Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 3424, 11 February 1874, Page 2

One of the oddest occurrences in the history of Parliaments has taken place in New Zealand. The fashion is to prorogue the meeting of the General Assembly from time to time, until it becomes convenient for the Executive to meet Parliament for transaction of business. In accordance with this convenient custom, in October last the meeting of Parliament was prorogued to the 10th February, yesterday : and no doubt it was intended further to postpone it until the usual period— June or July. This, through some mismanagement, has been overlooked, and, consquently, Parliament is now actually in session without the formalities of a Governor’s speech, or Speaker’s presence, or any business prepared. The oddest part of the affair is, that two of the Ministry were present who seem to have been taken as much by surprise as any one else. It is idle to speculate upon the cause of this ridiculous contretemps , which appears to have been the result of utter forgetfulness somewhere. Nor has it been a silent session. There was a display of eloquence notwithstanding the few who met together, but as there is no provision for publishing a Hansard, the reports of the speeches in this extraordinary session are not likely to be placed among the records of our Colonial Legislative doings. No doubt the oversight will give a handle for any amount of bluster and big words. Even should it prove to have resulted from the forgetfulness of a clerk not fulfilling instructions, or of a higher official whose avocations are sufficiently onerous to lead to the possibility of overlooking a matter not of every-day occurrence, there is sufficient basis for magnifying the lapse into an enormous fault. The arguments will be, not that any serious public inconvenience has occurred, but that it might have occurred; not that, very possibly, there was neglect on the part of any officer, but it looks as if there was ; and, as there should be no men with bad memories, in office or out of office, the Executive are to blame either for their own carelessness, or somebody else’s. It is a fine opportunity for a display of parliamentary lore and virtuous indignation, which aspirants to fame should not lose sight of. In anticipation of the debate to come, on which every member of both H onses will feel it a duty not to give a silent vote, we recommend each earnestly to study May’s Parliamentary Practice, De Lolme on the Constitution of England, DiHearn on the Government of England, and whatever Parliamentary precedents he can find in a catalogue of books, old and new. We can assure members that if they do not find anything exactly in point, it will do them no end of good, and they will have plenty of time before they are called upon to deliver themselves.