NEW DEADLOCK.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 September 1921, Page 5

NEW DEADLOCK.

IRISH PEACE DELAY. NO CONFERENCE. INDEPENDENCE DEMAND. BRITAIN’S REFUSAL. There has been another breakdown on the road to peace for Ireland. A surprising change in what was a hopeful position has come on the eve of a conference between Sinn Fein delegates and the British Premier, with the result that the peace conference will not be held.

Though Sinn Fein had already appointed plenipotentiaries to meet Mr. Lloyd George at Inverness, its reply to Britain reiterates the old claim to independence, adding: “Our nation has formally declared its independence, and recognises itself as a sovereign State.’’ Sinn Fein is willing to attend a conference, but only as a sovereign State. Replying to this statement Mr. Lloyd George says the claim to independence makes a conference impossible. For the present a deadlock exists again, and though some London newspapers regard Sinn Fein’s action as the final rejection of Britain’s terms there still exists a feeling of hope that a way out will be found.

REASON FOR DEADLOCK. CLAIM FOR INDEPENDENCE. PREMIER REFUSES DISCUSSION. NO RECONSIDERATION. By Telegraph.—-Press Assn.—Copyrigtt. London, Sept. 15. Official: The Inverness conference has been cancelled. Mr. Lloyd George telegraphed to Mr. De Valera: “I informed your emissaries on Tuesday that the reiteration of your claim to negotiate with His Majesty’s Government as an independent sovereign State makes a conference between us impossible.

“They brought me a letter in which you specifically reaffirm that claim, stating that your nation has formally declared its independence. I asked them to warn you of the very serious effect of such a claim, and offered to regard the letter as undelivered, in order that you might have time to reconsider it. In spite of this intimation you now publish the letter in the original form. I must accordingly cancel the arrangements for a conference.

“I must consult my colleagues as to the i course of action the new situation necessitates. I will communicate this to you as soon as possible, but as I, for the moment, am laid up here a few days’ delay is inevitable. Meanwhile I must make it absolutely clear that the Government cannot reconsider the position which I stated to you. If wc accepted a conference with your delegates on the formal statement of claim, which you reaffirm, it would constitute an official recognition by the Government of the severance of Ireland from the Empire and its existence as an independent republic. Moreover, it would entitle you to declare that, in preference to an association with the Empire, you would pursue a close association with some foreign Power. “There is only one answer possible to such a claim. The great concessions made by the Government to the feeling of your people in order to secure a lasting settlement deserved a more generous response, but so far every advance has been made by us. You have not come to meet- us by a single step, but merely reiterated in phrases of emphatic challenge the letter and spirit of your original claim.”

SINN FEIN REPLY. OLD CLAIMS REVIVED. INDEPENDENCE DECLARED. London, Sept. 15. The Sinn Fein reply, signed by/De Valera, states: “We have no hesitation in declaring our willingness to enter a conference to ascertain how the association of Ireland with the community w of nations we know as the British Empire can be best reconciled with Irish national aspirations. We accordingly have summoned the Dail Eireann in order to ratify the names of representatives and hope that they will be in Inverness on the 29 th.

“In this final note we deem it our duty to affirm our position. Our nation has formally declared its independence, and recognises itself as a sovereign State. It is only as representatives of that State we have authority to act on behalf of our people. As regards the principle of government by consent of the governed, in the very nature of things this must be the basis of any agreement that will achieve the purpose we have at heart—that is the final reconciliation of our nation with yours.

“We have suggested that there is no interpretation of that principle, save its every-day interpretation—in the sense, ‘for example, in which it was understood by plain men and women of the world on January 5, 1918, when you said the settlement of the new Europe must be based on such grounds of reason and justice as would give some promise of stability. Therefore we feel that government with the consent of the governed must be the basis of any territorial settlement in this war.

“These words are the true answer to the criticism of our position which your last letter put forward. The principle was understood then to mean the right of nations that had been annexed to empires against their will to free themselves from the grappling hook. That is the sense in which we understand it.”