The Star. FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 1922. DOCUMENT NO. 2.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16625, 6 January 1922, Page 6

The Star. FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 1922. DOCUMENT NO. 2.

Mr d© Valera has issued the text of his alternative Treaty, which is now known ns Document No. 2. At the same time he has published a manifesto which breathes all th> old spirit of intolerant hostility, and is an appeal to hatred and prejudice rather than to fact and reason. Comparing Document No. 2 with the official agreement, it t ©comes evident that Mr do Valera was hard pressed to find improvements on the work of the peace delegation. The summary mentions that he has included no recognition of the King (except for the purpose of external association). No oath of allegiance, and no safeguards for Ulster. These are three important differences, especially when they,are considered in conjunction with the manifesto. It is evident that Mr de Valera has abandened his republicanism, because he preposes an Association of States of the British Commonwealth, and includes a formal recognition of the King as head of the Association. However, it is a very indefinite correction which he proposes, even though the effect might be very much the same as w< uld be achieved by the adoption of the agreement itself. A fundamental difference occurs in regard to defence. The Treaty contemplated permanent co-operation with Ireland, and secured for the Army and Navy the use of land and port facilities in Ireland. This is wiped out by Mr de Valera, who proposes that for five years pending the establishment of Ireland’s coastal defence, facilities for the coastal defence of Ireland shall be given to the British Government. There is no provision for an extension, but there is an undertaking to repel by force any attempt by a foreign Power to violate Irish soil or waters, or to use them for any purpose hostile to Britain. Jt reads verjj like an attitude of “ dignified neutrality,” and the proposal is far too indefinite to satisfy the British people or Parliament. It i 9 true that Mr de Valera proposes that his Association of States si ould act together “on matters of common concern,” but the term is far too loose to he acceptable in regard to such a grave issue. The proposals relating to the general powers of the new Irish Government do not differ greatly from those included m the Treaty. His declaration that he has never departed from his republicanism will not stand examination, in the light of Document No. 2, even though the allegiance which he proposes to the Empire is of the coldest and most reserved description. His claim that his proposals would preserve the identity of the Irish people, and prevent them being made British subjects, is mere rhetoric. There are hundreds of Irish men and women in New Zealand, for instance, who would be very much annoyed if they were referred to as foreigners. They are playing tlieir part in the public life of the country, and do not feel the yoke of the British King or Cabinet pressing on their necks. The interposition of Mr de Valera’s Document No. 2 will give an added interest to the debate. It is just ns well that the rival documents should be fully debated by Dail Eireann, so that the mind of that body should be freely and frankly stated. The decision of Dail Eireann will be of the utmost importance, but more important still is the voice of the Irish nation. Ratification of the agreement will not bring peace if the major ity of the Irish people are against it, and Mr de Valera will not succeed in his opposition if he is opposed by the nation at large.