STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21529, 29 December 1931, Page 4

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER

CASE OF IRELAND (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, November 18. It has just been brought to the notice of the public that under the provisions of the Statute of Westminster the Irish Free State will be placed in a position to break the contracts expressed in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, and that there would really be nothing to prevent them from tearing up the entire treaty. In a letter to the press, Lord Carson, Lord Danesfort, Colonel John Gretton, and Mr A. A. Somerville point out this danger. “It will be remembered,” they say, “ that among the constitutional rights expressly reserved by the Free State Constitution is the right of the subject to apply to his Majesty in Council for liberty to appeal from a decision of the Free State Supreme This right is implicit in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, which was given the force of law by Act of the Imperial Parliament in 1922, and accordingly, unlike the ease of any other dominion, is guaranteed by express contract between the two countries. “ From the start the Free state Government objected to the exercise of this prerogative of the Crown, and have expressed their intention of introducing legislation the present year to abolish this constitutional right. They obviously hope to be in a position to do so by unilateral action as soon as the Statute of Westminster becomes law. “If, as a result of this statute, the Free State Government is to be_ placed in .a position at its own volition to abolish this provision of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, there will be nothing to prevent them from tearing up the entire treaty, including these provisions that directly affect Great Britain. “Among the latter may be mentioned the obligation to afford H.M. Imperial Forces (a) in time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the annex to the treaty, and (b) in time of war or strained relations with a foreign Power, such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for purposes of defence.” A PLAUSIBLE CATCHWORD. Hitherto (the Morning Post explains editorially), the power of the dominions to pass measures in conflict with Imperial legislation has been restrained by the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, and one of the provisions of this “ Statute of Westminster ” makes that Act of no effect as far ns the dominions are concerned. The check, that is to say, to a conflict of legislation between the dominions and the Mother Country is to be removed, in vindication of that plausible catchword “ equality of status.” Need we say that this new license for legislatures has its dangerous side? In the opinion of so good a constitutional lawyer as Mr J. H. Morgan, if this Statute of Westminster is passed, the Irish Free State will be “free to repeal each and every Article of the AngloIrish Agreement.” That this opinion is shared by other authorities, no less eminent, is shown by the grave letter of warning which we publish in another column. Mr M'Gilligan, Free State Minister for External Affairs, boasted that the proposals made by the Free State delegates to the Imperial Conference in 1926 were approved in 1929 and “will have brought to an end the -whole chapter of the legislative sovereignty of the centra] government of the old Empire.” “ The British Monarch,” he. added, “ was finished entirely as far as the Free State was concerned, and everything was done at the will of the Irish people.” MEASURES OP REPRISAL. At the very moment when the Prime Minister is trying to persuade the subject to rely on “constitutional safeguards ” in India, is the last constitutional safeguard of the subject in Ireland to be removed? The president of the Sinn Fein Conference, held in Dublin on September 4, expressed what we hope is a premature exultation over this last surrender. “ England,” he said, “is in the mire to-day. England is under the lash of destiny. She has pickled herself for her own trouncing. . . . England's difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity.” We should have thought, after the Cyprus despatch, that Mr Thomas had more spirit than to submit to this sort of bullying. Free State produce has now the free run of the British market, while British goods entering the Free State are subject to the Free State tariff. Let us suggest that we are capable of considering measures of reprisal, and we shall see a speedy end to the policy of pinpricks. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. Professor A. Berriedale Keith (Edinburgh University) adds his views in a letter to The Times. Apart from legal right (he says), the question is whether the retention of the appeal is really in the interest of the minority. Would if, not be better to make the decision of the Supreme Court final, and thus to remove one topic of incessant friction between the two Governments? The Irish Free State has shown no disposition to violate the safeguards for the minority, nor, if it desired to do so, need we assume that the court would fail to afford due protection. But in any event there would remain to the British Government, if it held that the treaty rights of the minority were being violated, that it could demand arbitration of the issue. The one concession which the Free State might well be asked to make is that it should formally agree that any question of the interpretation of the treaty should be referred to an inter-imperial tribunal, of the type discussed at the Imperial Conference of 1930, and should iiojfc reserve any right to refuse arbitration or to insist on an international tribunal. _ The only enduring basis of Imperial co-operation is equality, and this implies settlement of disputes by arbitration, and not by the decision of a tnbunal representing essentially the United Kingdom. Moreover, what applies to the Free State must ultimately be the model for relations between India and the United Kingdom, a fact which makes a wise settlement of the present issue of the greatest importance.