§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War, (1) whether the rate of pay of major-generals of the Kut garrison was, whilst prisoners of war, arbitrarily fixed at that of a regimental commander only and considerably below the Indian pay of their rank alone, whilst the Indian staff pay of their rank and appointments as brigade commanders has been left out of consideration; whether he has afforded the India Office a satisfactory explanation for this treatment; if so, what is the explanation;
(2) whether, in fixing the rate of prisoner-of-war pay for two major-generals taken prisoners at Kut, the War Office has ignored their substantive rank as major-generals and the Indian rate of pay of their appointments; and whether these officers were treated on 1766W different lines to other officers of the Indian Army with the Kut garrison?
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONThese officers have received everything to which they are entitled under the Regulations of their own service. But in considering whether further emolument could be given to them, outside Indian Regulations and at the expense of the British Exchequer, they have been regarded, as is the custom of the British service, from the point of view of the post of Brigade Commander which they held, and not from that of their substantive rank.
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Secretary of State for India, as well as his predecessor, has protested against the statement as regards the rates of pay accorded by the War Office to two major-generals in the Indian Army who commanded brigades in Kut whilst prisoners of war; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
Sir A.WILLIAMSONI do not know to what statement the question refers; but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that I have not dealt with this matter without communication with my right hon. Friends at the India Office.