asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the case of Walsh, a Naval engineer, promoted (to chief) in 1873, and placed on the retired list on the 1st June, with £150 pension, at 55 years of ago; whether Walsh's retiring pension would have been £400 if he had been allowed to serve three years and a-half more; whether, having ample junior time, some of it should not be counted to entitle him to full pension; and, if the exact position of the Naval engineers can now be defined, in regard to pensions and the mitigation of the eleven years' clause, in its application to chief engineers in the service?
I have looked into the case of Mr. Walsh, and find that he has been awarded the full rate of retirement to which he was entitled under regulations. His age would not have had admitted of his serving three years and a-half longer; and the full rate he would have earned by such service would have been £292, and not £400, as stated in my hon. Friend's Question. The result, however, seems to contain an exceptional hardship; and, although I can make no promise, I will see whether something cannot be done for Mr. Walsh.