HC Deb 16 March 1882 vol 267 cc1008-9

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether those purchase captains who, having reached the age or service at which, under the Royal Warrants of 13th. August 1877, and 1st May 1878, they became ineligible for further promotion or higher pension, were, in order to avoid supersession, compelled to retire and retired on pensions under those Warrants, will be placed on the same footing as regards rank and pension as officers of the same class compulsorily retired under the Royal Warrant of 26th June 1881, the latter having no stronger claims than the former, while enjoying the advantage of not being liable to supersession on account of age?"


The Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman relates to certain officers retired under the Warrant of 1877, who, if they had remained in the Army until 1881, might have retired on better terms; and the object of the Question is to obtain for them that the rank and pension on which they retired should be raised to the level of the officers compulsorily retired in 1881. The ground of the claim I take to be that we have cancelled the retirement of certain non-purchase captains, who were compelled to leave the Army at 40 years of age, thus, in a certain sense, giving a retrospective character to the Warrant. The difference, however, between the two cases is that in the latter there was no question of improving the terms of an already-completed retirement, but only of re-admitting to the Army certain officers within a few months retired for age, who, under the new Warrant, need not retire. After well weighing both sides, I feel bound to adhere to the rule that no increase of retired pay can be allowed under a new Warrant to an officer who retired under a former one; and that the only been which could be conceded would be as to honorary rank, and this has been granted.