OATH REMOVAL BILL.

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18623, 29 April 1932, Page 7

OATH REMOVAL BILL.

DE VALERA’S CONTENTIONS MR COSGRAVE’S VIEWS. PIECE OF POLITICAL CHICANERY. United Press Assn. —Elec. Tel. Copyright. DUBLIN, April 27. Continuing his speech in the debate for the second reading of the. Oath Removal Bill, Mr De Valera said the presence of the oath in ttie Constitution had resulted in coercion. Article 17 was not obligatory. Under the treaty there was no obligation to consult Britain on the matter. Moreover, the deletion of the article was consistent with the Free State’s position as a co-equal partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Mr Do Valera asked where was equality of status with Britain and the Dominions if the Free State could not introduce a bill to remove the oath? If they asked Britain’s permission it would be a retrograde step. He did not intend to be drawn into negotiations on the. subject. “ I have a letter in my pocket,” said Mr De Valera, “ which Mr Lloyd George wrote to Mr Griffiths showing that the articles regarding status are on a different footing to the others in the treaty." The Leader of the Opposition, Mr W. T. Cosgrave, described the bill as one of the greatest pieces of political chicanery in history. The validity of international agreements, he said, depended not on form but on substance. The Free State was a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and was on a level with Britain. Mr De Valera had no mandate for the removal of the oath, having been In a minority of 200,000 at the general election, but only had a mandate to negotiate with Britain. Significance of the Oath. Dr. G. 11. Frodsham, formerly Bishop of North Queensland, In a letter published both in the- London Daily Telegraph and the Irish Press, expresses the opinion that the weight of Free State opposition to the oath of allegiance is not. due to personal dislike toward the King nor to ill will toward Britain, and still less to a desire to leave, the British Commonwealth, hut that it is due to a determination not to acknowledge that sovereignty resides in any country outside Ireland.

“ The Crown,” adds the bishop, “ is reallv a dual symbol, the King being both* the monarch of Britain and the King-Emperor. The Crown is a symbol of unity throughout the British Commonwealth, but it is not a symbol of domination. It Is allegiance to the King as Emperor which is really important. In developing this aspect of the Crown lies the way toward a settlement of the dispute. This avenue ought to be followed If there is the slightest chance that an appreciation of that position might lead to peace and unity in the British Commonwealth of Nations."