WRONG AGAIN.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XII, Issue 827, 1 June 1855, Page 3

WRONG AGAIN.

In the course of a long and pitiable article, on " what are the members of the Provincial Council about ? and what do they mean to do? Our contemporary has the following remarks relative to the late prorogation of the Provincial Council : " Few of our readers can have forgotten the vigour with which the prorogation of the General Assembly in August last by Proclamation, was assailed by Mr. Brown in his newspaper ; still fewer would, we think, at that time have ventured to predict that Superintendent Brown would have availed himself of the first opportunity to do that very act which citizen Brown had so solemnly denounced. But so it has been; the Provincial Government ' Gazette' of the Ist May, announced " a Proclamation by His Honour Wm. Brown, Esq., proroguing the Provincial Council. Thus that which was branded as offensive and illegal, when performed by his Excellency the Officer administering the Government, because [becomes?] apparently both justifiable and legal when demanded by the exigencies of his Honour's Government." Wrong again. His Excellency's Proclamation ■was assailed because it was performed, by a trick, and took che House by surprise. And because it was wholly uncon=titutional to prorogue by Proclamation when the House was actually sitting. But when it is impossible to prorogue in person, or by commission — (and in this instance it was impossible)- -then a prorogation by Proclamation is the proper and usual form. There is not the slightest resemblance betwixt the Prorogation of the General Assembly and the Prorogation of the Provincial Council, which the 'New Zealander' chuses to confound together. In the latter case the Superintendent expressed by message, his wish to prorogue the Council in person so soon as they should intimate that the state of t!ie public business would admit of it ; but in defiance of this request, and in defiance of the spirit and intentions of the Constitution Act, the Council suddenly and unexpectedly adjourned themselves, and necessitated by Pro cla nation the Prorogation complained of.

On Tuesday we wrote a3 follows : — " The ' New-Zealander of Saturday List contains a statement of an alleged enquiry, as to what preparations had been made fur the reception of tho Superintendent at the levee on the Queen's birth day. The statement is uutrue. This being no matter for newspaper controversy, the Proprietors of the ' New-Zealauiler' are requested to supply the name of their informant, either publicly or privately. Should they dodine, the informant is requested to signify himself, in whatever manner he may cousider most suitabte." Our contemporary declines to give tho name, and the informant has not thought fit to signify himself. There is hut one conclusion to be drawn ; — that the informant is afraid. As usual, faint heart and untruth keep company.