The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1879.

Kumara Times, Issue 944, 9 October 1879, Page 2

The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1879.

The petition presented to Parliament through the Speaker by Mr Richardsou against the return of Sir George Grey for the City of Christchurch, the allegations of which will be inquired into on the 17th hist., is one of more than ordinaly importance. The question at issue not only embraces the legality of the election, but also the principle involved of a person already a returned member of the House of Representatives seeking election and being returned for another constituency. Sir George Grey, when elected for Christchurch, was the declared representative of the Thames. He was, in fact, already an M.H.R., and it is more than doubtful if he was eligible for election anywhere else: That the House has power to deal fully with this question is Set forth in the 45 th clause of the Constitution Act, which says: "The house of Representatives shall, until provision be made otherwise in that behalf by law, be judges, without appeal, of the validity of the election of each member thereof." Members are no doubt often relumed in England for two constituencies, but as the writs are 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 have been first duty elected, or resign and contest another. 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 net in the following words : "It shall be lawful for any member of the said House of Representatives, by writing under his hand, addressed 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." Of course until the House sat after the late dissolution and a Speaker was elected Sir George Grey could not formally resign either the Thames or Christchurch seat, but now that ample opportunity lias been afforded him, he, by taking no action in this matter, leaves one of the Thames seats in Parliament still unrepresented. Strangely enough Sir George Gvey was the chief actor in a similar case at the Thames in 18-75, on the election petition of Mr James Maekay, when Mr Whitaker gave the following opinion on the legality of the Thames election :—" 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 havin" been returned to and received by the Clerk of the Writs on the 6th day of January, 1879, Sir George Grey then becaule a member duly returned, and not having vacated his seat, there being no law enabling him to do sc, was ineligible for the District of the Thames on the lltli day of January, 1876, and therefore that, his election and return for thar district was void." As Mr Whitaker, (the present Attorney General) is acknowledged to be one ihe ablest lawyers in New Zealand his opinion on that ocoassion can but he regarded—if considered in the present instance —as fatal to the election of Sir George Grey for the City of Christchurch.