§ MR. RAIKESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he intends, before proceeding with the Second Reading of the Army Regulation Bill, to lay upon the Table of the House the new Regulations regarding promotion and retirement which are to take effect after the abolition of purchase?
§ MR. CARDWELLSir, I am not yet in a position to promise how soon I can lay any such Paper on the Table, but I will do so as soon as I am able.
§ COLONEL ANSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it would be possible to divide the Army Regulation Bill into two separate Bills, one dealing with purchase and the mode of its abolition, the other with the remaining objects of the Bill; and, whether there is any objection to Officers of the Army 833 communicating with Members of Parliament and criticizing the Bill on points affecting their pecuniary interests and future prospects in their profession?
§ MR. CARDWELLI think, Sir, the Bill can be much more conveniently considered as a whole. My hon. and gallant Friend is himself a distinguished officer, and I trust he will give no countenance to anything which would prejudice the good order and military discipline of the service. It is quite possible for any officer to communicate with a Member of this House on the subject of the Bill without incurring the reproach of being party to such a breach of discipline.
§ MAJOR DICKSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has prohibited the promotion by sale in succession in regiments where there are supernumerary Officers, and whether such regulation is not contrary to all precedent and obstructive to promotion in those regiments?
§ MR. CARDWELLSir, I have not prohibited the sales in question, and everything which has been done has been in strict accordance with the practice pursued when the former reductions were made in 1866. The absorption has always been in the junior rank, in which there was a supernumerary.