POLITICAL COMMENTARY Hugh Macpheiiiiiiil —
"The pacification of Ireland at this moment, as I believe, depends on the concession to Ireland of the right to govern itself ... What is the alternative? Are you content after eighty years of failure to renew once more dreary experiences of repressive legislation? Is it not discernible to us, that even now it is only by unconstitutional means that we are able to secure peace and order. ... "
This is not an extract from Mr Harold Wilson's much praised speech on the Ulster question. It is not even another homily to the British nation in the letter coloumns of the Times from Senator Edward Kennedy. It is from an address given in Islington by Joe Chamberlain on June 17, 1885. If there is nothing new under the sun then there is nothing about Ireland that has not been said.
And the reaction of the House of Commons to the events of the last couple of years has been strangely muted. Normally when an issue has a religious significance then pressure groups form in the House. There is, for example, a Jewish lobby — quite apart from those who support the Israeli cause — which very properly seeks to promote and protect the interests of Jewish people. For example, there was a flurry of activity a few years ago when a Member who has now left the House, Mr David Ensor, tried to introduce a Bill which would have made the traditional Jewish method of killing animals illegal by changing the rules governing humane slaughter.
Normally, religious interests are wellprotected. Indeed with religion on the decline throughout Britain, (and it is patently absurd that the most moribund Church in the British Isles, with the possible exception of the Wee Frees, the Anglican body, should be the only one to have a permanent place in the legislative process) members of parliament are among the last people in these Isles to pay much attention to what the Churches have to say. The trouble is, of course, that MPs are far too susceptible to pressure from minority groups. Their reasoning is that if a concentrated group of people feel determined about some issue then they are liable to act as a group when it comes to voting. Of course our senators develop thick skins about letters from cranks (as indeed do journalists) but no matter how eccentric the belief expressed, the overwhelming majority of MPs sit up and take notice as soon as the number gets beyond a handful.
There are times when religious groups step very near the line that divides reasonable pressure and straight attempts at coercion. For example, before the last election a Roman Catholic newspaper printed on its front page a list of the MPs who supported the passage of David Steel's Abortion Bill under the headline 'The Guilty Men.' And a Scottish MP rece'ved a delegation from within the same church, again before the election, which told him that if he voted in support of the extension of the recently revised divorce laws in England to Scotland then they would make sure that not a single Roman Catholic in his constituency voted for him at the election. The MP concerned refused to be bullied and told the delegation so, and in fact was returned at the election with, as far as he could gather, his normal support in that church.
The Roman Catholic church of course is not alone in exerting this kind of pressure. In Highland areas MPs will always look anxiously towards the grey faced Kirk elders when it come to questions such as the extension of licensing hours — a subject that exercises the Scottish mind quite considerably. What is remarkable, however, is the detachment that even the normal Roman Catholic lobby has shown towards the Ulster situation. There has been no closing of the ranks as there often has been over issues such as abortion, divorce or the issue of Biafra.
This has been one of the most hopeful signs in House of Commons terms. There are a few stray hotheads, of course, but there has been practically no violent reaction to the Ulster crisis (apart from one minor incident in Glasgow) in the two areas of Britain with the strongest Irish immigrant population — Liverpool and the West of Scotland. This has been in no small measure due to the calming activities of prominent Roman Catholic members from these areas such as Mr Simon Mahon of Liverpool, Bootle and Mr Richard Buchanan of Glasgow Springburn. This is not to say that many Roman Catholic members do not feel deeply on the issue. The Opposition Chief Whip, Mr Bob Mellish, is a Papal Knight, and was sacked as PPS to the First Lord of the Admiralty because he voted in favour of Irish unity.
Members from these areas where the Roman Catholic population is high — and Mr Wilson himself has one of the largest RC populations in his Huyton constituency — take the view that several generations have so advanced the progress of Irish RCs through the community, from what were predominantly menial jobs, that they have become less identified with the unending hatreds of Ireland itself. Whatever the reason, one of the disappointments of Miss Devlin must be the way in which no Roman Catholic lobby has formed behind her at Westminster.
No section of Westminster has reacted as in the past to the Irish Question. Younger Tory members view it almost with the same detachment as they would the question of Value Added Tax. If there is displeasure it is with the seeming inactivity of Mr Heath and Mr Maudling in dealing with a subject they think is politically dangerous and could hazard their future. The main characteristic of the new intake is its primary concern with economic matters which is the basis on which most would argue about the major concern of this Parliament — entry into Europe. The days when the Irish Question was argued on such esoteric terms as the "unity of the nation" seems to have gone. There is a distinct impression that if a suitable guarantee could be obtained for the Protestant minority in the north few tears would be shed at the departure of Ulster with its economic problems. Even so Mr Maudling is now to visit Ulster again.
The little group of eight Ulster Unionist MPs has become more isolated. For a long time the Conservative party could look to Ulster for twelve loyalists who would always vote at the party's call without much cerebral activity. Now they are considered slightly suspect.
ne Ulster irregulars Miss Devlin and Messrs Fitt, McManus and the variously styled Rev Paisley, are an even more isolated grouping. After the most spectacular maiden speech imaginable, Miss Devlin, had the admiration of a great number of Members, even those who disagreed with her. This she has dissipated as Members have seen her stance change from that of a young Civil Rights idealist to an apologist for one side of the struggle. Had she managed to convey any real sympathy for the soldiers, and their families, who are being murdered in the country that so recently welcomed them with open arms she might be better regarded in the House than she is now.
Mr Fitt is held in some affection because of his genial nature and Mr MacManus is a stern withdrawn man with only a fraction of Miss Devlin's ability. Mr Paisley is I fear not well regarded. His scant regard for parliamentary niceties and the tone of his speeches in Ireland make many Members regard him as a dinosaur bellowing in a primaeval forest to which they hope he will soon return.
In a word the House has probably never been less hysterical about Ulster, and more receptive to new ideas such as those out lined in Mr Wilson's speech, than at any time in its history.
Previous page
