Anwsering Independent 28th March 1932 (link from National Library Ireland) entered into Grok3 AI.

The President’s attitude: Hours of discussion with lawyers: Saorstat’s advance: Independent Labour MP’s Stand. President de Valera and three lawyers, Mr Conor Maguire K.C. Attorney General, Mr Gavan Duffy, one of the Treaty signatories, Senator Michael Comyn K.C. spent several hours during the weekend conidering Mr J.H. Thomas’s statement and preparing a copy the political correspondent of the Irish Independent.

On March 28, 1932, the Irish Independent reported that President Éamon de Valera, along with three prominent lawyers—Conor Maguire K.C. (Attorney General), George Gavan Duffy (a signatory of the Anglo-Irish Treaty), and Senator Michael Comyn K.C.—spent several hours over the weekend discussing a response to a statement made by J.H. Thomas, the British Dominions Secretary. The discussions focused on Thomas’s remarks regarding the Irish Free State’s obligations, particularly concerning the land annuities and other financial agreements tied to the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. The group was preparing a formal reply, as noted by the political correspondent of the Irish Independent.

This meeting occurred in the context of de Valera’s recent rise to power in March 1932, after Fianna Fáil’s election victory. De Valera aimed to dismantle aspects of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, including withholding land annuities owed to Britain, which sparked the Anglo-Irish Trade War. The involvement of Maguire, Duffy, and Comyn, all legal experts, suggests a careful legal strategy to justify the Free State’s position. Gavan Duffy, with his experience as a Treaty signatory and advisor on the 1937 Constitution, and Comyn, who had advised withholding annuities, were key in shaping de Valera’s approach. The Irish Independent article also mentioned the Independent Labour MP’s stance, likely referring to British Labour MPs’ reactions to the escalating tensions, though specific details on their position are not provided in the available information.

The discussions reflect de Valera’s broader policy of asserting greater Irish sovereignty, leveraging legal arguments to challenge British claims, and navigating the complex political and economic fallout from the Treaty’s provisions.

Grok3

15 web pages

The British Note I understand lays stress on article 1. of the Treaty under which the Saorstat is pronounced as having “the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire and the Dominion status of Canada”. It then cites how the articles of the Treaty fit into this situation and draws the connection that the Oath in the Saorstat is obligatory in exactly the same way that it is in Canada. The attitude President de Vakera will adopt to this line of reasonong is that the position of the Saorstat has advanced far beyond that which it enjoyed in 1921, when the Treaty was negotiated; that a series enticements and declaration following on the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930, have materially altered that position both in respect of Canada and the Saorstat and that Britain now must recognise that the Oath “is completely out of place in a political agreement between two countries.

Submission to the Cabinet. The Attorney General and two other lawyers will submit their views in writing to the President who will then prepare a reply to be sent. He will place the document before the Cabinet on tomorrow or Wednesday and it may be despatched on Wednesday night. Sghould it provoke another reply from Briatain as I likely will, President de Valera may desire to reply further and until the correspondence closes, nothing it is understood will be released officially for publication.

The Irish Independent article from March 28, 1932, outlines the British government’s position, as articulated in a diplomatic note, which emphasized Article 1 of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. This article granted the Irish Free State (Saorstat) the same constitutional status within the British Empire as Canada, asserting that the Oath of Allegiance, required under the Treaty, was obligatory in the same manner as in Canada. The British argument framed the Free State’s obligations as equivalent to those of other Dominions, rooted in the Treaty’s legal framework.

President Éamon de Valera’s response, as discussed with Attorney General Conor Maguire, George Gavan Duffy, and Senator Michael Comyn, rejected this view. De Valera argued that the Free State’s constitutional position had significantly evolved since 1921, citing developments from the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930 (not 1929, as the article likely misstated). These conferences, particularly the 1926 Balfour Declaration and the 1931 Statute of Westminster, recognized greater autonomy for Dominions, effectively loosening the legal ties to Britain. De Valera contended that these advancements rendered the Oath of Allegiance—an obligation to swear loyalty to the British Crown—outdated and inappropriate for a sovereign agreement between two nations.

The lawyers were tasked with drafting a written response, which de Valera would review and present to the Free State Cabinet on Tuesday or Wednesday (March 29 or 30, 1932). The finalized reply was expected to be sent to Britain by Wednesday night. The article notes that, anticipating further British responses, de Valera intended to keep the correspondence confidential until the exchange concluded, reflecting a cautious approach to avoid premature public escalation.

This stance aligns with de Valera’s broader policy of dismantling Treaty constraints, particularly the Oath, which he viewed as a symbol of subservience. The legal expertise of Maguire, Duffy, and Comyn was crucial in framing the Free State’s position as consistent with international law and Dominion status, challenging Britain’s interpretation while navigating the risk of economic repercussions, such as the looming Anglo-Irish Trade War over issues like the land annuities.

The Irish Independent article from March 28, 1932, details the British government’s diplomatic note, which emphasized Article 1 of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, granting the Irish Free State (Saorstat) the same constitutional status within the British Empire as Canada. The note argued that the Oath of Allegiance, required by the Treaty, was obligatory in the same manner as in Canada, tying the Free State’s obligations to Dominion status.

President Éamon de Valera, in consultation with Attorney General Conor Maguire, George Gavan Duffy, and Senator Michael Comyn, rejected this position. De Valera argued that the Free State’s constitutional status had advanced significantly since 1921, citing developments from the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930. These conferences, particularly the 1926 Balfour Declaration and the 1931 Statute of Westminster, recognized greater Dominion autonomy, weakening Britain’s legal claims. De Valera maintained that these changes made the Oath of Allegiance outdated and inappropriate for a sovereign agreement between two nations.

The lawyers were preparing a written response for de Valera to review and submit to the Free State Cabinet on Tuesday or Wednesday (March 29 or 30, 1932). The finalized reply was expected to be sent to Britain by Wednesday night. Anticipating further British responses, de Valera planned to keep the correspondence confidential until the exchange concluded, avoiding premature public disclosure.

This approach reflects de Valera’s strategy to challenge Treaty constraints, particularly the Oath, using legal arguments grounded in the evolved Dominion status, while carefully managing the diplomatic and economic risks, such as the emerging Anglo-Irish Trade War over issues like land annuities.

Removal of the Oath of Allegiance Michael Comyn K.C.

Senator Michael Comyn K.C., mentioned in the Irish Independent article from March 28, 1932, was a key legal advisor to President Éamon de Valera during discussions on the British note defending the Oath of Allegiance under the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. Comyn, alongside Attorney General Conor Maguire and George Gavan Duffy, helped craft de Valera’s response, arguing that the Irish Free State’s constitutional status had advanced beyond 1921, rendering the Oath—an obligation to swear loyalty to the British Crown—outdated, based on the 1926 Balfour Declaration and 1931 Statute of Westminster.

Comyn’s involvement was significant due to his legal expertise and prior advocacy for challenging Treaty obligations. In 1931, as a barrister, he represented James O’Mara in a High Court case against paying land annuities to Britain, arguing they were an unconstitutional burden. Although the case was dismissed, it aligned with de Valera’s broader policy of dismantling Treaty constraints, including the Oath. Comyn’s legal arguments likely bolstered de Valera’s position that the Oath was incompatible with the Free State’s evolved sovereignty.

The Oath’s removal was a central Fianna Fáil objective. After taking office in March 1932, de Valera introduced the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill in 1932, which passed in 1933 despite opposition from Cumann na nGaedheal and the Senate. This legislation eliminated the Oath from the Free State Constitution, escalating tensions with Britain and contributing to the Anglo-Irish Trade War. Comyn’s role in these early discussions was pivotal in framing the legal and political strategy for this transformative step.