§ COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the Judge Advocate General, What is the legal effect of a Free Pardon granted by Her Majesty to an Officer who has been tried and convicted by a Court Martial; and whether, in the case of Captain Stack, formerly of the 65th Regiment, to whom a Free Pardon was granted in 1864, such Free Pardon has been carried out in its integrity?
MR. HEADLAM,in reply, said, he apprehended, with regard to the general question, that the legal effect of a free pardon granted after conviction by a court martial would be precisely the same as in the case of a free pardon granted after conviction by any other tribunal. There could be no doubt, however, that the pardon, though operating as a remission of the sentence, did not carry with it anything like compensation. In the case of Captain Stack there could be no doubt whatever as to the terms on which the pardon was granted, for these were stated in the letter addressed to Captain Stack, which he himself had published, and which was as follows—
War Office, July 6, 1864.Sir,—With reference to the correspondence which has taken place relative to your trial by General Court Martial in New Zealand, in December, 1860, I have the honour by direction of his Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief to acquaint you that Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to extend her most gracious clemency towards you, and to grant you a Free Pardon, and to approve of your being placed on temporary half-pay from the 30th ult., but without any claim to arrears of full or half-pay, upon condition that you repay the money which you received for your Commission as Captain.376 The pecuniary portion of the arrangement was a matter not within his province.
§ COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to know if those were the terms on which the pardon had been recommended?
MR. HEADLAMsaid, the pardon, of course, had not been granted by him. He gave his recommendation to the authorities, who used their discretion upon the subject.