RULED OUT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 15275, 24 July 1920, Page 8

RULED OUT.

TIOLLAXTVS IRISH MOTION. UOUSI" SUPPORTS THE CHAIR. WELLINGTON, this '(\ny. Wlu-ii iho im'iiibpi- for Jollier,. proposed n motion m ' favoi- of $qf-acterihlnation foi' Ireland, arid. ,tl»at with- > drawn from the countfyy-SFr Lang. Die Speaker, ruled* it. put of oiuer. The next move was a' motion **sy Mr. Holland that the Speaker/a ■,'rnling be di-nfficen with- This camoup^. for decision m a bonu'what attenuated: Hou.su last night, when tho SpeaKer's ruling was ■' upheld by '.l votes U> 4, the -minority ; roinpi-if-hig- Messrs. Holland; Fraser, Sav- 1 ; nsro, and Parry. Si*> Frederick .Lans explained to iho House tliat he rulea, mo ■' motion out because of the., last four lines, demanding the immediate withdrawal otj troops from Ireland. "My reason," at; continued, "was .because- ft would .be i handing over Ireland t(S outrage; ami inn nice 1o enemies of the Empire, ami to those who wish to have a republic m Ireland. For that reason. I looked upon it as not a right and proper motion to go on the order paper of a House, whose members liave all sworn allegiance to the King." ; MY. Massey expressed a hope that the discussion would be, confined to the question whether Ihe Speaker was riglit m oxclnding the 1 motion, and not touch, on the serious state of affairs which existed so close to the heart of the Empires "If we cannot <io the Empire any good— and I believe we can— l hope no member of ihe New Zealand Parliament will attempt to do it -any.-, serious injury,",, .;, . .; ,-,>. : Mr". Holland: That is qui^o uncalled for. • Mr. Holland, m moving: that ,Mr. Speaker's ruling be • disagreed \y.lth, suggested that the motion was; notr. quite as] bad been indicated' from , the Chair. He used the. word ."urge," v {iot ''demand," the right of self-governmehi. He^conld only find two sections qf the . standing/ orders under which Mr k Speaker had : a right .to prevent a member .from putting a. motion, and he claimed that neither- covered, his ca;e.- Mr. Speaker had admitted that /no exception could be taken to the language of the motion, but only to the, principle involved;, This country, : a- pan; of. tlae British Empire, had a"; right; to' 'approve of any action of the Imperial Government. Then surely ii followed that "New Zealand had a right to disapprove! of any imperial act. As a matter pf fact, Itew.i Zealand soldiers took part 'm • flglitirigi'inIreland during the ,191(5. ;trouble>. .-He could not discuss the' lmpefialp^li«y;-o(it'* simply the question of th<s< right to move such 'motion. He denied .that ■ any rijrht : of criticism could be taken tftqm • ih"e people of New Zealand or -iheirVparl?amentary lepre'sentatiVPs.-As. a matter, of fact, Sir Maurice O'Rorke. m 1887 acirtpt-i ;. Ed, as Speaker, a.mqtioa'raeepiy-dejilor-l : ing n. system of gov.crnra^njt m- Ireland^ 1 '■„ which was inimical- to vtjjie .tot.vintetie.sjts : of the Empire. In iOO'> Mr. ; '|?eddon .Ihoved ; a resolution deeply - r3&i*sUhjr. the' iptroI' duct ion of Chinese labor^intp, '■■ t*i« i- Trahs- - vaal without the express sanction-- of the r, white population.. This •.waV-G.arricd .. al- ,. most unanimously, by ; 50- votes :&>* -$. "■ among its supporters being- the present Prime : Minister, the present 'Speaker of, 1 the House, , an.d Sir Wm. Harries. ..'* A similar resolution was carried Jn the. Lfjtr; ;. islative Council, wlthotft division. / Mr." Joseph Chamberlain had, expressed . the opinion that tho self-governing; Dominions had a perfect right to express their opinion on matters of Imperial policy. Mr. Holland, quoted . Australian precedon's m his favor, adding that all last , session he had standing on. the order paper a iftotion almost similar to the on© now ruled out. New Zealand was one of the signatories to tlie Peace Treaty, .-.nd it could not be. argued that New Zealand had no right to dissent- from any decision of the League of Nations. M^r: Massey suggested that. . the best thing to do- would be to take a decision* He would like, to recall what happened m 10(V. t on "Sir. Seddon's motion regarding Chinese labor. He had supported it. expressing a certain, amount of doubt as to whether one colony had ■&■ right to jn 7 terfere with -the government of, another colony. The League of Nations would never be permitted to interfere with the local affairs^of; any nation.- • ■ .-.,-, Mr. Ngata remarked that Mr. Speaker had not ruled on the basis- of uribecom- . ing language, but was asking the House, to discourage discussions wl^ich savored of disloyalty. There was ample precedent for one se"f 7 govcrnJng Dominion to discuss the affairs of. the Domtnipn, but' when Mr. Speaker asked, the House not to allow . discussion suggestive of disloyalty he jvas asking members to create a "new precedent and they would hack him . „ -...: Mr. Holland asked how could a motion expressive of wish for self-determination for;. lreland, be called disloyalty? • pfd New Zealand : not enter the war to uphold the small nations' right to self-determiri-; ation? Members evidently took- up the attitude tliat the standing orders upheld his motion, but they were led away by nonsensical talk about what the resolution meant. . • . : Mr. Speaker explained that he had not ruled out Die motion on the* ground tljat it expressed an opinion upon Ireland's right to self-determination, but. because of the last four lines recommended handing over Ireland to outrage and ; murder and those who favored a republic Parliamentary Reportej[v-_-_vj_-_,