OPPOSING CONTENTIONS

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 169, 13 April 1932, Page 9

OPPOSING CONTENTIONS

Correspondence Between London and Dublin THE OATH AND LAND ANNUITIES Free State Claims Right of Untrammelled Action. BRITAIN STANDS BY TREATY SETTLEMENT Official Wireless. Rugby, April 11. Correspondence relating to the Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance in the Irish Free State and to the land purchase annuities, which was recently exchanged between Mr. E. de Valera, head of the Free State Government, and Mr. J. H. Thomas, Secretary for Dominion Affairs in the Government of the United Kingdom, was published in a White 'Paper this evening. Controversy arose through the contention of the Free State Government that the Oath was not mandatory in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and that the Free State had an absolute right to modify its Constitution in this respect, coupled with the announcement that the Free State Governmerit claimed the right, which it proposed to exercise, . to retain the land annuities accruing under the Irish Lands Acts from 1891 to 1909. . In opposition to these theses the Government of the United Kingdom maintains that the Oath is an integral part of the Treaty made ten years ago between the two countries and hitherto honourably ■ observed on both sides, and that the Irish Free State Government is bound by the most formal and explicit undertaking to continue to pay the land annuities—payments which tenants of purchased estates make in repayment of sums lent to them to buy their land.

MR DE VALERA’S VIEWS “Oath Intolerable Burden” Mr. De Valera, in a letter dated April 5, expresses the view that whether the Oath was or was not an integral part of the Treaty made ten years ago is not now the issue. “The real issue,” he says, “is that the Oath is an intolerable burden, and that the people of the Irish Free State desire its instant removal." The Agreement of 1921 gave effect to what was the will of the British Government. Britain’s world prestige had been y enhanced by the belief that Ireland had been set f free and that her national aspirations had been fully satisfied, whereas it had meant for Ireland the “consummation of the outrage of partition.” Elimination of the Oath and removal of the articles of Constitution necessary for that purpose Mr. De Valera describes as a purely domestic concern required for peace, order and good government of the State. The competence of the Irish- Free State Legislature to pass such a measure is. he maintains, not open to question, and his Government immediately,, on the re- ' assembly of Parliament, will introduce a Bill to this effect. Kegarding land annuities. Mr. De Valera deciares' himself unaware of any formal undertaking ' to continue this payment, but gives an assurance that his Government will scrupulously honour any just and lastful claims by Great Britain or any other creditor. His Note concludes with the expression of a desire for friendly relations between Britain and the Irish Free .State, based on mutual respect and common interest. BRITAIN’S REPLY “Only Part. of. Wider Issue” In his reply, dated Saturday, April 9. the Dominions Secretary said that the Government of the United Kingdom had read the terms of Mr. De ♦ Valera's dispatch with deep regret. The views expressed therein went far beyond the issues originally raised, and made it clear that the questions of the Oath and the land annuities were but part of a wider issue and that what was raised was nothing less than repudiation of the settlement of 1921 as a whole. ■'His Majesty’s Government in the Il cited Kingdom entered Into, the 1921 s settlement with the single desire that it should end the long period of bitterness between the two countries,” continues the reply, “and it believes that the settlement has brought . u measure of peace and contentment which could not have been reached by any other means. Further, as a direct result of that settlement, the Irish Free State has participated in and contributed to the notable constitutional developments of the last few years, whereby the position of the Dominions as equal members with the United Kingdom of the British Commonwealth of Nations under the Crown has been defined and made clear to the world. “It is true that the 1921 settlement did not result, in the establishment of a united Ireland, but the Treaty itself made the necessary provision for tlie union at that time of the two pans of Ireland if both,bad then been ready *o accept it. "As to the future, his Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom feels it- sufficient, t<* state that in its opinion there can be no conceivable hope for the establishment of a united Ireland except on the basis that its allegiance to the Crown and its membership of the-British Commonwealth will continue unimpaired.” Kegarding the expressed determination to introduce a Bill into the Free State Parliament removing the Oath from the Constitution, the reply reiterates the view of the Government of the United Kingdom that the Dab is mi integral part of the Treaty settlement, and adds: “His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom has publicly indicated on many occasions in the most formal and emphatic manner that it stands absolutely by the Treaty settlement, and to this position it most firmly adheres.” The Lapd Annuities. Dealing with the land annuities, tho British reply, to avoid misunderstanding. places on record tbeir origin aud nature. It says:— "These are not payments from Government to Government. In principle the main transaction is not one between two Governments at all, but between Irish tenant-purchasers and the holders of laud stock which Is, of course, held both in Great Britain and in lhe Irish Free State. The position is that the annuities are collected by the Irish Free State Government from the tenant-purchasers and are distributed through the National Debt Commissioners to the holders of the stock. Irish land annuities are, therefore. in effect payments on the instalment basis by the Irish tenant for laud which he has bought passing through the hands both of the Irish Free State Finance Ministry and of the National

Debt Commissioners, and are ultimately received by,the holder of Irish land stock.” The reply proceeds to cite the text of the formal and explicit undertakings governing the payment of land annuities contained in the financial agreement signed on behalf of the British and Irish Free State Governments on February 12, 1923, and confirmed in the “heads of the ultimate financial settle 2 ment” between the two Government? signed on behalf of both on March 19, 1926, and discussed in the Free State Parliament some months later. The British Government, says the reply, regards an undertaking of this character ns “binding in law and honour on the Irish Free State whatever Administration may be in power in exactly, the same way as the Treaty itself is binding on both countries.” The reply concludes with the expression of a desire for continued friendly relations, adding that in the British Government’s view “those relations cannot but be impaired by any failure in complete fulfilment of obligations deliberately undertaken.” REVISION OF TREATY Questions in Commons Official Wireless. Rugby, April 11. When questioned in Parliament regarding the correspondence to-day, the Dominion Secretary, Mr. J. JEL Thomas, confined himself to saying that in its reply to Mr. De Valera, the Government had “reaffirmed in unmistakable language that it stood absolutely by the treaty settlement.” The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. G. Lansbury, suggested that time might be requested for debate after members had studied the White Paper. The Prime Minister said he thought that was very reasonable, and would do everything to facilitate it. London, April 11. lii'the House of Commons, Mr. J. Maxton (Lab.) asked: “Is it the Government’s considered view that the Irish Treaty, having once been signed, is incapable of revision?” Mr. Thomas: The Government’s answer to that and other points is contained in the White Paper. Mr. Maxton protested that the method of Mr. Thomas’s statement prevented extended questions. Mr. Devlin (N„ Fermanagh) : Does the declaration that there will be no departures from the revision of the treaty apply to all treaties or only the Irish Treaty? ■ Mr. Speaker.: That question does not arise.

GRAVE SITUATION Next Move De Valera’s BRITAIN ON SOLID GROUND Bv Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright. (Rec. April 12, 7 p.m.) London, April 11. The Dublin correspondent of “The Tinies” expresses the opinion that the friendly tone of the British dispatch 'will be welcomed in some quarters. "Nevertheless, the extreme gravity of ,the situation is obvious,” he says, "’rhe Irish Cabinet will not consider the British dispatch immediately, and may not reply to it until the removal of the Oath has been accomplished.” The "Daily Telegraph’s” lobby correspondent says: "Ministerialists agree that the next, step in the Irish dispute must be taken by Mr. De Valera. The firm tone of the British Note is completely approved. It is recognised that the Government is on solid ground in its reference both to the Oath aud the annuities. The Government is prepared to consider any further representations from Dublin. It is unlikely that there will be a debate ou the subject in the House of Commons till after the meeting of the Dail Eireann next week.” The "News-Chronicle” says: "Mr. Thomas’s replies to Mr. De Valera are sensible aud temperate, the most effective passage being ids reminder that the Free State participated in the notable constitutional developments by which the position of the Dominions as equal members with the United Kingdom of the Commonwealth of Nations has been defined to the world. Mr. De Valera's attempt to represent. Ireland as a depressed and oppressed victim of Britisli imperialism, once true enough, will not bear examination now. The <'ock cannot thus be put back.” PRESS APPROVAL Dominions’ Anxieties (Rec. April 12. 9.30 p.m.) London, April 12. The newspapers approve the Government’s reply to Mr. De Valera and its firm stand by the treaty. “The Times” .says that the wider questions raised by Mr. De Valera’s

dispatch affect a larger public than the people of Great Britain and Southern Ireland. “The Governments of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have already expressed concern at the possible consequences of the action contemplated by the Irish Free State. Their anxiety is natural enough. AU the Dominions, including the Free State, collaborated in framing the Statute of Westminster, the preamble of which expressly declared that the Crown was the symbol of the free association of members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and that they were united common allegiance to the Crown. It is hardly to be expected that other members of the Commonwealth will acquiesce in the Free State repudiation of the political basis of membership. It is certain that Mr. De Valera’s persistence in his present attitude would lead 'other members of the Commonwealth to invite tho Government of the Free State definitely to choose, either to maintain its present allegiance or to accept the status of a foreign Government, with ail the implications of that decision. Mr. De Valera cannot have it both .ways.” The “Daily Herald” urges that the Empire tribunal envisaged at the last Imperial Conference should set to work immediately and thus avoid a quarrel harmful to both Britain and Ireland. DOMINIONS’ NOTES Dublin Press Comment Dublin, April 11. Mr. De Valera’s newspaper, in a leader on the Dominions’ Notes, says: “No duress or outside influence will prevent the Free State doing what is a vital necessity for domestic peace. Though the British Government, may not have directly requested the Notes, their general sameness indicates that they are probably unofficially inspired. The effect on the public mind will be very different from what London intended.” • The newspaper declares that the Dominions’ advipe against anything which might prejudice continued association of the Free State as an equal partner in the Commonwealth of Nations should have been addressed to Britain. “If such association denies our rights and does not remove causes of internal, friction and national humiliation, then surely it would be far better for everybody to end so one-sided and unequal an association.”