Mr. O'Connellpresented, according to notice, a Petition from certain Tide-waiters, and other officers, who had been removed from Ireland to the port of London in consequence of changes in the mode of collecting the revenue. The cases of individual hardship which arose from the system of misgovernment, which had so long prevailed in Ireland were sufficient to wring the hearts of all that had any feelings whatever. These persons stated, that, in 1825, they were removed from their own country, and were suffering the greatest privations, in consequence of their removal from a cheap country to a dear one. They were also very much surprised, as well as injured, to find that their salaries were to be reduced—those who received 80l. to 50l., and those who received 50l. to 40l., while the salaries of the English officers had been increased. The persons who were appointed to these offices in Ireland were of a more respectable rank of life than those in England. It was a general subject of complaint, that Irish public officers were not placed on an equality with English. He believed, too, that the petitioners had already suffered for getting up this petition. If this should turn out to be the case, he trusted the noble Lord would interfere on their behalf, and prevent such a persecution. The petitioners, he understood, were generally Protestants, but the difference of religious persuasion made no difference in his mind. His only desire was, to see equal justice dealt out to all.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, from the statement 25 of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not see that the Irish officers had any cause for complaint. He did not understand that there was any unfair distinction made between them and the English officers. With regard to salaries, surely the hon. and learned Gentleman did not expect that the Irish officers removed to London, in consequence of alterations in the collection of the revenue, were to be placed on a better footing than English officers performing the same duties: neither the House nor the public, would tolerate such a proceeding.
§ Mr. Leadersaid, this was another well-grounded complaint, shewing the unfairness with which every thing Irish was treated. It was understood there was to be an adequate proportion of the natives of the two countries employed in the collection of the Excise and Custom duties, but the orders were completely evaded, and the effect was, to throw a meritorious class of persons out of employment, who had contributed by their exertions to raise the revenue. It was insulting to the feelings of Irishmen, to see English Excise officers fully employed, while their own countrymen were overlooked. It was the duty of Irish Members to call the attention of Parliament to every improper measure which excited jealousy, heart-burnings, and discontent in Ireland. He trusted the complaints had only to be stated to be fully and effectually redressed
§ Mr. Spring Riceadmitted that the petitioners might suffer from the change of a cheap country for a dear one, but that, in all other respects, the heads of the department had instructions to treat the Irish and the English officers in the same manner, and to act with perfect impartiality. It must be recollected, also, that when officers were appointed, they were not named for employment in either country particularly, and the removal took place in consequence of the detection of several frauds in the collection of the revenue. If any case of injustice could be made out, the Treasury would be most anxious to remedy it.
§ The petition read.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the noble Lord remarked, there was no injustice in putting the officers of both countries on an equal footing, but the injustice was, reducing a man's salary from 80l. to 60l., although he had entered the public service with an understanding, that the former was to be 26 the amount of his remuneration, and to obtain which, he had sacrificed other prospects. The plea for this was, that the English officers had only the same amount of salary, but they knew this on entering the service, and their expectations were regulated accordingly. As for the orders that were given—to place all persons employed on a perfect equality—these were of no use, unless means were taken to see them duly executed; and he understood, on very good authority, that, in spite of such orders, a system of preference prevailed. It was the continued repetition of such unjust acts as these which made Irishmen desire the repeal of the Union, and demand a domestic Legislature.
§ Mr. Huntremarked, that, from the hon. and learned Gentleman's own statement, it appeared that the Irish revenue officers were too well paid, while the English officers did not receive adequate remuneration, and the complaint was, that the Ministers had put the officers of both countries on an equal footing. The Irish Members were loud in declaring that a perfect equality ought to exist with regard to the Reform Bill for both countries, but they denied that principle on this occasion.
§ Mr. Shawsaid, the understanding with these officers when they entered the service was, that they should continue in their situations so long as they faithfully discharged their duties. They were (as had been truly remarked already) taken from a more respectable rank of society, than English officers, and they were, in fact, degraded by being removed from higher to lower situations. This was a case in which all classes of Irishmen could unite, there had been no charge of corruption, and yet all the public departments were filled up by strangers to the country.
§ Mr. Ruthvensaid, the inequality which had been noticed by other hon. Members extended principally to the higher departments. Englishmen were appointed to situations in Ireland connected with there venue at large salaries, while there was no instance of an Irishman being placed in the same situations in England. This species of injustice, indeed, was not peculiar to the revenue department. It extended throughout all the Government Offices. There was a most unwarrantable prejudice exercised against Irishmen of all degrees, and the case before them was a notorious proof of it, when it was argued, that it was no hardship to remove persons from a 27 cheap to a dear country, where a salary of 80l. in the first went as far as 120l. in the last, and at the same time to reduce the salary from 80l. to 60l. He did not mean to deny that some abuses might have existed which justified the removal of officers, but nothing could extenuate the treatment these poor men had experienced.
§ Mr. Spring Ricecould assure hon. Members that he was the last man to look with indifference upon the sufferings of his countrymen, and he felt great regret that he was unable to suggest any mode by which their distresses could be consistently relieved by Government. The circumstances of the case were shortly these, the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the public revenue, recommended a partial interchange of the officers employed in its collection between the two countries. Of course it followed, when the Irish officers were removed to England they were put precisely upon the same footing as English officers of the same degree. The Irish officers received higher salaries in their own country certainly, but then the additional payment was on account of the increased labour they had to perform. It had been the most anxious desire of the Treasury to act with perfect impartiality between all parties, but the comparative cheapness and dearness of certain parts of the United Kingdom was a circumstance beyond their control in the appointment of revenue officers,
Mr. Humesaw no injustice whatever in an engagement which placed English, Scotch, and Irish officers, performing the same duties upon a perfect equality with regard to salaries. If there was any cause of complaint, it must be that inequality of remuneration was at all tolerated. He lamented that persons should suffer from their salaries being reduced, but it was quite impossible there could be justice if any inequality existed,
Mr. Sheilsaid, it was the inequality that was complained of. The sufferers were taken from a more respectable class than that which they were reduced to. These persons had entered the service on the implied understanding that their salaries were not to be reduced during good behaviour; but on the other hand, the English officers of a lower class had their salaries increased so as to make them equal in amount to the salaries of a higher class. The circumstances, therefore, were wholly different, and there could not be any 28 grounds whatever for the reduction complained of.
§ Petition to be printed.