OATH REMOVAL ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 13 May 1933, Page 5

OATH REMOVAL ACT

DISCUSSED IN LORDS

MOVE BY IRISH FREE STATE.

(United Press As6o iatioa—By Electrio Telegraph—Copyright.)

LONDON, May 11. In the Horse of Lords, Lord Danesforth put a question seeking an announcement as to the exact effect of the passage of the Remora'! 0 f the Oath 'Act in the Free Sta’e D.ail. He said that this was important to the people of the whole Empire. The passrge of the Act did more than to remove the Oath. It half practically abrogated the Treaty. If the Act is valid, the Free St;r*fr no longer existed as a Dominion. Then what became of the

•'Constitution? Loyalist,? and oth e r s ,j n the Free 'State were anxious ■ about the position. Viscount Elibaink said that some people jn the Irish Free State claimed that King George was a foreign King. In that event, Irish people living in Britain must be foreigners. “Southern ■lreland,”- he said, “i? , behaving jn such a way that it makes it difficult to retrin patience. The time has come when we ought definitely to say to the Free State what we . think of her attitude.”

Lord Parmoor appealed for nothing to be ‘done that would increase friction. 'A Dominion spirit should be. encouraged, and .not discouraged. Ther© was no question of the abrogation of the Trenty. Lord Hallsham. after reading Mr J. (H. Thomas’ statement in th e House of Commons on April 15, added that the Act parsed by the Dail Efreantt had no e ffect on the Treaty or on the rights of British citizens born in the Free State, or bn Article Seven providing fo r facilities in the Free State for His Majesty’s forces.

He said : “The reason -is that the Treaty wa? a, iba-jraio betwee,., Britain and the Irish Free State. Neither party, by unilatera 1 action, can alter the term? of the- ba"gajn. Any attempt by one party to alter the baVgian has no legal intermtional effect. Every cit}ze ri 'born in the Irish ; Free State <is bo v n within the King’s allegiance-. Nobody so 'born can get rid of obligation? that n'legi-.nce 1, involves. 1 1 If dreumstances did arise whereby the Irish' Free State shook! cease to ibe part of the'’Empire, serious questions would arise concerning the status of Free State citizens in Britain?; but that is hypothetical. 1 have no hesitation in saving that the Treaty between the two nations cannot, be altered without the i consent of both.”

Lord iSaljsl ury said that the attitude Qf the Irish Free Sate was-an offence, not only against Britain, but against the whole Empire,' T-he Irish Free State, he said, should b e told that it hod profound disapproval on the part of every other Dominion.* * i:

Lord Danesforth said tha» i>n*Hailsham’s statement would allay great anxiety in the-Free 'State, and would go far towards vdse reflective opinion throughout the Empire.

AN UPROAR IN THE DAIL,

FREE STATE BUDGET DEBATE

(Received this day at 10.38 a.m.) DUBLIN. Mav 12

An uproar culminating jn the Opposition shouts of “give back °«r markets. You have taken £5,000,000 from us,” marked the budget debate in the 55ail. Mr Dillon cited increased unemployment and shocking house conditions. The budget was passed by 73 votes to 53.