LORD RAGLANMy Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will modify the rule by which retired officers of the Army who are serving in the Militia are, on embodiment, deprived of their retired pay or pension, or deprived of 5 per cent. per annum on the amount of any gratuity they may have received for past services, and at the same time will not be permitted to receive the gratuity which is payable to Militia officers under certain circumstances on disembodiment. I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words with regard to this question, first, because of the great importance of the subject, and, secondly, because my noble friend near me says the question is involved. If your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments I will give you some instances of how this rule really works. The general rule is that an officer on full pay cannot receive half pay or retired pay. Therefore, when a retired Army officer who is in receipt of retired pay or a pension of any description is embodied with his Militia, and thereby goes on full pay, he loses his retired pay or his pension as the case may be. The working of this rule is exceedingly hard in many ways. Take the case of two officers who have served together in the Army, and who leave the Army at the same time on retired pay or pensions. One officer goes into the Militia, while the other retires into private life. On the embodiment of the Militia in the event of war or for any other reason the retired officer who belongs to the Militia is called up to do duty with the Militia, and the officer who has done nothing and is still in receipt of a pension is called back to do duty with the Army. The latter officer, on returning to duty in the Army, received a gratuity of £100 to provide himself with uniform. He has for a certain number of years done nothing whatever except draw his pension, sit in his club, and smoke cigarettes. He has not 623 served his country in any way. The other officer has entered the Militia and done much hard work, but he does not get the £100. Again, when the Militia are disembodied, the officers of Militia, having been embodied for a certain amount of time, are entitled to a gratuity, but an ex-officer of the Army is not entitled to this gratuity. Therefore, to use a common phrase, he is "had" both ways. I am sure the rule was never intended to work in that way. Another important question is the amount which is deducted from officers who have received gratuities. Some officers retire from the Army having received a lump sum down, but the War Office proceed to deduct five per cent. per annum from the pay of these officers, when they are embodied, on the original amount of their gratuity. I met this afternoon a relative of my own who is in command of embodied Militia who is having deducted the sum of £61 per annum. I do not like to characterise the action of the War Office in this matter as usurious, but five per cent. is an ideal interest which no one can get in these days, and the reduction of five per cent. seems to me more worthy of the late lamented Isaac Gordon than of the Government of a great country. I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to remove this great injustice.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy noble friend has explained a somewhat intricate case with much graphic power, though not, I think, with absolute accuracy on one or two points of detail. He told your Lordships, with truth, that the practice has always been not to allow a retired officer who is re-employed to draw both his retired pay and the pay of the post in which he is newly employed. I do not think that that is, in principle, an unreasonable rule. The theory is that when an officer retires on a pension, the State has a lien upon him, and may recall him to the service. When he is so recalled, I think it is perfectly fair to tell him that he must for a time cease to receive his retired pay and be content with the pay of the post to which he has been appointed. The only exception from that rule of which I am aware is that of Militia and Yeomanry officers, who are allowed during the period of preliminary drill and training of their regiment to receive both retired pay and active pay. And as that excep- 624 tion existed we thought it a reasonable thing, in the case of embodied Militia, to allow officers for a period of one month to receive both active and retired pay. The noble Lord gave us the case of officers who had retired, not on a pension, but on a gratuity, and he dwelt upon the hardship of the present practice. It has certainly been the case that the gratuity received in certain cases by officers on their retirement has been regarded in the regulations as being in effect a commuted pension, and in order to avoid the disparity between the case of the officer who retires on a pension and the case of his brother officer who retires on a gratuity, it has been usual to deduct from the pay of the re-employed officer a sum which was considered to be equivalent to the income which he would have received if he had retired, not on a gratuity, but on a pension. I think there is a good deal to be said for the logic of that arrangement, but I am bound to say that, having considered the matter very attentively, I have come to the conclusion that the case is one in which it is perhaps not desirable to press logic too far. I do not think that when you come to consider the facts it is quite fair to contend that these gratuities are really commuted pensions. They are sums of money given to officers as a kind of inducement to them to retire at a comparatively early stage of their career, in order to expedite the flow of promotion. That, I believe, is the accurate history of these gratuities. That being so, I am inclined to hold that these gratuities should be regarded as final payments, and that it is not fair to make any deduction from the active pay of the re-employed officer. I will, therefore, not accept my noble friend's suggestion that the rate of deduction should be reduced, but I am prepared to say that the deduction from officers' pay, which has hitherto prevailed, will no longer be made. Then my noble friend spoke of the gratuity which is receivable by officers of embodied Militia battalions at the end of the embodiment. He is evidently under the impression that when a re-employed officer comes to the end of his embodied service, he is not considered entitled to the usual gratuity. That is a misapprehension of my noble friend's. The only case in which any doubt arises is the case in which a re-employed officer, on account of his re-employment, 625 becomes entitled to some addition to his existing pension or gratuity. Where that is the case we allow the officer to receive either the increase of his pension or gratuity to which his embodied service in the Militia entitles him, or to receive the usual gratuity received by other Militia officers. He may make the bargain which suits him best, and I am sure my noble friend will admit it would be impossible to treat him more fairly than that.