REMOVAL OF THE OATH

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 105, 6 May 1933, Page 7

REMOVAL OF THE OATH

BREACH BY FREE STATE MR. THOMAS’ OPINION RUGBY, May 4. In a statement regarding the passage of the Free State Removal uf Oath Bill, Mr. J. H. Thomas said that the United Kingdom Government had made dear its view that the abolition of the oath was tn direct con flict with the Treaty obligations. This was confirmed by the form of the Free State legislation. The treaty was the fundamental basis of the position of the Free State, and in order to achieve its object the Free State had been compelled to include clauses in its legislation, purporting not only to abolish the requirement of the Parliamentary Oath but also the repeal of the provisions of the Constituent Act, and the Constitution of the Free State, which set out the Treaty had the force of law and overriding authority in relation to the Constitution.

The United Kingdom Government considered that the passage of the Bill would not affect the duty of allegiance to the King or amount to an act of secession. They were advised Ihat tho allegiance of the members of the Free State Parliament did not depend upon the swearing of an oath, which by Treaty and Constitution they were required tn take, and therefore failure to take the oath was not in itself a repudiation of allegiance. This did not alter the fact that in view of the United Kingdom Government the removal of the oath was a breach of the Treaty.