Liberal Association.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3513, 30 March 1880, Page 2

Liberal Association.

The following is the speech delivered by the President of the Liberal Association (Mr Carpenter), at the meeting held on the 24th inst.:~

Mr Vice-President and gentlemen,—lt •is incumbent upon us in dealing with the grave question we have met to discuss tonight not to allow ourselves to be influenced by party considerations, but to approach it calmly and impartially. In affirming that by the adoption of the report of the Committee in the Christchurch election in last session of Parliament, in tue House of Bepresentatives, [ the constitutional privileges of the people of tins colony were seriously infringed, •it is necessary that weshould show good grounds for making the assertion, and this lam assured can be done. The right of election is the very essence of the Constitution, as it obtains in the form of Government under which we live, and to deprive the people of Christehurch of this right through no wrongful act of theirs is not only subversive of it; but makes elections a farce.

That it is competent for a committee to declare in the House to determine that a person elected <o the House is incapable of holding a seat, no one can.deny; but that such incapacity should deprive the voters of.the right of election is manifestly unjust, unless, indeed, the candidate labored under a known legal incapacity, known not only to the electors but the Keturning Officer* This was not the case in the Christchurch election;' Sir George Grey was not under an known incapacity,, the people whoj voted for him complied with the law in every particular, and acted under the express sanction of Parliament as implied by their action in the case of the election for this district in 1876.

In order that we may fairly pursue our inquiry into this matter I will read to you the section of the Elections Petitions Act, 1858, under which" defines the powers of the Committee. It is :-— "Every such Committee shall try the merits of the return or station complained, of in the election petition referred to therein, and shall determine, by the majority of votes if, for the time being, consisting of more than one member, whether the sitting member or any other person was duly returned, or elected, or whether the election was void, and whether a new writ ought to issue, which determination shall be final between the parties to all intents and purposes, and the House, on the same being reported to them, shall order such report to be entered in their journal, and shall give the necessary directions for confirming or altering the return, or for ordering a return to be made, or for causing a writ for a new election to be issued, or for carrying the said determination into effect as the case may be." Very large powers are evidently conferred under this clause, but it is evident that Parliament, as is shown by the latter portion, can exercise a ; discretionary power in dealing with a report presented by a committee, or there would be no limit to extravagant proposals, to which it might be committed. In the heat of party strife men consider their own desires of superior importance than the constitutional right! of others, and the

conclusions tliey draw are based upon them.

The report its*lf, after reciting the dales of (lie nomination at Thames and Chris (.church concludes by declaring— Firstly. " That the Hon. Sir George Grey K.C.B , was not duly elected for Clmstcliurch at the last general election Tor members of the .New Zealand House of Representatives ; secondly, that the Hon. E. Richardson, C.M.G., was duly elected, and ought to have been returned as a member of this present House of Representatives for Christchurch city." The Committee possessing the power of deciding absolutely between the parties, i.e., the petitioner and the party petitioned against, having declared Sir Geo. Grey not duly elected, I do not profess to deal further with this part of the report beyond remarking that this judgment was a reversal of the precedent of 1876, but intend to confine my remarks more parti* cularly to the second part. It certainly does appear that the members of the House were exceedinly oblivious of their duties in allowing the diction of the Committee to be final in the whole case. They surely could not have carefully considered the possible consequences of their act. It is true exception was taken to it, but simply of a technical character that the committee allowed one member to vote after lunch, the others having previously recorded theirs, and that there wag no evidence before it that Mr Richardson was even a voter for Christchurch, &c.

The first charge was denied. All the members of the committee it appears were ready to record their votes but one; he required a few minutes longer for consideration, a half an hour to decide whether a great constitutional wrong was' being perpetrated !! In the debate in the House none of tbe members, excepting Sir G. Grey, apparently touched upon the rights of the Christchurch electors to consideration, or the wrongful manner in which one of their highest privileges was being wrested from them, and the motion having been carried that the report should be entered upon the journal of the House, the Speaker orderedJ the Clerk of the House to endorse Mr Richardson's name upon the writ, and he was afterwards sworn in, notwithstanding the indignant protest of Sir G. Grey that the Speaker was exceeding his functions.

It may be deemed presumption on my part to say so, but I consider the Speaker was absolutely wrong in the action he took. I entertain the highest respect for Mr O'Rorke. In the Provincial Council I admired the manner in which he performed his duties; but in this case I assert that if words in an Act mean anything, the course he pursued was most unwarrantable. I refer you to that portion of the Act which says that the House shall give directions for the altering the return, &c. It is preposterous to say that the merely entering the report in the journal was final, or wherefore after saying this should it provide for the House giving any directions for carrying the determination of the Committee into effect, as the case may be. The Speaker is not the-House, he carries out its wishes. The House gave no direction in the matter, and it appears to me that without authority so given the Speaker had no right to endorse Mr Richardson's name upon the return, or to swear him in, and thus the House was illegally constituted, and its pro* ceedings invalid.

Failing any statute or custom of Parliament in this colony the law's customs and precedents of the House of Commons are^used to guide our legislators in dealing with any question of privilege or constitutional right. I will cite two important election cases which occurred in England differing only in the cause of the incapacity of the persons elected and petitioned against, and am satisfied that having considered them it will bo impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than, that the action of our Parliament was wrong. The first case to which I .would direct your attention is that of the King's Lynn election, which occurred in 1711. It seems a long distance of time to go back for a precedent, but this one stands as such in the Journals of the House of Commons to this day. The facts of the case were these : Mr Walpole, who wai afterwards Lord Treasurer, had been expelled from Parliament, and sent to the Tower for a high breach of trust and corruption in office contested an election at Lynn, beating his opponent, Mr Taylor, by a large majority. The friends of the latter petitioned against Walpole taking his seat, and this was the decision of the House of Commons: " A motion being made that Mr Walpole having been expelled Parliament, was incapable of being elected a member, was resolved in the affirmative; but on a motion being put that Mr Taylor was duly elected, it was negatived, and the election declare*! a void election. The case oil which this precedent is established is almost identical excepting in the case of disqualification of the Christchurch election,. and the result within the latter ought unquestionably to have been the same.

Under a corrupt but powerful adminisi tration this precedent was violated for a ! time. I 'will now recai to your memories i the famous Middlesex election of 1769. i The principal personage figuring in this affair was the notorious John Wilkes who had been expelled Parliament for publishing certain articles in his paper, the North" Briton, and for writing, it cannot be said of publishing a parody on Pope's essay on Man and called an Essay on Woman. So far as the articles in the North Briton were concerned much stronger language is used in the press now-adays. The essay on " Women" was never intended for general publication, but for the amusement of a few friends whose turn of mind was similar to his own. A copy was surreptitiously obtained before the author had seen one, and was produced by Lord Sandwich in the House; and was declared libellous and obscene. (The speaker sketched other portions of Wilkes' career, and continued)—He was a<»ain elected for Middlesex, was again expelled. A third time the freeholders elected him, not one being found willing to nominate the Government candidate Grindley. On the occasion of his fourth election Colonel Luttrell was induced by the Government to resign the seat he held in order to contest Middlesex against him, and notwithstanding he had the whole power of the Ministry to assist him he secured but little over 250 votes, while Wilkes received over 1100. Wilkes was again declared incapable of holding the seat, and Luttrell, as in the case of Mr .Richardson, duly elected. No sooner was this gross violation of the rights of of the electors perpetrated than the freeholders of London and Middlesex sent a petition to the King against the seating of Mr Luttrell; the whole County indignantly protested against it, and petition!

and remonstrances to the King and to Parliament flowed in from all parts. Lord Chancellor Camden declared in the debate upon the petition of the Middlesex freeholders: " That he considered the decision a direct attack upon the first principles of the constitution, and if he m the judicial exercise of his office were to pay any regard to lhat or any other such vote in opposition to the known and established laws of the land, he should look upon himself as a traitor to his trust, and an enemy to his country." Eight days afterwards he received a message from the Secretary of State requesting him to give up the seals. A fierce controversy raged upon the question, extending over several years. * Among those who took part in it on the side of the Government were Sir Win. BlackBtone, the Solicitor-General for the Queen, and Dt Johnston, while Junius ranged himself on the side of the supporters of Constitutional liberty. The opinions of Sir- Win. Blackstone are deserving of much consideration. As a writer on the laws and constitution of England his fame is unquestioned. His commentaries is a text book now. In his pamphlets, entitled "A speech-without doors," and " an anS swer " to the question stated •• he enters | largely into the question." These are his J remarks upon the election of Luttrell:— " You ask upon what ground of reason or authority you can justify the rote you gave that Mr Luttrell, who had not the majority was duly elected ? The quo An , you have a right to put, and I mean (o give it a direct answer.

"JSW, the principle upon which I voted was this, that in all cases of election by a majority of rotes whenever the candidate for whom the most rotes are given appears to have been at the time of election under a known legal incapacity, the person who had the next greatest number of rotes ought to be considered as the person duly elected, and this as a general principle, I take to" be altogether uncontrovertible." And again he says, "Thus, then, it appeared to me that the general rule that in case of a known legal incapacity in the person having the majority of rotei the capable person next on the poll, although chosen by a minority, is duly elected, is consonant to reason, and is the dictate of common sense." Such are the opinions of Blackstone. Could any other sound reason hare been urged no man was better qualified to^give it. Dr John* son followed in«a similar strain in the " False Alarm," and concludes by saying "flow happy in comparison that nation which suffers from its government no wrongs heavier than this! !" Both suffered a crushing defeat from the vigorous pen of Junius. Now, gentlemen, had the records of this miserable transsaction been allowed to remain on the journals of the House of Commons as a precedent it would hare been fatal to the cause I think you should adopt. To the honor of the British Parliament this is not the case, for in 1782 when party rancour had in a measure ceased when men's minds had become .calm and reason resumed her sway. When the administration of the affairs of the country had beea placed in the hands of men who supported the constitutional rights of the people, the whole of the minutes relating to the expulsion of Wilkes, and the election on Luttrell were erased from the journals of the house, while the precedent of 1711 remained and continues to remain upon them. There are people who say that it is no concern of ours that . the rights „of the people of Christchurch hare been invaded, that it does not affect us. Is this the lesson our, forefather! taught? Not so; and we should be unworthy of the noble sacrifices they made; of wealth, of personal liberty, of life An their endeavours to preserre and hand down to us the constitutional rights we hare inherited, did we not protest against and resist this infringe* ment upon them. '

I again assert that the election of Sir Richardson was unconstitutional. Let us suppose an election ease where there are three candidates, A B and O. 4000 votes are recorded; A receives 2000, B 1999, and C 1. C petitions against A taking the seat. .The Committee appointed to try the case declare A not duly elected. Should the seat b« given to C, who olearly could not represent the electors P Reason and the dictates of common sense say " no," and yet C would be as much entitled to the seat as Mr Richardson is to that for Christohureh City. ' I commend these matters to your serious consideration, and will now move the motion standing in my name— " That this Association is of opinion that the finding of the committee in the report upon the Christchurch election in the last session of Parliament was not warranted by the laws and customs of Parliament, and direly infringes the con* stitutional rights of the' people of this Colony."

The motion was seconded by Mr Small and the debate adjourned to Wednesday. April 7th, ;