§ SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain why a purchase lieutenant, who may possibly have invested about £800 in the State, is not allowed some recompense on compulsory retirement for the retention of that sum, while a purchase captain with (say) £2,400 invested in the State is allowed £100 a-year for life for its use on being compulsorily retired?
§ MR. CHILDERSSir, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Baronet, I have to say that the cases of the purchase captains and purchase lieutenants are altogether different. The former, who have not been promoted, were compensated by the Warrant of 1877 for the loss of their over-regulation money, and now will receive further compensation to the extent of £50 a-year, in consideration of their compulsory retirement at 42 instead of at 55. The purchase lieutenants who become non-purchase captains were liable, under the Warrant of 1877, to compulsory retirement at 40. They are benefited, not injured, by the Warrant of 1881, which enables non- 823 purchase captains to obtain half-pay majorities, and ultimately honorary lieutenant-colonelcies. Of the £800 mentioned in the Question, only £100 was over-regulation money, and this, in 1877, was considered to be fully met by the promotion given to the officer. Under these circumstances, it is manifest that I should not be justified in disturbing the settlement of 1877 as to these officers.