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 the
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 CITSTOM-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 Customs 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, he 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 he had presented a petition from
the merchants and traders of Shoreham with referentr t.
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. HORS FALL 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 togrant 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 1860-61 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

pieTances complained of were the existence of day pay and

he injury done to the prospects of promotion. With regard

n 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 180 ; 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. He admitted, ar
a general rule, competitive examinations:previous to admis-

sion to the public service, but not for the purpose of regu-
lating promotion afterwards. But this, however, was an
exceptional case, for it was, in point of fact, a transfer from
one office to another. The hon. member said that hard-
ships had arisen to this Blass of persons, because they had
not had their fair share of promotion. The minute having
only been issued in April last, the question had not yet
been brought before the Treasury, because the report from
the Custom House had not yet been received. It was
therefore a new question ; and he would grant to his hon.
friend that, if it should be proved those gentlemen had not
had their fair share of promotion, and had suffered in con-
sequence of the change made in 1860, then the Government
would be bound to make compensation. They were at
this very time considering that same matter with reference
to the indoor officers. There was another point referred
to by the hon. member which called for some attention on
the part of the Government, namely, that the officers at
the water side complained that their hours of labour had
been lengthened without any increase of pay. He could
only say it was a matter which had not come within his
knowledge, but he would cause inquiry to be made. At
the same time, he could not admit that it was a grievance,
because those officers had contracted for service generally,
and not for any number of hours. They had been told
that if they granted this motion they could not stop there.
This committee was for the wholesale augmentation of the
pay and emoluments in one branch of the public service ;
but if they granted it in one case they should do it in all
departments of the public service, from Customs to Excise
and Post Office ; nor could they stop at the civil service,
but should also extend the operation to the naval and mi-
litary departments. He did not believe that any House of
Commons, whether a dying one or one just born, would
involve itself in consequences so mischievous. (Hear,
hear.)

The O'DONOGHLT begged to state that he had also
been prevented by the forms of the House from present-
ing that evening a petition from the merchants and traders
of Tralee in favour of the motion.
Mr. LYALL called attention to the great inequality of
the remuneration of out-door officers at the outports, and
it was impossible for merchants and shipowners to come in
contact with them without feeling how miserably they
were paid.

Mr. GOSCHEN appealed to the hon. member for King's
County, now that he had got all he wanted, to withdraw
his motion. (Mr. Hennessy intimated that he had got
nothing whatever.) The hon. member said that he had got
nothing, but he had got a promise from the right hon.
gentleman to look into all cases of grievance arising from
the promotion cf these officers. There were two separate
interests involved in the question—first, an increase of pay,
and secondlyi compensation for the loss of promotion. For
the increase of pay, he thought the hon. member would not
be able to carry his motion ; and it would be hard, by
the loss of the-motion, to deprive these officers of the
Customs of compensation for the loss of promotion. Under
the circumstances, he thought the hon. member would do
wisely to withdraw his motion, reserving free action to
bring the matter forward again if the Chancellor of the
Exchequer did not redeem the pledge.

Mr. DUNLOP was sorry the motion had been brought
forward, though he concurred in the statement of the
hardships to which these officers were subjected.

The house divided—
For the motion 69
Against it ,so
Majority ... —ll

The motion was therefore lost.
SPIRIT DUTIES IN IRELAND.

Mr. P. lIRQI7HART then rose to move a select com-
mittee to inquire into the operation of the augmented
spirit duties in Ireland. The hon. member quoted the
evidence of a number of witnesses before the committee on
the taxation of Ireland in support of the proposition, when
the attention of the Speaker was called to_the fact that 40
members were not present.

The house, after the expiration of the usual time, was
counted, and, as the requisite number was not present, it
adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

The Story of the Patent-Office.

-a --

In 1833 Mr. Edmunds, thenthe Lord Chancellor's
pursebearer, was appointed Clerk of the Patents,
with a salary of £250 a-year, and an allowance of
£l5O a-year to pay the expenses of the office. It
was his duty to receive the fees payable at the office
and pay the chief part of them into the Exchequer,
another part (formerly appropriated to the use of
the Lord Chancellor) to the Accountant-General of
the Court of Chancery, and another part of the
Clerk of the Hanaper, the fees to be paid over by
him every quarter and the payments verified by affi-
davit The fees received were considerable ;in some
years they exceeded £9,000. Still larger sums were
paid into office every year for stamps to be procured
and affixed to instruments which had to pass the
Great Seal. In fact, public money, amounting in
one year to £30,000; and in the last 30 years to
more than £461,000, passed through the hands of
Mr. Edmunds, or rather of his clerk, Mr. Ruscoe,
for Mr. Edmunds never performed the duties of
the office in person ; neither did he ever pay any-
thing to Mr. Ruscoe for performing them for
him. Until this latter obtained an official salary,
in 1852 (when the Patent Law Amendment Act
came into force and Mr. Edmunds also had an
additional salary of £6OO a-year), Mr. Ruscoe's
emolument appears to have consisted of public
muney kupb bauk. 4rom thc avrct umein wIa.UG
just cause, with some small gratuities from some of
the patent agents, and the profit upon boxes which
he sold for containing patents. Neither did Mr.
Edmunds ever pay any portion of the cost of the
parchment or ot the expenses attending the prepa-
ration of charters and patents, or any other of the
expenses of the office ; they were all defrayed by
Mr. Ruscoe out of the stamp discounts which be-
longed to the Government, and the sums which he
deducted from the fees received for the Government.
In the performance of his duties Mr. Ruscoe was
subjected to little or no superintendence or control
by Mr. Edmunds, and no proper accounts of the
receipts and payments of the moneypassing through
the office have been kept. The fee books previous
to 1839 have been lost or destroyed, and it is stated
that no fee book was kept between 1852 and 1857.
Under these circumstances it has been found neces-
sary in the investigation which has recently taken
place to resort to other sources of information ; but
the gentlemen who conducted the investigation, and
from whose report all our statements are taken—
Mr. Greenwood, Q.C., and Mr. Hindmarch, Q.C.
—are confident that Mr. Edmunds is chargeable
with sums received for fees to a greater amount
than is shown by the account they have thus been
enabled to make out, and that fees have been re-
ceived of which no account has been kept in the
office, because during the investigation Mr. Ed-
munds has sent in to the Treasury an account in
which a larger receipt of fees is acknowledged in
some years than the amount of which they had been
able to obtain any particulars.

In order to show more clearly the irregularities
and deficiencies of Mr. Edmunds, an account has
been prepared containing on the debit side of it the
whole of the fees payable to the Exchequer which
it has been ascertained that Mr. Edmunds has re-
ceived in every quarter of a year, grouping together
the fees received in two or more quarters, where
necessary, so as to accord with the payments made
by Mr. Edmunds from time to time into the Ex-
chequer, which are on the credit side of the account.
For Mr. Edmunds soon became very irregular in
his payments into the Exchequer, sometimes making
payments for two, three, or even five quarters at
one time, instead of quarterly as required by the act
of Parliament. Mr. Ruscoe made up at first
monthly and afterwards every quarter an account
of his receipts and gave or sent it to Mr. Edmunds,
paying to him or into his "Patent-office account"
at Coutts's the money which the accounts showed
to be payable to him, so that the fees received in
each quarter of a year were always in Mr. Ed-
munds's hands within a few days after the end of
the quarter ; but Mr. Edmunds delayed his pay-
ments of them into the Exchequer for longer and
longer periods after he had received them from Mr.
Ruscoe. Thus his payment on account of fees re-
ceived in all the five quarters ending in March,
1839, was not made until August, 1839 ; his pay-
ment on account of the two quarters ending in De-
cember, 1816, was made in April, 1848 ; his pay-
ment on account of the two quarters ending in
December, 1850, was not made until August, 1852,
which was the last payment made to the Exchequer
by Mr. Edmunds previously to the discovery in
1864 of his defalcations. And with regard to the
amount of the sums which Mr. Edmunds paid into
the Exchequer, it appears that the first few pay-
ments were correct, or nearly so, but afterwards
they became frequently less in amount than the
fees actually received, and occasionally the de-
ficiencies were very considerable. Thus the

fees payable into the Consolidated Fund for

the three quarters ending December, 1837,
amounted to £1,634, but the sum of £1,402 only
was paid into the Exchequer. The fees for two