The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-29 00:00:00

UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.

Mr. FERRAND asked the President of the Poor Law
Board to name the day on which he would proceed with
the Union Chargeability Bill ; and whether he would
bring it on as the first order of the day, so as to allow a
full discussion on the effect it would have in the manu-
facturing districts.

Mr. VILLIERS said he was anxious that no delay
should take place with respect to this bill. He hoped next
week to be able to fix the day for going into committee.
Mr. FERRAND asked whether it would be taken as the
first order of the day ?

Mr. VILLIERS said it was brought on as early as pos-
sible.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

Lord J. MANNERS asked what business would be taken
on Monday next.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said th•
first business on Monday would be the address to be moved
by his noble friend (Lord Palmerston). After that the
Bank Notes Issue Bill would be taken. On Thurs day he
proposed to proceed with the (Budget) resolutions laid on
the table last night.
SALARIES OF CUSTOM-HOUSE OFFICERS.

Mr. HENNESSY rose to move that a select committee
be appointed to inquire into the grievances referred to in
the petition of the mayor, merchants, shipowners,and com-
mercial traders of Liverpool, which was presented on 20th
March last, with reference to the outdoor officers of Cus-
toms ; that the petitions from the Lord Mayor, merchants,
and shipowners of London, from the Lord Mayor and mer-
chants of Dublin, from the Lord Provost and merchants of
Edinburgh and Leith, and from the Mayor, merchants, and
shipowners of Hull be referred to the committee. The hon.
member said that the petition from Liverpool had been
signed by all the principal traders of the port ; and the
allegations which it contained were, that by reason of the
changes introduced by the Government in 1860, the Cus-
tom-house officers of Liverpool had been deprived of
certain chances of promotion enjoyed by them previously ;
and that while their hours of labour had been increased,
no corresponding increase had taken place in their pay.
Great and general discontent existed amongst these ser-
vants of the public, who numbered, he might observe,
as many as 3,000 ; and undoubtedly that discontent was
owing to the changes introduced by the present Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. In the report issued by the Com-
missioners of Cristoms after the effect of the changes of
1860 had been experienced, there was full recognition of
the fact that the duties of the out-door officers of customs
were every day becoming more arduous. Should the com-
mittee be granted, ho pledged himself to substantiate all
the allegations contained in the Liverpool petition.
Mr. Alderman ROSE said that many of his constituents
were interested in this question, and he therefore ventured
to address a few words to the house on the subject. A series
of years of prosperity, such as the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had ably expatiated upon on the previous even-
ing, was in marked contrast to the state of the public offi-
cers in this department. The Custom-house officers were
men of character—(hear, hear)—and were entrusted with a
very large amount of property, and they ought to be fairly
paid for their services. The salaries of the merchants'
clerks of London and LiVerpool had been doubled during
the last ten years, but the pay of these officers had remained
stationary during that period. He hoped the house would
institute the proposed inquiry.
Mr. BAINES said he had been entrusted with a petition
from merchants connected with the inland bonding port of
Leeds, confirmatory of all the statements which had been
made in the petitions mentioned by the hon. member for
the King's County. The petitioners prayed for an increase
of their salaries, which they averred were inadequate for
the comfortable maintenance of themselves and their fami-
lies, and in fact were so small as to present a temptation to
depart from the line of duty.
Mr. H. BERKELEY wished to say a few words in favour
of the claims of these officers, who were a hard-worked and
ill-paid body of men, put in places of great trust. (Hear,
hear.). He thought the Government ought to give some
pledge that the claims of these deserving officers should
be taken into consideration.
Mr. CAVE stated that ho had presented a petition from
the merchants and traders of Shoreham with reference to
the grievances complained of by these officers.
Mr. CLAY said he should be wanting in gratitude if he
did not bear his testimony to the attention given some
time ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
Secretary of the Treasury to the case brought under their
notice—an attention so minute and conscientious that he
had since always recommended complainers who had a good
case to take it to the right hon. gentlemen, and those who
had a bad one to take it to anybody else. (Hear, hear, and
a laugh.) A very great boon had been extended to this
class of officers by giving over to the Customs the whole of
the patronage before enjoyed by the Treasury to the highest
offices in the outdoor service of the country, but unfortu-
nately it did not touch those who had the greatest cause of
complaint. He would suggest to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer that it would be well that the Custom House
patronage should be given to those officers by strict senio-
rity, coupled with competence and good character. He
thought the time was near at hand when the Government
would have to entertain the much larger question of in-
creasing the salaries of all the lower grades of the public

service.
Mr.HORSFALL said he had been prevented by the forms
of the house from presenting a petition that evening from
Liverpool in favour of the claims of those officers. He
should regret exceedingly if, after the expression of opinion
by the house, the Government should resist the motion for
inquiry. It was well known that there was a feeling of
dissatisfaction among those men, and if the appointment of
the committee would tend to remove that dissatisfaction,
it would be well to grant it. He only regretted that the hon.
member did not extend his motion so as to include the offi-
cers of the indoor as well as the outdoor department.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that there was a clear and broad distinction between the
case of public officers who were able to allege that their
reasonable expectations—grounded upon the rules of the
public service, and upon which they had entered that ser-
vice—had been frustrated and disappointed by the acts of
the Government, and that put by the hon. member for
the King's County. He admitted that the former was a
grievance which it was the duty of the Government to
inquire into ; but that was a question comparatively nar-
row when contrasted with the motion, which was one of
first-rate importance. It was not because the representa-
tives of several parts of the country had risen in a matter
touching directly and indirectly the interests of many
of their constituents, and which were interests in many
cases adverse to those of the country at large—(cries
of No no)—it was not because those hon. members sup-
ported the motion that his hon. friend was entitled to say
that there had been an expression of opinion in favour of
it on the part of the house. The real question at issue had
been fairly and ingenuously exhibited by the hon. mem-
bers for Hull and Liverpool, and it was this—whether
the house, composed of representatives of the people, were
prepared to hear, one by one, all classes of persons em-
ployed in the public service coming forward for an increase
of pay and emolument at the very time when the number
of competent candidates for admission was far beyond the
number which could be accommodated in any one depart-
ment. Now, if there were one duty which more than
another belonged to the Executive Government, it was that
it should be held responsible for the pay and emoluments
of the public service, and he trusted the house would at all
times be reluctant to take that peculiar duty out of the
hands of the Government. Nothing could tend more to

disorganise the public service, or to lower the character of
this great assembly. With regard to the case mentioned

by the hon. member for the King's County, it was true that

between 1860-64 the Commissioners of Customs had re-

ported that, with regard to certain classes of officers, they
had suffered injury as to their prospects of promotion, and
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted that such a

grievance was a fair subject for inquiry. The two principal
grievances complained of were the existence of day pay and
the injury done to the prospects of promotion. With regard
to the day pay, the hon. member for Hull had shown that
a fixed amount had been substituted for it. As to prospects
of promotion, how did the matter stand ? The Government
had endeavoured to open to this class of officers prospects
of promotion not only equal but superior to those they en-
joyed before 1860 ; for now the outdoor officers could be
promoted to the class of examining officers, and that was a
great improvement in their position. There was this con-
dition, that as the labours of the outdoor officers were
mostly manual and mechanical, while the duties of the in-
door officers were intellectual, it was required that outdoor
officers, before they were promoted to the indoor depart-
ment, should undergo an examination. lie admitted, as
a general rule, competitive exauainations:previous to admis-