Ministers of the Gospel in Northern Ireland Parliament
Rev. Ian Paisley, who has in recent times contended so vigorously for the maintenance of Protestant liberties in Northern Ireland, and Rev. William Beattie, who is also a minister of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ireland, have lately won election to the Ulster House of Commons. While recognising the sincerity of the motives of these ministers in desiring to present the case for a Protestant Ulster from the very floor of the Northern Ireland Parliament, yet we question the wisdom of ministers of the Gospel entering Parliament. We are not blind to the fact, however, that the issues for which they are contending are absolutely vital to the true welfare of Northern Ireland, but whether they will be able to wield their struggle more effectively from inside rather than from outside Parliament remains to be seen. For our part, and notwithstanding the achievements of some Dutch Reformed ministers in politics, we remain sceptical of the propriety of ministers of the Gospel entering the political arena.
We wish the Protestant Cause in Northern Ireland well, and pray that the intrigues of those who seek the overthrow of Protestantism in that land may be defeated. May the Lord speedily open the eyes of the Roman Catholics of Northern and of Southern Ireland to the true nature of popery and so liberate them from the thralldom and tyranny of that wicked system under which they have laboured so long.
D.B.M.
Eire’s Treachery
Under the 30 years’ rule, which requires that all State Documents be kept under official seal for 30 years, the official papers of the British Government for 1939 have recently been released and made available to the public. Much that has hitherto remained obscure regarding the opening stages of the Second World War (1939-1945) is now available and it is of particular interest that it is now possible to see clearly from official sources the part played by Roman Catholic Eire in those critical early months of the war. The British Government had handed over the ports of Southern Ireland to the Eire Government of De Valera in April 1938, much against the wishes of Sir Winston Churchill, who declared at the time — “I never saw the House so completely misled”. No formal written agreement was signed regarding the leasing of the ports of Southern Ireland to Britain when required in time of war, but it was assumed this mistaken and foolishly generous action would create the good will on the part of the Irish Free State Government who would be willing to grant the facilities necessary in these ports. Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty, held the view at the outbreak of war that the use of the Irish ports of Berehaven and Lough Swilly was essential for our defence against the German U-boat menace, and ought to be seized by force, if negotiations for their return failed. It was as much in the interests of Eire as of this country that the Western Approaches should be secured, to protect the trade of both countries as well as the defence of their shores. At first, however, all that the British Government asked was for permission to maintain a salvage vessel to salvage ships torpedoed west of the British Isles. It came to light, however, that on 14th September, a German U-boat was sunk, and the prisoners from her were found to have Irish Free State cigarettes in their pockets, showing that they had been ashore in the Irish Free State. As the U-boat menace was intensified and the navy was being hampered in their operations by lack of suitable ports, the question of obtaining the use of the Southern Irish ports became urgent. Sir John Malfeey, who had been appointed British Special Envoy in Dublin, was sent to interview Mr De Valera, whom he met on 18th October in Dublin. He put the British case, but met with determined hostility from De Valera, whose mind was evidently already made up to refuse all use of the ports, declaring: “If Britain had paved the way to Irish Unity, Ireland today might have been able to help”. If a demand was made, he would treat it as a challenge. He went on to make the significant statement: “There are many people in Ireland ready to acclaim a British defeat at any price”. We have here expressed in these words, the undying hatred of the papal country of Eire to Britain. Maffey spoke of Britain’s generosity in ceding the ports to Eire, saying: “The path of generosity had been followed as an act of faith and in the belief that in the hour of need the hand of friendship would be extended”, but De Valera was adamant.
Two days later the failure of Sir J. Maffey’s mission to Dublin was discussed in the Cabinet, and the fear expressed that, if pressed for the ports, De Valera might decide to grant facilities to the Germans, which probably was no exaggerated fear. The decision was finally made by the Cabinet, that only if it became a matter of life or death, should the ports of S. Ireland be taken by force. Providentially, however, the danger passed, and on 23rd November the Cabinet decided that we had obtained control of the U-boat menace in the Western Approaches.
Throughout the war years, Eire’s attitude did not change, but continued to be one of determined hostility to Britain. Legal officers looked into the position of Eire in the Commonwealth with a view to her expulsion. The papacy has always been the sworn foe of freedom and democracy, and conclusive proof is furnished in these official documents that Eire will always be a potential menace to this country, and to every Protestant country under the sun — potential, because at present she is on the verge of bankruptcy, kept solvent by British concessions and British money. We have here a clear warning re Ulster, should the border ever be abolished and Eire gain control of a united Ireland. This terrible prospect was foreseen by Sir J. Maffey who, at the conclusion of his interview with De Valera, uttered the prophetic warning: “What British Government would ever surrender the ports of the North after this experience?”
C.
Compulsory Religion in Schools
The “Daily Telegraph” of 16th April reported that “compulsory religion in schools is almost certain to be continued for the foreseeable future under terms of a new Education Act which is now being prepared to replace the present 1944 Act”. It is gratifying to know that the efforts of the National Secular Society to have Christian teaching and worship excluded from the school curriculum are not likely to succeed. A question of the utmost importance, however, is the content of the religious instruction given in schools. If the example of London is any guide to what we may expect then there is no room for complacency. The Inner London Education Authority introduced an agreed religious syllabus in December 1968 which was drawn up by a committee which included members of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches, the Jewish and Muslim Communities as well as the Church of England and the Free Church Federal Council. This itself gives an indication of the way things are moving in this field. So far as Scotland is concerned the future pattern of religious education will be largely determined by the nature of the report produced by the Secretary of State’s Committee on Moral and Religious education which is due to be published by the end of this year (D.V.).
D.B.M.