had it the power, to alter or repeal clause 22. If it had p repeal clause 22 in toto, it had power to repeal it in part, an it had power to alter it by excising the exception or the pro both - which is unthinkable. Therefore, clause 22 stood, and it opinion still stands, as a permanent power of the Queensland Li

The words of clause 22 are certainly not narrower - and are po: even broader - than those of sec. 5 of the Colonial Laws Vi

changes outside the ambit of sec. 5 of the Colonial Laws Valic Act, On both grounds, taken separately or conjointly, I a the second question in the aflirmative. 3. - "Is there power to abolish the Legislative Council of land by an Act passed in accordance with the provisions Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act of 1908?" ' For the reasons given in my answer to the second question, wit the additional observation that upon its construction the Act o 1908 includes the power to pass such an Act as is described, Ta this in the affirmative. References were made during the argument to text-writ Though they are not to be regarded as authorities, there is no do the opinions they express, and the examples they adduce, con the view I take independently. The only qualification I make as to the exercise of the po that the conditions attached to the grant in clause 22 of the in Council or in sec. 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, tively, must be observed according to whichever of these gra relied on. ' 4. - "Was the referendum taken on 5th May 1917 a va referendum? " _ z Its validity so far as that depends on the State Constitution an State laws has already been dealt with. 4 The only other point raised was with reference to sec. 14 (1) 4C.LR., at p. 1314. (2) 4C.LR., at p. 1329.