Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1881.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 166, 14 July 1881, Page 2

Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1881.

The Hansard repoit of the Pollen pension debate is not yet to hand, but in our Wellington exchanges the speeches are rather more fully reported than in the telegrams rtceived here, and they contain quite enough of accusation and innuendo to invest with a considerable amount of interest the report of the Committee, to be oeDt in a fortnight hence, on the pensions of Mr Gisborne and Sir W. Fitzherbert, as well as oa that of Dr Pollen. Ia opening the debate Mr Speight stated that " the pension claimed amounted to a total of £850. Ths claim was made in the report fur seventeen years' service under the Act of 1851. On the 30th October, 187(5. lhat claim was withdrawn, as it was found lhat he could net make up the seventeen years' service He then took office in the Government, which was incompatible with bis c aim as a civil servant, and held the same to witbio oue day of the date on which he would have oms under the operation of a DUqualificati ,n Act passed inthe iaterim Having fulfilled the unexpired terra, he renewed h_3 claim for the pension." The speaker then went on to say that however opinions might Vary as to the Doctor's right ;o compute the time during wbich he held cffice in ths Government, all were agreed that the sum of £330 paid to him as paymaster in this colony of Imperial nensions could not possibly be included, aa that payment was not made in respect of any vote of the colonial Legislature. The debate proceeded, aud then one of those inquisitive members who are always putting inconvenient que.-, ions wanted to know sotottbing more about thii 1300 for paying Imperial pensions, for as far as Le could make out, it meant shortly that Dr Pollen had received £300 a year for merely signing bis nama cot oftener than three times a year, and it was for thess very modest services the colony was asked to pay him a pension of £1.0 a year. Mr Stewart followed, and he argued that "Ihe Act relied upon was never intended to apply to the case of a semi-professional politician, like the claimant in thi3 case. What were the facts ! as regards him ? He took the position of a civil servant, and then went into the Government, binding he wss unpopular as a Minister he went back to the service, and continued going end coming between politics and the service until he thought it was time for him to retire with an ample pension. The Act never contemplated such c_ses as this." Mr Stewart concluded by generously asserting that he did not desire to cast any refleclien upon Dr Pollen, and, of ccurse, we are bound to believe him. At the same time he is to be condoled with upon bis misfortune in having accidentally accomplished that which he wished to avoid. But these, and many more of the speeches delivered, were but as tiny taps with a tin tack driver compared witb tbe sledge-ham-mer criticisms of Mr Saunders, who spared nothing and nobody. He commenced by expressing hi 3 regret that the motion did not go further than it did. «He looked upon this pension as having heen improperly obtaiued. He considered this to he only one of many pensions that ought to be similarly dealt with. If pensions were to he granted they ought to have beea paid out of a fund the pensioners themselves subscribed to. It seemed to him that the practice was for one Civil servant to grant the pension to another, and the taxpayer had no say in the matter. It could not be said that the members of this House were altogether free from Civii Service proclivities. They had a Government who were indebted tv the Civil servants for faithful services renders d to them. Then they had members of the House who considered that they ought to, or might yet be connected with the service. Such being the case, a question of this kind could hardly be expected tp be approached free from the Civil Service bia*. It must be an indispensible condition of any pension paid by the colony that the full salary under which it ii regulated should be voted by thia House. Now, thia £300 for Imperial pensions was not voted by this House, consequently it could b. not computed iv framing the pension. He then alluded to the meanß resorted to by Sir W. Fitzherbert, with a view of establishing his age at eixty, the date at which a pension could be claimed. Mr Gisborne was the party with whom Sir W. Fitzherbert transacted the business on that occasion, and was very accommodating. The speaker then went on to show the devices reßorted to by Mr Gisborne himself to bring himself up to the pension age, and went on to say that the whole question of pensions stood in need of consideration, and with that view he would move as an amendment—That it is undesirable that any decision should be come to on thi3 pen sion, untiithe circumstance* under which pensions were granted to Sir W.Fitzerbert and Mr Gisborne have also been considered and reported upon by the public accounts committee." The amendment was after a diviiion substituted for tbe original motion which was "That the House agrees with the report, and is of opinion that no further payment should be made to Dr Pollen until by special Act of the Houss it be determined what amount, if any, be fairly payable in lieu of pension." Thereport referred to which is that of the Public Accounts Committee we have before us in a Parliamentary paper, together with the proceedings of the Committee, and from the latter we find that Mr Render Wood moved the following resolution which, had it heen carried, would have constituted the Committee's report, but on a division it waa rejected by six to five:— " 1. That the payment of £1,400 as arrears of pension to Dr Pollen was a payment which, under the circumstances of the case, ought not to have been made. Difficulties have surrounded this claim for pension from the first. Dr Pollen has heen from 25th November, 1856, to 4th July, 1873, in the Civil (Service of the colony. Three times during that period he bas been a Minister and member of tbe Executive Council, holding a political office: he has been Colonial Secretary and Prime Minister. The Law Officers agree in the opinion that a aaat iv the Executive, to which a high salary attaches, cannot bs held in conjunction with a subordinate position in the Civil Service, and that the fact of the appointment to the higher office vacates the lower. This being I so, it would seem that it must also vacate all ' right to salary, emolument, or pension which attaches to the lower office. An office so ' vacated cannot be said to be retired from in the same sense in wbich tbat word is *e_»d in the Pension Acts. It is therefore, doubtful, whether Dr Pollen is entitled to draw any pension at all, and the papers, which are voluminous, show this. 2. Should, however, the right to a pension be established, tbe amount paid appears to be wrong. The amount has been calculated by adding to the salaries drawn by Dr Pollen of a number of offices held by him, amongst which was an office of Paymaster-General of Imperial Pensions, at £300 per annum. This sum has heen regarded as colonial revenue in the calculation of the amount of pension ; hut it has never been regarded as colonial revenue for any other purpose. It has never in any way been calculated as an integral part of the revenue of the colony, and has never been under the review or appropriation of Parliament. The Committee is of opinion tbat this sum should not have formed part of the basis of calculation of Dr Pollen's pension. Considering all the doubts and difficulties of this ease, the Committee ib of opinion that, instead of settling the amount of tbe pension claimed by Dr Polleo, and inclnding it uader tbe begd of

Permanent Cbargeß, the Government should bave submitted the claim to Parliament to determine what, under the circumstances, the equity of the case required to be done." Tbe foregoing having been rejected, the followiug was ultimately adopted as the report : — "That in awarding a pension of £418 15s to Dr Pollen, and paying that pension from 3<Ub October, 1876, the Governmeht acted according to the weight of opinion given by the Crown Law Officers, aud even paid £1291 123 '6d less thau the Audit Department were willing to pass as legally due to Dr Pollen. The Committee are, however, of opinion, lhat the Crown Law Officers and Civil servants of the colony have put the most favourable interpretation on doubtful points in tbia claim for pension^ aud underrate circumstances which appear to make the claim of doubtful legality. The Committee think it is open to grave doubt whether Dr Pollen was entitled to reckon, for purposes of hih pension, the time duriog which lie held a seat iv the Executive CoU'ncii without pay or portfolio. The Committee are also of opinion that the promise made by Sir Julius Yogel that the sum of £300 paid to Dr Pollen es Paymaster of Imperial pensions should be included in any calculation for purposes of pension was one which it was beyond the lawful authority of any Minister to tiiake, and subversive of due Parliamentary authority and control. The Committee consider that in future when any case of the above nature, which may in itself be reasonable, is surrounded by Irgal difficulties, it should bo submitted to Parliament for decision." The result of the debate which took place last Tburscay was that the Committee waa instructed to enquire into other pensions as well, aud tie House has further ordered that no further payment of pensions is to be made to Dr Pollen, Sir W. Fitaberbtrt, Mr Giibome, orMrDomttt until the Committee has reported ther< on, which it is to do tbis day fortnight. That report should be an interesting, if not an instructive, document.