SIR GEORGE GREY’S ELECTION FOR CHRISTCHURCH.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1754, 3 October 1879, Page 2

SIR GEORGE GREY’S ELECTION FOR CHRISTCHURCH.

f“ New Zealand Times,” Sept. 30.] The fact that the Premier conveniently forgot to return to the Clerk of the Writs the notifications of his election, as every other other member did on taking the oath of allegiance, was significant of some hitch, and one which has since made itself sufficiently apparent. Sir G. Grey when elected for Christchurch was the declared representative for the Thames. He was in fact already an M.H.R., and it is more than doubtful whether he was eligible for election anywhere else. Whatever the legal opinion on such a point may be, common sense would in itself uggest that it is undesirable for declared members of the House to put up as candidates for another seat. The Government of e>i« day are in a position to regulate the dates of nominations and elections; if this

tary practice is to become an established precedent, then it ii only necessary for an unscrupulous Ministry to so arrange matters that, as far as possible, Ministers and their friends should hare the first chance of being elected, and that afterwards all those who had been elected, and who could afford it, should go round the country to contest the elections with their mest dangerous political opponents. The elected men would have everything to gain, and would risk nothing except a little time and money. The latter, in many cases, might be liberally supplied by some political association or league, as in the late general elections. A number of the less wealthy opposition candidates might thereby be prevented from offering themselves for reelection, on account of the extra expense attending contested elections. This now electioneering dodge has inaugurated a system which is manifestly unfair on the face of it, and it is extremely unlikely that it will bo acquiesced in or permanently sanctioned by the House.

When Mr Richardson’s petition is presented the grounds for its prayer will probably be two fold. The one is the ineligibility of the Premier as a candidate for election, the _ other is for corrupt practices at the Christchurch election. So far as the first count is concerned, it is satisfactory to know that eminent authorities have pronounced strongly in favor of it. Clause 45 of the Constitution Act sets forth that “ the House of Representatives shall, until provision bo made otherwise in that behalf by law, bo judges, without appeal, of the validity of the election of each member thereof." We do not for a moment believe that the House will sanction this new departure from constitutional precedent and practice. So far as we can learn only one parallel case has ever occurred in New Zealand, in which Sir G. Grey was also the chief actor. Members have, it is true, often been formally returned in England for two constituencies, but owing to the fact that the writs ure all made returnable on the day on which Parliament meets, it is difficult for them to choose whether to represent the seat for which they had been first duly elected, or to resign it with a view of contesting another seat. Under the New Zealand law, clause 49 of the Constitution Act makes provision for a resignation to be sent in at any time whether the House is sitting or not in the following words :—“lt shall be lawful for any member of the said House of Representatives, by writing under bis band, adddressed to the Speaker of the said House, to resign his seat in the said House, and upon such resignation the seat of such member shall become vacant.” From the above it would appear that it was only necessary for Sir George Grey to address his resignation of the Thames seat to the Speaker of the House, and he would then have fcssn unquestionably free to contest the election at Christchurch or anywhere else. In another column we reprint what mnst be looked upon as a very careful and able exposition of the law affecting such cases by Mr Whitaker, when he took part in the committee which decided the petition about Sir George Grey’s seat at the Thames. It is true that, upon that occasion, he alone of the committee held the opinion set forth. But since then, the evils of the system inaugurated by the decision of the committee have been amply exposed. Sir George Grey and Mr Sheehan have taken unscrupulous advantage of the precedent established to go about the country, like knight-errants of old, endeavoring to unseat any opponent whose unopposed election had not, like theirs, been perfectly assured beforehand by the formation of an illegal political railway. It is quite likely that when Mr Richardson’s petition comes before the House, the previous decision will be upset. All authorities are agreed that —os Mr Whitaker said in another debate —“ It is the undoubted privilege of the House of Commons, and of this House, to declare any seat vacant." And also, in the words of the Constitution Act, that the House of Representatives are “judges] without appeal of the validity of the election of each member thereof." Consequently, the House can at any time annul or set aside a previous decision, such as the one given in 1876. The following is the opinion of Mr Whitaker, referred to in the above article. This was embodied in certain resolutions proposed to the committee on the election petition of James Mackey, in 1876 ; That it appears by the law of Parliament that a person having been duly returned as a member for one district is ineligible for another district until his seat is vacated.

That the law of New Zealand makes no provision by which a member duly returned can after a general election resign his seat before a Speaker of the House of .Representatives shall have been chosen.

That according to the law of the Imperial Parliament, a person may be returned at a general election for two places, and has the option of choosing for which place he will sit. That the reason for such law sppoars to be, that the writs for the Imperial Parliament are made returnable on a future and by law a distinct and certain day (being the day on which Parliament is appointed to meet); and therefore within that time, though the returning officer may transmit the writ to the Crown office he is not obliged to do so, nor will the law take notice of its being returned till the day on which it is made returnable.

That, by the law of New Zealand, the writs on a general election are made returnable not on a certain day, but on or before a certain day; but the returning officers are required by law, after endorsing them with the names of the persons elected, to return the writs. That the returning officer having on the 22nd day of December, 1875, endorsed on the writ for the district of Auckland City West the name of Sir George Grey, K.C.8., as the person duly elected in pursuance thereof, and the writ with such endorsement having bfen returned to and received by the Clerk of the Writs on the 6th day of January, 1876, Sir Geerge Grey then became a member duly returned, and, not having vacated his seat, there being no law enabling him to do so, was ineligible for the District of the Thames on the 11th day of January, 1876, and tl erefore that his election and return for that district was void.