§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Colonel Bentinck, of the Fourth Dragoon Guards, has been placed on Half Pay according to regulation, "by Medical Certificate"; and if not, why the new regulation of 1861, under which no officer has been allowed the privilege of being placed on Half Pay until after n service of twenty-five years as a Commissioned Officer on Full Pay, has in this case been disregarded and set aside? He also wished to ask, Upon whose advice the finding of the Court Martial has been rescinded, and Captain Robertson, who had been sentenced to be cashiered, has been sent back to his regiment, and Colonel Bentinck has been forced to retire?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the retirement of Colonel Bentinck, had not taken place in pursuance of the terms of the warrant to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. The warrant would not have permitted an Officer to retire on half pay under the circumstances under which Colonel Bentinck had left his regiment. Of course it was competent for the Crown, which was the authority from which warrants issued, to dispense with it in cases in which an exception to the rule might seem desirable. On financial grounds the public would gain by the substitution of a junior for a senior Colonel, inasmuch as the latter was nearer his Major Generalship. In respect to the general question of superseding Colonel Bentinck, he would only remark that when a commanding Officer of a regiment appeared to be inefficient, and it was desirable to remove him, the action of the Commander in Chief would be seriously crippled if the step of insisting on that Officer's retirement were not resorted to. At the same time it would be most unfair to the Officer if he were not allowed half-pay. The hon. Gentleman seemed to treat the case of Colonel Bentinck as one of undue leniency.
§ MR. CONINGHAMI beg your pardon. I think quite the contrary. I think it a case of undue leniency to Captain Robertson.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had certainly understood that that was the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's Question; at all events, it had been thought by some that undue favour and leniency had been shown to Colonel Bentinck, whereas he believed that the view taken by Colonel Bentinck himself was that he had been treated by the Horse Guards with extreme severity. Therefore, setting one opinion against the other, it might fairly be presumed that the course which had been taken was not far removed from the just one. As regarded Captain Robertson, the sentence of the Court Martial had been rescinded by the advice of the Commander in Chief, and he (Sir G. Lewis) held himself responsible for that step.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would take another opportunity to call attention to the circumstances of this Court Martial.