HC Deb 13 July 1876 vol 230 cc1390-1

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to a paragraph headed "Inland Revenue," in the "Civilian" newspaper of the date of the 26th of June 1876, where it is stated that two clerks were allowed to leave the Inland Revenue Office, one for eight months and the other for something less, to serve in the Board of Trade Department or with the Privy Council; whether it be correct, as it is there stated, that during the whole of the time they were with the Board of Trade or the Privy Council they were in receipt of twelve shillings per day, besides their ordinary pay in the Inland Revenue Department; and, if it be customary when an officer may be required in one Department from another, that he or they receive pay for both offices, as if he or they did the work of both?


I have made inquiries into the case, and I believe that the transaction referred to took place about 10 years ago. In 1866 there was a great and sudden outbreak of cattle plague, and, the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council being under-manned, an application was made to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue for some assistance. He lent the services of two gentlemen, one of whom, Mr. Wingrove, who has been dead, I believe, for four years, was employed for eight months. His services were very valuable, giving a great deal of time to the work, and often, I believe, working into the night; and at the expiration of the eight months he was rewarded with £240, which was considered a proper remuneration for the amount of work he had done, taking into consideration, of course, the fact that he was an officer in the public service. As to the other gentleman, who was said to have served for "something less" than eight months, he did, in fact, serve for a fortnight, and he received for such service £5.


said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the latter part of the Question, which he should therefore repeat to-morrow—whether when officers were transferred from one Department to another it was usual to pay them as if they were doing the work of both?

Back to