§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Legacy and Succession Duty Department, which has been classed in the first rank of offices under the control of the Board of Inland Revenue, is paid not only much less than other offices of that rank, such as those of Solicitor and Secretary, but also much less than offices of as a lower rank, such as those of Accountant and Storekeeper; and, whether the Treasury have refused to increase 1148 the scale of pay for the first-mentioned office, although an increase was recently recommended by the Board as a matter of "bare justice;" and, if so, whether he will state to the House the grounds for such refusal, and also in what particular he considers the duties of the office in question inferior to those of the other offices in the Inland Revenue to which reference has been made?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the clerks in the Legacy and Succession Duty department, which had been classed in the first rank of offices under the control of the Board of Inland Revenue, were paid less than the clerks in other departments of that rank, and the Treasury had refused to increase the scale of pay for the first-mentioned office, mainly on the ground that no good reason had been adduced for such an increase. It was urged that the work of the office had increased; but that, though a valid reason for increasing the number of clerks, was no reason for augmenting the salaries of those already engaged. Secondly, it was said that the receipts of the office had largely increased; but that, again, was no reason whatever for raising the salaries, unless it were admitted that Government clerks ought to be paid on the principle of percentages. Indeed, if that principle were admitted, it would follow that if the receipts diminished the salaries should be reduced—a principle which the clerks would probably be loth to admit. As to the disparity between the pay of that and of other offices, it had not been understood that it was the duty of the Government to adapt the pay of one office to that of others. To do so would lead to endless discussions and heartburnings; and, indeed, he saw no more reason for raising the salaries of that office to the height of others than to lower others to their level. The question, moreover, was investigated in 1866, and everything then asked for was granted to the office. That application was renewed in 1871; but no fresh reasons for increasing the pay were advanced, and therefore he did not think it necessary to increase it.