§ MR. HAZELL
I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has observed that, according to the Estimates, Class I., it is proposed to appoint a new Treasury Valuer and Inspector of Rates at the same salary, namely, £1,000 rising by £50 annually to £1,200, as paid to the present holder of the office, in spite of the fact that the salary has been starred in the Estimates for many years, and a note appended that it would be revised on a vacancy; and whether he can say by whose authority this appointment is proposed to be made on such terms, and who is responsible for the omission of the footnote referred to from this year's Estimates?
§ MR. HANBURY
Yes, Sir. The facts of the case are as follows: —A Treasury Minute, dated 28th June. 1892. fixed the salary of Mr. Griffiths, who then held the post of Treasury Valuer and Inspector of Rates, at £1,200 a year, with the proviso that this rate would not be continued to his successor. A note was in- 440 serted in the Estimates for the years 1893–4 to 1898–9 embodying this proviso, and the salary of the post has accordingly been reduced from a fixed amount of £1,200 to £1,000, rising by annual increments of £20 to £1,200. This reduction was effected in spite of the fact that in recent years circumstances have recently led to a considerable increase in the work of valuation. The omission of the footnote, for which I am responsible, was necessary and proper.