!
:
(4)
256
To this it might be replied that while a man's half pay was considered, in the past, as sufficient to keep him in a moderately easy manner in England the same cannot apply to the grant of only half the allowance while the officer has to pay the full rent and other obligations in the meantime. I might add here that it would be uneconomical for any officer proceeding on short leave to move his possessions out of the property and store them during his absence, to avoid the Government taxes, inasmuch as the expense of so doing would be prohibitive.
I gather that one of the uonsiderations which make an officer's case a special one is the great improbability of his being able to sub-let the house during his absence, on account of its situation or other circumstances. This
reasoning I submit should apply pro tanto to any house which it has been found impossible to let for the whole period of
absence.
The new rule therefore should I think be at least modified so as to permit of payment in full for a period not exceeding three months (that period being suggested because it is the maximum amount of short leave permitted by regulations) for the following reasons which are a summary of the foregoing
viz:-
1. The rule as proposed by Government is inconsistent with| the rules which were, in subetence, before the Secretary
of State when he approved the Scheme, and which were
issued to the Service,
2. It is contrary to the principle of an officer's emolu-
ments being solely decided by the Secretary of state.
3. It introduces the element of uncertainty as to one's
emoluments.
4. It practically assumes that it is unreasonable for an
officer to enter into a lesse whereby it may become