Noel Grima’s c.400-word review entitled “Parliament’s Standing Orders ‘only stencilled paper’” (TMIS, 24 February) on my massive two-volume book Speakers’ Rulings in the Parliament of Malta, Legislative Assembly 1921-1924, which was launched in the Tapestry Chamber on Monday 18 February, leaves much to be desired for the following reasons:
(1) The article only seeks to rely on what was addressed and heard during the evening but fails to follow what was explained to all distinguished guests who packed the Tapestry Chamber. It is true that former Deputy Speaker Michael Bonnici mentioned from the floor that “a sheaf of stencilled papers were given to him when he had asked the staff of the House of Representatives for a copy of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives”; and that “it took a clerk of the House three months to come up with a collation of recent rulings”. On the one hand, the Standing Orders to which Mr Bonnici alluded are the current Standing Orders (and amendments to them) that have been in the Government Gazette since their official proclamation by Legal Notice XXIII of 1962 (vide Malta Government Gazette 11,376, 16.3.196, pp.B151-207) as adapted by the Malta Independence Order of 1964 (MGG 11,688, 18.9.1964, p.9). Their present corpus has been reprinted several times in terms of Act XXI of 1963, Chapter 180 of the Laws of Malta so as to incorporate amendments and substitutions, and is subsidiary legislation scheduled to the Constitution and Laws of Malta (S.L.Constitution.0.2.). On the other hand, the “recent” (sic) rulings have been largely available electronically to the staff of the House since at least the second Speakership of Dr Lawrence Gonzi (1992-1996). Mr Grima’s reference to Mr Bonnici’s reception of “a sheaf of stencilled paper” is inappropriate and using it as the title of his review is misleading and improper.
(2) The article gives the erroneous impression that in my intervention during the evening I mentioned that Salvatore Borg Olivier, who was deeply involved in the fashioning of the Standing Orders of 1922 – many provisions of which are still with us – as “father of the future Prime Minister”, namely Dr Gorg Borg Olivier. No doubt, Mr Grima attended the launch in the capacity of reporter but at least he should have done his backroom homework better and quoted from the book. It must, therefore, be clarified ad futuramrei memoriam that in a fully-documented profile of Salvatore Borg Olivier as part of a 40-page introduction to the first volume, I state in black and white that Notary Salvatore Borg Olivier died single (Public Registry, Deaths, 4879/1937). Dr Gorg Borg Olivier’s father was Oliviero Borg Olivier PAA, and elder half-brother to Notary Salvatore Borg Olivier (their father Giuseppe was married twice, first to Clementina Chappelle and then her sister Regina).
(3) The article mentions that the two-volume book is ‘2000-plus’. It is 2557 pages. In addition to the Introduction, and the 1763 rulings explained in context, it has an appendix reproducing the Standing Orders 1922 – a rare original copy of which has survived in the Library of the House – and four indices that aid the Speaker to identify a ruling and any reader to browse through the book from the perspectives of parliamentary jurisprudence and legal history; as well as a list of unparliamentary words and an entry on publicists referred by the Speakers in the three sittings of the Legislative Assembly from 1921 to 1924.
(4) The article puts on record, once again imprecisely, that “there was no Parliament in those days but a Legislative Assembly”. The 1921 “Constitution” establishing ‘Responsible Government’ in Malta did not mention that Malta had “a Parliament” but a ‘Legislature’ consisting in two Chambers designated as ‘Legislative Assembly’ and ‘Senate’. As I explained in the evening and in the book, notwithstanding that the Constitution of 1921 did not employ once the term “Parliament”, Maltese politicians and others within the political community considered and referred to the first self-governing Legislature in Malta as “Parliament”, and they did so both officially and in common parlance. When the “Acts of Parliament Commencement Bill” was brought for discussion, the then Legal Adviser to the Governor of Malta opposed the use of the word “Parliament” in the title because Malta’s bicameral Legislature was not a “Parliament” in the sense of the British Parliament (p.xxviii). The Westminster Statute of 1931, an Act of the same British Parliament, explicitly extended to the legislatures of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest, as ‘Parliaments’ of British colonies that enjoyed a ‘dominion status’ (22 & 23 Geo.5. c.4). The Statute applied to Malta as a British colony and was repealed by the above-referred Mata Independence Act (1964).
(5) The article points out three banks (HSBC, APS and BOV) that have been helping Parliament raise awareness. Endless plaudits. However, Mr Grima completely refrains from pinpointing that the two-volumes were co-published by the Parliament of Malta and the University of Malta, and that the work was magnificently designed by Midsea Books Ltd and printed by Gutenberg Press. The article also adds that “concern was expressed that Prof. Mangion’s meticulous work indicates just how painstaking the work is: in five years he covered just three years of parliamentary activity. Continuing the work up to the present time will require work by a team of researchers, rather than just one person”. Mr Grima’s reference to the “concern… five years” is his own imagination and concoction, whereas his accentuation that the work requires a “team of researchers” is the fruit of his own personal opinion on the subject-matter as far as research and compilation is concerned. If he verified with the staff of the House, he would have learnt that I embarked on the project in June 2010 soon after Dr Michael Frendo was appointed Speaker. I carried out the work while I was out on two six-month sabbatical leaves and managed to complete it within a year. Incidentally, the problem of slightly delaying the publication turned around the type of agreement that was to be concluded in view of subsequent volumes covering at least the two responsible governments (1921-1930/1932-1933, and 1947-1958). I was emphatic on the evening that one important amendment to the present Constitution should be made to render the Chair more autonomous with regard to its money vote because with its limited budget it would be difficult for it to publish its “case-law” in a detailed and organised fashion. The rulings delivered by the Speakers from 1924 to 1930 alone amount to over 5,000. The Chair, financially dependent on the government, cannot fork out large commissions to carry out a massive “codification” of its rulings spanning many years. Due to the present state of affairs, one cannot bring a colossal undertaking to fruition unless it is a labour of love and gallant action for one’s motherland and contemporaneously accepts a reasonable payment.
On the same note, I did stress during the launch that the compilation of the rulings delivered from 1947 down to 1997, with the exception of the 1958-1962 lag when Malta reverted to Crown colony rule, was already largely made by me after Madame Speaker Spiteri Debono asked me to submit a selection on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Restored Responsible Government of 1947. I reiterate that the House has a substantial amount of rulings of post-independence already available electronically in a schematic and chronological sequence.
By the way, Mr Grima seems to entertain a misconception that Malta has enough legal historians – fully qualified, analytically skilled and thoroughly disciplined experts in both law and history – who are ready to expedite mammoth and painstaking works as the one under consideration by devoting their entire time in a joint and concerted effort and at the same time receive puny allowances.
(6) Last but not least, the article concludes by not sparing, ridiculously, a comment on a power-cut that took place unexpectedly during the evening, indeed, an insult for Mr Speaker and staff of the House who organised a very enjoyable evening and for the personalities who packed the Tapestry Chamber and gave a very positive response. I expected Mr Grima to conclude his comments by expressing his appreciation of the musical intervals in which leading lyrical performers in Malta participated and who really animated the evening as all those present can testify. At least, Mr Grima had the decency to mention that the matter was resolved in a couple of minutes by able electricians.
The above-referred points indicate that your journalist neither consulted the book, or at least its introduction, nor followed clearly the addresses that were made during the evening. I have been forced to write this reply to correct the wrong and unjust impressions that were conveyed by Mr Grima’s article, and have done so particularly out of respect to all those who contributed wholeheartedly to the publication and its launch with the noble aim of rectifying in many ways past shortcomings.
Professor Raymond Mangion BA(Hons), MA(History), LL.D., D.Phil (Oxon.)