§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the fact that since the introduction, this Session, of a Bill containing provisions for transferring the collection of certain local rates to the Corporation of Dublin, Robert Henchy and William Perry, to the office of the Collector General of Rates Dublin, have been retired, by the Lord Lieutenant, upon pensions of £311 0s.1d. and £40 respectively, chargeable to the city of Dublin; and Robert J. Henchy (son of the before-mamed Robert Henchy), Robert M. Richardson, and William Welsh, have been appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to the staff of the Collector General's Office, at salaries of £170, £130, and £110 respectively, mainly chargeable to the city of Dublin; can he state what were the salaries, ages, and terms of service respectively of Robert Henchy and William Perry; why two warrant officers were appointed in place of one retired; what were the occupations of Robert J. Henchy, Robert M. Richardson, and William Welsh, before their appointment to the Collector General's office; whether they were recommended by the Collector General, and their appointments declared to be requisite; and whether he is aware that Mr. Richardson and Mr. Welsh are 50 years of age, and will he explain why they have been appointed at such an age to offices bearing a right of pensions chargeable to the funds of the city?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMr. Robert Henchy's pensionable emoluments as a collector in the Collector General's Office consisted of poundage, bonus, and salary, the average of which, for the three 95 years preceding his retirement, amounted to £466 10s. 2d. His age at time of retirement was 68, and he had a service of 37 years. Mr. Perry had emoluments, consisting of salary and poundage, amounting to an average of £240 a year. His age was 65, and he had completed 10 years service in the Collector General's Department. Two warrant officers were appointed in place of one (Mr. Perry), on the recommendation of the Collector General. In connection with Mr. Perry's retirement the Collector General reported that when Mr. Perry was appointed in August, 1879, he was required by Mr. Byrne, the then Collector General, to appoint a deputy, whom he paid out of his income as war-pant officer. The Collector General reported that for some time he had thought it would be necessary to make a change in that department of his office, and that the proper course would be to appoint two warrant officers, one for the south and the other for the north side—the emoluments of the two not to exceed the £240 a year heretofore paid to the one officer, who had to appoint and pay a deputy. Mr. Robert J. Henchy assisted his father in the general work connected with the collection of rates, and was employed as a temporary clerk in the Collector General's Office. Mr. Robert M. Richardson was the deputy warrant officer employed by Mr. Perry. Mr. W. Welsh was secretary to a club. They were recommended by the Collector General, and the appointments declared to be requisite. Both gentlemen are, I believe, 50 years of age. There has been no regulation laid down as to the age for warrant officers. Both these gentlemen have been informed that they can only hold their appointments while they are able actively to carry out the duties. They will not be entitled to pensions till they have completed 10 years' service, and then only to 10–60ths of their emoluments. Mr. Richardson's temporary service will not count towards pension. An additional sixtieth would be added to the pension for each additional year's service after 10.
§ MR. SEXTONCan the right hon. Gentleman cite any precedent for the appointment of persons of 50 years of age to posts which carry a high rate of pension, and does he consider it decent 96 of the Irish Government to make changes involving charges of £300 for pension and £400 for salary upon the City of Dublin at a time when the decision of Parliament is being sought by a Bill on this very question?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am not aware of the circumstances relating to the appointments to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and must ask for notice of the question.
§ MR. SEXTONIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware—has he not appeared by his agent, Sir Richard Wyatt, before the Committee on the Bill, and by counsel? Surely he must be aware of his own action.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am perfectly cognisant of the action taken by the Irish Government with regard to the Bill before the House. What I said I was not cognisant of were the details relating to the appointment of these gentlemen.
§ MR. SEXTONAt the very moment we were seeking the decision of Parliament on the future of this office, does the right hon. Gentleman justify the Irish Government in interfering and making appointments which will throw charges amounting to £700 a year on the City of Dublin?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy reply to the question as to whether the course which has been taken in this matter was proper or improper is, that it is not one on which I should be asked to give an opinion if I say I am not acquainted with the details of the action of the officials in this case. I must ask for notice of the question before being asked to give a judgment upon it.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAs the right hon. Gentleman instructed Sir Richard Wyatt to make the allegation both before the Commons' Committee and the Lords' Committee, that if the Dublin Corporation got this office into its hands it would use it for political purposes and prevent Conservatives getting votes, I will ask whether Mr. Welsh, who has just been appointed, is not the Tory agent on the revision of voters' claims in the City of Dublin; and is it decent to put a pronounced partisan of that kind into an office connected with the franchise?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI must have notice of that question.