§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, Whether any objection exists to the production of the Report upon the duties of the Office of Receiver General of Inland Revenue; and, whether the noble Lord recently appointed has had any training to fit him for the discharge of any duties which may attach to the office?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he was not aware whether his hon. Friend had in view any particular document of an official character to which the name of a Report would apply. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: It was alluded to in the recent debate.] At all events, what had happened with regard to the recent appointment was this:—When the vacancy occurred two questions were examined—first, whether the office should be abolished; and, secondly, whether, if an appointment should be made, it was desirable that it should be made from within the Department. It was the opinion of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue that the office should not be abolished, and also that it would not be advantageous to make the appointment from within the Department. The office was one of duty, which might, perhaps, be sufficiently discharged by a gentleman of character, intelligence, and knowledge of business, who was also able to find security for a large sum of money. The noble Lord who had received the appointment had special facilities for becoming acquainted with the duties of the office from his experience as a member of the Board of Treasury when he was himself Chancellor of the Exchequer.