[To THR EDITOR OF TEN " SPECTATOR:I
SIR,—May I submit a remark with reference to the editorial comment on a letter dealing with the above subject in the Spectator of May 6th? Your statement of the law of the case is quite correct. Like the Constitution of the United States, as explained by Artemus Ward, our law—in the matter of flags—allows everyone above high-water mark " to do as he darn pleases." Though not illegal, it is irregular and im- proper for any person to hoist the so-called Union "Jack" over any but a Government establishment or official residence. In the latter case the Union Flag may be " differenced " by a device in the centre. The hoisting of the Union Flag over private buildings is, I know, common. It is, probably, less common than dropping the letter "H," and is quite as im- proper. The right flag for private persons to fly is the Red Ensign. It would not be a bad plan if people were, in this Coronation year, to start doing the right thing.—I am, Sir, [In theory we bow to the opinion of our distinguished and authoritative correspondent, but it is much too late to eradicate the Union Flag habit from the minds of English. men. After all, it does no more harm for them to use the national flag in its essential form than it does for Ameri- cans to display the Stars and Stripes. What is useful is to encourage veneration, respect, and love for the national colours, and this, for good or ill, will be far more easily obtained for the Union Jack than for " the Red Duster." The Red Ensign means the prosecution of a commercial venture on the high seas. But " we are not shopkeepers all," and we want a national emblem which shall suggest an ideal rather than trade, however honourable. Let us make it " good form," as well as legal, for every Briton to fly the Union Flag on shore.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
