PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
חור
Reference:
C.O. 885
5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE! BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
MEMORANDUM.
28
Whereas officers commanding regiments in Her Majesty's service are allowed the brevet rank of colonel after holding such command for four years, and whereas officers commanding the whole of the military forces in a Colony are only allowed local rank, which rank ceases when they return to duty with the Imperial forces; and whereas officers accepting appointments as commandants of Colonial forces lose for the time being their prospects of active service and brevet promotion, and are thereby superseded by junior officers, and that consequently eligible officers may be deterred from giving the benefit of their services to Colonial Governments; therefore it is respectfully sub- mitted that an officer of Her Majesty's regular army, who has held the coinmand of the Colonial forces in any Colony satisfactorily for a period of four years may receive the brevet rank of colonel if he then holds the rank of lieut.-colonel in Her Majesty's regular army. It is understood that this would involve no extra expense to Imperial funds.
SIR,
No. 12.
TREASURY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Treasury Chambers, March 4, 1886.
THE Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have given their best consideration to the report enclosed in your letter of the 5th ultimo,* of an Inter-Depart- mental Committee upon the employment of Naval and Military officers on the Active List by Colonial Governments, and desire me to state, for the information of Earl Granville, that, with a single important exception to be mentioned hereafter, they are happy at being able to concur in the recommendations of the Committee, which, their Lordships observe, relate to commissioned officers of the Army and Navy, although an allusion to men also is made in paragraph 13.
The chief feature of these recommendations is the assimilation of the regulations for Naval officers to those already in force for Army officers, a measure which my Lords deem most advisable.
Accordingly a Naval officer on the Active List in the Naval or Military employment of a Colony will not, as heretofore, draw half-pay from the Imperial Government, but will look for his whole remuneration to the Colony. On the other hand, his service in the Colony will count as full sea service for increase of pay, promotion, and retirement.
My Lords approve of the proposal that any employment giving an officer knowledge that will be useful in his profession, or requiring the exercise of his special attainments as an engineer or torpedoist, should, at the discretion of the Board of Admiralty or Secretary of State for War, be deemed Naval or Military employment.
Their Lordships also agree that existing holders of apppointments should have the option of continuing under present or adopting the new regulations. But such option should be exercised within one month of notice of it being given to them.
As regards Naval or Military officers on the Active List who retire from the Imperial service whilst holding Naval or Military appointments in a Colony, but either continue to hold such appointments or accept some other Colonial appointments after their retirement, the Committee recommend that the general principle of Article 991 of the Army Pay Warrant of 10 June 1894 should be followed. The Secretary of State, however, points out (and, my Lords think, truly) that the terms of their recommendation really imply a modification of that Article, and on this point my Lords fear they may not be in accord with either the Committce or the Secretary of State. The question is one of some difficulty.
Article 991, as it stands, and as habitually interpreted by the War Office, obliges the officer, in the case contemplated, to do one of two things: either he must be content to draw no retired pay at all so long as he continues to hold the Colonial appointment or holds any other "Civil situation," as defined in the preamble of the Warrant, or he inust retire on the retired pay or gratuity to which his service, exclusive of his service in the Colonial appointment or other "Civil situation"
may entitle him.
According to the modification advocated by the Secretary of State and the Committee, the officer will be allowed to draw so much cf his retired pay as was not earned by Colonial service whilst still holding his Colonial appointment, and when he ultimately resigns that appointment, will be able to claim from the Imperial Government such additional retired pay as may have been earned by his Colonial service. My Lords think this unfair for the following reason.
• No. 8.
29
The justification for allowing the officer's Colonial service to count towards Imperial retired pay is that such service may be presumed to enhance his value as an officer when he returns to the Imperial service. But if he does not return to the Imperial service, and retires during or on the cessation of his Colonial service, this justification cannot be pleaded, and in such a case my Lords think that Article 991 should be applied to him strictly, without modification. Indeed, my Lords consider that an officer, in such circumstances, should never receive retired pay from Imperial funds in respect of his Colonial service.
In common fairness, the Colony that employs the officer ought to pay the non-effective as well as the effective charge that attaches to his Colonial service. This is the rule in the case of civilian officers, and ought to be so for Naval and Military officers; and the principle has been accepted by the Crowa Agents for the Colonies in regard to the pensions of men in the Army and Navy.
It will be seen that the "single exception" referred to in the first paragraph of this letter, is the view of the Committee as to the non-effective charge attaching to Colonial
service.
My Lords are glad to see that the Committee accept the terms of the Treasury minute of 25th September last, as modified by the Treasury letter to the War Office of 17th December last, regarding the employment of Naval and Military officers in Civil appointments.
The Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office.
SIR,
No. 13.
I am, &c., (Signed)
HENRY H. FOWLER.
COLONIAL OFFICE to ADMIRALTY and WAR OFFICE.
WITH reference to the letter from this Department of the 4th of February,*
Downing Street, March 11, 1886. I am directed by Earl Granville to transmit to you, to be laid before the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty,
copy of a letter from the Treasury respecting
Secretary of State for War,
the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to consider the conditions of employment of naval and military officers on the active list by Colonial Governments.
Lord Granville would suggest that the Committee should meet again to consider this letter.
The Secretary to the Admiralty.
I
am, &c.,
(Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.
The Under Secretary of State, War Office.
SIR,
No. 14.
THE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE to COLONIAL OFFICE.
WITH reference to your letter of 11th instant, conveying a suggestion by Lord
Admiralty, March 25, 1886. Granville that we, being the Committee recently appointed to consider the conditions of employment of naval and military officers by Colonial Governments, should meet again to consider the letter addressed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 4th March 1886,† wherein their Lordships state that they concur in our recommendations with a single important exception, we have to state, for the information of Lord Granville, that we have met agreeably with his desire, and beg to report as follows:--
2. Their Lordships of the Treasury take exception to the recommendation contained in paragraph II of our Report of 4th February 1886§, that an officer on the active list who retires whilst holding Colonial, naval, or military appointment should, in accordance with the general principle of Article 991 of the Army Pay Warrant of 1884, receive at
• No. 5.
† No. 12
+ Not printed.
D 3
§ No. 4.
Page 150Page 151
30
once on retirement the retired pay or gratuity to which his service to date of retirement, exclusive of his service in any such Colonial appointment, may entitle him, but should not be allowed, while at any time holding such Colonial appointment, to receive any retired pay or gratuity earned by service in such Colonial appointments, ie., that an officer resigning such appointment will be able to claim from the Imperial Government such additional retired pay as may have been earned by his Colonial service.
3. Their Lordships consider that under Article 991, as habitually interpreted by the War Office, a retired officer who has held such naval or military appointment, and who continues to hold such or a like appointment, should never receive retired pay from Imperial funds in respect of his Colonial service if he has elected, on retirement from the naval or military service, to draw the pension which is due to him on account of his strictly military service.
4. We would observe that Article 68, in allowing seconded service, makes no distinction between seconded service for military appointments and seconded service for civil appointments, but applies equally to both; and it appears to us unadvisable to disturb the implied promise held out by the warrant that all seconded service in these circumstances should be allowed.
5. It is not proposed that the Colonial service of an officer should be allowed to count towards retired pay beyond the date on which he is placed on the retired list; any period for which he continued in Colonial employment beyond that date would be therefore no charge to Imperial funds.
6. It was represented to us at the conference with the Agents-General for the Colonies, mentioned in our previous report, that our proposals entailed the deduction of part of the retired pay of officers thus employed under the Colonies, while the retired pay of officers thus employed in Imperial appointments would not be subject to a similar deduction.
7. We believe that the cases of officers thus retired while in Colonial employment would be comparatively few, and that the amount involved, chargeable to Imperial funds on account of their Colonial service, would be exceedingly small.
8. Under the circumstances, although the principle advocated by their Lordships of the Treasury may perhaps be strictly logical, yet considering that the Agents-General have concurred in the proposal as it stands, and there is reason to believe the Colonies may not concur in the limitation proposed by the Treasury, we think that on grounds of policy and expediency it is not advisable to make a fresh departure in or to re-open
the matter.
The Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office.
We are, &c., (Signed) A. H. HOSKINS, Vice-Admiral, A Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty.
RALPH THOMPSON, Under Secretary of State for War.
JOHN BRAMSTON, Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies.
(Signed)
(Signed)
No. 15.
31
3. Under the terms of the Orders in Council regulating naval promotion there is a distinction between sea service" and "sea service in a ship of war at sea," and with regard to captains, Royal Navy, there is a further distinction as to "sca service in command of a ship of war at sea;
"} and my Lords are of opinion that the above-quoted expression,
'full sea service," which may comprise any or each of these distinct services, requires qualifying, inasmuch as it is the intention of the Admiralty, subject to the concurrence of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, to reserve to themselves the power, in the Order in Council to be obtained to carry out the proposals of the Com- mittee, to decide, with regard to each several appointment of this nature under the Colonies, whether the "full sea service to be allowed in respect of it shall be sea service, or service in a ship of war at sea, or sea service in command of a ship of war at sea, according to the present rules and usages governing all service under the Admiralty.
4. I am to request that you will move the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when forwarding the enclosed report of the Committee to the Treasury, to communicate at the same time to their Lordships of the Treasury this qualification of the Committee's former Report.
The Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office.
SIR,
+
I am, &c.,
(Signed) EVAN MACGREGOR.
No. 16.
TREASURY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Treasury Chambers, April 3, 1886. THE Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have had before them your letter of the 15th February last,* as to the regulations affecting the receipt of Imperial non-effective pay by officers in the employment of Colonial Governments, and direct me to state as follows, for the information of Earl Granville.
I. No Colony not obliged to submit its annual estimates for Treasury sanction and its accounts for Imperial audit, will be held to be a Colony receiving a contribution from Imperial funds within the meaning of the last sentence but one of the Treasury Minute of 25th September last.†
There will be no difficulty, my Lords apprehend, if the concurrence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies be not wanting, in applying the rules of the Treasury Minute to, and enforcing the minimum deduction of 10 per cent. per annum from salaries paid from the revenues of any Colony whose estimates and accounts are subject to this aepartment and the Exchequer and Audit Office.
II. My Lords consider that the proposed regulations, mutatis mutandis, inay properly be extended to civilian pensioners, and with this view they propose to procure the repeal of the Act 35 Vict. cap. 12.
III. My Lords further propose to obtain the repeal of section 16 of 4 & 5 William IV. cap. 24.
The Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office.
I am, &c.,
(Signed)
R. E. WELBY.
SIR,
*
ADMIRALTY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Admiralty, March 26, 1886. HAVING laid before my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty your letter of 11th instant, enclosing copy of a letter from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury respecting the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to consider the conditions of employment of naval and military officers by Colonial Governments, I am commanded by their Lordships to acquaint you that the Committee have met again, agreeably with Lord Granville's suggestion, to consider the points raised by the Treasury, and I am to forward their report herewith.†
2. My Lords desire me to inform you that they concur in the recommendation of the Committee; I am, however, to observe, with reference to the Committee's Report of 4th February last, that it is pointed out in paragraph 6 thereof that naval officers at present employed in naval or military appointments under the Colonies do not count their time (except in a few cases) for pay or promotion, and it is proposed in paragraph 10 that these officers shall (subject to the option therein named) count such service as "full sea service."
SIR,
No. 17.
COLONIAL OFFICE to TREASURY.
Downing Street, April 7, 1886. WITH reference to your letter of the 4th of March, I am directed by Earl Granville to transmit to you, to be laid before the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, a copy of a letter§ from the Admiralty, covering a further report of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to consider the conditions of employment of Naval and Military Officers by Colonial Governments.
The Secretary to the Treasury.
I
am, &c.,
(Signed)
JOHN BRAMSTON.
• No. 13.
↑ No. 14.
‡ No. 4.
• No. 9.
† Enclosure 2 in No. 4.
‡ No. 12.
§ No. 15.
D 4