

Parliaments of the regions and communities cannot be dissolved; they have fixed five-year terms.

Brazil
Under the current constitution, there is no formal way to dissolve the Federal Senate or the Chamber of Deputies (Houses of the National Congress).

Imperial Era
In May 1823, eight months after Independence, the first brazilian legislative experience began, with the installation of the General, Constituent and Legislative Assembly, with the task of drafting the country's first Constitution. Six months later, in confrontation with the Deputies, Emperor Dom Pedro dissolved the assembly, ordered the arrest and exile of some deputies and created a Council of State to draft the Constitution, which he signed in 1824.

This was the first of the eighteen times that the legislature was dissolved, the Imperial Constitution and its quasi-parliamentary model formalized the Emperor's power to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies (the Senate was not elected). During the Regency and reign of Dom Pedro II, the Chamber of Deputies was dissolved on several occasions, almost always when the clash between conservatives and liberals or between legislators and the Council of Ministers (Brazil) reached a degree considered too high by the Emperor.

First Republic
After the Proclamation of the Republic, in 1889, a Constituent Congress was convened to prepare the first republican charter, which came into force in 1891. However, on 3 November of that year, the National Congress would be closed by President Deodoro da Fonseca, with the legislature reinstated after the attempt was deemed a coup and he resigned.

Vargas Era
The legislature was closed twice by Getúlio Vargas. After the Revolution of 1930, as Head of the Provisional Government, Vargas dissolved the National Congress, the state legislative assemblies and the municipal chambers. Pressured by the failed Constitutionalist Revolution, Vargas was forced to call elections for a National Constituent Assembly.

On 10 November 1937, now President of the Republic elected by the same National Congress, Vargas staged a coup d'état, establishing the Estado Novo. He closed the legislature and instituted a new, authoritarian Constitution. Despite the new charter determining the convening of a "National Parliament" with a appointed Federal Council and a Chamber of Deputies that could be dissolved, elections were never held.

Republican Parliamentarism
During the brief parliamentary experience from 1961 to 1963 as a way to allow the inauguration of President João Goulart under strong political and military opposition, the [https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/emecon/1960-1969/emendaconstitucional-4-2-setembro-1961-349692-publicacaooriginal-1-pl.html#:~:text=Institui%20o%20sistema%20parlamentar%20de%20governo.&text=Art.,assim%20como%20da%20administra%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20federal. Additional Act to the Constitution] determined that "[v]erified the impossibility of maintaining the Council of Ministers for lack of parliamentary support, proven in motions of no confidence, consecutively opposed to three Councils, the President of the Republic may dissolve the Chamber of Deputies[...]".

The then President of the Republic never exercised this attribution and the return to the presidential system stripped him of any competence to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies.

Military dictatorship
During the twenty-one years of the military dictatorship (1964–1985), the National Congress was "suspended" three times. Institutional Act No. 2 (AI-2) gave the President of the Republic the power to decree the recess of the two Houses of the National Congress, and during this period he had the prerogative to legislate.

On 20 October 1966, President Castelo Branco decreed recess for a month, to contain a "grouping of counter-revolutionary elements" (the 1964 Coup d'Etat was considered a revolution by the military) that had formed in the legislature "with the aim of disrupting public peace". On 13 December 1968, President Costa e Silva issued AI-5, an institutional act that began the most repressive and violent period of the dictatorship, closing the National Congress to combat subversion and "ideologies contrary to the traditions of our people ".

The last person to decree the closure of the legislature was President Ernesto Geisel, in 1977, through the "April package", after the National Congress rejected a constitutional amendment. Geisel alleged that the MDB (then the opposition party on a unequal bipartisanship controlled by the military) had established a "minority dictatorship".

Canada
The House of Commons, but not the Senate, can be dissolved at any time by the King of Canada or by Governor General on the advice of the prime minister. If the government is refused confidence or supply, the prime minister must either resign and permit another member of the House of Commons to form a government, or else advise the governor general to dissolve Parliament. Also, the House of Commons automatically dissolves after five years, although,, no House of Commons has yet survived that long.

The provincial legislatures may also be dissolved at any time for the same reasons, by the Lieutenant Governor on the advice of the provincial premier. All provinces and territories have established fixed election dates.

Czech Republic
The Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic may be dissolved by the president when at least one condition specified by the constitution is fulfilled. The Senate can never be dissolved. After the dissolution, snap elections are to be held no later than after 60 days.

The chamber can be dissolved if
 * The chamber does not pass a motion of confidence to the government formed by the prime minister who was recommended by the speaker of the chamber (Who can do so after 2 failed government with a prime minister appointed solely by the president).
 * The chamber fails to pass the government proposed law linked to the motion of confidence in 3 months.
 * The chamber adjourns its meeting for a time longer than 120 days.
 * The chamber is not quorate for a time longer than 3 months.
 * The chamber passes a motion of dissolution by a constitutional majority (120 out of 200 deputies must support it). President is obliged to dissolve the chamber if such motion passes.

Since the formation of the Czech Republic, the Chamber of Deputies was only dissolved once. In 2013, by passing a motion of dissolution after a lengthy crisis following the fall of Petr Nečas' government,

Before such practice was made possible by amending the Constitution in 2009, Chamber of Deputies was once dissolved in 1998 by passing a special constitutional act, which shortened its term, but such practice was blocked by the Constitutional Court, when it was tried again in 2009

Denmark
The government can call an election to the Folketing at any time, and is obliged to call one before the incumbent membership's four-year terms expire. However, the Folketing is never formally dissolved, and it retains its legislative power until new members have been elected. In practice the Folketing will cancel all its ongoing business when an election is called, to give the members time to campaign, but it can reconvene in case a national emergency requires urgent legislation before the election takes place.

Estonia
Per Section 60 of the Constitution of Estonia, regular elections to the Riigikogu, Estonia's unicameral parliament, are held on the first Sunday of March in the fourth year following the preceding parliamentary election. However, the Riigikogu can be dissolved by the President of Estonia and fresh elections called prior to the expiration of its four-year term if one of the following four circumstances should occur:

 * 1) Following the resignation of the outgoing Government, a new Government is unable to be formed according to the procedure established by Section 89 of the Constitution.
 * 2) The Riigikogu passes a motion of no confidence in the Government or the prime minister, and the Government proposes (within three days of the no-confidence motion) that the President call an early election.
 * 3) The Riigikogu submits a proposed law to a referendum, and that proposed law fails to receive a majority of the votes cast in the referendum, per Section 105 of the Constitution.
 * 4) The Riigikogu fails to approve a national budget within two months of the beginning of the financial year, per Section 119 of the Constitution.

In the first, third, and fourth cases above, the President must call an early election. In the second case, however, a Government that has lost the confidence of the Riigikogu is not obliged to request an early election. This occurred in 2016, when Prime Minister Taavi Rõivas lost a no confidence motion. His government resigned, and President Kersti Kaljulaid nominated Jüri Ratas to form the next government without an election taking place.

Likewise, if a Government loses a no confidence vote and requests an early election, the President can refuse the Government's request if it appears a successor government could command the support of the Riigikogu.

As of 2018, every convocation of the Riigikogu has run its full term.

Finland
The President of Finland can dissolve the parliament and call for an early election. As per the version of the 2000 constitution currently in use, the president can do this only upon proposal by the prime minister and after consultations with the parliamentary groups while the Parliament is in session. In prior versions of the constitution, the President had the power to do this unilaterally.

France
Under the French Fourth Republic formed after World War II, there was originally a weak role for the president of France. However, when Charles de Gaulle, who favored a presidential government with a strong executive, was invited to form a new government and constitution during the May 1958 crisis he directed the constitutional committee chaired by Michel Debré to increase the authority of the presidency, including providing the ability to dissolve the National Assembly.

Under Article 12 of the 1958 French Constitution, the National Assembly can be dissolved by the President at any time after consultation with the prime minister and the presidents of the two chambers of Parliament. After the declaration, new elections must be held within twenty to forty days. The National Assembly elected following such a dissolution cannot be dissolved within the first year of its term.

A dissolution of the National Assembly most recently occurred when in June 2024, when President Emmanuel Macron dissolved the National Assembly to prompt the 2024 French legislative election. President Jacques Chirac previously dissolved the National Assembly before the 1997 French legislative election in order to secure a new parliament more sympathetic to his policies, which ultimately failed when the opposition Socialist Party won the election against Chirac's party the Rally for the Republic.

Germany
According to the Basic Law, the Bundestag can be dissolved by the federal president if the chancellor loses a vote of confidence, or if a newly elected Bundestag proves unable to elect a chancellor with absolute majority. The second possibility has never occurred, but the Bundestag was dissolved in 1972, 1982, and 2005 when the then-ruling chancellors Willy Brandt, Helmut Kohl, and Gerhard Schröder deliberately lost votes of confidence in order that there could be fresh elections. On the last two occasions, the decree of dissolution was challenged without success before the Constitutional Court. No president has yet refused a dissolution of the Bundestag when the choice came to him.

The Bundestag is automatically dissolved four years after the last general election, and most Bundestags have lasted the full term.

The second federal legislative body, the Bundesrat, cannot be dissolved, as its members are the federal states' governments as such rather than specific individuals.

Hong Kong
The chief executive, who is the head of the territory and head of government, has the power to dissolve the Legislative Council under Article 51 of the Hong Kong Basic Law:
 * if the Legislative Council fails to pass the appropriation bill or any other important bill; or
 * if Legislative Council passes a bill but the chief executive refuses to give assent and returns the bill, after which the Council passes the bill again with a two-thirds majority and the Chief Executive again refuses to give assent.

Before the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, the Legislative Council could be dissolved any time at the governor's pleasure.

India
Legislative power is constitutionally vested in the Parliament of India, of which the President is the head, to facilitate the law-making process as per the Constitution. The President summons both the Houses (the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha) of the parliament and prorogues them. They also have the power to dissolve the Lok Sabha pursuant to Article 75(2)(b). When Parliament is dissolved, all bills pending within the Lok Sabha lapse. However, bills in the Rajya Sabha never lapse, and can remain pending for decades.

Indonesia
Since the third amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia enacted on 18 August 2001 by the MPR, the President can not dissolve or freeze the DPR. Written in the article 7C, this was done after President Abdurrahman Wahid attempted to prorogue the DPR on 23 July 2001 through a presidential decree, prompting his impeachment to be rapidly finalized that night.

Republic of Ireland
Dáil Éireann (the lower house of the Oireachtas) can be dissolved by the President, on the advice of the taoiseach (prime minister). The president may only deny such a dissolution if the taoiseach has lost the confidence of the Dáil, through a vote of no confidence (or, it could be argued after a Budget or other important bill has failed to pass). This has never happened, and, in the past, taoisigh have requested dissolutions before votes of no confidence have taken place, so as to force a general election rather than a handover of Government. A Dáil must be dissolved, and then a general election held, within five years of its first meeting.

There are two notable instances when the President did not dissolve Dáil Éireann: 1989 and 1994. In the first instance, the newly elected Dáil failed to elect a Taoiseach when it first met (and at a number of meetings afterward). The incumbent taoiseach Charles Haughey was obliged constitutionally to resign, however, he initially refused to. He eventually tendered his resignation to President Patrick Hillery and remained as taoiseach in an acting capacity. At the fourth attempt, the Dáil eventually re-elected Haughey as taoiseach. Had he requested a dissolution, it would probably have been accepted by the President on the grounds that the Dáil could not form a Government, but the President would have also been within his rights to refuse it. It is thought that Haughey chose not to do so but instead to go into a historic coalition because of poor opinion polls showing his Fianna Fáil party would lose seats in a second General Election.

In 1994, Albert Reynolds resigned as taoiseach when the Labour Party left a coalition with Fianna Fáil, but did not request a dissolution, in order that his successor in Fianna Fáil might forge a new coalition with Labour. Labour, however, went into Government with the main opposition party, Fine Gael. It has been speculated that the president at the time, Mary Robinson, would not have allowed a dissolution had Reynolds requested one. To date, no president has ever refused a dissolution.

One feature of the Irish system is that although the Dáil is dissolved, the Seanad Éireann (the Senate) is not, and may continue to meet during an election campaign for the Dáil. However, as many members of the Seanad are typically involved in election campaigns for the Dáil, the Seanad does not typically meet often, if at all, once the Dáil is dissolved. A general election for the Seanad must take place within 90 days of the election of the new Dáil.

Italy
The president of Italy has the authority to dissolve parliament, and consequently call for new elections, until which the powers of the old parliament are extended; however, the President loses this authority during the so-called semestre bianco, the last six months of his seven-year term, unless that period coincides at least in part with the final six months of the Parliament's five-year term, as stated in Article 88 of the Constitution of Italy: "In consultation with the presiding officers of Parliament, the President may dissolve one or both Houses of Parliament. The President of the Republic may not exercise such right during the final six months of the presidential term unless said period coincides in full or in part with the final six months of Parliament."

After the resignation of the Cabinet of Italy, which can be freely decided by the prime minister, or caused by a vote of no confidence by the Parliament, or after general elections, the President has to consult the speakers of the two houses of Parliament, the delegations of the parliamentary groups, and senators for life to find someone who might be appointed prime minister and lead a new government with the confidence of both Houses. The President dissolves Parliament only if the groups fail to find an agreement to form a majority coalition; the actual power of dissolution is in practice also shared by the Parliament, political parties, and by the outgoing prime minister. Since the Constitution of Italy came into force in 1948, the Italian Parliament has been dissolved nine times before the end of its five-year term, in 1972, 1976, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1994, 1996, 2008 and 2022.

Israel
In Israel, early elections to the Knesset can be called before the scheduled date of the third Tuesday in the Jewish month of Cheshvan (late September through early November) four years after the previous elections if the prime minister calls early elections with Presidential approval due to gridlock, if no government is formed after 42 days of consultation with parties' floor leaders in the Knesset, if the budget is not approved by the Knesset by 31 March (3 months after the start of the fiscal year), or if half of the Knesset members vote in favor of early elections. This call for early elections is legally called the "Dissolution of the Knesset".

However, strictly speaking, the Knesset is only truly dissolved – in the sense of being unconstituted and all MKs losing their seats –  automatically 14 days after elections, simultaneously with the start of the newly elected Knesset's term.

Japan
In Japan, the House of Representatives of the National Diet (parliament) can be dissolved at any time by the emperor, on the advice of the Cabinet, headed by the prime minister. The Constitution of Japan specifies that all members of the House can serve up to a four-year term. So far, however, parliaments have been dissolved prematurely with the exception of 9 December 1976 and 31 October 2021 dissolution.

The House of Councillors, however, cannot be dissolved but only closed, and may, in times of national emergency, be convoked for an emergency session. Its members serve a fixed six-year term, with half of the seats, and the Speaker of the Councillors, up for re-election every three years.

The emperor both convokes the Diet and dissolves the House of Representatives, but only does so on the advice of the Cabinet.

New Zealand
The Parliament can be dissolved or prorogued at any time during its three-year term by the governor-general, usually on the advice of the prime minister.

Norway
According to the Constitution of Norway, the Storting (parliament) cannot be dissolved before serving its full four-year term.

Pakistan
The National Assembly of Pakistan, the country's lower house, dissolves automatically at the end of its five-year term, after which general elections must be held within 60 days. The upper house, called the Senate, cannot be dissolved.

The prime minister can also advise the president to dissolve the National Assembly. The president is bound to do so within 48 hours after receiving the prime minister's summary, after which time the National Assembly is automatically dissolved. Before the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan came into effect, the president could dissolve the National Assembly without the prime minister's advice by using Article 58-2(B) of the Constitution.

Peru
Under the Peruvian Constitution of 1993, the president of Peru has the authority to dissolve the Congress of Peru if a vote of no confidence is passed three times by the legislative body, and has four months to call for new parliamentary elections or faces impeachment.

The Congress of Peru has been dissolved twice; once in 1992 by President Alberto Fujimori who performed an auto-coup in April 1992 by dismantling both the legislative and judicial branches of government, and once by incumbent President Martín Vizcarra, who dissolved the Congress in October 2019 in an effort to end the 2017–2021 Peruvian political crisis.

Both of the presidents were immediately impeached and removed from office by the dissolved Congress, thus being illegitimate.

On 7 December 2022 the President of Peru attempted to dissolve Congress but was impeached.

Romania
According to the Romanian Constitution, voted in 1991 and revised in 2003, the President may dissolve the Parliament only if the Parliament rejects two consecutive prime minister candidates proposed by the President. Both houses can be dissolved. No dissolution of the Parliament has taken place in Romania since 1991.

Russia
Under Articles 111 and 117 of the Russian Constitution, the president may dissolve the State Duma, the lower house of the Federal Assembly, if it either expresses no confidence in the Government of Russia twice in two months or rejects his proposed candidate for the prime minister three times in a row. At the same time, the president cannot dissolve the Federation Council, the upper house of the Federal Parliament. The power to dissolve the State Duma has not been exercised under the current constitution of 1993. Before the new constitution was enacted, President Boris Yeltsin had dissolved the Congress of People's Deputies and Supreme Soviet of Russia during the Russian constitutional crisis of 1993, although he did not have the formal constitutional powers to do so.

Spain
In Spain, legislatures last four years, after which the king of Spain dissolves the Cortes Generales. However, the prime minister, with previous deliberation on the Cabinet, can also dissolve the Cortes. As an exception, if after two months of an unsuccessful president-investment, there is no president, the king dissolves the Cortes.

Sri Lanka
According to the Constitution, the maximum legislative term of the Parliament of Sri Lanka is 5 years from the first meeting. The President of Sri Lanka may dissolve the Parliament. President shall not dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of not less than 2 years and 6 months from the date appointed for its first meeting, unless Parliament by resolution requests the President to dissolve Parliament.

Parliament of the United Kingdom
Under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, the Crown may, at any time, dissolve Parliament. This is usually done "on request" of the prime minister. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, and returned the royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament back to The Crown. Without early dissolution by the monarch, each Parliament consists of five years, and is then otherwise automatically dissolved.

Northern Ireland Assembly
The Assembly can vote to dissolve itself early by a two-thirds majority of the total number of its members. It is also automatically dissolved if it is unable to elect a first minister and deputy first minister (effectively joint first ministers, the only distinction being in the titles) within six weeks of its first meeting or of those positions becoming vacant.

Scottish Parliament
Under section 2 of the Scotland Act 1998, as originally passed, ordinary general elections for the Scottish Parliament are held on the first Thursday in May every four years (1999, 2003, 2007 etc.) The date of the poll may be varied by up to one month either way by the monarch on the proposal of the presiding officer. However, section 4 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 postponed the general election that would have been held on 7 May 2015 to 5 May 2016 to avoid it coinciding with the UK general election fixed under that act. By the Scottish Elections (Dates) Act 2016, the following general election, scheduled for 7 May 2020, was postponed to 6 May 2021 for the same reason, although this became a moot point when a snap UK general election was held in June 2017 (a further UK general election was held in December 2019). Eventually, under the Scottish Elections (Reform) Act 2020, the "normal" term was extended to five years, which was de facto already the practice (2011, 2016, 2021 etc.).

Under section 3 of the Scotland Act 1998, if the parliament itself resolves that it should be dissolved (with at least two-thirds of the members voting in favour), or if the parliament fails to nominate one of its members to be first minister within certain time limits, the presiding officer proposes a date for an extraordinary general election and the parliament is dissolved by the monarch by royal proclamation.

National Assembly for Wales
Under the Wales Act 2014, ordinary general elections to the Senedd (Welsh Parliament) are held the first Thursday in May every five years. This extension from a four- to five-year term was designed to prevent Senedd elections clashing with general elections to the Westminster Parliament subsequent to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

United States
In 1774 after the Boston Tea Party, the Massachusetts Bay Province's legislature was dismissed under the Massachusetts Government Act and the colony was placed under martial law under the command of General Thomas Gage. In practice, the majority of the colony came under the de facto control of the unrecognized Massachusetts Provincial Congress, and General Gage's attempts to suppress widespread dissent along the colonists directly lead to the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the beginning of the Revolutionary War.

The United States Constitution does not allow for the dissolution of Congress, instead allowing for prorogation by the President of the United States when Congress is unable to agree on a time of adjournment. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 agreed on the need to limit presidential authority to prevent a return to autocracy. In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton stressed that unlike the King of Great Britain, the President does not have the authority to dismiss Congress at his preference. To date, the presidential authority to prorogue Congress has never been used, although in 2020 President Donald Trump threatened to use it in order to make recess appointments.

Venezuela
The Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela authorizes, through various articles, the president to dissolve the National Assembly.

Article 236 of the Constitution establishes which are the functions to be performed by the first national president; Paragraph 23 of this section states that one of the powers of the president is: "Dissolve the National Assembly in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution."

In statement 240 explains that will dissolve the Parliament when in a same constitutional period the Assembly approve the removal of the vice president of the country by means of censure, three times.

It is also clarified that the decree of dissolution of the Venezuelan congress entails the call for elections for a new legislature, which must be held in the next 60 days. In addition, this section indicates that the Parliament can not be dissolved during the last year of its constitutional period.

In the 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice dissolved the National Assembly and assumed its legislative powers. The decision was viewed by the Venezuelan opposition and many members of the international community, including the United States, Mercosur, and the Organization of American States, as a self-coup by President Nicolás Maduro. After several days, the decision was reversed on the advice of President Maduro.

In fiction

 * In the 1977 science fiction film Star Wars the Emperor dissolves the Senate of the Galactic Empire, itself rendered a rubber stamp after his seizure of power in the former Galactic Republic, after the beginning of the Galactic Civil War and growing sympathy for the Rebel Alliance in the Senate. Each of the planets in the Empire are left under the control of regional governors, with fear of the newly created Death Star to prevent dissent and ensure the planets' continued allegiance to the Empire.
 * The 2014 play King Charles III and the 2017 television adaptation of the same name center around Prince Charles withholding royal assent to a parliamentary bill restricting freedom of the press after becoming King and then dissolving the British Parliament after it attempts to abolish the royal assent, leading to a constitutional crisis which forces Charles to abdicate in favor of his son Prince William.

title: Dissolution of parliament


text:
Ropczyce

Ropczyce (ראָפּשיץ ) is a town in the Subcarpathian Voivodeship in south-eastern Poland, situated in the valley of the Wielopolka River (a tributary of the Wisłoka River). The town has a population of 15,098. and is the seat of Ropczyce-Sędziszów County.

Geography
Situated in the Subcarpathian Voivodeship (since 1999), it is the capital of Ropczyce-Sędziszów County.

Ropczyce is located east of Kraków and west of Rzeszów. The coordinates for Ropczyce: Latitude 50°0500' and Longitude 21°6167. In DMS or Degree, Minutes, & Seconds; Latitude 50°2'60N and Longitude is 21°37'0E. Its elevation is 240 m above sea level. The time zone for Poland is UTC+1.

Population
Ropczyce has a total population of 26,055 according to the Polish Official Census 2008 of whom 15,098 live in the Ropczyce urban area and 10,957 live in the surrounding rural areas (7 km radius). It is the seat of Ropczyce-Sędziszów County, which has a total population of 713,350 people (30 June 2008).

History
The first reference to Ropczyce comes from a document of 1252, which confirmed the donation of the land by the brothers Klemens and Marek Gryf to a Cistercian Abbey in Szczyrzyc near Limanowa. Around this time Ropczyce was damaged by a Tatar raid. In 1266 the settlement was destroyed by an army composed of Ruthenians, Tatar and Lithuanian troops, led by the Ruthenian prince 'Ioann (John) Shvarn' (Szwarno), Шварно). Ropczyce became a town on 3 March 1362, when the Polish king, Casimir III the Great, gave it city rights (Magdeburg rights). At the same time, he made two brothers, Jan and Mikolaj Gielnic the first wójts or advocates of the new town. He also made Ropczyce a parish, separate from the parish of Sędziszow. Within six years a parish church was built in the new royal town of Ropczyce. As Ropczyce was situated close to the Sandomierz Forest (Puszcza Sandomierska), one of the biggest forests in southern Poland, which covers large parts of the Sandomierz Basin, it became a popular place for the Polish Kings to stay when they went hunting and fishing. King Casimir III the Great, king Kazimierz IV Jagiellończyk and king Władysław II Jagiełło were regular visitors to Ropczyce. Under the patronage of the Polish Royals and subsequent trade agreements with Ruthenia, the town's future started to look very good. It could then grow and develop, also due to its favourable location on an important trade route from Silesia and Lesser Poland (Małopolska) to Ruthenia. Ropczyce was severely damaged during a Tatar raid in 1504. To help the town and citizens recover from this tragedy, king Aleksander Jagiellończyk gave all the citizens a 10-year tax exemption from 1504 to 1514 In the 15th and 16th centuries Ropczyce became a major centre in the manufacture of canvas goods.

Since its formation Ropczyce has been known by several different names, although these appear to be phonetic variations of the same name. By the middle of the 16th century, it was first recorded as 'Ropczyce' replacing the previous variation of 'Robczyce' – this name is thought to have probably originated from the family name of Robek (from the Polish verb, 'robić – to work') who are thought to have established the original settlement.

In the 16th century Ropczyce's churches were influenced by The Reformation, with the Parish Church going over to Protestantism several times. Around the 1550s the Parish Church was under the control of the Polish Brethren (Bracia Polscy, also called Arians or Socinians) for over a decade.

Jewish history
"The earliest information about Jews settling in Ropczyce dates back to 1564. It was noted then that four Jewish families, i.e. about 30 people, lived on the farm of the Gryf family. In 1604, King Sigismund III Vasa granted Ropczyce with a law, following which only two Jewish families (of a district’s leaseholder and of a tax collector) were allowed to live in the town, however, they were strictly forbidden to"

"The 17th century was the time of the town’s stagnation and downfall. Ropczyce was plundered by Swedish troops in 1655 and conclusively devastated in 1657 by the army of George II Rákóczi, the Prince of Transylvania. Many houses in the town were deserted and ruined after the wars. As nobody paid for them, the local authorities tried to occupy the houses with new inhabitants. However, Polish townsmen were not interested in it, and so Jews were the buyers, despite the fact that the ban on their settling in the town was still in effect. The law was broken for the first time in 1675, when the Town Council allowed Józef Szmul, a Jew, to acquire a house at the Market Square under condition of renovating the building. In exchange for that, he was exempted from paying taxes for two years."

"At the end of the 18th century, Ropczyce became a significant center of Chassidism after the famous Naftali Zvi Horowitz (1760–1827) settled in the town (He was born on 22 May 1760, the day that the Baal Shem Tov, founder of Chassidism, died). He was the son of Menachem Mendel Rubin, the rabbi of Lesko and a follower of two great tzadikkim: Elimelech of Leżajsk (Lizhensk) and Menachem Mendel of Rymanów. Tzadik Naftali Zvi Horowitz was the author of, among others,Zera Kodesh (a collection of comments to the Torah, published in 1868), and Ohel Naftali (a collection of sayings, published in 1911). At the end of his life, he left Ropczyce and settled in Łańcut where he died on 8 May 1827 (corresponding to 11 Iyar 5587) and where he was buried. Asher of Ropczyce was the next tzadik of the town. The sons of Naftali Zvi Horowitz also became tzadikkim: Eliezer Horowitz – in Dzików near Tarnobrzeg, and Jakub Horowitz (named The Small Baal Shem Tov, usually translated into English as Baal Shem Tov, due to numerous miracles that he performed) – in Kolbuszowa and later in Mielec."

Up until World War II Ropczyce was a ‘shtetl’ (ראָפּשיץ, Ropshits, Ropshitz, Ropschitz) with a significant Jewish population. There is a Ropshitz Hasidic dynasty.

The Germans occupied Ropczyce in September 1939 and immediately began brutalizing the Jewish population, at that time around 1000 people. They burned the synagogue and shortly began to conscript Jews for forced labor. Many Jewish refugees from nearby villages came to Ropczyce during the next two years. In May, 1942, 75 men were deported to a labor camp in Pustkow. In June, there was another roundup where 23 people were murdered on the spot and others were sent to Pustkow. Later in the month, the remaining Jews were forced into an overcrowded ghetto. In July, the Germans shot 28 people, children and the elderly, and took the rest of the Jewish population to Sedziszow Malopolski. Several hundred were shot there and the rest sent by train to Belzec where they were immediately gassed. The number of survivors among the Ropczyce Jews is unknown.

17th century to 18th century
Ropczyce's ‘Golden Age’ was but a distant memory in the 17th and 18th centuries – these were times of wars and invasions. The town went into decline and life got a lot harder for the townspeople. In 1605 over half of the town was destroyed in a great fire. Fifty years later, Ropczyce was hit by The Plague. Ropczyce was plundered by Swedish troops in 1655 and then devastated in 1657 by the army of George II Rákóczi, the Prince of Transylvania. In 1669 the Parish Church was destroyed by fire.

On 14 July 1772, following the First Partition of Poland, Ropczyce found itself in the Austrian province of Galicia, part of the Habsburg monarchy in the Austro-Hungarian Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. Ropczyce was first located in the administrative area (or cyrkuł) of Pilznen and in the Sandomierski district. In 1775 the administrative areas in Galicia were reorganised and Ropczyce was reallocated to the Tarnów cyrkuł. Fortunately for Ropczyce, as a 'Royal town', it was given virtually autonomous administration. The position of 'town advocate’ was replaced by the new position of mayor. However, during these times the whole region was systematically Germanised, from the system of administration, local by-laws, education to everyday life.

19th century to 20th century
At the beginning of the 19th century, the population grew to over 1,000. At this time there was a small Austrian garrison stationed in the town. In 1806 there was a Cholera outbreak in which 133 people from Ropczyce died. In 1873 the town was again struck by a great fire, with much destruction.

In the following administrative changes of the region of Galicia in 1885, 178 counties (powiats) were created in the existing 19 administrative areas (cyrkułs) and Ropczyce was made the administrative centre of its own county. The last reorganisation occurred in 1867 saw the reduction of administrative areas and the number of counties set to 74. Ropczyce remained as the seat of its county. At the end of 1867 the population of Ropczyce county was 58,975 people, the first starosta; elder or mayor of the reorganised county of Ropczyce was Wilhelm Mehoffer (father of Józef Mehoffer, Polish painter). Ropczyce remained part of Galicia until 1918, when it became part of independent Poland (Second Polish Republic).

Transport
Ropczyce is located on the main West-East European E40 Highway, which goes from Calais in France via Belgium, across Germany, Poland, Ukraine and onto Russia and Kazakhstan. (Within Poland the E40 follows the A4 Highway and the DK 4 National Road). However, the A4 is not regarded as a 'highway' in the Ropczyce area – it is by Western standards, just a regular, one-lane main A-road (although, it is currently being upgraded). Other Polish cities located by the E40 are Wrocław, Opole, Katowice, Kraków, Tarnów, Rzeszów and Przemyśl.

The nearest airport is Rzeszów-Jasionka Airport (Port Lotniczy Rzeszów-Jasionka) located in the village of Jasionka, north of Rzeszów. It is about 35 km east of Ropczyce on the E40 and takes about 40 minutes by car. Scheduled passenger services include flights to: Warsaw (WAW), Dublin, London (Stansted), Bristol, UK, Birmingham, UK, New York (JFK Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport).

Ropczyce has a railway station which is on the main west–east rail route;. This runs from Silesia and Kraków, Kraków Main station (Kraków Główny) – Medyka on the Polish eastern border. This line then continues on to Ukraine.

Twin towns – Sister cities
Ropczyce is twinned with:

Education

 * Publiczne Przedszkole nr.1 im. Marii Konopnickiej
 * Wyższa Szkoła Inżynieryjno-Ekonomiczna
 * Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Tadeusza Kościuszki
 * Zespół Szkół im. ks. dr Jana Zwierza
 * Zespół Szkół Agrotechnicznych im. Wincentego Witosa
 * Nauczycielskie Kolegium Języków Obcych
 * Centrum Kształcenia Praktycznego
 * Bibioteka Powiatowa and 2 filie miejskie

Nearby municipalities

 * Dębica
 * Sędziszów Małopolski

Recreational Walking Trails
Two tourist trails: and  run through the most picturesque and interesting parts of the terrain.

 * [[File:Szlak zielony.svg]] Przełęcz Bardo – Brzeziny – Ropczyce
 * [[File:Szlak żółty.svg]] Ropczyce – Ocieka – Niwiska

Attribution

 * A publication now in the public domain.
 * translated from the Polish version of this page from Polish Wikipedia on 23 September 2008
 * A publication now in the public domain.
 * translated from the Polish version of this page from Polish Wikipedia on 23 September 2008

title: Ropczyce


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XeW

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled XeW.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

 * Reads like classic vanity. No evidence that this guy is notable as a hacker. Isomorphic 18:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The author explained to me. It's not actually vanity, but he's writing about a friend.  Simple misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for.  No harm done, but this should still be deleted. Isomorphic 18:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * And, he tried to blank the page. Twice.  I've reverted back to your edit, Isomorphic. Oh, and delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Author has commented on Isomorphic's talk page: I was writing about a friend. Why? Becouse some people would maybe want to contact him. But ofcourse if you do not want me to write it, I'll delete it right away. Wikipedia is not a web directory, of course. Andrewa 18:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:03, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XeW


text:
Parliament of Ireland

The Parliament of Ireland (Parlaimint na hÉireann) was the legislature of the Lordship of Ireland, and later the Kingdom of Ireland, from 1297 until the end of 1800. It was modelled on the Parliament of England and from 1537 comprised two chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Lords were members of the Irish peerage ('lords temporal') and bishops ('lords spiritual'; after the Reformation, Church of Ireland bishops). The Commons was directly elected, albeit on a very restricted franchise. Parliaments met at various places in Leinster and Munster, but latterly always in Dublin: in Christ Church Cathedral (15th century), Dublin Castle (to 1649), Chichester House (1661–1727), the Blue Coat School (1729–31), and finally a purpose-built Parliament House on College Green.

The main purpose of parliament was to approve taxes that were then levied by and for the Dublin Castle administration. Those who would pay the bulk of taxation, namely the clergy, merchants, and landowners, also comprised the members. Only the "English of Ireland" were represented until the first Gaelic lords were summoned during the 16th-century Tudor reconquest. Under Poynings' Law of 1495, all Acts of Parliament had to be pre-approved by the Irish Privy Council and English Privy Council. Parliament supported the Irish Reformation and Catholics were excluded from membership and voting in penal times. The Constitution of 1782 amended Poynings' Law to allow the Irish Parliament to initiate legislation. Catholics were re-enfranchised under the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1793.

The Acts of Union 1800 merged the Kingdom of Ireland and Kingdom of Great Britain into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The parliament was merged with that of Great Britain; the united Parliament was in effect the British parliament at Westminster enlarged with a subset of the Irish Lords and Commons.

Middle Ages
After the 12th-century Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland, administration of the Anglo-Norman Lordship of Ireland was modelled on that of the Kingdom of England. Magna Carta was extended in 1217 in the Charter of Ireland. As in England, parliament evolved out of the Magnum Concilium "great council" summoned by the king's viceroy, attended by the council (curia regis), magnates (feudal lords), and prelates (bishops and abbots). Membership was based on fealty to the king, and the preservation of the king's peace, and so the fluctuating number of autonomous Irish Gaelic kings were outside of the system; they had their own local brehon law taxation arrangements. The earliest known parliament met at Kilkea Castle near Castledermot, County Kildare on 18 June 1264, with only prelates and magnates attending. Elected representatives are first attested in 1297 and continually from the later 14th century. In 1297, counties were first represented by elected knights of the shire (sheriffs had previously represented them). In 1299, towns were represented. From the 14th century a distinction from the English parliament was that deliberations on church funding were held in Parliament rather than in Convocation. The separation of the individually summoned lords from the elected commons had developed by the fifteenth century. The clerical proctors elected by the lower clergy of each diocese formed a separate house or estate in until 1537, when they were expelled for their opposition to the Irish Reformation.

The 14th and 15th centuries saw shrinking numbers of those loyal to the crown, the growing power of landed families, and the increasing inability to carry out judicial rulings, that all reduced the crown's presence in Ireland. Alongside this reduced control grew a "Gaelic resurgence" that was political as well as cultural. In turn this resulted in considerable numbers of the Hiberno-Norman Old English nobility joining the independent Gaelic nobles in asserting their feudal independence. Eventually the crown's power shrank to a small fortified enclave around Dublin known as the Pale. The Parliament thereafter became essentially the forum for the Pale community until the 16th century.

Unable to implement and exercise the authority of the Parliament or the Crown's rule outside of this environ, and increasingly under the attack of raids by the Gaelic Irish and independent Hiberno-Norman nobles, the Palesmen themselves encouraged the Kings of England to take a more direct role in the affairs of Ireland. Geographic distance, the lack of attention by the Crown because of the Hundred Years' War and the Wars of the Roses, and the larger power of the Gaelic clans, all reduced the effectiveness of the Irish Parliament. Thus, increasingly worried that the Irish Parliament was essentially being overawed by powerful landed families in Ireland like the Earl of Kildare into passing laws that pursued the agendas of the different dynastic factions in the country, in 1494, the Parliament encouraged the passing of Poynings' Law which subordinated Irish Parliament to the English one.

Kingdom of Ireland
The role of the Parliament changed after 1541, when Henry VIII declared the Kingdom of Ireland and embarked on the Tudor conquest of Ireland. Despite an era which featured royal concentration of power and decreasing feudal power throughout the rest of Europe, King Henry VIII over-ruled earlier court rulings putting families and lands under attainder and recognised the privileges of the Gaelic nobles, thereby expanding the crown's de jure authority. In return for recognising the crown's authority under the new Kingdom of Ireland, the Gaelic-Anglo-Irish lords had their position legalised and were entitled to attend the Irish Parliament as equals under the policy of surrender and regrant.

The Reformation in Ireland introduced in stages by the Tudor monarchs did not take hold in most of the country, and did not affect the operation of parliament until after the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis of 1570. Initially in 1537, the Irish Parliament approved both the Act of Supremacy, acknowledging Henry VIII as head of the Church and the dissolution of the monasteries. In the parliaments of 1569 and 1585, the Old English Catholic representatives in the Irish Commons had several disputes with the crown's authorities over the introduction of penal legislation against Catholics and over-paying of "Cess" tax for the putting down of various Gaelic and Catholic rebellions.

For this reason, and the political fallout after the 1605 Gunpowder plot and the Plantation of Ulster in 1613–15, the constituencies for the Irish House of Commons were changed to give Protestants a majority. The Plantation of Ulster allowed English and Scottish Protestant candidates in as representatives of the newly formed boroughs in planted areas. Initially this gave Protestants a majority of 132–100 in the House of Commons. However, after vehement Catholic protests, including a brawl in the chamber on Parliament's first sitting, some of the new Parliamentary constituencies were eliminated, giving Protestants a slight majority (108-102) of members of the House of Commons thereafter.

In the House of Lords the Catholic majority continued until the 1689 "Patriot Parliament", with the exception of the Commonwealth period (1649–60). Following the general uprising of the Catholic Irish in the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the self-established Catholic assembly in 1642–49, Roman Catholics were barred from voting or attending the Parliament altogether in the Cromwellian Act of Settlement 1652, which was reversed by the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.

1660 to 1800

Following the death of Cromwell and the end of the Protectorate, the Stuarts returned to the throne thereby ending the sectarian divisions relating to parliament. Then, during the reign of James II of England, who had converted to Roman Catholicism, Irish Catholics briefly recovered their pre-eminent position as the crown now favoured their community. When James was overthrown in England, he turned to his Catholic supporters in the Irish Parliament for support. In return for its support during the Williamite war in Ireland (1688–91), a Catholic majority Patriot Parliament of 1689 persuaded James to pass legislation granting it autonomy to and to restore lands confiscated from Catholics in the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. The Jacobite defeat in this war meant that under William III of England Protestants were returned to a favoured position in Irish society while substantial numbers of Catholic nobles and leaders could no longer sit in parliament unless they took a loyalty oath as agreed under the Treaty of Limerick. Having proven their support for Catholic absolutism by their loyal support for James during the war, and because the Papacy supported the Jacobites after 1693, Irish Catholics increasingly faced discriminatory legislation in the Penal Laws that were passed by the predominantly loyalist and Protestant Parliament from 1695.

Nonetheless, the franchise was still available to wealthier Catholics. Until 1728, Catholics voted in House of Commons elections and held seats in the Lords. For no particular reason, beyond a general pressure for Catholics to conform, they were barred from voting in the election for the first parliament in the reign of George II. Privileges were also mostly limited to supporters of the Church of Ireland. Protestants who did not recognise the state-supported Church were also discriminated against in law, so non-conformists such as Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Quakers also had a subservient status in Parliament; after 1707 they could hold seats, but not public offices. Thus, the new system favoured a new Anglican establishment in Church and State.

By 1728, the remaining nobility was either firmly Protestant or loyally Catholic. The upper classes had dropped most of its Gaelic traditions and adopted the Anglo-French aristocratic values then dominant throughout most of Europe. Much of the old feudal domains of the earlier Hiberno-Norman and Gaelic-Irish magnates had been broken up and given to Irish loyalists soldiers, and English and Scottish Protestant colonial settlers. Long under the control of de jure power of magnates, the far larger peasant population had nonetheless under the relatively anarchic and sectarian conditions established a relative independence. Now, the nobility and newly established loyalist gentry could exercise their rights and privileges with more vigour. Much as in England, Wales, and Scotland, the franchise was always limited to the property owning classes, which favoured the landed gentry.

The Irish Parliament was thus at a time of English commercial expansion left incapable of protecting Irish economic and trade interests from being subordinated to English ones. This in turn severely weakened the economic potential of the whole of Ireland and placed the new and largely Protestant middle-class at a disadvantage. The result was a slow but continual exodus of Anglo-Irish, Scots-Irish, and Protestant Irish families and communities to the colonies, principally in North America. Ironically, it was the very efforts to establish Anglicans as the primacy in Ireland which slowly subverted the general cause of the Protestant Irish which had been the objective of successive Irish and British Parliaments.

The Irish Parliament did assert its independence from London several times however. In the early 18th century it successfully lobbied for itself to be summoned every two years, as opposed to at the start of each new reign only, and shortly thereafter it declared itself to be in session permanently, mirroring developments in the English Parliament. As the effects on the prosperity of the Kingdom of submitting the Irish Parliament to review by the British became apparent, the Irish Parliament slowly asserted itself, and from the 1770s the Irish Patriot Party began agitating for greater powers relative to the British Parliament. Additionally, later ministries moved to change the Navigation Acts that had limited Irish merchants' terms of trade with Britain and its empire.

Powers
After 1707, Ireland was, to varying degrees, subordinate to the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Parliament of Ireland had control over only legislation, while the executive branch of government, under the Lord Lieutenant, answered to the British government in London. Furthermore, the Penal Laws meant that Catholics, who constituted the majority of Irish people, were not permitted to sit in, or participate in elections to, the parliament. Meanwhile, building upon the precedent of Poynings' Law which required approval from the British Privy Council for bills to be put to the Irish Parliament, the Dependency of Ireland on Great Britain Act 1719 declared the British Parliament's right to legislate for Ireland and the British House of Lords appellate jurisdiction over its courts.

The effects of this subordination of Irish Parliamentary power soon became evident, as Ireland slowly stagnated economically and the Protestant population shrank in relative size. Additionally, the growing relative wealth of the American colonies, whose local authorities were relatively independent of the British Parliament, provided additional ammunition for those who wished to increase Irish Parliamentary power. When the British governments started centralising trade, taxation and judicial review throughout the Empire, the Irish Parliament saw an ally in the American colonies, who were growing increasingly resistant to the British government's objectives. When open rebellion broke out in the American colonies in 1775, the Irish Parliament passed several initiatives which showed support for the American grievances.

Fearing another split by Ireland, as rebellion spread through the American colonies and various European powers joined in a global assault on British interests, the British Parliament became more acquiescent to Irish demands. In 1782, following agitation by major parliamentary figures, most notably Henry Grattan, supported by the Patriot movement, the Irish parliament's authority was greatly increased. Under what became known as the Constitution of 1782 the restrictions imposed by Poyning's Law were removed by the Repeal of Act for Securing Dependence of Ireland Act 1782. Grattan also wanted Catholic involvement in Irish politics; the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1793 passed by the Irish parliament copied the British Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791, and Catholics were given back the right to cast votes in elections to the parliament, although they were still debarred from membership and state offices.

Organisation
The House of Lords was presided over by the Lord Chancellor, who sat on the woolsack, a large seat stuffed with wool from each of the three lands of England, Ireland and Scotland. In the Commons, business was presided over by the Speaker who, in the absence of a government chosen from and answerable to the Commons, was the dominant political figure in the parliament. Speaker Conolly remains today one of the most widely known figures produced by the Irish parliament.

Much of the public ceremonial in the Irish parliament mirrored that of the British Parliament. Sessions were formally opened by the Speech from the Throne by the Lord Lieutenant, who, it was written "used to sit surrounded by more splendour than His Majesty on the throne of England". The Lord Lieutenant, when he sat on the throne, sat beneath a canopy of crimson velvet. At the state opening, MPs were summoned to the House of Lords from the House of Commons chamber by Black Rod, a royal official who would "command the members on behalf of His Excellency to attend him in the chamber of peers". Sessions of Parliament drew many of the wealthiest of Ireland's Anglo-Irish elite to Dublin, particularly as sessions often coincided with the social season, (January to 17 March) when the Lord Lieutenant presided in state over state balls and drawing rooms in the Viceregal Apartments in Dublin Castle. Leading peers in particular flocked to Dublin, where they lived in enormous and richly decorated mansions initially on the northside of Dublin, later in new Georgian residences around Merrion Square and Fitzwilliam Square. Their presence in Dublin, along with large numbers of servants, provided a regular boost to the city economy.

The Parliament's records were published from the 1750s and provide a huge wealth of commentary and statistics on the reality of running Ireland at the time. In particular, minute details on Ireland's increasing overseas trade and reports from various specialist committees are recorded. By the 1780s they were published by two rival businesses, King & Bradley and Grierson.

The Act of Union and abolition
From 31 December 1800, the Parliament of Ireland was abolished entirely, when the Acts of Union 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and merged the British and Irish legislatures into a single Parliament of the United Kingdom after 1 January 1801.

The idea of a political union between Ireland and Great Britain had been proposed several times throughout the 18th century, but was vehemently opposed in Ireland. The granting of legislative independence to Ireland in 1782 was thought to have ended hopes of a union. Relations between the two parliaments became strained in 1789 during the illness of King George III, when the Irish parliament invited the Prince of Wales to become the Regent of Ireland, before Westminster had been able to make its own decision on the matter. The Irish Rebellion of 1798 saw a French expedition landing in Killala, causing alarm that Ireland could be used as a base for attacks on Britain, resurrecting the idea of political union between Ireland and Great Britain. The British Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger had the strong support of King George III for a union, with the king advising him on 13 July 1798 that the rebellion should be used "for frightening the supporters of the Castle into a Union". The Protestant Ascendancy was also seen as being unequal in the task of governing Ireland, and that such a "corrupt, dangerous and inefficient system" had to be done away with.

In June 1798, Lord Cornwallis was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with one of his main tasks to be securing support in Ireland for a union. Cornwallis would report that "The mass of the people of Ireland do not care one farthing about the Union".

For the idea to succeed, Pitt knew that he needed large scale public support in Ireland for the idea from both Protestants and Catholics, and as such Catholic Emancipation would need to be delivered along with the union. Catholic Emancipation alone he knew would be enough to secure the stability of Ireland. The Catholic middle classes and the Catholic hierarchy, led by John Thomas Troy, the Archbishop of Dublin, were willing to support the union if Catholic Emancipation did indeed follow. Only a group of Catholic barristers, most notably Daniel O'Connell, opposed the idea of union.

For Protestants, the Presbyterians, who were largely involved in the rebellion of 1798 would shed no tears over the end of the Irish parliament. The Orange Order tried to be neutral on the issue of union, however thirty-six lodges from counties Armagh and Louth alone petitioned against the Union. The fear for some Protestants, especially those part of the Protestant Ascendancy, was that Catholic emancipation would immediately follow any union. The artisans and merchants of Dublin also feared any union as it might have resulted in a loss of business.

When William Pitt's idea of union and emancipation was revealed to the cabinet of the Irish parliament, the Speaker and Chancellor of the Exchequer both vehemently opposed it. The rest of the cabinet supported the idea however were split on the issue of Catholic Emancipation, resulting in it being dropped from the proposals. Cornwallis observed: "I certainly wish that England could now make a union with the Irish nation, instead of making it with a party in Ireland".

Any union between Ireland and Great Britain would have to be in the form of a treaty in all but name, meaning that any act of union would need to be passed separately in both the Dublin and Westminster parliaments. There was strong support for it in Westminster, however Dublin was not as keen.

An amendment was moved on 22 January 1799, seeking the House to maintain "the undoubted birthright of the people of Ireland to have a free and independent legislature". The debate which followed consisted of eighty speeches, made over the course of twenty-one uninterrupted hours. The next day a vote was held which resulted in a defeat of the amendment by one vote (106 to 105), however the following day another motion against any union passed 111 to 106.

Following these votes, Lord Castlereagh and Lord Cornwallis set about trying to win over as many Irish MPs as possible through bribery consisting of jobs, pensions, peerages, promotions, along with other enticements. These methods were all legal and not unusual for the time. They also spent over £1,250,000 buying the support of those who held the seats of boroughs and counties.

When parliament reopened on 15 January 1800, high levels of passion ran throughout, and angry speeches were delivered by proponents on both sides. Henry Grattan, who had helped secure the Irish parliament's legislative independence in 1782, bought Wicklow borough at midnight for £1,200, and after dressing in his old Volunteer uniform, arrived at the House of Commons of the Irish parliament at 7 a.m., after which he gave a two-hour speech against the union. Regardless, a motion against the union failed by 138 votes to 96, and resolutions in favour of the union were passed with large majorities in both chambers of parliament.

The terms of the union were agreed on 28 March 1800 by both houses of the Irish Parliament. Two Acts with identical aims (but with different wording) were passed in both the British and Irish parliaments, with the British Act of Union becoming law on 2 July 1800, and royal assent given to the Irish Act of Union on 1 August 1800. The Irish Parliament met for the last time the following day. On 1 January 1801, the provisions of the Acts of Union came into force.

title: Parliament of Ireland