DE VALERA'S REPLY.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1921, Page 5

DE VALERA'S REPLY.

PROPOSALS NOT ACCEPTED. QUESTION OF STATUS. INDEPENDENCE DEMAND. London. August 14. Official.—Mr. De Valera's letter to Mr. Lloyd George asserts that the British proposals are such as the Irish people could not accept. He claims to negotiate with Britain as a separate foreign Power. The text of Mr. De Valera’s letter states: “After consulting my colleagtfes they confirm the declaration that the British proposals are such as the Dail F.ireaun could not and the Irish people would not accept. We do not contemplate the use of force towards Ulster. If the British Government stands aside we can effect a complete reconciliation. I cannot admit the British right to mutilate our country. We are ready to meet you in all that is reasonable and just. We have no conditions to impose and no claims, but that we be freed from aggression. Ireland’s right to ohoose the path she shall take to realise her destiny must be accepted as indisputable. “It i-s my conviction and that of my colleagues that the true friendship towards England which military coercion has frustrated for centuries can be obtained readily through an amicable but absolute separation.” “POLITICAL DETACHMENT.” Mr. De Valera’s letter points out that the outline given in the draft of July 20 is self-contradictory and the principle of the pact is not easy to determine. He continues:— “We appreciate and accept it so far as it implies the recognition of Ireland’s separate nationhood and right to selfdetermination, but in the stipulations and express conditions concerning vital matters this principle is strangely set aside. Claims are advanced by the Bri- , tish Government to interference in Irish :l ; - , ■ irs, the control of which we cannot admit. Ireland's right to choose her own path towards her destiny, maintained through centuries of oppression and et the cost of unparalleled sacrifice and suffering we will not surrender to Britain or other foreign State. We cannot claim to interfere with that right in order to serve our own interests. The Irish people believe that their national destiny is best realised by political detachment from Imperialistic entanglement. Ireland, like the small States of Europe, is prepared to hazard her in-

dependence on the basis of moral right, confident that, as she would threaten no nation, her people would be free from aggression themselves. This policy the Irish have declared in plebiscite after plebiscite.

“Everyone understanding the conditions knows that the Dominion status for Ireland would, be illusory. The freedom which the British Dominions enjoy is not so much the result of legal enactments and treaties as of the immense distances separating them from Britain, making interference by Britain impracticable. The most explicit guarantees, including the Dominions’ acknowledged right to secede, would be necessary to secure to Ireland an equal degree of freedom. OUTSIDE ARBITRATION. “There is no suggestion in your proposal of any such guarantees, instead the natural position is reversed. Our geographical situation in respect to Britain is made the basis of denials and restrictions unheard of in the case of the Dominions. The smaller island must give military safeguards and guarantees to the larger and suffer itself to be reduced to a position of helpless dependency. It is obvious we could not urge our people to accept such proposals. “A certain treaty of free association with the British Commonwealth group as with a partial League of Nations we would be ready to recommend, negotiate and take responsibility for, if we had assurance that the entry of the nation as a whole into such association would secure for it the allegiance of the present dissenting minority. “Treaties for free inter-trade, mutual limitation of armaments, agreements facilitating air, railway and other communications can be effected. No obstacle will be placed in the way of smooth commercial intercourse essential to both islands. All treaties and agreements would have to be ratified firstly by the National Legislature and subsequently by the Irish people under circumstances of a free decision, frotn which military compulsion would be absent. “We are prepared to leave the question of Ireland’s liability for a share of the present debt of the United Kingdom to a Board of Arbitrators, one appointed by Ireland, one by Britain and a third to be chosen by agreement or in default to be nominated, say, by the American President. THE POSITION OF ULSTER. “Regarding the question at issue between the political minority and the great majority of the Irish people that must remain a question for the Irish people themselves to settle. We cannot admit the right of the British Government to mutilate our country either in its own interests, or at the call of any section of our population. We do not contemplate the use of force. If your Government stands aside we can effect a complete reconciliation. We are willing that this question, too, be submitted to external arbitration. We are ready to meet you in all reasonable and ju-t ways. The responsibility for initiating and effecting an honorable peace rests primarily on your Government. We have no conditions to impose and no claims, but the one that we be free from aggression.” The Publicity Department of the Dail | Eireann issues a statement declaring I that De Valera does not believe General j Smuts would have authorised the publiI cation of his letter without the president’s consent, which was not given. The letter should certainly not have been published without the full communications .which passed between the English and Irish Governments. General Smuts simply summarises his own views, which are not justified by the British proposals. General Smuts’ letter has caused a great sensation among the public of Ireland and keen resentment in Sinn Fein circles, which regard its publication as a breach of confidence.