Madam, - In his article on Sinn Féin's attitude to policing (January 6th), Conor Brady quotes de Valera's declaration that "he had taken no oath of allegiance to the British monarch" on entering Dáil Éireann.
If the oath required in 1926 was the same as that agreed to in the treaty negotiations in December 1921, the "republicans" were not then, and never had been, asked to swear allegiance to the king. The actual wording was: "I swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State". The text added the promise (arguably not an oath at all): "I will be faithful to HM King George V. . . in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of. . . the British Commonwealth of Nations".
The use of the word "citizenship" makes it clear that the relationship with the King was not that of subject to sovereign (ie allegiance) but a functional one that foresaw Ireland becoming a faithful member of an evolving Commonwealth. That vision would no more restrict our freedom of action than it did Canada's or South Africa's.
De Valera understood this perfectly, but he had four inglorious years of Civil War and abstentionism to bury: a republican funeral that called for one last defiant gesture at the graveside. It turned out to be less a bang than a whimper: he reads a speech written in pencil and in Irish while concealing with the Testament the text he was signing up to. This piece of chicanery gave rise to the myth that the oath was a genuine obstacle cleverly circumvented. Was it the first case of "cute hoorism" in Irish politics?
By the way, when Conor Brady says that the Garda "became the éminences grises" of those who opposed the treaty, does he not mean the bêtes noirs? That's a horse of a different colour!
- Yours, etc,
MICHAEL DRURY, Avenue Louise, Brussels, Belgium.