[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—I am loth to trouble you again, but your correspond:nt3, Professor Pollard and " E. C.," call upon me for an answer. It is true that as their points are purely rhetorical, I might consider their challenge rhetorical also. But I think I must point out that I was not so foolish as to suppose that any Prime Minister would behave as unreasonably as in the hypothetical cases which your correspondents suggest. When one is arguing as to probable actions, one is guided by proba- bilities, not by the Gilbertian fantasy in which Professor Pollard indulges.
There is, therefore, no " shattering contradiction " between Mr. MacDonald's article in the New Leader and my letter to you. "E. C." will find, if he reads them without prejudice, that they amount, in fact, to exactly the same thing, which is, that when Prime Ministers request dissolution it is invariably granted, and will continue to be so granted until they behave in the ridiculous manner postulated by Professor Pollard and " E. C."—I am, Sir, &c., HAMILTON FYFE.
[We are entirely opposed to this undemocratic method of trusting to the good sense of any individual. It would mean a tyranny some day. The right way is obvious. The House of Commons—that is to say the majority- decides.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
