May 2.
That Mr. de Valera's Bill for the abolition of the Oath of. Allegiance should pass the third reading in the Irish Free State Dail was a foregone conclusion '85 was also the narrow majority which it-was passed. The measure must now go before the [Senate for consideration and there is some possibility that it will not be passed there in which Jevent the final passage of the Bill into law may be delayed under the provisions of somewhat elaborate machinery of procedure established by the Constitution (Amendment No. 18) Act of 1928: designed to prevent the exercise of a veto by the Senate or a protracted deadlock between the Senate and the Chamber. There would be, in such circumstances sufficient mat time for the situation, which [would arise, to be considered in all its bearings, but should the Senate pass the Bill without amendment the struggle will have commenced. In view of what may occur it is interesting to review the history of the }Oath. When, in 1922, the British Government decided' that time had arrived for a settlement of the long-drawn-out dispute with Ireland, it was Mr. de Valera who was found to be the obstacle peace. Mr. Lloyd George found it impossible to deal with him and the negotiations from the Irish Free State side were lcondueted by Mr. Michael Collins, But Mr. de Valera was committed to every line of the Treaty: he agreed to the Oath, which was the essential condi tion from the British point of view, and during the discussions which wont on as to how jit should be worded, is alleged by. Mr, Eamonn Duggan, actually'
have drafted it." He also agreed that the land annuities should be paid under the regime. It is difficult to believe that this. man entered into those very precise undertakings with his tongue in his cheek, but these recent events suggest that that was the case. But having done what he did in 1922 he att Met without dishonour break the terms of the Treaty, though he is intransigeant enough to adhere the course he has adopted, despite the fact that thereby he may earn the disapproval of that Ported him rx nut which refuses now to that Ireland has any woes about which she can complain, When the Cosgrave Government went into power, Mr. Cosgrave took the step of registering the Treaty—which strictly is nothing but an agres-ment between the Mother Coun-{try and a Dominion—with the League of Nations, and further, alone among the Dominion signed the optional clause {thereby submitting to arbitration inthe case of dispute. The abolition of the Oath, therefore, becomes a matter which may ultimately concern not only Great Britain but the League of Nations as well and may have to be considered by leither Geneva or the Hague. This may lead to ostracism of the country by nations who still believe. in the—importance of faithfully observing treaties. It may be argued that the objectionable clause in the Treaty was inserted under duress, the British Government tude of ity" the Trish representatives were obliged to accept it in order to secure the evacuation of Southern Ireland by the British forces. Such an argument could be applied to most of the treaties ever entered into, there is generally some sort of duress in any document which represents the driving of a bargain, either induced by the desire to' secure benefits which could not otherwise be obtained, or representing an attempt to avoid pressure which the other party to the negotiation may be in the position to apply. To that extent the tariff agreements which Great Britain will have negotiate as the result of the adoption "of a protectionist policy, will be signed under that form of duress by the other parties, a desire to avoid or minimize the' consequences of Great Britain having fitted herself with something with which she can bargain, It is interesting to consider how the failure of world opinion to insist. upon the sanctity of treaties in other cases may have
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.