§ MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington)To ask the Secretary of State for War why it was that the Committee appointed by the late Secretary of State to inquire into the grievances of the pensioned officers of the Reserve did not, as promised by the late Lord Hardwicke in the House of Lords, 11th May, 1901, inquire into the whole subject, and did not take evidence from the Reserve of officers; and whether, in view of the fact that his predecessor admitted the existence of a grievance under which the pensioned officers of the Reserve are suffering, and that under the terms of the Royal Warrant in force in 1899 junior officers of the Reserve who had retired with gratuities were more highly recompensed for their mobilised services than their pensioned seniors, he will say what steps he proposes to take to redress the alleged grievance resulting from this difference of treatment.
(Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There appears to be some misapprehension on the matter. The Committee in question was appointed to consider the terms on which retired officers are 449 required to serve. This Committee had all necessary information before them, and reported that it would be quite impossible to make the proposals they recommended retrospective. In these circumstances it will be undertood that no further steps in the direction suggested in the Question are possible. I may also call the hon. Member's attention to a further statement by Lord Hardwicke on 7th August†, 1903, in which he corrected his previous statement and explained that the Committee found themselves unable "to recommend the idea of redressing the grievances of any particular officer."