One hundred years ago
The temper of the House of Com- mons is growing hot over Home-rule. In a debate on Thursday night over the renewal of the Arms Act, Mr Parnell demanded that the Act should be ap- plied to Loyalists and Nationalists alike; and while ridiculing the idea of rebel- lion either in Ulster or the South, distinctly charged the Orangemen with intending assassinations, and Lord R. Churchill with unintentionally inciting to such crimes, which naturally brought up Lord R. Churchill, and gave Mr Gladstone an opportunity for a strong speech, in which he bitterly rebuked 'a counsellor of the Crown' for laying down the doctrine that when constitu- tional means of resistance had been exhausted, recourse might be had to arms . . . He should, if possible, adhere to the tolerance hitherto maintained by the Government, 'unless an over-ruling necessity should compel me to depart from it.' . . . But the Premier, though justified in censuring threats which are foolish if resistance is not intended, and indiscreet if it is, has not met the point at issue. Rebellion is a crime, no doubt, morally as well as legally; but when a people has been transferred against its consent to a foreign dominion, is resist- ance justified? The verdict of Europe is that it is. Clearly the Home-rule Bill involves such a transfer of the Protes- tants of Ulster.
Spectator, 22 May 1886
Previous page
