IRISH PROBLEM.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 July 1920, Page 5

IRISH PROBLEM.

MOTION IN PARLIAMENT. LABOR PARTY'S TACTICS. HOUSE SHOWS ITS DISAPPROVAL. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House of Representatives this evening, before calling on Mr. Holland, as arranged during the afternoon session, to move his motion disagreeing with a ruling of Mr. Speaker, Sir F. W. Laing (the Speaker) said that as far as he was personally concerned he would like to give reasons for ruling as he did.

He took exception to the last four lines of Mr. Holland's motion, in which the House was asked to demand that the Imperial Government should withdraw troops from Ireland. This, he considered, would be handing Ireland over to the cause of violence and murder, to the enemies of the Empire, and to those who desired to see a separate Republic established in Ireland. Thiß he did not consider a proper motion on the order paper of the House, members of which had sworn to, or had declared they would, show allegiance to the King and the Empire. He therefore ruled the motion out of order.

Mr. Massey said he hoped the discussion would be limited to the strict question of the Speaker's ruling, and that the Imperial aspect of the Irish question would not be entered upon, and that no one would take up an attitude which would tend to endanger the Empire. Mr. Holland: Do you think that called for?

The Speaker then called on Mr. Holland. to move: "That Mr. Speaker's ruling, that the notice of mcrtion by the member for Buller (Mr. Holland) in favor of self-determination for the Irish people, and condemning the military occupation of Ireland, is not in order, and be disagreed with." In doing so Mr. Holland said the Speaker had evidently misread his original motion, as he did not "demand" the removal of troops from'lreland, but asked that the British Government should be "urged" to' remove them. He did not propose to discuss the question of a Government for Ireland, but would confine himself to the action of the Speaker, as he considered it infringed on the rights of the New Zealand Parliament in its relations with the Imperial Government to show that the New Zealand Parliament had a right to express its opinion on Imperial affairs. He quoted Mr. Bracken's motion in favor of Home. Rule for Ireland moved in the House in 1887, Mr. Seddon's motion against the employment of Chinese in South Africa, and a motion moved in the Commonwealth Senate in favor of self-determination for Ireland. All laat session he had standing on the order paper a motion very similar in terms which had not been objected to. He moved his motion because so far as he could find the Speaker's ruling was contrary to the standing orders of the House, and was against all precedents.

Mr. Fraser seconded the motion. He did not wish tp discuss the Irish question, but, as Mr. Holland had shown, precedent was in favo:- of his protest, and he therefore supported the protest. Mr. Massey said he thought the best thing the House could do was to take a division at once.' He, however, defended his vote given on Mr. Seddon's motion against the introduction of Chinese into South Africa, on which occasion he expressed doubt as to the right of 'one Dominion ,to interfere with the affairs of another. He combatted the contention that .the League of Nations had anything to do with this question, and agreed with the Speaker that this matter should be cleared out of the way as soon as possible., ' Mr. Ngata said he did not know of any standing-order under which the motion could be ruled out, but the Speaker took up the ground that this was a motion affecting the loyalty of the House to the Empire. On that ground he thought the Speaker was right in the ruling he had given.

Mr. Holland, in reply, said the Premier had not shown liow his motion infringed the standing orders. Mr. Ngata had entered into every aspect of the question which he (Mr. Holland) sought to avoid, namely, the question of loyalty. He" had not raised that point at all. The real question was whether the New Zealand Parliament had a right to criticise and object to the policy of the Imperial Government. The Speaker reiterated his-reasons for giving his'ruling, and then put the question. On the voices the "Koos" had it, but Mr. Holland called for a division, when the motion was defeated by 41 votes to 4, those voting for the motion being Messrs. Holland, Fraaer, Savage, and Parry.