BACK PAGES:THE SIGNING of the Ulster Covenant in 1912, committing almost half a million unionists to resist Home Rule raised the political temperature. It also exposed divisions among Protestant unionists, especially on a North-South basis, as was evident from a letter to The Irish Timesin May 1913 from the Rev WJ Lindsay of Abbeylara which sparked off a lively debate.
Dr Lindsay criticised the covenant as the abandonment of all constitutional government and added: “If Home Rule was a thousand times worse than its greatest opponents predict, I would rather have it ten times over than that most terrible thing of all – civil war.”
Among the responses were two in today’s paper in 1913:
Sir, – In an admirable leading article in The Irish Timesof May 10th, you say: "The existence and growing power of the Ancient Order of Hibernians form one of the strongest objections to the present Home Rule Bill. The Order dominates the Nationalist Party now; it will dominate an Irish Parliament under Home Rule."
Everyone who knows Ireland knows that this witness is true. I would wish to ask Dr Lindsay, and those who share his views, whether they would prefer to be ruled by the Ancient Order of Hibernians or to face the perils of civil war . . . s not this argument simply an appeal to the spirit of cowardice? Is it not an insult to the resolute men who had drawn up and signed the covenant? I do not think they will be much moved by such an appeal. They will be far-sighted enough to know that even the horrors of civil war will be more tolerable than the humiliation and disgrace of being squeezed out of their native land by the tentacles of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Yours, etc. – CE Keane, Edgeworthstown
Sir - Right-thinking men will have noted with pain and disapproval the bullying tone of “Junior Unionist’s” remarks against the Rev Mr Lindsay. To give public expression to counsels of moderation, as the latter has done, at a moment when they are so unpopular, is a proof of moral courage of no mean order such as, unfortunately, is very rare in our distressful country. I can see no difference between Mr Lindsay’s “policy of funk”, as “Junior Unionist” elegantly terms it, and the Scriptural injunction to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”, which, however disagreeable it may be to party politicians is, after all, the advice which we naturally expect from professional followers of the “Man of Sorrows”. Mr Lindsays fate might be a warning to the Protestant clergy of the danger of interfering openly in politics. So long as they lend themselves as willing tools to the disgraceful machinations of the party bullies they will be welcomed with open arms. So soon as they set an example of moderation and charity, and place above party aims the great ethical principles of the Christianity they profess, and for whose advancement it is their duty to labour, they are spurned and insulted.
I am not at all sure that the impartial onlooker will not perceive in the threat of rebellion against a hypothetical and contingent oppression a sign of moral cowardice – the cowardice which arises from a complete lack of belief in the vital force of the great principles which we Unionists and Protestants so loudly profess. We are not justified in drawing a parallel between ourselves and the brave men of the 17th century. They fought against a real oppression, and, to me, it is doubtful whether they would have rebelled because they were afraid of being oppressed. To many, doubtless, the present threat of rebellion will seem the real “policy of funk”. – Yours, etc, Laicus, Dublin
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1913/0529/Pg006.html#Ar00608