CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

1913 Grey by-election

New Zealand by-election

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMar 4, 2026
Entity authorityQ5608271 ↗
Source-derived summary

The Grey by-election of 1913 was a by-election held for Grey during the 18th New Zealand Parliament. As no candidate won an absolute majority on the first ballot on 17 July, a second round was held on 24 July. The seat had become vacant due to the death of Arthur Guinness. Three candidates contested the seat, and it was won by the left-wing candidate, who was elected on the second ballot with Liberal support.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “1913 Grey by-election” is new Zealand by-election. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Grey, by-election and Zealand, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA strong contextual entry point for chronology, institutions and public events when official records are distinguished from later interpretation. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1913—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Grey, by-election and Zealand is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “new Zealand by-election” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 4, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5608271. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1913.

Critical limits

Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “1913 Grey by-election”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 1913 Grey by-election primary sources, 1913 Grey by-election archive and Grey research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “1913 Grey by-election”?
  2. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
  3. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “1913 Grey by-election” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.