The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, MAY 16, 1914. CLOSING UP ON BELFAST

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8734, 16 May 1914, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, MAY 16, 1914. CLOSING UP ON BELFAST

Like a master of political war, Mr Asquith has concentrated his forces, chosen his ground, and compelled the enemy to accept battle thereon. From all the different points of- view, this be one day the generally-accepted iopinion of the Prime Minister’s tao■tics. The Liberals, the Irish-Nation- | a lists, the Unionists and the Ulster ■ malcontents, all must . acknowledge as much even now, if they give their minds earnestly, to the logic of the situation. To the Liberals, the only point of importance is that tbe indefinite timti of the struggle has been sharply shortened to reasonably defi nite limits by the simple process of bringing the issue to one conflict short and decisive, in substitution of many of sure bitterness and uncertain duration. The, Nationalists arc said ’to have been surprised by the Prime Minister’s move, and are represented as reticent about their inten tions. But the Prime Minister, h> insisting on the unamending passage of the Home Rule Bill, is keeping faith with them by getting the bill on to the statute-book. In return, he has the right to expect that they ■will keep faith with him by passing whatever amending measure may contain the concessions to which they have publicly pledged themselves, which are the exclusion of Ulster hy option with time limit of six years. Having accepted that before the passing of the bilPj it is unthinkable that the Nationalists should repudiate it after the bill has been read a third time. There Jis for them a double rule. The rule of honour compels them to pass the .amending bill, which, according tb Mr Lloyd George, will contain the above concession, and no more, and the rule of expediency corroborates the rule of honour, inasmuch as the passing of the amending hill will greatly strengthen the moral, if not the legal side of the Irish Nationalist position, while at the .same time it must seriously weaken that of militant Ulsteria. Of the Unionist position, it is difficult to speak, because the Unionists consistently decline to say what they want, beyond a general election, which Ulster declines to accept. In spit© of the admirable speech Mr Balfour made last week, we can only regard his party as beating the air now, and its leaders must be glad that by the masterly move of the Prime Minister that undignified process is brought within such short distance of its end.

As the end approaches, the question of Ulster’s intention deepens in importance. Will Ulster light? The other day if put an additional touch of constructiveuess to its programme of drilling and arming by running the blockade successfully with much infantry, artillery, and machine armament. This is prima facie and strong evidence of fighting determination. There is another even more serious. It is the oath of the Ulster Covenant. The Earl of Arran has recently appealed to tho men who signed that Covenant to realise that this oath binds them to resist an Irish Parliament—with or without Ulster exclusion—if necessary by force of arms. To this end he gave them a summary of the oath, thus: —'“Wio men of Ulster do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant to stand by one another in using all means which may bo found necessary to defeat the proiout conspiracy to set up a Bonn Rule Parliament in Ireland.” Th* Earl, who is the greatest of the stalwarts on that side, a “whole-hogget' of the stillest, most uncompromising sort, holds that by this form of oath, each Covenanter must resist, even by civil war, the establishment of a Parliament in Ireland. To give force to the contention, he declares that the obligation covers the case of all the

Protestant opponents of Home Rule domiciled out of Ulster, whose abandonment must cover their follow-Cov-cnantors with the dishonour of cowardly, and perjured disloyalty. With this view, it is said many of tho Ulster side concur. On the other hand, there is a large proportion of Ulstermen who hold that the opening words. “Men of Ulster,” construes the “Irish Parliament” of the oath into a Parliament having jurisdiction over Ulster. Thus, in the discussion of the question of “Will Ulster fight?” we arrive at the fact that so far as the oath of the Covenant is concerned. Ulster is a house divided against itself. The oath of tho Covenant, then, will not precipitate the nation into civil war.

Ono other consideration has to he regarded. It concerns the moral right of civil war—or insurrection if we prefer that term—which the champions and friends of Ulster are putting forward with much energy against the charges of treason, disloyalty, and rebellion, hurled at them with considerable energy throughout the whole period of the present conflict. They cito the case of John Churchill’s defection with most of the army from the side of their King James 11., the revolt of the American colonies, oid the confederate movement of the American Civil War. The first of these is based on a letter by Churchill, in which the writer tells his royal benefactor that ho must, to his sorrow, desert him by reason of "Tiro irrevocable distates of my conscience and a necessary concern ' for my religion (which no pood man 1 can oppose), and with which I am 1 instructed nothing can come into oom peititi on. ” But this is inapplicable, for. two reasons: (1) The idea of Jack Churchill masquerading in a religious cloak is too comical for anything but burlesque; (2) it is impossible for any religious disabilities to be imposed under the Homo Rule Constitution. Tho other two cases need not be,dwelt on here, for it is enough to say that they are used for the purpose of showing that when the Covenanters of Ulster do go out, they ought by these precedents to be entitled to belligerent rights. But this, while possibly throwing light on tho intention of Ulster to fight, leaves us in tho dark as to tho intention of Ulster to fight now. It throws no light, in other word's, on the question of whether civil war is or is not the only alternative before Ulster to the acceptance as a pacific solution of the amended Home Rule Bill, The answer to the question, however, is plain under all the circumstances of the case. There can bo no moral right of insurrection- until all other modes of solution have been exhausted- Now, the amended Homo Rule Bill, while leaving Ulster out for six years, saves the question from immediate pressure, and provides tho possibility of two appeals to the constituencies, for within that period of option there must be two general ©lections! The constitutional means of settlement will not bo exhausted for six years. Therefore, there will be no moral right of civil war for six years. Therefore, Ulster is not likely to us© its arms for six years. In tho meantime, much may happen. For example, Sir E. Carson may keep his promise of fervently praying that Home Rule, once established may commend itself to the favourable notice of excluded Ulster-