THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND HOME RULE.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] SIE,—May I make one or two remarks in regard to the foot- note which you appended to the letter you did me the honour of publishing on April 26th P Surely the majority of the House of Commons has limitations to its authority, either definitely stated or else clearly implied. Thus the majority -would have no right to proclaim a republic without the consent of the electors, even though the support of Mr. Keir Hardie were as necessary to its existence as the support of Mr. John Redmond is at this moment. On the same and also on additional grounds, it seems to me that the majority of the present House has no constitutional right to proclaim Home Rule in Ireland without the consent of the electors, inasmuch as the latter have twice rejected Home Rule, and are now becoming aware that this form of government can only be established in Ireland by the slaughter of thousands of Protestants. But I would ask, Why cannot this Government establish a republic or Home Rule contrary to the wishes of the electors ? Simply because their doing so would be equiva- lent to the abolition of the electorate itself. The creature, in order to retain office, would abolish its own creator. History reeks with suchlike examples. Therefore I say that the majority of the House of Commons would be acting ultra vires in establishing Home Rule without an appeal to the people ; and the minority of this assembly should resist and render impossible this invasion of the rights of the electors.
am, Sir, &c.. JOHN T. MIDDLEMORE.
4 Brookdale Terrace, Dawlish.
Previous page
