The Evening Star. FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3206, 30 May 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star. FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1873.

The Speaker of the late Provincial Council, Mr J. L. Gillies, has been treating theelectors of Tokomairirowith a brilliant oration on constitutional law, which those who are curious in such matters will find copied into the Daily Times of this morning. For our own parts, much as we revere the office of Speaker, we do not think it sufficiently important to reproduce, and shall content ourselves with informing our readers, what they are no doubt prepared to anticipate from his closing feat of Speakership, that it is from beginning to end an attack upon Mr Macandrew. This was to be expected, for it will be remembered that this stickler for constitutional usage is the same gentleman whom Mr Reid attempted to force upon the Superintendent as Treasurer, before the dissolution of a previous Council, and who, at the last moment of the late Council, did not consider it necessary to open an envelope presented to him, known to be from the Superintendent, until Mr Reid had finished his speech, and Mr Fish had risen to reply. It may not be known to many of our readers that, in addition to these manifestations of respect for constitutionalism, he had the hardihood, through the columns ■ of the Bruce Herald, to complain that the Star had not apologised for condemning his conduct. We suppose, had not his office expired with the breaking of the seal proroguing the Council, we might' have been summoned to the bar of the House to answer a charge of breach of privilege j

and the nine and twenty obstructionists who signed the memorial shewing their ignorance of the constitution of th< Province, would have bowed their heads in acquiescence, and condemned us to pains and penalties they had no power to enforce. We judge this might have been, because of the exposition given by all the speakers on that side on constitutional law Mr Stout talked a pretty considerable amount of nonsense about it, and was grandiloquent respecting the dangerof tyrannical interference with the privileges of the Council ; but to use his own expression, he is a “ mere child” compared with Mr Speaker. The electors of Tokomairiro must have been amazed to find that so dry a subject as constitutional law could be enveloped in so spleftdid a halo of imagery as Mr Gillies threw around it when he read a quotation in praise of Biitish freedom. This delicious bit of bunkum seemed to go down amazingly with the men of Tokomairiro. We doubt whether the readers of the Star, accustomed to think more of the practical than the poetical, will regard it in any other light than an emanation from whisky toddy; but this is the description of British freedom that pleased Mr Gillies's hearers:

Selecting from the kindly soil, and assimilating its fit nutriment, still increases its stately bulk, and still extends its unequalled development. Outliving the storms and vicissitudes of centuries, deeply rooted in the habits and affections of the people, it spreads far and wide its hospitable shade; and, like that typical mustard tree in whose overshadowing branches the fowl? of the air find shelter, it affords in the evil days to many a weary wing, and many a soared and fluttering guest, a secure asylum and an inviolable home.

Mr Gillies, who, as Speaker, may be presumed to have drawn inspiration from May’s Parliamentary practice, in which that passage is not, has given a sort of model speech, which, we suppose, will be imitated, at a humble distance, by the small fry who look upon him as their high-priest. He is very learned in the “ written ” and the “ unwritten law ” of Great Britain—two branches of jurisprudence which have not much to do with the constitutional rights of Otago. Why they were mentioned at all we can hardly divine, excepting to show the profound learning of the speaker. However, he hooks the unwritten law on to the constitution of King, Lords, and Commons, and upon this slender support proceeds to hang his flimsy argument. Waxing warm after dipping into the poetic vein, most likely under the influence of the “ typical mustard tree,” he rose to the occasion, and we imagine we can hear the deep solemnity of that resonant voice while asking— l Am I to give \ip without a struggle those principles of freedom and constitutional right which belong as a birthright to every British subject; aye, and to every man, of whatever nation, color, or tongue he may be, who submits himself to British laws, and ranges himself under her great and glorious banner?— (Applause,,) Am Ito be told that, because I exercise the right of private judgment—the freedom of speech—to expose what I believe would result in effects most pernicious to the best interests of my adopted country, that therefore I am not fit to occupy the honorable position in which you have so long placed me ?

Unfortunately, the big words of all these glorious “ Hampdens” who, like Samson, have pulled “ the House ” about their ears, fall very powerlessly when they are brought to the touchstone of truth. Every word they say may be true of the British Constitution, but not of the New Zealand Constitution. The question has been settled over and over again that the Constitutions granted to the Colonies differ, not only in their origin, but in their powers, from the British Constitution. To talk in the same strain of the Houses of Parliament at Home and the Senates of the Colonies and Provinces, is simply to betray that unacquaintance with the true state of the case that has led the clodocracy into the series of errors they have committed. The British Constitution, in the opinion of Uallam, can hardly be said to have had form and fixity earlier than the time of Edward the First, as it was during that reign the Commons were admitted into Parliament. Since that time their power gradually increased until, after centuries of encroachment upon the other powers of the State, they found themselves strong enough to determine their own privileges. But while the House of Commons claim this right for themselves, they very jealously guard against the exercise of it by subordinate legislatures; A 1 though all British subjects enjoy the protection of* the unwritten law, no matter whether at Home or abroad, Colonial and Provincial Legislatures are bound by the letter of their Constitutions, and the Imperial Parliament will not allow them to travel beyond it. Mr Gillies tells us that resolutions were passed during the Superintendency of Major Richardson, defining the mode by which the Superintendent shall communicate with the Executive and Council, and that they were acquiesced in by successive Superintendents. We apprehend that like the Standing Orders the Council of the day mighr consider itself bound by them, but that they were really “ ultra vires ” so far as succeeding Councils are concerned. We know of no power conferred upon the Provincial Council of Otago to bind any Superintendent or succeeding Council by resolution. The resolutions themselves tend to destroy the powers vested in the Superintendent by the Imperial Legislature, and can, therefore, not only not he binding, but are an unjustifiable meddlingwith constitutional rights, which the Superintendent was bouiid in duty to resist.