THE SUPREME COURT AND MR BARTON.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1368, 4 July 1878, Page 3

THE SUPREME COURT AND MR BARTON.

The following correspondence has taken place between Mr G. E. Barton, M.H.R., and the Government: — Wellington, March 22nd, 1878. Sir, —I have the honor to forward to you the underwritten copies of three resolutions passed respectively by the Dunedin Bar, by the Christchurch Bar, and by the persons present at a meeting of my constituents held at the Theatre Royal, Wellington : Dunedin Bar, March 9th, 1878. “That this meeting, without expressing any opinion regarding the circumstances and duration of Mr Barton’s recent imprisonment, is of opinion, from his statement, that a fair case exists for an inquiry by Parliament in the interests of all parties concerned. —Carried by 16 to 3.” Christchurch Bar, March 14th, 1878. “That this meeting having hoard Mr Barton’s statement, without expressing any opinion upon the circumstances leading to his recent imprisonment, consider that tiie fact of a severe and degrading punishment having been inflicted upon a member of the Bar for contempt of Court, calls for inquiry.—Carried unanimously ; seventeen barristers present.” Wellington Meeting, March 2lst, 1878. “ That it is the duty of the Government to hold an inquiry into the manner in which the Judges at Wellington have conducted the business of the Supreme Court, and to ascertain whether clients in Mr Barton’s hands have been treated with injustice,—Carried by acclamation.”

And I have further the honour to request that the Government will make the inquiry accordingly.— George Elliot Barton. The Hon. the Premier, Sir George Grey. “Brandon street, Wellington, “ March 25th, 1878. “ Sir,—ln the letter I had the honor to send to you on tho 22nd instant I stated that the resolution at the Christchurch Bar was arrived at unanimously, “ Although such may bo the fact I find that I have no right to state it as a fact. Tho words at the foot of the resolution are, ‘ carried without a division.’—l have, &e., George Elliott Barton. Sir G. Grey, K.C.8.” “ Government Offices, “Wellington, May 16th, 1878. “ Sir, —I have been directed to inform you that consideration of the question raised by your letters of March 22nd and 25th, addressed to the Hon. tire Premier, has been delayed through the unavoidable absence of Ministers from Wellington ; but that those questions will bo considered, and tho decision of the Government communicated to you, as soon us it has been possible to have a full meeting of the Cabinet. —I have, &c., E. Fox, Secretary to the Cabinet, George Elliott Barton, Esq., M.H.R., Wellington.” “ Government Offices, “Wellington, June Ist, 1878. “ Sir, —I have tho honor lo inform you that the Government have given most earnest and anxious attention to your two letters, forwarding three resolutions passed respectively by t he Dunedin Bar, tho Christchurch Ear, and a meeting of the inhabitants of Wellington, and have come to the conclusion that tho recommendation of tho Dunedin Bar should be adopted by you, viz., that you should ask Parliament for an inquiry.—l have, &c., G. Grey.” “Wellington, June 17th, 1878. “ Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the Ist instant, which would have been earlier answered but for my absence at the East Coast. “ In it you inform me that the Government, having ‘ given their most earnest and anxious consideration ’ to the subject of my letter, ‘ have come to the conclusion that tho recommendation of the Dunedin Bar should be adopted by me, viz., that 1 ‘ should ask Parliament for an inquiry.’ “The resolution of the Dunedin Bar merely affirms tli o abstract proposition, ‘that in the opinion of the meeting a fair ca«e exists for inquiry by Parliament in the interests of all parties concerned, ’ but contains, so far as I can perceive, no recommendation that I should bo the party to move for such an inquiry, nor does it suggest that such inquiry should be initiated in Parliament without the previous Government inquiry required by constitutional law. “ According to the English authorities the proper constitutional course is laid clown as follows —‘That before any Parliamentary inquiry can be made into the conduct of Judges of the Superior Courts, Ministers should themselves investigate the matters of complaint, with a view to determine whether they ought to oppose or facilitate the interference of Parliament.’ [Tod, p. 472.] And an English Attorney-General (Sir Frederick Pollock) nas authoritatively stated that ‘ it is in fact an admitted principle that no Government should support a motion for inquiry into the conduct of a Judge unless they have first made an investigation, and are prepared to say that they

think it is a fit case to be followed up by an address for bis dismissal;’ and the Parliament of New Zealand by the Supreme Court Judges Act, 1858, has expressly empowered the Government to suspend any Judge until the next ensuing session of Parliament, thus confirming by statute the power of the Executive to inquire info and temporarily deal with judicial abuses during (he recess of Parliament. It therefore appears clearly to be the constitutional law that before any motion can be made in Parliament against a Judge a previous inquiry must be held by the Government. It was with a view to obtain that previous inquiry that 1 had the honour to write to you, and it is because such an inquiry is indispensable (as well as for other reasons) that it is impossible for me to adopt the course you have recommended. I cannot but regret that after a consideration extending over more than two months tho Government should have arrived at the conclusion that no duty devolves upon them. It appears to me that the clear and immediate duty of the Government was either to hold tho inquiry or decide that none was needed. They have adopted neither course. Their recommendation to rao is an acknowledgement that the investigation is necessary ; yet they refuse to incur tho responsibility of making it, thus leaving it open to themselves ultimately to take whichever side may prove most convenient to them. They decline either to protect the reputation of their Courts or to vindicate the rights of suitors or the liberties of English subjects, while they recommend me to take a course which their Law officers must have known would bo utterly futile. “ The matter was laid before the Government with every guarantee that it was one urgently demanding inquiry. The two most numerous and most skilled sections of the Bar, and the constituency of the capital city of tho colony, have certified that fact. “In obtaining the opinions of those bodies for the support and guidance of the Government, I expressly requested them to deal only with tho public interests involved, and not with the wrongs done to me as a private individual. I did so in order to remove all shadow of doubt that the question considered by those bocli's, when passing their resolutions, was the public question, and it is hardly consistent with candour that the Government should now treat it as if I had asked their assistance in a private matter. “ I cannot refrain from expressing my deep disappointment that the Government should have taken so narrow a view of the subject. This Is no mere private quarrel between a barrister and two Judges of the Supreme Court. It is a case in which the Judges are charged with having grossly and corrupt ly violated the rights of suitors and the Bar; with having habitually perverted justice in order to wreak their malice against a particular advocate ; and with having brought these proceedings to a climax by an arbitrary and illegal imprisonment, accompanied by circumstances of unusual harshness and degradation. I venture to think that such charges are of the greatest gravity, and that the refusal of the Government to deal with them cannot be justified. I have done my part; I have asserted in the Courts the rights of suitors ; I have brought to an issue, in my own person, the question of the rights of the Bar; and have obtained and laid before the Government the three important resolutions I had the honor to forward in my first letter. Thus I have conducted the matter to the stage where my duty ends, and that of the Government begins. All the broad principles of liberty and equal justice were at stake in this matter, and the Government have failed to stand by them. By the course they have taken they have declared the Judges absolute and irresponsible, and judicial abuses beyond remedy. They have closed the only door of appeal from an improper exercise of a power of imprisonment such as is possessed by no other power in the State, not even the Crown. They have emboldened the Judges to act fearlessly, in accordance with their public defiance—' We care neither for Press nor Parliament;’ and they have effectually deterred any private person, layman or lawyer, from the folly of becoming the mark for judicial vengeance by resisting or exposing any injustice, oppression, or tyranny whatsoexer.—l have, Ar, Geobgb Elliott Baeton, “ Sir George Grey, K.C.8., &c.” [The Ministerial reply was published in the telegrams of June 27th.J A SHORT EXPLANATION OF ~MR. HAKE’S SCHEME OF REPRESENTATION. ESSAYS AND LECTURES (FAWCETT). In the discussions which from time to time have taken place on Mr Hare’s scheme of representation, so much has been said on the one side of its simplicity, on the other side of its complexity, that it is a matter of no surprise that a large amount of confusion pervades the public mind regarding the merits of the scheme. It is the object of this paper to describe, as briefly as possible, its principles and details, without disguising the difficulties which would surround its practical application. The end and object of Mr Hare’s scheme is the direct equal and personal representation in Parliament of every elector. If this end were accomplished Parliament would become the mirror of the nation, and in proportion to tho extension of the suffrage, all opinions would have in Parliament a strength corresponding to their strength in the country. To attain this end it would be necessary that each voter should have an equal amount of electoral power. At present there is nothing to prevent an elector from having a score of votes in different constituencies. Non-residence not being a disqualification for the county franchise, a man may have a vote for every county in the kingdom, if he can possess himself of the requisite property qualifications. To remedy this inequality Mr Hare’s plan provides that each elector shall have but one vote; and in order to enable the elector to obtain real representation, he would be permitted to give this vote to any candidate, irrespective of the restrictions of local repre- 1 sentation. For instance, a voter living in Hampshire could vote, if he chose, for a candidate standing in Yorkshire, or in any other part of tho kingdom. Under this system, those who are willing to serve in Parliament might be described as “All England” candidates, because they could pull votes in every constituency in tho kingdom. If this plan of choosing members of Parliament were adopted, those candidates would of course be elected who obtained the largest number of votes; but in order to prevent inequality of electoral power through one candidate receiving an immensely large number of votes, Mr Hare’s scheme provides that no candidate shall receive more votes than are sufficient to secure his return. For this purpose the following arrangement is proposed : —lt is obvious that if all electors were allowed to vote for any candidate, well known and popular men, such as Mr Gladstone and Mr Bright, would receive a large proportion of the entire number of votes polled. Equality of electoral power, which is one of the main objects of the scheme, would be destroyed if Mr Gladstone received six times as many votes as any other candidate; for his constituents would then not be sufficiently represented in proportion to their numbers. It has therefore been proposed to find, by dividing the total number of votes polled by the number of vacancies to be filled, the quota of votes necessary for the return of each member. If 658 members are to be elected, and the total number of votes recorded is 2,632,000, four thousand votes would bo the quota necessary for the return of a member. Each elector would vote by a voting paper, which would bo drawn up iu the following form: —

Borough of The above-named elector hereby records his vote for the candidate n -.med first in the subjoined list; or in the event of such candidate being already elected, or not obtaining the quota, the above-named elector votes for the second named candidate, and to on in the r numerical order, viz.: — 1. Name of Candidate 2. Dhto of another 3. Ditto of another 4. Ditto of another (And so on, adding as many as the elector chooses.) The foregoing form, filled up with the names proposed by the voter, expresses in substance this; —I desire to be represented by the can.

didati whose name I have placed No. 1. If he should obtain his quota of votes before mine comes to be counted, or if he should fail to obtain a sufficient number, and therefore cannot be elected, 1 direct that my vote be transferred to the candidate I have placed as No. 2, and under the same conditions to candidate No. 3, and so on. The above comprises the whole of the socalled complexity of Mr Hare’s system of representation. The main principles of the scheme might bo translated as follows : 1. All voters to be represented in Parliament. 2. Each member of Parliament to represent an equal number of voters. 3. Each elector to have one vote. 4. Electors to be allowed to vote for any candidate. 5. Electors to be allowed to transfer their votes from one candidate to another, so that no votes are thrown away for esndidafes already elected, or for those who lave no chance of obtaining the quota. The most striking effects of such a deviation from the traditional method of conducting elections, would first be seen in Parliament itseJ. The House of Commons would then no longer be filled with local magnates whose names are unknown outside their own boroughs, and whose only recommendation to serve in Pailiamcnt consists in their employing a large number of workmen, and being able consequently to command a considerable number of votes. On the contrary, the House of Conmons would be filled by really representative men, who would be sent to Parliament not solely on account of their wealth and local influence, but on account of their opinions. A common charge brought against this plan of proportional representation is that it would bring into the House of Commons nobody but the representatives of crotchets. In reply to this, it may be stated that it will be their own fault if the people without crotchets are unrepresented ; if, indeed, they are so few as not to be able to secure a quota of votes for their candidates, then the House of Commons will justly be composed of crotchety members ; it would not be representative if it were not.

Name of Voter Address • •• Vote No • •• • •• Parish of