IRISH LAND ANNUITIES

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 232, 27 June 1932, Page 9

IRISH LAND ANNUITIES

Arbitration Proposal

MR. DE VALERA’S NOTE Dispatch of Mr. Thomas’s Reply PROBABLE BRITISH ACTION (By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright:) (Rec. June 26, 5.5 p.m.) London, June 25. The reply of Mr. J. H. Thomas to Mr. De Valera’s note, which has been dispatched to Dublin, expresses satisfaction at the Free State Government’s decision In regard to the land annuities as being a suitable question for reference to arbitration, but refuses to accept Mr. de Valera’s suggestion that the personnel of the tribunal should not be limited |to citizens of the Empire. As Mr. de Valera did not mention the oath in the note it is not mentioned in the reply.

A further communication is being sent to Dublin immediately regarding the annuities due and payable on June 30. If tlie Free State replies that it does not intend to pay it is expected the British Government will ask Parliament for special powers to deal with the situation in any way it considers advisable. The Free State Cabinet had a threehours’ discussion on the British Note, and decided that Mr. Thomas’s suggestion to refer the annuities question to a tribunal confined to British Commonwealth arbitrators was not acceptable. , In reference to the payments on June 80 Cabinet decided that no action be taken until a formal demand Is received for the money, when a reply will be sent to London. The question therefore remains in suspense over the period of the Eucharistic Congress. RECENT CONVERSATIONS Mr. Thomas Reviews Position The trend of the recent conversations in Dublin and London with the President of the Irish Free State Executive Council, Mr. de Valera, and more recent developments in. connection with the differences with the Free State, were disclosed in an important statement in the House of Commons by the Dominions Secretary, Mr. J. H. Thomas, earlier in the month. Mr. Thomas said that when the Treaty was signed, no one assumed that it was the last word, but similarly no one assumed that any change would be made without agreement. During the past ten years there had been consultations o£ major and minor importance, and there were three formal agreements, amending or supplementing the Treaty, followingnegotiations end consultations. With the change of Government in the Free State, they had no right to expect that treaties and agreements would be tom np with impunity; therefore the Government received with astonishment Mr. de Valera’s intimation, which, in effect, stated: (1) That the Irish Free State Government intended and was taking the necessary steps to abolish the Oath osi the grounds that it was not mandatory in the Treaty, and (2) that his Government intended to withhold the land annuities.

Mr. Thomas said that he had replied on behalf of the Government courteously, hut firmly, intimating that this was a position that could not be accepted, and he showed there was no doubt that the Oath was mandatory. Intolerable Pcaiiton.

Mr. de Valera's next dispatch to effect eaid: “Whether it was mandatory or not is no longer the issue. It is purely a matter of domestic concern.” Mr. Thomas said that such a position was intolerable. It was necessary that the British Government should leave Mr. de Valera and the Irish people in no doubt whatever as to Britain’s attitude, and they made it dear that they could not enter into any agreement with a Government which proposed to repudiate a treaty.

That was the position when Mr. de Valera indicated his readiness for a preliminary discussion in connection with the Ottawa Conference, and Lord Hailsham and he (Mr. Thomas) visited Dublin with a genuine desire to adjust differences. In the Dublin conversations Mr. de Valera declared that his ultimate aim was to achieve lasting peace and goodwill in Ireland, first by the union of the Free State with the six counties in Northern Ireland, and when that was accomplished Ireland should be recognised as a Republic. There might be some form of association with the British Commonwealth in some circumstances for some reasons, and in that case the King should be recognised as the head of the association. Expectation of Mandate.

Mr. de Valera had admitted that the last election had given him no mandate to that effect at all, but he assumed that he would ultimately receive such mandate. Meanwhile, he was anxious for a modus vivendi to overcome the present difficulty, and Mr. de Valera asserted that the British Government must agree to the abolition of the Oath and Ireland to withhold the annuities, while several other financial matters must be looked into, and his attitude towards them would probably be the same. When he came to London Mr. de Valera was told that no useful purpose would be served by discussion on these lines, for no British Government would ever agree to such a suggestion. Within the last few hours a further dispatch from Mr. de Valera had been received, stating that the Free State Government accepted the principle of the British proposal for arbitration on the land annuities, and agreed that a tribunal of a general character as outlined in the conversations should be established.