§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in calculating the value of a Colonel's appointment in India on Indian pay, upon compulsory retirement under 1022 the Royal Warrant of 1881, the War Office has estimated the pay of a Colonel at only 17 rupees 8 minas a month above that of a Lieutenant in the Indian Staff Corps, a Lieutenant in the Indian Service receiving 225 rupees a month, while the War Office estimate of a Colonel's pay is 243 rupees 8 minas a month. Whether he is aware that when the late General Hawley, Deputy Adjutant General at headquarters, was removed from his appointment for age in 1883, five months before his time was up, he received compensation for the full amount of the pay of his appointment notwithstanding that such pay was described in the pay warrant as inclusive of allowances excepting travelling; and, on what ground the War Office has discriminated in the method of estimating the pay of an officer of the headquarter staff and of an officer of the British service who was serving in India at the time of his compulsory retirement as a General Officer awl with a consolidated pay awl salary unconditioned of any allowances.
§ * THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WYNDHAM,) DoverOn the introduction of compulsory retirement for age, it was decided to give compensation in respect of pay, but not of allowances. This principle was applied generally throughout the Army. In the case of India, where consolidated pay is the rule, the India Office supplied a calculation of the amount of pay which represented extinguished allowances, and on that amount no compensation was paid. In the case of the staff at the War Office, the rates of pay had come to be salaries attached to particular posts and were treated as such. In the first paragraph of the question the honourable and gallant Member has compared the nett pay of a colonel excluding the amount based on extinguished allowances with the total consolidated pay of a lieutenant.