FREE STATE CRISIS

Southland Times, Issue 21661, 24 March 1932, Page 7

FREE STATE CRISIS

SERIOUS POSITION PROPOSED ABOLITION OF OATH UNEXPECTED DEVELOPMENT (United Press Assn.-By Telegraph—Copyright.) London, March 22. Mr J. Dulanty (High Commissioner for Irish Free State) officially stated that he had informed Mr J. H. Thomas (Secretary for the Dominions) that the Free State Minister of External Affairs had advised him that the Government held that the oath was not mandatory in the treaty, and it had an absolute right to modify the Constitution as the people desired. Since the Constitution was the people's Constitution, anything affecting it belonged to the internal sovereignty, and was purely domestic, and that was the paramount consideration in making the Free State’s decision final and irrevocable. It was the people who declared (heir will without ambiguity. The abolition of the oath was a paramount issue at the elections. The oath had been the cause of strife and dissension in the Free State since the signing of the treaty. The people, not merely the Government supporters, regarded it as a relic of medievalism and a test imposed from outside under threats of immediate and terrible war. The new Government desired friendly relations with Britain and normal development thereof, but this was impossible while one side insisted on a con—science test which was unparalleled in treaty relationship between states. The suddenness of Mr de Valera’s communication surprised the British Government. Mr Dulanty called on Mr Thomas during a meeting of the Cabinet subcommittee which was discussing the Ottawa Conference. Mr Thomas immediately received the statement, consulted the Dominion officials, then took his place in the House and held a whispered consultation with Mr MacDonald, the latter's gestures indicating his advice not to disclose the document. The lobbies later were excited. The position is regarded as so serious that it may necessitate the Cabinet, if not Parliament, remaining in London during the Easter recess. Cabinet discussed the situation soon after Mr de Valera’s election, and decided on a policy which constitutes Britain’s unchanging opposition to all repudiation. Linder the vital clause of the 1926 settlement regarding annuities, the Free State agrees to discharge her liability in respect to local loans by a half-yearly payment of .£600,000 for twenty years. It. is likely that Britain will seek to bring the dispute before the Commonwealth Tribunal. The question cannot be raised at The Hague Court because Britain and the Dominions, except the Free State, signed with a reservation against inter-commonwealth disputes being discussed there. If th? present dispute comes before it, it will be the first “SERIOUS DOCUMENT” STATEMENT BY MR THOMAS. London, March 22. In the House of Commons, Mr J. 11. Thomas, Secretary for the Dominions, announced that he had received from the Irish High Commissioner a most important and serious document and that he would take the earliest, opportunity of giving an official reply. This followed dramatically Mr J. C. Wedgwood’s question whether Mr Thomas’s attention had been called to the position in Ireland and would he say when the next payment of land purchase annuities was due? Mr Thomas assured the questioner that the relations between Britain and the Irish Free State rested on the Treaty. The next payment of annuities was due late in June. WELFARE OF IRISH MR DE VALERA’S CONCERN. REMOVAL OF THE OATH. (Rec. 7.45 p.m.) London, March 23. Mr de Valera, speaking in the Senate, said Ireland’s attitude to Britain was friendly. “We are anxious about the welfare of the Irish,” he said. “The British don’t want bitterness revived, but we have a duty towards our people which we are going to perform. We have a mandate from the people regarding the oath which we shall carry out. The removal of the oath is essential to peace. We won’t pay land annuities.” The Morning Post says there is a belief that the Statute of Westminster does give the Free State somewhat wider powers than it possessed before. The British contention is that the abolition of the oath will remove the Free State from the British Commonwealth of Nations; its people would then no longer be citizens of the Empire. This will have serious consequences for the Free State. The political correspondent of the Daily Telegraph contends that there is a possibility of the British Government acquiescing in the Free State’s decision, but on the contrary will make it plain that the treaty is regarded as a binding instrument. The consequences of a breach are clearly indicated. If the oath is repudiated the Free State will cease to be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and will abrogate its right to be represented at Ottawa. LAND ANNUITIES PAYMENTS TO BRITAIN. London, March 22. In the House of Commons, Mr Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question, said the total advances in respect of land purchase annuities payable to Britain by the Irish Free State were £89,500,000. The sinking fund had already accumulated £13,500,000, leaving £76,000,000 still to be met. It was impossible at present to estimate the period during which payments would be payable. , LINK OF EMPIRE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. London, March 22. Mr Lloyd George declines to believe that Lord Birkenhead called the Irish oath of allegiance a “piece of prevarication.” He adds that Lord Birkenhead and everyone concerned regarded the oath as a cardinally important reference to the Crown and as a link of Empire.