§ MR. E. W. BECKETT (York, N.R., Whitby)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the sole reason for cancelling Major-General Kinloch's command of a first class district, subsequent to the Chitral Expedition, consisted in his having written a letter to Sir R. Low, in which he pointed out the difficulties in the way of the contemplated Forward movement towards Chitral, such communication having been made confidentially and by special permission of Sir R. Low?
§ MR. BRODRICKPerhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to answer this question. In 1895, the late Commander-in-Chief, after the fullest consideration of Major-General Kinloch's case, as reported by the Commander-in-Chief, India, decided that it was undesirable to retain that officer in command of a first-class district. The Secretary of State declines to re-open the question.
§ SIR LEONARD LYELL (Orkney and Shetland)May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any precedent for a responsible officer making a confidential communication of this sort and being condemned for so doing?
§ MR. BECKETTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in consequence of these representations made by Major-General Kinloch, considerable alterations and modifications were introduced into the plan of operations; and whether the 832 cancellation of Major-General Kinloch's command does not amount to casting a serious slur on that officer's reputation?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member is commenting on the answer.
§ MR. BECKETTWill the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry into the matter?
§ MR. BRODRICKThis case was decided three years ago, and has now passed beyond the phase of inquiry. Full inquiry was certainly made at the time, through officers responsible on the spot, by the Commanders-in-Chief in India and at home, and the conclusion they arrived at was sanctioned by the then Secretary of State. The decision remains.
§ MR. BECKETTThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question, which is whether any other reason is alleged for depriving Major-General Kinloch of his command than the fact that he wrote this letter to Sir R. Low, in which he took objection to certain details of the proposed operations. Are we to understand that there is no other reason?
§ MR. BRODRICKI said that all the circumstances of the case were considered, and Major-General Kinloch's services were considered at the same time.
§ MR. BECKETTAre we to understand that there was no other reason for the cancellation of his command than his writing this letter?
§ MR. BRODRICKI did not say that. What I stated was, without giving any reasons, that the whole of the circumstances of the case were fully considered by the officers mentioned, who arrived at the conclusion which has been indicated.