ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given by official witnesses before the Committee on Public Accounts, vide Second Report, July, 1893, pages 51 to 56, relative to the loss of stores in South Africa in 1886 to 1890, and to the treatment awarded to Major Richards, the officer in charge, who appears to have been placed on reduced half-pay of 4s. 6d. per day; whether it is a fact that the Ordnance stores were kept at three stations, Fort Napier, Pietermaritzberg, and Durban, 50 miles apart, so that, in the opinion of the Accountant General (Q. 1196), the most efficient officer could not have controlled mistakes, nor have prevented them altogether; whether he is aware that the Accountant General admits that the charge was too extensive (Q. 1137); that a man could not be held responsible for everything that went on at these different stations, and there ought to have been more officers in charge (Q. 1139); that the stations were so far apart that they could not fairly be placed under the charge of an officer at one of them (Q. 1140); and also that Major Richards reported that he was short-handed and required more assistance (Q. 1170), as stated before the robbery of arms by Natives took place; whether he is also aware that the Secretary of State for War and H.R.H. the Commander-in-Chief by letter, 8th January, 1892, recommended that Major Richards be brought back after 12 months on the first vacancy for re-employment, and that the Treasury refused their sanction; and that, on 8th April, 1892, the Accountant General wrote that His Royal Highness is still of opinion that the mitigating circumstances are such as would justify a relaxation of the severe punishment which has been inflicted upon Major Richards by placing him on a reduced 1769 rate of half-pay; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, and the time that has elapsed, he will reconsider Major Richards' hard case, and recommend that he may be allowed the proper half-pay of his rank?
§ * MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe extenuating facts referred to in the lion, and gallant Member's questions were duly considered when it was decided to recommend Major Richards' restoration to full pay; but, other serious deficiencies having been subsequently brought to light on his giving over his charge, the Secretary of State was unable to persist in his recommendation. Coder all the circumstances, I am not prepared to revise the rate of retired pay granted to him.
ADMIRAL FIELDHas the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence given before the Committee on Public Accounts?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI have read that, and a great deal more than that.
ADMIRAL FIELDI beg, in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman s reply, to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Army Estimates if they are ever reached, and move a reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary.