Sir TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the name of Surgeon General Hanbury, commanding the Medical Branch of the Egyptian Expedition, was omitted from the Parliamentary Vote of Thanks to the General Officers and others of the Expedition; whether Surgeon General Hanbury does not hold the relative rank of Major General, and is of the same rank as the other Major Generals whose distinguished services were specially acknowledged in the despatches of the General, the Commander in Chief of the Expedition; and, why the names of Deputy Surgeon General Colvin Smith, and the Medical Officers of the Indian Contingent, were omitted from the despatches recommending the promotion of Medical Officers, in the last despatch of the General Commanding in Chief?
§ MR. CHILDERSIn reply to the first Question of the hon. Baronet, I have to say, speaking for the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, with myself, were responsible for the language of the Vote of Thanks, that we followed the precedents, according to which it is not usual to name Departmental officers, and I see no reason for enlarging the already long lists of names embodied on these occasions. In reply to the second Question, it is true that Surgeon General Hanbury does hold the relative rank of Major General; as to the third Question, it is not for me to ask the Commander-in-Chief of an Army why he either excludes or includes in his despatches the names of particular officers; but, as a matter of fact, Sir Garnet Wolseley wrote a supplementary despatch, which will appear in to-morrow's Gazette, and in which I observe the name of Deputy Surgeon General Colvin Smith.