CLASS III. (Hansard, 24 July 1896)

§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that he wished to ask how it was that the County Court Judge of Belfast held three other offices, while his Registrar held four other offices. Between them these two officials held nine separate offices.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND
, in reply, said he was not aware that any serious inconvenience had been experienced. The County Court Judgeship in Down would be vacant before long, and a redistribution of those offices would then take place, which would obviate any inconvenience.

§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
asked that Belfast should be placed on the same footing as English towns of the same size. The combination of Registrar in Bankruptcy, County Court Judge and Recorder in one person was unknown anywhere else.

§ MR. HORACE PLUNKETT
complained that the salaries of the clerks in the Registry of Deeds were lower than those in other public offices, and that the work was as important and difficult. The clerks also complained of the slowness of promotion. The work of the office was very important, and was growing more important as the policy of land purchase in Ireland was developed. All he asked was that a thorough inquiry into the question should be instituted by the Treasury, with the representative of which should be associated some independent authority or some representative of the staff.

§ MR. CLANCY
said that the work of those clerks was very important, requiring high intelligence, great training, and considerable education. He trusted that the moderate request for an inquiry into their position would be granted.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
wished to point out that when those clerks joined the service, it was open to them to be promoted to the position of first-class clerks. In 1885 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the working of the office. It made various recommendations, but the only recommendation acted upon was one to the effect that the duties discharged in the office were duties that properly belonged to second division clerks, with the result that though the head of the Department—who had himself been a member of the Committee—recommended several of the clerks fur promotion to the higher division, the promotions could not he granted. The third-class clerks of the office also complained of their position. There was also the case of the third class clerks who were promoted to the second division, and who, as an initial salary after promotion received less than they had done before.

§ * MR. HANBURY
said that dissatisfaction did undoubtedly prevail in this office. It was quite distinct from any other; it required some technical knowledge; its whole organisation was at present in a transition stage; and the work was rapidly increasing. The clerks desired that instead of a yearly increment, an increase of salary should rather be the consequence of selection. He was not sure that that would not be a better system; and if the quality as well as the quantity of the work was increasing there were other questions to be considered. He promised to give the matter his personal attention. As to the abstractors mentioned by the hon. Member for South Dublin, they could not be promoted to the second division unless they started at the minimum salary of that division. They were originally copyists, and the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments recommended that that class should be swept away; but the Treasury for once was more tenderhearted than the Commission, and gave the men permanent employment as abstractors. They could not pass the qualifying examination for the second division; but in some cases men who had done good work had been promoted to the second division. They were comparatively young men, and it was well worth their while to enter at the lowest salary, considering the better prospect which was opened to them. 667 There was a good reason why they should not carry the higher salaries with them in promotion from the position of abstractors. If they did, they would be doing the same work as the junior second division clerks, side by side with them, and receiving salaries 50 per cent. higher.

§ MR. HORACE PLUNKETT
desired to point out that the abstractors who had been promoted had 12 years' service to their credit, and that their age would be 30, while that of the junior or second class clerks would be about 17.

§ MR. DILLON
asked whether the Treasury had decided that the Assistant Land Commissioners came under the 65th Rule? The effect of its application would be that the Land Commission would be deprived of the services of some of the most experienced and efficient men on its staff. It was, moreover, a hardship to retire men who were perfectly well able to discharge their duties; and the expense to the State was greatly increased. There was an admitted difficulty in finding capable and impartial men to administer the Land Laws.

§ * MR. HANBURY
said that as yet only one case had arisen—that of Mr. Rice. That gentleman was already 65, and there was some particular reason for retaining his services a month or six weeks longer. An application on that ground had been made to the Treasury, and had been granted. But the question whether the Assistant Commissioners came under the 65th Rule had not been submitted to the Treasury; and the Treasury had expressed no opinion on it.

§ MR. J. P. FARRELL
asked the Chief Secretary to impress on the Land Commission the desirability of completing sales as speedily as possible. The longer the sale was being considered, the more the tenant had to pay.