FREE STATE

Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1932, Page 5

FREE STATE

} VIEWS EXCHANGED

BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS. (British Official 1 Wireless.) IiUUBY, April 11. Tlie correspondence is published ivhnjug to the Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance in the Irish Frte State, and the land purchase annuities, recently exchanged between Mr Du Valera, l head of tue Free State Government-, -• and Mr Thomas. Mr he Valera, in a letter dated April sth, expresses the view thv; '■ \t fiecner the oat h was or was not an integral part of the treaty i.s not now the issue. The real issue is link the oath is so intolerable a burden that the people of the -Irish Free State desire Us instant removal. Tihe agreement of 1921, he says, gave effect to what ’ was the will of the British Government. Britain’* world prestigei had been enhanced by the belief that Ireland had been set free and the national aspirations fully satisfied, whereas it had \-meant for Ireland a “consummation of the outi rage of partition.” Elimination of the oath, and the removal of articles of the constitution necessary for that purpose, he describes us a purely domestic concern required for the peace: nml order and good Government of the State, i’lie competence of the Irish Free State legislature to press sucli a measure, he maintains, is not open to question. His Government, immediately on the re-assembly of Parliament, will introduce a Bill to .'this effect.

Regarding land annuities, Mr He Valera declares that he is unaware of any formal undertaking to continue this payment. He gives the assurance that his Government will scrupulously honour any just and lawful claims by Great Britain, or any -other creditor.

The note concludes with the- expression of a desire for friendly relations between -Britain and the Irish Free State, based on mutual respect and common interest.

In the reply dated Saturday last. Mr Thomas said : The British Government read the terms of Mr De X olera’s despatch with dtep regret. The views expressed therein go so iar beyond the issues originally raised, to make it clear that the questions of the oath and land annuities are but part of the wider issue-, and that what is raised is nothing less than a repud-, irl ion of the -settlement of 1921 as a whole.

THE PARTITION OF IRELAND. “His Majesty’s Government, in the United Kingdom, entered into the 1921 settlement with a single desire- that it should end the long period of bitterness between the two countries. Tt was their belief that the settlement has broughp a measure of' peace and contentment, which could not have jfleen reached by any other means. Further, ns -the- direct result of the settlement, the Irish Free State participated in and contributed to the notable constitutional developments of the last few. years, whereby the position of the Dominions as equal members with the United Kingdom of the British Commonwealth of Nations, under the Crown, had been defined and made clear to the- world, It is true that the 1921 settlement dirt not result in the establishment of a unijted Ireland, but the Treaty itself made necessary provision for union at (hat time of the two parts of Ireland, if both of them 'had been ready to accept it. As to the future, His Mejes';y’s Government feel it is sufficient to state that in -their opinion, th re can be no conceivable hope for the establishment of a united Ireland, except on the basis that ifi-s allegiance to the Crown and its membership of the British Commonwealth will continue unimpaired.” INSISTENCE ON OATH.

Regarding the expressed determina. tion to introduce a Bill into the Fr e* , c < ate Parliament, removing the oath from the Constitution, the reply reiterated the view of the Government of the United Kingdom that the oath is an irP.egral part of the treaty of settlement, and adds: “His Majesty s Government of the United Kingdom have publicly indicated on many occasions, in the most formal and emphatic manner, that they stand absolutely by tie treaty of .settlement, and to this position they most firmly adhere. ’’ Dealing with land annuities, th" British reply, to avoid misunderstanding, places on record their origin arid nature. It says: “These are not payments from a Government 'to a Government. In principle, the mam transaction is not one between the t"'' l Governments at all, but between the Irish tenant-purchasers and the holders of the land stock, which is, of course, held both in Great Britain and the Irish Free State.” The reply proceeds to cite the of the formal explicit midrr.akinr governing land annuities paymcid, contained in the financial agreement signed on. behalf of the British a-' Irish Free Ft ate Governments ( ,n February 12, 1923, and eonlirmrd in Hiie heads of ultimate financial s d'flc-j meat’' between two Governments signed on behalf of bo Mi in 1 r, 21 and 1 926, and disemsse 1 in the Fn :■ Slate 1 aiJiament some months Inter. Ihe British Government regard Fh'-sc ninlcitakings and their character as '‘binding jo law and honour on tlm Irish Free State whatever administration may he in power in exactly Mm same wav as the Treaty Bsell' is binding on both countries.”