§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House a Copy of the Warrant granted to the Commander-in-Chief in India authorizing him to confirm and carry into effect the findings and sentence of General Courts Martial on Officers; and also, what were the circumstances under which Lieutenant Adjutant Fitzimon was removed by the Military Authorities in India from the Adjutancy of the Inniskillen Dragoons; when was that removal reported to the Commander-in-Chief, and has it received the sanction and approval of His Royal Highness?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in answer to the first Question of the hon. Gentleman, that he had no objection to lay upon the table a Copy of the Warrant. With regard to the second Question, he had to state that Lieutenant Fitzimon had not yet been removed from the Adjutancy of the Inniskillen Dragoons; and if the hon. Member would refer to the Army List, he would find that Lieutenant Fitzimon's name still appeared there as Adjutant of that regiment. It was true that that Officer had been suspended by Colonel Crawley, subject to the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief, who had declined to take any further action in the matter until the conclusion of the Court Martial on Colonel Crawley, which was to take place in this country. One of the most important points on which that Court Martial would have to decide was the difference between the statement of Colonel Crawley and that of Lieutenant Fitzimon; and he therefore thought that the Commander-in-Chief was perfectly right in not sanctioning in the mean time the suspension of the latter officer.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that two Memorandums in connection with this case had lately been laid on the table. After the first of these was made public, he had reason to believe that there was another Memorandum from the Adjutant General to the Commander-in-Chief in 1281 India on the same subject, and he invited his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War to produce it. Since then a Memorandum, marked "Privately sent to the Commander-in-Chief in India," had been laid on the table. That was a document which, being of a private character, he had never asked for, and which, in his opinion, the House was not entitled to see. He had been led to understand that there was another communication from the Adjutant General to the Commander-in-Chief in India, and he now begged to ask whether that was nut the case, and whether the private Memorandum had not been laid on the table through an inadvertence?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was perfectly clear from the statement of his right hon. Friend, that the Memorandum laid before the House was not the one he wished to see, and that he had never in tended to ask for a private document. At the time, he (the Marquess of Hartington) did not think the paper in question would bear out what the right hon. Gentleman had stated; but His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was personally anxious, that as it had been mentioned, it should, although private, be laid on the table. There had been a great deal of correspondence between the military authorities at home and those in India on this subject, and he had no doubt that there was some letter in that correspondence such as his right hon. Friend had referred to; but it would be extremely inconvenient and unfair to publish one out of a long series of letters. The proper course would be for his right hon. Friend or some other Member to move for the whole Correspondence, and then it would be for the consideration of the Secretary of State whether it should be produced. He could, however, assure the House that no communication had emanated from the Horse Guards modifying, in any material point, the view promulgated by His Royal Highness in his first Memorandum.