§ MR. TOTTENHAM
asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that certain officers of Cavalry, now on the cadres of the three Presidencies, who elected to remain "local," are at present, and have been since the formation of the Staff Corps in 1861, when holding an appointment, compulsorily reduced to and obliged to accept an inferior rate of pay, viz. the Staff Corps pay of their rank, although they do not belong to that corps, and that, through this act of compulsion, a Cavalry Captain is a loser per annum of Rs.2,268, a Cavalry Major of Rs.3,468 per annum, and a Cavalry Lieut.-Colonel of Rs.3,960 per annum; whether it is a fact that all these Cavalry officers above-mentioned, on entering the service of the late East India Company, were guaranteed and received a superior rate of pay to Infantry officers, and that their compulsory reduction since 1861 to the Staff Corps scale, on being nominated to an appointment, is a direct infringement of the guarantee given under the "Henley" Clause, and ratified by Parliament; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the cases of these officers, with a view to removing the grievances of which they complain?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
In 1861, on the re-organization of the Native Army, all regiments were placed on what was then called the "irregular" footing, and all regimental appointments became staff appointments. The whole question of staff salaries was then reviewed, and the regimental as well as all other military staff salaries were based on a fixed and low rate of military pay, the two forming a consolidated and adequate remuneration, framed on the principle that all officers employed on staff duties, whether Cavalry, Infantry, or Staff Corps, shall receive in their respective grades identical payment for the performance of identical duties. When not receiving staff salaries, which are, of course, higher than the ordinary regimental pay of the officers—that is, 2047 when unemployed—officers of the whole Cavalry and Infantry local service receive the regimental rates of pay guaranteed to them. Cavalry officers were not guaranteed that they should, under all circumstances, receive superior rates of pay to Infantry officers, nor could the guarantee be strained to admit such a conclusion, for long prior to the change in the Government of India Cavalry officers commanding irregular Cavalry regiments received precisely the same remuneration as Infantry officers holding similar commands. I do not propose to cause any inquiry to be made into the matter.