Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

IRISH AFFAIRS

[Blutdiis Telegrams.! LONDON, Sept. 30. The rejection ol the Bill was moved bv Mr lteid. who took the orthodox Ulster line. He said that no change m the Ulster Boundary should be made without the consent of the Government concerned. Alt- Macpherson a (Liberal) who-was Chief Secretary for Ireland when the 1920 Act was under discussion, supported tlie rejection of the Bill. He declared a pledge was given Bister that she would be left to have six counties. The debate was adjourned.

DETAILS OF DEBATE. LONDON, Oct. 1. Air MacDonald read bis speech on the Irish Bill throughout-. H was a closely argued, historical resume. It aimed at'"'establishing the contention that the Government could not go behind the several votes of Parliament refusing amendments which gave limitii|ir iiihlructkailM to the Boundary Commissioners. lie said without Article 1 o there had been no settlement in December. 1921. Air Baldwin argued it was only on Hie assumption of the limited nature of Article 12 that Parliament consented to it. ... , Air lteid and Air Robert O’Neill put tlie case of Bister, with moderation when tliev moved the rejection of the Bill, but warned tlie House there was danger of a ( onflagrntion it the Bill ' Ah- T. P. O'Connor said that if l 1-

sler kept the Counties of Fernmanagli ami Tviuni* with their hostile populations, 'there would be a weakness to Flste'r as great as Alsm-e Lorraine. The idea that the people could be governed against their will bad perished for

ed against then* win mm pm *** '*’■ Air Tan Alaeiibei sun argued. amid :m"-ry dissent from Hie I ib* *rnl and 1 -ifiniir benlices. lie made the remarkjilile dc-loratinn Boat a id'-d -e was eiv- „„ rlsler in I*>->O. w'd.li was as binding a- that given the S ■nth • ' Ireland. If the Geveinm-’it were sm-,,-re. be said, in bringing in the Pell to alter an unalterabl-.* Treat v. th.*y should ini-lmle in lb- terms of refen nee cb*arK- and definitely. Hu* cowers and duties of tin* Boundary Cotiimi-sien. Alter tin* adiiiurnmeiit. He* Unionists .rave notice id an iimemlinciit. making it. tin* duty of tin* Boundary Commi«sioners to adjust tin* boundary williout substantially altering the area ot Northern Irelainl as defined by the Act of 1920.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19241002.2.25.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 2 October 1924, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
373

IRISH AFFAIRS Hokitika Guardian, 2 October 1924, Page 2

IRISH AFFAIRS Hokitika Guardian, 2 October 1924, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert