The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1913. THE NEW ZEALAND PRESS ON THE CARSON ATTITUDE

New Zealand Tablet, 31 July 1913, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1913. THE NEW ZEALAND PRESS ON THE CARSON ATTITUDE

HOSE who know ‘ Ulster ’ have always been □ r II Ottf well aware that Ulster had at bottom **27l| d i no argument against Home Rule except -^JiiV•&' the appeal to bigotry and sectarianism. That appeal* is, in tact, the first and last defence of ‘ Ulster ’; and that this is so has * been made overwhelmingly evident by the s recent irreconcilable attitude' and crassly unreasonable utterances of ‘Ulster’s’ leader, Sir Edward Carson. Since the first rejection of the Home Rule Bill by the Peers, the attitude of the Government and of the Irish Party has been most conciliatory. But it has evoked no response from the ‘ Ulsterettes.’ Instead of an effort to make terms, the Government have been met with an unbending non possumus, and the threat of civil war. Asked at a recent public meeting whether, in the event of an appeal to’ the people resulting in favor of Ireland being given Home Rule, he would cease his agitation, Sir E. Carson replied in the negative, and declared that neither one nor twenty Parliaments would have the right to force Ulster to submit. ‘Ulster,’ thereforeby.which, of course, we mean always the section of it represented by Sir E. Carson —means either to rule Ireland or to ruin the Empire. It will be loyal and constitutional so long as the Crown and the Constitution are its humble servants, but no longer. It defies Parliament, defies England and the Empire, to extend to Ireland the benefits of the British Constitution in the shape of Home Rule. If ‘ Ulster ’ could make that position good, there would be an end to constitutional government, and our Parliamentary institutions would be a humbug and a farce. Sir Edward Carson has, in a word, taken up an impossible position, and one which shows that his whole opposition to Irish self-government is based, not on reasonable political or constitutional arguments, but on a ‘ humiliating appeal to religious intolerance.’ * That is not our view only, but the view of representative New Zealand dailies. We have pleasure in quoting, in this connection, two city journals, of recognised standing, one in the south and the other in the extreme north of the Dominion. The Dunedin Evening Star of July 21, writing under the title ‘The Carson Campaign,’ remarks: ‘We have expressed the opinion more than once that the root cause of the opposition to the Home Rule Bill by a section (certainly a large and influential one) of Ulster Protestants is religious, not political. This opinion, which is based upon the admissions of the opponents of the Bill as well as on the too apparent development of the question, receives further confirmation from the cable messages we publish to-day. Asked at a public meeting whether, in the event of an appeal to the people resulting in favor of

- Ireland-' 1 being given Home Rule, he would cease his agitation, Sir Edward Carson declined to bind himself. On the contrary, he went on to say that neither one nor twenty Parliaments would have the right to force Ulster out of the Union. We think this admission fairly gives away the whole anti-Home Rule agitation. Ulster is not being driven out of the Union. Under local Home Rule she will be as much in the Union as she is to-day; in fact, more so, for the rest of Ulster and the other three provinces will then be upon their trial, and therefore on guard to see that no legitimate complaint of tampering with the Union shall stand.' Nothing but the supremest bigotry and the most determined obduracy not to have Home Rule at any price can be urged in support of Sir E. Carson’s accusation. Under the Home Rule Bill of the Asquith Government the supreme power and authority of the Imperial Parliament remain ' unaffected. Such public services as Land Purchase, Insurance, Old Age Pensions, Constabulary, Post and Telegraph, Post Office Savings Bank, and the collection of taxes other than Duties and Excise, are expressly reserved for and by the Imperial Parliament. Nor can the local Palriament repeal the Act that calls it into being; neither can it affect nor whittle away the right of appeal to the Privy Council, while, in addition, there are special provisions for the absolute preservation of religious equality, to say nothing about the Veto of the Lord Lieutenant and the representation of Ireland at Westminster by 42 members. “Farced out of the Union!” cries Sir Ed- . ward Carson; “no, we will obey no mandate from any Parliament.” . Surely there never has been a more humiliating appeal on behalf of religious intolerance than that which Sir Edward 1 is now , making to the Empire at large.’ * To the like effect, and with equal emphasis, writes the Auckland Star of July 22. Its leaderette on the subject is somewhat lengthy, but so much to the point that we ask our readers’ indulgence to reproduce it in full. Writing under the caption ‘Ulster’s “Rights”,’ and dealing with this same utterance of Sir Edward Carson, the Auckland paper says: ‘Any possible doubt as to the true character of the Unionist agitation against Home Rule will surely be dispelled by Sir Edward , Carson’s latest pronouncement on the question. According to Ulster’s enthusiastic champion, the anti-Nationa-list party now entirely denies the right of Parliament or the people to decide this question of self-government for Ireland. This must be rather disconcerting for Lord Lansdowne and the Unionist party in the Upper House, who have just formally based their rejection of the Home Rule Bill on the plea that it has not been submitted to the people, and have challenged the Liberals to ask the nation for its verdict, and abide by its decision. But, happily, it is not our business to reconcile such curious inconsistencies, and we are chiefly concerned just now with the truly monstrous character of the doctrine that Sir Edward Carson is promulgating. It is surely a new constitutional principle, that any given fraction of the United Kingdom may, whenever it pleases, repudiate the authority of Parliament and Crown, and decide for itself how it is to be governed. Is the West Riding of Yorkshire or the Isle of Wight, or the Lake district constitutionally competent in Sir Edward Carson’s opinion to settle such matters for itself ? And if not, why should three counties out of the whole of Ulster be permitted to dictate to the rest of the Irish nation and to England what policy is best adapted to the needs of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the Empire ?’ * * * Merely to assert such a proposition is to reduce any political controversy to a farce. But Sir Edward Carson goes further than this. He maintains that neither Parliament nor Government, even after twenty elections, could deprive Ulster of its alleged “rights.” For a distinguished lawyer this is surely the most extraordinary interpretation of “rights” ever put into words. Juristically and constitutionally speaking, rights are defined by laws, and laws emanate from the Parliament and the Crown. What right has Ulster or any other part of the United Kingdom to any privilege

except what is conferred on it by law ? As to natural rights, so far as Ulster is concerned, the less said about them the better. For the Protestants of Ulster are aliens in race and religion from the great majority of the inhabitants of Ireland; they were planted there by conquest, their supremacy while it lasted was, established and maintained by force. The temporary predominance of Ulster involved the absolute sacrifice of the national racial and hereditary rights of the main body of the Irish people, and Sir Edward Carson would do well to keep clear of historical reminiscences altogether.’ * ‘ But quite apart from the ridiculous character of these pretensions, it is simply outrageous that the anti-Nationalists should call upon England, in the name of justice, to listen to Ulster alone, and turn a deaf ear to the rest of the Irish nation. On what ground, moral, equitable, or legal, should the protests of a small fraction of the Irish people outweigh the united demand of the rest of the Irish' nation pleading for the right to manage their own affairs? And the unanimity of the rest of Ireland, as Mr. Dillon aptly reminds us, has been secured not by intimidation and sedition and the threat of war, but by a spontaneous outburst of patriotic and national feeling. Surely whatever argument can be urged on behalf of Ulster’s right to control her own destinies, applies with tenfold force to the Irish nation, of which the Ulster Protestants form but a relatively small part. However, it is a good sign for the Nationalists that their enemies are now hopelessly at variance, and that Sir Edward Carson, not content with flatly repudiating the one standard of appeal which the Unionists have agreed to accept, is now propounding doctrines that imply the rejection not only of all the claims of patriotism and loyalty, but of the fundamental principles of constitutional government and political liberty, based upon Parliamentary Government.’ * Our recent visitors from the Irish Party will doubtless remember well their great meetings and enthusiastic reception in Auckland and Dunedin; and they at least, amongst our Home readers, will be interested to note the accuracy with which the ‘Ulster’ business is sized up,’ and the vigor with which it is reprobated, in the self-governing dominions beyond the seas.