THE FREE STATE

Southland Times, Issue 18938, 11 May 1923, Page 5

THE FREE STATE

NEGOTIATIONS BREAK DOWN THE GOVERNMENT CONDITIONS FOR REBELS DE VALERA'S REPLY. (By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON May 9. (Received May 10, 5.5 p.m.) President Cosgrove announced in the Dail the breakdown of negotiations between the Free State and De Valera. According to his statement De Valera requested Senators Tennyson and Douglas to meet him to discuss peace, but the President refused to allow the personal conference and the document embodying the Government’s terms was submitted to De Valera. Conditions were that firstly, all political issues were to be decided by the majority of the votes of elected representatives of the people; secondly that all lethal weapons in the country be under the control of the Executive; thirdly the surrender of arms be a preliminary for the release of prisoners who must subscribe to the first two conditions. Mr Cosgrave added that once arms were handed in, prisoners who accepted the terms would be released.

De Valera replied expressing disappointment at the Government’s reply, saying: “I have been met by a rigid insistence upon a condition which is impracticable and unfair.” De Valera had been given until Wednesday to accept the terms and he has not done so.

In reply De Valera reiterated his declaration of April 27 and submitted an amendment that a General Election be held no later than September 15, pending which arms in the hands of the Free State troops should be under strict supervision and control, while the republican forces should have a suitable building in each province for the storage of their arms. President Cosgrave said that the Government yesterday, considered this document and would send a reply, that the question of the oath could not be considered, and effective control of arms would be insisted upon. The Government was prepared to invite the bishops to act through the local clergy, as intermediaries for the collection of arms.

PAPAL DELEGATE’S MISSION. TRIED TO FORCE GOVERNMENT. ECCLESIASTICAL POWER BREAKING. LONDON, May 9. The Australian Press Dublin correspondent, dealing with Monsignor Luzio’s mission, states that he came to Ireland ostensibly on an ecclesiastical mission, but the real object was to discover a way to peace. The Government from the first suspected Monsignor Luzio of working in the republican interests, nevertheless he undoubtedly tried his best to secure a cessation of hostilities and enable the republicans to save their faces. He kept cut of the limelight, but the Government was well-informed of his work. They knew he was trying to bring the strongest ecclesiastical influence to bear on the Cabinet to force its hand to accept something less than complete surrender of the republicans. It was largely Monsignor Luzio’s representations which led De Valera to issue his peace terms. The Papal delegate almost succeeded in getting the republicans to surrender. From the first to last the Government refused to have anything to do with him. The correspondent adds that the mission was a hard one, the important result proving that ecclesiastical power in Ireland is nearly broken. ART O’BRIEN APPEAL. INTERNMENT ORDER DECLARED BAD LONDON, May 9. In the Art O’Brien appeal for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court decided to grant the appeal, holding that the internment order was bad. Mr Justice Bankes expressed the opinion that since the establishment of the Irish Free State the Home Secretary could not properly make an order for the internment of a person in the Free State. The order deprived the Executive of England of the right to direct the release of an interned person while an interned person was deprived of the particular form of control provided by the regulations. No order could be made for internment in a Free State, which would comply with regulations. It would seem from the Home Secretary’s answer in the Parliament that he was under the impression that he had not lost control of internees, but according to O’Brien s affidavits he was now under the control official of the Free State. Therefore the question could not be properly disposed of unless the rule nisi was made absolute. The Court would now give the Home Secretary’ an opportunity of making the position clear. He added it would not be out of place to observe that the practice of legislating by Order-in-Council, was one which led to difficulties and the dangers of the present case was an illustration. Justices Scrutton and Atkin concurred. The Attorney-General said the decision, which was a reversal of that given by the Divisional Court, raised questions of grave import. It was therefore the intention of those instructing him to carry the appeal to the Lords. Mr Justice Bankes said that the court anticipated that would be done. Application would be made to the Lords to expedite the hearing. DEMOBILISATION OF THE ARMY. LONDON, May 9. The Australian Press special correspondent in Dublin says the question of demobilisation of the Free State army is causing grave concern among British exservice men in Ireland. Sixty per cent, of the National army fought for the Empire during the Great War, and it is reported the Free State Government proposes to demobilise exactly that proportion at the earliest moment. It is rumoured that ex-scldiers will be the first to go. The appointment of General Murphy to the Chief Commissionership of the Dublin Police gives colour to the rumour. General Murphy is a young man of thirty-one. He was a Cclonel in the British Army, winning the D.S.O. and M.C. in the field. He was the only real soldier in the higher command of the Free State army. While the Army Council could not afford to do without him during the fighting he was a constant thorn in its side. GENERAL MURPHY’S APPOINTMENT, LONDON, May 9. General Murphy’s appointment to an ornamental post is generally regarded as a clever move to get rid of him. The Gaelic League party is now in supreme command of the army. Its ideals as expressed repeatedly by Mulcahy are hardly the ideals of the British Army and ex-British soldiers are hardly the men to carry them out.