THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION PETITION.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1805, 4 December 1879, Page 2

THE CHRISTCHURCH ELECTION PETITION.

The “ New Zealand Times” of the 2nd 1 instant says : —Sir George Grey’s public conduct in many respects i B far too eccentric for anyone to bo able to predict with safety what he will do next ; but there is one direction from which he never deviates, and on whichhe may always bo relied on. Whenever he does anything which must bo found out, and for which he knows that there is no defence, he is certain to accuse bis principal opponent of the very crime of which he knows himself guilty. This course is so invariably pursued by him that whenever we know what crimes ho is trying to fix on his opponents we then know exactly what political crimes he has lately committed himself. This was illustrated by an article in the “New Zealander” yesterday morning, which charged the Hon. Edward Richardson with not being “ above resorting to little manoeuvres to accomplish his proposals,” and went on to tell us that “ considerable surprise was expressed at his conduct in voting on a question which involved his own seat in the House. He ought to have retired when a division was called for; but instead of doing so he was observed to remain in the House, and go into the lobby on a question distinctly affecting himself, and in which he was personally interested. In adopting this course he lowered himself in the estimation of the country, and showed clearly what he is capable of doing.” Such is the strong language of his organ upon this subject. Now let us see who committed this crime. At Sir George Grey’s request his original motion was divided into two, and the first part only was put from the chair and divided on. The question put from the chair was that certain words as to the House going into committee of supply be omitted, in order to insert these words—“ That the portion of the report of the City of Christchurch Election Committee which states that the committee do hereby determine that Sir G. Grey was not duly elected for Christchurch, at the last general election of members of that city for the House of Representatives, be expunged from the journals of this honorable House." There is no allusion to Mr Richardson in this motion divided upon, but simply to Sir G. Grey, and yet we all know that although, to use the “ New Zealander's” own 1 words, “He ought to have retired when a 1 division was called for instead of doing so J ho was allowed to remain in the House and go - into the lobby on a question distinctly affect--1 ing himself, and in which he was personally 1 interested. In adopting this course ho r lowered himself in the estimation of the ! country, and showed clearly what he is capable of doing.” How often Sir G. Grey, both in the House and in his organs, “ shoots at a pigeon and kills a crow.”