§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)asked the Secretary of State for War whether a Major General, who was selected for the command of a district early in 1887, went to the expense of fitting out for the command, and actually held the appointment for one year, but was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General before he had held the command for the full qualifying period of two years, will be allowed to count in any way the period of such employment, or whether he will be held to have been unemployed for the whole period of five years ending 31st March, 1889, and will thereupon be compulsorily retired; whether the officer in question ran through the grade of Major General in about three and a-half years, the usual period being nine and a-half years, and it was consequently almost impossible for him to be employed for the full qualifying period in a Major General's appointment; whether, besides the addition of another General in the prime of life to the Pension List at an annual future extra cost of £810, his retirement will also tend to the longer retention by its present holder, at its present salary, of an office for which his successor is to receive £500 a-year less than is now paid; and, whether, in view of an annual saving of over £1,300, and the fact that the officer in question was actually employed as described, and has been further recommended for employment, he will exercise any of the powers conferred upon him by Paragraph 95 of the Royal Warrant, and in so special a case help to keep down the overgrown Pension List of Officers?
*MR. STANHOPEI presume that my hon. Friend refers to the case of Lieutenant General Tupper. If so, I can only say that that officer accepted the command at Woolwich with the full knowledge that he would probably be promoted to Lieutenant General in a few months, and that on such promotion he would have to vacate the appointment. 527 The limit of two years as a bar to the non-employment rule for retirement was deliberately adopted; and I am not prepared to recommend a departure from it; nor do I think this is a case in which I could interfere under Article 95. As regards the non effective list, if this officer did not now retire, his retirement could only be postponed for a comparatively short time, and would then be probably on a higher annual rate of pay; and other retirements would take place as a result, which would go far towards neutralizing any saving. With reference to the Royal Military Academy and the prospective saving suggested in the question, I hope to make arrangements which will give immediate effect to the reduction of expense.