HC Deb 22 June 1865 vol 180 cc670-9

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. HENNESSY

said, he wished to call attention to the inadequate salaries and superannuations of the outdoor officers of Customs. It would be in the recollection of the House that not along ago this subject had been brought under the notice of the House, and the narrow majority by which the Government was saved on that occasion was owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out hopes of redressing the grievances complained of. He now rose to ask what the right hon. Gentleman had done to remedy those grievances, to the existence of which so many Members of that House had testified? He wished to call the attention of the House to the case of the outdoor officers of Customs. Those persons, who were engaged in the discharge of most important and responsible duties, were the only civil servants who did not receive an annual increase in their salaries, which were most paltry and inadequate. The merchants of Liverpool had again and again complained that they ran great risk through the small-ness of the salaries of these officers, who were exposed to temptation in various way, having the employment of charging, checking, and making an estimate of the duty on goods of enormous value. In fact many officers of Customs were quietly dismissed for taking perquisites and for not enforcing the Customs regulations, although the officials did not bring them to trial, as they did not wish to make the matters public. In illustration of his contention that the outdoor officers of Customs were the most ill-paid of all civil servants, he would refer to the superannuation allowances to some of them, as set forth in the Return headed "Superannuation, Public Offices," which was laid upon the table in March last by the Government. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think he was making an invidious selection when he called the attention of the House, in the first place, to the case of John Winter, described in the Return as "Messenger to the Chancellor of the Exchequer," who, having served the public for 27½ years, retired, at the age of 70, with a superannuation allowance of £63 per annum. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contrast the case of his messenger with those of two outdoor officers of Customs—the first of whom, named Bailey, of Newcastle, after twenty-four years' service retired, at the age of seventy-one, with a superannua- tion allowance of £14 4s.; and the second, named Booth, of Liverpool, an outdoor porter, after twenty-six years and ten months' service, retired at the age of forty-nine, in consequence of chronic rheumatism, with a superannuation allowance of £28 18s. 2d. It must strike the House with surprise that men upon whom so much responsibility lay should receive superannuation allowances so much inferior to that received by the messenger of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The superannuation allowance was the measure of the salary; and if the salaries were freely adjusted, the superannuation allowances would also be freely adjusted. A man named Freeman, of Sunderland, another outdoor Customs officer, after twenty-four years' service, retired from a concussion of the spine upon £23 a year superannuation, and upon inquiry he (Mr. Hennessy) had learnt that the injury was received in the discharge of his duties. At Cardiff, a man named Evans, a tide waiter, was superannuated upon £15 a year; at Harwich, a man named Bannochs, upon £8; at London, a man named Emmet, upon an allowance of £10 13s.; and at Belfast, a man named Roberts, upon an allowance of £4 2s. He should not ask the Government to do anything further for these poor men, for as they had found it impossible to live upon their superannuation allowances, they had died upon it. The fact was that the men had been literally starved by the Government. These Customs officers did not receive an annual increase to their salaries like other members of the Civil Service. He would contrast with the case of these outdoor officers that of the sorters in the Post Office, whose salaries (those of the first class) rose gradually from £104 to £130; and of the messengers, whose J salaries rose from £55 to £104, at the rate of £2 12s. a year. The Report re- commended that an annual increase in allowance in their salaries should take place, and he therefore begged to express a hope—though from what fell on a former occasion from the right hon. Gentleman not a very confident hope—that he would be prepared to do them that justice which was done to other branches of the Civil Service. Another grievance was that these men were subject to a competitive examination before promotion, so that a man after twenty years' service, found himself placed in competition, perhaps, with a man of three years' service, who was younger and better up in the subjects of examination. Now, high authorities had declared that this was highly improper. A test examination in the duties which a man had been discharging was a different thing; and he also approved of a competitive examination on entering the service. But a competitive examination before promotion was highly unjust to the older officers of the department, and he hoped that that system would be abolished. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had already pointed out the injustice of this arrangement, and he hoped it would not be continued by the Government. He sat for an inland county in Ireland, and did not represent a single outdoor officer of customs. These grievances had not only been put forward by the officers themselves, but by a large number of merchants on their behalf.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, that of late years there had been a transposition of duties in this House. Formerly the Mouse watched over expenditure, and were careful to check extravagance on the part of the Government. But now Members rarely objected to expenditure; and this Session members had got up more frequently than he ever remembered to ask why the officers of this or that department were not better paid. Last year it was the Post Office, but the Government then showed that the men were well paid; and this year it was the out-door Department of the Customs, and he had no doubt there was a fallacy behind the hon. Gentleman's arguments on its behalf. When the hon. Member opposite complained of low pensions being given to certain officers, the question was how long they had served, and whether they were not able to maintain themselves in other ways. Of late years our Civil Service establishments had become so large, the number of persons interested in their maintenance and extension was so great, that he began to fear that the virtue of Parliament would suffer. There was a spirit of combination among the civil servants and their friends to keep up the system. The Civil Service now had a gazette of its own, which trumped up the merits of departments, and complained of inadequate pay. Some time since he had come to the conclusion that the staff of the Department of the Poor Law was more than sufficient, and that the secretary to the office might be dispensed with; but the sense of the House was opposed to any change. Some ten days ago there had appeared an article in the Civil Service Gazette, which, after trumpeting forth the services and the grievances of the department, proceeded to make a personal attack upon himself, to which he would not further allude. But the writer of that article, whilst he admitted there was room for judicious reforms which would save expense to the country, and raise the service to a better position, seemed to be of opinion that it was only the members of the department themselves who ought to determine what changes should be made. It almost appeared as though the civil servants of the Crown were acting upon Swift's advice to servants, and were claiming to settle the amount of their own salaries. He felt convinced that if such propositions as those of the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) were adopted, the public would protest and demand a total change in the system of paying public servants. He believed that the pay given to persons in the public service was ample. Indeed he was disposed to think it was rather liberal, and that the effect of this was to bring forward candidates of a higher grade in society than those whom it had been intended to appoint. The Government would be neglecting their duty if they did not set their face against this extravagance; for one of the conditions on which they had accceded to office was, that they should look after, examine, and carry reform into the different executive departments of the public service. He hoped the new Parliament, instead of bothering itself about its own reconstruction, would be elected upon the condition of looking after and carrying reforms in the different departments of the executive.

MR. NEATE

said, it might be that though at one time it had been necessary to urge the Government to keep down all profuse expenditure, it was now necessary to protest against what might be called the extravagant economy of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the Post Office, he did not think the observations of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith) were applicable; because the result bad proved that it was rather a case for proper interference, and was a precedent for carrying out the same principle in other departments. With regard to the Custom House, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) had, by means of representations made more than once in that House, induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the case of the officers employed in that department, and somewhat improve their condition. He was of opinion that the Government went a little too far in looking only to the principle of the pay men would take, because, though persons might accept office at a low figure, if after a time they began to compare what they were receiving with the salaries paid to persons employed by private firms, they might arrive at the conclusion that they had made a mistake, and become discontented.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend who had just sat down in respect of what he had described as the extravagant economy of the executive Government. His hon. Friend the Member for Truro had called attention to a very serious consideration, and he was hound to say, even speaking in the presence of his hon. Friend, that though being frequently in contest with him (Mr. Augustus Smith), and having frequently to contest his arguments, whatever might be the responsibility which attached to others, with regard to want of economy in the public expenditure, his hon. Friend was not open to the charge of having swum with the stream. He had been no party to having put forward such demands as that which was now before the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Truro, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), and other hon. Members whom he might name, had done their duty faithfully as representatives of the people in endeavouring to check and control the public expenditure; and however it might have been his duty to oppose proposals made by those hon. Gentlemen he rendered them only justice when he said thus much as to their personal conduct and the principles which they laid down. Coming to the question before the House, he must say there was something novel in the use which the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) was making of the Appropriation Bill. It was rightly intended that in discussing it the representatives of the people should have every opportunity of checking, narrowing, and controlling the expenditure proposed by Her Majesty's Government, and that the House should have every opportunity of questioning the conduct of the Government in reference to that expenditure; but, as far as his experience went, it was a complete novelty to make use of the Appropriation Bill— the great taxing Act of the Session—for the purpose of contending that the people were not taxed enough. The House were indebted to the hon. Member for this new application of the Appropriation Bill. He begged, however, to deny that in challenging the conduct of the hon. Member in questions of this kind he had ever accused him of bringing it forward for the purpose of gratifying his constituents or with a personal object out of a sordid regard for his own political interests. He had never imputed to him anything so unworthy. He thought, however, that the course which the hon. Member pursued was most mischievous; and he concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Truro in thinking that if proceedings of this sort should reach a certain point, they would end in important constitutional changes. The hon. Member's main argument in favour of those outdoor officers was founded on the custom of annual increment which he (Mr. Hennessy) held to be the rule in the civil service. It was not true, as far as he knew, that as a rule persons employed in that service were sure of an annual increment to their salaries; but it was a rule that certain salaries were progressive until the persons who received them got out of a certain class, from which time their salaries remained stationary. He thought that an annual increment might be advisable in certain cases; but he was far from thinking it was so wise an arrangement that it was to be assumed to carry an authority, and it was the duty of the Government to say it was the right plan in all cases. In the higher appointments of the Civil Service it was entirely unknown. Neither did it prevail in the lowest grade, and the outdoor officers of Customs were among the lower ranks. [Mr. HENNESSY: No; the messengers.] He begged pardon. The outdoor officers performed duties lower than those discharged by the messengers—duties less confidential. But, however that might be, in those lower appointments the principle of annual increment was very little known. Letter carriers, in some instances, were taken into the Post Office at a very early ago—as early, he believed as eighteen, and there might be other cases in which an annual increment was a fair principle in consequence of the capacity for duty increasing year by year; but the right hon. Gentleman had not shown that the outdoor officers were persons whose knowledge of duty increased each year. The hon. Gentleman formed a wrong idea of the public service if he thought that the Government were not entitled, like all other employers, to go into the market and purchase labour at the cheapest rate. He took the case of a man who had been superannuated on £4 a year, and of another who had been superannuated on £8, and he said, "A man cannot live on £8 a year—what a scandal!" The hon. Gentleman wanted any man who had been employed in the dignified appointment of outdoor officer of the Customs—no matter how long or how short might have been his time in the service—to be endowed for ever with the means of supporting himself on his retirement from the office. The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to create an impression that some harsh rule was applied against the gentleman whom he had chosen to take under his protection. On the contrary, one single impartial rule, inflexibly applied, ran through the administration of the Superannuation Act, and it was contrary to the fact to say that one rule was applied, as the hon. Gentleman had attempted to insinuate, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's messenger, for instance, and another to the outdoor officers of the Customs and letter-carriers. Then the hon. Gentleman complained that competitive examination was applied to men who had been for a leugth of time in the service. But the justification of that was, that the duties to which these men were to be transferred were essentially different from those which they had hitherto performed. It would have been fairer, too, if he had mentioned that competitive examination was not the only means of passing from the position of outdoor officers to that of examining officers, but that half the promotions were given by merit on the selection of the Board of Customs. The hon. Gentleman next asked what he had done to carry out the promise which he had given on a previous occasion, although when he made that promise the hon. Gentleman, confident in the interest which had been used to enlist the feelings of Members in support of his cause, did not attach much value to that promise? But he was hound to say that, although he was most happy to receive from Members—like the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) for instance—such information as their superior knowledge enabled them to give of the feelings of the inhabitants of the places they represented, yet on matters of this kind to yield to Parliamentary pressure as long as he held his present position he should think an abandonment of his duty. The principle he laid down any hon. Member might challenge, and he would defend it, and if the House chose to censure it, it could do so. The promise which he had made was, that in the peculiar cases which had arisen out of the almost reconstruction of the Customs Department which followed the important changes in the Tariff of 1860, any injury that might accrue to officers in respect of the chances of promotion ought to be looked into, and when they assumed a definite and tangible form ought to be made the subject of arrangement. In various instances personal allowances had been made to officers who had been able to show that they had suffered a tangible injury of that kind. It was impossible, however, to lay down a general principle that in any case, however shadowy, where a possible or presumed injury had been suffered, that it should be made the subject of a fixed compensation. The case of 1860 was a peculiar case. As regarded outdoor officers, they had endeavoured to meet it partly by attempting to fill up the body of examining officers from them, and in special cases they had endeavoured to ascertain whether anything like a fair claim to compensation could be established for injury to the chance of promotion. It was not to be supposed that because the services of a person in a higher class had been dispensed with, that all below in that class were to be compensated. In 1860, when a special case arose, it was met by the promotion of some of the outdoor officers in the Customs. The subject was not to be dealt with in the manner the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish. The Customs, from its aggregation of separate establishments into one Board, was a peculiar organization. Each part had more or less rules adapted to its own particular circumstances, which would not bear comparison, and the principle of local promotion was recognized to a great extent. And, therefore, it was only by inquiry, as the cases arose, that they could be dealt with. On that principle the Government had acted, and on that principle they intended to continue to act. With regard to the extra work performed by landing waiters, inquiry had been made, but nothing had as yet occurred to cause him to believe that anything of a serious nature had existed which he could be called upon to notice; but he did not close the door against it. The pay of the different departments, as compared one with another, had for some time engaged the careful attention of the Government, but he was bound to say that he was doubtful whether they could be brought to a standard of comparison. There was no test so good and safe as the willingness of competent persons to accept places under Government, but he did not exclude himself from recognizing the duty of Government to take measures, from time to time according to circumstances and the state of the labour market, for improving all the Government offices; but as yet no case had been brought before them for laying down any general rule of guidance. The hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between the Customs and the other departments, and contended that the Customs were worse paid than the others. That was a matter into which they were inquiring carefully, but he was doubtful whether the allegation could be made good. It was very difficult to draw any comparison between the Customs and the other departments, but as far as the test of the willingness of competent candidates to accept places in the Customs went, nothing had come before him to show that there was any foundation for a general allegation that there was a difference in the rate of remuneration given in the Customs Department and in the other departments of the public service.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow, at Twelve of the clock.