FREE STATE’S POLICY

Evening Star, Issue 21147, 6 July 1932, Page 7

FREE STATE’S POLICY

THE COMMONS DEBATE COVERNMENrS RESOLUTION CARRIED Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, July 4. -The resolution moved in the House of Commons for a Bill empowering the Treasury to issue orders imposing duties up to 100 per cent, on any classes of goods imported into the United Kingdom from the Free State was carried. In the course of the debate Sir Stafford Cripps (Lab.) moved an amendment that the resolution should not operate till a court of arbitration had decided that the Free State had failed to implement her lawful obligations. Mr J. H. Thomas interposed that Mr Dulanty (Free State High Commissioner) had officially confirmed the statement by Mr Greenwood that the disputed moneys were being paid into a separao account pending arbitration. The only matter now was the form of the tribunal. The Government would not allow any foreign country to determine an Imperial domestic master. (Cheers.) It also intended at Ottawa not to enter into fresh agreements with those who had broken existing undertakings. The amendment was rejected by 321 to 43. A Labour amendment to exclude foodstuffs from the import duties was defeated' by 346 to 44, and the proposed exclusion of live stock met the same fate by 310 to 43. Another amendment insisting that no duties on Free State commodities should be higher than those on foreign commodities was rejected by 275 to 33. The resolution was then put and carried by 284 votes to 39. PRESS COMMENT LONDON, July 5. The newspapers display the House of Commons debate, and interpret the Free State’s land annuities suspense account as giving a new and dramatic turn to the situation, renewing the prospects of a settlement. Information on the point reached Mr Thomas only after the debate, which lasted four hours, and was therefore too late for general editorial comment. The ‘ Daily Telegraph ’ says: “Itis a novelty to find that Mr D© Valera is ready to move even an inch from his predetermined policy, and he may go a little further now that he sees that the British Government is not bluffing but is in deadly earnest. Mr De Valera can stay the new duties by a word, but if he refuses he must answer to hie own agrarian supporters, who will be deprived of their chief market.” OPPOSITION LEADER'S VIEW LONDON, July 5. (Received July 6, at 11 a.m.) Commenting on the disclosure of Mr A. Greenwood (Labour) that the annuities had been placed in a suspense account, Mr G. Lansbury (Opposition Leader) said: “ It seems to sweep away all questions of default or dishonesty, or the breaking of agreements. Negotiations should bo commenced anew. Personally, I adhere to my idea of a tribunal with an Empire chairman.’’ IRISH MINISTER'S DECLARATION DUBLIN, July 5. (Received July 6, at 1 p.m.) Mr P. Ruttledge (Minister of Lands) said: “The State Government won’t use the annuities while there appears to be the possibility of the acceptance of Ireland’s arbitration offer.” Mr De Valera stated that no preliminary conversations had been held between the Free State and the dominions respecting the Ottawa Conference.