Wanganui Chronicle AND PATEA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1883.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXV, Issue 10236, 29 June 1883, Page 2

Wanganui Chronicle AND PATEA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1883.

It appears that some little misapprehension' has arisen with regard to tho true significance cf the division on Tuesday last on S ; v George Grey's motion for leave to introduce a Bill -to-repeal;-in so far as it relates to. the colony of Now Zealand, an Act of the Imperial Parliament (20 and 21 Vict., cap. 53), intituled " An Act to amend the Act for granting a representative constitution to the of New Zealand." ... As soon as the motion pame on the Speaker, expressed his opinion that, if the Legislature of New Zealand passed Sir George Grey's Bill, it would be absolutely null and void, as it would purport to repeal a -portion of. imperial legislation, which was' specially exceptod from colonial interference. He added that it was nut a question for him to decide as Speaker, but it was his duty to bring it under the notice of the House, tind for the House to say whether, . under the circumstances, leave should be granted to introduce the Bill. Sir George Grey contended that' the Speaker was wrong in his law, and that if the Colonial Parliament passed the BiU it would merely, be for the Grown to assent to it or reject it, as might seem advisable. The Colonial Treasurer supported the opinion of the Speaker, and after a' •few otlier members had spoken a division was called for, which resulted in the' 'Speaker's view of the matter : bemg"~f ejected, and. in leave being .given by a majority of four to intro-duce-the Bill. This can scarcely be called a Ministerial defeat, though no doubt' the Colonial : Treasurer took the Bame view as the Speaker. It is absolutely certain that, if the Government had in reality cared two straws about the matter, they could have secured a substantial -majority: The issue before the House was not whether Sir George Grey's Bill, was good or bad, or whether or not the Colonial Legislature should have power to amend the constitution in any direction and to auy extent ; it was perhaps twofold. Firstly, was ihe Speaker right as to the Act being null and void if passed by the Colonial Legislature ? And secondly, assuming that view- to be correct, would • not the passing of the Act then, though it should be null- and yoid, be as good a way as any of informing the Imperial Cabinet ofthe wishes, of the Colonial.Legislature? On: that twofold issue each man seems to . have voted, without regard to party considerations, and the result was -that the motion was treated by many merely as the usual formal motion for. leave to introduce a Bill.T, The fato of- the Bill is. a different matter altogether, and has yet to bedecided. No man with any knowledge of Parliamentary tactics, or'ufjage could suppose for a inonieht ijhat the- division gave the smallest indication of the relative strength of |. parlies.. - . On Ministerial questions, 'properly' so called, tho Government dould.- Command ii majority ranging from I .'.' fifteen to. twenty, and, with judicious management, 1 there is no 'reason why. that .maj6rity,sho,uld not be main'tained'for the remainder of '„ -IA/- •■-. i.',-,'.. : '.' .-... "... :'.T>i: the session. . „ ; n. ii - -- ;'■•-■ " ' " , '^ A