§ LORD CHELMSFORD, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is still intended to deprive general officers, who maybe retired under the provisions of the warrant which is to come into force on the 1st July next, of the good service reward which under present conditions they are entitled to retain until they are appointed colonel of a regiment or colonel commandant? said, he had already on a previous occasion pointed out to their Lordships how unjust it would be to deprive general officers of this reward. He had hoped that the representations made by several of these officers, pointing out how unfair the proposal was, would have had some effect, and that some remedy would have been applied; but he regretted to find that the intention still existed to deprive these officers of the reward. Under the proposed scheme that mark of Her Majesty's approbation would be taken from those, officers, and what was called a pecuniary equivalent would be given in its place. No doubt general officers, as a class, were not rich men; he might say they were generally poor men. They did not spurn the benefit of pecuniary emolument; but he thought it was somewhat unfair to take away this distinguished 959 service reward, even from a sentimental point of view. The rule, at the present moment, was that an officer should hold a distinguished service reward until he was appointed to the colonelcy of a regiment. The colonelcy of a regiment was merely a higher development of that distinguished service reward; and when the officer received the colonelcy of a regiment he resigned his distinguished service reward only to receive a more honourable position in the Army. Under the new scheme, those officers would be placed on the retired list, with nothing to show that Her Majesty had specially rewarded them for their service. They were not allowed to remain on the active list, and many of them could not ever expect to receive the colonelcy of a regiment in consequence of their position on the list. They attached very great value indeed to the mark of distinction they possessed, and they felt hurt at being deprived of it. If this question was to be taken in a purely commercial point of view, he thought it was right that it should be done in a logical and just manner, and an officer receiving a higher rate of pay should be dealt with more liberally than an officer receiving a smaller rate of pay. It would be replied that officers were not compelled to accept the new conditions, and that they might remain under the old rules. That sounded very plausible, but it was not correct; for they would not be allowed to remain on the active list for employment. The Secretary of State for War, in his speech in the House of Commons on the 3rd of March, said that he proposed with respect to general officers of the Army to apply to them the system of pay, promotion, and retirement which applied to flag officers in the Navy. That promise, as he understood the matter, had not under the new scheme been carried out. Flag officers and general officers of the Marines were allowed to retain their good-service reward when retired, and he thought that the general officers, to whose case he was referring, might fairly claim that the same conditions as were accorded to the Navy should be accorded to them. There were minor points connected with retirement in the Navy which were also much more favourable than the system applied to general officers, particularly with regard to compulsory retirement. The rule proposed was that general officers 960 who have been unemployed for five years should be compulsorily retired. In the Navy a flag officer was not compulsorily retired until he had been 10 years unemployed. An Admiral at the age of 65, after 30 years' sea service, would have £850; and if he were entitled besides to count five years' extra sea service, he would have £100 a-year more, making up £950. General officers at the same age would receive £980; but each of those officers had sunk £4,500 in his commission, the interest on which alone was £200 a-year; and no one could therefore say that £30 a-year more than a flag officer received was an adequate pension for a general officer. In conclusion, that matter was deeply felt by the general officers who held that distinguished service reward; and he could but express his hope that the Secretary of State for War, who had dealt so liberally with other officers, would give his best consideration to that question, and would do what was possible to alleviate the grievance under which the general officers laboured.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had no reason to complain of the manner in which the noble and gallant Lord who had just spoken had brought forward that subject; but he would venture to maintain that, practically, no injustice whatever was done to those officers on retirement under the Regulations which would come into force on the 1st of July next in respect of their good service reward. The point which had to be considered was, what would be the position of officers under the present system as compared with the new? Existing general officers would have the absolute option on the 1st of July of accepting the new scale of half-pay and of retired pay, or of continuing on the same terms as regarded unattached pay, good-service pension, and prospects of obtaining a regimental colonency as at present, whether they were removed from the active list either by reaching the age of 62 as major-generals, or 67 as lieutenant-generals or generals, or by having been unemployed for five years. If they elected to continue as at present, they would, as at present, retain their good-service rewards till they obtained a regiment. If they chose to accept the new terms now offered, which we might presume they would only do if they were more advantageous to their interests 961 than those to which they were at the present time entitled, they would then, like all generals appointed after the 1st of July, have to surrender their good-service rewards on retirement. There was nothing at all unfair in this. At present, all general officers drew the same unattached pay—namely, £450 per annum, with which they might also receive £100 reward for distinguished service. But on obtaining a regiment, which was worth, in ordinary cases, £1,000 per annum, and must be regarded as the great prize offered to an officer at the end of his military career, he at once relinquished his rewards. Under the proposed new arrangements there would be graduated rates of half-pay for generals on the active list—namely, £500 for major generals, £650 for lieutenant generals, £800 for full generals; and, similarly, there would be a graduated rate of retired pay for general officers of each rank when removed from the active list—namely, £700, £850, and £1,000 respectively, and the six field marshals would receive £1,300 a-year. These pensions, together with higher rates of half-pay, were calculated to be equivalent to the lower rate of unattached pay now drawn, and the paid colonelcies, because in the lower grades these retired pensions would be open to general officers at a much earlier age than they could now hope to obtain a regiment. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, strictly followed the precedent which now obtained with regard to distinguished service rewards, and when an officer retired with £200 more than he received, as long as he was on the active list he should resign his reward, just as he did now when he obtained a regiment, the value of which was about equivalent to the new retiring pension. If the two scales of remuneration were on an average nearly equal, it was clear that if a general were allowed to retain his reward when he was drawing the new retired pay, while he was under existing regulations prohibited from doing so as colonel of a regiment, they would be giving him an additional advantage which he had no right whatever to claim. He might add that field marshals, who were not subject to retirement, might retain their rewards. The new rates of half-pay and retired pay were calculated on the principle that the good-service rewards would not be 962 held with retired pay. The noble and gallant Lord referred to the naval rates, and maintained that they were more advantageous than the rates offered to generals, because Admirals were allowed to carry their distinguished service rewards into retirement; but the naval pensions were on a lower scale than the military, the latter having been deliberately raised, so as to include the rewards. If the noble and gallant Lord were to insist upon retired generals retaining their rewards together with their pensions, it could only be done by entirely re-modelling the whole scale of half-pay and pension, and he (the Earl of Morley) did not think that this would be to the general advantage of officers affected.