§ 23. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering that the regimental allowances drawn by regimental officers of the Indian Army is regimental pay and not staff pay, and that it has been proved that the regimental pay of officers of the Indian Army was not greater during the War than that drawn by officers of the British Army, he will cancel the order depriving officers of the Indian Army, taken prisoner in the defence of Kut, of half their regimental allowances after the first two months of captivity?
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONThe emolument that was reduced by half, as described in the question, is officially termed "staff pay". I do not think any question of allowances, in the sense in which that word is officially used, arises. The staff pay in question differs from regimental pay in that its issue is conditional upon performance of duty. The Regulation referred to was made with the concurrence of the War Office by the Indian Authorities, and it would not be in the power of the War Office to cancel it, even if it were considered that any case existed for so doing. I must not be understood to accept the hon. and gallant Member's statement that the regimental pay of Indian Army officers was not greater than that of British Army officers.
§ Colonel YATEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it has been proved that the regimental allowances of Indian officers were not greater than those of British officers, according to a return which he himself issued, and is it not a very great injustice to Indian Army officers that they should be deprived of their pay for the defence of Kut?
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI have just said that I am not to be understood to accept that interpretation.