§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the resident magistrate at Claremorris is the Captain, now honorary Major, Robert Gayer Traill, of the 1st Battalion, 19th Foot, whose conduct was the subject of a Court of Inquiry when that Battalion was last at Sheffield; whether the General Commanding the Brigade at Aldershot was directed by the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief to administer a rebuke to Captain Traill in the presence of his Staff and the whole of the officers of his Battalion; whether the Colonel Commanding the Battalion requested to be relieved of Captain Traill's services; and, whether it was in consequence of the special quarterly report ordered to be made on Captain Traill's conduct that that officer was informed that the Commander in Chief would not promote him to his Majority, and Captain Traill consequently retired when he was senior Captain of his regiment?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that Major Traill, whose appointment to a resident magistracy in Ireland was dated the 20th of March, 1880, was the same officer who had served in the 1st Battalion of the 19th Foot; but his conduct in the Army had never been the subject of a regimental Court of Inquiry. It was, however, the fact that Major (then Captain) Traill had been reprimanded in the presence of his brother officers, as stated in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, and that his commanding officer had, in consequence, represented the 1668 desirability of his removal from the battalion. Captain Traill had not been refused promotion to his majority, the fact being that no majority was vacant at the period mentioned in the Question, and his retirement from the Army was voluntary; and he received a pension, with the honorary rank of major, on being appointed Resident Magistrate.
§ MR. O'DONNELLSince these facts have come to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, does he intend to retain the services of this reprimanded officer?
§ Mr. W. E. FORSTERSir, this officer was appointed by the late Government, and I have no doubt they had all those matters under consideration. I think the House will agree with me that when the gentleman has been some time appointed it would be an act of great harshness, if not of injustice, to re-open the matter and dismiss him.