THE IRISH CRISIS

Otago Witness, Issue 3674, 12 August 1924, Page 21

THE IRISH CRISIS

LABOUR LEADER’S VIEWS. LONDON, August 3. The Daily Herald says that Mr Johnson, Leader of the Irish Labour Party, in an interview, said that the treaty had been accepted by the Irish as better than a continuance of warfare. Ireland had kept her bargain but Britain had failed. “ Therefore,” he continued, “we ought to say that the treaty no longer binds us and remake the Cohstitution free from duress. The failure of the treaty will not be regretted in Ireland. The alternative is self-determination.” FEELING IN FREE STATE. LONDON, August 5. Mr J. H. Thomas (Colonial Secretary) and Mr Arthur Henderson (Home Secretary) arrived at Dublin this morning. Mr Cosgrave and his Cabinet joined them at the Vice-regal Lodge and remained in consultation for the rest of the day. It is understood that Mr Cosgrave strongly opposed delaying amending the treaty till October, and indicated that he could not be responsible for developments in the Free State if the necessary legislation were not pushed through. The Daily Telegraph’s Dublin correspondent says: “Persons who are in close touch with Mr Cosgrave an/d Lis Ministers declare that Mr Cosgrave put the alternative before Mr Thomas and Mr Henderson of pushing the Bill through or of facing such a change in Southern Ireland as would force the Cosgrave Ministry to resign. Mr Cosgrave’s position is complicated by the attitude of many of his supporters in the Dail, who have the support of an influential body in the Free State Army. Mr Cosgrave’s supporters charge the British Ministry with a breach of faith. This was a factor in the recent army revolt, and the position is now acute, as the army is Republican at heart. There has been a strong movement in recent weeks to force the hands of the Ministers. Trade unions, local government bodies, and other organisations have taken up the cry of British treachery. The resignation of the Ministry may readily be followed by the fusion of the Free Staters and the Republicans into one party, bent upon a vital reconstruction and extension of the treaty. In this lies the real danger of the moment.” STATEMENT BY MR THOMAS. LONDON, August 6. In the House of Commons, Mr J. H. Thomas announced that Parliament would meet on September 30 unless in the meantime the Northern Irish Government appointed a Boundary Commission. A Uovernment Bill would be introduced that day, and it would be pressed forward. Mr Thomas continued: “Mr Cosgrave wrote to Mr MacDonald on August 4 stating that, after the fullest consultation with his colleagues, he had to urge upon the British Government the necessity of passing a Bill rectifying the treaty before Parliament adjourned to remove finally the grave doubts and suspicion aroused in the minds of the Irish people by the long delay in appointing a Boundary Commission.” Mr MacDonald, said Mr Thomas, felt that it was impossible to call on Parliament at the end of the session to con sider legislation which would he certain to be seriously opposed, not. merely in the House of Commons, but in the House of Lords, without allowing time for reflection : therefore he himself and Mr Henderson had gone to Dublin, and had had a full and frank discussion with Mr Cosgrave and his colleagues, as a result of which the Government had decided to ask Parliament to meet on September 00, instead of on October 31. The Government, on September 30, Would move the second reading of the Bill, and thereafter it would use all its powers to pass it into law. The Government did not pretend that the Free State Government would be satisfied, but it was hoped that at least they would be able to satisfy the Irish people' that the British Government and people meant to keep faith. The Government most earnestly hoped that the Northern Ireland Government, before September 30, would appoint a representative to the Commission, thus rendering further progress with the Bill unnecessary. “Let there be no mistake,” declared Mr Thomas. “The issues are grave, involving the honour and good faith of Britain. They are too serious to be the sport of party controversy.” He said he hoped, therefore, that the press and the people would refrain from action calculated to rouse old prejudices. Kir Thomas formally introduced the Irish Free State Confirmation of Agreement Bill, which was read a first time. After Mr Thomas’s statement, heat was generated in a discussion. Sir John Simon (Liberal) asked a series of questions about the advice that Mr Thomas had given to the Government of Northern Ireland. The Speaker evoked Opposition cheers by saying that Sir John Simon’s questions sounded like argument. A Conservative member interjected: “It is unfair; just like them.” Mr Ronald M‘Neill (Unionist), referring to Mr Thomas’s appeal to the press, asked if Mr Thomas expected complete silence for the next two months. Mr Thomas, in replying, emphasised his deep indebtedness to the Dree State Government for its appreciation of the difficulties ; therefore he was entitled to ask the sections of the press which had announced in blazing letters that the proclamation of an Irish Republic was imminent to refrain from encouraging, not merely the enemies of the Free State, but the enemies of the Empire. The speaker disallowed further questions.

ATTITUDE OP ULSTER. LONDON, August 6. The Daily Telegraph’s Belfast correspondent states that despite Mr Thomas’s statement the Bill will be stubljpmly resisted on behalf of Ulster, where the Free State’s attempt to secure large areas of territory has caused the most intense feeling. There is little likelihood of Ulster appointing a delegate to the Boun-

dary Commission unless its powers arq limited. LONDON, August 6. The Irish Bill which has been introduced in the House of Commons, confers on the British Government power to appoint a commissioner to the Boundary Commission on behalf of Northern Ireland.