Wairarapa Daily Times. [Established Third of a Century.] FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1913. THE FEARS OF ULSTER.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXV, Issue 11788, 26 September 1913, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times. [Established Third of a Century.] FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1913. THE FEARS OF ULSTER.

The cable messages of the past week or two tend to indicate that a more serious view is beginning to be taken of the nature of Ulster's opposition to Home Rule than had hitherto been the case. In quarters where formerly there was a disposition to discount _the whole Ulster movement as mere "bluff" the note of anxiety is now heard, and some of the Home Rule organs are beginning to urge the duty of the Government to take steps to surb the activities of Sir Edward Carson. From a tactical point of, view, the will probably be well advised to leave Sir Edward Carson alone, for it is a little difficult to see how loyalty to the Throne and the Union can be construed into' treason, however misguided may be the manner in which that loyalty is manifested under circumstances which, to say the least, are abnormal.

Meanwhile, it must be conceded that the fears of Ulster concerning the consequences which would ensue from the establishment of Home Rule are not without foundation in the evidence of certain sinister facts. In the debate on the third reading of the Home Eule Bill, Mr Asquith said: "Because we have faith and trust in the patriotism and common sense of our Irish fellowcitizens, we do not believe that there would be .any danger under Home Rule of either religious or political persecution or oppression." On the other hand, we have the solemn covenant of the loyal men of Ulster, the text of which we printed yesterday, expressing the conscientious conviction that . Home Rule will be subversive of their civil and religious freedom. We are afraid that the evidence in favour of Ulster's fears being well-grounded is more conclusive than that, if any, which can be cited to justify Mr Asquith r s easygoing optimism and bjind faith in the sweet reasonableness of Nationalist Ireland. Recently we reproduced the separatist sentiments culled by . Lord Lansdowne from tho official organ of the

Ancient Order of Hibernians, and it is necessary to recognise that under Home Eule that powdrfu,! society would undoubtedly hold the destinies of Ireland in its hands. But there is other evidence which ■does the belief thai; Mr Asquith is right in his surmise. How, for instance, are wo to reconcile Mr'Asquith's professed-confi-dence in the patriotism of the Irish , Nationalists with the ascertained facts that Mr Redmond and his followers persistently abstain from all loyal and patriotic toasts, that the Gaelic League denounces, enlistment in the forces of.the Crown and stigmatises the Union Jack as a party emblem to be hatod by overy r truc patriot, and that the Education Commissioners have prohibited the exhibition of this same Union Jack on all National Schools? None of this smacks particularly of patriotism. Even where a school is attended only by Protestants and managed by an entirely Protestant committee, we are told, the "party emblem" is prohibited. On the other hand, there unfortunately is good ground.for fearing that the anxiety of Ulster on the score of religions freedom is justified. In replying to the Leader of-the Opposition in the course of the third reading debate on the Bill, Mr Asquith again said that "with the exception of the Ten Commandments he knew of no . legislative measure which could be said to be so verbally inepirod that, whatever might happen in the future, it has never to be altered. " Well, in the light of some evidence which we are about to quote from the special correspondent of "The Times" in Ulster, Mr Asquith's allusion to' the Ten Commandments does not strike one as very fortunate. For, by a strange coincidence, the Ten Commandments have actually been altered for tho use of schools in Ireland in order to conciliate the Nationalists! The correspondent says:—

On May 26 the Secretary to the Commissioners of National Education in Dublin informed the managers of a Protestant school in Belfast that the Ten Commandments, as taken from the Authorised Version of the Bible, could not be placed in the school on the ground that "National schools must be open to pupils of all religious denominations." If the Commandments were completely barred, together with all other religious literature and emblems, as "denominational/-* Ulster's grievance would "at least be free from the sting of injustice; but the Commissioners of National Education have sanctioned the exhibition of a Decalogue, amended to suit the Roman Catholic conscience by the omission of the word "image" in the Second Commandment and of the sentence which begins "Thou shalt not bow down to them," etc. This "authorised" copy was prepared and sanctioned by the Commissioners for use in schools as far back as 1837, the actual translation from the Hebrew being subsequently submitted for ratification and amendment by a Roman Catholic prelate. The Commissioners' official version of the Ten Commandments is issued, for the use of schools, on a special tablet, but by the rules of the Board of Education it is laid down thajt the use of this tablet is not compulsory! And while Protestants are not allowed to exhibit their own Bible version of the Commandments in the schools under their control, the Commissioners -of--.education have permitted the managers of certain Roman Catholic schools to introduce "statues of a religious character," sanctioning the practice so long as the statues are not decorated or lights placed in front of them. Thus the Protestant Bible text of the Second Commandment is officially treated as "denominational" and offensive to Roman Catholics because it forbids bowing down to images, l}ut the images are sanctioned in National schools, to the offence of Protestants.

We offer no comment upon the series of facts which we have quoted in this article beyond pointing out that they are facts and not merely surmises and opinions. It may very well be that the condition of things here described may in the eyes of the great majority of the people of Ireland be very right anu proper, and that they indicate tendencies of mind and action quite consonant with those notions of patriotism and of civic and religious freedom which find favour with the advocates of Home Rule, and who shalf say that those advocates ai-c not entitled to hold any opinions they please, however singular they may be, on those topics. What we are concerned to point out is that such notions, whether right or wrong, ::niioiiisc with, it may be, the

prejudices of Ulster Unionists, —prejudices which are shared by the overwhelming majority of opinion throughout the British Empire,—and that there is, therefore, some justification for Ulster's objection to a measure which will place the government, of Ireland in the hands of men whose principles are alien to Ulster's traditions.