WELLINGTON.

Colonist, Issue 25, 15 January 1858, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

The following is the Government reply to the petition against Dr. Featherston's return.

Colonial Secretary's Office, Auckland, December 14th, 1857.

Sir,-—-I am directed by the Colonial Secretary to acknowledge the receipt on the Ist instant, of your petition to his Excellency the Governor, dated the 13th ult., stating that in consequence of an alleged irregularity in the conduct of the late election of a Superintendent of the Province of Wellington, the writ for that election had not been duly executed, and praying that his Excellency will be pleased to disallow the election of Dr. Featherston, who has been returned as elected under that writ. I am directed to inform you that your Petition has been duly laid before his Excellency, who is for the following reasons unable to comply with its prayer:— The power of disallowing the election of a Superintendent, which your petition prays the Governor iff exercise is vested in his Excellency by the 4th section of the Constitution Act. That section prescribes that such disallowance is to be signified under the seal of the Colony to the Speaker of the Provincial Council, within three months after the election. In the present case the limitation of the time within which the disallowance must be signified is a practical bar to the exercise of the power, as manifestly it would be improper for the Governor to exercise an arbitrary power of disallowance upon an ex exparte statement, without an opportunity haying been given to each party to adduce both evidence and argument; but the election having taken place on the 17th October, the time for disallowing it would have expired before such an investigation could be acted on. The Governor's power of effectual interference is also open to a technical doubt. There is at present no Speaker of the Provincial Council of Wellington, nor can there be one until the Superintendent thinks fit to exercise the powers vested in him alone, of convening the Council, and confirming its election of a Speaker. It may be questioned whether a notification addressed to the Speaker of the Council, there being no such functionary would be effectual. The Government fully recognises that the present state of the Electoral Law of the Colony is most unsatisfactory, and in nothing more so than in the defective nature of the existing provisions for the trial of the validity of the election of Superintendent. On referring to Governor Sir George Grey's Proclamation of sth March, 1853, it will be seen that the 53rd section, relating to such elections, gives no power whatever to decide upon the validity of returns complained of. It seems to have considered that. the power of disallowance under the 4th section of the Constitution Act, which was plainly given for political not for judicial purposes, for setting aside valid elections, not for trying disputed returns, might nevertheless be made available for the latter purpose. The Government proposes to introduce a measure for the amendment of the law in the coming session of the General Assembly. Such a measure might be rendered retrospective so' as to enable the objection raised to the return in the present case, to be tried under it, but the Colonial Secretary doubts the expediency of giving the measures such an operation, as it would rather appear proper as a future rule, to make the determination of the Returning Officer in granting a poll conclusive as to the fact of a poll having been duly demanded. I have &c, (Signed) W. Gisbokne, Under Secretary. Dri Welch, Wellington.

"The Three Blunders."—Such is the title which the Independent gives to an article, representing the petitions against Dr. Featherston's return, the petition for the dissolution of the General Assembly, and the address to Mr. St. Hill, as foolish measures adopted by the Reform party. What a stupid party, says Dr. Featherston's newspaper, to commit such blunders! The leaders of such a party are wholly unfit to

govern the province. What a contrast with the clever Fitzherbert, and the clever Fox, and the clever Featherston! Now, in the first place, Dr. : Welch's petition and the petition which supported it, were not acts of the Reform party, which, though it comprises all who would not vote for Featherston, also comprises many who would not vote for Welch. The latter took no part in the petition. But the now united party reap the benefit of it. That benefit is to be seen in the Governor's reply, which relates more to removing a duly elected Superintendent, than to removing one unduly elected. I cannot, says the Governor in effect, remove Dr. Featherston on this technical objection, but I can on a political one; and by studying the Constitution Act, you will see how the duly elected Superintendent can be got rid of if he is sufficiently disliked. Such is the purport and meaning of his Excellency's answer, as advised of course by his responsible ministers. This is pretty good fruit from a blunder. In truth, blunder number one is a blunder in the same way as Dr. Welch's canditature was a blunder, when it "set the stone a rolling," as Dr. Welch himself said; when it originated the resolution which consigns the three F.s to opposition or private life. Some more blunders of this kind would be very acceptable. Blunder number two is not yet worked, out to an end. But it already helps to show all New Zealand that Wellington is thoroughly misrepresented in the General Assembly. This blunder of the united Reform party began by exhibiting the Featherston members for Wellington as unable to face a public meeting in the place which they technically represent^ that meeting being called for the acknowledged purpose of getting rid of them, There is a public meeting in Wellington to promote a means of getting Wellington duly represented in the General Assembly; and at that meeting, the members for Wellington in the General Assembly cannot show their faces. Well done blunder number two! Neither is number three yet worked out to an end; but it is working excellently. " St. Hill for Superintendent!" isacry hateful to the Featherston party. It reminds them of the coming removal of Dr. Featherston from the Superintendency, and of the hew election which approaches, and of the preparations of the Reform party to beat Dr. Featherston if he should again be~a candidate. Besides this, it keeps before the public, in the address to Mr. St. Hill, Dr. Featherston's outrageous conduct when he was last upon the hustings. It also exhibits the firm union and determination of the Reform party. It is gradually proving, by getting more and more signatures notwithstanding Mr. St. Hill's acceptance of the requisition, that Dr. Featherston rwas elected by a minority of the people, and not by " a majority of 2 to 1 " as. he dodgingly brags. It continually reminds the public of Mr. St. Hill's gentlemanlike decorum and truthfulness, in contrast with Dr. Featherston's vulgar violence and low-lived craft. Such a blunder is, no doubt, wormwood to those who are now usurping the Government; but is a very useful blunder for their opponents. Let the Reformers go on working blunder number three by adding signatures to the address to Mr. St. Hill, an additional number of which appears to the Requisition in the present number.— Spectator, Jan. 6.