§ MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that, since appointment of Adjutant of Antrim Artillery, the Commanding Officer has been in the habit of incorrectly certifying that the Adjutant kept a horse, thereby enabling him to draw forage allowance; and, whether it is a fact that it is only within the last few weeks that this Officer has been in temporary possession of a horse?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, it has been ascertained that the Adjutant of the Antrim Artillery has been without a horse during certain periods for which he claimed forage allowance. This has been a serious breach of discipline on the part of the Adjutant, of which due notice will be taken. The commanding officer has certified incorrectly that the Adjutant kept a horse. He did so on the faith of that officer's receipt for the forage allowance, which he regarded as equivalent to a certificate that the conditions under which the allowance could be drawn had been fulfilled. When the commanding officer visited the regiment, the Adjutant's horse was paraded for his inspection; but this happened to be at a time when the Ad- 1306 jutant was really in possession of a horse. The commanding officer will be informed that it was his duty, before certifying for the forage allowance, to have obtained from the Adjutant a certificate that he was bonâ fide in possession of a horse; and he will be directed to comply with this rule in future.
EARL PERCYasked if it was not the duty of the commanding officers of Militia to obtain certificates from Adjutants, showing that they were actually in possession of a horse?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he believed the duty of a commanding officer was to satisfy himself, before signing the certificate, that the Adjutant was entitled to forage allowance for a horse.
EARL PERCYasked whether they were to understand that the War Office considered the word of an Adjutant a sufficient guarantee in a case of this kind?