§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that before putting the Questions to which he desired to receive an answer, he wished to make a brief statement in order to place the facts 1767 clearly before the House. Captain Smales was informed by the War Department in January that an official notification had been addressed from the Horse Guards to the War Office, to the effect that he had, on the 13th of July 1862, ceased to belong to Her Majesty's Army, and his name in consequence had been removed from the Army List, although that removal appeared in the list only in the January of 1863. Captain Smales further stated that in adverting to the illegality and irregularity which he had brought under review, he asked whether these matters had been brought under the consideration of the Judge Advocate General—that is, the proceedings and not the sentence—and if so, whether after such consideration Her Majesty had been pleased, upon the recommendation of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, to confirm the finding of the sentence recorded against him on the trial. Captain Smales further stated that no notice had been conveyed to him of removal other than the order of Sir Hugh Rose, and he was further advised that under no circumstances could an officer be deprived of a commission unless such deprivation were confirmed by Her Majesty upon the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief. ["Order, order!"] He should be obliged to move the adjournment of the House if he were not allowed to proceed. He begged further to point out, that although the statement had been made that those proceedings were submitted to the Judge Advocate General on the 4th of June 1863, Captain Smales received a letter from the Judge Advocate General's office, saying that if he called at the office, the Judge Advocate must decline to see him, because all the papers had been submitted to the Judge Advocate General, and were under consideration. On the 8th of May previous, General Forster stated that no further steps should be taken until fresh information was received from India. He should now, therefore, ask the Under Secretary of State for War, If the whole of the facts and proceedings connected with the Mhow Court Martial were neither in possession of the authorities at the Horse Guards, nor submitted to the Judge Advocate for his opinion, prior to Paymaster Smales being gazetted out of the Service; then, in that case, what are the additional facts which have subsequently transpired, and are they of such a character as to have altered or modified the opinion of either the Commander-in-Chief, or the 1768 Judge Advocate, or both, as to the legality of the proceedings on the trial? He wished also, to add that Captain Smales had been informed by the Adjutant General that he had recommended a modification of his sentence.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the hon. Member for Brighton had entered into a somewhat long statement with respect to the Mhow Court Martial, which he was sorry to be obliged to confess had not tended to make clearer to him the Questions of which the hon. Gentleman had given notice. Before replying in the fewest possible words to the Questions which the hon. Member had placed on the Paper, he hoped the House would allow him to correct an error which appeared in the report in the newspapers. It was stated that he (the Marquess of Hartington) promised to lay on the table the second memorandum of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, together with the private letters which covered it. Now, he referred to the private letters merely to show that the memorandum was a private one, and he believed he stated, or intended to state, that the letters being private could not be produced. He had referred to the letters, not because they had any bearing on the subject, but as showing that the memorandum was a private one. He, therefore, only stated, or intended to state, that the memorandum, and not the letters, would be produced. Now, in reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to repeat what he had stated on several occasions in reply to other questions, that the whole of the proceedings with respect to the Court Martial were laid before the Judge Advocate General, and his opinion upon them was taken. [Mr. CONINGHAM: As to the legality of the proceedings?] He had also stated that certain allegations had subsequently been made by Captain Smales, and these also had been submitted to the Judge Advocate General. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, it must be evident to the House that it was impossible within the scope of an answer to a Question to go into a long detailed statement of the additional facts. And as to their effect upon the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief or of the Judge Advocate General, he was sorry to have to reply that the communications which take place between the Commander-in-Chief and the Judge Advocate General are of a confidential nature, and it would be most irregular 1769 and prejudicial to the service that such communications should become matter for discussion in that House. He trusted, then, that with the assent and approbation of the House, he should be permitted to decline entering upon any statement as to the opinions of the Commander-in-Chief and the Judge Advocate General. The Government had promised to lay upon the table the proceedings of the Court Martial, and he could assure the House that would be done with as much despatch as possible. He understood it was the intention of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) to call attention to those proceedings, and it would be perfectly competent for him then to make any statements he thought proper. But, until that time, he submitted to the House that it was most inconvenient that a premature debate should take place, for those Questions did constitute a debate, be cause the hon. Member replied to answers which he (the Marquess of Hartington) gave one evening by Questions involving an argument the next.