Grey River Argus FRIDAY, April 1st, 1932. THE IRISH QUESTION.

Grey River Argus, 1 April 1932, Page 4

Grey River Argus FRIDAY, April 1st, 1932. THE IRISH QUESTION.

It would seem that, in spite of having existed for centuries past, the Irish question has yet to reach its final solution. Something of a historical anti-climax may yet be the form of that solution. If the attitude of the Irish Government should not only be interpreted by Ihe British Government as one of secession from the British Commonwealth of Nations, but at the same time be met with an attitude of tacit acquiescence, then certainly such a contrast to the stand which Britain has always hithertotaken when it has been a question of Irish rights would constitute an anti-climax. It is no doubt a prudent attitude to adopt. But it is nevertheless one which, if taken, is evidently going to be qualified in a manner that is retaliatory in character. There is the avowed intention to take economic action, and as the Imperial Government has been in consultation with the Governments of the Dominions on the matter, it, is clear that pressure is being exerted to deter the Free State Ministerial Executive from the steps which it proposes to take. Those steps are the formal repeal of the

parliamentary oath and the retention of the £300,000 being paid to the British Government as land annuities. As regards the latter, of course, there is a precedent in the ease of Ulster, whose Government retains the annuities which it formerly paid, like the Free State, to the British Government. Under the Wyndham Land Act, whereby the tenantry in both States were enabled to regain possession of their holdings, the British Government financed the purchases. There is, however, a case advanced for the cessation of the annuities, one ground being the finding which the Childers Koyal Commission in the eighties of last century presented to the Parliament at Westminster. That report was to the effect that during - the previous century the financial relations between Britain and Ireland were such that the latter country had been deprived of hundreds of millions sterling to which it had been justly entitled. As regards the oath, the Irish case is that the Treaty, though signed under duress, did not stipulate it, whereas the Constitution, containing the oath, may and can be amended, just as it was adopted,' by the people of Ireland. Until the exchanges of notes between the two countries are .presently published, the view taken by the British Government remains imdefinied, but its disagreement with the Irish attitude is evident from the semi-official and other comments on the subject. The counter action is indicated as being of an economic nature, a hostile tariff, which the Ottawa Conference might be expected to extend beyond the United Kingdom, and which a press cable reports Canada to have already virtually endorsed. For the Irish farmer such a development would be a very serious one as Britain i. his principal, almost his only, oversea market at present. For that, reason of trading it may be expected that the wealthier rural interests of Ireland are ranging themselves behind Mr Cosgrave and his followers. It is, moreover, a mistake to take the press cables as a fair criterion of the situation. It is probable President De Valera has not the slightest idea of antagonising Britain, and will strive for an amicable issue to the negotiations. The prominence given in the cables to the I.R.A. is an exaggeration of the influence of that organisation. On the other hand, were the outcome to be trade hostility, Britain has probably more to lose than Ireland. For instance, the oversea public is probably unaware that in the past couple of years British motor car manufacturers have made in the Free State a greater volume of sales than they have in all other oversea markets combined. Ireland takes the vast bulk of her imports from Britain, and unless arbitrary action is taken against her, she is more than likely to continue so doing. The Statute of Westminster is to be no unimportant consideration in the present situation, and it gives each Dominion a new status of equality with Britain. Legally, this may explain in some degree at least the threatened resort by Britain to tariff retaliation as being the form of action most calculated to have a deterrent effect. There may, indeed, be with Britain a persuasion that her own primary production would benefit by the exclusion of Irish competition, and now that free trade has gone by the board, the tariffite votaries may be anxious to try out the new ’ expedient to the fullest extent. It is at anyrate satisfactory that the whole question is being dealt with in an amicable and reasonable temper. That feature should be a warranty for the expectation that the final result will be a compromise agreeable to both sides. The question of the oath may be treated as something of a formality, whereas in the case of the annuities, the amount involved is not relatively great. It is, at the same time, to be remembered that the Wyndham Land Act was one of the most successful efforts of British statesmanship, and in all probability it is yet destined to form the precedent for reforms of large dimensions in other countries. The British Government might be able, in equity, to put a strong case, say, to The Hague Tribunal, but it would find as a most awkward objection the fact that what it may insist upon being paid by one part of Ireland it has of its own volition remitted to another part of Ireland.