§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, (1) Whether, in view of the provisions of the Act for the better government of India, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, s. 56, the power claimed in the Order of Removal of 11th March, 1869, that Her Majesty the Queen always had power to dispense with an officer's services upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State, cause being shown, was valid and binding in respect of officers affected by the above-mentioned statutory enactment; (2) whether it is the fact that, by decisions now at the Home Office, and dated September and October, 1884, such Order has been disavowed and rendered null and void; (8) whether the said Order is still in force, and being acted upon in respect of the case of Captain J. B. Chatterton; (4) and, whether the said Order of the 11th of March, 1869, was issued by the Secretary of State for India with authority from Her Majesty, in accordance with the above Statute; and, if not, whether the Order in question will be rescinded, and compensation awarded to Captain Chatterton for the permanent physical injury inflicted upon him under such Order?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)(1) There is nothing in the Statute referred to which abridges the right of the Secretary of State to dispense with the 878 active services of an officer of the old Indian Army; (2) No; (3) Yes; (4) The Order was properly issued in 1869; and the present Secretary of State has no intention of rescinding it.