§ Mr. Lytteltonwished to ask the noble lord opposite whether any resolution had been come to regarding the oath to be taken by officers on half-pay, at the time of receiving their half-pay?
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, he had not been able to give a satisfactory answer last session to a similar question from the hon. gentleman; but he now had it in his power to tell the hon. member, that it had 899 been thought expedient so far to relax the rule referred to, that whereas by the present regulation no officer could receive his half-pay without making an affidavit that he held no other place of emolument, civil or military, under his majesty, it had been resolved to substitute an oath, that he held no office, civil or military, under the crown, exceeding three times the amount of his half-pay, which was competed to be equal to about twice the amount of his full pay; and considering that the greater number of officers, particularly inferior ones, had little chance of future employment, he hoped the House would not look upon the amended regulation as too liberal.
§ Mr. Lytteltonsaid, the answer of the noble lord was entirely satisfactory.