§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a case which appeared in the Daily News of the 12th instant, where a Customs' officer was summoned to the Thames Police Court by a seaman for detaining twelve ounces of tobacco and a bottle of Florida water, and to 43 the comments of the magistrate on the proceedings of the Customs' authorities; whether, in the inquiry held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1891, into the complaints of the officers of the Outdoor Department of the Customs, that while superior officers receiving large salaries were granted substantial benefits, the subordinates—namely, boatmen, receiving very low pay, where granted nothing, but sustained pecuniary loss by the abolition of classification, and that, in consequence, a great deal of discontent prevails amongst the officers of this class; and whether, in view of the temptation to improper exercise of their duties which is caused by the low scale of salaries, the Treasury would grant an improvement in the position of these officers?
§ *MR. GOSCHENThe Board of Customs have had under consideration the circumstances referred to in paragraph No. 1 of the hon. Member's question, and have directed an inquiry to be made as to the proceedings of the officers in the case. I may mention that the officer in question was not a boatman, but a preventive officer. With regard to the remaining part of the question, it gives an entirely wrong impression of what was done in consequence of the inquiry held by myself in 1891. The change to which the hon. Member alludes, by which the distinction between the two classes of boatmen was abolished, was granted by me, not without some compunction, as a concession to the officers and on their request. I considered that there was force in the argument that there was scarcely sufficient space between the minimum salary of the lower class and the maximum of the higher class to warrant a division at that particular-point. This separation of the two classes having been abolished, the boatmen were to move up, by increments of £1 a year, from the bottom through the whole of what was formerly two classes, instead of being stopped half-way and having to wait for promotion before they could continue their annual increment. This was, generally, a boon to the class, or was intended to be so; but I understand that there have been individual cases where boatmen have been at the maximum of the second class and would on promotion 44 into the first class have received a £5 increment, and where, therefore, the change operates to the disadvantage of such individuals. In all re-organisations where boons have been conferred, I have found, to my regret, that individual grievances of a plausible character arose with which it was difficult to deal. Generally, the intention was to improve the boatmen's position, and to open up to them better chances of promotion than they enjoyed. In estimating the effect of the changes made upon the position of the boatmen generally, it is important to take into account the great improvement made in their prospects of promotion. This apparently has not been done by the hon. Member's informant. Some minor grievances—for instance, one connected with Sunday pay—are at present under my consideration.