HC Deb 11 August 1887 vol 319 c77
MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has received a letter from Mr. Herbert Burrows, of the Inland Revenue Department, in which he states that a "recorded caution" has been recognized by the Board for very many years as one of the Departmental forms of official punishment; and, whether he can now give the House any further information on the matter?


I have received a letter from Mr. Herbert Burrows, and have informed him that I cannot engage in a correspondence with him on the subject. "A recorded caution" has, I understand, never been recognized by the Board of Inland Revenue as a punishment. It entails no loss of pay, privileges, or prospects.' It is true that three successive "recorded cautions" are equivalent to an "admonition," which is a punishment, inasmuch as it prevents the promotion of an officer within 12 months, and stops his increment of salary over the same period. But a single "recorded caution" entails no loss whatever to the person cautioned. It may have—and is, of course, intended to have— an effect upon his mind. But it does not, of itself, impair his position and prospects.