ament in
1913, for the process was purely mechanical, in order to satisfy the
requirements of the Parliament Act. The preparations for dealing with
the mischief it would work went forward with unflagging energy
elsewhere.

FOOTNOTES:

[40] See _ante_, p. 79.

CHAPTER XII

WAS RESISTANCE JUSTIFIABLE?

A story is told of Queen Victoria that in her youthful days, when
studying constitutional history, she once asked Lord Melbourne whether
under any circumstances citizens were justified in resisting legal
authority; to which the old courtier replied: "When asked that question
by a Sovereign of the House of Hanover I feel bound to answer in the
affirmative." If one can imagine a similar question being asked of an
Ulsterman by Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, or Sir Edward Grey, in 1912,
the reply would surely have been that such a question asked by a
statesman claiming to be a guardian of Liberal principles and of the
Whig tradition could only be answered in the affirmative. This, at all
events, was the view of the late Duke of Devonshire, who more than any
other statesman of our time could claim to be a representative in his
own person of the Whig tradition handed down from 1688.[41] Passive
obedience has, indeed, been preached as a political dogma in the course
of English history, but never by apostles of Liberalism. Forcible
resistance to legally constituted authority, even when it involved
repudiation of existing allegiance, has often, both in our own and in
foreign countries, won the approval and sympathy of English Liberals. A
long line of illustrious names, from Cromwell and Lord Halifax in
England to Kossuth and Mazzini on the Continent, might be quoted in
support of such a proposition if anyone were likely to challenge it.

When, then, Liberals professed to be unutterably shocked by Ulster's
declared intention to resist Home Rule both actively and passively, they
could not have based their attitude on the principle that under no
circumstances could such resistance be morally justified. Indeed, in
the case in question, there were circumstances that would have made the
condemnation of Ulster by the English Liberal Party not a little
hypocritical if referred to any general ethical principle. For that
party had itself been for a generation in the closest political alliance
with Irishmen whose leader had boasted that they were as much rebels as
their fathers were in 1798, and whose power in Ireland had been