THE IRISH TREATY.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 December 1921, Page 5

THE IRISH TREATY.

AWAITING SINN FEIN. DAIL STILL IN SESSION. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. By Telegraph.—Press Assn. —Copyright. Received Dec. 18, 5.5 p.m. London, Dec. 17. The Dail Eireann continues its secret session to-day, and begins its open session on Monday morning. The Daily Telegraph’s Dublin correspondent states that the Dail Eireann is debating an alternative treaty, drawn up by Mr. De Valera, which breaks highly debatable ground and would wreck the agreement already signed. Supporters of the existing treaty are endeavoring to prevent the recalcitrants from adopting a policy of antagonism to the establishment of a Government in the terms of the treaty. It would be the greatest disaster in Ireland's seven centuries’ struggle for political freedom if, at the moment when victory is in her hands, the extreme section deliberately endeavors to obstruct and paralyse Ireland’s government. The Dail Eireann’s public session is expected to extend to two or three days, as every member intends to state publicly for accepting or rejecting the treaty. Lord Birkenhead’s reply to Lord Carson caused a sensation in the House of Lords. His phrase, “Lord Carson’s criticism as an effort of constructive statecraft would have been immature on the lips of an hysterical schoolgirl,” was so stinging that it provoked Lord Carson to rise z and retort, “I accepted the Bill of 1920.” Lord Birkenhead was equally effective in his attacks upon Lord Salisbury, the Duke of Northumberland, and other “diehards”, describing the Duke of Northumberland as “a man who thinks every soldier a superman, every politician a knave or fool, and every working man a Bolshevik.” Mr. De Valera is credited with a determination to stand firm on the ground that any treaty must provide for a Parliament of the Irish nation, the Ulster Parliament to derive ita authority from such Parliament. HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE. THE ADDRESS AGREED TO. AMENDMENT HEAVILY DEFEATED. Received Dec. 18, 5.5 p.m. London, Dec. 17. The debate on the Irish treaty was continued in the House of Commons. Mr. Arthur Henderson (Labor) said the Labor Party hoped the treaty would be ratified. The new situation presented a tremendous change of attitude, spirit and policy. Mr. R. W. Hugh O’Neill (Unionist) considered Ulster had been scandalously treated. The proposed revision of boundaries was unique in the Empire’s history. He asked whether the House would dare to pass a measure altering the boundaries of Canada without consulting the Dominion’s Prime Minister.

Colonel John Ward (Labor), supporting the treaty, said the English democracy should have been consulted, as the proposal was one revolutionising the constitution and turning everything topsy turvy. Sir F. Banbury (Coalition Unionist) asserted that “soon the Sinn Feiners will be fighting among themselves, and we shall have to intervene.

Mr. Austen Chamberlain, replying, regarded Mr. Bon ar Law’s speech as a great act of statesmanship. Mr. Chamberlain repudiated the suggestion that the Government inspired messages of congratulation from the Dominions. The Address-in-Reply was agreed to, and the amendment was negatived by 401 votes to 58. HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE. BITTER RECRIMINATIONS. Received Dec. 17, 5.5 p.m. London, Dec. 16. The House of Lords resumed the Irish debate. Earl Desart considered the settlement a tremendous experiment. The course proposed by the Duke of Northumberland would lead to chaos and despair. Earl Desart was sanguine they could built up a stable State in Southern Ireland. Lord Sydenham, supporting the amendment, pointed out that the Empire’s maritime interests would be. imperilled under the treaty. Lord Farnham also supported the amendment. He said the agreement was one of the most shameful and humiliating acts in British history. The Southern Unionsits had been betrayed in a cowardly mani er by the British Government. Lord Morris condemned Lord Carson’s speech, and said that to use such language as Lord Carson had indulged in was the way to break up the Empire. The Marquis of Salisbury considered 7heir Lordships should not be hustled into ratifying what they did not understand. The agreement opened the door to Imperial insecurity.

Lord Birkenhead, replying, warned the House that the adoption of the amendment meant (he final rejection of the proposals to which the negotiators had set their hands. The treaty was an absolute and necessary obligation imposed upon them by their Imperial standing, and upon the whole people of England. Referring to Lord Carson, Lord Birkenhead characterised l}is speech as a remarkable performance.' “He has publicly repelled and proscribed me from a friendship which I deeply valued.” Lord Birkenhead denied that any moral or financial coercion had been imposed upon Ulster. Lord Carson had spoken of the treachery of the Government, but he could not have considered how far Lord Curzon was a fitting recipient of his bitter taunts, in view of the fact that Lord Curzon had not played any part in the negotiations; therefore Lord Carson’s words were wild and foolish. The Government had either to carry out a policy of coercion or take the course it had adopted. He asked Lord Carson not to say too confidently that the Government dare not take the opinion of the country. Lord Birkenhead expressed the opinior 'hat an overwhelming proportion of the population favored peace. The Government, with due and adequate protection for Ulster’s interests, had given the population an overwhelmingly homogeneous opportunity of taking a place beside the other communities of the Empire. Lord Curzon, in announcing the adjournment till Monday, said the Government desired to know what was happening in Dublin. If matters went well, Parliament would be prorogued when it met on Monday.