§ ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, East-bourne)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the fact that the Treasury have refused to award a full Civil Service pension to Dr. Blaxall, R.N., late Medical Inspector under the Local Government Board, on his retirement after twenty-one and a half years' service, although the Local Government Board specially recommended him for the maximum allowance, on the ground that his retired naval pay must be taken into account when arranging for his retirement on two-thirds of his salary, whether it is on record that the Law Officers of the Crown in 1872, on a case referred to them,
Gave it as their distinct opinion that there is a valid distinction between naval half-pay and retired pay, and that officers in receipt of retired pay are not subject to the restrictions relating to half-pay";and whether, in view of subsequent decisions, the above opinion having been invariably followed in the case of naval officers on retired pay entitled to Civil Service pensions, the Treasury will reconsider their decision as affecting Dr. Blaxall, and grant him the pension as recommended by the Local Government Board?
*SIR JOHN GORSTDr. Blaxall has been treated, in the award of his pension, exactly in the same way as every other Civil servant who is entitled to retired pay in respect of previous service in the Army or Navy. He has been granted so much Civil pension as, together with his retired pay, equals two-thirds of his Civil salary. Such a limitation is, I believe, within the intention of the Superannuation Acts, and it is made in all cases in virtue of the full and final discretion given by those Acts to the Treasury. The advice of the Law Officers of the Crown to Public Departments is confidential, and I cannot therefore reply to that portion of the question which refers to an opinion stated to have been given by the Law Officers in 1872.