TOWN EDITION. The Daily Telegraph WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3139, 20 July 1881, Page 2

TOWN EDITION. The Daily Telegraph WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1881.

Our readers have been acquainted with the debate on Dr Pollen's pension by means of our Parliamentary telegrams, but the full report --is published in Hansard is extremely interesting. Dr. Pollen' 3 pension, however, is a "mere circumstance " compaied to the retiring allowances enjoyed by Sir W. Fitzherbert and the Hon. Mr Gisborne. The Christchurch Prese fuys of the former case that at the time when the arrangements complained of were under consideration, Dr Pollen was a civil servant, certain to become in due course legally and equitably entitled to bis pension. He was requested—he did not seek—to forego the position, and to accept a post in the Executive in which it was suf'gesfpd to him ho would be able to render moro effective service to the colony. But Dr. Pollen did not feel justified in giving up his established position, and assured future as a civil servant without knowing what he would hare to rely upon. To meet this difficulty Sir Julius Vo%?\ made an arrangement which the Law Officers of the Crown held to be perfectly legal. He haa actually received no more than as a Civil servant he was legally and equitably entitled to. It even appears by the report of the Pulic Accounts Committee that the amount paid to him is nearly £1400 let's—£l39l 12s 6d was the exact sure—*- than the Audit Department were willing to pans as legally due." And as regards (be Goverament, it appears tbat they took the advice of the law officers of the Crown, and acted upon that advice in the ordinary way. We may, therefore, dismiss the subject from our consideration as regards Dr Pollen and the present Government. In moving in the matter Mr Speight little thought that the tables would be to completely turned upon the promoters of the motion by Mr Saunders, who gives us in hia speech some very •• remarkable and amusing: proofs of the manner in which Civil servants manage to arrange pensions for themaelves and for each other." It m]) be rernrmbered (says the Pi 2d-") that in 1867 Mr Fitzherbert went boJio cm le.*.?-.-. Re went on full pay, v.'ith ill** travelling vxpeoscs, &c, allowed j him, and aa soon &$ his leave expired he

sent in his resignation. This he did on 17th November, 1869. Unluckily it turuiJ out that Mr Fitzberbert was "not entitled to a pension, because he was not sixty years old." And then Mr Saunders gives us the following interesting story : —" Well, all sorts of arrangements are contrived to make him sixty years old ; and ultimately the Hon. William Fitzherbert and the Hon. William Gisborne prove quite equal to the occasion. Mr Fitzberbert's resignation had been accepted on the 17th November, 1869, but it is afterwards alleged that his resigna 'ion is uot ' to take effect until the 15th July, 1870,' when it is fondly hoped that the Hon. William Fitzberbert will be found to be sixty years of age." "On the 2nd December, 1869, the Hon. William Fitzherbert writes to his friend tbe Colonial Secretary, ' The date of my baptismal register is 15th August, 1810. lain at least, therefore, well advanced in my sixtieth year, which, I submit, meets the requirement of the Act." The Colonial Secretary, Mr Gisborne, refers this important _:a.te> ..>■ the theo Attorney-General (Vlr Prendergast) to know whether Mr Fitz berbert is sixty years old or not; end then we have the following impoitan< legal opinion, which is no doubt carefully recorded in all the Courts of Europe. " I am of opinion tbat, in order to attain the age of sixty years, a person must livt sixty years. It cannot be said that an infant at tbe instant of its birth attained the age of one year, and similarly it cannot be said that the instant a person bas lived fifty-nine years he has attained the age of sixty years." And then comes the end of the story. *' We have seen that in order to get Mr Fitzherbert up to tbe age of sixty, he is to get two years eight months and one week's leave of absence. Then another coincidence comes up here, and it appears that after all Mr Fitzberbert cannot find any proof of what bis own age is. He says— " Since the receipt of your letter I have searched further for tbe certificate of my baptismal register, which I had expected to find with the documents of my life insurance, but have not been able to find it." ... He gets a very kind letter from the Colonial Secretary to tell him— ' In reply I have to state that although the baptismal register is mislaid I have no doubt your memory is correct as to the date of that register ; and therefore I thiuk it is only equitable to allow a month previous to that date as the probable date of birth." We said just now that this was the end of the story, and in one sense of tbe word we were entitled so to call it. But Mr Saunders contrives to make another good story before he has done with the subject. Mr Gisborne as we have seen has been •' exceedingly accommodating to Mr Fitzherbert," and then Mr Saunders gcee on to say—" Mr Gisborne himself comes on with a similar claim, which he manages with great skill. It seems the Act requires that any odd months above a year must be struck out altogether in making a claim to a pension, and so, in order to avoid any loss in that direction, Mr Gisborne, writing on the 18th of January sagely recommends that, 'as another complete year of my service will end on the 12th July next, 1 have the honour to request that, in consideration of all tbe circumstances, of my official services, my leave of absence may be so far extended as to meet tbat date, and thus allow me to count another year-? service in the calculation of my reriring pension.' and he goes on to say,' Under these circu-stances it seems to me that the extension of leave so as to include my current year of service will prevent the sacrifice of the eight months of the year during which I have actually served.' This leave of absence was to be on full pay of £800 a year." In the opinion of the Press, in which we think all will agree, tbe House bas done no more than its duty in resolving tbat it is undesirable that any decision Bhould be come to on Dr Pollen's pension until the circumstances under which pensions were granted to Sir William Fitzherbert and Mr Gisborne had also been considered and reported upon by tbe Public Accounts Committee.