THE ABOLITION QUESTION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XIX, Issue 3197, 19 October 1876, Page 2

THE ABOLITION QUESTION.

Debate on Sir George Grey's Dltra Vires Motion. [per press agency"]. Wellington, Oct. 17. On the motion, for going into Supply, Sir Geo Grey moved the motion he gava notice of for placing on supplementary estimates 5,000 to defray the cost of legal proceedings taken to test whether the Abolition Act is ultra, vires; he postponed the latter part of motion which made the amount chargeable upon Otago and Auckland. In moving the motion he made very few remarks.. The Premier assumed, as a matter of course, that the House would reject the motion. It waa not to be supposed that they would legislate deliberately to-day and stultify themselves to-morrow by voting money to test by law what they never had any doubts about. Mr Hodkinson strongly supported the motion in a long speech, mainly directed to show that the* Assembly exceeded its powers. He quoted largely from Acts, correspondence, despatches, and English Hansard, in support of hia allegations. He said that-the question would never be properly set at rest until it was fairly argued out in a court of law. Mr Reid also supported the motion, briefly saying that even £10,000 or £20,000 could not be better expended than in settling the disputed question in a quiet constitutional manner, arid best calculated to allay the excitement of the people, for whatever decision of the courts was, the people [must abide by it. He expressed surprise and regret that the Government did not accede at once to so reasonable a request. Mr Rees argued at considerable length iu the same- direction, and gave many instances to show the growing feeling towards settling disputes of that nature by courts of law or arbitration, instead of by the use of power. The Hon Mr Whitaker said they were merely discussing now what had been discussed over and over again, without any new light being let in upon the question. He declined to go into long legal arguments upon it. If, as was argued, the Act was ultra vires, then the Superintendents were still full blown Superintendeuts, and at liberty to use whatever meaus was in their power to bring the question inti. courts .of law. But they were so inconsistent as to say that the General Government took away their power of doing so. He objected to the country being saddled with Biich an expense as that asked. Then, if the question was to be tested in courts of law, what was to be done in the meantime, was the act to be brought into operation, or theProvincial Councils to be reinstated? Mr Sheehan, who kept the debate going till 5-30, said the whole question turned upon the meaning of the word "any "in the Imperial Act where it referred to power to abolish any of the Provinces. He held that " any " did not mean "all," and cited a case with regard to public houses which was argued out in the House of Lords, and where it waa finally decided that power to close any public house did not mean power to close all. He argued in the same direction as Rees and Reid, aud further contended that people were not bound to obey the law if they felt they were being deprived of their rights ; and if the Government compelled them to do so by forcing, and blood were shed, then the result would be upon the Ministry, and their heads would but poorly pay for their crimes. The debate was interrupted by 5'30