It may come as a surprise to Friends in Britain that such a career as that of James Douglas (1887-1954) could have existed. He was a close adviser to Michael Collins during the War of Independence, and played a significant part in the political and business world of the early Irish Free State. He was representative of a significant sector of the Protestant business community who had before the 1914 War been supporters of Home Rule. Subsequent to 1916 he became a supporter of Sinn Fein politically, while maintaining opposition to the use of violence.

He was apprenticed to the family firm of outfitters in 1902, and was married in the Friends Meeting House in Eustace St in 1912. In 1905 he has established the Young Friends Association, travelling around all the Irish meeting-houses. He visited the US on their behalf in 1914.

When the war broke out in 1914 he set up a group to assist people resident in Ireland who had German, Austrian or Hungarian backgrounds, who were suffering from jingoistic discrimination. He became a member of the Dublin Liberal Association which was the focus of Protestant Home Rule politicking.

The 1916 Rising took Douglas by surprise, but the execution of the leaders triggered an interest in Sinn Fein, and he became involved in an Irish Conference Committee, which functioned during 1917, and which sought a political response in the form of full Dominion status for Ireland, on the Canadian model. My father Joe Johnston was also associated with that committee, which also included George Russell ('AE') and others, who broadly corresponded to the politics of liberal Home Rule fortified by Horace Plunkett's Co-operative Movement.

The Convention took place but was unproductive, because Sinn Fein boycotted it, despite the best efforts of Douglas. There followed the threat of conscription and the anti-conscription campaign, which led to the Sinn Fein landslide in the 1918 election.

Douglas's role in the War of Independence was to run the White Cross organisation, the objective of which was to supply relief to people whose property had been devastated by the Crown forces, in reprisals for IRA activity, raising funds for the purpose in the US. Douglas and his committee of seven (which included 5 Quakers) surveyed the damage and estimated it at $25M. Only a small fraction of this was however raised, and this was mostly used for the direct relief of families. During all this time he was in close touch with Michael Collins, who ordered that the IRA was not itself ever to seek funds by this channel, and that they were to respond to Douglas's requirements as if they were from Collins himself. These orders were respected.

Douglas was surprised by de Valera's opposition to the Treaty, and astonished at the bitterness of the split that led to the Civil War. He made unsuccessful efforts to forestall this disastrous development, which in retrospect it is clear need never have happened. It caused considerably more mayhem and damage than did the War of Independence.

Douglas had a hand in the framing of the Free State Constitution, reporting directly to Collins. Subsequently he became active in Free State politics, serving in the Senate, and being actively involved with the process of registration of the Treaty with the League of Nations, which the British opposed. He later became involved in Church and State issues, over the issue of referral of appeals to the Privy Council.

He also became involved in attempts to undo Partition via a federal all-Ireland approach, via business contacts in Belfast. This initiative however was sabotaged by Lord Glenavy, who tipped off Craig, who in turn successfully unleashed the loyalist intimidation machine against the alleged 'conspirators', so that the contacts came to nothing.

Douglas worked for the rest of his life against the evil effects of Partition; for example in 1947 along with my late father Joe Johnston in the Senate he proposed a motion which would have enabled Northern MPs to sit in the Dail. This was prior to Costello's declaration of the Republic. What they had in mind then, as they had proposed earlier, was a United Ireland within the Commonwealth.

The full detail of Senator Douglas's political career is given with clarity by Gaughan; it deserves attention by those wishing to understand the nature of the interaction between politics and religion in Ireland. The key message is that dissenting voices can stand up, be counted and be respected. The 'Catholic nationalist' perception of Ireland, as seen from Britain, is a long way from the reality, which is much more complex, and indeed provided, even then, an environment where people could be creatively critical. The environment today is substantially more friendly to critical views, most if not all James Douglas's aspirations having been achieved.

The following quotations from James G Douglas, selected and introduced from a Quaker standpoint by his nephew J Glynn Douglas, were published in Christian Experience in 2002:

James G Douglas (1887-1954) was born into the minority of Irish Quaker families in favour of Home Rule. Educated at the Friends School in Lisburn, he was a founder member of the Irish Young Friends group in 1905 and travelled extensively on their behalf among Friends in America before 1914. Unusual for an Irish Quaker, he was an ardent Nationalist whose unswerving pacifism came to be appreciated by his more militant associates in the threatened conscription crisis of 1918. He became a friend of Michael Collins and was nominated onto the committee drafting the Irish Constitution. It is thanks to him that the Religious Society of Friends, along with other minor denominations, were named in the 1922 document.

Because of his American connection he was made secretary of the White Cross in 1921 with responsibility for the impartial distribution of American funds to those who had been injured or suffered property damage in the hostilities.

In an article on "Home Rule and Religious Liberty" in the Friends Quarterly Examiner in January 1914 he gives his opinions of the possible effect of Home Rule on Irish Protestants:

"Much has been written about the effect Home Rule will have on the non-Catholic minority and comparatively little about its effect on the Catholic majority in the country. Will self-government do for the majority in Ireland what it has done in other countries? Will it make for individual and political freedom? Will it help to break the present artificial barriers which prevent Irishmen from working together for the good of their country? And will that sense of responsibility eventually lead them to shake off the shackles of a dominant Church and relegate clerical influence to its proper sphere? It is because I believe self-government will do these things for Ireland that I am a Home Ruler.

It is not unlikely that Home Rule may prove equally stimulating to Irish Protestants; they have, in the past, to often relied on the Protestantism of England instead of on their own strength and influence. Owing to the fact that an overwhelming majority of Irish Protestants are opposed to self-government, the Protestant Church is regarded by Catholics as anti-national; to be freed from this stigma would give fresh opportunities, and provide fresh spheres of influence for Protestantism.

But the question will be asked: Can Protestants be sure of tolerance and fair play under an Irish Parliament? If the Catholic population chose to make it unpleasant for non-Catholics to live amongst them, they could easily do so now; and we find that not only in the North, but in the South and West, Protestants are prosperous and wealthy. The business with which I am connected has been carried on successfully for over sixty years, and is largely dependent upon the support of Roman Catholic customers. Had they chosen to boycott us because of our religious belief, no Government could have, or would have, interfered. True there have been cases of boycotting of Protestants for agrarian and political reasons, but then Catholics have also been unfairly treated for similar reasons. I have never heard of a Protestant being boycotted because he was a Protestant.

It is generally accepted fact that the Irish are a most tolerant race, and have no desire to persecute anybody; but it is suggested that lay Catholics cannot be trusted to have sufficient courage to defend their Protestant friends in moments of excitement. To my mind this lack of moral courage has been fostered by the present system of Government. Under an Irish Parliament the leaders of the majority would be forced by their official position to interfere in affairs which they now leave to the Imperial Government - which latter is too often powerless to settle the difficulty.

Southern Unionists do not profess anything like so great a fear of religious persecution as their Northern allies, and yet it is only in the South and West that intolerance could have any serious effect, for anything like organised persecution of the Protestants of Ulster would be an impossibility."

Jim Douglas was a member of the Irish Senate 1922-36, 38-43, and 44-54. In a study for the 1937 Friends World Conference in Philadelphia he talks about the conflict between his Quakerism and his life as a public representative:

"At the time I was asked to allow my name to go forward as a candidate for election, the country (Ireland) was in a state of civil war, and membership of parliament involved the risk of loss of property and possibly even life. Under these circumstances I very clearly felt it my duty to stand for election, even though the state was defending itself by force against internal attack and the sittings of parliament were guarded by military forces. I gave very little, if any, thought at the time to the theory of the place of the Christian in relation to the state or to the question of whether or not my position was or was not consistent with my membership of the Society of Friends. I did not seek public responsibility. When it came it seemed to be part and parcel of the work for goodwill which I believed to be the work God had given me. Looking back I feel sure that this has involved many inconsistencies, but I believe that if I had given much thought to these at the time I would have resigned my membership of the Society rather than give up the work which I believed to be right.

Truth is spread by the contact of one individual with another. I believe it to be the duty of Friends to co-operate with others in every way possible, and I see no real difference between co-operating in political work within the State, with others who do not share our views of the Christian way of life, and co-operation with such persons in clubs or societies or even in social work.

I am convinced that political organisation is possible without violence and that it would work if a sufficient number of individuals in any State shared this belief. As long as the large majority in any State believes in force as unavoidable so long will it be used in the organisation of that State, and I see no reason why a Friend should not take active part in the political work of a State simply because its constitution provides for an Army or because it method of enforcing law or punishing or punishing criminals is contrary to Quaker principles."