HC Deb 30 June 1854 vol 134 cc947-57

On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he rose in pursuance of a notice which stood on the paper in his name, to request the attention of Her Majesty's Government and of the House of Commons to the circumstances under which the usual vote of 600l. for the support of the Bishopric of New Zealand had been removed from the Estimates this year. The House might recollect that on Monday evening, when the Colonial Estimates in reference to New Zealand were under consideration, he had addressed a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey), in consequence of certain information which had reached him only during the sitting of the House; and it was in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department that he felt bound to call the attention of the House to the subject again. The answer of the right hon. Baronet was very short, and in substance amounted to this—that he himself (Sir J. Pakington), when he had the honour of holding the seals of the Colonial Office, had been in some degree the cause of this stoppage of the allowance to the Bishop of New Zealand, in consequence of a statement which he had made when the Colonial Estimates were under consideration in 1852. And, in the next place, the right hon. Gentleman said, that this was not a new step, for the salary of the Bishop had been stopped last year, and was removed from the Estimates of 1853. Now, with regard to the first part of that answer, namely, the reference to his (Sir J. Pakington's) statement in 1852, and as to its furnishing any reason whatever for the reduction made in this Estimate, he begged to say that he held in his hand the volume of Hansard in which his answer appeared—and though he did not wish to trouble the House with reading his statement on the occasion, still if any hon. Gentleman would refer to it he would find that nothing which had fallen from him could have led in any way to the abrupt reduction of this allowance to the Bishop of New Zealand; or show on his part the least intention, or made it the least incumbent on those who succeeded him in office, to place the Bishop in the position in which he now stood. And he might be allowed in addition to this to state in the most emphatic manner, that while he had the honour of acting as Secretary for the Colonial Department, nothing in the world would have induced him to be a party to the reduction of this allowance in the manner or at the moment in which it took place. Having made this declaration, he would now pass from this not very important part of the question, to the very much more important statement of the right hon. Baronet, namely, that the allowance did not appear in the Estimates of 1853, and, therefore, that it was not now stopped for the first time. Now he was sure the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion did not intend to mislead the House or create any erroneous impression. Nevertheless, while he (Sir J. Pakington) admitted that what he had said was literally correct, namely, that the Vote did not appear in the Estimates for 1853, he did mislead the House as to the real facts which had occurred, and he did mislead him (Sir J. Pakington). This (Sir J. Pakington's) statement to the House, on the authority of a friend of his, had been, that without any warning—without any notice—the Bishop of New Zea- land had received a private letter from a member of the Colonial Office, intimating to him the abrupt cessation of his salary. That was, in substance, his statement. However, the right hon. Gentleman having stated that the Vote had been removed—not for the first time this year—that there was nothing new in the circumstance of its disappearance, as it had not appeared in the Estimates for 1853—his impression naturally was that he had been misinformed on the matter, that he had spoken under some erroneous impression, and therefore he said nothing more in reference to it. However, under such circumstances, he had made it his duty to inquire what the facts of the case really were. And here he might be allowed to acid, that his inquiries had not been addressed to the Bishop in person, as such a course might have been deemed wanting in proper delicacy of feeling—but he had addressed his inquiries to a gentleman whom he knew to be a friend of the Bishop's, and whom he knew to enjoy his confidence. The result of his inquiries was to ascertain that the statement which he had made to the House the other evening was substantially correct; and he held in his hand a written memorandum from the Bishop of New Zealand in reference to the subject. The Vote of 600l. did not appear in the Estimate of 1853; but it should be remembered, that from the time when the allowance of 600l. a year was first established in 1842, the mode of payment Lad always been through the authorities of the colony—the payment never having been made directly by Her Majesty's Government at home. The memorandum of the Bishop was in these words: The salary has been always paid through the colonial treasury, to avoid the difficulty of proving that the bishop was alive, and has been always paid in the same manner from 1841 down to the present time, including, of course, last year. So that, although the vote did not appear in the Estimates of last year, in consequence, he presumed, of the mode of payment which had been adopted, the colony had paid the salary as usual, and the bishop had received it as usual. Now, this gave rise to two questions—first, why this salary was abruptly stopped in the year 1853; and secondly, why, if it had been the intention of the Government to remove the Vote from the Estimates of 1853, no notice had been sent either to the Bishop of New Zealand, or to the authorities of the colony, of the change which had taken place. Well, and what is the next statement which he had made? Why, that the bishop had had no notice whatever of the intention to withdraw the usual annual Vote. The first notice of any intention to withdraw it was given by a private letter from the Colonial Office, dated June, 1854, which was not received until the 25th of this month. On this the bishop wrote to know whether that letter was official; whereupon he received an answer promising an official communication, but up to that moment no such official communication had been received. Such, then, were the facts of the case—the stoppage had never been communicated to the bishop—it had never been communicated to the colony, and in consequence of no such communication having taken place, it appeared that the bishop had received his income as usual, and he never received any intimation whatever, until the 25th of the present month, that the salary conceded to him had not been included in the Estimates. Now, he was quite aware that there were many Gentlemen in that House who were of opinion that charges for the maintenance of colonial bishoprics of the Established Church ought not to be defrayed from the general funds of the country; but he believed there was no one, no matter how strongly he might entertain that opinion, who would not feel that in the case of the Bishop of New Zealand, as in the case of other public officers, at least the rules of fairness and courtesy ought to be adhered to. The first occasion, he belived—speaking from memory—on which objections were urged in this House to defraying the salaries of colonial bishops was in case of the bishoprics of Canada. A good deal of debate took place about the years 1831 or 1832 with regard to this payment, and a great change consequently took place. That change was this—the Government, yielding to the objections entertained against the payment being defrayed from the revenues of this country, consented that it should cease, but subject to the understanding that their salaries were to be continued during the lives of the existing receivers. Now, according to this rule, though the question of policy as to payment or nonpayment might be raised, still no one could take exception to the perfect fairness of the decision. He could not believe that Her Majesty's Government had the smallest intention of acting with unfairness towards so distinguished a man as the Bishop of New Zealand, and therefore let him call attention to the circum- stances under which his appointment took place. The noble Lord the President of the Council (Lord J. Russell) would recollect that it was at his suggestion—in fact, it was at the time the noble Lord held the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, under the administration of Lord Melbourne, and towards the close of that administration—the noble Lord determined that the episcopacy ought to be extended to our colonies. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Government of the day, several additions were made to the episcopacy, and amongst the others was that of the bishopric of New Zealand. And it was at the noble Lord's own request that the Bishop of New Zealand was appointed to that see, and it was at his suggestion that the salary of 600l. was voted in the estimates, and so continued to be every year since, up to last year. Now he would not again dwell upon the personal qualities of the bishop; what his feelings were on that point he had stated on Monday night; and the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had re-echoed his sentiments. But he would put it to the Government whether it was right that a man whose ability and capacity were as great as his character was remarkable for its purity and exemplariness, that a man with such prospects as were ensured to him by his great talents, who having abandoned his country had gone to the other side of the globe to minister to the spiritual necessities of his scattered countrymen, and of the heathen population of the colony, receiving for his services the miserable pittance of 600l. a year—was it right or decorous, he would ask, that the income of such a man should be taken away from him at a day's notice, without any warning, or without the courtesy being shown him of a communication as to the intentions of the Government? He was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman who had so recently succeeded to the Colonial Department must be personally cleared of any part in the transaction, and he was equally convinced that the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) was the last man to intend any disrespect or any discourtesy to such a Prelate, and therefore he could not help thinking that there must be some misapprehension in the matter, and that the Government had been acting under some mistake or misapprehension. If that were so, he hoped that justice would yet be done. He had stated the arrangement which was come to in the case of the Canada bishops—namely, that the existing bishops should hold their incomes for their lives; though he did not mean to say that in all cases as a matter of right that rule ought to be followed; for he found that there were several bishops of the Church of England in the Colonies who at one time were paid through the Estimates, but whose salaries had gradually disappeared from them; but at the same time, he believed he was right in stating that their names had not so disappeared until some other arrangement had been made for them, and until some equivalent was granted. And he would appeal to the Government to adopt a similar course in this case. He would repeat, he had had no communication whatever with the Bishop of New Zealand himself on this subject. The Bishop of New Zealand, it was well known, was a man of the greatest disinterestedness; indeed, he believed the Government had had a striking proof recently of his devotedness to his duty; so much so, that he would say that the bishop was desirous of persevering in his position unremunerated by any salary from the Government. That, however, was not the question involved; the question was, not what might be the individual feelings of a right rev. Prelate—not what might be due to the dignity and position of the Bishop of New Zealand, but what was due to national faith and fair dealing—between Parliament and a person in such an exalted position. He believed he had now correctly stated the facts of the case; but they appeared to be so inconsistent with good faith, and so practically inconsistent, that he must express a strong hope that the Government would reconsider their decision, and continue the allowance to the bishop—not so long as he held his bishopric, but until some arrangement had been made which might provide for him in a satisfactory manner a sufficient income. He trusted, then, that some explanation of the circumstances would be offered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he hoped it would be quite unnecessary for him to state that no possible disrespect could be intended to the Bishop of New Zealand, for he believed every Member of the Government entirely approved of the conduct of the bishop in his diocese. And, independently of the zeal which he had shown in the management of his bishopric, he might add that he had given proof of the greatest disinterestedness, so far as pecuniary considerations were concerned. But the step which had been taken by the Government had no reference whatever to in- dividual character or position, but resulted from the general arrangements which had been decided on regarding the public expenditure. Now he would repeat the facts which he had stated the other night. He had stated then, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) that he was under a misapprehension in supposing that the Vote was withdrawn for the first time in 1854; and in proof of that he had called attention to a despatch addressed in 1851 by the Governor of New Zealand to the Secretary of State. In that despatch, dated 15th September, 1851, Governor Grey said— He thought he might come to the conclusion that the colony had attained a financial position that would enable it, with the assistance of a grant from Parliament of 10,000l. in 1852, and 5,000l. in 1853, to defray all its expenses; but that from and after that period it would require no farther pecuniary aid from Great Britain. In the Estimates for the year 1852, therefore, under the directions of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Vote for the whole civil expenditure of New Zealand was, in accordance with the opinion of the Governor, reduced to a sum of 10,000l. But that was not all; for the right hon. Gentleman appended a note to the Estimate, giving the substance of the Governor's despatch, and stating that after 1853 no further aid would be required out of the revenues of this country for the colony. In 1853 the Vote was reduced to a sum of 5,000l., to defray the salaries of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, the Judges, and Attorney General, with a sum of 300l. to pay the salaries of the clerk to the Council. To that Vote a note was appended to the effect that it was the last occasion when the Vote would be submitted to Parliament in an Estimate for the civil establishments of New Zealand. Shortly after he (Sir G. Grey) received the seals of the Colonial Department his attention was called to the subject by a despatch from the Governor of New Zealand, which alluded to the amount of the salary that the bishop might draw during his leave of absence in this country—a despatch which occasioned him some surprise, as it scented the Governor was not aware of the withdrawal of the Vote from the Estimate. In consequence of this he requested an interview with the Governor of New Zealand, who was 310 in this country, pointed out to him the note appended to the Estimate of last year, and asked him the reason of his being under a misapprehension. The Governor in reply said he could only ac- count for it by the fact of his having left the colony almost immediately after the Estimate of last year arrived there; that his attention had not been specifically directed to the subject, and that he was not aware that the bishop's income of 600l. was not comprised in the Vote of 5,000. On ascertaining this he felt, that as the Vote had been twice omitted from the Estimates, in 1853 and 1854, and as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) had himself given Parliament, reason to expect that it would disappear altogether from the Estimates in 1854, he could not come to the House of Commons and ask them, on grounds that would be satisfactory either to them, or to himself, to replace the Vote on the Estimates, and so rescind the decision of his predecessor in office, and what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman. What he did was this, he desired that a despatch should be prepared to the acting Governor of New Zealand, calling his attention to the question, and requesting him to submit to the Legislature of that colony the propriety of making some provision in the colony itself for a Vote which, with many other items, had for a long time been defrayed by the liberality of the British Parliament when the colony was unable to bear its own expenses. At the same time, knowing that the bishop was about to resign a sum of 600l. a year from another source, and anxious that he should not do so without knowing that the sum hitherto voted by Parliament would not in future be granted, he spoke to Mr. Merivale, and that gentleman communicated with the bishop upon the subject. Much of the misapprehension upon this subject had probably arisen from the fact that the bishop and the Governor arrived in England last year so soon after the Estimates were received in the colony that they hardly knew how they stood. Under the impression that the bishop's salary was included in these Estimates, it was paid out of funds which were at the disposal of the Governor, and it could not, therefore, be said to have terminated abruptly. He trusted that he had now given satisfactory reasons why no Vote for the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand appeared in the Estimates; but the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had raised a higher question, on which he must say a few words. The right hon. Baronet had said that a salary once granted ought to endure for the life of the bishop to whom it was granted. This was not a sound Parliamentary doctrine. If a colony were able to bear its own expenditure, there was no reason why the ecclesiastical any more than any portion of the civil expenditure should fall on this country. In this instance, there was the less reason why such should be the case, because he believed that, on account of the deserved esteem and popularity in which the Bishop of New Zealand was held in the colony, there would be no difficulty on the part of the Colonial Legislature in providing a salary for that right rev. Prelate. If, however, the right hon. Baronet entertained the opinion that the salary ought to be voted during the life of the present bishop, he (Sir G. Grey) regretted the incautious language of the note to the Estimate of 1852, and of the speech which the right hon. Baronet addressed to the House on the subject. If he had thought that good faith required the continuance of this salary, it would have been but fair of him to have stated then that, though the rest of the Vote would disappear in 1854, this item of 600l. must still remain upon the Estimates.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that it was quite certain that through some neglect or misapprehension of what was going to take place, a great hardship, to say the least of it, had been perpetrated upon the Bishop of New Zealand. He bad listened attentively to the statements of his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, and the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, and it appeared to him that an intimation had been made to the House, but not to the colony or to the Bishop of New Zealand, that the Estimates which had usually been granted for the Civil Service of that colony would be reduced in 1853, and come to an end in 1854. The censequence was, that, so far as the House of Commons was concerned, the Bishop of New Zealand ceased to obtain the salary of 600l. a year, which had been paid to him from the time of his appointment up to the present moment. The House never granted the money last Session; but it was paid to the bishop nevertheless, and he was under the impression that the salary was to be continued. But observe the fact—that neither last year nor during the present year, until a week ago, had any intimation been made to the bishop that the salary, which had been paid to him and continued for a long series of years, was about to be withdrawn by Parliament. Until a week ago no such intimation was given. Now, he put it to the House whether, in the case of any civil servant of the Crown, they would withdraw from an an- nual vote, a salary from that civil servant without any notice whatever? He must say that, until provision was made by the Colonial Legislature for the Bishop of New Zealand, the salary ought not to be withdrawn at all. Sure he was that, upon the case stated by Government themselves, it ought not to be withdrawn during the present year. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would re-consider the question and see if a Supplemental Estimate might not be laid on the table for the purpose of continuing, at any rate for the present year, the salary which had been so unexpectedly and, as his right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) had truly said, abruptly taken from the Bishop of New Zealand.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought it had been well understood that the colonial bishops should not be paid out of the public funds, but that provision should be made for them by the voluntary contribution of the colony where the services were rendered. When the colony was first formed this country made great sacrifices in contributing large sums towards the salaries of its public officers, but last year a promise was given that this particular item should be withdrawn from the Estimates. He was glad to find that the Government had adhered to that promise, and he had no doubt that the bishop was aware of the proceedings which took place last year. and knew that the vote would be withdrawn. A large majority of the people of this country did not belong to the Church of England at all, and he objected to their being compelled to submit to the degradation of contributing towards the support of the bishops and clergy of a Church from which they derived no benefit.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he regretted very much that there had been any misapprehension upon the subject, and that the Bishop of New Zealand should not have been properly acquainted with the intention of Government to withdraw this Vote. The salary was first granted to the Bishop of New Zealand some years ago, when he (Lord J. Russell) was Secretary for the Colonies, and, at the time, it was proposed, he had thought it right to inform the bishop of his intention to propose it, and to state at the same time that it was a sum of money which was not intended to he permanently added to the, Estimates. In 1852 the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) stated that in 1854 the vote for New Zealand would cease, and he (Lord J. Russell) should have thought that this would have been sufficient notice to the bishop on the subject of his salary. The misapprehension which had existed seemed to have been caused by the departure of the governor and the bishop from the Colony so soon after the arrival of the Estimates, and, while regretting the existence of that misapprehension, he could not see that it was sufficient ground for introducing a Supplemental Estimate for this salary.

Subject dropped.

Back to