[To TILE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. "]
SIR,—May I express a cordial agreement with your article in the Spectator of August 17th on " The Right of Rebellion " P The gravamen of the Home Rule Bill is not merely that it destroys the Ulsterman's constitutional birthright, but that it will place him under a hated domination. It is this which nullifies " E. W.'s" argument in your issue of August 10th as to the cogency of a King-signed Act. The victim says, "Eject me from my birthright as a Briton, and I shall lament my fate ; but if in addition to that you subject me to an odious tyranny, it is an outrageous injustice ; it is no case for logic- chopping ; I shall resist to the last."
In the seventeenth century Parliament and the country fought to resist the tyranny of the King. It may be that the time is not far distant when the King and the country must combine to resist the tyranny of the House of Commons. Without a mandate from the country its action is a fraud against the Constitution. The Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland as we inherited it has been destroyed, for the House of Lords has been deprived of its power, and lies paralysed. Mr. Asquith's " debt of honour" (save the mark !) has not been, and will not be, paid until the United Kingdom has been torn asunder. It may be that the disruption of Great Britain and Ireland, with Ulster in rebellion, will be averted only by the determination of the King to assert his constitutional right to dissolve Parliament and obtain the suffrages of the people of his kingdom before the deadly
mischief is accomplished.—I am, Sir, &c., A.
Previous page
