AN HISTORICAL PARALLEL.
[To SIMI Banos or r® ..SracrrArox."1 Sra,—Tbe history of the revolt of the Netherlands against the tyranny of Philip II. and Alva suggests several points of comparison with the present Irish crisis. No one, of course, with any sense of proportion, or even with the most rudi- mentary sense of humour, would suggest that the wrongs of the Ulster Protestants are comparable in magnitude to those of the Netherlanders, or attribute the ruthlessness of Alva and the hypocrisy of Philip to the members of the present Government, nor is it to be imagined that Sir Edward Carson would seek to be put on the same plane as William the Silent. But—si magna fleet coesponere parrds—the likeness between the two cases is sufficiently striking. The Nether- landers fought for their civil and religions liberties. They insisted on their right to be governed according to their own Constitution. Ulster insists on her right to be governed according to the Act of Union. But Philip had as much legal right to force the Inquisition on the Netherlands as the Government has toforce Home Rule on Ulster. Orange protested against the unconstitutional measures of Alva's Government, but as Alva was commissioned by Philip, he could not impugn their legality. He was loyal as long as his conscience would allow him to be. All the Netherlander nobles were loyal to the Crown till the arrival of Alva. Motley tells us that Egmont, the day before his execution, " protested that he had never in his life wronged his Majesty. . . . All that he had done had been with loyal intentions." But in the end Orange led the revolt against legality, just as Sir Edward Carlson now threatens to do. Alva brought with him a warrant which condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death. Later on, when the discontent had become alarming, Philip decided to issue a pardon, and sent three forms for .Alva to select from. The one chosen was found to contaia so many exceptions that the pardon applied to nobody at all We do not know how many forms of con. cession Mr. Asquith submitted to Mr. Redmond, but we do know that the latter chose one that he knew would not be accepted, and therefore was as much waste-paper as was Philip's pardon. When the Archduke Charles petitioned Philip on behalf of Orange against the rigour of Alva's government, the King replied that " he could not but consider the terms of the instructions given to the Archduke as . . . a menace, and he was astonished that a menace should be employed, because with Princes constituted like himself, such means could have but little success" (Motley). In similar' terms did Mr. Redmond in his "Full steam ahead" speech answer Sir Edward Carson's protests. Alva trusted to the Spanish army to subdue the Netherlands. As Motley says, " the chances were with the Inquisition." Mr. Asquith trusts to the British Army, and presumably (on paper) the chances are with the Army. We can but wait and see. The point at issue is the same in both cases. Alva said, and Mr. Asquith says: " You have neither a legal nor a moral right to object to my Government." William answered, and Sir Edward Carson answers : " True, we have no legal right; but we have a moral- right to fight against your Government, and we are going to." William's action has been approved by the verdict of posterity Will Sir Edward Carson's be condemned P—I ans, Sir, Ark.,
Previous page
