If the House will favour me with its attention, I will briefly explain on what grounds I move that the Greenock Railway Bill be re-committed. This case is one of first impression, originating in the new practice under the recent Standing Orders of the House on the subject of Private Bills. It is one of some peculiarity. The House is aware that the new Standing Orders require the Referees on Private Bills to make a Report on certain points. One of these points is the sufficiency of the estimates for the works proposed. The Standing Order says that the Referees shall inquire into the engineering details, the sufficiency of the works for the proposed object, and the sufficiency of the estimates for executing the same. Now, the Referees considered these questions, and made a Report to the House, which, unfortunately, was couched in ambiguous terms, which neither found the estimates sufficient nor insufficient. The Report was in these terms—"The Referees consider that the promoters' estimate is vague and unsatisfactory." The House will observe that the finding was ambiguous, and capable of being regarded by the Committee, as either sufficient or as insufficient. After hearing counsel the Committee—which was presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid)—found, in the following terms—

"That the Report of the Referees on Private Bills has been referred to the Committee, which Report is considered by the Committee as stating the opinion of the Referee that the estimate is not sufficient for the proposed undertaking; and in consequence of said Report the Committee did not proceed to consider the allegations in the preamble, and determined to report that the preamble is not proved to their satisfaction."

The parties, therefore, by this preliminary conclusion, were precluded from going into the merits of the Bill. The Bill was rejected and reported against, and unless it be re-committed it is gone. Now, the question for the House to consider is whether the finding of the Referees' Report was a finding that the estimate was insufficient; and I have some reason to believe—of course I have no right to quote the Referees—but I have some reason to believe that if the Committee had communicated with the Referees on this question, they would have been told that it was not intended to convey by that Report to the Committee that the estimate was insufficient; nor did they wish to preclude the Committee from investigating the merits of the case. This matter, therefore, is one on which we are fairly entitled to hear the opinion of the Referees in this House. As far as I understand it, this is more or less a miscarriage of justice, owing to the terms in which the opinion of the Referees was expressed, they not being in exact accordance with the language of the Standing Orders. I do not, therefore, understand why the Committee should have thought fit to prevent the farther progress of the Bill. The consequence is that the parties have not been heard. This, of course, is purely a technical question, and does not relate at all to the merits of the case. And as it is the first point that has arisen under the new state of things, I have thought it advisable to bring the matter under the notice of the House. It is simply a question whether this has been a miscarriage of justice in consequence of the Committee misunderstanding the intention of the Report of the Referees. I observe Gentlemen in the House distinguished Members of the Court of Referees, and, therefore, I hope they will take the opportunity thus afforded them of expressing their intention by this Report, and that the House will take care that through this unfortunate ambiguity injustice is not done to those who promoted this Bill. I now beg to move that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee.

I beg to second the Motion made by my right hon. Friend. I sincerely hope that some means will be taken to enable the parties to be heard on the merits of this scheme. I should have thought that when a doubt was felt by the Committee as to the intention of the Referees, reference would have been made to them to know their meaning. I think it is a case in which they might and ought to have done that; and if there he any doubt still remaining, I trust the Referees will explain what their intention was.

As I was one of the Referees who signed the Report, I will take the liberty of briefly explaining to the House the circumstances adverted to by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie). A practice has crept in among engineers of drawing up their estimates in a very loose, vague, and unsatisfactory manner; and since the establishment of the Court of Referees, it has been determined by us that we will have these estimates more clearly set out. When we came to examine the estimates, we heard a great deal of conflicting evidence on the subject, we were not satisfied that as much care—though as much as the previous practice of Parliament had required—had been exercised on this occasion, as we should in future insist upon; and, therefore, with that view, I and my Colleagues thought it necessary to introduce in the Report the words that the estimates were "vague and unsatisfactory." We should perhaps have said that the principle on which the estimates were framed was "vague and unsatisfactory," or some words to that effect. We were satisfied that though we should not have been justified in declaring that the estimates were "insufficient" for the works contemplated, yet the principle on which they were framed was "vague and unsatisfactory." We also thought it our duty to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in an estimate of £350,000, on the promoters' own showing there was only left a margin of £5,000. It was under these circumstances that we made the Report containing the expressions which have been read. We were satisfied that the estimate was sufficient, though the principles on which it had been framed were so "vague and unsatisfactory;" and we hoped this would be received as an intimation that greater accuracy ought to be shown, and would in future be required by the Referees.

I wish to say a few words in corroboration of what as just been said by my hon. Colleague. Having shared with him in drawing up this Report, I concur with him in all he has said with regard to the circumstances under which it was drawn up. We considered whether we should not declare the estimate "insufficient," but we had some hesitation in doing that, although there were circumstances to which we thought it proper respectfully to draw the attention of the Committee, so that they might consider the whole question; but nothing was farther from our intention, in drawing up that Report, than that we should altogether debar or preclude the Committee from considering the Bill on its merits.

I have, I confess, been not a little surprised at the Motion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock. I should certainly not have expected such a Motion to emanate from a Gentleman of so much experience as my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman says there is great ambiguity in the language used by the Referees. Now, I cannot think so. There appears to me nothing at all ambiguous in the phrase they have employed. The estimate is pronounced by the Referees "vague and unsatisfactory." The Chairman of the Committee, a Gentleman of great experience in such matters, tells us that on the ground of that Report they decided on throwing out the Bill. Are we thus to understand that whenever a Bill has been thrown out because the Referees have reported against it, that the wording of their Report is to be criticized, the merits of the Bill discussed in this House, and Motions made for re-commital? If you agree to such a Motion in this case, where are you to stop? All I can say is, if the terms "vague and unsatisfactory" are not sufficient to indicate that an estimate is insufficient, the terms ought certainly to be applied to the Referees' Report. I think the proposition which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman a most mischievous one, and I shall divide the House against it.

I think what has just been stated by the hon. Member is hardly sufficient to induce the House to reject the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. P. Bouverie). The Referees state that the practice of the House had been such that when they came to consider it they thought it unsatisfactory, and ought to be changed. But the present estimate was framed according to the old usage. That is the first thing to be considered. Then, said the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Adair), "We wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the manner in which the estimates had been framed." Therefore they used words not in accordance with the Standing Order, but in accordance with the fact. Well, what did the Committee do? They did not pay attention to that fact, but they seized on these words, and declared the estimate insufficient. Now that, we are told by two of the Referees, was not their notion, They merely wished to call attention to the matter in hand, saying that they considered that engineers should make their estimates in a more satisfactory manner. Shall we, then, be doing justice if we refuse to recommit this Bill? I think not. In every new system these mistakes must occur every now and then. As things go on, the machinery will work more equably; but in the outset you must expect things of this kind. Let us, when the case is pointed out, put the matter to rights; and I say, after what we have heard from the Referees, we ought to recommit this Bill, and let the Committee determine whether the estimates are or are not sufficient.

Having been Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, I wish to state, in very few words, what was the view we took of the Report of the Referees, and why I think, as the matter stood, we were perfectly right. I shall then, with the permission of the House, state what course I think ought now to be taken with regard to the Motion of my right hon. Friend, The question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the estimates was referred to the Referees. It is admitted that if the estimates were found to be insufficient, the Committee ought not to proceed with the Bill. Well, the Report finds that the estimate is "vague and unsatisfactory." The first remark I make upon these terms is this—it cannot possibly be maintained that they are equivalent to saying that the estimate is sufficient. But we are told that the subsequent part of the Report makes it appear, nevertheless, that that was intended. So far as I understand the subsequent part of the Report, it has a contrary bearing. It is well known that in all works of this description unexpected expenses occur, and in order to the suffi- ciency of an estimate, it is necessary to allow a considerable sum for contingencies. But the Referees themselves point out the smallness of the sum. Only £5,000 on an estimate of £350,000 had been left for this purpose. It has been said by my right hon. Friend who made this Motion, and by my hon. Friend who seconded it, that the Committee ought to have communicated with the Referees, that they might have explained the language of their own Report. I think the Committee would have miscarried if they had made such a reference. The Committee thought the Referees had already expressed themselves in intelligible language; the Committee believed, and they acted on the belief, that the Referees meant by the language they had used that the estimates were "insufficient;" and I have not heard anything yet to induce me to think that the House ought to re-commit the Bill. But it is said the Referees only wished to guard against similar errors in future. I think if this Bill be re-committed, it will, in the strongest possible manner, encourage such errors. Such is the view which I myself take of this question. At the same time, if the House should think proper, after the explanation of the Referees, to re-commit the Bill, I am quite sure the Committee will be ready to proceed with the investigation on the merits.

I consider this question entirely a matter of procedure. The promoters of a Bill are virtually on the defensive as regards the sufficiency of the estimate, unless a Bill is opposed on the ground of the insufficiency of the estimates. The opposition to this Bill proceeds only from a rival company; all the landowners on the line are in its favour, and the important town of Greenock, where it originates, also strongly support it. I think the House will not be inclined to draw the rule with extraordinary strictness for the sake of defeating such a Bill. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Adair) has stated that he did not think the Referees would have been justified in absolutely certifying the sufficiency of the estimates; but neither did they endorse the opinion of the opponents of the Bill by declaring them to be insufficient. I shall support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

I consider such miscarriages of justice exceedingly likely to arise in the working of new machinery; and the House can well afford not to be too strict in enforcing the rule, which it may be well hereafter to enforce with the greatest strictness. Still, if I had presided over the Committee, I should have taken precisely the same course, and probably I should not have troubled myself to explain any ambiguity in the language employed. I should have considered it enough that the Report did not certify the sufficiency of the estimate. But unless the Reports of the Referees are decided yes or no, they will not answer the purpose for which they are required. I shall vote for the Motion.

Unless the Referees stated positively that the estimate was insufficient the Committee were bound to go into the consideration of the Bill on its merits. This being the case I think the House ought to re-commit the Bill.

I think it is desirable to know how matters stand in reference to the Standing Orders of the House, especially as a very serious question is raised by the Motion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. The duty of inquiring into the sufficiency of the estimates in connection with works proposed to be undertaken by the promoters of a Private Bill is a duty thrown by this House upon the official Referees. I take it, that when the Referees have given their decision, no further reference is to be taken by the Committee to disprove the facts which have been reported by the Referees. The meaning of this is, that after the official Referees have inquired into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the estimates, the question of the sufficiency of the estimates is not to be inquired into by the Committee to whom the Bill is referred. If, therefore, the House decides now upon referring the Bill back again to the same Select Committee by whom it has already been considered, the Committee will assuredly feel themselves bound to abide by the Standing Orders which have already regulated their proceedings, and they will at once say that they have no power whatever to enter into the question of the sufficiency of the estimates. The result will be that there will still be no Report as to the sufficiency of the estimates in regard to the works proposed to be undertaken. As I the case stands at present, the estimates have been declared "vague and unsatisfactory," and if the question is referred back again to the same Committee, I do not sec what different result can be arrived at.

A question has arrisen whether the estimates are suffi- cient or not. The Referees say that the evidence is "vague and unsatisfactory," and I hope that the House will support the Report of the Referees. As a question connected with the conduct of private business of the House, I think that the Report of the Referees is now on its trial, and that it ought to be supported. If the matter had been decided in the first instance by the Committee to whom the Bill is referred, their decision would be regarded as conclusive, and would not have been challenged, because the House invariably supports the decisions of its Committees. The effect of this is most salutary, inasmuch as it prevents disputes after the decision of a Committee has once been given in regard to the preamble of a Bill. Unfortunately the decision of the Referees is not final, but the question has still to go before a Committee; and as a considerable interval elapses between the decision of the Referees being made public and being considered by the Committee, any person feeling aggrieved by the Report of the Referees has an opportunity of getting up a case against their decision. I think it is of great importance that the Report of the Referees should be supported.

I hope the House will take care what it does on this subject. The Court of Referees when first established was not received well by the public, but since it has been in action it has gradually won their favour. If, however, a stone is to be thrown by this House at their decisions, what is to become of the public out of doors? As I understand, by the rules of the House the Referees are required to take into their consideration the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the estimates. It is true in this case that they have not reported that the estimates are insufficient, hut they have used a term quite equal to it; and in that case, I think, after the explanation that has been given, that the Committee to whom the question was referred has acted most consistently and properly. I must express a hope, that this being a new Court, we should not now, by an adverse decision, with regard to the judgment of the Referees, call into question a Court which we ourselves have created, and which I believe is gradually obtaining the confidence of the House and the public.

The hon. Member who has last spoken seems to imply that the Referees have pronounced a decided opinion, whereas the real truth of the matter is, the Referees came to no decision on the question at all. The hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) has quoted the Standing Order; but if the House will refer to the wording of that Standing Order, they will find that the Referees are to decide whether the estimates are sufficient or insufficient. They have not done so in this case. All they say is, that the estimates are vague and unsatisfactory, which is a very different thing. I think the House ought to proceed in strict accordance with the letter of the Standing Order, and if they do that, there can be no difficulty in allowing this Bill to be re-committed.

I think it would be a very unfortunate custom if it should become the habit of the House lightly to re-commit Bills reported upon adversely by the Referees or rejected by Committees; but, at the same time, the House must be very careful that they do not in some exceptional cases do any act of injustice, which will fall somewhat hardly on the promoters of Private Bills. In this case I have no doubt the Referees reported accurately that the estimates were made out in a vague and unsatisfactory manner; but, at the same time, they certainly do not report that the estimates are insufficient. That Report from the Referees went before the Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of the Bill, and construing it in the strictest manner, the Committee threw out the Bill. We have now heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, who was Chairman of the Referees, and who signed the Report on their behalf, that it was not the intention of the Referees to convey to the Committee an opinion that the estimates were insufficient. Under these circumstances, I think the House would do well to allow the Bill to be re-committed. The hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) asks how the Committee are to deal with the subject of the insufficiency of the estimates after it had already been dealt with by the Referees; and he has called our attention to Standing Order No. 91, arguing from that that the Committee have no further powers to inquire into the matter; but if the learned Member would look at the next Standing Order, No. 92, he would see that any Select Committee to which a Bill is referred, may, subject to the approval of the Chairman of Ways and Means, remit any question arising in this way back again to the Re- ferees. Under all circumstances, I think the proper course in this case will, be to allow the Bill to be re-committed, there being a power given to the Committee to refer back to the Referees their Report on any subject on which they may require information.

I wish that the hon. Member the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Dodson) had addressed himself to answering the question which was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), which really lies at the root of the matter. The Motion before the House is to re-commit this Bill in order that it shall be referred back to the Referees upon the question of estimates. Now, no one pretends to say that the Report of the Referees holds out the slightest impression that the estimates are sufficient. The language of the Report, equivocal as it may be, is clear upon that point. We come, then, to the question of the Standing Orders, and if this Bill is to go back to the Committee, what course are they to take?—because, as I understand the effect of the Standing Orders, it is not within the scope of the powers of the Committee to go into the question whether the estimates are sufficient. If that is really so, and they cannot go into the question of the sufficiency of the estimates, the whole subject must again come before us for our decision; and we should then have to declare, upon the vague statement of the Referees, whether the estimates are sufficient or not. The Chairman of Ways and Means says very properly that this is a special case; but I doubt whether we should not be laying down a worse precedent by sending this case back to the Committee, who would be unable by the Standing Orders to go into the question whether the estimates are sufficient or not, than by letting the Bill stand over for a year, and affording time for the estimates to be laid before us in a proper form. If the Motion goes to a division, I shall certainly vote against the proposition of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

I think that the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) could scarcely have heard what I said, or he would not have made the observations which he has addressed to the House. All I did was to point out that Standing Order No. 92 gives power to refer back to the Referees any question arising out of their Report upon which the Committee may entertain a doubt.

asked the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it be the intention of the Poor Law Board to undertake for the future the appointment of all "Auditors of Accounts" to Poor Law Unions, such appointments having been hitherto supposed to rest in the hands of the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the respective Unions?

said, in reply, that the Poor Law Board could not undertake the future appointment of Auditors, as they had no power to do so, the appointment being vested in the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of Guardians. The Committee on Poor Relief had, however, recommended that in future the appointment should be vested in the central authority, and it would be for the House of Commons to decide whether that recommendation should be adopted whenever it was submitted to them. The Poor Law Board had no wish that the appointment should be vested in them. The Committee on Poor Relief also expressed a decided opinion that the number of audit districts should be reduced as vacancies occurred, and the vacant districts incorporated with others. The power to do this was already vested in the Poor Law Board under the 7 and 8 Vict. c. 101, and whenever vacancies occurred they were proceeding, as far as practicable, to carry their recommendation into effect, with the view of ultimately arranging that every district should be sufficiently extensive to occupy the whole time of each Auditor. This course did not deprive the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen in the districts which were annexed to others of their right to vote at subsequent elections.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Swansea, Whether he proposes to proceed with the adjourned Debate on the Church Establishment (Ireland), which now stands as an Order of the Day for Tuesday next?

Sir, I find the Motion stands as an Order of the Day on Tuesday, and several other important Motions will come on before it. I cannot, therefore, expect to get on that day sufficient time for the discussion of a question of such importance. I therefore intend to propose the adjournment of the Order on Tuesday to some day when we can have sufficient time for its discussion. I hope to induce the Government to assist mo.

said, he rose to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, To name the day on which he will proceed with the Union Chargeability Bill; and whether he will bring it on as the first Order of the Day, so as to allow a full discussion on the effect it will have in the manufacturing districts?

Sir, I cannot at this moment fix a day when the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman can be discussed. I am extremely anxious there should be no delay, and I hope next week to be able to fix a day.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state that he will bring it on as the first Order of the Day?

I will bring it on as early as possible.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the Returns moved for by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) will be on the table?

The Returns are very comprehensive, and some time must elapse before they can be printed.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What will be the order of business on Monday?

First will come the Address which it is proposed to move in reference to the assassination of President Lincoln. After that I propose to proceed with the Bank Notes Issue Bill, which I have fixed for that day for some time. After that I believe my right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) will proceed with his Partnership Amendment Bill. On Thursday we propose to proceed with the Resolutions (connected with the Budget) which I laid on the table of the House last night.

said, he rose for the purpose of moving that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the grievances referred to in the Petition of the Mayor, Merchants, Shipowners, and Commercial Traders of Liverpool with reference to the Out-door Officers of Customs. That petition was presented by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) on the 20th of March, and it stated that much discontent and dissatisfaction prevailed among those officers, caused by inadequate salaries, a defective system of classification, and a probability almost amounting to certainty that those gentlemen would not be able to obtain that promotion which they reasonably expected when entering the public service. Petitions on the same subject had been presented from the Lord Mayor, Merchants, and Shipowners of London; the Lord Mayor and Merchants of Durham; the Lord Provost and Merchants of Edinburgh and Leith; and the Mayor, Merchants, and Shipowners of Hull. He intended to move, also, that these petitions be referred to the Committee. The complaint of the petitioners was that in the year 1860 the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced certain changes, which had had the effect of increasing the weight of those officers' duties, and of diminishing their chance of promotion without increasing their pay. In his financial statement of the previous evening the right hon. Gentleman told the House that of the surplus of £4,000,000, about £752,000 had arisen from the augmentation of the Customs. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, the Excise.] The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said the Customs. The change which had taken place had caused great discontent and dissatisfaction amongst 3,000 officers, whose intelligence and zeal were equal to that of any other class. There could be no doubt that the duties of the out-door officers had increased; for, in the fifth Report of the Commissioners of Customs it was stated—in reference to a state of things which had arisen after the changes made in 1860—that the duty of the officers became more arduous every year. So pressing were the demands for despatch, and so great the importance of delay, that the Commissioners had been obliged to sanction the loading of steamers in many instances during the whole night, and the discharge of import cargoes as long as daylight lasted; while the privilege of loading and discharging from six a.m. to six p.m., formerly confined to a comparatively small number of articles, had now, by the revision of the tariff, become all but universal. In another portion of their Report the Commissioners observed—

"From the experience of the past year we feel compelled to speak even more strongly than we did in our last Report in support of every measure calculated to alleviate the severity of a blow hitherto unparalleled in the history of this, or, we believe, of any other public department."

In their Report for the year before last the Commissioners remarked that the pressure on the whole out-door department had been exceedingly severe; and they observed that the cost of collecting the Customs had been gradually decreasing, notwithstanding the steadily advancing trade of the country. He held in his hand the statement of one of those Out-door Customs Officers in the port of London, from which he found that the class to which he belonged had a chance of rising by promotion to £130 a year, that it could not now rise beyond £90, and that there wore other serious changes which had worked most detrimentally to their interests. The Minute of 1860 at once blighted the hopes of thousands of those officers. In the petition of the out-door officers of Hull to the Treasury he found it stated—

"That the amalgamation changed all that was favourable in this state of things, by fixing the maximum at £65 and 1s. a day, instead of £76 and 1s. a day; by making £5 the uniform amount of promotion, instead of £10 and £5 alternately as before; by so enlarging the classes, especially those worse paid, as to make promotion a shadowy and doubtful thing; by reducing all actual salaries £6, though still received as personal allowance, so that when promotion does come it brings no relief, for £5 of the £6 personal allowance is applied in lieu thereof, and so no increase of income follows by lopping off unconditionally all remuneration for acting in a superior capacity, and by reducing all overtime pay to the uniform rate of 6d. per hour, although it was paid by the merchant, and never reluctantly in the out-door officer's case."

If the House should consent to grant the Committee he would undertake to prove every allegation set forth in the petition. As to the competitive examinations established in the service, those officers complained, and most justly. Those examinations were very right and proper upon entrance to the service; but men who had been long in the service were most unfairly required to compete in these examinations with young lads of seventeen or eighteen who had just come from school. The hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) concurred with him (Mr. Hennessy) in the opinion that this system was bad and indefensible. There should be a simpler standard for old officers, and a slight increment of pay, according to length of service The Government refused to accede to the prayer of the memorial from Hull, but they were afterwards induced to re-consider the matter and the Minute of April, 1864, was then issued. Yet that Minute, as the Liverpool petitioners stated, dealt only with the minor points of the question and left all the important grievances totally unredressed. Instead of the Is. per day daily pay, it substituted £16 per annum, the difference between the two not being very much. He made it to amount to 4s. a year; but in addition to that they were allowed to get what they had not before—namely, they were no longer subject to a stoppage of 1s. a day during their sixteen days' leave of absence. These two sums, with another addition of 10s., gave an increase of salary under the Minute to these officers of 30s., per annum. The remission of £4 for the stamp on Commissions could only benefit those who were entering, not those who had already entered the service. But he must not forget to mention another extraordinary boon granted to these officers. Some of them had to provide a uniform at their own expense, but the Government decided to give them a topcoat gratuitously. How did the treatment of these officers bear comparison with that extended to their employés by private establishments, and that adopted towards other branches of the public service? The large merchants and. traders who had signed these petitions knew what they paid to their own servants, and yet they said that these out-door Customs officers justly complained. Moreover, the merchants daily came into contact with these officers, which the Government did not. They were also the largest taxpayers, and therefore interested in keeping down the ex- penditure; but they were induced to move in this matter by the belief that the Government did not treat their servants as they would be treated in private establishments; and that as these men were placed in very trustworthy and responsible positions they ought to be put beyond temptation by fair salaries and reasonable prospects of promotion. Nor was that all. The merchants actually employed, and to some extent paid, these officers themselves. In the out-door offices of the port of London, there were 280 officers in the fifth class, and they received £20,000 per annum as their salaries. These men were the best paid of all; and he found that when the out-door officers were occasionally employed by the merchants, the merchants had to pay for their attendance, and the money was received by the Department. The amount paid in one year in that way was £5,176, or 25 per cent of the aggregate salaries of the fifth class of these officers in London. The petitioners asked that they themselves might have the power of increasing that which they paid to these officers. He would not weary the House with details, but he thought he had said enough to show that the subject was one calling for inquiry; and he hoped the Government would be prepared to do something to remove the discontent which prevailed in the service. It was not creditable to them, when their revenue was in such a flourishing state, to treat the men who collected it harshly and parsimoniously. Any merchant who found his business thriving in such a manner would be ashamed to pay his clerks not a single penny more than he did the previous year. But whatever might be the increase of the public revenue, whatever the prosperity of the country, or the increase of rents and in the price of provisions, these officers' salaries were stationary, and their prospect of promotion diminished. He begged leave to move the appointment of the Committee.

seconded the Motion. He said that many of his constituents were interested in this question. After the statement made last night, it would be but fair that the Government should take the subject into their favourable consideration. He did not mean to say that it was a right principle that salaries should fluctuate with the prosperity or adversity of the country, but after a series of years of prosperity such as they had heard of last night they ought not to allow the contrast between the flourishing state of the revenue and the condition of the officers of this department to remain so marked as it was at present. The state of the outdoor officers of the Customs remained nominally unchanged, but practically had very greatly deteriorated. These officers were men of character, and intrusted with large amounts of property; and they ought to be in a position, not of dissatisfaction, but of content, and be fairly paid for their labour. It ought not to be forgotten that the introduction of improvements and the rapid advance of economical science and business arrangement since the times when these men came into the service had greatly increased the work, while house rent, provisions, and all other necessaries of life were much dearer; and that the rate of wages, compared with what it was ten years ago, was more than doubled. He thought a very fair case had been made out for inquiry.

said, he had a petition intrusted to him, which he had been unable to present from merchants connected with the inland bonding port of Leeds, confirming the statements made in the petition referred to by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) and praying for inquiry into the salaries and for more liberal treatment of these officers. The petition stated most distinctly that their salaries were not adequate to the decent and comfortable maintenance of themselves and families; indeed, they were so small as to present grievous temptations to departure from honesty in the discharge of their duties. He supported the Motion.

said, that speaking for the merchants of Bristol he considered these public officers a very hard-worked class. They were ill-paid, yet put in places of great trust, and were often, therefore, placed in circumstances of great temptation. A case had been made out fairly calling for the attention of the Government, and he thought if the Motion were pressed to a division the Government might be induced to give some pledge that the condition of this deserving body of men would be improved.

said, that he had a petition from Shoreham, which he had been unable to present, in which it was stated that it was impossible merchants and traders could feel entire confidence that such responsible duties could be honestly discharged while great temptations were placed in the way of officers who were most inadequately remunerated for their services. They all knew that in other countries the dishonesty of Government employés was often traceable to the inadequacy of their pay; they imagined that at home that temptation was wanting, and that those employed by the Government were not obliged to plead the smallness of their salaries as an excuse for dereliction of their duties. The grievances alleged in this case, therefore, called for inquiry.

said, that he had taken great interest in this question, and been in long and frequent communication with the Treasury in regard to it. He should be wanting in his duty if he did not give his testimony to the very minute, careful, and conscientious attention which had been given to the subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of the Treasury. So conscientious had been the inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should advise a man who had a good case to take it to that right hon. Gentleman and if he had a bad one to take it to somebody else. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) had omitted in his speech to mention a great boon which had been given to this branch of the service—namely, that of throwing open the whole of the Treasury patronage of the higher grades to the Customs themselves. He, however, was free to admit that that boon had not reached the men who were most aggrieved by the amalgamation of 1860—namely, those who had reached, or nearly reached, the top of their classes, who found themselves subject to a new classification, and instead of their reasonable expectation of immediate promotion, found their prospects of it so far removed, as almost to destroy hope of attaining it. The reason of the boon he had mentioned being useless to these men was this—the practice of the Customs was to give promotion either by selection or by competitive examination. Selection practically meant favouritism; and the class of old officers who were most aggrieved would probably make themselves no favourites by dwelling upon their grievances. But whatever chance of promotion they might have by selection, they had still less by competition, a system which should only apply to entrance into the service. It was not to be expected that these old men—although thoroughly good officers, because they possessed experience, and therefore had those very qualities of which a preliminary examination was only the imperfect test—would be up to the mark in general education easily reached by young men fresh from the instructions of their preceptors. He had pressed on the Treasury that a part of the Customs patronage should be given to seniority, coupled with competence and good conduct, but that that system should merely continue until such time as the claims of the sufferers by the amalgamation had been satisfied. He certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted his views on this question; but whether they were in accordance with the opinions of the Customs authorities he was not aware; they had, however, been in no way carried out. After looking carefully into the promotions which had been since made, he found that very few of them had been given to the officers who had most suffered by the amalgamation which had taken place. He believed if his suggestion had been adopted, they would not have heard of the Motion of his hon. Friend, and the agitation would have ceased—at any rate, for a considerable time. He added the last words because he believed the day must come when the Government would have to entertain the very much larger question of increasing the salaries of all their public servants in the lower grades. He should, perhaps, not be wrong in saying in all grades except the highest, the social station and influence of which might be considered as part of the remuneration for the service rendered. He would not say that this question of an increase of salary should not be entertained by the Government, but it was the duty of the guardians of the public purse to resist as long as it was just and fair to do so an augmentation so considerable of the fixed burdens of the country, of which however he had no fear, when the national wealth was increasing by at least one hundred millions annually. He should not, therefore, be surprised if the Government resisted the Motion of his hon. Friend. Those who like him- self supported it should do so with their eyes open, and recollect that this was only the first step to a very much larger inquiry regarding other officers who might be shown to be no less sufferers, and required no less consideration than those whose claims were now brought before the House.

said, he had been prevented from presenting a petition from Liverpool in favour of the Motion. He should deeply regret if Her Majesty's Government should resist the appointment of this Committee. He would not say that these officers were either underpaid or overpaid, but it was well known that there was a feeling of dissatisfaction among them, and if the appointment of this Committee would remove that feeling Her Majesty's Government would do well to appoint it. He regretted that his hon. Friend had not extended his Motion, because it was not in the out-door department alone in which dissatisfaction existed, but also to a great extent in the indoor department, and if a Committee were appointed to inquire into the one class, that inquiry should be followed by another into the other class.

said, it would not, at any rate, be the fault of his hon. Friend who had just sat down and the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) if the House were not enabled to understand the real nature and effect of the Motion before them. In the case of public officers who were enabled to allege that in their reasonable expectations, grounded upon the rules of public service existing when they entered that service, they had been disappointed through the Acts of the Government there was, he admitted, a grievance, and it was a matter in which it was the duty of the Government to render an account of their proceedings to the House, and it would be perfectly within the rules of prudence to risk an inquiry by a Committee. That was a view of the question comparatively narrow, and it was upon this view that his hon. Friend, judging by his arguments, was about to support the Motion. On this part of the question he should say a word by-and-by. The Motion before the House was of importance, not because the representatives of several of the ports of the country had risen in their places to speak in favour of it, touching as it did directly and indirectly the especial interests of their constituencies, adverse to that of the coun- try at large. [Mr. HENNESSY: No, no!] It was not because several Gentlemen representing that class of constituents had given their opinions in favour of this Motion that the hon. Member was entitled to say that he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not resist this Motion. He thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Hull for declaring the true effect of this Motion. It was not a question relating merely to a particular case of officers who thought they had been aggrieved by the change of 1860. The question at issue had been fairly and honestly disclosed and ingeniously exhibited to the public view by the hon. Member for Hull and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, and it was, whether that House, composed of representatives of the public, was prepared to hear one by one all classes of persons employed in the public service, who should come forward as general solicitors for an increase of pay and emoluments, and that at the very period when the multitude of competent candidates for admission was far beyond what could be employed in any department. He hoped it would not be thought that he was presuming to dictate to the House if he ventured to point out that to enter upon that course would be a proceeding full of danger. If there was a duty that belonged to the executive Government, it was that it should be held responsible for the regulation and the pay of the public servants; and he was convinced that the House of Commons would at all limes be reluctant, as it ever had been, to take that particular duty out of the hands of the executive Government. He knew nothing that would tend so much to the disorganization of the public service, or anything which in its results would do more to lower the character of that great Assembly, than such a step. He ventured to say that the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion did not go to the root of the matter, but adopted the vague and general allegation of the petition which he read, and stated that the Treasury had simply dealt with certain minor grievances and had loft the major ones alone; and the hon. Gentleman ingeniously illustrated that proposition by a reference to the topcoats. The major grievances were two—one of which was not at all comprehended by the hon. Gentleman, and the other he conveniently passed over, taking no notice of it whatever. The case was this. There were several minor concessions made by the Treasury Minute of 1864. It was perfectly true that though there had been a difference of opinion about it between the period of 1860 and 1864, the Commissioners of Customs reported that with regard to certain classes of officers they had suffered with respect to their chances of promotion. He admitted that that was a very fair subject for consideration, and he thought, with regard to the promotion of public servants, that where there was an absence of misconduct, and where there was no incompetency, the Government could not justly estimate the position of the public servants if they neglected their prospects of promotion. Consequently an injury to prospects of promotion was an injury to position, which might be fairly described as a grievance. The two principal grievances complained of were the existence of day pay, and the injury done to the prospects of promotion. With regard to the day pay, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) had been answered upon that point by the hon. Member for Hull. It was shown that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the significance of the arrangement which was made, and by which a fixed allowance had been given to this class of officers after the expiration of a limited time in lieu of the day pay they formerly enjoyed. With regard to the prospects of promotion, how did that matter stand? The Government had endeavoured to open to this class of officers generally, not only equal, but superior prospects of promotion to what they possessed prior to 1860. The out-door officers could now be promoted to the class of examining officers. As his hon. Friend was aware, this had made a great improvement in the position of those officers. He had not the least hesitation in saying that they had not limited themselves to meeting a grievance, but had endeavoured to put these officers in the best position they possibly could compatibly with the interests of the public service. Here he might remark that the hon. Gentleman had given expression to an opinion which as a general rule he was perfectly willing to endorse. The hon. Member stated that he was a great advocate for competitive examination, but that such examination ought to be limited to the first entrance into the public service. The opinion was one which he himself entertained, but he was bound to say there was a distinction between manual or mechanical labour, and intellectual labour, and it would not therefore be safe to put an out-door officer, whose duties were purely manual and mechanical, to attain the rank of an examining officer whose duties were strictly intellectual without first of all passing the ordeal of an examination, because in such a change he might fairly be regarded in the same light as an officer hut newly entering the public service. The case was one not of ordinary promotion, but of transfer from one Department of the public service to another of altogether a different and much higher character. His hon. Friend said that he had been in favour of retaining the principle of seniority in that kind of promotion. On the one side there were the advocates for the retention of that principle; while, on the other, were those officers who were responsible for the discipline of the Department, who were of opinion that the principle of seniority was totally inapplicable to promotion in cases of this kind. The Treasury had, he believed, only done rightly in following the opinion entertained by the responsible heads of the Department. Under those circumstances, a very short experience would show whether the older officers would or would not be able to qualify themselves to take the benefit of the promotion. On this subject, however, they had had no Report, and he was bound to say that, though they did hope that those officers might he able fully to avail themselves of their chances of promotion, they could not consent to introduce into the administration of the service an inferior principle at the hazard of damage to the efficiency of the service, and in the teeth of the opinions of gentlemen in whose judgment they placed deserved confidence, and who were responsible for the due regulation of their Department. His hon. Friend said the hardship had arisen because those persons had not a fair share of promotion, but this minute having been passed in April last the question had not yet been before the Treasury. The Treasury had not yet received a report from the Customs on the subject, but if it were proved that those gentlemen had not had their fair share of promotion, and were consequently sufferers from the alteration of I860, he was quite willing to acknowledge that they were bound to make them compensation. The subject was at that very moment under consideration with reference to another class—the indoor officers. He must, however, say that because our revenue was now collected at a smaller expense than formerly it could not for that reason be inferred that our officers were worse paid. They were in reality better paid, and the decrease in the cost of collecting the revenue arose from our having simplified our forms and abandoned certain Customs duties which, though entailing a considerable cost for collection, made but little return to the Treasury. He was also willing to admit that if the likelihood of promotion were diminished the Government were bound to make some satisfaction. They ought not, however, to be asked to make that satisfaction by introducing into the public service ineffective persons when the satisfaction could be made by appropriating a certain grant of money adapted to the circumstances of the cases as they might arise. He was bound to say that there was also another point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman which had not previously been brought under his notice, and which called for some attention on the part of the Government. The hon. Gentleman had quoted an extract from the Report of the Commissioners of the Customs, stating that in certain cases the hours of the officers connected with the water-side and landing departments had been lengthened without those officers receiving any increase of pay. He would not say that he could not regard that as a grievance, because the contract which the men were bound by was for the service of the man and did not specify any particular number of hours. Looking at the state of things and the condition of the labour-market, he believed that as far as that statement was correct it was deserving of attention on the part of the Government. He was, however, assured on the best authority that it was only in rare and exceptional cases that any complaint of this nature could be made; but he would undertake that examination should be instituted into the matter. Those were the only points raised in the discussion which, in his opinion, could be at all described as grievances. He would, however, call the attention of the House to the fact that the Committee asked for by the hon. Member was really a Committee for the purpose of considering a wholesale augmentation of the emoluments of one large branch of the public service, and those who supported the Motion had frankly informed the House that if they granted it with respect to that department they must also grant it in connection with every department of the public service. It could not by any possibility stop at this point. It would pass from the out-door officers to the in-door officers, from the Customs to the Excise, from the Excise to the Post Office; nor did he know in what manner its operation after its commencement could be stopped. He believed, if they gave encouragement to the principle, they would find themselves entangled in the re-consideration of the emoluments of all departments of the public service, whether civil, naval, or military. He was sure that no House of Commons—whether dying or just born—whether about to meet its constituents or fresh from meeting them—would entangle itself in a principle so false with consequences so mischievous. The cases deserving inquiry should be investigated in a fair and equitable spirit, but as the proposition of the hon. Member meant something much wider and of a different character, he hoped the House would reject it.

said, he wished to state that he also had been prevented by the forms of the House from presenting that evening a petition from the merchants and traders of Tralee in favour of the Motion.

said, he wished to point out the great inequalities which existed in the remuneration of officers at the outports. At Whitehaven, where everything was getting very dear, the officers received lower remuneration than was granted in an adjoining town. Whether these had arisen from past arrangements or not, they ought not to be allowed to remain. It was impossible for merchants and shipowners who came in contact with these officers not to sympathize with them. If the Government should not listen to their complaints it was the duty of Members to urge attention to them.

appealed to the hon. Member for the King's County whether he did not think that he had got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer all that he wanted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to look into the complaint, and to remedy any grievances which he might find to exist. It must be remembered that two things were involved—an increase of pay and compensation for loss of promotion. It would be hard if, by the non-success of this Motion as to increase of pay—with regard to which it would probably fail—that the officers of Customs should be deprived of compensation for loss of promotion. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the grievance, and had promised to consider it. Under those circumstances, it would be the wiser course for the hon. Member for the King's County to withdraw the Motion, and to reserve to himself free action for the future in case he should think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not properly redeem his pledge.

said, he had such confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would have preferred that this Motion should not have been brought forward; but, it having been brought forward, he felt it due to an excellent class of men to express his concurrence in the statements that had been made of the hardships of their case. This was also the opinion of influential inhabitants at Greenock.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the augmented Spirit Duties in Ireland. He had said he had been a great admirer of the financial abilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would gladly assent to the appointment of this Committee, as it would enable him to give his reasons for pursuing an exactly contrary financial policy in Ireland to that which he had pursued in England. The whole merit of his policy in England had been to diminish and repeal every duty which in any way restricted the consumption of the people, which restrained production, or diminished employment. In Ireland he had adopted an exactly contrary policy. He had augmented a tax which had had the effect of restricting the consumption and enjoyment of the people, and thrown many people out of employment. Ample evidence to that effect had been elicited before the Committee on Irish Taxation. One witness stated that the consumption of spirits had declined from 8,000,000 gallons in 1852 to 5,000,000 gallons in 1862; another, that the number of distillers had declined from 75 to 19; another, that the increased tax on Irish spirit had acted prejudicially upon agriculture generally, that the farmer and the labourer alike had suffered. Colonel Knox Gore stated that the effect of the increased duty was to limit the extent of cultivation; and the late Mr. Senior had declared that two-thirds of the Irish distilling trade had been ruined by recent legislation. The morals of the people had not improved, and illicit distillation had increased. And it should be borne in mind that all this took place at a time when Ireland was suffering from the effects of a series of bad harvests—a time when the circumstances of the country called for a reduction, not for an increase of taxation. Crowds of people were thrown out of employment, the labour market had been overcharged, and wages proportionately reduced. The right hon. Gentleman could not therefore be surprised that a bitter feeling was evolved by the increase of direct and indirect taxation in Ireland—