§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to complaints that a restrictive Treasury limit of compensation of 1882 was withheld from the knowledge of Officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers when they were invited to retire under the Royal Warrants of 1881 and 1884; whether the principle of "acturial calculations" has been applied to all cases of regimental and full Colonels of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, and also to the cases of Lieutenant-Colonels, Royal Engineers, subsequent to that of Colonel E. M. Lloyd, who retired under the provisions of those warrants; whether a Treasury limit or Departmental ruling of September, 1882, has been applied to the cases of those Lieutenant-Colonels, Royal Engineers, who retired under the above-named warrants, from Lieutenant-Colonel E. R. James to the case of Lieutenant-Colonel F. B. Mainguy, thereby reducing their life annuities for loss sustained under warrants of a later date than 1872 to £150 a year, instead of granting them the compensation they were entitled to on "actuarial calculations," as stipulated by both the warrants; whether he will lay such Minute or ruling upon the Table of the House; and whether it is true that this Minute or ruling has been filed in the Royal Courts of Justice in the demurrer and plea in the recent case of "Mitchell v. Regina"?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEMy answer to the first three of the hon. Member's questions is "Yes," with the exception that there is no stipulation in the Warrant as to actuarial calculations. To the fourth question I must answer "No;" and as to the fifth, I have no information I at my disposal.
§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI beg, also, to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true that in 1886–7 he returned as surplus to the Treasury, under Vote 19, £25,720, voted by Parliament for the compensation of retired Officers; whether, in each 1355 successive year up to the present date, large sums voted by Parliament for the same purpose have been returned into the Exchequer; and whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the unsatisfied claim of the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina," and any of his brother Officers who may have been underpaid, for favourable consideration?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEI must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury on the 12th of this month.