HISTORY OR PROPHECY?
[To THE EDITOR or TH. •' Sir.,—The recent military incident has been described in two ways. From one point of view, it was a plan for coercing Ulster and (if necessary) shooting Protestants. From the other, it was a precaution against the seizure, by disaffected persons, of military stores and ammunition. There is not much difference between the two. This is the way in which a civil war begins. In 1612 the first instance of armed opposition to the King's orders took place at Hull, the King and Parliament coming into collision in their endeavour to secure the arms and ammunition of the late Northern Army. In 1775 the attempt of General Gage to seize a small depot of arms and ammunition at Concord, and to secure (as was believed) the persons of Hancock and Samuel Adams, led to the " long skirmish" of Lexington, and began the American War of Independence. So far as I can make out, Ministers have two or three times said they did not mean to do it again, and have then said it was "not a promise." I conclude accordingly that, when they have " placed their Bill upon the statute-book," questions of securing or seizing arms and ammunition will occupy the next chapter of the history of our third great civil war.—I am, Sir, &c.,
GEORGE YOUNG.
Previous page
