THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4923, 3 January 1877, Page 3

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

<►— TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sin, — A very few words will complete all I have; to say on the question raised by Mr. Travers’ last letter. It was, I submit, unnecessary to quote precedents to prove what no one disputes —namely, that when the Crown has - granted a charter or franchise it relinquishes the prerogative of exereising any power in derogation of its own grant. More than this the case quoted does not prove. It is no derogation from a grant of a Constitution to use the Queen's name in the prorogation of an Assembly, which is required by statute to he summoned in her Majesty's name, and to be prorogued by her Majesty’s representative at his pleasure. Mr. Travels asks “when did the session ciu’l '■ and what evidence of that ond have we?” I rcfdy, the Bolls of Parliament—the Journal of thef/roceedings of the two Houses, in which it is recorded that the Speaker of the Legislative Council declared to the Houses that it was his Excellency’s pleasure to prorogue Parliament, and that it was prorogued accordingly. The moment those words were uttered the session was at an end. The Queen prorogues Parliament by the mouth of her Chancellor. And It has been customary in this and I believe in other colonies for the same words to be pro*

nounced by the Speaker of the Upper House. The prorogation then is a part of the proceedings of Parliament; and how far proceedings are open to question in the ordinary courts of law I leave for discussion by those who wish to pursue the enquiry further —I am, &c., James Edward PitzGerald.