HC Deb 31 January 1878 vol 237 c722

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in reference to Article 88 of the Royal Warrant of 1877, on the appointment, promotion, and retirement of officers, it is true that service rendered before the age of twenty will not be allowed to count in the case of officers applying for permission to retire on permanent half-pay under the provisions of Article 95; and, whether the words "other than on retired full-pay or half-pay" in Article 88 apply equally to the case of officers retiring on half-pay with liability to service under the provisions of Article 95, and to the case of officers who have an unqualified right to retire after twenty-five years' service, in accordance with the provisions of Article 119; and, if not, whether he would be willing to consider the expediency of allowing service before the age of twenty to count towards retirement in both cases?


Sir, service before 20 does not count for the permanent half-pay granted by Article 95. The words in Article 88 apply only to retired half-pay after 25 years' service granted by Article 119, and this will be made clearer in a revise of the clause. It has been decided to adhere to the age of 20 as the limit, except as regards the year's service allowed for Lucknow. The intention of the Warrant was that, for any new retirement created by the Warrant, service before the age of 20 should not count; but that as regards retirements already existing—and which will gradually die out—namely, retired full-pay and retired half-pay after 25 years' service—no change should be made. In the corrigenda Warrant about to be issued, it is proposed to insert a few words in Article 88 which shall make this quite clear.