§ Mr. Huntwished to put the question to the noble Lord opposite which he would have asked of the Secretary at War if he were in the House. He observed, by the papers which had been laid on the table, that a severe reprimand had been given to Major Wyndham by the Court of Inquiry, and from this circumstance he concluded that the Court were of opinion that the punishment of Somerville was for a political and not for a military offence, and that, instead of being punished for breach of duty, he was in reality flogged for having written a letter to a newspaper. His object in rising was to ascertain whether this man was discharged from the army, and, if he were not, whether it was the intention of the Government that he should be discharged.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the hon. Member was wrong in supposing a severe reprimand had been given to that gallant Officer: nor had it been proved before the Court of Inquiry that the soldier alluded to had been tried for one offence, and punished for another. As to the likelihood of the soldier being discharged from his Majesty's service, he was not prepared to give a positive answer. He knew it had been resolved upon as advisable, prior to the inquiry being instituted, and that the inquiry being then pending was the reason why that resolution was not carried into effect. In consequence of the result of that inquiry he thought it was probable he would be dismissed the service. Though not officially informed on the subject, he wished to set the hon. Member right as to the grounds of the decision in the case of Colonel Wyndham; the censure passed on that officer was not for having punished Somerville for writing a letter to a newspaper, for, on the contrary, that was proved not to have been the case.