LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
[Letters of the length of one of our leading paragraphs are often more read, and therefore more effective, than those which fill treble the space.)
CARSON AND CASEMENT—A VOICE FROM AMERICA. [To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."3
Six,—The reply of Sir Horace Plunkett in his New York lecture with regard to the differentiation between Casement and Carson was so unjust, misleading and erroneous, that I hope that you will allow me to point out its ethical defects. His reply was " One was hanged, the other was made a judge." This reply, in my opinion, involves what logicians call false analogy, sug- gestion of the false and concealment of the truth. The whole matter revolves about this question, viz., what is treason and were both traitors to the same degree?
Carson did what Andrew Johnson and the loyalists of 1861 did in West Virginia in clinging to the Union and in offering armed resistance to secession. Therefore, there was no more wrong in offering Carson a seat in the Cabinet than there was .in the setting up of West Virginia as a separate State of the Union, brought about by Abraham Lincoln and the Congress of the United States, and in the election of Andrew Johnson to the Vice-Presidency in 1864, which made him President through the assassination of Lincoln in 1865. Johnson was given that high honour as a reward for his unsuccessful effort to keep his State from being forced out of the Union. Plunkett's sug- gestion that Carson was made a Law Lord in 1921 because of his resistance to the Home Rule Act of 1914 has absolutely no ground to stand upon, and is clearly an unwarranted assump- tion. The present Lord Chancellor and Carson are universally known as the leaders of the Bar of the United Kingdom, and they are, therefore, most properly associated in, what would be called by Americana, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Both acted earnestly together in the so-called Ulster rebellion of 1914, although the Lord Chancellor was English born and represented an English constituency, while Lord Carson was born in Ireland, educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and represented an Irish constituency.
The differentiation between Casement and Carson is of the widest sort. During all his time in the consular service Casement was a vindictive and bitter enemy of the United -Kingdom, which paid his salary all his years of service and
awarded him a pension and a title. Kis ,seditious articles published before the War, and hie diary now being published, show that he was a passionate admirer of Germany which never did anything for him, while his heart was overflowing with venomous hatred of the United Kingdom, whieh had been his generous benefactor. Surely it is hard to find in modern history any man more worthy to rank with the most consummate traitor.
The only charge of treason possible against Lord Carson lies in the fact that he fearlessly and openly opposed the application of the Home Rule Act of 1914 to Northern Ire- land. The weakness of that charge will readily be seen in comparison with Casement's acts when we study the genesis of the Act which he opposed. A single amendment of three lines, allowing Ulster to remain an integral part of the United King- dom, as West Virginia was treated in 1861, would have disarmed his opposition and that of the Ulster Covenantors. Such an Act as that of 1914 would not have been possible under the United States Constitution, and would not stand examination in a United States Court as to its constitutionality. It was passed at the tyrannical dictation of less than one-tenth of the sovereign legislature, and this tyrannical minority enjoyed twice the representation which it could have attained in the U.S. Congress, or to which it was entitled. It was unicameral legislation, for it was three times rejected by the Upper House of the legislative Parliament. A majority of the representa- tives from England, whose population is seven-ninths of the United Kingdom, voted against it, and the narrow majority of SO on the third reading practically coincided with the members from the region now known as Southern Ireland, which forms about 7 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom and pays about 4 per cent. of the taxes paid into the national exchequer.
If determined opposition to enacted law constitutes treason, then it can easily be said that a stronger charge lies against Sir Horace Plunkett for his outspoken and defiant opposition to the Home Rule Act of 1920 than against Lord Carson for his opposition to the Home Rule Act of 1914. That of 1920 was passed by the House of Commons with a vote in its favour nearly four times the vote against it, and it was also passed by the House of Lords by a large majority. On the other hand, the majority of 80 in 1914 was entirely made up of Irish votes, and, as I have said, it was rejected by large majorities three times by the Upper House of Parliament. Besides, the Imperial contribution required of all Ireland by the Asquith Act of 1914 was 50 million dollars greater than that required by the Home Rule Act of 1920, although the Imperial burden of debt of the United Kingdom is much greater now than it
was then. -
Finally, the opposition of Northern Ireland to the Act of 1914 cost not a single life and no destruction of property, while the opposition of Southern Ireland to the Act of 1920 has Bost many violent deaths and the destruction of millions of dollars of public and private property. For these reasons I claim that the charge of deliberate opposition to duly enacted law has a much sounder basis against Sir Horace Plunkett than against
[Mr. Fox's statement of the position of Lord Carson is unassailable. Lincoln said the final word as to the inalienable right of Northern Ireland when he said of West Virginia : " It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession. and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the Constitution and secession in favour of the Con- stitution."—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
