§ MR. BRETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will undertake that, until the proceedings of the Simla Court Martial be laid before this House, the sentence of the Court Martial shall not be further carried into effect?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI am sorry, Sir, that I am not able to return a favourable answer to the Question of my hon. and learned Friend. In the first place I think the course he has suggested is open to some objection in point of form; and further, as it is very unusual to submit proceedings of Courts Martial to the House of Commons, it is not my intention to lay a Copy of those Proceedings upon the table. The House will recollect that Captain Jervis was brought to trial upon two charges, the first being a charge by Sir William Mansfield, relating to the private affairs of Sir William Mansfield; and the second being a charge relating to acts of 607 grave insubordination. The House is no doubt aware that upon the charge relating to Sir William Mansfield's affairs the Court Martial returned a verdict of acquittal; and that with respect to the charge of insubordination he was found guilty and sentenced to be dismissed the service, but with a recommendation to mercy. Sir William Mansfield altogether disregarded that recommendation, and the proceedings came home to this country; and when I had the honour of succeeding to the office which I now hold I found that question awaiting decision. I never heard the slightest imputation upon the perfect fairness and impartiality of that Court Martial, and I felt, after examining the case, that my proper course would be as nearly as I could to give effect to the finding of that Court. After much consideration the course which appeared to me to be the most strictly just and fair would be that, under the circumstances, Captain Jervis should leave the army, but that he should have the benefit of the recommendation to mercy by being allowed to sell his commission. But a difficulty here interposed, because Captain Jervis did not hold a commission in a purchase corps. He had been an officer in the Indian army, in which there was no purchase or sale. I therefore conferred with the Secretary of State for India, in order to ascertain by what course it would be possible for them to place Captain Jervis in a position as favourable as if he had been an officer in the Queen's regular service. The result wae that I received a communication from my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford North-cote) to the effect that the Indian Government would be willing to pay Captain Jervis a sum equal to the value of his commission if he had been in the Queen's service. That decision will appear in the Gazette in the following words: "Dismissed from the service by sentence of a General Court Martial; but permitted, in consideration of the recommendation to mercy by the Court Martial, to receive a sum of money equivalent to the value of his commission." I hope my hon. and learned Friend and the House will perceive from this statement that I have had no desire to bear upon Captain Jervis with any undue severity.
§ MR. BRETTsaid, he regretted, as a relative of Captain Jervis, that he could not consider the determination of the right hon. Gentleman satisfactory, and he therefore gave notice that, on the earliest day, 608 he should move that the proceedings of the Court Martial be laid upon the table of the House.
§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he had to ask whether the people of India were to be taxed in order that justice might be done between Sir William Mansfield and Captain Jervis?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was the custom when officers in the Indian service were removed to grant them a subsistance allowance; and, under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, it appeared to the Government to be just that the customary subsistence allowance should be commuted into a capital sum.