Friendly if Free

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 133, 8 June 1935, Page 5

Friendly if Free

Irish Free Stale's Attitude to Britain HOSTILE IN SUBJECTION United Press Association.— By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright. Received Friday, 7 p.m. LONDON, June 6. Mr. do Valera' made an important reference to Anglo-Free State relations in wartime, when speaking at Blackrock, County Dublin. He said that a free Ireland in time of common risk could for Britain he only a friendly Ireland, but an Ireland in subjection could be only a hostile Ireland.

Nothing menaced the possibility ot permanently good relations with Britain so much as Article 7 of tho AngloIrish Treaty, giving Britain the right to harbours and other facilities required in wartime or when relations with a foreign Power were strained.

Removal of Fetter on Free State

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER LONDON, June 6. The effect of the Statute of Westminster was to remove the fetter upon the Irish Free State Legislature by reason of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. That Legislature can now pass Acts repugnant to the Imperial Act. Tho foregoing is Llio kernel of an important Privy Council judgment on appeal in relation to tho Irish Free State’s fishery-rights held by one Robert Alooro under tho grants of 1622. Tho Irish Free State Supreme Court held that the grants were null and void. The Judicial Committee granted leave to appeal. Shortly afterwards the Irish Parliament passed tho Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Act, 1933, which Alooro petitioned to have declared no bar to tho maintenance of the original appeal. Lord Justice Sankcy declared that before tho passing of tho Statute of Wcstminstor it was not competent for the Irish Free State Parliament to pass an Act abrogating tho 1921 Treaty, because tho Colonial Laws Validity Act forbade Dominion legislation repugnant to the Imperial Act. Under the Statute of Westminster the Free State could pass, and had passed, a repugnant Act. The Statute gave them power of which they had availed themselves to abrogate the Treaty. Dealing with the contention that the amendment was invalid because it affected the prerogatives of the King in a matter outside the Dominion and outside the competence of the Free State Parliament, Lord Justice Sankey said:

It is enough here to say that, whatever might be the position of the King’s prerogative if it were left as a matter of common law, it is here, in this particular respect, and in this particular enactment, made a matter of Parliamentary legislation, so that tho prerogative is pro tern merged in the Statute, and the Statute gives powers of amendment and altering the statutory prerogative.

The petition was therefore dismissed

Enactment of Any Legislation They Like RIGHT OF DOMINION PARLIAMENTS Received Friday, 11.10 p.m. LONDON, J uno 7. Commenting on the Privy Council judgment, the Times says: ‘‘The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for over 100 years lias been the ultimate Court of Appeal of the Empire, exercising jurisdiction over ouc-quarter of tho world and -100,000,000 of tho King’s subjects. J.ts authority and prestige can only be enhanced by the robust, commonscnso grasp of realities shown in these two judgments, which make it clear that the Dominion Governments and Parliaments havo tht right to enact what legislation they ■please, without any control from the Government and Parliament of Great Britain, and that, in the legal view, as in the political, the British Commonwealth of Nations is a free association between partners enjoying equal rights. ‘‘lt is conceivable that some of the partners may make use of their freedom to do things injurious to themselves and the rest of the Commonwealth, but if they should desire to act foolishly and maliciously, there is nothing in tho legal rights discarded by the Statute of Westminster which would have enabled the British Government and Parliament to restrain them.

“So far as appeals to the King-in-Council are concerned, it is safe to say after these judgments that the right regarded by most Dominion as a valuable safeguard is now in loss daugej of being curtailed by Dominion legislation than it was before tlieso judgments recognised the legal competence of the Dominions to restrict or abolish it as they think fit.”