The Daily News TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1932. THE IRISH DEADLOCK.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 July 1932, Page 6

The Daily News TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1932. THE IRISH DEADLOCK.

Only a day or two ago it was pointed out that the- British Labour Party’s international policy had been far more efficient and successful than its domestic policy. It may be added that Labour’s outlook on the affairs of the Empire has been as narrow as its economic vision, and the remark is applicable to the Dominions as well as the Mother Country. It seems to be one of the curious traits of the Labour mind to find greater attractions in distant fields than in those nearest at hand. • In New Zealand, of course, this has been abundantly evident. Mr. Holland admittedly was anxious a little while ago to attend the Ottawa Conference, but not, so far as could be gathered, with any great desire to be of service to the Empire. Ottawa apparently appealed to him as a mere opportunity to disseminate the familiar Labour propaganda, and if he had been sent there he probably would have done just as little to help the Empire solve its problems as he has done to assist the efforts of this Dominion to overcome its internal difficulties. It was the Labour Party that got Great Britain into very serious domestic trouble, and while those of its leaders who had . sufficient breadth of vision to break away from its policy have given valuable aid in the work of reconstruction, the remnant of the party has merely been a hindrance. Mr. Lansbury, its present leader, seems just now to be keen to show that his Imperial ideas are in no way preferable to his domestic policy. The difficulty which has arisen between the Irish Free State and the British Government has given him an opportunity, and he has appealed to the churches to intervene. His desire is that they shall “take joint action to end the. senseless and wicked Anglo-Irish dispute by arbitration, as mutual peace is more important than national punctiliousness and money,” and he has asserted that the deadlock which has occurred disgraces both the Irish and the British statesmen, and “one side should bend to find a solution.” Mr. Lansbury appears on the face of it to be quite impartial in his distribution of the blame for what has occurred, but is he? He appeals for arbitration, but surely he knows that the British Government has offered arbitration time and again. Mr. de Valera, the Irish President, has twice been invited to London to confer with British Ministers; the Prime Minister himself —a sick man who should have been resting—went out of his way to meet the Irish leader. The British Government could not, and certainly should not, have done more than it has done. By treaty with Great Britain the Free State is a partner in the Empire and enjoys the rights common to all British countries

under the resolution passed by the Imperial Conference in 1926: “They arc autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” In his attempt to abolish the oath of allegiance Mr. de Valera has in effect repudiated the formula devised by the Imperial Conference, and the feeling throughout the Empire is that in this respect he has made a grave error. But the difficulty which he has just been discussing with British Ministers, unfortunately without result, relates to a matter outside what may be called the constitution of the Empire. He is refusing to pay to Britain certain land annuities —repayments of suiiis advanced by investors through the British Government for the purchase of land on behalf of Irish tenants. The original transaction and the repayments were provided for under the treaty, but Mr. de Valera has sihiply swept the treaty aside, without consulting the other party to it, and refused to pay a debt Wlien it became due. The British Government stipulates that the Free State should first adopt the honourable course of paying its dues and then seek by negotiation, if necessary through an Empire tribunal, a decision as to whether the terms of the treaty should or should not be altered; but Mr. de Valera’s reply is a pointblank refusal, and the result is a deadlock. Mr. Lans bury calls it a trumpery dispute, as a Labour politician who would cheerfully repudiate a debt might be expected to do. None but those whose vision is prejudiced by astigmatism similar to his own will agree with him. Judged by any possible standard, Mr. de Valera clearly is in the wrong, and the British Government is justified in taking steps to protect the Free State’s creditors. It is most deeply to be regretted that {he consequence may be grave injury to the Irish people, but that is the fault of the man whom they have placed at the head of their Government. At the back of his mind there must be a deplorable distortion of ideas. He seems to visualise the taking of the oath and the payment of annuities as acknowledgments of subservience to the Mother Country. Men of normal reasoning power recognise that these things are the very pledges Of the freedom and equality of Ireland. They are symbols of her status in the Empire—a status which every other member of the British Commonwealth hopes she will retain. It must be admitted that there seems to be no means by which to overcome Mr. de Valera’s obduracy, which is likely to be emboldened by Mr. Lansbury’s foolish talk, but it is to be hoped that the good sense of the Irish people will eventually find a way out Of the mess into which the head of the Government has plunged them.