IRELAND AND EMPIRE

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 111, 13 May 1933, Page 11

IRELAND AND EMPIRE

DEBATE IN HOUSE OF LORDS

NO EFFECT ON TREATY

United Press 'Association—By Electric TelejrtpU—Copyright. . LONDON, May 11. In the House, of Lords, Lord Danesfort, seeking *an announcement of the exact effect 'of the passage of .the Bemoval of the Oath Act in Dail Eireann, said that this was important to the people of the whole Empire. The passage of the Act did more than remove the oath: it practically abrogated the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Lord Hailsham, Secretary of State for War, replied that the treaty could not be altered without the consent of both parties, and that the rights of British citizen* in Ireland were not affected by the Dail Act., "If the Act were valid the Irish Free State no longer exists as a Dominion," said Lord Danesfort. "Then what is to become of the Constitution?" Loyalists and others in the Free State are deeply anxious about the position. Lord Elibank said that some people of the Free State claimed King George was a foreign king. In that event Irish people living in Britain must be foreigners. " VSouthern Ireland is behaving in such a way that it makes it .difficult to retain patience," said Lord Elibank. "The time must coma when we ought definitely say to the Free State, what we think of her attitude." ; , Lord Parmpor appealed that nothing should be done to increase the friction. The Dominion spirit should be encouraged, not discouraged. There was no question of the abrogation of the treaty. ■-. • . : ' ■ ' ■ ; :., UNILATERAL ACTION. Lord Hailsham, Secretary of State for War, after reading the statement in the House of Commons by Mr. J. H. Thomas, Secretary of State for the Dominions, added that the Sail Act bad no effect on the treaty or the rights of British citizens born In the Free State, or on Article Seven, providing for facilities in the Free State for bis Majesty's Forces. • "The reason is that the treaty isa bargain between Great Britain and the Freo State," said Lord Hailiham. "Neither party, by unilateral action, can, alter the terms of the bargain. Any attempt by one party to alter the bargain has no legal international effect." Every citizen born in the Free State was born, within the King's allegiance. Nobody so born can get rid of tho obligations allegiance involves. "If circumstances did arise whereby the Free State ceased to be part of the Empire," continued Lord Hailsham, "a serious question would arise concerning the status of Free State citizens in Britain, but that is hypothetical. I have no hesitation in- saying that the treaty between the two nations cannot be altered without the consent of both." Lord Salisbury said that the attitude of the Free State was an offence not only against Britain,. but against the whole Empire. She should be told that it had the profound disapproval of every other Dominion. Lord Danesfort said that Lord Hailsham's statement would allay a great anxiety in the Free State, and. would go far towards creating wise reflective opinion throughout tho Empire. In a statement regarding the action' of the Irish Free State-Government inj passing the Bemoval of the Oath Bill, Mr. Thomas "said that the Government j of the United Kingdom considered that the passing of the Bill would not affect the duty of allegiance to the King, or amount to an act of secession. The Government was advised that the allegiance of members of the Irish Free State Parliament did not depend upon the swearing of the Oath which by the Treaty, and. Constitution they were required to take, and therefore that failure to take the Oath was not in itself a repudiation of allegiance. This did not alter the fact that in the view of the Government in the United King"dom the removal of the Oath was a breach of the Treaty.