§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is true certain official letters between the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina, Deputy Adjutant General, R.E., War Office," on the subject of his claim for compensation under the Queen's Warrant, and prior to the suppliant's retirement in 1857, has been withheld from the Law Officers of the Crown, and also suppressed from the demurrer and plea filed in the High Courts of Justice; whether it is true that, on the 4th June, a notice was served on the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina" by the agent of the War Office to pay the costs of the Crown in the Court of Appeal, and what is the amount; and whether it is true it is intended to make charges against the suppliant for the fees of the Attorney General and Solicitor General at the trial in Court of Appeal on the 12th May?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEAll letters and papers in the War Office which bore on Colonel Mitchell's case were placed at the disposal of the counsel who con ducted it. It has been already stated in this House that the claim for the costs of the Crown will not, as an act of grace, be enforced against Colonel Mitchell.
§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI have also to ask the right hon. Gentle man whether he has received an official letter, dated 15th May, from the sup pliant in "Mitchell v. Regina," in which he complains that in consequence of the action of the War Office his home in England has been broken up, and his family driven to the Continent for economy's sake, that he has for many weeks been indebted to a gentleman for permission to occupy an attic in his house at a low charge, and for many weeks past has avoided, as far as possible, public places, not having decent clothes to wear nor money to buy others; whether it is true that this official letter was never submitted to him, but was replied to on the day after it had been received by a subordinate officer; and whether a letter of that nature should by 853 Departmental rule have been submitted to a higher branch of the War Office presided over by Mr. Cave?
§ MR. E. STANHOPESuch a letter would be rightly replied to by Mr. Cave, and I accept fully the responsibility for the answer sent. Whether the letter itself was submitted to me or not is a question of office administration, which I decline to answer.
§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI beg to ask the Attorney General if it is the case that the suggestion to com promise the case of "Mitchell v. Regina" was made to the suppliant prior to the trial in the Court of Queen's Bench of 4th February, and that the suppliant responded in the affirmative; whether a second suggestion to compromise was made subsequent to the trial, and the suppliant again responded in the affirmative; and whether it is true that no substantial offer has yet been made to the suppliant?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of WightI must respectfully decline to answer the hon. Member's question. Any communications which passed between myself and the counsel for General Mitchell were strictly confidential. The question is framed under a complete mis-apprehension.