The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-05 00:00:00

THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEALAND.

On the motion of Sir d:GREY, that the house at its
rising adjourn till Monday,
SirJ. PAKINGTON rose and said he could not per-
mit the session to close without calling the attention of
the house to this subject. When the bishop wao first
appointed, there was no distinct understanding that the
salary was to continue for life, and he hail been for
the last two years deprived of it. He thought it was
neither creditable nor honourable that this state of things
should contantie ; and if the sa'ary was not restored he
should feel it his duty next session to bring forward a
measure for its repayment: He therefore begged to ask
the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was
the intention of the Government to make any arrange•
ment for restoring to the Bishop of New Zealand the
moderate and necessary incmie ,of 600/. per annum,'
which was provided for him when he ..first accepted the
p )sitioa he bad so well filled, and was continued till the
last two years ?

Mr. LA.BOUCHERE said he approached the ques-
tion with pain, and concern, believing the bishop had
been hardly treated ' and that pain was aggravated by
tire high-minded and disinterested conduct of the right
rev. prelate. The salary had been •disemtinued for
three
,years. The bishopric of Now Zealand was
founded in 1841, and he was placed on the civil list
at a salary of 6001.: per annum. Since 1852, when the
right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) was Cdonial Se-.
cretary, the salary had been omitted from the estimates.
On that occasion, in reply to a question from Ur. .W.
Williams, the right hon. baronet said that after that
year the grant of 6001. for the Bishop would not beaskedj
..fOr in the estimates, because the-colony would in future
provide the necessary funds for paying the bishop, and the
salary had, in consequence of that pledge, been omitted
from the estimates. This country had endeavoured to-
induce the colony of New Zealand to pay the. 600/. per
annum, but the Government of that country refused to
do so. He (Mr. Labouchere) should be sorry to find
the right rev. prelate was a sufferer from the regu-
lation 'he bad referred to, and he thought he would not,
becaus:e the Churchmen of New Zealand were raising
funds for the establishment of- fresh bishoprics, and he
supposed they would make the necessary provision for
the present *bishop before establishing the new ones.
The Bishop of New Zealand left this country without ,
any stipulation that he should continue to receive this
money, but he had reason to expect it.. He (Ur. Labouchere)
thought ,that after the pledge given by the right hon.
bat. the Government could not propose the continu-
ance of the payment of 6001. per annum to the Bishop.
Mr., GLADSTONE thought that under the circum-
stances the house ought to empower the Government to
renew the grant rather than let the Bishop depend on
voluntary donations for support:
Mr. W. W/LLTAMS protested again-t this question
beint, so continually brought before the house, and ob
jectedp to this country being called on to support the
relgieue establishments of the colonies.
' Mr. DISRAELI said the case ought to be considered
with regard ti the claims of the individual rather than
en the, principle of their supporting the Colonial Church.
The question the house ought to consider was whether
any engagement was made with the Bishop of New Zea-
land at the time he accepted the office, because,
if so, it ought to be carried out. A mistake appeared
to have' arisen with regard to the *statement
of Sir J. Pakir,gton in 1852 ; and on a reference to
Hansard be found that the right hon. baronet, so far
from making a distinct pledge that this vote should not
be repeated, he foUndthe right hon. baronet commenced
his statement by saying he " was averse to giving any
distinct pledge," and further on, that " probably after
this year no further grant would be required."
Sir G. GREY' supported -the views of the Colonial
Secretary (Ur. Laboucliere) with reference to the iin
plied if not actual pledge of the right hon. bart. that
this salary should not be continued. _

Mr. ROEBUCK gaiithaiii;;;Oblez lord (Lord Johil
Russell) fir,t appointed. the Bishop and then came to
the hotue t his salary. It being granted for 12 months
was no reason why it should be continued, and as
the ruble lord appointed the bishop it was his
place to pay his salary. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
He condemned the principle of endeavouring to spread
he English Church over the world at the expense of
this country, and said there cluld be no doubt. the
right bon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) when he made the
statement referred to in 1852, wished it to be taken at
the time as a pledge in order to get the amendment then
before the house passed.

-After 'Horne remarks from Mr. rriLbyARD, the subject
dropped.

MILITARY SURGERY.
, Bin COWAN asked what the intention of the Ge-
vernmenk was with regard to the professorship of
military surJery in the University of Edinburgh, which
became vacant about s:x months ago by the death of.
tee then professor?
. Mr: F. PEEL said it was not the. intention of the
Government to suppress the chair of military surgery
referred to, but he as unable to say when the vacancy
would be filled up. Arrangements had been made to
prevent any incouvenience arising from the de:ay.
PAYMASTERS OF IRISH CO,NSTABULARY,
Mr,; Sergeant O'BRIEN called the attention of the
house to the case of the late paymasters of Con-
stabuln,ry in Ireland, and to the compensation
allowed to them on the 'abolition of their oli.ce.
In 1836 these paymasters were appointed at a salary of
2001. per annum. In 1851 the offices were abolished,
and receivers appointed, and a pension was reran:
mended by the Lord-Lieutenant to be granted to the
paymasters of 150/, per annum to some, 1201. to others,
and 1001, to those who had been in the.service from 6
to 10 years each. The Government, however, instead of
concurring in that rec.immendat ion, gave pensions of oily
421. per annum to the first 36/. to-the secOnd ; and
gratuities of 1041,, 771., 63/., .51/ , and 31/., to the
youngest class. He asked for an explanation of the
award. '

Sir D. NORREYS believed that this was an- exceed-
ingly bard case. At the time it firet occurred he at
tempted-to obtain justice for 'the pnrtles, but failed ; and
he hoped the present appeal would be more successful.
Nothing could more illustrate the necessity for adminis-
trative reform than ,this case, for it was impossible
that the civil service of the country could be well
performed if any part of it were unjustly treated ; and
here they had an instance that such iojustice'could
ari.:e. Now that feeling should be removed, if the state
expected to be well served.

"Lord-MoNCKSaid it was not in his power to hold out
any hope that the decision already .clue so in this case
would he departed froin. The case was decided, by the
rreasnry as far 'back as 1351, and he need not refer to.,
the obvious inaonvenience that must arise • if one Trea-
sury B ,ard were to reverse the decision of its predeces-
sor. Under the act passed in the reign of Win. IV., 9.1
perannuation pensions were authnri,ed to be granted to
certain departments of tbe public service, the officers of
those departments contributing annually a portion Of
their salaries to keep up a fund out of which the pensionsshout] he.partly paid. In 1848 it Vr;ls proposed to place
these officials under the schedule of that act, but th,yde7.
Mined the offer, and when, some years after card, their
offices were abolished, the state made them all the com-
pensation it was in their powertogrant. The house would
take an unwise step if it did anything which should, be
at all calculated,to distUrir that arrangement.
Lord 'NAAS .protested against thil question being
,treated as one for superannuation ; it was. not a super-
annuation case' at al:, but purely one of abolition of office,
and for that abolition no adequate compensation had yet
been awarded. (Hear, hear.) • •
The subject then drooped.

gr. WILKINSON reminded the hon, gentleman that
all • tte Brea reforms which had been effected of late. years;
had been carried in opposition to persons of eiperienee,
'and therefore-be did not' think We hon. gentleman's re-
inarke on the Board of Trade- were well 'feunded. Free
trade and the penny poet hid' beerroptiosed, the one by
the
.grewers. of corn, and the other by the 'officials of the-
Post-office ; but both ineaSureshad• proved of the groat--
je-4 benefit to the community, notwithstanding the pre-
dictions of-those *hese (Minion might-have boon sup-
ee;ed deierving of attention. He thought the bill would"
turn out to be a moat" Valuable measure, and it was ca.-
mainly one generally 'desired by the trading °emu-tunny.
Mr. BIGGS, so far froni agreeing with the hone gen,'
tlernan (Nile Mintz), thought the bill the most valuable
one of the' session`"; and 'he enpealed to the house whe-
ther there was not a universal feeling in its favour. He'
regarded the Present laW a,s antiquated and eemi4marharic
—(s laugh)—and 'he must consider the BirMingham
school very doubtful authorities in monetary matters.'
.:tic. SPOONER, for his own pert, had conversed With
no one on the subject -of the bill who had not denoonced
it in the'term4 whi.ch'itThed been so preperly described
by the:hon. gentleman the member for Biriningbarn. He
might illustrate the working Of-the measure by suppositmg ,
a case which -waa very likely to occur if the bill beeamel
lawe Three persons entered into partnership, two openly
and the third secretly: The two first had. no money,
and the fonds. were advanced by a third, who thus gave
them a. status and a 'credit which they could never with:
out hie assistance have obtained. The secret partner,
having, tree access to the.books, diecovered that the thing
.waeenet going on well, and began cautiously to,with-
draw fol.; capital little by little. In that way he might
get back all he had advanced In addition to the sums
.he bad WithdraWnin the shape of profits. The part-
nership would then collapse, and the creditors who
11. d been seduced into trusting the firm on the faith of
appearances arising from the advances of the secret
partner _ would thus be defrauded of the money.
If the house went into committee ho should propose a
clause compelling any secret partner to refund ail he had
-withdrawn during the 3 years, previrms to
,the insolvency
of the firm of which be had been a member. (Cheers.)
. .Jr, ROEBUCK thought thatthie was not a bill tube
rejected in •the summary manner proposed., rie thought
clauses might be inserted' in committee, which by afford-,
,inn publicity with regard to the amount advanced-by the
eteeret partners, would at once secure the advantages or
oombinationeand at the same. time to prevent the'possi-
bility Of collusive partnerships by which the publiemight
be.eibeilited (Hear, hear.). , . • • - '-•
Mr.tGLYN,eatri the suggestion jest made' wasnue of
• the greate,t importanoe, and ii. the right loon, gentleman.
(Ur. Loire) would, promise to adept it he would,not else
j.-es-to the bill, otherwise he would use every effort in his
power to get rid of this most obnoxious measure. .He
• considered,that the evidence taken before the commit-
tee which had sat, on this subject clearly established
three Peinte. First., they undoubtedly proved that legis-
lation was necessary in consequence of the, repeal of the
usury laws. 2dly, They showed that an alteration in the
law of bankruptcy ought to be made contemporaneously
with the change is the law of partnership. Ofehatthe
bill before the house contained no trace. Lastly, the evi-
dence demonstrated the net essity there was for securing
publicity to these partnersEip contracts, to effect which
he (sir. Glyn) saw .no mode except registration. The
simple fact that the bill did not carry out the suggestions
of the-committee was a sufficient reason why he should
give it his opposition; bet that was not :all. . The right
"hon. gentleman told the house that his object was nut
twalter the law of partnership, but only to correct the
ffeet of,certain legal decisions. Now, as he (Mr.-Glyn)
had alWays looked upon the law of partnership as one of
the very fundamental principles of our commercial code,
he must say that that statement of the right honegen-
tlemani had very greatly astonished (Hear.) The
right hon. gentleman 'said that, if encouraged by the
houseehe would bring in a more extended bill on the sub-.
js:ct. [Mr. Lowe—l said I would move-for a select com-
mittee], The very thing. Let the right hon. gentleman
move for a select cornmitres, but let him 'not attempt to
force the present bill noon the house. In the potnenercial
circles io„which he (gr. Glyn) moved, whatever might
be thopght of the law of limited liability or the Joint
Stook Companies Act, there was but One sentiment; and
that an adverse one, with•regard, to the present bill. In
'every country where there was a law at all like the pre-
sent measure,. the bankruptcy law was mach more strin-
gent-tharieMr-otvii ; and he regarded an alteration in
that-law-oie a necessary -preluninaire before any attempt'
wag made- to 'relax the law of Partnership. •
Mr. 'MALIN-5 said the speech:of the hon, gentleman
was a rettegrade one ; for up to the present time be had
'alWaya come forward in support of the law of limited
liability. - The present bill he regarded as embodying.
that principle---a principle which he must remind the
'hon. eentleinan three out of five of the witnesses before
the Parliamentary committee were in favour of adoptibg.
AS-`fer the case put by his hon. friend.(gr. Spooner) he
would appeal to him whether instances of exactly the
seine Character were not of daily occurrence even under
the present law ? (Hear.) At present a man might lend
money at 30, 40, or even 50 per cent.; and be might at
any moment eome forward and sweep away all the pro:
'petty of the firm, an well as imprison the members of
which it was composed. Was the house prepared to go
bank, and re-enact the usury laws? If not, theyhad no
carte whatever against Alie bill. (Hear) The bill ern
isOdied three principles--first, it permitted a person to
lend money to a firm and receive a porsion-of the profits
instead of a fixed interest, without making him a part
nee., Secondly, iteenabled a man to remunerate a en.-
vant by a share. of the profits without making, him ti
member of the firm—ean enactment to which he believed
there was no objection at all (Hear, hear ) Lastly, it
enabled a partner to withdraw, leaving a portion a his
capital in the firm,' without thereby eontinning,,liable.
He (qr. Matins)`thought that all those prineipies.weee
ieaeonable, and he hoped the house woold at once go
into coininittee.-• (Hear, bear.)
Mr. CROSSLEY 'denied that the bill had any cone
itsetion whatever with the princleireof limited liability,
for a parteerunder its provisions would have no liability
at an.' (Loud cheets.), It was said that a man might
lend money at any rate of interest ; but there was this
o'ilerencEtin-the. two cases, that • a oreditor,..unlike•a.
partner, had no right to examine the books. (Hear.)
Mr. Bs% SS said that the hon. members (Mr. Spooper
and Glyn) bad no doubt correctly expressed the
.feeiinge ofruillionneires. He, hOWever,xvas aceneinted
with a large numbei of small capitalists, and they were
all in faVeur'nf the hilt (Hear, hear.) ' •
Mr; 0, BUTT Wes really surprme'ipd,tO hear his:learned
friend' (%.mtend that Oh bill' embodied the prinCiPle* Of
limited liability. Its prineiple, as lia-d• been truly ob
SFrverl, was no liability. (teems, ' ht,he.)- Ile would put
a vaee. SnpiiOve man adVancdd. to'a trader 1,0001. on
- condition of receiving :even-eighth's of the prefite he•
n- weld receive his money batik over and over again ; and
when the trader failed he would still he a creditor for
hon. the amount. • He wee as friendly to limited liability 'as
,ne ac- any one; but this' bill enabled persons to teke away the
()which .profits of bueieees without incurring airy liability at all.
.derstand Under the second clau,e, an agent.or factor who took a
was only share of profits was exempted from partnership liabili-
or, and the ties. The 'result of this would be that men. would en,
such eventie gage as agents, servants,' or fact-Ors, On snail 'terms 'as to
tand that the receive time greater share of the profits, arid' would 'eScape
the actual oc- liability m p ther. The thiM'elaiisr; 'was 'no less
tiii -
indication that chiesteuee'Woeld eertele.' retirieg -partner's' to' pay
Awcen the. Dutch theruselcee, iu the shape of prefit;,,"the capital they pto-
•