A Leap in the Dark: A Criticism of the Principles of Home Rule as Illustrated by the; Bill of 1893Dicey, A. V. (Albert Venn)
History
A Leap in the Dark: A Criticism of the Principles of Home Rule as Illustrated by the; Bill of 1893
Dicey, A. V. (Albert Venn)
Home rule -- Ireland
Gladstonians when pressed with the manifest objections to which the new
constitution is open rely for its defence either upon general
considerations intended to show that the criticisms on the new
constitution are in themselves futile, or upon certain more or less
specific arguments, of which the main object is to establish that the
policy of Home Rule is either necessary or at least free from danger,
and that, therefore, this policy and the new constitution in which it is
to be embodied deserve a trial.
My object in this chapter is to examine with fairness the value both of
these general considerations and of these specific arguments.
The general considerations are based upon the alleged prophetic
character of the criticisms on the new constitution or upon the
anomalies to be found in the existing English constitution.
Ministerialists try to invalidate strictures on the Home Rule Bill, such
as those set forth in the foregoing pages, by the assertion that the
objections are mere prophecy and therefore not worth attention.
This line of defence may, as against Home Rulers, be disposed of at once
by an _argumentum ad hominem_. No politicians have made freer use of
prediction. Every Gladstonian speech is in effect a statement that is a
prophecy of the benefits which Home Rule will confer on the United
Kingdom. Gladstonian anticipations no doubt are prophecies of future
blessings; but whoever foretells the future is equally a prophet,
whether he announces the end of the world or foretells the dawn of a
millennium. And history affords no presumption in favour of the prophet
who prophesies smooth things. The prognostics of a pessimist may be as
much belied by the event as the hopes of an optimist. But for one
prophet to decry the predictions of another simply as prophecies is a
downright absurdity. Even among rival soothsayers some regard must be
had to fairness and common sense; when Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah,
smote Micaiah on the cheek, he struck him not on the ground that he
prophesied but that his gloomy predictions were false. Zedekiah was an
imposter, he was not a fool, and after all Micaiah, who prophesied evil
and not good, turned out the true prophet.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account