§ SIR W. MARRIOTT (Brighton)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, previous to being appointed to command the Scots Guards and Regimental District on 1st July, 1886, Colonel Stracey should have either been placed or have had an opportunity of going on half-pay temporarily in order that he might receive his over-regulation purchase money, £4,000, which he had paid for the purchase of commissions, and to which he had become entitled; whether, as a matter of fact, every other 1001 Colonel commanding a Regimental District both in the Guards and the Line on 1st July, 1886, having purchase rights, had before they were appointed received the over-regulation purchase money to which they were entitled; whether every Colonel with purchase rights appointed to command a Regimental District since 1st July, 1886, has invariably received his over-regulation money before appointment; whether this omission in Colonel Stracey's case was due to an oversight on the part of the Military or other Authorities; and whether, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will re-consider Colonel Stracey's case, and recompense him for the loss he has sustained?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,) Stirling, &c.No, Sir; there was no necessity for Colonel Stracey to be placed on half-pay at the time referred to. His right to his over-regulation money took effect only when he left his regiment. The command of a Regimental District was not analogous to the command of a Foot Guards Regiment; and, as a matter of fact, Colonel Stracey's predecessor in command went through the same phases as himself before he received his over-regulation money, except that he had to serve longer than Colonel Stracey before receiving it. A Lieutenant Colonel with purchase rights appointed to the command of a Regimental District of the Line was purposely placed on half-pay, because, the appointment not being in regimental succession, as it was in the Foot Guards, the Army Purchase Commissioners could not legally have awarded the over-regulation money on the cessation of the appointment. It was, therefore, essential, in order to preserve his purchase rights, to place him on half-pay from his regiment at the time of appointment to the Regimental District. There was no omission, as implied in the question, on the part of any Military or other Authority. The case was fully considered by my Predecessor; and I see no sufficient ground for re-opening it.
§ SIR W. MARRIOTTThe right hon. Gentleman has not told me whether every Colonel with purchase rights appointed to command a Regimental District since the 1st July, 1886, has 1002 invariably received his over-regulation money before appointment?
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTIs not a Colonel of a regiment of Foot Guards so far in the same position as a Colonel commanding a Regimental District that he has a large number of the Auxiliary Forces under his command. Is there no remedy whatever for the injustice to which Colonel Stracey has been subjected?
§ * MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI do not admit that he has been subjected to any injustice. He obtained command of a regiment of the Guards after a very short period of service as Lieutenant Colonel commanding a battalion. It was in his power, and at his own option, to retire on half-pay, and had he done so his claims to command a regiment would have been considered with the claims of others. But it was to his interest to continue in the regiment, and so have first claim to the command, which he obtained. Naturally, he was not allowed to receive his over-regulation money until his connection with the regiment ceased. In reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton, I have to say that officers commanding Regimental Districts have to be put on half-pay before obtaining the money, because they receive appointment out of the regiment.
§ SIR W. MARRIOTTBut has not every Colonel with purchase rights appointed to the command of a Regimental District since the 1st July, 1886, received the over-regulation money before his appointment? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that, "Yes" or "No"?
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTThe right hon. Gentleman has forgotten to say whether the Colonel of a Regiment of the Guards has not the command also of a number of Volunteer regiments?
§ Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI think it is very likely every one of these Colonels has received the over-regulation money; but I have quoted the case of Colonel Stracey's predecessor, who was treated in exactly the same way, except that he had to wait a great deal longer.
§ SIR W. MARRIOTTI shall call attention to this matter on the Army Estimates.