HC Deb 19 July 1877 vol 235 cc1528-9
MR. CALLAN

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that a Lieutenant in the 94th Regiment, when charged early in the present year with gross misconduct, amounting to the most serious criminal offence, was placed under arrest merely on parole, and not in close custody, or handed over to the civil authorities, whilst the complainant was closely confined to the guard-room; that in the course of the night the Lieutenant broke his parole and absconded; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken by the military authorities to secure the arrest of the Lieutenant; whether the in formations on which the Lieutenant in question was so arrested have been handed over to the proper civil authorities so as to secure his being made amenable to justice; whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been directed to a letter which appeared in the "Broad Arrow" of May 26, in which it is stated that— Whilst the 94th Regiment was at Rush-more, a Cavalry Officer, accompanied by a friend, came into the mess-room and loudly declared his intention to horsewhip a Captain of the 94th, whom he denounced as a blackguard and a scoundrel, for having, as he alleged, insulted his wife in a Railway carriage after he had confided her to his charge for the journey; the Commanding Officer (Lord John Taylour), who is a great friend of the insulted Captain, was content with receiving an apology from the Cavalryman for having disturbed the harmony of the mess, but no apology has been made to the Officer on whom the insulting epithets were bestowed, and who remains therefore under the stigma, content without apology or satisfaction of any kind, and thereby tacitly acknowledges the truth of the epithets in their application to him; and, whether, in view of the foregoing grave charges, the Secretary of State for War will direct an inquiry to be immediately held into the circumstances disclosed above and the moral and discipline of the 94th Regiment?

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

I would inform the hon. Member that on June 11, in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), I stated that an officer of the 94th Regiment, on being accused of an offence, was placed under arrest, that he broke that arrest, and absented himself. Officers under arrest are, except under extraordinary circumstances, considered on parole, and in this case no departure was made from the usual custom. The officer in question was gazetted out of the Service, and no further steps have been taken regarding him. I have no knowledge whatever of the occurrence said to have taken place at Rushmore, and, as the 94th Regiment has not been stationed at that place since 1870, it is not considered necessary after this lapse of time to take any further action in the matter. His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief is fully acquainted with the morale and discipline of every regiment in Her Majesty's Service, and does not think it requisite to have any special inquiry into the state of the 94th Regiment, in which opinion I entirely agree with his Royal Highness.