Malta's Independence?

Disgusted " is the word that crops up to one's mind when reading your so called " eye-witness report " on the Maltese worker in general and on Mintoff in particular. That your correspondent is a biased man and unversed in Maltese politics is the least one could say about him. Hence I venture to take your correspondent to task and try to show him the true facts.
The Maltese workers. especially the Dockyard workers, got lately enraged at the British Government because the intended Dockyard transfer to Messrs. Baileys, of South Wales, was transacted at a moment when the Maltese Parliament was dissolved: hence the legitimate wishes and grievances of the workers could not be rightly represented and safeguarded in this British "regretful" deal with Baileys.
Your correspondent argues that Mintoff "took the workers along with him for a gift by Britain of £100 millions". Far from the truth! Any sensible man conversant with Maltese politics could easily affirm that Mintoff's hold on the people. especially on the workers, is due to the fact that he stands for the social advancement and betterment of the lower classes.
In fact any social legislation which raised the standard of living of the Maltese people was passed by a Labour Government. of which Mintolf is the true representative and spokesman. Furthermore, the social status of the workers was greatly enhanced during Mintoff's three years of premiership. And consequently, the workers look on him as their faithful champion.
"Thanks to Britain's tolerance. he (Mintoff) can go on shrieking for Independence unmolested ..." If your correspondent upholds the so-oft-repeated words that Britain is the Mother of Democracies, why should she not tolerate Mintoff's clamouring for independence?
Is your correspondent unmindful of the fact that the Island Malta was never won by the British as other countries were, but she freely ceded herself to the protection of the British? And therefore, the will of the Maltese must in the long run prevail?
A last word. The proposed suspension of Malta's Constitution. to be replaced by Whitehall rule. should ensure "a period of quiet
thinkina . " What sort of nonsense and wishful thinking does your correspondent utter in his last sentence? Who is that man who prefers to be governed by a foreigner and not by his compatriots? And therefore. who is that Maltese (with the exception. perhaps. of your correspondent) who dares even to suggest to see his welfare dictated by a foreigner, and what is worse. by an unelected and unrepresentative body?
Does "quiet thinking" prevail in such a state of affairs? Do "political passions cool down" when I,iberal Constitutions are suppressed to be replaced by unliberal and undemocratic forms of government? Certainly not. pious eye-witness.
Veritas
The above letter is written by a priest. We have editorially said that we think the Maltese should hav the right to determine their own future. though we believe that with good sense and ingenuity on both sides-it is at present wanting on both sides-Malta's future welfare depends on close cooperation and mutual understanding between Britain and Maltaeven if integration is no longer possible.
-EDITOR, "