§ Mr. GINNELL
asked the Under-Secretary for India, having regard to the wording of the last paragraph of General Order 869 of 1862, that the principle upon which the succession to colonels' allowances of officers of the Indian Army was to be considered as determined by that arrangement, and of paragraphs 20, 25, 46, and 81 of General Order 632 of 1864, absolutely promising, assuring, and guaranteeing colonels' allowances after a period of twelve years' service as lieutenant-colonel, irrespective of numbers, whether he now recognises that this right was improperly taken away by the draftsman of the pension rules of 1882, incorrectly citing the cadets' agreement in words of different meaning; whether erroneous citation of one document in a later, and a subsequent afterthought, that the guarantee upon which the officers had relied, are now held to justify depriving those officers of what they had been promised, assured, and guaranteed, and what was given as an act of grace to their juniors in the Staff Corps; and, if the promise is not to be kept with them, will he say why an inquiry into the validity of their claim is also denied?2240W
§ Mr. MONTAGU
The dispatch published by General Order No. 869 of 1862, including its last paragraph, dealt solely with the promotion and succession to colonels' allowances of officers of the East India Company's Army, and the term "General List" as used in that dispatch referred to the general (as opposed to the regimental) seniority lists of the three presidential armies of the company, and had no application to the officers appointed to Her Majesty's Indian Service after 1858, under new conditions, whose names were placed on separate general lists of Cavalry and Infantry, in accordance with General Orders 1637 of 1859, 1115 of 1860, and 214 of 1861. No paragraph in the General Order 632 of 1864 guaranteed succession to colonels' allowances after a period of twelve years' service as lieutenant-colonel, irrespective of numbers, to the officers under new conditions of appointment who afterwards came to be known specially as "Officers of the General List." The Secretary of State, therefore, adheres to the statement made in my answer to the hon. Member on 10th July, 1913, that nothing which was ever promised to the latter officers, has ever been withdrawn from them, and sees no reason for such an inquiry as is asked for.