§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to ask the Judge Advocate General, What was the date at which the Queen was recommended to confirm the sentence of the Mhow Court Martial by which Paymaster Smales was cashiered; and whether Her Majesty was advised to confirm that sentence after consideration of the proceedings of the Court Martial; what was the date at which Her Majesty was advised to pardon Mr. Smales; was the sentence of the Court Martial confirmed, or had it been overruled at the date at which 1650 the proceedings were laid upon the table of the House; what are the grounds on which the Queen was advised to pardon Mr. Smales, after Her Majesty had been advised to confirm the sentence by which he had been cashiered; and were those grounds apparent on the face of the proceedings?
MR. HEADLAM, in reply, said, as to the first part of the question, he had to state that Her Majesty never did confirm the sentence of the Mhow Court Martial, and was never recommended to do so. It was confirmed by Sir Hugh Rose, under the authority he had for that purpose. "With respect to the next question, the date at which Her Majesty was advised to pardon Mr. Smales was the 13th of July last. "With regard to the third question, he found in the blue-book that the proceedings were laid upon the table of the House on the 3rd of July, consequently long after the finding of the court-martial had been confirmed in India, but before the pardon was granted on the 13th. As to the last question, the grounds upon which Her Majesty was advised to pardon Mr. Smales were that the trial was not a fair one. The unfairness consisted partly in the manner in which the witnesses for Mr. Smales were arrested and kept in close custody during the trial, and partly also in the manner in which their testimony was discredited. It was also considered that the charges were irregular, and consequently rendered it uncertain what was the precise crime of which the prisoner was found guilty; so that had the trial taken place in this country it would not have been confirmed without revision.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to know, Whether the proceedings of the Mhow Court Martial were approved of by the right hon. Gentleman?
§ SIE JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he would now beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the table the Letter from the War Office in which the restoration of Mr. Smales to the half-pay of his former rank was authorized or announced; whether the accounts of Mr. Smales with the 6th Dragoons have yet been adjusted; and what previous employments in the Public Service had been held by Mr. Smales; whether he had been removed from any of them, and, if so, for what reasons?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that the circumstances connected with the restoration of Mr. Smales to the half-pay of his former rank were the following:—After Her Majesty had been pleased, as had been just explained by his hon. and learned Friend, to pardon Mr. Smales, it became the duty of Earl de Grey to consider what effect that pardon should have. It was his duty to take care that Mr. Smales should not receive any advantages which did not necessarily follow from the pardon, and equally his duty to see that he should receive the full benefit which that pardon entitled him to receive. Some correspondence took place between the War Department and Mr. Smales, on the one hand, and the Judge Advocate General on the other. The result was, that the Law Officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that, although the pardon did not have the effect of reinstating Mr. Smales in his appointment of Paymaster of the 6th Dragoons, it gave him a claim to be restored to the service and placed upon half-pay. Earl de Grey, therefore, acting upon that recommendation, restored Mr. Smales to the army on the half-pay of his former rank. After that explanation, he did not know whether his hon. and gallant Friend would wish to have the letter from the War Office in which the restoration of Mr. Smales was announced; but if he wished for it he could have it by moving for its production. As to the second question, the accounts of Mr. Smales with the 6th Dragoons had not yet been adjusted, and the adjustment of those accounts formed a subject which was being discussed between Mr. Smales and the Indian Government. But he should mention that the settlement of Mr. Smales's accounts with the 6th Dragoons had had nothing whatever to do with his restoration to the service or his being placed upon half-pay. Mr. Smales was placed upon half-pay because that was decided to be the proper course, and it was not conditional in any respect upon the adjustment of his accounts. "With respect to the last questions, what previous public employments had been held by Mr. Smales, whether he had been removed from them, and for what reasons, the statement of Mr. Smales's employment was as follows:—In 1830 he was appointed Acting Ordnance Clerk at Sierra Leone; in consequence of a court-martial upon which Mr. Smales was a witness he was removed by order of the 1652 Governor for having in his opinion given false evidence on that court-martial. Mr. Smales returned home and appealed to the Board of Ordnance against his removal, but was informed that the appointment which he had held at Sierra Leone had already terminated, and therefore there was no longer any necessity for investigating the case. However, he was almost immediately after appointed by Lord Hill an Ensign in the Royal African Corps, by which it might be supposed that no stigma rested on his character. He served in that Corps as Lieutenant and Captain until 1842. In 1844 he was appointed paymaster of the 1st Dragoon Guards, and exchanged to the 7th Dragoon Guards in 1845. He was Captain on half-pay in 1848, and in that year sold his commission. In June, 1854, he was appointed Paymaster of the Wilts Regiment of Militia, and on the 3rd of March, 1855, he was made chief Paymaster of the Turkish Contingent by Lord Panmure. His services were dispensed with at the close of the Crimean war, but in September, 1858, he was appointed Paymaster of the 9th Dragoons by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), and in 1859 he exchanged to the Pay-mastership of the 6th Dragoon Guards, the Inniskillings. The only employment from which he was ever removed previous to the Mhow Court Martial was that of Acting Ordnance Clerk; but the circumstances had not been inquired into, and ought not to be considered as sufficient to exclude him from the public service.