§ 25. Mr. WRIGHTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, in view of the physical strain entailed by, and the importance of, the duties of a divisional commander, Royal Artillery, in warfare under present conditions, he will consider reducing the age limit of fifty-seven for retirement of an officer who has not been promoted to the rank of major-general to fifty or some other lower age, or devise some other means by which employment as a divisional commander, Royal Artillery, shall not be continued as a rule to an officer over the age of fifty?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIt is not considered necessary or desirable to take the action suggested by my hon. Friend. The Commander-in-Chief of an Expeditionary Force has unrestricted power to remove a commander, Royal Artillery, on account of age or for any other reason.
§ Mr. WRIGHTDoes not a very large proportion of these full colonels of the regiments consist of men between the ages of fifty and fifty-seven, and has not the failure to give the regiment its share of promotion and appointments on divisional corps and Army staffs contributed to this block of the senior officers of the regiment?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot answer definitely the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, but if I remember aright I did communicate with him by letter the other day and give him the figures as far as I could. So far as the latter part of the supplementary question is concerned, I cannot add anything to the answer which I have just given.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODAre any steps being taken by the War Office to remedy the great injustice and real scandal of officers of Artillery not being given their fair share of these appointments?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThat question does not arise out of the question on the Paper, but I think that I answered my hon. Friend the other day that, in the opinion of the authorities, Artillery officers were getting their fair share of these appointments.