IRELAND AND THE TREATY.

Evening Star, Issue 21076, 13 April 1932, Page 6

IRELAND AND THE TREATY.

If Mr De Valera has a majority of the Free State Irish behind him argument on the Oath of Allegiance might as well be ended at once. Legality and good faith are not aspects of the matter. In the Irish leader’s own words; “ Whether the oath is or is not an integral part of the treaty is not now the issue. The real issue is that the oath is an intolerable burden, and that the people of the Irish Free State desire its instant removal.’’ Treaties, in other words, are to be observed only so long as it suits this or the other party to observe them. It is even beside the point, so far as Mr De Valera is concerned, to argue that the interests of his country require that it should keep the treaty and not renounce it, because a far greater future lies before a State of three million people as a self-governing member of the British Commonwealth than it could hope to enjoy as an independent republic. The Irish leader has his own sense of values. If happiness for Ireland, in his view, depends on one thing, and one thing only—complete abolition of a connection with Britain which is no longer one of dependence—no arguments frorii the British side are likely to shake him in his opinion. The Notes addressed to his Government by other dominions have been as much appeals as arguments, and that from New Zealand, most admirable in all other respects, missed the whole point of Fianna Fail’s particular prejudices when it was directed to “ His Majesty’s Government in the Irish Free State.” That was not the form of address which could be expected to make the best appeal to Mr De Valera and his friends. The worst taunt which rabid llepublicans were ever able to fling at Mr Cosgravo and his Ministers was to call them “ His Majesty’s Government.” The position of the Free State’s rulers appears to be made quite plain. They have every desire to be friendly with the members of the British Commonwealth, but they cannot conceive of friendship as being consistent with inclusion in the family. Ireland is too old to bo a sister dominion, Mr De Valera has said in effect. But it is a mother dominion to thousands of Irish colonists spread throughout the British Empire. It is hard to think that there is a majority in the Free State who would be willing, at a moment’s notice, to renounce political relationship with them. The election results, based on more than one issue, which gave Fianna Fail the largest party, but not a selfcontained majority in the Dail, throw no light on that question. Mr Do Valera’s Note to the British Government has been described as “ rather a manifesto to the people of the Free State than a reasoned reply to Britain.” The Notes of the dominions and of Dowling street can be regarded as having their best prospect of usefulness if addressed to the same readers. It is inconceivable that more than half —or two-thirds—of Ireland should ever be a republic. It is Mr De Valera’s policy, and nothing but that, which would condemn his country to an everlasting dismemberment. The choice—which Britons might as well concede, if a majority of the Free State really wishes for it —would have other disadvantages. Automatically there would be exclusion from preferential trade benefits, since no State can be at once out of the Empire and part of it. Double income tax for a great many Irishmen would be another penalty. If he were less an irreconcilable himself, Mr De Valera might have small choice in the line he is taking. Behind him are supporters whoso argument is the gun. It is the Free State as a whole that must make its choice. No one knows yet how the Labour Party, which lost its leader in the elections, will vote. And a factor in the matter is the Senate, which has power to delay any Bill for a period of eighteen months unless the Government of the day should decide to take a direct decision from the electorate. In the event of its return to office the term of delay would bo limited to sixty days, Mr De Valera himself apparently docs not regard renunciation of the oath as destroying the British connection. In the eyes of the British Government, however, the issue concerning the oath raises nothing less than the question of the repudiation of the settlement of 1921 as a whole, and it is hard to see how the British Commonwealth could view it otherwise.