Evening Post. MONDAY, JULY 13, 1914. PROVOKING A CONFLICT

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 11, 13 July 1914, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, JULY 13, 1914. PROVOKING A CONFLICT

The English Unionist newspapex's that are, for sordid party purposes,, backing the Ulster covenanters, now declare that Ulstermen (meaning thereby the covenanting section in Ulster) are " sick of inaction." In saying this the intimidatory press is merely paraphrasing what the revolutionary leader, Sir TSdward Carson, said the day before, \vh«S he quitted London with a, flaunting remark about "the intense desire of Ulster for immediate action." Action for what purpose, and against whom? So far the Government has made no attempt whatever to force Home Rulo upon Ulster, and as the express purpose of the covenanting volunteer force is to defend Ulster from Home' Rule, there is no one against whom "immediate attion " can be taken. Until Home Rule is actually ' forced upon Ulster — and under the Government's proposals that cannot happen for six years at least, in which period two general elections must occur — there is no reason at all why the covenanters should fight, unless they abandon their defensive attitude and become the aggressors in an utterly unnecessary acj^ of rebellion. To do so would be to cut away the whole moral basis of their casej and yet men like Sir Edward Carson, in whom the inflamed covenanters appear to believe implicitly, talk about "immediate action." Moreover, the same i*esponsibl« firebrand is reported by one paper to have said that "the height of the crisis was hardly more than a matter of minutes!" Just' before the B,oer War Mr. Chamberlain was fiercely attacked for warning President Kruger that "the sands in the hour-glass were running low." If this was considered provocative to a foreign State whose rifles were massed on our frontiers, how absolutely criminal is the use of a similar phrase when the shadow overhangs of civil war. In Mr. Chamberlain's defence it, may, at least, be said that he was confronted with a real foe. But no one knows better than Sir Edward Carson that the Government has stultified the law, has introduced a postponing amendment, has almost humbled itself in the dust, to avoid that conflict which the covenanting 'leader, while expressing abhorrence of it, is sedulously working-up by deceitful pose and mischievous misrepresentation. If there is, among the covenanting volunteers, a desire for "immediate action," it is because bigotry and bitterness have been worked upon by men like Sir Edward Carson. As to the English Unionist -leaders, a current idea that, for party purposes, they do not desire a settlement (which would be deemed "a Liberal victory") is strongly confirmed by the treatment of the Amending Home Rule Bill in the House of Lords. When this Bill, deferring Home Rule for six years, was first outlined, Sir Edward Carson offered to consider it and to at once call a convention of covenanters to discuss it as a basis of settlement, provided that the timelimit was dropped. With the time-limit omitted it would, indeed, be a very big concession to the covenanters, since it would mean the unqualified exclusion of Ulster from Home Rule. If the Lords, following along .the line of settlement suggested by Sir Edward Carson himself, had been content to knock out the time-limit, they would at least have been consistent with the minimum that Unionists have demanded. But, instead of taking their stand for peace on a basis of exclusion, the Lords have hit the Amending Bill several quite unnecessary blows, and, on the motion of that ancient Die-hard Lord Halsbury, have actually attempted to remove from Home Rule jurisdiction not only the Unionists of Ulster but those of southwest Ireland. Is this tampering with the Amending Bill — this introduction of new issues into the compromise — indicative of a genuine desire by Unionists for a settlement? Can it be considered consistent with their avowed love of peace and with the melodramatic horror with which on every platform they conjure up visions of civil war? That the Government is still prepared to go a long way, legislatively, is clearly shown by the remarks of the Liberal Leader in the House of Lords, Lord Crewe. His mention of unqualified exclusion must be regarded as an undertaking that, as the price of peace, the Government would consider that course. To test the question', he asked the Unionist Loader, Lord Lanedowne,

guarantee against civil conflict if total exclusion of Ulster were included in the Bill. This guarantee Lord Lansdowne declined to give, "as matters had arrived at such a pass as to make it impossible to guarantee what would happen in the next few weeks." But if a conflict occurs, the direct promoters thereof will be Sir Edward Carson and Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Bonar Law, for the two latter have prostituted their leadership and their party to follow the mischievous lead of the covenanter. The Government has gone to the limit of concession. To force it farther the Unionist leaders are maintaining the menace of the Ulster bayonets. If those bayonets^ get beyond their control and find a bloody sheath they will seek to blame the Liberals— they do it already in advance— but the verdict of history will not fail to find the guilty parties and to place the bloodstain just where it belongs.