SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for India, What reason exists why the Indian Furlough and Leave Rules of 1875, which allow one year's leave counting for pension after every five years' service, should not be applied to all officers in the Staff Corps and Indian Army, with retrospective effect, so as to accelerate retirements in the present excessive number of field officers; and, whether, as the recently published pension scheme makes a marked distinction in favour of officers who joined the Staff Corps before September 12th, 1866, he will be able to recommend such a modification of the scheme as will extend its advantages to officers on the General List, and to officers of the late Indian Army, and of the General List who joined the Staff Corps after September 12th 1866?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, the Rules which governed the service for pension of those officers who entered the Indian Army before 1875 were well understood by them, and their voluntary absences from duty were doubtless governed by that understanding. The Rules 1291 of 1875 could not conveniently be applied to officers of already long service, though they were given the option of taking advantage of them if they considered their terms, on the whole, more favourable. It was not, however, intended, nor would it be reasonable, that they should take the benefits of the new system and discard its drawbacks. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I would point out that the recently - published pension scheme is based on the privilege already secured to those officers who joined the Staff Corps before September, 1866, of succeeding to colonels' allowances in a fixed period—a privilege which does not belong to those on what is called the General List, or those who joined the Staff Corps after September, 1866. I have no intention of extending this privilege to those classes which do not already possess it. I may say now that the whole question of Indian military pensions has recently been under my most careful consideration. In communicating my decisions on them to the Government of India, I said that the Rules, as they now stand, are not, with due regard to the public interest, susceptible of further extension. I adhere to this view, and am not prepared to entertain proposals for any such extension.
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will explain why time spent at Addiscombe was allowed to count towards pensions, both "original" and "additional," under the Indian Pension Scheme sanctioned by the Despatch of August 4th 1881, but under the recent Despatch towards "original" pensions only, and not "additional"; and, whether the effect of this is not to place Addiscombe officers, who have not exceeded their prescribed amounts of leave for "original" pensions, in a less advantageous position under the latter than they were put in under the former Despatch, owing to their having to make good their Addiscombe time before they can claim the pension under the latter Despatch, to which they would have been entitled under the former?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, it was by inadvertence that under the terms laid down in my despatch of August 4 last, the time spent at Addiscombe became, by implication, included 1292 in the service qualifying for the extra pension. This was set right in the amending despatch of December 8, 1881. In no case does Addiscombe service count towards the additional pension.
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is not the case, according to the last Army List, that there are in the Madras Army, in the four cavalry regiments, 21 field officers to 13 captains and subalterns, and in the forty-one infantry regiments, 179 field officers to 85 captains and subalterns; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy this disproportion which would seem injurious to the esprit de corps and the efficiency of the Madras Army?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, the latest Madras Army List shows that on the 1st of January, 1882, there were actually serving with the Madras regiments of Cavalry and Infantry but 96 captains and subalterns to 151 field officers, including captains having brevet rank, which is certainly a disproportionate number of the field officer grade. This disproportion will, however, be at once considerably re-adjusted by the recent measures adopted in concert with the War Office for facilitating the admission of young officers into the Staff Corps, through which the existing deficiencies in the Madras regiments will, it may be hoped, be completed with subalterns of under four years' service. These measures, combined with the recent Rules limiting the tenure of regimental commands, coupled with the more favourable terms of retirement lately introduced, will, I believe, in due course, bring the regimental establishments down to their normal proportion of the several ranks; and I do not propose to take any further steps in that direction. Meanwhile, I continue to receive very favourable reports of the spirit and efficiency of the Madras Army.