§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)
I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why the promises and conditions given in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for War, on the 24th June 491 1881, have not been carried out in their integrity in respect of the compensation to be awarded to those officers whose careers he decided to cut short by four years, and whom he designated as officers now in the rank of colonel who have elected to remain in the Army because of the prospect of reaching the list of generals, etc., the value of whose present prospects were to be safely guarded, and the mitigation of the severity of whose compulsory retirement had formed one of the main objects of his arrangements in bringing out the Royal Warrant of 1881; and why, in the case of those officers who were holding appointments in India at the time of their compulsory retirement, the compensation awarded them for loss of appointment, as laid down in the Royal Warrant, has not been calculated according to the pay and staff salary of such appointments defined by the India Office and the Indian Army Regulations under which they were serving?
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.)
The promises referred to in the first paragraph have been carried out. As regards the second paragraph, the compensation was calculated upon that portion of the officers' emoluments which represented their Indian pay, exclusive of allowances in respect of which they were not entitled to compensation.