in societies labelled non-sectarian, men who have been violently opposed on this issue.  It will be readily allowed that to bring men together anyhow, even suspiciously, is somewhat of an advance, when we keep in mind how angrily they have quarrelled.  But ’tis not to our credit that in any assembly a particular name hardly dare be mentioned; and it must be realised that, whatever purpose it may serve in lesser undertakings, in the great fight for freedom no such attitude will suffice.  No grave question can be settled by ignoring it.  Since it is our duty to make the War of Independence a reality and a success, we must invoke a contest that will as surely rouse every latent passion and give every latent suspicion an occasion and a field.  That is the danger ahead.  We must anticipate that danger, meet and destroy it.  Perhaps at this suggestion most of us will at once get restive.  Some may say with irritation:  Why raise this matter?  Others on the other side may prepare forthwith to dig up the hatchet.  Is not the attitude on both sides evidence of the danger?  Does anyone suppose we can start a fight for freedom without making that danger a grimmer reality?  Who can claim it a wise policy merely for the moment to dodge it?  For that is what we do.  Let us have courage and face it.  At what I have to say let no man take offence or fright—­it commits no one to anything.  It is written to try and make opponents understand and respect one another, not to set them at one another, least of all to make them “liberal,” that is, lax and contemptible, ready to explain everything away.  We want primarily the man who is prepared to fight his ground, but who is big enough in heart and mind to respect opponents who will also fight theirs.  In the integrity and courage of both sides is the guarantee of the independence of both.  That should be our guiding thought.  But as on this question most people abandon all tolerance, it is quite possible what may be written will satisfy none; still, it may serve the purpose of making a need apparent.  To repeat, we must face the question.  But whoever elects to start it, should approach the issue with sympathy and forbearance.  These are as necessary as courage and resolution; yet, since many often sacrifice firmness to sympathy, others will take the opposite line of riding roughshod over everyone, a harshness that confirms the weakling in his weakness.  To note all this is but to note the difficulty; and if what is now written fails in its appeal, it need only be said to walk unerringly here would require the insight of a prophet and the balance of an angel.

II