§ LORD TRUROasked the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether lieutenant-colonels upon half-pay who have been restored to full-pay to command regiments under the new system of five years' tenure of command are entitled, upon their retirement, to their over-regulation money, if they have not already received it from their regiments? On the answer he received would depend whether he should call further attention to the question hereafter.
§ VISCOUNT BURYThis is a matter of importance, and I may satisfy the noble Lord's mind by saying that the officers will not suffer pecuniarily under the new system. In reply to the noble Lord's Question, I would reply that the decisions on which cases coming under the Question would be decided are detailed in the 835 Army Estimate Vote 19, G. 6. Generally speaking, it might be said that if an officer retiring from a five years' regimental command has not received any over-regulation, presumably he was not entitled to it; for up to November, 1871, Purchase having been in force, he would have received over-regulation from his successors. There are two exceptions to this, which are defined in the Royal Warrant of 1871. If an officer was placed upon half-pay owing to the reduction of his regiment, or through promotion for distinguished service, he would receive the customary over-regulation money of his rank when he retired to half-pay after the completion of his five years' command; provided always that only one lieutenant-colonel shall be allowed to return to full-pay and retire on these terms each year. But if the officer appointed to a five years' regimental command from half-pay has been placed on half-pay subsequent to the Warrant of 1871, he would receive no over-regulation money. The fact of being appointed to a five years' regimental command would not of itself give him any claim to over-regulation money.