IRISH TREATY

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 April 1932, Page 5

IRISH TREATY

/ OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

BRITAIN’S FIRM ATTITUDE

[OFFICIAL WIRELESS.]

RUGBY, April 11.

The correspondence is published relating to the Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance in the Irish Free State, and the land purchase annuities, recently exchanged between Mr. De Valera, head of the Free State Government, and Mr. Thomas. 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 is not now the issue. The real issue is that the oath is so intolerable a burden that the people of the Irish Free State flesire its instant removal.

The agreement of. 1921, he says, gave effect to what was the will of the British Government. Britain’s world prestige had been enhanced by the belief that Ireland had been set free and the national aspirations fully satisfied, whereas it had meant for Ireland a “consummation of the outrage of partition.” . Elimination of the oath and the removal of articles of the'eonstitution necessary for that purpose, he describes as a purely domestic concern required for the peace and order and good Government of the State. The competence of . the. Irish Free State legislature to press such a measure, he maintains, is not open to question. His Government, immediately on the re-assembly of Parliament, will introduce a Bill to this effect.

Regarding land annuities, Mr. De Valera declares that he is unaware of any formal undertaking to continue this payment. He gives the assurance that his Government , will scrupulously honour any just and lawful claims by Great Britain, or any other creditor.

The 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.

In the reply dated Saturday last, Mr. Thomas said: The British Government read the terms of Mr. De Valera’s despatch with deep regret. The views expressed therein go so far beyond the issues originally raised, to make it clear that the .questions of the oath and land annuities are but part of the wider issue, and that what is raised is nothing less than a repudiation of the settlement of 1921 as a whole. UNITY OF IRELAND . ) “His Majesty’s Government, in the United Kingdom, entered into the 1921 settlement with a single desire that it should end the long period of bitterness between the two countries. It was theii’ belief that the settlement has brought a measure of peace and contentment, which could not have been reached by any other means. Further, as the direct result of the settlement, the Irish Free State 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, had 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 necessary provision for union at that time of the two parts of Ireland, if both of them had been ready to accept it. “As to the future, His Majesty s Government feel it is sufficient to state that in their 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.” Regarding the expressed determination to introduce a Bill into the Free State Parliament, removing the oath from the Constitution, the reply reiterated the view of the Government of the United Kingdom that the oath is an integral part of the treaty of settlement, and adds: “His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom have publicly indicated on many occasions, in the most formal and emphatic manner,’that they stand absolutely by the treaty of settlement, and to this position they most firmly adhere.” Dealing with land annuities, the British reply, to avoid misunderstanding, places on record their origin and nature. It says: “These are not payments from a Government to a Government. In principle, the main transaction js not one between the two Governments at all, but between the Irish tenant-purchasers and the holders of the land stock, which is, of course, held both in Great Britain and the Irish Free State.” The reply proceeds to cite the text of the formal explicit undertakings governing land annuities payment, 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 ultimate financial settlement” between two Governments signed on behalf of both in 1921 and 1926, and discussed in the Free State Parliament some months later. The British Government regard these undertakings and their character as “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.”

LABOUR HECKLING

(Recd. April 12, 12.45 p.m.) LONDON, April 11.

In the Commons,. Mr. Thomas announced that the Government’s reply to Mr. De Valera reaffirmed in unmistakable language, that they stand absolutely by the treaty settlement. Mr Maxton: Is it not 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: Does the declaration that there will be no departures from the revision treaty aply to all treaties or only to the Irish treaty? The Speaker: That does not arise.